The $32.5 Trillion Global Stock Market Rally
Compared to the cyclical low of $26.6 trillion in February 2009, the total world stock market capitalization has more than doubled to the current level of $59 trillion - that's a $32.5 trillion, 122% gain in two years! Prior to the financial crisis, the world stock market value was last at $27 trillion in August 2003, and it took more than four years to reach $59 trillion in the fall of 2007 (see chart above). The fact that world stock markets achieved the same $32.5 trillion increase in equity value in about half that time between 2009 and 2011 demonstrates the incredible resiliency of economies and financial markets to recover, even following the worst financial crisis in generations.
63 Comments:
I assume that the valuations are in nominal dollars. The picture is not as rosy if this graph were adjusted for inflation.
Of course, Big Companies don't pay taxes.
Unfortunately, they, Also, Don't create jobs.
We've made Small Business Creation a death sentence, and, as a result, 20% of us are without acceptable jobs.
The Military/Industrial Complex has finally gotten us to the point Eisenhower was warning us about.
Of course, Big Companies don't pay taxes.
Of course they do. See Mark's previous post on the taxes paid by Exxon's shareholders, employees, and customers.
Unfortunately, they, Also, Don't create jobs.
Sure they do. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have very high paying jobs in the energy sector.
We've made Small Business Creation a death sentence, and, as a result, 20% of us are without acceptable jobs.
We? You mean the government and the idiot voters who allow the government to meddle in the economy.
The Military/Industrial Complex has finally gotten us to the point Eisenhower was warning us about.
Again, that is thanks to the government and voters who allow it to happen.
Do you really think graphs in nominal dollars are all that meaningful?
By gosh, you're right. Corporations made about $1 Trillion in the first seven months, and paid $80 Billion.
By Golly, THAT comes out to a "Whopping" 8%!
Current Treasury Statement.
I saw a clip on Eisenhower past night on Inside Washington on PBS.
What gravitas. The last great GOP president.
The global stock market rally (evidently missed as an investment opportunity by naysayers here) will continue. I suspect we are in the first inning of a long global bull game.
(Get it? Bull game for ball game?).
Here's a crazy idea for cutting a couple of hundred billion off the Deficit:
Drop the Corporate Tax rate to 20%, and COLLECT THE DAMNED TAXES.
I suspect we're in a world of trouble.
"Benji" and Dufus II - a tag team of crazy.
When 20% of your workforce doesn't have a decent job all the pretty graphs in the world won't save you.
We have a $1.6 TRILLION Budget Deficit, while the wealthiest among us have an effective tax rate of 17.2%, and our Multi-Billion Dollar Corporations pay 8%, and YOU call ME "Crazy."
Well, you're probably right. I, obviously, belong to the craziest species in the history of the Universe; so, I'm probably infected as well.
We spent $31 Billion, Last Month, on Imported Oil, and, probably, close to that amount on our "Adventures in Arabia," while our Democrats fight Offshore Drilling in America, and the Republicans do all they can to kill any mitigation through Biofuels.
A $1.6 Trillion Budget Deficit, and a $600 Billion Trade Deficit.
And, the best we can get out of Congress is "cut some minor subsidies for DOMESTIC Producers, and cut some money out of medicare in 2022.
Yeah, you're right; I've Gotta be Crazy.
"We have a $1.6 TRILLION Budget Deficit, while the wealthiest among us have an effective tax rate of 17.2%, and our Multi-Billion Dollar Corporations pay 8%, and YOU call ME "Crazy."" -- Dufus II
Yes, bat-shit crazy. Increasing taxation will not solve a spending problem. That is like saying that the problem with a heroin addict is that he just can't get enough dope. And, by the way, the wealthiest among us pay nearly ALL the taxes and create nearly ALL the jobs. YOU are the one who has been freeloading. So, if you would like to help out, you can stuff the sanctimonious bullshit and start pulling your own weight.
Okay, Wise-Guy, tell me EXACTLY where you are going to cut $One Trillion, Six Hundred Billion out of the budget.
There's a pessimist born every minute.
One Point Six Trillion
Still waiting.
I know you're there; I can here you breathing.
Here, let me help you with that.
That's a 1 (One)
Followed by a Comma
Then a 6 (Six)
Followed by Eleven Zeros>
It looks like this:
$1,600,000,000,000.00
here = hear
Like I said, bat-shit crazy.
That's all you got?
We're $1.6 Trillion in Deficit.
