Starve the Beast

[Foxfyre]

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

So...ALL of the founders felt the same way? Unlikely.

Yes. Did all the people of the late 18th century feel that way? Of course not. Many of the landed and more wealthy people did not want war with England or to ruffle the feathers of the crown who favored them.

But among the Founders, certainly there were differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, how strong the central government should be, how revenues to run the government would be collected and who would provide them, how the powers related to the federal government would be allocated among the various state, etc. But they sat down eyeball to eyeball, debated, discussed, and worked it all out until they had a Constitution that all could pledge to support, promote, and defend. It took them six long years of discussion, debate, negotiation, compromise, and deliberation to achieve that document. And most of another year to achieve ratification by the states.

All the Founders, to a man, believed in the concept of unalienable rights and that people were free only when they were free to choose their own destiny and be allowed to suffer or benefit from the consequences of the choices they made. In other words they agreed, to a man, that the federal government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would be the first people on Earth who would have their unalienable rights recognized and protected and who would then be free to govern ourselves.

The concept made us unique among all nations that had ever existed--American exceptionalism--and produced the most productive, innovative, creative, prosperous, and free people the world had ever known.

And we now have an element in our society who seem to want to undo the entire concept and return us to the authority of and submission to a government who will often not have our best interests at heart because it is not the nature of government to care about the governed as much as it cares about the government.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm as anti Frank's party as I am anti yours.

But thank you for agreeing, whatever the reasoning, that Obama's economic policies are exactly what the author was speaking out against.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post and exactly why I'm surprised that you're advertising economic policies that go 100% against the man that I've never even seen you question once on the board. The Obama.

The man who says FU on a message board providing a lecture on maturity. Adorable.

Don't patronize and you won't get an angry response. So, you're an Independent meaning you don't support the Democratic or Republican Party. But, if you vote you have no choice unless you wish to toss your vote away. But I digress. What should Obama do (have done) in the face of McConnell 'think'; Boehner's incompetence and Cantor's radicalism?

You spoke down to me before i spoke down to you sir. Yes I'm an independent, and yes I'll be wasting my vote IF I vote. You will also be wasting your vote, Romney or Obama won't make any difference just like Obama or Bush didn't make any difference.

Obama should've made huge, enormous, drastic spending cuts. Then after we used the extra money to pay off our debts and create a surplus, he should've drastically cut taxes.

But we both know that won't happen. He'll continue racking up the credit card and approving more and more spending that we'll never be able to afford.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't patronize and you won't get an angry response. So, you're an Independent meaning you don't support the Democratic or Republican Party. But, if you vote you have no choice unless you wish to toss your vote away. But I digress. What should Obama do (have done) in the face of McConnell 'think'; Boehner's incompetence and Cantor's radicalism?

You spoke down to me before i spoke down to you sir. Yes I'm an independent, and yes I'll be wasting my vote IF I vote. You will also be wasting your vote, Romney or Obama won't make any difference just like Obama or Bush didn't make any difference.

Obama should've made huge, enormous, drastic spending cuts. Then after we used the extra money to pay off our debts and create a surplus, he should've drastically cut taxes.

But we both know that won't happen. He'll continue racking up the credit card and approving more and more spending that we'll never be able to afford.

I respect your opinion about Romney though I disagree with it. But, while I didn't think a tax cut necessarily necessary, Obama could have done wonders to reduce spending or at least not incvrease it, and could have worked to equalize the tax code instead of working to make it even more unequal. And of course he didn't.

But you won't waste your vote casting it for Romney. Even if he tried, he could not be as economically naive as Obama. Or as dishonest. Or as irresponsible. Or as beholden to special interests.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Spending cuts would go much further in fixing the problem than anything with taxes, it can't be solved with taxation changes alone.

Just sayin.............

 

[Old Rocks]

See:

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

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

Good article.

