SUNY Students Shut Down Leading Economist In Latest Attack On Free Speech

I have previously written about the curtailment of free speech and the refusal of both faculty and students to allow opposing views to be heard on campuses, including the recent move by students to keep both students and faculty from hearing remarks (and have a dialogue with) former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The latest such denial of free speech occurred at the State University of New York at Binghamton where protesters stopped others from listening to Arthur Laffer. Laffer is sometimes called the “father of supply-side economics” and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in June. The videotape shows how the “heckler’s veto” has taken over our campuses — the same week that a new poll shows most Republican students are uncomfortable in expressing their views on campuses.

The video shows screaming protesters who would not let others hear from Laffer despite the incredible opportunity to hear and dialogue with one of the most notable economists in the country.

One protester is shown screaming “we are tired of being oppressed and we are tired of getting murdered by this administration.” That is treated as a license to silence those with opposing views. The question is whether SUNY will take disciplinary actions against those who stopped this event.

Such students claim the right to prevent other students from participating in classes or events — a similar complaint raised against the recent protests against James Comey at Howard University as well as schools like William & Mary.  Likewise, the Homeland Security Secretary was prevented from speaking at Georgetown. For years, I have written about the loss of free speech protections and why universities must take action in such disruptions of classrooms like a recent incident at Northwestern University.  This violates a core defining value of our academic institutions and such students should be suspended for such conduct.  There is a difference between voicing your views and preventing others from speaking, particularly inside of a classroom. When you claim the right to prevent others from hearing opposing views or speakers, you are at odds with the academic mission of these universities.

I do not buy the convenient argument that silencing others is a form of free speech. I have previously discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus.  The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

SUNY is just the latest example of how some views are no longer tolerated on our campuses. The result is a loss of the intellectual vitality and diversity that is so important to our academic mission.

84 thoughts on “SUNY Students Shut Down Leading Economist In Latest Attack On Free Speech”


    Did you catch this? Another piece of evidence, in case we needed one, that soi-disant ‘human rights’ NGOs are intellectually and morally fraudulent organizations run by sectaries like Jill. (This particular outfit designated a Philadelphia cop-killer as a ‘prisoner of conscience’).

  2. Dear John Burgoyne,
    I have 2 simple yes or no question that seems relevant to the discussion. It is clear that you have a different opinion on economics than Mr Laffer and others on here, that is ok. But is it ok to act in the manner that the protesters acted? Should we as a society and human beings strive to treat each other with dignity and rebuke those who use violence, and show the maturity to disagree without being disagreeable? I ask because as important as the economic discussion is and your view point on it may be of value and certainly worth consideration. Their stands the question of should you be allowed to share it regardless of if others disagree? and if so, then what should be done about the specific student who step out side the bonds of acceptable discourse into the illegal and harmful area that some (not all) of these students clearly did?


    Professor Turley has been obsessed with free speech issues since the impeachment inquiry began. These columns have become a paint by number exercise. ‘Controversial Conservative finds himself unwelcome as a speaker at some college’.

    In all these columns the villains are leftist coeds. Readers are encouraged to click the ‘Boo’ icon. Turley, it appears, wants conservatives to feel unjustly persecuted. Like Trump is persecuted. Never has a bully been persecuted more.

    Readers are supposed to believe Arthur Laffer deserved the Medal of Freedom. For ‘what’, however, is hard to say. Every Federal tax cut since the Reagan era has surged deficit spending. George W. cut taxes while pursuing war, the worst of combinations.

    One could argue tax cuts came at the expense of infrastructure. We traded one for the other. Our lack of preparation for Climate Change is probably linked to tax cuts. Opposition to Obamacare almost certainly sprang from fear that tax cuts might be jeopardized.

    To Leftist coeds Arthur Laffer more than likely represents a “Greed is good mentality”. No wonder they think he’s a creep.

    1. In 1981, the year Reagan was inaugurated, the federal government confiscated $599 BILLION from people who earned it. By the time he left office 8 years later, the federal government confiscated $991 BILLION. In other words, the cuts in marginal tax rates enabled the crooks in DC to confiscate almost $400 BILLION more than they had confiscated only 8 years earlier.

      In 2016, the year Trump was inaugurated, the federal government confiscated $3.268 TRILLION from people who earned it.

      Doing the math, the federal government confiscated 446% more in 2016 than it did in 1981.

      The federal government is the greedy one.

      Data from Appendix B, page 690, of the “Economic Report of the President”, which has various tables listing the amounts of money the government has confiscated and spent going back over half a century.

      Leftist coeds probably think Laffer is a creep because they listen to economically illiterate lying morons.

      1. You shouldn’t think in terms of nominal values, but of shares of personal income streams.

      2. Scott, the economy grew during the 1980’s. That decade was the dawn of the personal computer era. What’s more, Reagan was cutting taxes from a much higher rate than either George W or Trump.

        Bush Sr and Bill Clinton allowed tax hikes. Yet the economy of the 1990’s was one of the strongest ever. George W cut taxes amid war which surged the deficit. Trump cut taxes during an already robust expansion leaving little room for tax cuts when the next recession hits.

