The 'New York Times' Votes Big for Obama Economics

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"As economist Arthur Laffer told me "
You can stop reading there.
Anyone who listens to that guy isn't worth reading.

anon of SD 7:27PM August 22, 2008

Here are the facts: the top 10% if US taxpayers have 47% of the total income and pay 71% of all federal income taxes. The "rich" can't afford much more. of seems to think that the "rich" are an endless source of funds. Punish success and reward underachievement seems to be his/her and Obama's mantra. you need a course in basic economics....not Obamanomics. Try reading something on economics by Thomas Sowell...although dealing with facts and reality may be too much for you.

sw of MO 3:24PM August 22, 2008

"Ouch. I got as for as reading the name Arthur Laffer, and began laughing so hard I threw my back out. This is the Laffer whose drawn on a napkin economic nonsense, the Trickle-Down-on-the-Rest-of-Us theory, has caused so much grief in this country. It's just another fig leaf for greed."
Jack Flackett, you obviously know about the Laffer Curve, yet call a bunch of nonsense. Since you obviously know tax policy, I want you to do what your candidate can't and tell me how exactly increased taxes, increased government spending, and blatant protectionism will lead to higher economic growth.
What has caused so much grief in this country is what I just mentioned. If greed is allowing more Americans to keep their money and stop the government from spending it how they see fit, then I'm all for greed. But what I would like to know is why is it greed to allow more Americans to keep their own money, but it is not greed when government proposes to raise your taxes so it can spend your money how it sees fit.

Chris of AZ 10:50PM August 21, 2008

"_of_": I feel the best way to address deficits is to try to have tax revenues that exceed government spending. If you want tax revenues to be high then you adopt pro-business tax policies. Obama has already admitted that he isn't concerned about maximizing revenues - he's all about promising the socialist dream of wealth redistribution and less income inequality as a way to get votes. As for me, I'm not running for office so I can tell the truth and the truth is that the nanny state is a hoax and capitalism is the greatest engine for creating prosperity that the world has ever known. All you have to do is work hard...

MSF of NY 5:46PM August 21, 2008

Ouch. I got as for as reading the name Arthur Laffer, and began laughing so hard I threw my back out. This is the Laffer whose drawn on a napkin economic nonsense, the Trickle-Down-on-the-Rest-of-Us theory, has caused so much grief in this country. It's just another fig leaf for greed.
If that's all the Republicans have to offer in the way of answers to the extremely serious economic woes we have, it's no wonder they picked McCain. He's somebody that can relate to making the wealthy even wealthier at the nation's expense. How many houses does one person need? Fewer houses and he wouldn't have to bum around in his wife's jet so much.

Jack Flackett of CA 5:00PM August 21, 2008

"The lower the taxes, the less the existence of anything that resembles a middle class."
Daniel David, it is because of lower taxes as well as strong economic growth that leads to a vibrant middle class. How can you develop a middle class when you are sending your money to Washington?

Chris of AZ 4:01PM August 21, 2008

"I'd say you'd have to be a socialist retard to argue for higher taxes as a way to create jobs but that's just me."
Well said. However, I believe you are being a bit redundant when you use the term 'socialist retard'.
The federal corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%. That is the second highest tax rate among all of the major industrialized countries--only Japan has a higher rate. Even China--China!--recently lowered their corporate tax rate from 33% to 25%, recognizing that they will attract more business investment, and more jobs, with lower tax rates.

SH of TN 3:17PM August 21, 2008

Well, MSF, your two degrees in economics should tell you there is a problem with endless government deficits that have cut the value of the dollar severely. Did you go to the school of "out of thin air" or what?

of 2:28PM August 21, 2008

Is this guy serious? Arguing for higher taxes and casting the blame for cyclical job losses on something called "corporatists." I guess he could never admit that we live in an economic meritocracy (the greatest economy in the history of the world) when its easier to blame the boogey man. I'd say you'd have to be a socialist retard to argue for higher taxes as a way to create jobs but that's just me (with my 2 degrees in econ and a good job).

MSF of NY 2:16PM August 21, 2008

"because the tax code now says (stupidly) that if they do that then they can just keep the savings."
This is an assanine comment. Corporations are taxed on their net income. That's the money left over after they pay for their expenses.
Hence, laying people off may lower expenses, but it also increases the taxes that a corporation owes. They in no way pocket the savings. On the contrary, they have to share it with the government.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that the industries most heavily hit with layoffs are also highly unionized?
Just an observation.

Jason of MD 2:15PM August 21, 2008