 

[Staidhup]

Love the part about taming the beast, unfortunately historical data implies the exact opposite, the beast grows stronger and bolder with the passing of each year. Greatest good is interesting, what is implied by the greater good, a free ride, furthermore on who's dime? The government was not designed to be a means in itself to cure all that ails the country only to insure freedom, commerce, defense, and protection of property rights of it's citizens. The open free market is, if given a chance, the vehicle designed to promote investment in the standard of living, rewards and punishes poor decision making, and drives innovation and demand. The problem we face, by an ever expanding beast, is that it has evolved into becoming the puppet master. Now we are faced with the potential of defaulting on promises and guarantees made by government to it's citizens at the behest of congress that are clearly unattainable and financially unsustainable. Freeze taxes, lift the social security earned income cap, privatize social security, cut business taxes, revise and simplify the tax code, and give the free market a chance to do what it was designed to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See:

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

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

Good article.

And wrong in the trillions column too!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Love the part about taming the beast, unfortunately historical data implies the exact opposite, the beast grows stronger and bolder with the passing of each year. Greatest good is interesting, what is implied by the greater good, a free ride, furthermore on who's dime? The government was not designed to be a means in itself to cure all that ails the country only to insure freedom, commerce, defense, and protection of property rights of it's citizens. The open free market is, if given a chance, the vehicle designed to promote investment in the standard of living, rewards and punishes poor decision making, and drives innovation and demand. The problem we face, by an ever expanding beast, is that it has evolved into becoming the puppet master. Now we are faced with the potential of defaulting on promises and guarantees made by government to it's citizens at the behest of congress that are clearly unattainable and financially unsustainable. Freeze taxes, lift the social security earned income cap, privatize social security, cut business taxes, revise and simplify the tax code, and give the free market a chance to do what it was designed to do.

Socialism is cool, as long as someone else is paying for everything

 

[Foxfyre]

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

I don't believe anyone knows what the Founder's intended. The Constitution was a document created through compromise framed by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. They (if one can generalize) feared both a too strong and a too weak central government.

The Supreme Court will decide what is and what is not Constitutional. But keep in mind the men and women who now sit on the Court will be judged by their replacements - so, notwithstanding the Originalist's Argument, the Constitution is a living document.

But that debate is for another thread, on topic a government, IMO, must focus on policies which offer the greatest good for the greatest number. Oligarchies of the left and right do not meet that standard.

Obviously those who have not read the massive amount of manuscripts in the way of speeches, opinion, testimony, and letters that the Founders left us will not have any idea of what the Founders intended. Those of us who HAVE read all those manuscripts have a very clear idea of what the Founders intended.

And what they, to a man intended, was a government that would never be a beast that needed to be starved.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Spending cuts would go much further in fixing the problem than anything with taxes, it can't be solved with taxation changes alone.

Just sayin.............

We all agree spending cuts are necessary, but which spending cuts and how much, and whose taxes are to be raised and how much?

IMO we got to where we are not by accident, but as an intentional policy of don't tax and spend. Why isn't important nor is who or how. The queston is what must be done today to stave off the collapse of our economy and/or civil unrest?

The answer is simple. Raise revenue and reduce spending. The policy I support is one which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

Spending cuts would go much further in fixing the problem than anything with taxes, it can't be solved with taxation changes alone.

Just sayin.............

We all agree spending cuts are necessary, but which spending cuts and how much, and whose taxes are to be raised and how much?

IMO we got to where we are not by accident, but as an intentional policy of don't tax and spend. Why isn't important nor is who or how. The queston is what must be done today to stave off the collapse of our economy and/or civil unrest?

The answer is simple. Raise revenue and reduce spending. The policy I support is one which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

In what universe?

Please show me where Congress has EVER cut spending in return for increased revenues via taxes?

It has NEVER happened. And the odds of it happening in our lifetime are virtually nil.

The answer is to pull the plug on Congress's ability to spend the money. It will require a grass roots effort to call a successful Constitutional convention. But as long as those in government can use our money to increase their own power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth, they ain't gonna reform themselves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

I don't believe anyone knows what the Founder's intended. The Constitution was a document created through compromise framed by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. They (if one can generalize) feared both a too strong and a too weak central government.

