Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

. It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work.

actually govt cant stimulate the economy to grow! New inventions stimulated the economy and caused it to grow from stone age to here. Govt does not invent products. What it can do is slow down growth by interfering, but it cant help growth.

Tell that to the Tech industry that relies on much of Gov't spending that developed MUCH of their products or the Gov't rail/road systems dummy!

 

[Dad2three]

I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.


Times sure have changed, huh?

You probably 'believe' that nonsense too *shaking head*

.

 

[Dad2three]

I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.


Times sure have changed, huh?

For me the very best was when somebody asked Barry if he really had voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, an open communist. He said, "oh that was just me resisting George Bush".
THe truth was: "I voted to left of Bernie because I'm a lib commie like he is."

LINKIE? lol

You are a moron and LIAR....Commie? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...

No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..

Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!

You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?

Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif

I thought Obama got all those jobs back? And now the government is taking in more dollars than under Bush.

And Obama still won't cut spending?

How many more on food stamps in Obama's wonderful new world?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The market is bullshit, it's Vegas East. Don't remember the market pre Reagan spiking it huh?

Keep your money out of the market.

I'm sure Social Security will give you enough to retire on.
What could go wrong?

It's called insurance. How many have went belly up by investing in the Vegas East markets?

You're depending on government insurance? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now. "



Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? Weird how conservatives forget WHY we created SS...

You're right, future politicians will never cut your benefits.

Just ask the Greeks.

I'll never forget that liberals are so stupid, they think Social Security is a good investment.

Yes, the US SS system is SOOOOO much like the Greeks *shaking head*


Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East?

You're right, our system is in a much bigger hole.

 

[dnsmith35]

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.

That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently tweeted this chart, which breaks down the major drivers that turned a small surplus into a massive deficit:

Tthis chart also hits the nail on the head when it comes to identifying the major deficit drivers:

An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.


How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE THAN EXPENDITURES IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

 

[dnsmith35]

RECORD profits?

You should be very happy there are record profits. As demand has picked up more people go to work. If not for the profits there would be no new jobs.

RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol

Record oil profits? Are we still playing that stupid game? This is one more subject of which you know nothing. How are we subsidizing them and they are still making only modest profits? Don't forget, 100% of nothing is nothing. 300% of 3% is still only 9%. Yet you still come up with stupid comments about things you know nothing.

For full year 2013 Exxon (XOM) reported net income of $33.45 billion. Their operating cash flow was an even more monstrous $44.9 billion. However, when you factor in that capital expenditures on exploration amounted to $34.7 billion, then free cash flow was $11.2 billion or about a third of stated net income. Free cash flow is what remains after all capital expenditures and other investments have been made to sustain and grow the underlying business. After Exxon paid its dividend to shareholders of just under $11.2 billion, it was basically flat for the year based on the metric of just measuring cash. Apple (AAPL), in contrast, reported fiscal 2013 earnings of $37 billion, operating cash flow of $53.7 billion and free cash flow of a whopping $44.6 billion. Yet there is nary a pejorative peep suggesting anything extraordinary about those numbers.

 

[dnsmith35]

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

Got it, you'll stay confused

"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Look at 1998-2001 F/Y's


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

That whole chart is a lie. The debt cannot increase if there is a surplus. Are you really that ignorant? It is called cooking the books or voodoo accounting. Increasing the debt means THERE IS A DEFICIT THAT FY.

 

[dnsmith35]

Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...

No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..

Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!

You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?

Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif

Don't forget, Jimmy Carter and Clinton also had a hand in the housing balloon and subsequent crash. Why don't you give them the credit they deserve?

 

[Dad2three]

Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!

You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?

Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif

I thought Obama got all those jobs back? And now the government is taking in more dollars than under Bush.

And Obama still won't cut spending?

How many more on food stamps in Obama's wonderful new world?

Yes, Dubya took US to Korean war level revenues, and Obama has US ALMOST back up to where Reagan dropped US to in revenues, when Ronnie tripled the US debt

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.


Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

 

[Dad2three]

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.

That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently tweeted this chart, which breaks down the major drivers that turned a small surplus into a massive deficit:

Tthis chart also hits the nail on the head when it comes to identifying the major deficit drivers:

An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.


How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE THAN EXPENDITURES IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE THAN EXPENDITURES IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool who can't recognize the difference between a yearly budget versus debt

Money coming in is $100,000

Money going out is $90,000

You have a YEARLY BUDGET SURPLUS even IF you take a second on your home and you increase your debt

Grow a brain dummy!

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

You should be very happy there are record profits. As demand has picked up more people go to work. If not for the profits there would be no new jobs.

RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol

Record oil profits? Are we still playing that stupid game? This is one more subject of which you know nothing. How are we subsidizing them and they are still making only modest profits? Don't forget, 100% of nothing is nothing. 300% of 3% is still only 9%. Yet you still come up with stupid comments about things you know nothing.