        1. Scott, the economy grew during the 1980’s. That decade was the dawn of the personal computer era. What’s more, Reagan was cutting taxes from a much higher rate than either George W or Trump.

          No discrete industry is all that important. In 1997, the manufacture of computers and electronic products accounted for 2.3% of value-added; computer systems design & c, 0.9%; and data processing &c., 0.6%. That sums to 3.8% of value-added. It was almost certainly less than that in 1985.

          George W cut taxes amid war which surged the deficit.

          The ratio of military expenditure to domestic product stood 3.83% during the year 2000 and 4.70% during 2007. There’s your war. Federal borrowing during 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 was consequent to legislation enacted by a Republican Congress co-operating with a Republican President. The deficits were betwee, 1.84% and 3.36% of domestic product.

          Trump cut taxes during an already robust expansion leaving little room for tax cuts when the next recession hits.

          You wouldn’t want them. Under ordinary circumstances, adjustments in monetary policy suffice in navigating recessions.

    2. they think he’s a creep because somebody older than them told them to think he’s a creep.
      they also generally don’t think they just feel, feel like its important to get out there and protest evil white guys
      that’s about all it adds up to. they’re cannon fodder. i encourage people to always look and try and identify who the bosses are when criticizing lame demonstrations like this. identify the cadres, don’t worry about the cannon fodder

      and make lists of them

      we should have lists of who the loudmouth hecklers and antifa types are in every single “university” and college out there

      identify the entire infrastructure from top to bottom, that’s what SPLC has been doing for decades. To everybody from Trent Lott and the Republicans, to the kluckers, flag wavers, black muslims, to the “homophobes” and “islamophobes” etc and everybody they figure is not already on their massive donations list.

      such a massive database! i wonder how many names they have on it. I am guessing 3 million by now. probably most of the people typing on this comment page have an entry whether they know it or not.

      there’s plenty of lesser databases of thought-criminals kept by supposed dogooders. heres an example

      it’s time to assemble massive databases of Leftist criminals in turn

      1. if i read the 2018 SPLC financials correctly, their operating budget was about 75 million of which only a third went to “legal services.” the rest went to “Education” and “management ”

        for a tenth of that 50 M annual budget, only 5 million, a Leftist-antifa cataloguing project could be set up which would be a great start.

        and I bet for a tenth of that, say half a million, you could farm the project out to a contractor and have no standalone organization backing it at all. there are bibliographers out there who can and would do the job and probably ace it.

        I won’t hold my breath! The people with the big money in this country almost entirely back the left. The socalled right wing billionaires like the Kroch bros reserve their donations for political projects that generally only benefit themselves, like free trade mumbo jumbo and union busting. They’re not “Right wingers” in any sense whatsoever. They’re just as bad as the Democrat leadership, small net difference if any.

        to some degree this explains the ongoing foot dragging and weak support from the Deep State. they have not seen the billionaire caste backing the Donald, and they want to curry favor with their true paymasters.

        1. maybe i should start a whaddaya callit?> “crowd funding effort” to hire a bibliographer to assemble a massive index of university leftists and antifa criminals, so that can be put online for the world to see.

          i wonder if we only started with 500,000 names and addresses and biographies, what the cost per name would be?

          another idea, is to set it up it up like a false front, the “Progressives Registry” or something like that, put it out there and see if they would just assemble their information themselves.

          or maybe somebody’s already doing that? hmmmm

          these guys

          say that “progressive activists” are 8% of the US population. well that would be about 24 million names or so right?

          yeah, i have a feeling there’s already lists and lists of lists out there. and ya could probably buy the info from FB too right? lol

    3. Dear John Burgoyne,
      I have 2 simple yes or no question that seems relevant to the discussion. It is clear that you have a different opinion on economics than Mr Laffer and others on here, that is ok. But is it ok to act in the manner that the protesters acted? Should we as a society and human beings strive to treat each other with dignity and rebuke those who use violence, and show the maturity to disagree without being disagreeable? I ask because as important as the economic discussion is and your view point on it may be of value and certainly worth consideration. Their stands the question of should you be allowed to share it regardless of if others disagree? and if so, then what should be done about the specific student who step out side the bonds of acceptable discourse into the illegal and harmful area that some (not all) of these students clearly did?


    As a young New York Times reporter, I was present at the emergence of Mr. Laffer and his preposterous theory. I thought it was ridiculous then and take little pleasure in having my skepticism proved correct.

    But don’t take my word for it. The theory has been derided by economists from the left and the right. A 2012 survey of 40 prominent economists failed to find a single one in agreement with Lafferism.

    Seven years earlier, the Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of a conservative, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, calculated that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would result in a significant net revenue loss.

    The nation’s first foray into Lafferism came with Ronald Reagan, whose initial huge tax cut, in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, reduced revenues by 9 percent over the first two years, exactly the opposite of what Mr. Laffer predicted.

    That led to tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987, ultimately reversing about half of the initial tax reductions. Even those hikes proved insufficient.

