Starve The Beast Is the Most Ill Concived Peice of Political Theory

When I grow up I'm going to be a small businessman, APPARENTLY THERE'S A POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF THAT RAINBOW.

More explanation, and less booze, required.

I'm assuming "the beast" is the government, and that it is a minimum government policy who emphasizes "small business".

I also assume Strike is opposed, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

APPARENTLY THERE'S A POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF THAT RAINBOW.

---

Doesn't seem to do the Irish much good right now.

Guys, there is a wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

It is a policy where in order to cut down on household bills, you take a paycut.

I'm really getting sick of people starting threads without explaining what they're talking about. My telepathy only has a radius of 50 yards you know!

Today is my day off

I've been drinking Vodka/Fantas and watching Frontline since 8am

I owe you limeys nothing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Today is my day off

I've been drinking Vodka/Fantas and watching Frontline since 8am

I owe you limeys nothing

---

You owe us your language, unified status and your national anthem, an explanation is the least you can do yah yankee layabout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Guys, there is a wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

---

Sarah Palin supports it.

That automatically makes it a contender for "dumbest policy of the century"-award.

So you can either pay your own way as a society with taxes.

Or

Issue government bonds to China and be in debt to a foreign power that many have doubts about its growing power.

So personal responsibility vs foreign government influence.

I know which one I prefer.

I'm all for smaller, limited government, but I hate how conservatives want to cut taxes and government programs without any plan or goal, as if government is some sort of enemy that needs to be defeated.

Here's an idea: Why don't we decide which programs and services we really want and need, figure out how much it will cost, and then set taxes accordingly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

I'm all for smaller, limited government, but I hate how conservatives want to cut taxes and government programs without any plan or goal, as if government is some sort of enemy that needs to be defeated.

Here's an idea: Why don't we decide which programs and services we really want and need, figure out how much it will cost, and then set taxes accordingly?

---

It's a brilliant idea. Which programs and services, did you have in mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So you can either pay your own way as a society with taxes.

---

The history of the USA is of not liking the sound of that. At all.

I'm only partially kidding: California serves as a good example of what happens when you let the voters decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I'm only partially kidding: California serves as a good example of what happens when you let the voters decide.

---

My state makes me cry sometimes. I can't wait to see how the voters do in 5 days. I was planning on making a thread about the more ridiculous ones.

"Starve the Beast" = "kill all funding to Democrat-supported federal programs"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Tax the super-wealthy at rates higher than 50%, give massive subsidies to manufacturing and focus on exporting to Europe (to take advantage of their failing manufacturing base outside of Germany), raise import tariffs on chinese goods over time, naturalize and give amnesty to as many undocumented immigrants as possible so they can start paying taxes and so businesses can stop using them to cheat the system. Make it a national priority to get a higher education and/or trade/vocational education to everyone who wants it. Give it ten or fifteen years of dedicated support from both sides of the aisle (since constant economic policy changes do more harm than anything else). Economy fixed for the foreseeable future.

Oh, and legalize pot. That's a gold-mine waiting to be exploited.

:creep:

---

:yes:

With the conservatives, starve the beast. The government isn't there for you, you are there for the government.

What I have yet to understand, is why people from the US think the police and military should be state funded, but not the well being of the citizens (healthcare, social security a.s.o).

I'm just joking of course... The vast majority of police work is done by private companies over there, and lately also their military. I haven't kept track lately, but would I be all wrong saying private companies stand for a lot of the boots on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq?



I think the rest of the world should start treating the US less like a nation, and more like a corporation.

A corporation about to go bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

It's a brilliant idea. Which programs and services, did you have in mind?

---

I haven't given it that much thought, what I was trying to get at is that I think the tax rate should be based on the government's need, rather on all the hullabaloo about lowering taxes because taxes = oppression or tax the rich because they need to pay their fair share, etc. I also think that with the budget and government being as bloated and complicated as it is, in order to balance the budget it might be best to just start from scratch and rebuild the whole thing from the ground up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's pretty exaggerated, actually. Police work is almost entirely tax-payer funded and public--the biggest problem with the police is that their Unions are worse than anything in the auto industry, which makes it almost impossible to get rid of the rotten ones, and Private Military Companies account for an absolutely miniscule amount of the troops on the ground during the global war on terror. When I was in Iraq, I only ever saw them when we visited the green zone.

