Starve the Beast

[CrusaderFrank]

I see three opinons, two of which are attacks on the messengers; the one by CrusaderFrank is nothing more than the squawk of a parrot.

When was the beast ever starved?

 

[Mustang]

See:

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

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

You should read "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank, published in 2008. It's an in-depth look at how conservatives in power are trying to dismantle the political and economic consensus of the last 3 generations and the methods they're willing to employ to make that happen. They'll appoint incompetents to undermine the effectiveness of (and confidence in) gov't agencies. They'll intentionally run up the debt in an effort for to force massive cuts in popular programs or even force a collapse of the system they're ideologically against.

And, of course, let's not forget the 'privatization' fever of conservatives who propose (and have succeeded in many cases) to turn over gov't operations to private corporations which has no interest in the public interest because their only interest is making money, LOTS of money. The marriage between private corporate interests, campaign contributions, and the reelection prospects (or lack, thereof) of members of both political parties is stunning once you get a glimpse of how Washington DC works and how things get done there.

 

[Foxfyre]

STB proponents never took into account that Obama and Dems would rather have our credit downgraded and never once pass a budget than even thing of cutting spending.

Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that the Republicans have been little better at spending cuts. They generally--there have been exceptions-- just increase spending at a somewhat slower rate.

New's analysis in the Cato piece is spot on. The theory is that if you cut taxes, even though it creates deficits, the deficits themselves will inspire Congress to slow down or reduce spending. The fact is, any dollar that arrives at the U.S. treasury is seen by Congress, regardless of party, as a dollar to be spent. We haven't had a Congress in a long, long time that thought it might be sexy to actually pay down the national debt.

And the Obama administration has thrown all caution to the winds. They don't give a damn how much money came into the Treasury. They were going to spend money as if they had it regardless. They were a Beast that wouldn't exercise any dietary controls whatsoever.

So the STB theory I believe has been thoroughly debunked.

The only way to Starve the Beast is to give it less money to spend AND make it mandatory that it be limited only to the money it has to spend.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

STB proponents never took into account that Obama and Dems would rather have our credit downgraded and never once pass a budget than even thing of cutting spending.

Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that the Republicans have been little better at spending cuts. They just increase spending at a somewhat slower rate.

New's analysis in the Cato piece is spot on. The theory is that if you cut taxes, even though it creates deficits, the deficits themselves will inspire Congress to slow down or reduce spending. The fact is, any dollar that arrives at the U.S. treasury is seen by Congress, regardless of party, as a dollar to be spent. We haven't had a Congress in a long, long time that thought it might be sexy to actually pay down the national debt.

And the Obama administration has thrown all caution to the winds. They don't give a damn how much money came into the Treasury. They were going to spend money as if they had it regardless. They were a Beast that wouldn't exercise any dietary controls whatsoever.

So the STB theory I believe has been thoroughly debunked.

The only way to Starve the Beast is to give it less money to spend AND make it mandatory that it be limited only to the money it has to spend.

It's why I said that if Dante were still handing out spots in The Inferno, he would have put Bush43 down in the Ninth Circle, maybe under Satans ass. He had a chance for real reform and instead he started by letting that fat fucking murderer from MA write the "Education Bill".

Compassionate Conservative...what a fucking fraud

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Wry cutting taxes will NOT starve the beast. That is the flaw of the argument in general. That being said cutting taxes is good for the overall economy in the longrun for many many reasons.

What needs to really be done to "STB" and fix the problem leading to our nation destroying national debt is to force spending and department cuts and department closures, not tax cuts. It is to pass things such as a balanced budget ammendment making it illegall for the federal government to borrow money against our children and grandchildren's future.


Sorry I wasn't more forthcoming originally but I'm just jaded by everyone here and typically know that when I actually take the time to say something like this they will either ignore it, change the subject, or tell me I want to kill my grandma and starve children.

 

[Foxfyre]

STB proponents never took into account that Obama and Dems would rather have our credit downgraded and never once pass a budget than even thing of cutting spending.

Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that the Republicans have been little better at spending cuts. They just increase spending at a somewhat slower rate.

New's analysis in the Cato piece is spot on. The theory is that if you cut taxes, even though it creates deficits, the deficits themselves will inspire Congress to slow down or reduce spending. The fact is, any dollar that arrives at the U.S. treasury is seen by Congress, regardless of party, as a dollar to be spent. We haven't had a Congress in a long, long time that thought it might be sexy to actually pay down the national debt.

And the Obama administration has thrown all caution to the winds. They don't give a damn how much money came into the Treasury. They were going to spend money as if they had it regardless. They were a Beast that wouldn't exercise any dietary controls whatsoever.

