Starve the Beast

[candycorn]

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.

The facts are on my side. You have nothing. Never stopped you before; carry on.

 

[Chris]

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion. If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.

 

[Chris]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is the same now as when Reagan was in office....23%. But since the financial crisis in 2008, revenues as a share of GDP have hit 60-year lows, coming in at around 15%. And yet the Republicans signed the Grover Norquist "tax pledge" not to raise taxes.

Grover Norquist is the man who is destroying America.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Oh didn't you hear, Jesus and Einstein were liberals too

 

[KissMy]

The idea of starving the beast is stupid. There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an interest & inflation tax. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation. Inflation destroys your wealth more than taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The idea of starving the beast is stupid. There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an interest & inflation tax. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation. Inflation destroys your wealth more than taxes.

Tax cuts do not add to the deficit, spending more money adds to the deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't starve the beast when the beast has a credit card.

Stop cutting taxes without getting spending cuts; stop adding spending without raising taxes to pay for it.

That will tame the beast.

 

[KissMy]

The way to starve the beast is to cut deficit spending & debt.

The job creators are small business owners who make between $250K to $2,000K. For some reason we tax the top 1% who make over $10 million way less than the job creators.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Consider the line "dick-waving foreign policy" stolen.

How true.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea of starving the beast is stupid. There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an interest & inflation tax. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation. Inflation destroys your wealth more than taxes.

Tax cuts do not add to the deficit, spending more money adds to the deficit.

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The idea of starving the beast is stupid. There is no such thing as a tax cut if it adds to the deficit. You will just be paying it as an interest & inflation tax. Stop the spending instead of cutting taxes. Government services may drowned in the bathtub but you will still be paying even more because of the debt & inflation. Inflation destroys your wealth more than taxes.

Tax cuts do not add to the deficit, spending more money adds to the deficit.

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax cuts do not add to the deficit, spending more money adds to the deficit.

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

And if one cuts revenue, does not cut spending and invades another country?

What of the consequences of cutting spending on social security and Medicare? In terms of debt only if you please; I factor in the logical consequences in terms of human suffering including the transfer of weatlth from the working classes to the 'coupon clipping class'?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax cuts do not add to the deficit, spending more money adds to the deficit.

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. How does this improve what is? If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Huh? Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

I only find two scenarios in this paragraph - what did I miss? Cut revenue and not debt?

 

[Foxfyre]

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

And if one cuts revenue, does not cut spending and invades another country?

What of the consequences of cutting spending on social security and Medicare? In terms of debt only if you please; I factor in the logical consequences in terms of human suffering including the transfer of weatlth from the working classes to the 'coupon clipping class'?

Our fearless leaders in Washington have already proved many times over that they are incapable of cutting spending on their own. They will move spending around some and maybe choose to increase spending less than they intended to--they call that a 'cut'--but I don't believe there has been any year in the last hundred years that any Congress has spent less money than in the previous year. Or that governent spending has increased even as little as the growth of the population.

And we are demonstrating in glaring detail that all ongoing/permanent government programs proviiding benefits to targeted groups that depend on future generations to pay for them cannot be sustained without detriment to the economy. Such programs siimply are not sustainable over the long term, but once people are addicted to them, there is no will to cut them.

The ONLY answer is to restrict the federal governent to what the constitution mandates it must do and turn everything else over to the states and communities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

And if one cuts revenue, does not cut spending and invades another country?

What of the consequences of cutting spending on social security and Medicare? In terms of debt only if you please; I factor in the logical consequences in terms of human suffering including the transfer of weatlth from the working classes to the 'coupon clipping class'?

Then the deficit goes up. That does not make the tax cuts responsible for said deficit, does it?

By the way, no one cut spending on either of those things. In fact, Bush increased spending on Medicare, which helped make the problem worse. Unlike you, I have no problem blaming both parties for the problem, I don't have a (D) or an (R) behind my name.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If one cuts revenue and holds debt, the interest on the debt will increase the the debt.

You are correct, spending will increase the debt which is why going to war without raising revenue was foolish. Yet going to war is not equivalent to building a transcontinental railroad, building the electrical grid or canals, or the highway system - all of which pay for themselves over time.

STB is the chosen method of the GOP to privatize Social Security and Medicare and everything else; it is the policy of the right not to fix the revenue/cost problem but to let the costs skyrocket and argue for profit sources are the only solution. In this way their base - banks and insurance companies - will benefit and the American people will not.

If one cuts revenue and cuts spending an equal amount, the interest on the debt remains the same. How does this improve what is? If one cuts revenue and cuts spending by a larger amount, and then diverts the extra savings to paying down the debt, the interest on the debt will increase. Huh? Three scenarios, the only common element is cutting revenue, yet three different results. That proves that the determining factor is not the revenue. QED, cutting revenue does not increase the deficit.

I only find two scenarios in this paragraph - what did I miss? Cut revenue and not debt?

I was counting your scenario.

 

[rdean]

I think everyone is missing the big point. Republicans had a country to rebuild and they did. It was Iraq. Isn't that where it all started?