*However, one area where you are correct is when it comes to the prison system. Many of our largest prisons are privately run and subsidized by the government--the only people making a profit from these operations are the corporations who run the prisons, and the politicians getting kickbacks from their lobbyists. It is a frightening trend.

---

Mall security
Private investigators
Bounty hunters
Gated communities

Yeah... You have policemen doing police work alright.

And about Mercs, last I checked roughly 50% of the boots on the ground in Iraq were Mercs... Has that changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Mall security, private investigators, and "bounty Hunters" have no more power than a private citizen. I'm a certified security guard myself, but I don't have anything close to the authority of a cop.

As for that 50% number, i would love to see a source on that. When i was in Iraq we had roughly 200,000 troops there, there aren't enough private military contractors in the states to make up 50% of that

There are demons in our system, but you're looking in the wrong spots.

---

When were you there? I wrote about this on this forum YEARS ago and shocked many Americans, can't really be bothered to fact search again.

As of March 2010, there were 95,461 DOD contractor personnel in Iraq compared to approximately 95,900 uniformed personnel in-country.

<- Those are the latest figures I could find. Sorry, I really can't be bothered re-doing a job I already did for this board... A quick google search might do you good. If for no other reason than it being an excellent opportunity to whiff me off.


About Mall security, private investigators and so on.... I am perfectly aware that they have no extra authority, I am just saying that they are doing the job the Police do in less corporalistic (SP?) countries.

You know, you COULD have an actual policeman in the mall, with police rights. You COULD have a state investing enough in the police for private detectives to not be needed, as the law should serve everyone, not just those who can pay for extra service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Mall security is really not a problem. They're whole function is literally just to be eyes on the property and alert the police, a system that works pretty well.

As for Iraq, i was there in 2008, when we still had outposts in the major cities. Technically that war is "over" so, in my opinion, any continued presence there is just silly.

I still don't buy those numbers though. DoD civilians are not mercs like Blackwater.

---

DoD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

DoD?

---

I know Blackwater? Xe? Academi? Whatever their name is these days, the name seem to fluctuate a lot, have run intel ops and protective ops in Iraq... In most other countries work like that WOULD be state controlled.

Heck, I cant think of another (western) country that would send armed mercs to do their job.

Libya - sure.
Norway - no

In my book, I prefer Norway's stance to Libya's.

Unfortunately, the US has decided to align with the more barbaric views on warfare.

Jesus Christ, you broke the story on the number of private contractors compared to US soldiers in Iraq and yet don't even know what DoD means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

DoD means department of defense. Must of the civilian outsourcing reflected in your numbers are cooks, accountants, janitors, maintenance people, etc.

Organizations like Blackwater have never had numbers like you suggest.

---

Dude, most of ANY nations forces are cooks, accountants, janitors...

That, however, does not explain why the US has armed mercs on the scene, or let mercs go above national troopers in the chain of command, or generally at large let mercs do the job a nations DoD is supposed to handle without mercenary forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So you disagree with armed Mercs doing combat patrols and missions? Good, so do I.

What I'm trying to point out to you, however, is that it is uncommon, and not even close to being half our "guns on the ground"

---

I do believe the correct quote would be boots on the ground, not guns on the ground...

Don't go all Fox News on me.

EDIT: Me being wrong, I did write guns on the ground.

Brainfart, boots on the ground. With that said, it doesnt change my perspective at all.. I actually find it MORE erroneous that mercs run intel ops than armed ops.

im going to piss myself about how ignorant the "informed" swede is about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, now we're at a point where we agree, although i am rather sure that most of our Intel does not in any way come from private organizations.