So the STB theory I believe has been thoroughly debunked.

The only way to Starve the Beast is to give it less money to spend AND make it mandatory that it be limited only to the money it has to spend.

It's why I said that if Dante were still handing out spots in The Inferno, he would have put Bush43 down in the Ninth Circle, maybe under Satans ass. He had a chance for real reform and instead he started by letting that fat fucking murderer from MA write the "Education Bill".

Compassionate Conservative...what a fucking fraud

I don't hold GWB in as much disregard as you apparently do. I railed against him and Congress when they began meddling in education, when they added more entitlements with that Senior Prescription bill, when he propose amnesty instead of real immigration reform, when he put out an energy bill only Greenpeace and the most environmentally religious liberal zealots could love, when he proved to be weak and ill advised in his prosecution of two wars, his incompetence in handling Katrina, and his flying in the face of the Founders' intent with his faith based initiatives.

But I do believe he intended to be a compassionate conservative. I believe he was sincere and he did have the best interests of the country at heart. I think he loves his country, the people in it, and he meant well. He just didn't have the right stuff to be a conservative President, compassionate or otherwise.

I do wish our current President had at least some of the qualities I did like and appreciate in President Bush. Alas, he seems to be even more incompetent in how to run the government and has none of President Bush's virtues to temper that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those without the time to read the entire piece from Cato.org I suggest scrolling down to the conclusion.

 

[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 should read "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank, published in 2008. It's an in-depth look at how conservatives in power are trying to dismantle the political and economic consensus of the last 3 generations and the methods they're willing to employ to make that happen. They'll appoint incompetents to undermine the effectiveness of (and confidence in) gov't agencies. They'll intentionally run up the debt in an effort for to force massive cuts in popular programs or even force a collapse of the system they're ideologically against.

And, of course, let's not forget the 'privatization' fever of conservatives who propose (and have succeeded in many cases) to turn over gov't operations to private corporations which has no interest in the public interest because their only interest is making money, LOTS of money. The marriage between private corporate interests, campaign contributions, and the reelection prospects (or lack, thereof) of members of both political parties is stunning once you get a glimpse of how Washington DC works and how things get done there.

Thanks, I just checked the county library system, three copies, all checked out. We have a great used book store in town, I'll go down after the ball game tonight and see if they have a copy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that the Republicans have been little better at spending cuts. They just increase spending at a somewhat slower rate.

New's analysis in the Cato piece is spot on. The theory is that if you cut taxes, even though it creates deficits, the deficits themselves will inspire Congress to slow down or reduce spending. The fact is, any dollar that arrives at the U.S. treasury is seen by Congress, regardless of party, as a dollar to be spent. We haven't had a Congress in a long, long time that thought it might be sexy to actually pay down the national debt.

And the Obama administration has thrown all caution to the winds. They don't give a damn how much money came into the Treasury. They were going to spend money as if they had it regardless. They were a Beast that wouldn't exercise any dietary controls whatsoever.

So the STB theory I believe has been thoroughly debunked.

The only way to Starve the Beast is to give it less money to spend AND make it mandatory that it be limited only to the money it has to spend.

It's why I said that if Dante were still handing out spots in The Inferno, he would have put Bush43 down in the Ninth Circle, maybe under Satans ass. He had a chance for real reform and instead he started by letting that fat fucking murderer from MA write the "Education Bill".

Compassionate Conservative...what a fucking fraud

I don't hold GWB in as much disregard as you apparently do. I railed against him and Congress when they began meddling in education, when they added more entitlements with that Senior Prescription bill, when he propose amnesty instead of real immigration reform, when he put out an energy bill only Greenpeace and the most environmentally religious liberal zealots could love, when he proved to be weak and ill advised in his prosecution of two wars, his incompetence in handling Katrina, and his flying in the face of the Founders' intent with his faith based initiatives.

But I do believe he intended to be a compassionate conservative. I believe he was sincere and he did have the best interests of the country at heart. I think he loves his country, the people in it, and he meant well. He just didn't have the right stuff to be a conservative President, compassionate or otherwise.

I do wish our current President had at least some of the qualities I did like and appreciate in President Bush. Alas, he seems to be even more incompetent in how to run the government and has none of President Bush's virtues to temper that.

I have to wonder, are you're dropping LSD? It's the last sentence in the last paragraph which gives me concern.

 

[candycorn]

Well I won't bore you with the concept any further. But if you think the Founders did not intend the people to governm themselves rather than be governed, you are woefully unschooled in their concepts and what they gave us. That they were human with diverse opinions only makes it all more authentic and it in no way gets in the way of the final consensuses on which they all agreed.