    After promising no new taxes (“read my lips”), President George H.W. Bush was forced by stubbornly high deficits to raise them, undoubtedly contributing to his election loss to Bill Clinton.

    Regrettably, that wasn’t the end of Mr. Laffer’s influence. When President George W. Bush was considering what proved to be another round of ill-advised tax cuts, Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been present at the creation of the famous napkin drawing, reportedly said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

    Unfortunately, that’s not all the fiscal damage that Mr. Laffer has done. When Sam Brownback was governor of Kansas, Mr. Laffer convinced him to eliminate income taxes for approximately 330,000 of the state’s top wage earners. The state’s budget quickly swang from surplus to deficit, resulting in drastic cuts to funding of important programs and weakening Kansas’s economy. In 2014, voters revolted; Mr. Brownback was barely re-elected, and by 2017, his own party had reversed most of the tax cuts, overriding his veto. (Mr. Brownback now serves in the Trump administration as ambassador at large for international religious freedom.)

    Other examples of Mr. Laffer’s wackiness abound. In April, he declared that President Obama was responsible for the Great Recession. Never mind that the downturn started a full year before Mr. Obama took office; Mr. Laffer argues the stock market began falling in anticipation of Mr. Obama’s arrival and that led to the recession.

    O.K., but then there’s the housing bubble fueled by irresponsible subprime mortgage lending, the explosion of derivatives and the dangerous overleveraging of the financial system, all of which began long before Mr. Obama’s ascension.

    Destroying the notion of fiscal responsibility continues to be Mr. Laffer’s main focus as further articulated in his 2018 book, “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy,” written with Stephen Moore, who recently withdrew from consideration for nomination to the Federal Reserve amid widespread criticism of his economic policy positions and revelations about his personal life.

    In it, the authors argue that the Trump tax plan would raise economic growth to at least 3 percent to 4 percent while not worsening budget deficits. Well, here we are, with growth in the current quarter likely to be down to well less than a 2 percent rate and the budget deficit exploding.

    That’s in part because revenues in 2018 were $275 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut was passed. All told, the deficit is likely to exceed $1 trillion in the next fiscal year, on its way to $2 trillion over the coming decade.

    Of course, Mr. Laffer’s paean to Mr. Trump couldn’t have had anything to do with an award received by the likes of Warren Buffett and the economist Robert Solow, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Or could it?

    Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration, is a Wall Street executive and a contributing opinion writer.

    Edited from: “The Dangerous Folly Of Lafferism

    The New York Times, 6/25/19

  5. With this torrent of news articles about Leftists threatening, harassing, and heckling invited conservative speakers, as well as professors who stray out of line, will Democrats admit that Republicans have a point for viewing their party as a threat to freedom?

  6. SUNY Students Shut Down Leading Economist In Latest Attack On Free Speech

    Those are not Students they appear to be cretinous escapees from an insane asylum who have stopped taking their medications and slipped out of their straight-jackets.

  7. Why don’t Democrats have a problem with this? Why can they not see this is tyranny?

    This is the problem when the Left has been allowed to define what Republicans stand for. They claim they are evil, and naive people just go along with it and attack innocent people, thinking they are fighting the good fight. After all, you can’t wrong Hitler.

    Universities who persecute conservatives should not receive taxpayer money. It is unfair that our tax dollars supports this. If bigotry and bias is part of their curriculum and school environment, then they should put that in their marketing materials so parents may make an informed decision.

    We don’t save to send our children to college so they can be brainwashed.

    Jettison the politics and useless, unmarketable gender studies degrees, and go back to teaching serious subjects.

  8. This is more evidence that we face the risk of an advancing “emoji-ocracy” — no patience for solving complex problems, indulging tribalistic instincts, a retreat from the skills of serious question and answer (non-rhetorical), and distrust of meritocratic dialog (as requiring too much personal risk-taking and effort). The accusatory, militant mob response is really just a sophisticated defense mechanism….it’s a form of escapism from responsibility. It will crush these kids when they realize you cannot solve complex problems with innate, shallow, emotional thinking.



      Reagan tax cuts – Wikipedia › wiki › Reagan_tax_cuts

      The budget deficit increased from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1990. The tax cuts are often blamed for the Wealth inequality in the United States and the Middle-class squeeze.
      ‎Historical Tax Rates · ‎Economic Implications · ‎Tax Incentives Post-Tax Cut

      1. Did it ever occur to you that if you want to understand assessments of how the causes of economic and financial phenomena are parsed, you don’t consult Wikipedia? Evidently not.

        1. Tabby, you’re disputing that deficits rose during the Reagan and George W years?? Are you disputing that deficits have risen since Trump’s tax cuts??

          If you aren’t disputing, then what are you claiming??

          1. I guess Peter you don’t realize that there is more than one variable that can cause deficits and surpluses. Skip Wikipedia and the hit pieces. Go back to square one and get an education. Don’t you ever think in terms of all the variables?

          2. No, Peter. I’m arguing if you wish to understand a phenomenon, you have to read the literature on that phenomenon.

            All deficits, while we’re at it, result from an imbalance between expenditure and revenue. Whether you think there should be more revenue or less expenditure is a mix of technical and normative judgments. You don’t attribute the deficit to one or the other unless you are comparing one year with the previous year, which isn’t a particularly interesting question. Even then, you have to model it.