I say we have to cut spending, raise some taxes, and grow our economy through internal investment, and all you have is to say that I am "Bat-shit Crazy?"
dufus-
you repeat the same lies and misstatements over and over again.
corporate taxes are not paid evenly across the year. they back end load. there is no full year you can point to that has the rates you claim. this has been explained to you several times.
you appear incapable of assimilating this data.
then, you make nonsensical claims about taxes.
the top 1% of taxpayers pay a 23% rate (and that's just income tax, not FICA etc)
you are just making up facts.
you want to cut the deficit?
easy.
means test social security immediately and up the age to 70. ultimately, turn it into individual accounts. it's clear the the federal government is too irresponsible to be trusted with the fund and the returns it provides on contributions are negative.
turn medicare and medicaid into cash grants, not unlimited programs.
these programs need to be cut in half.
then cut military spending by half.
you're at about 1.1tn in savings right there.
stop all stimulus spending and cut all subsidy programs for agriculture and all corporate purposes.
eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction.
implement a 20% flat tax on income.
and you're done. the budget will move into surplus and taxes will be so simple that everyone will be able to do their own.
raising the rates on the rich does not increase tax revenues in any durable fashion.
hauser's law clearly shows that higher tax rates do not yield more revenue. people work less and shelter more.
it winds up around 19% of GDP no matter what you do. this has been a remarkably durable fact for 70 years.
despite your rattle headed populist claims, raising taxes will not durably increase revenues. it never has in the past.
the best policy is to drive more growth (through lower taxes) so get 19% of a bigger pie.
No, Morgan, you're the one that's full of bull.
I put up a link showing Corporate receipts are $80 Billion through April.
You can go Here, and click on Back Issues and try to find a year when Full Year Corporate Tax Revenue is as much as twice the first seven months.
You can't. That argument has, now, run out of steam.
And, Clinton had a higher tax rate, and was collecting, approx. 21% of GDP. AND, the Budget was in fine shape.
Right now, there is no way that you'll see that 19% of GDP, because there are too many things working against you - not the least of which is, our current tax policy, basically, forces any sane CEO into transferring, and leaving, all of his corporation's "Investment Money" overseas.
also:
your 8% number is nonsense rufus. this has also been repeatedly explained to you.
you are either being willfully ignorant or have the memory of an etch a sketch.
that $1 trillion number is for all corporations, but not all corporations pay taxes under their own name.
if you are an S corp, your shareholders pay the corp taxes on their own returns. the same is true of most forms of partnerships. this means that that corporate tax shows up as "individual". that's how my company works.
added together that is probably 1/2 of US corporate earnings.
that means the real rate is at least 16% if you look at companies that actually pay taxes in their own name.
you really do not seem to have even a basic grasp of how taxes work and a belief that repeating the same bad math over and over will somehow make it true.
Rufus,
It looks like morganovich is right on Corporations waiting until year-end to pay a lot of taxes.
Fiscal 2010 U.S. Treasury Corporate tax receipts were $179.6 billion.
Lowering Corporate tax rates is probably something can be agreed on by most income tax payers.
Why lower the inter-planatary highest tax rates for the U.S.?
Corporate earnings will be repratiated to the U.S. for investment and jobs.
clinton was presiding over a boom and had a huge tailwind from capital gains from an equity bubble.
there was nothing sustainable about that. it was a fluke of insane equity values.
values vary around a central average, but hauser's law always pulls then back.
it takes years to recover tax revs from a burst bubble because people have big losses to use as offsets.
""Benji" and Dufus II - a tag team of crazy."
*like*
The third stooge still hasn't checked in on this thread.
I Will agree with you on cutting, substantially, from "Defense." My first target would be the approx $300 Billion/Yr for "Arabian Adventures."
85% of Oil Exports from the Persian Gulf go to Asia; let Them pay for "defending the Gulf." (we could even sell them a couple of Aircraft Carriers.) Bring 50,000 troops back from Europe.
Cut All other programs by 10%, No exceptions.
Plug "overseas loophole for Corporations." Make all "overseas" profits payable, Now, not upon repatriation.
Take top rate back to 39%. Cap Gains, and Dividend 20%. Collect SS contributions up to $150,000.00
End the Federal Extension of unemployment benefits, and give loan guarantees (not loans, or grants) for 435 Cellulosic Ethanol Plants (one for each Congressional District.) This would put over a million Unemployed construction workers back to work, and Paying Taxes (rather than drawing unemployment benefits.)
Drill Anwar.
