I appreciate the info that Mr. Kudlow presented, but let's not foget that this is a man who described TARP (before it was named TARP) in these words: " A Paulson-Cantor Plan Is a Win-Win.
Actually, for taxpayers, the bank rescue plan is a win-win-win-win."
Why do the richest 5% pay 60% of the taxes, because they have 55% of the wealth, the bottom 50% pay 2.99% because we have about 2.99% of the wealth, even with mike huckebes fair tax the rich will get a small take cut but the middle class will actually pay more in taxes, look it up, these teabag protesters on average wont pay in their lifetimes for the services they receive, so stop WINNING
I only just described about 35 to 41% of all of federal spending, you abviously need to include the social security payments the average american will receive in social security, the police and first responders, medicare, unemployment insurance benefits, they only reason that america works is that we have a progressive tax system that makes the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes, why, b/c the average american couldnt afford to send their kids to school without the rich paying for it,
The average household make $50,233, they get taxed, ill be genourous, 40%, so they pay $20000 in taxes, the average household has 2.2 children so the government spends on average $9000 per child on education, so the average houshold will receive $19800 in education services from the government, we spend 624billion on the military this year so this couple has to pay $6800 for the military, but wait they dont pay that much in taxes, and the average american complains about taxes and want a taxcut?
Tax those top 15 percent to death? Those top 15% are the business owners where most other people get their jobs and purchase their goods. They will increase the price of their goods and decrease the wages of their employees in order to pay those taxes. So in the end the tax still effects every last one of us.
If something is worth paying for people will buy it, There is no need for a tax whatsoever.
American have to realize: just because YOU like the SOCIAL safety net [and be lazy], doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE HAVE to work for YOU. I waste 1/3 of my life WORKING for other people so they don't have to do it, that's crazy. It's modern slavery.
just robbed this country of the gold and silver blowing up mountaintops to take all now as wolfowitzt stated they are now going for nickels dimes and quarters. MO MONIES! next they will be removing from our bodies as they did in the 2nd WW lined em up to dump their silver and gold under the pretence of needing it for the war effort. enough taxes every yr. taken in to make every man woman and child a millionaire. but who is sharing w/the canon fodder? looks like it's feeding time to me.
But what is the alternative to our Tax code? I here you guys complaining and I feel you. But you need to provide an alternative or you just look crazy.
Well thats simple, a flat tax or national sales tax. Also we survived without a federal income tax for over 100 years, we can survive without it now too. That and income tax is just a step away from slavery. One of the big things from the more educated slaves in the 1800s was the right to work for ones wages and keep them. One good example would be Fredrick douglas.
"Well thats simple, a flat tax or national sales tax."
Would it support our military industrial complex? How about are social programs...you know...Public schools and the like. I see your point, but are you against social safety nets? Natural selection or Laissez-faire capitalism will eat those that cant keep up. If we regulate and soften it we can reduce the pain of its "losers". Perhaps freedom is at stake when we allow it to go unchecked. But isnt it worth it the risk?
Reduce the social programs. Reduce military spending by minimizing our overseas military presence. Reduce the size of departments of the federal government (CIA. FBI, DEA, IRS).
Reduction with increase in efficiency and effectiveness? Because if that isnt your goal, then you might as well scrap them. And if this is your aim, then you are against social safety nets (which is your right). But do most people wish to leave the masses future and health to natural selection?
Well reduction is a more realistic goal, initially. I doubt the masses would support an overall scrapping of every social "safety-net" program... Personally, I'd like to see [most of] them gone, but that's neither here nor there.
I think if Americans were given back 30 percent of their income [that was taken away in tax] they would have more then enough money to fund any "safety-net" they want, with choice.
So in a way, it is very realistic to scrap them all together. But we are all conditioned to think that the only way to run an effective [hahaha] social safety net is by the mercy of the random officials that were put in place to run our lives...
Friends, though I am not a libertarian, I think its a shame that poor Larry Kudlow is getting beat on here for essentially embracing ReasonTV's illustration of what's wrong with the tax code. Is it simply too much to say that in princilple the investor class (as Larry calls it) thinks they're over taxed? They earned it and rightfully, they should invest it without getting fleeced.
You have my deepest sympathy for having the dubious distinction of receiving a glowing endorsement from Larry Kudlow.
Larry Kudlow has spent the last eight years praising GW for his tax cuts, free trade policy and the deregulation of Wall Street. The policies resulted in record deficits, unemployment and the near collapse of the worlds financial system.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the deficits resulted from not cutting spending along with taxes.
The unemployment and financial collapse are due to interference in the financial system from the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae which created the toxic mortgage bubble.
Deregulation and trade policy have nothing to do with it, as reasonTV would be the first to point out.
The deficits began when the first budget proposed by GW was passed by the Republican Congress.
