Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dnsmith35]

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

Gee, a stupid and ignorant tool who does not recognize that those who call Clinton's budget in surplus have not counted all the money that was borrowed to make it look like a surplus.

It really takes a brainless idiot tool to not recognize the fact, that if the debt goes up at the end of any Fiscal Year, THERE CANNOT BE A SURPLUS FOR THAT YEAR. There has to be a reduction in the debt for a surplus to occur. That has not happened since Eisenhower no matter how much left wing propaganda you spout.

 

[dnsmith35]

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.


Exxon Mobil profit just short of record - Feb. 1, 2013

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

When the world record for Oil Profits is a lower % of profits of other industries, it is obvious that Oil Profits were continued at a low level all along.. 100% of 1 is still 1. 400% of 1 is 4. Not much of a gain since most industries have profits ranging in the 10% to 20%range and you have not whined about that even once. I got rid of my Oil company stocks long ago because there was insufficient profit.

 

[dnsmith35]

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!

I have a brain and it growing every day when compared to the brainless propaganda you post every day from sites lying to you. 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. The DEBT CANNOT RISE IN A FISCAL YEAR IF THERE IS A SURPLUS. Are you actually so stupid you don't understand that more money has to be spent than we take receive for a debt to increase? Are you really that incapable of thinking?

 

[dnsmith35]

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

Wow, how strange, you actually believe a leftist president has told the truth. Private sector loans, being pushed by Fannie and Freddie and government regulators, with low or no down payments and low interest rates, all because of CRA and stupid government monetary and fiscal policies most definitely led to the balloon. We can trace CRA back to Carter, but it was Clinton who first chose to enforce and push it, and Bush ignorantly continued it.

You would have to be blind or just super stupid not to see the up swing in housing prices to value starting in 1997. Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?Now, are you going to continue to believe left wing propaganda rather than a bona fide scientifically conducted study based on real data?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru

NBER Working Paper No. 18609
Issued in December 2012
NBER Program(s): AP CF


Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.​

The Null Hypothesis was, NO. The actual findings were YES.

 

[dnsmith35]

I have come to the conclusion that some people will believe anything their left wing propaganda sites tell them to believe, then proudly post the most ridiculous, incorrect, and intentionally lied to incorrect information like parrots who do not think. Daddy boy is one of those people.

 

[mikegriffith1]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

This would not be such a big issue if we had stringent work requirements for welfare recipients who were able to work. No work, no welfare. Of course, this would not apply to those who are unable to work.

I don't have a problem with county and state welfare programs, since these are easier to control and often more effective. I think the problem comes when you have the federal government involved in welfare.

 

[dnsmith35]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

This would not be such a big issue if we had stringent work requirements for welfare recipients who were able to work. No work, no welfare. Of course, this would not apply to those who are unable to work.

I don't have a problem with county and state welfare programs, since these are easier to control and often more effective. I think the problem comes when you have the federal government involved in welfare.

I personally believe that anyone who is able to work, should work, if they receive public assistance. Clinton took a stab at that but congress wouldn't let him get it all passed.

Individual productivity ( the value of their work to society) should be used to gage their assistance.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.


Exxon Mobil profit just short of record - Feb. 1, 2013

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

And what exactly is your problem with a 45 billion profit on 453 billion in total revenue?
I skimmed the 2012 looking for a huge ledger entry for income received from the federal government. I didn't see anything like that but I did see where they paid a total of 102 billion in taxes.... Hell of a subsidy there, no?

 

[Listening]

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

I just caught dicklessdad over on another thread posting this same horseshit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ic-exhuberance-or-malaise-30.html#post9546241

He plays loose with the "truth".

 

[dblack]

I just caught dicklessdad over on another thread posting this same horseshit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ic-exhuberance-or-malaise-30.html#post9546241

He plays loose with the "truth".

It's just derailing distraction.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why is a 10% profit of an evil oil company obscene but a 23% profit margin for Microsoft just ducky? Is Bill Gates and company getting a bigger subsidy than Exxon-Mobile?

 

[boedicca]

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71. With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?

 

[Ernie S.]

But it's Exxon's fault gasoline is so expensive because they're EVIL.

Probably racist too because poor (black) people are hit the hardest by expensive fuels.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71. With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?

You're not very good with math, are you?

Exxon, for example, made only seven cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 50 cents per gallon that federal, state and local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas pumped in the U.S.​

Here in the real world, where people understand math, 7 cents is less than 50 cents.

 

[Ernie S.]

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71. With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?

$3.13 in Mobile, $3.23 in Foley today.

 

[Ernie S.]

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71. With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?

You're not very good with math, are you?

Exxon, for example, made only seven cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 50 cents per gallon that federal, state and local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas pumped in the U.S.​

Here in the real world, where people understand math, 7 cents is less than 50 cents.

Actually, between California state gasoline tax and federal fuel tax, she is paying about 88 cents/gallon. Knowing boedicca, I believe she worded the second part wrong and meant that the gubmint's slice of the pie was much larger than Exxon's.

 

[Dad2three]

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.


Exxon Mobil profit just short of record - Feb. 1, 2013

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

And what exactly is your problem with a 45 billion profit on 453 billion in total revenue?
I skimmed the 2012 looking for a huge ledger entry for income received from the federal government. I didn't see anything like that but I did see where they paid a total of 102 billion in taxes.... Hell of a subsidy there, no?

" it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company"

Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

 

[Dad2three]

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

I just caught dicklessdad over on another thread posting this same horseshit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ic-exhuberance-or-malaise-30.html#post9546241

He plays loose with the "truth".

So you can't refute red staters LOVE their welfare!

 

[Dad2three]

Why is a 10% profit of an evil oil company obscene but a 23% profit margin for Microsoft just ducky? Is Bill Gates and company getting a bigger subsidy than Exxon-Mobile?

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

“The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71. With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?

Let me know when oil corps build or maintain roads, lol

Dummy!