That's just a start. I'm sure I'll think of more, later.
also:
that $1tn in profits number sounds fishy to me.
7 months of GDP is about 8.2tn.
that implies that corporate profits are 12.2% of GDP?
no way.
maybe the top 20-25% of industries have margins that good, and they are not the one with huge GDP contribution. an awful lot of super low margin groceries are sold for every iphone.
you also need to consider something else roofie, not all GAAP income is immediately taxable.
if a corporations holds stock in another corporation and that stock goes up in value, that gets added into GAAP income, but it's not taxable. that happens when you sell the stock.
perhaps you've notice d that the S+P is up 25% from last summer?
Pacific, in 2010
Corporations paid . . . . wait for it . . . 8% of total tax revenue.
"Take top rate back to 39%. Cap Gains, and Dividend 20%. Collect SS contributions up to $150,000.00"
all this will widen the budget gap over time.
hausers law isn't going to go away.
tax revs will not go up for more than a year or so before settling back.
people will work less and shelter more. growth will slow.
you will wind up with a smaller pie 5 years from now as a result and lower tax revs.
read this:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue
Good Lord, Morgan; don't you Ever think before you type? Just look up there where it says Google, and type in "Corporate Profits."
The rest, as they say, will be "History."
"Corporations paid . . . . wait for it . . . 8% of total tax revenue."
what about sub-chapter S corps and partnerships?
you keep ignoring that.
shifting the taxes onto individual returns understates corp tax and overstate individual.
are you ever going to address that issue or are you just going to keep ignoring it because it destroys your thesis?
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Corporate Profits - first hit
Morgan, Corporate profits are Corporate Profits. They are 8% of collected revenue.
The whole idea of a subchapter S is you have to drain the profits out, and file them as an Individual.
rufus-
i have read it.
unlike you, i understood it.
the corp profits number the BEA puts out includes inventory valuation adjustments and capital adjustments.
that's not what you'd generally call "profit".
note that income for non financial companies declined in q4.
you really do not get this at all.
you are using figures whose derivation you do not understand.
most of the gains came from financial firms. those gains are not taxable until the assets are sold.
you just keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over while ignoring the simple facts that:
1. much of US corporate tax is paid by individual owners
2. financial income is not taxed when you get the gains, only when you sell the asset.
as a result, your math is meaningless.
the actual tax rate on REALIZED income is well over 16% and probably more like 25.
"The whole idea of a subchapter S is you have to drain the profits out, and file them as an Individual."
are you really this stupid?
have you ever been in a sub S?
they have profits. it goes into the corp number the BEA calculates.
but they don't pay taxes.
they often retain the earnings and just pay out enough to shareholders to cover the tax bill.
also;
you realize that that number is an estimate, right?
it's not like they get an income statement from every corp in the country.
it also takes inventory adjustments and capital account issues into account.
i don't think you have any idea what that number means or where it comes from.
As for Hauser's "law:" it states, basically, that since tax revenues have always hovered around 19.5% of GDP, that tax revenue Alway would return to that level. It's nonsensical.
We have not, since WWII, had a period when so much Income was distributed to the top 1%, and taxed so low (ie Warren Buffet's 17.2% effective rate,) or when Corporations paid such a small percentage of tax receipts.
Hauser referenced the Laffer Curve, but the Laffer Curve merely states, quite correctly, that there is an "Optimum" level of taxation for optimizing revenues. It Does Not state that a "Lower" rate will Always Raise Revenues.
No, Morgan, the $191 Billion was the amount received on Oct 10th. The Estimate, even then, was for $180 Billion. I'm assuming after close to a hundred years of doing this, they probably have some pretty good reason for making that estimate.
Morgan, you can dance until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains: I am linking to what the Treasury Actually Receives. Cash Money. Checks. Moolah. In de Bank.
PAID.