The Supreme Court will decide what is and what is not Constitutional. But keep in mind the men and women who now sit on the Court will be judged by their replacements - so, notwithstanding the Originalist's Argument, the Constitution is a living document.

But that debate is for another thread, on topic a government, IMO, must focus on policies which offer the greatest good for the greatest number. Oligarchies of the left and right do not meet that standard.

Obviously those who have not read the massive amount of manuscripts in the way of speeches, opinion, testimony, and letters that the Founders left us will not have any idea of what the Founders intended. Those of us who HAVE read all those manuscripts have a very clear idea of what the Founders intended.

And what they, to a man intended, was a government that would never be a beast that needed to be starved.

In all of your reading did you miss the differences which existed between the Federalists and the Antifederalists?

 

[zeke]

Wry Catcher, I have been reading you since a stray cat crossed your path.

After reading the article, I can see the logic that would have been attractive back in the beginning.

And I can see where the logic was faulty and the reverse has happened.

However, IF I were in the ultra wealthy group, I would fight just as hard as they have to keep more and more of my money. I would be as overcome with greed as any of them.
The ultra wealthy are the only ones with the money to insulate themselves from the idiocy of the Congress. And they do insulate themselves, with political donations and lobbyists and bribes and promises etc. Stuff that I can't do.

I don't mind living in a plutocracy. But I wouldn't die for it.

It is what it is but I respect your dedication to your good for everyone ideals. I just don't think its gonna happen again. The plutocracy is here to stay.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Spending cuts would go much further in fixing the problem than anything with taxes, it can't be solved with taxation changes alone.

Just sayin.............

We all agree spending cuts are necessary, but which spending cuts and how much, and whose taxes are to be raised and how much?

IMO we got to where we are not by accident, but as an intentional policy of don't tax and spend. Why isn't important nor is who or how. The queston is what must be done today to stave off the collapse of our economy and/or civil unrest?

The answer is simple. Raise revenue and reduce spending. The policy I support is one which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

And those are the questions which no one in washington seems to want to even address.

In my opinion we need to cut EVERYTHING in government from the military to welfare to the salaries of elected officials and the stipends we give them. We even need to eliminate any redundant or inneffective agencies. Yes I know doing that will lose some people their jobs but if we are paying them to not do anything then they shouldn't have that job at the taxpayers expense.

Like you said the answer IS simple, raise revenues and cut spending. There are ways to raise revenues without doing so in a way that will negatively impact the economy or outside investements in our country, which is something the Buffet Rule would have done (scare away investors due to higher cap gains taxes they would have to pay to us here than other countries they could invest in like china).

Nothing is off the table in terms of cuts, nothing. I'm a big fan of closing our bases in countries like Germany (unless they agree to pay all of our logistical expenses...fuel, property, housing) for stationing a defensive force in their country for them. If not bring them home, stick them along our borders instead to help protect our sovereignty.

I have many other ideas.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Spending cuts would go much further in fixing the problem than anything with taxes, it can't be solved with taxation changes alone.

Just sayin.............

We all agree spending cuts are necessary, but which spending cuts and how much, and whose taxes are to be raised and how much?

IMO we got to where we are not by accident, but as an intentional policy of don't tax and spend. Why isn't important nor is who or how. The queston is what must be done today to stave off the collapse of our economy and/or civil unrest?

The answer is simple. Raise revenue and reduce spending. The policy I support is one which provides the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

In what universe?

Please show me where Congress has EVER cut spending in return for increased revenues via taxes?

It has NEVER happened. And the odds of it happening in our lifetime are virtually nil.

The answer is to pull the plug on Congress's ability to spend the money. It will require a grass roots effort to call a successful Constitutional convention. But as long as those in government can use our money to increase their own power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth, they ain't gonna reform themselves.

3 words: Balanced Budget Ammendment.