For full year 2013 Exxon (XOM) reported net income of $33.45 billion. Their operating cash flow was an even more monstrous $44.9 billion. However, when you factor in that capital expenditures on exploration amounted to $34.7 billion, then free cash flow was $11.2 billion or about a third of stated net income. Free cash flow is what remains after all capital expenditures and other investments have been made to sustain and grow the underlying business. After Exxon paid its dividend to shareholders of just under $11.2 billion, it was basically flat for the year based on the metric of just measuring cash. Apple (AAPL), in contrast, reported fiscal 2013 earnings of $37 billion, operating cash flow of $53.7 billion and free cash flow of a whopping $44.6 billion. Yet there is nary a pejorative peep suggesting anything extraordinary about those numbers.

Exxon Mobil just missed setting a company -- and world -- record for annual profit in 2012.

The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. While that was up 9% from 2011, it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company, the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/exxon-mobil-profit/

"RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol"

 

[Dad2three]

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

Got it, you'll stay confused

"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Look at 1998-2001 F/Y's


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

That whole chart is a lie. The debt cannot increase if there is a surplus. Are you really that ignorant? It is called cooking the books or voodoo accounting. Increasing the debt means THERE IS A DEFICIT THAT FY.

Grow a brain dummy. Yearly income versus yearly outflows. Under Clinton more came in than went out!

 

[Dad2three]

Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!

You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?

Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif

Don't forget, Jimmy Carter and Clinton also had a hand in the housing balloon and subsequent crash. Why don't you give them the credit they deserve?

MORE RIGHT WING CRAP? I'm shocked

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets Msrch 2008

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register





Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "



http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif

I thought Obama got all those jobs back? And now the government is taking in more dollars than under Bush.

And Obama still won't cut spending?

How many more on food stamps in Obama's wonderful new world?

Yes, Dubya took US to Korean war level revenues, and Obama has US ALMOST back up to where Reagan dropped US to in revenues, when Ronnie tripled the US debt

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.


Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg




Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them

Romney won most counties that Obama screwed up the most? Interesting.

 

[HenryBHough]

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them

Romney won most counties that Obama screwed up the most? Interesting.

Ya gotta hand it to them for voting to force themselves to kick the habit!

 

[Foxfyre]

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them

Romney won most counties that Obama screwed up the most? Interesting.

Ya gotta hand it to them for voting to force themselves to kick the habit!

Or maybe we can chalk it up to people who are finally figuring out that 'spreading the wealth around' sounds really good to those who have less until they figure out that the net result is more often than not 'spreading the misery around'.

The left continues to blame, point fingers, and wallow in concepts of oppression and victimhood while promoting the myth that big brother government is the solution.

Every now and then though, you see light bulbs go on as folks figure out what a lie that is.

 

[dblack]

I think a lot of confusion is spread around when we starting talking about people "getting paid what they're worth". As though someone's income or wealth says something about their intrinsic value as a person. And from the point of view, people will quite rightly reject the idea that a CEO is "worth" 100 times as much as an employee.

In a free market, how much someone makes has nothing to do with how virtuous they are, how smart or kind or generous. Nor does it have anything to do with how hard they work. How much someone makes is determined solely by how much other people, people with money to spend, value the work that they do. And no one can make that call but the people spending the money.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think a lot of confusion is spread around when we starting talking about people "getting paid what they're worth". As though someone's income or wealth says something about their intrinsic value as a person. And from the point of view, people will quite rightly reject the idea that a CEO is "worth" 100 times as much as an employee.

In a free market, how much someone makes has nothing to do with how virtuous they are, how smart or kind or generous. Nor does it have anything to do with how hard they work. How much someone makes is determined solely by how much other people, people with money to spend, value the work that they do. And no one can make that call but the people spending the money.

It really comes down to the law of supply and demand that we all should have learned in middle school. Very few people are willing to put in the years and years of difficult study, a great deal of expense, and more years of apprenticeship in order to become a competent brain surgeon. But almost everybody of normal health and ability can be a janitor that takes relatively little education and the learning curve is short and attainable for almost all. Therefore there are few brain surgeons and those who do put in the time and effort can command a salary many times over what the average janitor makes.

Likewise there are only a handful of people with the physical skill and desire to be pro athletes or coaches while thousands and thousands are able to qualify to be coaches in schools. So the pro athlete or coach makes many times over what the average high school coach earns.

And however much folks dislike the huge earnings of a CEO of a large corporation, there are only a handful of people in the world with the vision, temperament, and considerable skill set to do that job competently. Ross Perot once summed it up that the owner of the local hardware store may be very competent at what he does, but to extrapolate that to him being qualified to run Wal-mart? Just doesn't work that way.

BUT. . . . the fact that some do qualify for and earn those obscene salaries does not take one penny out of your pocket or my pocket but does provide means and incentive for thousands and thousands of others to earn a living.

We as a society can encourage and show the have nots what is necessary to do to become haves and work hard to make that a cultural norm again. We can stop the policies that mostly demotivate them to make the effort. And that would be the compassionate thing to do. But we won't help them by taking from the haves and 'spreading it around'. In fact that is where a large part of the demotivation comes from already. Why would we want to do more of it?