Lexington on Republicans and the Debt Ceiling

“Even Reagan, a supply-sider persuaded by Arthur Laffer’s pretty curves that tax cuts would pay for themselves, raised taxes when they did not. Today’s Republicans show no such flexibility.”

“Now the Republicans are using the spectre of a debt default to impose their own radical vision of how to reform America, before having won control of the Senate, the White House or even, many will say, the argument.”

Typical left-wing media propaganda. But what else do you expect from The Economist?

Author: Keith Humphreys

Keith Humphreys is the Esther Ting Memorial Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University and an Honorary Professor of Psychiatry at Kings College Lonon. His research, teaching and writing have focused on addictive disorders, self-help organizations (e.g., breast cancer support groups, Alcoholics Anonymous), evaluation research methods, and public policy related to health care, mental illness, veterans, drugs, crime and correctional systems. Professor Humphreys' over 300 scholarly articles, monographs and books have been cited over ten thousand times by scientific colleagues. He is a regular contributor to Washington Post and has also written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Monthly, San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian (UK), The Telegraph (UK), Times Higher Education (UK), Crossbow (UK) and other media outlets.

4 thoughts on “Lexington on Republicans and the Debt Ceiling”

  1. The Economist is published in the United Kingdom.
    The UK is part of the EU.
    The EU is socialist.
    Therefore, the Economist is socialist.

    -The collected syllogisms of Michelle Bachman.

  2. The GOP understands more than ever what tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation of industry have done for this nation so they see no reason to change course now.

  3. The Economist is just talking its book. If interest rates go up substantially as a result of uncertainty, the value of treasuries issued at low rates goes down substantially (especially for the longer-term notes). The Economist does not want to see its subscribers lose, say, several hundred billion dollars. (And that, remember, is the good-outcome scenario, where temporary default of a few days or months doesn’t have any second-order effects.)

Comments are closed.