Michele Bachman (R, MN): at this point I am not in favor of raising the debt ceiling
Mike Kelly (freshman R, PA): [Raising the debt ceiling would be] absolutely irresponsible.
Lindsey Graham (R, SC): [Failing to raise the debt ceiling] would be very bad for the position of the United States in the world at large, [but I’ll gladly hold it hostage] until a plan is in place [for the nation’s long-term debt that satisfies whatever GOP hobbyhorses are in play on the day in question.]
Austan Goolsbee: This is not a game. The debt ceiling is not something to toy with. […] If we get to the point where you’ve damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity…. There would be no reason for us to default, other than that would be some kind of game. […] We shouldn’t even be discussing [default]. People will get the wrong idea. The United States is not in danger of default…. We do not have problems such as that. This would be lumping us in with a series of countries through history that I don’t think we would want to be lumped in with.
Lemkin: Which of these do you suppose will hold the media and popular opinion in its sway? This is probably the purest expression of GOP nihilism there is. They will destroy the country’s economic footing, irrevocably, and turn us into a land of gentle skin and pelt traders clustered down by the river if they have their way. At least that model eliminates any potential for minor to moderate increases in Social Security taxes on the wealthiest 2% of all future skin and pelt traders clustered down by the river; plus trade at those stands will likely be entirely conducted through valuable metal transfer. And that’s another big big win for their side. And winning the day is what it’s all about.
Day: January 3, 2011
Put it this way: suppose that from here on out we average 4.5 percent growth, which is way above any forecast I’ve seen. Even at that rate, unemployment would be close to 8 percent at the end of 2012, and wouldn’t get below 6 percent until midway through Sarah Palin’s first term.
Paul Krugman brings the optimism while not-so-gently chiding his fellow media travelers’ insistence that all focus be upon what are essentially made up problems of deficit and government spending. Employment is the problem. Fix that and you can work on wage growth and lessening income inequality across the spectrum, lard on some tax reform, and all these so-called existential spending issues and all the hooha over the “right” size of government will evaporate.
Even less clear is why the media forever focuses on the self-funded, no deficit impact at all for at least 40 years Social Security program when they do a story on the horrors of deficits. It’s a story for another post, but maybe (just maybe!) it’s because they don’t plan on needing it. Medicare, on the other hand, they know they need, know is a deficit ballooner, but just don’t care so long as they get theirs. Very Patriotic.
Even less clear is why the media forever focuses on the self-funded, no deficit impact at all for at least 40 years Social Security program when they do a story on the horrors of deficits. It’s a story for another post, but maybe (just maybe!) it’s because they don’t plan on needing it. Medicare, on the other hand, they know they need, know is a deficit ballooner, but just don’t care so long as they get theirs. Very Patriotic.
No, Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves
By Jordan Eizenga
One can understand the attraction for thinking that tax cuts should stimulate higher rates of economic growth. With greater after tax income, workers are more likely to work harder and longer and, facing fewer taxes, entrepreneurs are in a better position to start companies and hire new workers. The problem is that the data does not bear this out either. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a statistical agency in the United States federal government, notes that over the past decade of lower tax rates, the number of business start-ups has actually declined.
Even if tax cuts generated increased economic growth rates, both conservative and liberal economists agree that economic growth would not increase anywhere near enough to offset the cost of the cuts.
The whole thing is absolutely required reading.
Lemkin 