And the 17th amendment had nothing at all to do with any of that.

They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.

You're unschooled in reading comprehension.

Please continue to believe otherwise though.

No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.

You're the one saying that the "founders" wanted us to govern ourselves. The Constitution--if you take that as a memorandum set fourth by those same "foudners"--disagrees with you in a great many places (no direct election of Presidents or Senators).

I happen to think the Constitution pretty well sets out the intended role for the federal government. Opinions vary I guess when they don't jibe with the current political paradoxes.

 

[candycorn]

They wanted people to govern themselves but set up the Electoral College and didn't let you vote for Senator; much less SC Judges or Federal judges? The Constitution--written by the founders--disagrees with you vehemently but thats fine; 80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive.

You're unschooled in reading comprehension.

Please continue to believe otherwise though.

No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.

Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?

I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.

We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.

Well, of the 80 percent:

President-Electoral College
Senate-Not until the 17th Amendment could we vote for Senator officially
House-We could vote for
SCOUS-Appointed by President
Federal Judges-Appointed by President

One out of 5 is 20 percent; hence the 80 percent. If you remove the Federal Judgeships, it's 75 percent; remove the SC, it becomes 66 percent not elected by the common man.

The percentages vary but what isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in question is that the founders wanted actual self governance. What they wanted was much more democratic than anything that came before it of course and theres a lot to be said for that.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

Obama did triple the number of troops in Afghanistan, but at least he honored the troop pullout of Iraq that Bush had set up.

 

[Foxfyre]

No I'm not unschooled in reading comprehension. You are apparently unschooled in their concept of self governance and their intended role for the federal government, however.

Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?

I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.

We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.

Well, of the 80 percent:

President-Electoral College
Senate-Not until the 17th Amendment could we vote for Senator officially
House-We could vote for
SCOUS-Appointed by President
Federal Judges-Appointed by President

One out of 5 is 20 percent; hence the 80 percent. If you remove the Federal Judgeships, it's 75 percent; remove the SC, it becomes 66 percent not elected by the common man.

The percentages vary but what isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in question is that the founders wanted actual self governance. What they wanted was much more democratic than anything that came before it of course and theres a lot to be said for that.

As long as you are concerned with who and how the government is elected and/or appointed rather than understand what the government was and was not intended to do, you won't understand the concept of self governance.

 

[Erand7899]

The founders were the big government Liberals of their day. Presentism leads you astray on that one.

Nonsense! The founders created a union with limited powers for the federal government. It has taken highly educated, though severely misguided, lawyers to seek out and exploit the weaknesses in the wording of that contract.

Many liberal/socialists seem to have difficulty discriminating between the various levels of government. States have the power to do things that the federal government is not legally able to do. The founders envisioned a framework where the individual and soverign states would look to the needs of their citizens.

For the past eighty years, congress has been steadily usurpting the powers retained by the states, while delegating its own powers to a steadily growing bureaucracy.

 

[Mustang]

See:

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

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

You should read "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank, published in 2008. It's an in-depth look at how conservatives in power are trying to dismantle the political and economic consensus of the last 3 generations and the methods they're willing to employ to make that happen. They'll appoint incompetents to undermine the effectiveness of (and confidence in) gov't agencies. They'll intentionally run up the debt in an effort for to force massive cuts in popular programs or even force a collapse of the system they're ideologically against.

And, of course, let's not forget the 'privatization' fever of conservatives who propose (and have succeeded in many cases) to turn over gov't operations to private corporations which has no interest in the public interest because their only interest is making money, LOTS of money. The marriage between private corporate interests, campaign contributions, and the reelection prospects (or lack, thereof) of members of both political parties is stunning once you get a glimpse of how Washington DC works and how things get done there.

Thanks, I just checked the county library system, three copies, all checked out. We have a great used book store in town, I'll go down after the ball game tonight and see if they have a copy.

There's also a lot about Abramoff, the college Republicans (where he got his start), and institutional corruption.

It's the third book written by Frank that I've read after "What's the Matter with Kansas" (the best of the 3) and "Pity the Billionaire." "The Wrecking Crew" was the most shocking book for me because even though I didn't consider myself naive, I wasn't prepared to seriously consider to what extremes conservatives were willing to go in order to further their agenda.