            “While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it’s curious to see Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

            Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.”

            1. “When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false–as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt–notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
              Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
              “Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller,” said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.”

        2. The Laffer curve article is not that bad, it’s a good starting point, but we can be sure his points here are all rhetorical and proofs are never that important. he just keeps on moving with the next talking point– like a well trained politician.

          it does not say it was “Debunked.” it discusses various criticisms which have some validity.

          that “debunked” crapola was just Peter making stuff up again.

          as the economist magazine article says, the Laffer curve depicts a certain truism– something that’s obvious– if the tax goes up high enough then people will avoid the taxed activity as much as they can. so there is a sweet spot for tax rates and revenues. DUH! every fool with a high school diploma who has worked in a county tax collector’s office intuitively grasps such things, yet which evade the vaunted intellects of journalists.

    2. Mickey Mouse says that Peter should join the Mousketeers. The headline has to do with the New Tax Law not the Laffer Curve.

      One has to inquire from the Shill what things like front-loading of certain provisions and long term effects have on revenues. ~$5,000 extra into the pockets of many Americans, more jobs and higher paying jobs yet according to this article no significant fall in revenue occurred while revenues will increase in the future.

      Shill doesn’t read these articles. He looks for agreeable headlines pointed out to him. The problem is that if one listens to the Shill then one remains that much longer in the Mouseketeers before joining adult society that is a lot more knowledgeable.

      1. Shill doesn’t read these articles. He looks for agreeable headlines pointed out to him.

        There are 3 options here: 1. Shill doesn’t read them beyond the headline. 2. He reads them, understands them and then lies about their conclusion. 3. He reads them, doesn’t understand them and is therefore convinced what he believes is true.

        Given his performance on this blog, I’m of the opinion it is 1 or 3. He has demonstrated no evidence of critical-thought.

        1. Olly, all three. Peter frequently doesn’t read beyond the headline and when he does it has to be predigested for him to understand the context. Add to that he is a liar.

    3. Peter

      Measuring economic indicators is fairly complex particularly in our country. Wikipedia and a lay source wont do. There is a famous and now old book entitled “How to lie with statistics” that I read years ago in college for a Stats course I took. It is still relevant today. WSJ and other media outlets will interpret data as they see fit for their purposes (web traffic). You should never use lay media reports for medical / health updates or opinions. For the discussion at hand youre better off with government reports like the Congressional Budget Office.


      Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2019
      November 7, 2019

      In 2019, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.5 trillion—$133 billion (or 4 percent) more than in 2018. As a percentage of GDP, revenues fell from 16.4 percent in 2018 to 16.3 percent in 2019, remaining below the average (17.4 percent) for the past 50 years.

      Net spending by the government was $4.4 trillion in 2019—$339 billion (or 8 percent) more than in 2018. Outlays amounted to 21.0 percent of GDP in 2019, compared with 20.2 percent in 2018, and above the 50 year average (20.4 percent). If not for the shift in the timing of certain payments, outlays in 2018 would have equaled 20.4 percent of GDP.

      Total Receipts: Up by 4 Percent in Fiscal Year 2019

      Each of the major sources of revenues increased relative to the amounts recorded in 2018:

      ■ Receipts from individual income taxes, the largest source of revenues, rose by $34 billion (or 2 percent). As a share of the economy, those receipts fell from 8.3 percent of GDP
      in 2018 to 8.1 percent of GDP in 2019, remaining just above the 50-year average of 8.0 percent.

      o Income taxes withheld from workers’ paychecks increased by $3 billion (or less than 1 percent). That change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries, which were partly offset by two factors. First, a decline in the share of income withheld for taxes occurred because the Internal Revenue Service issued new withholding tables in January 2018 to reflect changes made by the 2017 tax act (Public Law 115-97). All employers were required to begin using the new tables by February 15, 2018. Those new withholding rates were in effect for the entire 2019 fiscal year, but only for seven and a half months of the prior fiscal year. Second, the Treasury Department recategorized some payroll taxes as income taxes during fiscal year 2018, and then did the reverse for fiscal year 2019. Those reallocations boosted individual income taxes in 2018 by $21 billion and reduced them in 2019 by $7 billion. The amounts of total withholding initially recorded for income and payroll taxes are made on the basis of estimates. Reallocations are made as detailed tax return information becomes available.
      o Nonwithheld payments of income taxes rose by $8 billion (or 1 percent).
      o Individual income tax refunds declined by $23 billion (or 9 percent), boosting net receipts.

      Receipts from payroll (social insurance) taxes, the second-largest revenue source, increased by $72 billion (or 6 percent), and increased as a share of the economy from 5.8 percent in 2018 to 5.9 percent in 2019, climbing just above the 50-year average of 5.9 percent. The increase in payroll tax receipts reflects higher wages and salaries and the reallocations made between payroll and individual income taxes described above, which reduced payroll taxes reported for 2018 and increased payroll taxes reported for 2019.

