Starve the Beast

[Wry Catcher]

See:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

It's an easy read and a short but comprehensive review of recent history.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When was the beast ever starved?

The article is moronic and wrong, the beast was never starved, Bush 41 was NEVER Reagan's hand picked successor and the Democrat controlled Congress outright lied to Reagan about spending cuts

If you want to trace the problem, better to educate yourself on how Democrats used a crippled Nixon Presidency to neuter the Executive Office power over the budget with the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

 

[Claudette]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

maybe you can starts yet another STB thread?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, tax cuts have INCREASED government revenues, so Bartlett is wrong in the trillions column

 

[Wiseacre]

I wouldn't cut taxes, I'd cut spending. I'd change the business climate in this country to be more receptive to new businesses and investments, and get more revenue just by employing better tactics to get the economy growing again. I'd do revenue neutral tax reform for both individuals and companies, and I'd permanently allow profits earned abroad to be brought back into the US tax free. I would not allow spending levels to increase until and unless the deficit was less than the previous year's GDP growth. And if you blow it one year (emergencies) you have to make up the difference in the following year. And I'd require an act of Congress passed by 2/3 in both Houses to exceed the spending cap.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

You accusing others of being an echo chamber, that's rich lol.

My point was before you threw yourself into victim-mode, was how can you agree with the article and have unwavering, unquestioning support for a man who's views are the complete opposite of what the article's author preaches?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The entire tax code needs to be scrapped and redone.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

Starve the Beast is right? You need to offer more than your opinion. Base your affirmative statement with some evidence and some projection on who benefits, who suffers?

 

[Meister]

See:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

It's an easy read and a short but comprehensive review of recent history.

You need to offer more than just a link.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

You accusing others of being an echo chamber, that's rich lol.

My point was before you threw yourself into victim-mode, was how can you agree with the article and have unwavering, unquestioning support for a man who's views are the complete opposite of what the article's author preaches?

I have no idea what you asked; and I'm not a victim. By the time I was 26 I had more to do than spend hours on a message board; at 26 I had completed service to my country, held a graduate degree, was employed as a law enforcement officer, was married and had purchased a home. So FU and your patronizing remarks, now try to phrase your question in standard English.

 

[Mr Natural]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

And that goes for these idiotic wars we get ourselves into because of our dick-waving foreign policy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

Starve the Beast is right? You need to offer more than your opinion. Base your affirmative statement with some evidence and some projection on who benefits, who suffers?

We haven't had a libertarian economy in a long long time, back when we didn't have a completely unstable economy.

Having money in american's pockets instead of gov't accounts would be good for everyone. You, me, everyone.

But you haven't stated your views on the economy. On one hand you support Obama who believes in out of control spending, running up debt and higher deficits. The article preaches the opposite, so who do you support? The author or Obama?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

And that goes for these idiotic wars we get ourselves into because of our dick-waving foreign policy.

Very true, it'd be nice if one of our political parties wasn't full of warmongers.

 

[Mr Natural]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

And that goes for these idiotic wars we get ourselves into because of our dick-waving foreign policy.

Very true, it'd be nice if one of our political parties wasn't full of warmongers.

There's big money in war.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

You accusing others of being an echo chamber, that's rich lol.

My point was before you threw yourself into victim-mode, was how can you agree with the article and have unwavering, unquestioning support for a man who's views are the complete opposite of what the article's author preaches?

I have no idea what you asked; and I'm not a victim. By the time I was 26 I had more to do than spend hours on a message board; at 26 I had completed service to my country, held a graduate degree, was employed as a law enforcement officer, was married and had purchased a home. So FU and your patronizing remarks, now try to phrase your question in standard English.

Lol damn, even more sensitive than usual today.

Good work on not being a hypocrite though. Here you say FU to me, then right below that, you bitch about republicans saying the same thing to you in your signature.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

It's an easy read and a short but comprehensive review of recent history.

You need to offer more than just a link.

I do? Why? The article spells out a policy the Republicans have followed since 1978, it is clear, concise and open for debate. Did you read it?

 

[Meister]

See:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

It's an easy read and a short but comprehensive review of recent history.

You need to offer more than just a link.

I do? Why? The article spells out a policy the Republicans have followed since 1978, it is clear, concise and open for debate. Did you read it?

Just an observation....you hammer a person for his opinion and nothing to back it up. You offer a link to an article and yet, you do not respond to the article. Stick your neck out there, give your opinion and let the debate begin, wry. I could care less about the thread...mainly because it comes from you, and your a bleeding hear socialist that just likes to talk about your accomplishments in life, time after time, after time.