Talk:Starve-the-beast

Started this page to watch for any comments or questions Bulatych Tue Nov 11 19:31:50 UTC 2003

"Cutting taxes"
Is it worth mentioning that the tax-cutting has to be done carefully? Some sources argue that Bush's tax cuts are only benefitting some people rather than boosting the economy.


 * Across the board rate cuts are not "tax cuts for the wealthy". The dollar amounts are of course the greatest at the top, but an across the board tax rate cut is not favoring any particular income group.  Politicians have been lying about this for decades.  Estate tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts - maybe you have an argument; but rate cuts help every taxpayer. Dubc0724 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Choke the Beast is an alternative description
Isn't "Choke-the-Beast" a common enough usage to justify a redirect to this article? I sometimes hear or read only that and no mention of "Starve-the-Beast".


 * A quick google search made me think you were wrong at first, but then I excluded the 90,000 references to Wikipedia, and it's actually quite close (both around 400 entries). I'll add it. Dave (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like I formulated my search wrong. 90,000 Wikipedia mirrors did seem like way too many.  Anyway, Choke the beast redirects here now. Dave (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"What empirical evidence"???
"Some empirical evidence shows that the strategy may actually be counterproductive, with higher taxes actually corresponding to lower spending: "Controlling for the unemployment rate, federal spending [from 1981 to 2000] increased by about one-half percent of GDP for each one percentage point decline in the relative level of federal tax revenues." The article (written by William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute) shows that "a tax increase may be the most effective policy to reduce the relative level of federal spending," though the authors oppose tax increases for other reasons.[1] Additionally, some economists and politicians see the budget deficits created by this strategy as harmful to the economy"

In 1980's the US federal military spending shot thou the roof, in order to force the USSR to try and match us while Region did a number of other things to help undermined them including getting the sautés to drop oil prices and general waging economic and political warfare on them.(not military) While taxes were dropped the spending level in the US government was necessary as to force the Communist Régime to outstretch it self. so of course Spending increased with tax depresses at that time, however, the economic comeback that resulted from the tax breaks earlier in his administration doubled revenue and the GDP but spending was still increased significantly more particular on the military side all as a result or indirect result of combating the Soviet union. How in direct result: The trouble in the US system with passing any bill thou congress regardless of what party controls it, is in order to get that bills passed congressmen must make a number of deals with other congressmen to get their support this usual involved what we call Pork barrel spending, and generally projects that those congressmen want done back in their own states. It is partially true when apposing parties are involved in spending on completely non related and often non-helpful issues such as social programs increases, as well as numerous other types of spending increases. Note: Spending is entirely in the hands of Congress Not the president, the president has a veto that can be overruled by congress but such veto such as was prior and after the passing and US Supreme court overruling of the Line item veto. Can only be used in vetoing an entire bill which typical contains numerous such compromising in spending and over spending, the results of such a veto would either force congress to overrule it with a supermajority in both houses or  reevaluated it. if it is the latter such that congress can not overrule the veto, then as it is typical done at the last imminent the new compromise would have to be rushed thou which is to say in all odds even more costly, as if it is not passed the US government will shut down due ot lack of funding. Which 200 years ago probably wasn’t that bad, but today with the huge dependencies since but partial in the last 100 years installed on that government that would be Catastrophic.

the problem with this type of spending as Ronald Regain pointed out, in many such speeches is unlike military spending it doesn’t get cut realty easily, in fact it general tends to sick around and grow indefinably. That’s the nature of government social programs once you create them they become political candy upon which significant numbers of constituents become depended upon and thus provide you with a reliable voter base. This also opens the door to enormous amounts of corruption. Military and general most other forums of US government spending do not have this effect as their effect on the people themselves is far less direct and rarely felts, In other words its pretty hard to become depended upon it on a Daly bases unless you actually needed it. because the Military does not preformed basic everyday services for you nor does it take those services jobs away from others.

Fortunately for the USA It runs a great deal against the cultural foundations of this nation in being in anyway depended upon big government. Although unfortunately it still exist in and has continued to grow thou out the years for the same reason it does everywhere else.

Needless to say once established social program spending never goes away, in fact it just keeps growing and growing and growing, until it bankrupts you. Which is ultimately what Ronald forced the Soviet Union into dealing with at its end. By cutting it off from all other escape routs.

If you really get down to it, the whole point of “starving the beast” is to help create a situation not unlike that of when you try and get your kid to walk on his or her own for the first time. Basically you put publicans and the people in a situation where they can morally if not finically be forced to move off this addictive drunk of government socialism, and move on to their own. This takes a long time, and general it works under the presumption that ultimately your other programs such as military can be cut leaving you only with the social programs causing almost all of the problems, and using the prospect of taxing higher as the political leverage upon which you can pull the addictive drug down.

As it is in the USA Federal budget most of it including (that of military spending even right now) is that of Social programs specifically just Social security and Medicare. Both account for more than 1 trillion US dollars in spending a year. They are also even with the US Military spending in the War on Terror, in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the rest of the world, is the fastest growing part of the US federal government spending as well. These social programs will as they have continue to grow under previous laws and basic nature, ever increasingly especial with the retirement of the baby-boomer until they make up the entire federal budget and then some.