8%
rufus-
you are still totally missing this.
you are dead wrong on sub-s. those corporate earnings are counted in corp earnings. even if they pay it all out as a disbursement, it's still corp earnings just like they are in a C-corp even if they pay dividends (and note that that results in double taxation, one for corporate and again for the individual)
you are understating the tax rate by about 50% as a result.
second, all the growth in earnings has come from financial corporations. they do not pay tax when they report GAAP income but when they sell assets.
if the own a stock at $100 and it goes to $120, they report $20 in GAAP income, but there is NO TAXABLE EVENT.
they DO NOT PAY TAX on that any more than you pay tax if your home appreciates.
what you are seeing is also partially an artifact of all the gains being in financials.
from BEA - "Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations decreased
$10.1 billion in the fourth quarter"
and you can call hauser's law nonsensical all you want, but it still holds true. you might as well call gravity nonsensical because no one really understands why it happens.
what is it that you find "nonsensical" about people working less and sheltering income better when tax rates rise? that sounds awfully sensible to me.
rufus-
"paid, 8%"
that's just an obfuscating lie
8% of what?
if half that corporate income is S corps, then that number they were paid only came from 500bn, so it's 16%.
if 30% of that remaining 500bn was financial gain that has not yet resulted in a taxable event (through asset sale) then taxes paid look more like 23% of actual REALIZED income.
you can keep repeating your ludicrous oversimplification over and over as if it means something, but that won't make you any less wrong.
Morgan, a "Law" is a "Law." The best Hauser has is a "Hypothesis."
Again, his "Hypothesis" is: Inasmuch as tax collections under certain dissimilar regimes tended to come in, quite often, fairly close to 19.5% of GDP During a Time in the Past, tax collections will cluster around the same 19.5%, irregardless of tax rates, during a time when the Social/Financial/Demographic Make-up of the Nation is Very Much Different.
That is not a "reasonable" assumption. Income/Wealth was distributed differently, Then. More people were "unionized," and the middle class accounted for a higher percentage of total income than is the case now.
Corporate Tax laws were different, then. The Poor were taxed More, then. There was no "negative income tax."
I'm not saying that, with full employment, we "couldn't" get back to 19.5%; I'm just saying it sure as heck ain't no "Law" that we have to.
This is, all, just about the least important question of the day, anyway.
We have Two Very important issues to deal with, ie Unemployment, and Imported Oil.
If we can't get some of those unemployed/underemployed back in the groove nothing else is going to matter. Working against that, we're into a serious paradigm shift in the type of labor we need, and $4.00 gasoline sure isn't helping.
Dufus,
It appears that you like to use "8%" as much as possible, as you have used it interchangeably to describe corporate tax rates, and, corporate taxes paid, as a percentage of tax revenue.
They aren't the same, and you should decide which concept you wish to discuss, if you want to be taken seriously at all, although from your comments so far, that doesn't appear to interest you.
When I asked you to provide references, on an earlier thread, I can see that I should have included the word "meaningful". I am pleased that you are providing links; that's great; but it's not enough by itself. You must point those links to MEANINGFUL references.
Don't be discouraged, you will get it eventually. Keep trying.
Also be aware, that when someone as confused as you are, points to multi-page government reports, it's helpful to specify a page number and a brief description of what it is you wish to point out, to save time for your reader.
You understand that for these government reports to make sense, you need some slight acquaintance with economics, finance, and accounting. As you have none, you should be careful that your references really address the point you're trying to make.
Ask someone at your location, your mom maybe, to help you, so you won't keep embarrassing yourself.
Of course, that doesn't seem to bother you much either, now that I think about it.
Just one last helpful hint here: serious commentators don't usually link to NYT opinion pieces, by financial writers whose bias is so obvious. When you have more experience, you will understand this, and do better, I'm sure.
By the way, Dufus, you can learn a lot from morganovich if you allow it. He is being very patient with you, where, as you can see, most others have given up on you as a hopeless case of ignorance.
He knows what he's talking about, and you don't. You should try reading and comprehending - if possible - instead of this constant squirming and spewing of nonsense you seem to prefer..
That NY Times "opinion" writer was merely stating the fact that Corporations had profits of $1.65 Trillion, Annualized, the the 3rd qtr of 2010.
There must have been a half a dozen links directly below that one that covered the same news/numbers.
You are asking me to tell you how to find "receipts" in a Treasury Statement, and you're accusing "me" of being an economic ignoramus, and living with my mother? really?
And, it just so happened that both numbers came out to "8." I can't help it.
Would you have like it better if one was "42?"
"That NY Times "opinion" writer was merely stating the fact that Corporations had profits of $1.65 Trillion, Annualized, the the 3rd qtr of 2010."
Along with this single piece of information, in nominal dollars, there is the suggestion that this is somehow evil, in view of a poor economy, and so may people unemployed. The video is particularly bad about that. This is by no stretch objective reporting.
"There must have been a half a dozen links directly below that one that covered the same news/numbers."
Which ones in particular do you mean? The link to "Romancing the Stars", or "the British Parakeet Boom"?