      Receipts from corporate income taxes, the third-largest source of revenues, increased by $26 billion (or 12 percent) in 2019, rising from 1.0 percent of GDP to 1.1 percent. Those revenues as a percentage of GDP remain among the lowest recorded since 2009 and below the 50-year average of 1.9 percent of GDP. Those receipts include payments for activity in both the 2018 and the 2019 tax years.

      Receipts from other sources increased by $1 billion (or less than 1 percent), remaining at 1.3 percent of GDP. Increases in receipts from excise taxes and customs duties were partially offset by declines in remittances from the Federal Reserve and revenues from fees and fines as well as from estate and gift taxes.
      o Custom duties rose by $29 billion (or 71 percent). That increase is primarily because of new tariffs imposed by the Administration during the past year on certain imports from China.
      Excise taxes increased by $4 billion (or 4 percent), largely reflecting the timing of payments for a tax on health insurance providers. The payments for 2018 were due on Sunday, September 30, 2018; because that deadline fell on a weekend, $5 billion was recorded in fiscal year 2018 and $9 billion was recorded in fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates. (That tax was suspended for fiscal year 2019, so no payment was due on September 30, 2019.)

      o Remittances from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury fell by $18 billion (or 25 percent), largely because short-term interest rates were higher, leading the central bank to pay depository institutions more interest on reserves.

      o Miscellaneous fees and fines fell by $8 billion (or 20 percent).

      o Estate and gift taxes decreased by $6 billion (or 27 percent), reflecting changes
      made by the 2017 tax act, which doubled the value of the estate tax exemption.

    4. so tax collection fell? What’s wrong with that? Maybe had something to do with Pelosi’s sticky fingers as a likely cause.

  9. Free speech is disappearing from the schools and everywhere else because the left believes free speech is only for them and they will act in violent ways to promote this atrocious behavior. We are at the point where the left is now trying to criminalize what might be in a person’s mind and not in his actions. This is seen daily in the hearings as testimony is squeezed out of people as to what another person might be thinking about. (How does anyone know what is in another’s mind?) This is being accomplished under the threat of jail if one doesn’t provide the desired dialogue of the left.

    If one’s ideas are leftist however, lying seems to be permitted. Just note what happened to General Flynn and what doesn’t see to be happening to all those that have lied while promoting leftist ideals. The left is pushing the nation in the direction of a leftist banana republic.

    1. I’ll be blunt about this since apparently most conservatives are too dull to understand.

      If they come in force, you need to be ready in force

      otherwise you look weak.

      don’t ever hold a meeting without salting the crowd with supporters.

      dont rely on cops to provide security either

      these are old problems that have been seen and understood many times before and right wingers fail time and time again to grasp what’s happening properly.

      talk to some union organizer type guys about how to prep a meeting like this and you will get some common sense tips. there’s an art to it.

      this meeting was held artlessly, and it’s embarassing to see some fat gender confused he-shes shutting down a meeting like that so easily




    Theoretically if taxes were so high they stifled investment, then tax cuts could conceivably boost tax revenue. But no federal tax cut since the Reagan era has boosted tax revenue. To the contrary, most every tax cut has resulted in higher deficits. This has been true for the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts. Therefore the Medal of Freedom that Trump awarded Laffer is controversial even among economists.

    Should anyone want to dispute this comment, please post data from a recognizable financial journal identifying a tax cut in recent history that resulted in higher tax revenues.

    1. Nice – you are completely wrong. That takes skill.

      First, the Laffer Curve is an obvious truth. If you do not realize that then you don’t understand it.

      Second, tax revenue went up after the Trump tax cuts. That’s a recent one for you. You can google it for yourself.

      1. Tax revenue slightly increased, less than 1%, FY 2018

        Frankly our taxes should be cut far more, and outlays like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Dept of Defense should all be slashed drastically. The government has no business being our Nanny State. That is the role of family, friends, neighbors and church. If you lack all of the latter then that is on you….not on Americans. Get busy.


        Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2018
        November 7, 2018

        Total Receipts: Up by Less Than 1 Percent in Fiscal Year 2018

        Total receipts in 2018 were similar to those in 2017 because of offsetting changes in different sources of revenues, which stemmed in part from provisions in last year’s major tax legislation (Public Law 115-97):

        Receipts from individual income taxes, the largest source of revenues, increased by $96 billion (or 6 percent). As a share of the economy, those receipts rose from 8.2 percent of GDP in 2017 to 8.3 percent of GDP in 2018, remaining above the average (8.0 percent) over the past 50 year

        Receipts from payroll (social insurance) taxes, the second-largest revenue source, increased by $9 billion (or 1 percent) but fell as a share of the economy from 6.0 percent in 2017 to 5.8 percent in 2018. The increase in those receipts reflects higher wages and salaries. However, as described above, payroll taxes reported for 2018 were reduced by reallocations made from payroll to individual income taxes.

        Receipts from corporate income taxes, the third-largest source of revenues, fell by $92 billion (or 31 percent) in 2018, dropping from 1.5 percent to 1.0 percent of GDP.