I don't have a problem at all with groups like KBR, who had thousands of employees doing things like fixing equipment, serving food, cleaning port-a-johns, and that sort of thing.

Our outpost was too small and unsafe for civilians to hang out at, so we had to do those things ourselves. American Civilians were rare creatures in Iraq outside of the Green zone or the major FOBs.

---

I don't mind civilians cleaning the toilets (although as sergeant I find it distasteful that civilians should serve the armed forces, we are perfectly capable of cleaning our own toilets and it's part of the whole deal imho).

What I am AGAINST is mercs taking command of forces, mercs running actual operational ops, mercs handling intel ops...

Do NOT come and say that all your civilians contractors cleans toilets and serves food, there is plenty of evidence in the opposite direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Tax the super-wealthy at rates higher than 50%

---

The big one is classing capital gains as income -> income tax rates on that. Say for example, Mitt Romney would about double his taxes, while he would tax dodge away from those 50%, like he does now. It's also quite hard to paint in "evil pinko commie" light with a bit of traction, since it's forcing them to pay the same as everyone else. Needs to be grasrooted though, too many in the top uses it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

With the conservatives, starve the beast. The government isn't there for you, you are there for the government.

---

Starving the beast requires that you're willing to cut the stuff you want to remain. That's the fundamental problem with the idea. The last decade pretty much shows that it might start working when the US is in the same situation as Greece (and the sane economical recovery would include rising taxes).

It really stems from the question "why should we pay any taxes at all?" and not "what taxes are fair?"

We pay taxes because the government needs our money, simple as that. I am a big fan of the libertarian viewpoint (I know that's not what tea party is) not as an absolutism but as a direction, the less is handled by the government the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, here we finally come to the meat of the operation.

You're right, there were many instances of PRIVATE Military Contractors (as in: Not DoD, and not in a support capacity, ala KBR's toilet-cleaning/chow-serving ops) accepting jobs in Iraq. These jobs were almost exclusively security for VIPs. Almost. Exclusively. By 2010, they were banned from Iraq entirely because they kept getting themselves killed.

Never in the history of the war was such a group put in charge of a regular Army unit. The very idea makes me laugh.

---

Sorry, only have my iphone and limited time.... My google fu fails me, does anyone remember/ have links?

IIRC it hapened 4/4/04... easy to remember... US marines took and followed orders by Blackwater operatives.

From a tactical standpoint it made perfect sense.

From a political standpoint... May I throw the first stone?

Mercenaries were so common that in Europe Switzerland was banned by treaty from utilising the Swiss Guards.

There are the black and white: civillians and soldiers. Then the grey.

The grey can be private contractors, bodyguards, CIA agents, foreign persons (Foreign Legion, Ghurkas), those who are indirectly paid (be that from the central government to the country's central government or the CIA to private contractors), partisans supported by weapon drops to local armed guides, security support and I'm sure I'm missing loads of other variants.

Of course, the numbers isn't relevant. A small team could be engaged in, ah, sweep and clear missions several times a week and having more impact than a force orders of magnitude greater who are passively sitting in barracks.

I think that government should be mainly there to undertake legislation and oversight, rather than directly running services, if for no other reason that as soon as sometihing is a government enterprise Unions think that any lay offs are out of the

~:smoking:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2..._of_the_worlds

Quote:

---

JEREMY SCAHILL: One of the most disturbing incidents that happened in Iraq with mercenaries was on April 4, 2004. 4/4/04. Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces from the Mahdi Army were in an uprising, because Paul Bremer had ordered the arrest of one of his top deputies, and there was a massive protest that hit the city of Najaf. Blackwater was guarding the occupation office there. They also had some Salvadoran troops, part of the Coalition of the Willing, as well as some active-duty US Marines.

And one of those Marines, Corporal Lonnie Young — I got the official Marine account of that day. As the protest was happening, Lonnie Young, this active-duty Marine, has his weapon aimed into the crowd at a guy he says was carrying an AK-47. And he’s thinking to himself, you know, "I need to ask for orders to open fire," but there were no commanding officers on scene. So he asked permission from Blackwater to open fire. And he said, "Sir, I’ve acquired a target with your permission." And he says Blackwater gave the order.

