Why Conspiracy Theories?

Starve the beast
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2][3] to cut taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to create a fiscal budget crisis that would then force the federal government to reduce spending. The short and medium term effect of the strategy has been increased United States public debt rather than reduced spending.

The term "beast" refers to the government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs[4] such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare[5] and public schools. The proponents of the starve-the-beast strategy have never advocated cuts in military, weapons, or prisons spending.

The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush's administration were attempts to "starve the beast." Bush said in 2001 "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind—a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."[6] The tax cuts were extended by Pres. Barack Obama in what Obama stated was a "compromise" with congressional Republicans.

Political activist Grover Norquist authored an oath, the so-called "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," that 279 Senators and Congressman have signed, in addition to their oaths to the U.S. Constitution. The oath states the signatories may never raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances. It is viewed by some of the unsigned as a stumbling block to mutual fiscal negotiations to benefit the country.[7]

Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

the krugman article you mean? dont expect me to be able to guess what your opinion is going to be on any particular subject. i cant. i can do that with almost everyone here but not you.

I shall take that as a compliment. I think. Anyway, I meant the Republicans' zany strategy of "starving the beast" by borrowing loads of money and giving it away to rich people.

i think it is a compliment. you often horrify me but youre not predicatble. yes clearly its crazy.

Two questions - why is there a huge section of the American right who seem to believe as their first axiom that state level decisions are better than federal? To the extent that they would prefer a state level decision they disagree with to a central decision that is in line with their other beliefs. Isn't that kind of insane? As a casual observer you would think that the president is a person better qualified to make decisions than a state governor or whatever who has failed to rise so far up the political tree. Also, if the states reach the degree of separation that these groups like wouldn't we be saying goodbye to America as a country?
Second question - why is the constitution so sacrsoanct (I asked this before)? It's hundreds of years old, isn't it more than likely that a lot of what it says is inapplicable to the world we live in today? What if they got rid of it and wrote a better one? Maybe keep the bit about everyone being created equal and go from there.

State gov't operates on a smaller scale than the federal gov't, which in the minds of many conservatives is a 'good thing'. I think there's this ideal / mentality that many people in the US look up to of a lone settler living on the frontier, fending for himself but enjoying complete 'freedom', which is why so many are obsessed with small gov't (the idea being that less gov't = more personal freedom).

Never got the blind reverence of the Constitution thing. Made history classes in school very frustrating.

e/y said:

...a lone settler living on the frontier, fending for himself but enjoying complete 'freedom', which is why so many are obsessed with small gov't (the idea being that less gov't = more personal freedom).

Click to expand...

this is pretty accurate. many of these rural conservatives long for small government...except if they're famers and live off government farming subsidies, and ethanol subsidies, or when the bush administration offered federal financial aid to support their "faith-based initiatives", or when they grow old and want their social security checks and medicare coverage. aside from that, yeah, government sucks! ;-)

and yeah, it's all about "personal freedom"...unless you're a woman who wants to make her own decisions about her own body, or you're gay and want to serve in the military or get married.

exactly. or the idea that taxes being spent on museums of public radio = bad, but money being spent on fighter planes and tanks = good.

what I also find completely odd is the amount of people who come from lower and middle class backgrounds being for small gov't / lower taxes and therefore fewer social programmes or gov't subsidised health-care. Some millionaire being for that - that's one thing, but the very people who would benefit from better public schools and better medical care?

e/y said:

what I also find completely odd is the amount of people who come from lower and middle class backgrounds being for small gov't / lower taxes and therefore fewer social programmes or gov't subsidised health-care. Some millionaire being for that - that's one thing, but the very people who would benefit from better public schools and better medical care?

Click to expand...

yeah, totally crazy. that was the premise of "what's the matter with kansas" by thomas frank, how republicans used social wedge issues to essentially convince people in what apparently was once a somewhat moderate state to go hard-right, much to their own personal detriment. they equated it with patriotism, exploited their religious beliefs, scared them with boogeymen like "the gay agenda" and the northeastern "elites" who want to take away their guns/religion/freedoms and turn america into a french socialist state, etc. and all done with no small help from fox news, of course.

Leo said:

one thing i've always found curious about conspiracy theory sites/publications/thinkers is they spend all their effort exposing injustice and uncovering what they feel is the truth, yet rarely propose solutions to problems. once they've finished exposing the corruptions of world financial/monetary systems, the military industrial complex, the NWO and all that's fictitious about current democracies, it would then be interesting to learn what they feel is the right course of action and, importantly, how things would play out in their idealized world.

Click to expand...

I've always thought this too. I've come to the conclusion that there's a perverse sort of 'comfort in helplessness' for a certain sort of person. It helps them make sense of the world, albeit in a negative way; the idea that all these shitty things happen because unspeakable forces of evil have orchestrated it is somehow preferable to the idea that it's all just accidental and random and happens for no grand overarching reason.

That said, as luka points out you don't have to believe that the current recession has been deliberately brought about by a cabal of supervillains to see that some people are clearly doing very well out of it. Same goes for the fallout from 9/11 of course.

It's not really in you guys to understand the other side, is it?

"and yeah, it's all about "personal freedom"...unless you're a woman who wants to make her own decisions about her own body, or you're gay and want to serve in the military or get married."

Click to expand...

But I'm not sure that's totally true is it? I think that Ron Paul (and a lot of the other extreme libertarians) would say "I'm against abortion but I'd rather have it decided on a state level by an abortionist than have abortion banned on a federal level". Which is consistent I think but strange - the thing you are most comitted to is the way laws are put through than what the laws actually are.

"exactly. or the idea that taxes being spent on museums of public radio = bad, but money being spent on fighter planes and tanks = good."

Click to expand...

I thought that to the libertarians the main responsibility of federal government was defence. Not sure why that should be but they seem to all agree on that too.

thats what youre here for vimothy.

Lol

vimothy said:

It's not really in you guys to understand the other side, is it?

Click to expand...

good one. well, trying to understand, actually. that's why i remarked earlier about always being interested to learn what a conspiracy theorist would suggest as the right course of action, a better plan, the righteous way the world should be and how that would play out.

and in my more recent posts, i was talking about the far-right and tea party types here in the US as opposed to libertarians. their "government-sucks-except-for-the-bits-that-benefit-me" attitude is a little hypocritical, isn't it? and their belief in the importance of personal freedom, except for when someone else wants to do something they don't like. so yeah, in cases like that, i don't really understand.

Can't you allow for people to hold different views because they sincerely believe them, and not just because they are fools or knaves?

For instance, it seems to me that the attitude of most people towards the govt is that they favour it when it reflects their values, and they don't when it doesn't. I would say that that's fairly universal--and not at all hypocritical or irrational.

i dunno, seems hypocritical to me to say "shrink government" while simultaneously taking it's handouts and claiming "hands off my medicare and social security". you either believe in the value of a social safety net (which requires a government body to administer and tax revenue to support) or you don't, can't have it both ways.

I don't know to what extent US conservatives think like that, but let's say that they do--Even then, I'm not sure that it's incoherent to want a certain level of govt health care and a smaller govt overall.

Basically, it seems like the upshot of what you're saying is that anyone who consumes public goods should be aligned with the liberal position here. And since everyone consumes public goods, everyone should be aligned with the liberal position.