        Receipts from other sources increased by $1 billion (or less than 1 percent) but declined from 1.4 percent of GDP to 1.3 percent.

        Declines in revenues from fees and fines and from Federal Reserve remittances were partly offset by larger receipts from excise taxes and customs duties.

    2. But no federal tax cut since the Reagan era has boosted tax revenue. To the contrary, most every tax cut has resulted in higher deficits.

      LIar! Hey Shill, do you know how net income (net loss) is calculated? The Laffer Curve has not been debunked, but on the contrary, it has been proven true that tax cuts will increase revenue. That is one side of the net calculation. The other is expenditures. If revenue increases and deficits also increase, what the hell do you believe was the root cause of the increased deficits?

    3. Should anyone want to dispute this comment, please post data from a recognizable financial journal identifying a tax cut in recent history that resulted in higher tax revenues.

      That’s not how this works you dolt. You don’t get to demand others post data to prove your opinion wrong. The first burden is on you to post the data to support your opinion.

      Ready. Go.

        1. Do you bother reading your own sources?

          When President Reagan cut income taxes, government revenue rose (pretty much on the same trend is was already following), suggesting that the lower rates incentivized enough gains in income to offset the reduction in tax rates. It appeared that the Laffer Curve worked. However, by its very construction, the Laffer Curve’s success doesn’t mean the exercise should be repeated. Continual tax rate reductions are sure to eventually pass the peak and eventually lead to a reduction in tax revenue collected…In fact, a look at federal government tax revenue as a percent of GDP suggests that the Laffer Curve probably has a pretty long, more or less flat section in the middle.

          The article closes with this: Keep it simple, stupid, is better advice for tax reformers than waiting for the Laffer Curve to come to the rescue. Implying, yes, the Laffer Curve works, but simplifying the tax code and reducing expenditures would be a better approach.

          1. When they start publishing the whole formula instead just a small part I’ll pay attention

            GDP is not the finish line.

            GDP minus COG= NDP

            using GDP by it self is one of the two ways Clinton pretended to have a balanced budget with a surplus and shove a lot of his debt into Bush’s first years.

            1. Based on Shill’s comments, he doesn’t seem to even understand the most basic formula of Revenue – Expenditures = Surplus or Deficit. He seems to want to omit the expenditure variable from any surplus or deficit consideration. If he remains ignorant, whether willful or not of the expenditure variable in this equation, then he is absolutely useless in a basic personal economics discussion, let alone one involving a our national economy.

        2. YEah Olly he clearly doesnt read his own citations

          here’s a quote from his link

          “The Laffer Curve concept is clearly true”

          time to apologize for your arrogant tone on this error Peter….. it’s ok, we all make mistakes

          1. I think Peter, like Anon and Natacha, are all females. Ynot, Mark M, Justice Holmes, strike me as males. The “writing voice” they employ, reveal or suggest to me their gender. Histrionics is more often a female quality…and screaming queens. Nothing they state about themselves is to be believed hence Anon’s comments about being a married male of 50+ years in “construction” industry is discarded by me. But I also dont follow this forum like many others to act like Sherlock Holmes and piece stories together so….grain of salt

            Otherwise Peter is a borderline uneducated or non-thinking troll who, like the other trolls, has as the only goal to agitate. Nothing less. They are not here to dialogue

    4. It was never ‘debunked’, Peter. The complaint was that Laffer miscalculated the assessment rate at which tax revenues would begin to decline. David Stockman, who was a critic of Laffer, offered when interviewed that it was theoretically sound but that it had by 1981 been some decades since the country had had marginal tax rates so high that it would apply. It was his view that the Laffer curve discourse was a sales pitch to bring down marginal tax rates, something you’d want to do for other reasons. There’s quite a bit of debate among economists among just where is the point of inflection which puts you on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and macroeconomists using different models have ginned up rates between 50% and 84%. Bradford deLong has suggested that you shouldn’t bother with marginal rates above 70%, in case you were interested in the opinion of a partisan Democrat in the economics profession.

      Of course, you can get along without personal income taxes in ordinary circumstances by making use of property, general sales, payroll, and value-added taxes (as well as minor revenue straws). However, there are complaints about the effect of these levies on the distribution of income. So, you’d make use of income taxes to finance miscellaneous income security programs as well as to distribute rebates to cross compensate the impecunious for the effect of other taxes on their disposable income. You don’t need absurd marginal rates to do this. A mean rate of 7% on discoverable personal income would suffice to finance Medicaid, cash veterans benefits, SSI, and transitional payments to federal retirees. An ultimate rate in the range of 24-40%, offset with a large per-person credit, would work adequately and return sufficient cash to people that you could eliminate a bevy of welfare programs (e.g. SNAP, Section 8, TANF, LIHEAP, &c).

        1. No, it isn’t, Peter. And before you give me instruction, you learn how discussion in economics proceeds. For starters, original research is published in academic journals and working papers. It has a stereotyped format wherein the theory is discussed, the literature reviewed, the model delineated and the results of empirical tests (which, nowadays, involve the use of statistical software) are reported.