But, I too blame Greenspan. He lowered interest rates to historic lows in an attempt to jump start the economy. And, like GW he denied the real estate bubble.
If Alan Greenspan was the genius responsible for the economic success during the Clinton Administration; why did he turn into a retard when GW took over?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The initial economic success of the Clinton years was financed by the drastic cuts in military spending and then became the 'success' of the tech bubble created by Fed Reserve policies.
Free Trade and de-regulation are not to blame for the spending of Bush, the money pumping of Greenspan and the creation of the toxic mortgage market by Fannie Mae.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is having a huge bump in sales in the last few months.
People are starting to realize that the plot of this book is coming true.
It is time for "Atlas" to shrug. Spend less, so you can earn less, so you can send less money legally to the IRS. Starve the beast, just as the heroes did in the great book, "Atlas Shrugged."
Cramer is the better of the 2 overall. He's a social liberal but a fiscal conservative (or at least somewhat fiscally conservative), so he's much closer to libertarianism. Isn't Kudlow just a basic conservative, though?
From what I've heard, Kudlow doesn't even have any actual economic credentials. He just 'sounded' like a good economic spokesman for business, and then CNBC hired him and whathaveyou. National Review sometimes publishes his articles, I believe. But the guy didn't get an econ. major or minor, and he wasn't a professor nothin. How he got this far is kind of weird and amazing at the same time.
I appreciate the info that Mr. Kudlow presented, but let's not foget that this is a man who described TARP (before it was named TARP) in these words: " A Paulson-Cantor Plan Is a Win-Win.
Actually, for taxpayers, the bank rescue plan is a win-win-win-win."
From his blog, September 27th 2008
SheyOneTen 2 years ago
Why do the richest 5% pay 60% of the taxes, because they have 55% of the wealth, the bottom 50% pay 2.99% because we have about 2.99% of the wealth, even with mike huckebes fair tax the rich will get a small take cut but the middle class will actually pay more in taxes, look it up, these teabag protesters on average wont pay in their lifetimes for the services they receive, so stop WINNING
mexprince1 2 years ago
I only just described about 35 to 41% of all of federal spending, you abviously need to include the social security payments the average american will receive in social security, the police and first responders, medicare, unemployment insurance benefits, they only reason that america works is that we have a progressive tax system that makes the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes, why, b/c the average american couldnt afford to send their kids to school without the rich paying for it,
mexprince1 2 years ago
The average household make $50,233, they get taxed, ill be genourous, 40%, so they pay $20000 in taxes, the average household has 2.2 children so the government spends on average $9000 per child on education, so the average houshold will receive $19800 in education services from the government, we spend 624billion on the military this year so this couple has to pay $6800 for the military, but wait they dont pay that much in taxes, and the average american complains about taxes and want a taxcut?
mexprince1 2 years ago
Tax those top 15 percent to death? Those top 15% are the business owners where most other people get their jobs and purchase their goods. They will increase the price of their goods and decrease the wages of their employees in order to pay those taxes. So in the end the tax still effects every last one of us.
If something is worth paying for people will buy it, There is no need for a tax whatsoever.
cowcidile 2 years ago
Even the IRS doesn't understand the tax code. They completely misapply it.
P3rf3ctStorm 2 years ago 3
It's time LP making waves!!
American have to realize: just because YOU like the SOCIAL safety net [and be lazy], doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE HAVE to work for YOU. I waste 1/3 of my life WORKING for other people so they don't have to do it, that's crazy. It's modern slavery.
newyorkairsoft 2 years ago 2
Libertarians FTW.
HeWhoPawns 2 years ago 4
...........BEWARE,,,,,,,of any new tax program that is LOVED BY RICH PIG AMERICA AND SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES you stupid fuking fuktard fuktoids.
garyowen4ever 2 years ago
In the words of Ron Paul -- BRING OUR TROUPS HOME!
DillonX 2 years ago
just robbed this country of the gold and silver blowing up mountaintops to take all now as wolfowitzt stated they are now going for nickels dimes and quarters. MO MONIES! next they will be removing from our bodies as they did in the 2nd WW lined em up to dump their silver and gold under the pretence of needing it for the war effort. enough taxes every yr. taken in to make every man woman and child a millionaire. but who is sharing w/the canon fodder? looks like it's feeding time to me.
mountain19 2 years ago
well done!
mindtriplx 2 years ago
But what is the alternative to our Tax code? I here you guys complaining and I feel you. But you need to provide an alternative or you just look crazy.
HarryJAnslinger 2 years ago
Well thats simple, a flat tax or national sales tax. Also we survived without a federal income tax for over 100 years, we can survive without it now too. That and income tax is just a step away from slavery. One of the big things from the more educated slaves in the 1800s was the right to work for ones wages and keep them. One good example would be Fredrick douglas.
BaronVonTrout 2 years ago
"Well thats simple, a flat tax or national sales tax."