---

You may not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2..._of_the_worlds

You may not.

---

How so?

If you want to cut spending, cut spending. Reducing revenues does nothing to a government that derives its power from the ABILITY to tax it's population, they spend based on credit rather than revenue.

I could see how the theory might be appealing to small-government advocates if it weren't such an obviously flawed idea. If the beast can borrow money then it will do just that, and you'll end up paying for those expenses sooner or later with interest to boot.

I recall that in the 2011 debt ceiling standoff Obama said to the public that if the ceiling wasn't raised in time, social security payments + medicare + whatnot would all have to be suspended. This is exactly what "starving the beast" ultimately means in practice, but of course the republicans accused him of fear mongering. Did republican congressmen ever threaten Reagan or Bush junior* with the debt ceiling? I'm guessing not.

(*Bush sr. actually raised taxes to increase revenue, so he does not belong here with those other two)

Every time any cutback is mentioned, it is always the police / nurses / handouts that are immediately mentioned.

Even tying to cut back NHS spending to levels from 2008 is next to impossible; money for disabled even trying to limit the rate of increase is impossible.

What is "poverty" in the UK is probably luxuaries that are not available to most persons on the planet: obviously internet, probably Sky, money for alcohol and cigarettes - in Wales they are trying to limit bedrooms so that children - horror of horror - migh have to share! What type of concentration-camp is being run here where children have to share a bedroom until the age of 16??!?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

If the beast can borrow money then it will do just that, and you'll end up paying for those expenses sooner or later with interest to boot.

---

Mmm, but if you read the high priests of "starve the beast," such as Grover Norquist, you will see that their idea is that our government will borrow and borrow until there is a Greek-style debt crisis, at which point we will face massive cuts and social unrest, and in the heat of the revolution everyone will turn to Good Conservative Values.

It's all quite apocalyptic.

As Lemur notes, the whole point of "Starving the Beast" is to precipitate a crisis, severe enough that the wet dreams of conservatives are the only option. At its most extreme it is the destruction of government that is the point.

On the way to the apocalypse, privatization is simply a good way to loot the treasury from a government that really "ought not" to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Because that was a one-off, freak incident. The Mercs were not in charge of the marines, but the marine's didn't have a clear chain of command in this incident.

Besides, Marines don't count.

---

Ok... Now, bear in mind that what gets to the press is the top of the iceberg.

Don't get me wrong, mercs were actually the weakest point in my argument. Yes I find it worrying that half the BOOTS on the ground are non-army. Mainly because these guys falls under the same loopholes as "terrorists". Or to make it more clear, laws of war don't apply.

I very much DO have a hard time understanding why USA [female dog] and moan about 9/11 "because it was directed at civilians", when not only the civilians are running the international politics (democracy you know), but also are SENT TO WAR. Do you now get where this is starting to get problematic?

Anyway, my main point was: What I have yet to understand, is why people from the US think the police and military should be state funded, but not the well being of the citizens (healthcare, social security a.s.o).

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwa...hdad_shootings

Side point: Surely, if the USA can send civilians on a killing spree to foreign countries, why should other nations not?

Quote:

---

why should other nations not?

---

Al Qaeda is not a nation. Would you agree that the Sicilian Mafia has ultimate authority over the Swedish people, and can do as it pleases on Swedish territory?

Quote:

---

Surely, if the USA can send civilians on a killing spree to foreign countries, why should other nations not?

---

As in, merely a conventional war? Any nation can of course try to circumvent international law, international attitudes, and reason itself and directly attack the American mainland - they wouldn't last long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, no you're not getting off that easy.



Sure. There are many documented incidents of Private Military Contractors getting into bad situations. That is why they were banned from Iraq. I can assure you, though, that never was such a group given command of a US Military Element in the furtherance of combat operations. It just didn't happen.