          Now buzz off.

          1. Tabby, show me statistics from recent American history where tax cuts boosted revenues and brought down deficits.

            1. take a look at the economist magazine article i quoted and do your own homework cuz your first draft is an F

            2. Peter, you would need an analysis of the sources of the revenue trajectory and you would need to plot the spending trajectory.

      1. YES! thank you TIA. the Laffer curve is real. the question of where the effects take hold is variable. it depends on a lot of complicated factors in the tax environment and it can vary. as the article from the economist magazine i quoted below depicts in its diagrams.

        now Peter come clean and admit you were wrong. Or you can clarify your position if you think it’s possible to do so.

    5. While we’re at it Peter, this is a dishonest look-squirrel diversion on your part, which has nothing to do with the topic.


      “RARELY has a dinner-table scribbling created such a legacy. In 1974 Arthur Laffer, an economist, sketched a simple diagram on the back of a napkin to illustrate a truism of tax policy. Set income-tax tax rates to zero and governments will not collect any revenue. Set them to 100%, and they will also collect nothing because people will have little incentive to work. Somewhere in between lies a sweet spot where government revenues are maximised. From this simple proof, it follows that when tax rates are very high, it might be possible both to lower tax rates and raise revenues. Tax cuts might thus pay for themselves, and more.

      Mr Laffer’s scribbling caught on. Some 45 years later some 15,000 journal articles mention the “Laffer curve” in their title. Today President Donald Trump will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honour, to Mr Laffer—an adviser to Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and co-author of the book “Trumponomics”. In its announcement of the event, the White House described Mr Laffer as “one of the most influential economists in American history.”


      but the Laffer curve is obvious even to the densest bureaucrat.

      here’s a little bit of tax trivia.

      it has a progressive income tax with 7 levels from 3% to 45%

      you would think that if the laffer curve had been “debunked” —
      then in the socialist dictatorship they would just raise taxes, right?
      it’s not like the taxpayers can vote them out of office if they do!
      their ONLY concern is maximizing tax revenue!

      but they dont raise the taxes more, and. that’s proof right there that the laffer curve is a very real thing. DUH!

    7. John:

      Higher taxes do not always mean more revenue, and tax cuts do not automatically mean less.

      Example: The luxury tax that destroyed the American yachting industry.

      Demcorats passed a luxury tax to try to get even more revenue from the rich. Not one single yacht was built in America that year. Revenue = zero. Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs and went on unemployment. Businesses folded, never to pay taxes again.

      The rich bought their yachts overseas and registered them there. You should notice that American cruise lines are registered Norwegian, for example.

      The tax actually cost America money. Repealing it would have actually generated revenue.

      Are you willing to acknowledge these facts?

  11. If only human behavior gone amuck were targeted for cell suicide (apoptosis) via human cellular biology just like every single pathogen it encounters.

    Apoptosis is programmed cell death via targeted cell suicide by enzymes released by mitochondria when triggered by pathogenic stimuli. Clean, efficient, no debris, no evidence!

    Enjoy the show!

      1. The video is outdated but the general schema is accurate. Apoptosis is very complex. There is no music within our loins during apoptosis and no screaming cells being killed…as far as we know


  12. The left and Democrats have created an intolerable, intolerant population, often devoid of the ability to think critically. Liberals and Dems used the same playbook used by communists and socialists of the past. Criminalize speech and thoughts. Encourage simplistic thought processes (easily written on signs), smear and shame anyone who disagrees with you, shout down your foes, use the arm of government (IRS, FISA Courts, DOJ) to punish your political enemies If you’ve had any brains over the last 20 years, you should have been able to anticipate this coming. Writing about it now with any suggestion that you are surprised is a travesty. The smart people saw this coming.

    1. “If you’ve had any brains over the last 20 years, you should have been able to anticipate this coming. Writing about it now with any suggestion that you are surprised is a travesty. The smart people saw this coming.”

      SBG, You hit the nail on the head but those first discovering the problem will never admit to not seeing the signs long ago. Why should we ever trust their judgement?

    1. TIA,
      I was thinking along the same lines. If a speaker is disrupted and prevented from speaking, then the speaking fee should be paid by the hecklers. They break it, they buy it.

    2. I recommend every group that wants to sponsor speakers like this in the future get strong and get organized and salt the crowd with toughs who punch “hecklers” square in the face. if that happens with exacting repetition then it will end.

      the toughs need to be able to get arrested peacefully without resisting law enforcement and then plead guitly without squealing as to who hired them

      if it becomes necessary to resort to the tactics of organized crime to exercise free speech then that’s what it takes, its entirely ethical, and conceivably lawful too in the long run, get used to it and learn the ropes.

      that’s the kind of leadership that’s needed from Conservativism Inc but instead they’re a bunch of weaklings and money grubbers rooting out socalled white supremacists like Philippine American Michelle Malkin.

      1. You’ve identified the problem. They’d actually be held accountable.

        I suspect you’d discover that conservative and Christian groups on campus tend to be small in number and not staffed with the sort of people in the habit of that sort of self-help. It wasn’t an issue where I used to work, where such groups were unpopular but ignored. It wasn’t an issue where I went to school, where such groups were comparatively numerous and had cordial dealings with the other campus political clubs.