Would it support our military industrial complex? How about are social programs...you know...Public schools and the like. I see your point, but are you against social safety nets? Natural selection or Laissez-faire capitalism will eat those that cant keep up. If we regulate and soften it we can reduce the pain of its "losers". Perhaps freedom is at stake when we allow it to go unchecked. But isnt it worth it the risk?
HarryJAnslinger 2 years ago
*But isnt it worth the risk?
HarryJAnslinger 2 years ago
Reduce the social programs. Reduce military spending by minimizing our overseas military presence. Reduce the size of departments of the federal government (CIA. FBI, DEA, IRS).
d0861 2 years ago
"Reduce the social programs."
Reduction with increase in efficiency and effectiveness? Because if that isnt your goal, then you might as well scrap them. And if this is your aim, then you are against social safety nets (which is your right). But do most people wish to leave the masses future and health to natural selection?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Well reduction is a more realistic goal, initially. I doubt the masses would support an overall scrapping of every social "safety-net" program... Personally, I'd like to see [most of] them gone, but that's neither here nor there.
d0861 2 years ago
I think if Americans were given back 30 percent of their income [that was taken away in tax] they would have more then enough money to fund any "safety-net" they want, with choice.
So in a way, it is very realistic to scrap them all together. But we are all conditioned to think that the only way to run an effective [hahaha] social safety net is by the mercy of the random officials that were put in place to run our lives...
newyorkairsoft 2 years ago
Friends, though I am not a libertarian, I think its a shame that poor Larry Kudlow is getting beat on here for essentially embracing ReasonTV's illustration of what's wrong with the tax code. Is it simply too much to say that in princilple the investor class (as Larry calls it) thinks they're over taxed? They earned it and rightfully, they should invest it without getting fleeced.
GOPsithlord 2 years ago
ReasonTV:
You have my deepest sympathy for having the dubious distinction of receiving a glowing endorsement from Larry Kudlow.
Larry Kudlow has spent the last eight years praising GW for his tax cuts, free trade policy and the deregulation of Wall Street. The policies resulted in record deficits, unemployment and the near collapse of the worlds financial system.
RonaldDumbsfeld 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the deficits resulted from not cutting spending along with taxes.
The unemployment and financial collapse are due to interference in the financial system from the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae which created the toxic mortgage bubble.
Deregulation and trade policy have nothing to do with it, as reasonTV would be the first to point out.
Jumbie40 2 years ago
The deficits began when the first budget proposed by GW was passed by the Republican Congress.
But, I too blame Greenspan. He lowered interest rates to historic lows in an attempt to jump start the economy. And, like GW he denied the real estate bubble.
If Alan Greenspan was the genius responsible for the economic success during the Clinton Administration; why did he turn into a retard when GW took over?
RonaldDumbsfeld 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The initial economic success of the Clinton years was financed by the drastic cuts in military spending and then became the 'success' of the tech bubble created by Fed Reserve policies.
Free Trade and de-regulation are not to blame for the spending of Bush, the money pumping of Greenspan and the creation of the toxic mortgage market by Fannie Mae.
Jumbie40 2 years ago
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is having a huge bump in sales in the last few months.
People are starting to realize that the plot of this book is coming true.
It is time for "Atlas" to shrug. Spend less, so you can earn less, so you can send less money legally to the IRS. Starve the beast, just as the heroes did in the great book, "Atlas Shrugged."
freesk8 2 years ago 9
Last time I checked democrats are rich but they skip taxes and think that they can get away with it bull you are nor above the law.
jp3711nc1 2 years ago 7
Cramer is the better of the 2 overall. He's a social liberal but a fiscal conservative (or at least somewhat fiscally conservative), so he's much closer to libertarianism. Isn't Kudlow just a basic conservative, though?
whoo689 2 years ago
He's all for the bailout though.
ZuzoFriend 2 years ago
Too bad Kudlow is such a boob and continues to ridicule Peter Schiff and promotes the idea that the Fed creating money from nothing is a good thing.
I'm not sure Kudlow's endorsement is a good thing.
Though Reason does get some well deserved publicity.
johnycannuk 2 years ago 3
Does he? I was pretty sure he was agreeing with Schiff in shooting down socialists last time, but I might be confusing him with someone else.
Moragauth 2 years ago
Check out some of the vids on Schiffs channel...one from last week where Kudlow and two other talking heads think a little inflation is al-right.
johnycannuk 2 years ago
From what I've heard, Kudlow doesn't even have any actual economic credentials. He just 'sounded' like a good economic spokesman for business, and then CNBC hired him and whathaveyou. National Review sometimes publishes his articles, I believe. But the guy didn't get an econ. major or minor, and he wasn't a professor nothin. How he got this far is kind of weird and amazing at the same time.
whoo689 2 years ago