Force the federal government, through constitutional law, to actually behave with OUR (The citizens) money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry Catcher, I have been reading you since a stray cat crossed your path.

After reading the article, I can see the logic that would have been attractive back in the beginning.

And I can see where the logic was faulty and the reverse has happened.

However, IF I were in the ultra wealthy group, I would fight just as hard as they have to keep more and more of my money. I would be as overcome with greed as any of them.
The ultra wealthy are the only ones with the money to insulate themselves from the idiocy of the Congress. And they do insulate themselves, with political donations and lobbyists and bribes and promises etc. Stuff that I can't do.

I don't mind living in a plutocracy. But I wouldn't die for it.

It is what it is but I respect your dedication to your good for everyone ideals. I just don't think its gonna happen again. The plutocracy is here to stay.

Sadly I agree. The final nail in the coffin of Democracy in America was driven home by Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas. CU v. FEC gave control of our elections to the 1%.

Your comment, "I wouldn't die for it" is belied by history. Many conscripts died for Kings and despots not by choice. I understand the sentiment, and not being an alarmist I don't think it will happen here in the short term. I think the age of the extreme conservative has peaked, the overreach in Wisconsin and Ohio, Florida and the House of Representatives may have awakened the voters and the pendulum will swing back to the center come November.

PS, the post by PP above speaks to a balanced budget amendment, something most states require. I would ask those who support such an idea how our government would react to a national crisis? With no funds to put in motion a massive effort we might be signing the death warrant of our citizens and maybe our nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe anyone knows what the Founder's intended. The Constitution was a document created through compromise framed by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. They (if one can generalize) feared both a too strong and a too weak central government.

The Supreme Court will decide what is and what is not Constitutional. But keep in mind the men and women who now sit on the Court will be judged by their replacements - so, notwithstanding the Originalist's Argument, the Constitution is a living document.

But that debate is for another thread, on topic a government, IMO, must focus on policies which offer the greatest good for the greatest number. Oligarchies of the left and right do not meet that standard.

Obviously those who have not read the massive amount of manuscripts in the way of speeches, opinion, testimony, and letters that the Founders left us will not have any idea of what the Founders intended. Those of us who HAVE read all those manuscripts have a very clear idea of what the Founders intended.

And what they, to a man intended, was a government that would never be a beast that needed to be starved.

In all of your reading did you miss the differences which existed between the Federalists and the Antifederalists?

Of course I have read and discussed both, which I do not believe for a minute you have done just based on your posts. But it was the differences between the federalists and anti-federalists, the pro slavery vs the anti-slavery, and various other serious points of disagreement that required that long six year process of debate, persuasion, and negotiations until they could all come to a meeting of the minds.

It was the very caliber of those amazing and ruggedly individualistic people that allowed them to come to a consensus re what our Constitution would be and what it was intended to accomplish. But for the most part they debated the concepts instead of attempting to trash those who disagreed.

Wouldn't it be a great thing to have their ability to debate concepts now instead of the partisan hyperbole and ugly childish nonsense that usually occurs?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obviously those who have not read the massive amount of manuscripts in the way of speeches, opinion, testimony, and letters that the Founders left us will not have any idea of what the Founders intended. Those of us who HAVE read all those manuscripts have a very clear idea of what the Founders intended.

And what they, to a man intended, was a government that would never be a beast that needed to be starved.

In all of your reading did you miss the differences which existed between the Federalists and the Antifederalists?

Of course I have read and discussed both, which I do not believe for a minute you have done just based on your posts. But it was the differences between the federalists and anti-federalists, the pro slavery vs the anti-slavery, and various other serious points of disagreement that required that long six year process of debate, persuasion, and negotiations until they could all come to a meeting of the minds.

It was the very caliber of those amazing and ruggedly individualistic people that allowed them to come to a consensus re what our Constitution would be and what it was intended to accomplish. But for the most part they debated the concepts instead of attempting to trash those who disagreed.