        1. i was not involved in politics as an undergrad. my club activities were martial arts. we would put on a demonstration occasionally and salt a volunteer in every audience to come up and have the apple kicked off his head and so forth. and we would also salt people to make vigorous applause. i learned these simple yet effective techniques from my sensei who himself was a cop and knew a thing or two about how to fake out a crowd.

          in law school there were no shenanigans like that. that seems long ago now.

          as a lawyer i have advised some unpopular groups and businesses and “self help” is precisely what these groups mostly use to survive and flourish. some unpopular groups and businesses are smarter and tougher than others. success in certain areas depends on skill and skills can be learned. of course as a lawyer I only give advice about how to follow the law, not to break it. but where other people are out there breaking the law on the one side, one sometimes has to be very cunning about how to respond as you say, with self help. there are often many good lawful countermeasures which can be implemented and then sometimes clients need to know the ins and outs of the legal risks for more aggressive countermeasures. complicated conversations. I was not being coy when i said union organizers are often very well versed in such things, both what’s effective and what’s legal, and various combinations thereof.

          other people call this “guerilla politics” or “guerilla theatre.” these methods are not strictly owned by the Left. they can be implemented by decent people too, in many instances, it’s just a matter of heart and boldness.but always it is a matter of work. now according to the guerilla theatre textbook, the proper follow up to an incident like this, is get out here and flog it in the mass media for new volunteers and donations. are these little groups doing that, or going off to lick their wounds?

          it was many years ago that Richard S. Lind pointed out to conservatives that they needed to understand “low intensity conflict” and “4th generation warfare” and begin to implement strategies and tactics based upon it. I took him to heart. But perhaps people today have never heard of him. I have read the establishment criticize him and I doubt he’s well liked at West point. But i think he was pretty smart.

          leadership development is sorely needed as well. Leadership Institute is the right idea but it needs to groom more people and it needs to take a less sycophantic posture towards these forces I’m referring to when i say Conservatism Inc.

          I do not think the Trump phenomenon owes its success to these forces. It’s an unexpected groundswell of popular sentiment. Trump was and still is far more popular among the young working men than the university effetes The university sorts believe they can outlast him and probably they are right. I am hoping that they continue to go overboard like this so that the current small number of university youths who naively hope for fair treatment will quickly rub the sand out of their eyes and quickly become thick skinned and hard hearted operators.

          there is an old Italian saying from a leader whose name i forgot….. MOLTO NEMICI, MOLTO ONORE

          that’s the spirit which is needed

  13. The Second Amendment is in place for a reason. Every time things like catch my attention, I go buy more ammo or more large capacity magazines.

    1. what is the riddle of steele? it’s not the sword its the hand that wields it. must strengthen the hand, the guns are useless without minds and hands and hearts linked together and coordinated for proper action

  14. Dr. Laffer is nearly 80 years old. He was most prominent not quite forty years ago as a promoter of debatable macroeconomic models. He was consequential because he functioned as a brain trust for certain politicians, notably Jack Kemp. I don’t think academic or corporation economists were all that interested in his papers, though we could check Web of Science. Some of his policy prescription were favored by many and perhaps most economists, but not for the reasons he offered.

    So what’s the beef of the ‘protestors’? They likely don’t know Arthur Laffer from tiddlywinks. They’re just harassing the College Republicans. And the administration is pleased to let them do it, because they are agents of that administration.

    1. the economist magazine article i quoted here says that “laffer curve” is a term cited in over 15,000 academic papers or articles.

      so, he’s apparently taken seriously enough that this university should have shown him the courtesy of proper crowd control.

  15. One thing needs to be said to the silencers. STFU. Those four letters include one cuss words and I forget what that word is.

  16. As a freshman at SUNY Fredonia in 1968 I can attest to the fact that liberal faculty were already ensconced within the SUNY system and would use the ensuing Kent State event as the main propellant to overtake the rational educational situation and radicalize the student body. By 1972 any semblance of real education was in tatters and the use of the university system to promote progressive agendas was in full force.

    I ask those such as Mr. Turely why they were not raising red flags back in 1969 about the corruption of our educational systems for the purpose of a fundamental transformation of our culture via the education industry? It is far to late to act surprised and disapproving at this point.

    1. Alma Carmen – I was playing bridge at the Methodist Student Center at ASU which was where the SDS met in 1963. We used to watch them go upstairs to plot as we were playing. Red flags should have been raised a lot earlier than they were.

  17. Don’t worry sweet, tolerant leftists people such as Jeff Sessions will face prosecution as thought criminals in another 20 – 30 years. It will occur when today’s millennials are serving in the judiciary and legislature.

    Remember speech is violence and shutting down evil racist, right wing nazis is an exercise in free speech.

    And don’t worry JT, you will not escape being called a nazi sympathizer for merely supporting a traditional understanding of free speech and the 1st amendment.

    Am I missing anything?


Comments are closed.