The OP video tiresomely exposes once again the "fact" that if the government took all of the wealth accumulated by the 1% and applied it to the debt it would only cover it for a few weeks or whatever. Been there, have seen that before. So what? Does that mean that tax breaks for the wealthy should remain in place? Why? What was the purpose of the tax-breaks from the beginning? Why did the former administration initiate them in the first place? Officially, it was designed to spur growth, which it did not. Ok, so the program failed. It was designed to expire in 2010, but was not allowed. Why... what are we waiting for? What magic comes of this. It's pretty obvious that the true effect here is that the wealthy continue to enjoy increased tax savings. That's nice. But somehow they didn't require those breaks under Clinton. Yet they were still able to watch their money grow. So... what was the problem with that?