Wouldn't it be a great thing to have their ability to debate concepts now instead of the partisan hyperbole and ugly childish nonsense that usually occurs?

Dumas Malone, Jefferson's biographer wrote, "No other statesman has personified national power and the rule of the favored few so well as Hamilton, and no other has glorified self-government and the freedom of the individual to such a degree as Jefferson"; is this the meeting of the minds to which you referred?

Those "amazing and ruggedly individualistic people" were no different than pols today. The attendees in Philadelphia in 1787 did not represent the common man, they were for the most part wealthy businessmen from the North and wealthy slaveholding plantation owners from the South. How many of today''s members of Congress are Millionaires?

 

[candycorn]

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

So...ALL of the founders felt the same way? Unlikely.

Yes. Did all the people of the late 18th century feel that way? Of course not. Many of the landed and more wealthy people did not want war with England or to ruffle the feathers of the crown who favored them.

But among the Founders, certainly there were differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, how strong the central government should be, how revenues to run the government would be collected and who would provide them, how the powers related to the federal government would be allocated among the various state, etc. But they sat down eyeball to eyeball, debated, discussed, and worked it all out until they had a Constitution that all could pledge to support, promote, and defend. It took them six long years of discussion, debate, negotiation, compromise, and deliberation to achieve that document. And most of another year to achieve ratification by the states.

All the Founders, to a man, believed in the concept of unalienable rights and that people were free only when they were free to choose their own destiny and be allowed to suffer or benefit from the consequences of the choices they made. In other words they agreed, to a man, that the federal government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would be the first people on Earth who would have their unalienable rights recognized and protected and who would then be free to govern ourselves.

The concept made us unique among all nations that had ever existed--American exceptionalism--and produced the most productive, innovative, creative, prosperous, and free people the world had ever known.

And we now have an element in our society who seem to want to undo the entire concept and return us to the authority of and submission to a government who will often not have our best interests at heart because it is not the nature of government to care about the governed as much as it cares about the government.

So the answer is "no", good thanks.

Yet somehow, you decode what "they" thought and broadcast it time and again.

Why don't you be honest and say, "The founders I agree with thought this...."? It won't carry as much weight of course but it will be more correct.

PS: your foolish thought that the "founders" wanted the people to rule is a misnomer. If you would endeavor to read the 17th Amendment--passed less than 100 years ago--it was only then you could vote for Senator.

Just one of the many ways you're wrong when invoking "the founders" tripe you bring up on a daily basis.

 

[candycorn]

Wry Catcher, I have been reading you since a stray cat crossed your path.

After reading the article, I can see the logic that would have been attractive back in the beginning.

And I can see where the logic was faulty and the reverse has happened.

However, IF I were in the ultra wealthy group, I would fight just as hard as they have to keep more and more of my money. I would be as overcome with greed as any of them.
The ultra wealthy are the only ones with the money to insulate themselves from the idiocy of the Congress. And they do insulate themselves, with political donations and lobbyists and bribes and promises etc. Stuff that I can't do.

I don't mind living in a plutocracy. But I wouldn't die for it.

It is what it is but I respect your dedication to your good for everyone ideals. I just don't think its gonna happen again. The plutocracy is here to stay.

Sadly I agree. The final nail in the coffin of Democracy in America was driven home by Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas. CU v. FEC gave control of our elections to the 1%.

Your comment, "I wouldn't die for it" is belied by history. Many conscripts died for Kings and despots not by choice. I understand the sentiment, and not being an alarmist I don't think it will happen here in the short term. I think the age of the extreme conservative has peaked, the overreach in Wisconsin and Ohio, Florida and the House of Representatives may have awakened the voters and the pendulum will swing back to the center come November.

PS, the post by PP above speaks to a balanced budget amendment, something most states require. I would ask those who support such an idea how our government would react to a national crisis? With no funds to put in motion a massive effort we might be signing the death warrant of our citizens and maybe our nation.

Not the final nail; but a definite "what the fuck were they thinking" moment. Money="free" speech. Yeah...okay.