Jonas Savimbi's connections to conservatives (like Abramoff and the Heritage Foundation) was also an eye-opener. And, of course, the conservative love-fest with the Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands (an American possession) despite their systematic abuse of guest workers was another eye-opener, esp since of the young female workers eventually worked as prostitutes with the full knowledge of the government. It was a conservative businessman's paradise with cheap foreign labor, made-in-America labels because of it's status as an American possession, and lots of young girls to have sex with after hours.
After I finish the current nonfiction book I'm reading (Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"), I'll likely start Frank's "One Market, Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy" published in 2000 which, among other things, condemned a lack of regulation and the widening split between rich and poor a decade before the crash and the OWS movement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

What you’ve demonstrated by your surprise in the context of the OP’s political views is likely an incorrect inference of those views, the old ‘tax and deficit spend liberal’ myth.

Liberals and progressives are as concerned about fiscal responsibility as any other political ideology; they want to see deficits eliminated, waste done away with, and the government to function within its means.

Your incorrect inference is likely based on the fact that liberals and progressives are not blind radical fanatics about it.

Debt reduction and issues concerning inefficiency and waste must be addressed in a responsible, pragmatic manner – ‘baby with the bath-water’ type of thing. It’s not a matter of whether or not to cut, but what to cut in a responsible manner.

 

[candycorn]

Both Candycorn and I have questioned your historical interpretation of our Nations history. Would you care to continue to defend your opinions and respond to our specifics?

I can offer many more examples too, though I suspect Candycorn's observation that, "80% of the people "governing" you are either elected by others or appointed by the Executive" is a spot on refutation of your opinions as well as the opinion of many on the right.

We are free as a people, such freedoms are guaranteed by the law of our land. But that law (the US Constitution) is vague in spots and ambiguous in others, evidenced by the historical disagreements among learned justices.

Well, of the 80 percent:

President-Electoral College
Senate-Not until the 17th Amendment could we vote for Senator officially
House-We could vote for
SCOUS-Appointed by President
Federal Judges-Appointed by President

One out of 5 is 20 percent; hence the 80 percent. If you remove the Federal Judgeships, it's 75 percent; remove the SC, it becomes 66 percent not elected by the common man.

The percentages vary but what isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in question is that the founders wanted actual self governance. What they wanted was much more democratic than anything that came before it of course and theres a lot to be said for that.

As long as you are concerned with who and how the government is elected and/or appointed rather than understand what the government was and was not intended to do, you won't understand the concept of self governance.

Corrected...

"As long as you only understand the details, and the written words you won't get the BS I'm trying to say."--Foxy

Sorry dear, the Constitution disagrees with your view of the "founder" intent. Pretty starkly too I might add.

 

[francoHFW]

The founders were the big government Liberals of their day. Presentism leads you astray on that one.

Nonsense! The founders created a union with limited powers for the federal government. It has taken highly educated, though severely misguided, lawyers to seek out and exploit the weaknesses in the wording of that contract.

Many liberal/socialists seem to have difficulty discriminating between the various levels of government. States have the power to do things that the federal government is not legally able to do. The founders envisioned a framework where the individual and soverign states would look to the needs of their citizens.

For the past eighty years, congress has been steadily usurpting the powers retained by the
states, while delegating its own powers to a steadily growing bureaucracy.

Bullshytte, presentist. Compare the number of rules, regulation, laws, written rights compared to any kingdom in the world in 1789. How many liberal constitutional republics do you think there WERE in 1789? LOL!

Read "The Good Old Days- They were TERRIBLE! I'm damn glad gov't has organs to protect the citizenry from Pub a-holes. Take the blinders off. Do you prefer 16 hour days, debtors prison, potters fields,45 year life span, and poorhouses?

States Rights became defending slavery of ALL kinds, racism, owners' rights,etc about 170 years ago. I hate state rights' regressive and obnoxious effects.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It would probably help if you actually had a message.

The article starts with a false premise, and then argues for a fantasy world that never existed, and them whines because Republicans want to start from where we are instead of from a place that never existed. What message are we supposed to get from that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, of the 80 percent:

President-Electoral College
Senate-Not until the 17th Amendment could we vote for Senator officially
House-We could vote for
SCOUS-Appointed by President
Federal Judges-Appointed by President

One out of 5 is 20 percent; hence the 80 percent. If you remove the Federal Judgeships, it's 75 percent; remove the SC, it becomes 66 percent not elected by the common man.

The percentages vary but what isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in question is that the founders wanted actual self governance. What they wanted was much more democratic than anything that came before it of course and theres a lot to be said for that.

As long as you are concerned with who and how the government is elected and/or appointed rather than understand what the government was and was not intended to do, you won't understand the concept of self governance.

Corrected...

"As long as you only understand the details, and the written words you won't get the BS I'm trying to say."--Foxy

Sorry dear, the Constitution disagrees with your view of the "founder" intent. Pretty starkly too I might add.

I accept that as your wrong opinion.