"You are asking me to tell you how to find "receipts" in a Treasury Statement, and you're accusing "me" of being an economic ignoramus, and living with my mother? really?"
No, you didn't explain what you hoped to show at this link. Receipts, at best only helps with half of your assertion. If you make it easy for your readers, you will get more of them to read what you want them to. Just sayin'.
As to living with your mother, obviously I can't know for sure, but you tone is that of a petulant teenager, and anyone who writes things like this:
"I know you're there; I can here you breathing.
Here, let me help you with that.
That's a 1 (One)
Followed by a Comma
Then a 6 (Six)
Followed by Eleven Zeros>
It looks like this:
$1,600,000,000,000.00"
...cant be capable of living on their own.
"And, it just so happened that both numbers came out to "8." I can't help it."
You have had that silly business explained to you at great length, so it's pointless for me to go there, and I won't.
I'll just mention a few of the problems I see with your many
comments. See if you don't agree:
"And, Clinton had a higher tax rate, and was collecting, approx. 21% of GDP. AND, the Budget was in fine shape."
Did you notice that spending had been dropping during this same period, and finally dropped below tax revenue? You can't credit Clinton with reduced spending, as he doesn't control that.
"Cut All other programs by 10%, No exceptions."
So, all government programs are of equal value? Is this a "fairness" thing? Why 10%, not 8% or 20%?
"Plug "overseas loophole for Corporations." Make all "overseas" profits payable, Now, not upon repatriation."
Do you understand that this policy would soon result in there being NO US based corporations, therefore NO corporate taxes paid. Do you really think this is the best way to fix a budget gap? You are embarrassing yourself again.
I know it's been explained to you before, but corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the end user. When you ask for higher corporate taxes, you are asking to be charged more for goods and services. How is this helpful?
"Take top rate back to 39%. Cap Gains, and Dividend 20%. Collect SS contributions up to $150,000.00"
These are very specific numbers! If I didn't know better I might get the impression that you knew what you were talking about, but unfortunately, I DO know better. Do you have some references to support these exact proposals?
Remember what I said. Be careful that you pick something pertinent, that you think you understand.
"End the Federal Extension of unemployment benefits..."
Well! I can sure agree with that one.
"...and give loan guarantees (not loans, or grants) for 435 Cellulosic Ethanol Plants (one for each Congressional District.) This would put over a million Unemployed construction workers back to work, and Paying Taxes (rather than drawing unemployment benefits.)"
"...and give loan guarantees (not loans, or grants) for 435 Cellulosic Ethanol Plants (one for each Congressional District.) This would put over a million Unemployed construction workers back to work, and Paying Taxes (rather than drawing unemployment benefits.)"
This one is a real doozey. First of all, Why would a worthwhile project need loan guarantees? If private financing isn't willing to risk it, maybe it's not a good idea. Why should taxpayers be put on the hook for it? That's just an invitation to rent seekers.
Then what possible reason could there be for planning one plant per congressional district? Is this another "fairness: idea gone awry? Do you have any concept of how different districts are, as to size and location? Several very large states, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Alaska have only one congressional district each.
In California, there are 53 districts. Most of them are in Southern California, which is mostly desert, is water constrained, and has few large sources of available biomass.
New York district 15, includes part of Manhattan, and has an area of 10 sq. miles. Where would you site this plant?
Do you think at all about such pesky details? Your collectivist ideology gets in the way of common sense.
One million construction workers put to work? That sounds great! BUT, are the right mix of workers currently unemployed? Where are they located? Are they willing to relocate? Again, ideology gets in the way. Collectivists like you think that you can easily put a million people to work if you just create a million jobs of some kind. You fail to realize, that we are all individual legos, not homogeneous pieces of playdough.
This comment has been removed by the author.
We spent $31 Billion, Last Month, on Imported Oil, and, probably, close to that amount on our "Adventures in Arabia," while our Democrats fight Offshore Drilling in America, and the Republicans do all they can to kill any mitigation through Biofuels.
There is no 'mitigation' through biofuels because the net return is close to zero, or more likely negative.
We have a $1.6 TRILLION Budget Deficit, while the wealthiest among us have an effective tax rate of 17.2%, and our Multi-Billion Dollar Corporations pay 8%, and YOU call ME "Crazy."
You have made a good case for considering you crazy. The US does not have a revenue problem. It has a big spending problem. Throwing away money on subsidizing ethanol, solar and wind power, wasting hundreds of billions on corporate and social welfare, and flushing trillions down the drain on trying to police the world is not very responsible. If Americans want economic growth the size of government needs to be cut by 90% or more and the income tax rates need to be slashed.
