Buchanan on the budget fight.

[CID1990]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44714" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44714

1. WE DO NOT HAVE TO RAISE TAXES TO SOLVE THE SPENDING PROBLEM.
2. Raising taxes is for political expediency and gamesmanship, not revenue generation. Any revenue generation would most likely be offset by lowered economic growth.
3. The liberals' oft-recalled halcyon days of post-WWII high taxes, high union membership and high growth were a short-term, one-off phenomenon which occurred ONLY because the rest of the industrialized world's economic infrastructure had been bombed to smithereens and we were the only industrial base left standing.
4. For most of our history, taxes have been extremely low and the result has been robust economic growth.
5. Our country could succeed with genuine tax reform, but not with tax hikes.

[Ivytalk]

Pat got this one 100% right.

[TheDancinMonarch]

2. Raising taxes is for political expediency and gamesmanship, not revenue generation. Any revenue generation would most likely be offset by lowered economic growth.

According to Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, eliminating the Bush/O'Bama tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year "would cut deficits by $700 billion over a decade". So in 20 years we would be close to filling this years $1.6 trillion deficit if we executed that plan.

So the terms "political expediency and gamesmanship" do not even come close to describing the situation.

The Robinson column link.
http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/OLIVE/OD ... w=ZW50aXR5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

2. Raising taxes is for political expediency and gamesmanship, not revenue generation. Any revenue generation would most likely be offset by lowered economic growth.

According to Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, eliminating the Bush/O'Bama tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year "would cut deficits by $700 billion over a decade". So in 20 years we would be close to filling this years $1.6 trillion deficit if we executed that plan.

So the terms "political expediency and gamesmanship" do not even come close to describing the situation.

The Robinson column link.
http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/OLIVE/OD ... w=ZW50aXR5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great point, DM. Mr. Robinson is a political commentator who represents the progressive lunacy prevalent among the political class. He is not an economist. His political analysis lacks historical depth and fails to take take economic growth factors into consideration.

[houndawg]

According to Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, eliminating the Bush/O'Bama tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year "would cut deficits by $700 billion over a decade". So in 20 years we would be close to filling this years $1.6 trillion deficit if we executed that plan.

So the terms "political expediency and gamesmanship" do not even come close to describing the situation.

The Robinson column link.
http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/OLIVE/OD ... w=ZW50aXR5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great point, DM. Mr. Robinson is a political commentator who represents the progressive lunacy prevalent among the political class, not an economist. His political analysis both historical depth and fails to take take economic growth factors into consideration.

I don't see what is so great about the point. Calling a guy "not an economist" is like calling him "not an astrologer".

[OL FU]

Great point, DM. Mr. Robinson is a political commentator who represents the progressive lunacy prevalent among the political class, not an economist. His political analysis both historical depth and fails to take take economic growth factors into consideration.

I don't see what is so great about the point. Calling a guy "not an economist" is like calling him "not an astrologer".

I think Eugene would make a pretty good astrologer

[BDKJMU]

"In 1982, President Reagan agreed to the same deal being offered the party today: three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases to which he assented. As he ruefully told this writer more than once, he was lied to. He got one dollar in spending cuts for every three in tax increases."

If the Republicans cave, that's exactly what will happen- will end up with the tax increases but not the spending cuts.

You have all these talking heads talking about how bad it will be economically if the debt ceiling isn't raised. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there won't be a default- The fed will still bring in plenty of $ to make the interest payments.

Sure, we could have some severe pain right now, but you are only talking a relative short term- in years. If the spending whores in Congress (mostly on the donk side of the isle but some on the conk side too) aren't restrained and are allowed to keep kicking the can down the road by continued to deficit spend and increase the national debt, this country will eventually reach an economic cliff that will require austerity measures that will make Greece look like child's play. This would cause FAR MORE economic pain over a much longer period- decades, than we would face now if the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

[Skjellyfetti]

Mr. Buchanan is a political commentator who represents the conservative lunacy prevalent among the political class. He is not an economist. His political analysis lacks historical depth and fails to take take economic growth factors into consideration.

[SDHornet]

I haven’t been following the budget deal very closely but it has been playing out pretty much as I suspected it…political grandstanding and typical political finger pointing.

Someone break it down to us common folk. How bad will a “default” be and what exactly will happen if a deal isn’t cut?