Talk:Starve the beast/Archive 1

WP Tax Class
Stub class because this article has just one section.EECavazos 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Tax Priority
Low priority because the article covers a political approach to reducing taxation.EECavazos 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
Blackij and DanielM, please stop edit warring over this article. See WP:3RR (neither of you are in violation, by the way, but it certainly looks possible). Also see WP:ROWN. Try to make a compromise article. Zephyrus67 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to compromise, and it lasted a while, but Blackij is back deleting sourced, descriptive, relevant content, without even commenting why. He deletes the references as well. Additionally he puts in stuff that is not backed by any reference anywhere, like suggesting that Starve the Beast is in part supposed to cut regulation and patronage and stop corporate welfare. Please, please, please Blackij, show us a reference that says Starve the Beasters are trying to end corporate welfare. The article is supposed to tell people what Starve the Beast is. It's not doing that. I have tried to repair it some, but it is not enough. I will see about putting up a POV warning banner. DanielM (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel,


 * I didn't include any extra sources because I'm unaware of any place in the writings of the term's architects where the goal is explicitly limited to the entitlement programs you've chosen to include. Muth describes "a smaller, less-intrusive government." Becker wants to fight "powerful political interest groups clamor[ing] for greater subsidies and other government help."


 * I'm aware that critics of Starve the Beast such as Paul Krugman accuse proponents of targeting entitlements to the exclusion of other government spending. This should definitely be included in the article. But I'm sure you will agree that defining a political term in the first or second sentence of an article through the lens of accusations by its ideological opponents is perhaps not the best or most balanced choice.


 * P.S.
 * Great job writing the original article, by the way.


 * ►blackij 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Blackij, to address you in reverse order: I didn't write the article. It existed under "Starve-the-Beast" since at least before I started editing. Paul Krugman isn't cited at all in the article. For you to bring him up and then go into "defining a political term in the first or second sentence through the lens of accusations by its idealogical opponents" is something of a rhetorical bait-and-switch on your part, it seems to me. All descriptions of Starve the Beast do not specifically rule out general "big government" as you link it, but most of them certainly do identify its intent as cutting social spending. Medicare, Social Security, and welfare certainly are mentioned specifically by many experts, "corporate welfare" by exactly none of them I suspect. Why don't we limit the list of things StB is intended to cut by what is specifically mentioned in the references? DanielM (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to write that when I wrote the immediately above, and based on his comment "critics of Starve the Beast such as Paul Krugman" etc. and knowing what a polarizing effect that economist's columns can have, I had just gone over the article line-by-line looking for the PK reference I must have somehow missed. When it wasn't there (neither was there one from any Krugman-like critic), I was annoyed, and it affected my response, which should have been better. The question of whether StB is about defunding government social programs or *all* government programs is a fair one to consider. I think that in a dispassionate, academic fiscal/economic sense you could look at the proposition "depriving government of revenue forces cuts in government spending full-stop and there is no consideration with what sort of spending is cut." But that's not Starve the Beast. That removes the political component. That removes it from the openly-stated goals of the politicians who push it. That is an inaccurate characterization of StB, which is a *political*-fiscal strategy. For example the policy is not pushed by anti-war politicians who want to defund military spending. I mean theoretically sure you could have pacifists or for that matter "anarcho-capitalists" who want to defund the military or pick-a-program, but in real terms (and Wikipedia is concerned with real terms) that is not an element. The last thing I'd say is I think references will bear me out on all that. But it's definitely worth discussing. DanielM (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly Consensus?
All four of our scholarly analyses of Starve the Beast find basically that it doesn't work. I'm not aware of any study that says it does. Accordingly, I'd like to insert in the lede something like "scholarly consensus is that the strategy does not work." I'd appreciate hearing any editorial comments in support of or against this proposed edit. DanielM (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you state it in factual terms. Something like "Studies by X, Y, and Z all indicated that the strategy does not work."Farcaster (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you need a study? All you need are the total budget numbers per year, or percentage of GDP; and see if it actually reduced budget over time, or in relationship to the national debt. Anyone with basic arithmetic skills knows "Starve The Beast" doesn't work.98.165.15.98 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree, in Wikipedia we need to be careful to avoid original research. We can only report what other people have actually studied and written/said/shown. ItCanHappen (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image
I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Since 2000
'a stumbling block to mutual fiscal negotiations to benefit the country'

Should that be 'bipartisan', not 'mutual'? It's unclear as written, and 'mutual' means 'reciprocal', not 'shared'.

Regards from the UK. Notreallydavid (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)