Okay, Wise-Guy, tell me EXACTLY where you are going to cut $One Trillion, Six Hundred Billion out of the budget.
Let me give it a shot.
Get rid of DHS. (Move the Coast Guard to Defense.) That should save around $40 billion.
Get rid of Amtrack and cut Department of Transportation in half. That saves another $40 billion.
Get rid of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Affordable Housing Program, Public Broadcasting Corporation, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and other miscellaneous institutions. Saving of around $2 billion.
Gut the Department of Agriculture. Savings of around $75 billion.
Privatize the airports, air traffic control system, and various other activities that the FAA engages in. Cut the FAA budget by at least 50%. That saves around $5 billion.
Get rid of most of the activities looked after by the Departments of Commerce. Savings $10 billion.
Cut NASA spending by 80%. Savings of $14 billion.
Cut Department of Justice in half. Savings of $20 billion.
Get rid of most of the activities and programs overseen by the Department of Interior. Savings of $12 billion.
Eliminate the Department of Energy. Savings $45 billion.
Get rid of Department of Housing and Urban Development. Savings of $50 billion.
Get rid of most of the programs in the Department of Education. Savings of $80 billion.
Gut the State Department by cutting $20 billion. No more $1 billion embassies.
Get rid of all foreign aid. That saves $20 billion.
Get rid of the Post Office. Get rid of the Printing Office.
Cut all transfers to Freddie and Fannie.
Cut the EPA budget in half and let it do only the things it was supposed to do. That should save around $5 billion.
Get rid of the National Science Foundation. That saves around $7 billion.
Cut the FCC in half. That saves around $5 billion.
Bring back all of the troops back home. Get rid of all weapons systems that the Pentagon did not ask for. Cut the nuclear strike force and the stealth bombers in half, and retire six of the carrier groups. Get out of the UN and NATO commitments. End the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. Savings $400 billion.
Get rid of all federal transfers to corporations. Savings $200 billion.
Reduce federal government travel. Savings $8 billion.
Get rid of the CIA. Savings $30 billion.
Freeze government employee pay and do not replace people leaving government departments. Savings $7 billion.
Get rid of the Office of Personnel Management. Savings $8 billion.
Cut Judicial Branch budget by $2.5 billion.
Cut Congressional spending by $2 billion.
Get rid of Davis Bacon Act. Savings $7 billion.
Sell public buildings, parks, lease rights.
There is a lot more.
Rufus, "we," by which you mean the govt, have nothing to do with "Two Very important issues to deal with, ie Unemployment, and Imported Oil." Those are global markets with their own ebbs and flows. The guys in govt are so stupid and such con men that they make any situation worse every time they step in, although I understand the attraction from desperate people looking for jobs. The unemployed have to realize that the govt conmen are not out to help them, they're out to help themselves, lining their pockets while throwing a little chump change to the voters they claim to help. That's a best-case scenario, the worse case is that they make every one of us, rich or poor, much poorer by starting trade wars.
"Get rid of most of the programs in the Department of Education. Savings of $80 billion."
I would eliminate this useless agency. Education is a state and local responsibility. There's no need for federal involvement.
rufus wants to know: "Okay, Wise-Guy, tell me EXACTLY where you are going to cut $One Trillion, Six Hundred Billion out of the budget"...
Hmmm, how about completely dumping ALL entitlement spending to start with?
Then maybe the Department of Energy should be completely axed...
So should the EPA...
There is one more place you can look for information on the cutting of federal government costs rufus: Downsizing the Federal Government
Its a Cato site and bills itself as a, 'A department-by-department guide to cutting the federal government's budget'...
This comment has been removed by the author.
juandos
"Its a Cato site and bills itself as a, 'A department-by-department guide to cutting the federal government's budget'..."
Thanks for the great link. This could save us all a lot of time in the future, explaining things to people who don't understand.
"This could save us all a lot of time in the future, explaining things to people who don't understand"...
Hmmm Ron H, I'm sure some folks will never get it...
Did you get to see John Stossel's Freeloader program?
I watched with a half a dozen adults and only one other person understood Stossel's point...
"Did you get to see John Stossel's Freeloader program?"
Yes, I catch them all. He's great, ain't he?
"I watched with a half a dozen adults and only one other person understood Stossel's point..."
It's really discouraging sometimes. What's scary, is that so many who don't get it still think they should vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home