Look, I think we need to go over the definitions here. Private Military Contractors = Companies like Blackwater. They are rare, and account for almost none of the troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. For these guys, you are correct. Everyone else is a DoD Civilian, which means they are employees of the Department of Defense, and carry Geneva Conventions ID Cards. On the rare occasion such a person would leave the FOB, they would almost certainly be in a uniform for their own safety. Nearly everyone conducting combat operations is a uniformed member of the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. Nearly. Everyone. I can't stress that enough.

---

You don't get off that easy either mate.

That nearly every assault rifle carrying foreign occupant shooting up civilians is a actual US army trooper just isn't good enough from a political standpoint.

Quote:

---

Nearly everyone conducting combat operations is a uniformed member of the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. Nearly. Everyone. I can't stress that enough.

---

I can't stress enough how "nearly" just isn't good enough to explain to a non-western world why civilian casualties are a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I agree wholeheartedly! I really do! I just wanted to make sure you weren't under the horribly false impression that half our combat troops are mercs.

---

Ah, no... As mentioned, that was a brain fart. I wrote guns instead of boots... I blame it on thinking in Swedish military historical terms, where you count "spears" regardless of how many people actually have a spear in their hands while invading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I blame it on thinking in Swedish military historical terms, where you count "spears" regardless of how many people actually have a spear in their hands while invading.

---

Bummer. Is that why you guys thought you could invade Russia back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Bummer. Is that why you guys thought you could invade Russia back then?

---

Nah, the Vikings did quite good in the USSR. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (USSR eastern borders towards sea) are all 3 former viking colonies, who have got sovereign status.

Vikings went as far in as St. Petersburg/Leningrad/Stalingrad... Or whatever it is called these days. Anyway the Soviet landmark of stopping the Nazis is a former Swedish colony.

So if my memory is right, Vikings went further in Russia than Hitler or anyone else.

It was only in the gunpowder age that Russia started fighting back. Swedish historical sources has it that Russia (USSR, Soviet, CCCP or whatever) started with the scorched earth tactics when we invaded, a tactic that has served Russia well all throughout history up to and including modern times and tactics.

I thought it was more like Charles saying: Okay, we have 1000 troops, 2000 cooks, 3000 toilet cleaners etc etc... altogether 15000 troops. They have 7000 generals. We outnumber them 2 to 1! CHAAAARGE!!!! "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As in, merely a conventional war? Any nation can of course try to circumvent international law, international attitudes, and reason itself and directly attack the American mainland - they wouldn't last long.

---

Exactly, at some point it boils down to the US can do it because they're the strongest and can do what they want.
And they also declare themselves the good guys while doing so so it's all fine. If someone does not agree that they are the good guys working for the greater good, then that person is per definition evil and not worth listening to.
It's not how every American thinks about it but it's how it plays out in the end anyway, how else can a nation that claims freedom as it's highest ideal justify that it's government installs dictators in other nations for it's own benefit? That does not mean however, that other nations are much better, or would be if they were at the top. Today we look at the romans and call them civilized and advanced even though they killed and enslaved hundreds and thousands of tribes and people around them for whatever reasons they had.

The only answer is to acknowledge that the world is a cruel place and nothing can be done about it, the strong just take what they want as it has always been. Subdue them or suffer. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly, at some point it boils down to the US can do it because they're the strongest and can do what they want.
And they also declare themselves the good guys while doing so so it's all fine. If someone does not agree that they are the good guys working for the greater good, then that person is per definition evil and not worth listening to.
It's not how every American thinks about it but it's how it plays out in the end anyway, how else can a nation that claims freedom as it's highest ideal justify that it's government installs dictators in other nations for it's own benefit? That does not mean however, that other nations are much better, or would be if they were at the top. Today we look at the romans and call them civilized and advanced even though they killed and enslaved hundreds and thousands of tribes and people around them for whatever reasons they had.

The only answer is to acknowledge that the world is a cruel place and nothing can be done about it, the strong just take what they want as it has always been. Subdue them or suffer. :whip:

---

:bow:

Not worth it