Tony Robbins explains the horrific Barack Obama budget

 

Fans of motivational speaker Tony Robbins--and there are millions--should enjoy watching him explain the dangers of our national debt. Conclusion: Eating the rich won't solve the problem.

Filed under: Budget, Obama

Tags: national debt, Tony Robbins

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Having the rich pay their fair share of taxes is not exactly financial cannibalism.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Okay. What is fair and how do you determine it?

  • By using common sense. Is it fair for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher rate than the top 1%?
    Is it fair for staggeringly high profits from capital gains and dividends to be taxed at 15% ?
    Is it fair when income inequality in our country is the widest since before the Great Depression?

  • Yes, I understand the Democratic script. But, again, what is fair? Pick a number. Maybe i'll agree with you. I'm for getting rid of most exemptions, whether for oil companies or Planned parenthood .

  • Roll back the Bush tax cuts for starters. Trickle-down economics is all smoke and mirrors. I would certainly hike up the tax on capital gains and dividends for those whose earnings are in the top 10 %. The marginal income tax for those in the upper 1% should be---without causing much privation--- 50%, at a minimum.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So what's the end goal? Aquinas, can you agree that you will support the plan that cuts the debt by the greatest amount? I would think we should be able to agree with that statement. If we don't agree with that fundamental statement then we are fighting different battles. The point in the Robbins video is that we need to look well beyond tax cuts. What amazes me is once again, a problem that should be solved in a logical way by people educated and experienced in the field of economics, is being "solved" by politicians for political purposes. All your statements above are much of the same talking points we hear from Capital Hill, the president, etc. The "rich should pay their fair share". This comment presupposes that the rich "paying their fair share" is the best option and will have the largest impact on reducing the debt. (by the way, for political purposes it's a masterful talking point because there is no definition to "fair" and everyone seems to be repeating it like a broken record. The only point of the "fair share" argument is to attack the other side. It is not intended to make any logical suggestions that may actually solve the problem).

    How do you know that the "plan" you propose above will not do more harm than good? If I put you in a room full of economists, would you be able to back up your plan an a logical and meaningful manner? If we want to really solve this problem, let's agree on what we want to fix and the criteria and then get the right people in the room to work out a plan, without the influence of politics and talking points.

  • If you line up all economists from end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion.

  • fb_avatar

    This is a typical GOP argument. "The rich shouldn't pay taxes, they create jobs." Nonsense. Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the rich 3 times.

    Having the rich pay their share is not going to solve all of our problems, but it's time the rich stop getting a free pass.

    The GOP is what's wrong with America. It's nothing but a group of lying rich white men trying to steal every last penny from the working class.

  • Who's making that argument ("the rich shouldn't pay taxes") on this posting? Since when is math and logic a GOP argument?

    I'd sincerely like to understand the problem we are trying to solve with the "Buffett rule". Nobody can seem to explain this. Please don't repeat talking points about "fair share". Express what you are trying to solve in the form of, "I believe the Buffett rule will increase/decrease X by adding/subtracting Y". That's it. Since everyone is so passionate about this I would think this should be a relatively easy statement to craft. As a centerpiece to the president's, I would certainly think the Buffett Rule would solve some major issue. Right?

  • Well said. If fairness was an end in itself, we'd be doing a lot of other things, such as eliminating the tax break that homeowners get (mortgage deduction) over renters. Public policy should have a clear and achievable goal.Without that being stated for the Buffett rule, it's nothing bug a political weapon to use against Republicans to make them appear to be mean and unfair.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    The Republicans are not mean and unfair?

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News