Starving the Beast: De-Funding the American Government 1970-Present

[Malthus]

Have you read the article?

Yeah. Did you understand my question?

Not sure I did.

The thesis (not saying I agree with it mind) appears to be: repulicans hope to screw "big government" by making tax cuts (popular), but not spending cuts (unpopular). The idea, allegedly, is to drive the government into the ground, fiscally, so far that it breaks, after which the republicans can impose "small government" by pointing to the wreakage (that they themselves caused) and saying 'see? big government leads to disaster. We need small government - vote for us'.

If this is the plan, you would expect spending to stay the same, right up to the point the government effectively collapses. The "plan" hasn't "worked" yet, because the government hasn't collapsed ... yet.

Of course, the theory is subject to the usual 'ascribing to malice what is better ascribed to incompetence or short-sightedness' problem ...

[Malthus]

The point of the article is that the starving plan ISN'T working, because the GOP doesn't have the cahones to carry it out.

Not what I get out of the article - seems to me he's just saying it hasn't worked - yet.

[mongers]

If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:

House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program.

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 1, 2013 2:19pm EDT

(Reuters) - House Republicans plan to propose a $40 billion cut to the nation's food stamp program, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, doubling the number of cuts previously sought by conservatives.

Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said legislation on the food assistance program, known as SNAP, would be the second part of any talks on the U.S. farm bill with the Senate.

Lucas told lobbyists during a lunch speech in Washington that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.
.....

Rest of item here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801

[MadImmortalMan]

If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:

House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program.

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 1, 2013 2:19pm EDT

(Reuters) - House Republicans plan to propose a $40 billion cut to the nation's food stamp program, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, doubling the number of cuts previously sought by conservatives.

Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said legislation on the food assistance program, known as SNAP, would be the second part of any talks on the U.S. farm bill with the Senate.

Lucas told lobbyists during a lunch speech in Washington that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.
.....

Rest of item here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801

That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.

[Admiral Yi]

That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.

Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.

[MadImmortalMan]

That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.

Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.

It might be too soon, you know. 

It should be done when it makes sense.

[frunk]

That would put it back to where it was before the stimulus, mongers. I think it was the plan to bring it back.

Yesterday's charity is today's inalienable right.

It might be too soon, you know. 

It should be done when it makes sense.

Kind of like the Bush tax cuts.  The government is really lousy at doing temporary change.

[DGuller]

Krugman is wrong about all of this of course.  He is committing the elementary error of seeing a conspiracy in what can be ascribed to simple incompetence and disorganization.

I'm going to disagree with both.  I don't think there is a full-blown conspiracy out there.  However, I also don't think that this clusterfuck is entirely without intelligent design.  I think the strategy with tax cuts was much like the strategy with Obamacare:  get something enacted that would be hard to repeal, turn it into a fact on the ground, and make further favorable changes inevitable sometime down the road.  It's subtly different from Krugman's theory of starving the beast, but only subtly.

[derspiess]

If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:

A quick look at our poor will tell you they're far from starved.

[The Minsky Moment]

Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.

% of GDP:

1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%

Where do these numbers come from and what forms of spending are included?
It must be including numbers other than federal because those figures have never gone above 25% during the period you selected.

[The Minsky Moment]

When you carve out entitlement spending, federal spending/GDP is lower now than it was in 1970, 1980, or 1990.  It reached its lowest point during the Clinton years.

[mongers]

If by beast they mean the American poor, the GOP seem on target:

A quick look at our poor will tell you they're far from starved.

You're advocating policy should be made on the basis of media stereotypes. 

[Ideologue]

Krugman wrote it so yeah, probably is wrong.

You just helped prove his point.   

Hey, don't be so harsh.  The conservative movement has spent a lot of time and energy training him to respond like that.

No, Krugman did that himself.  Particularly after that article a couple years ago in which he suggested preparing for alien attack as a means of boosting the economy.

Sigh.

[MadImmortalMan]

Spending has been fairly steady during the period in the title.

% of GDP:

1970: 30%
1980: 31%
1990: 32%
2000: 29%
2010: 40%

Where do these numbers come from and what forms of spending are included?
It must be including numbers other than federal because those figures have never gone above 25% during the period you selected.

It was a very sloppy amalgam of things I saw when doing a google search for spending/gdp. Most of the graphs and charts that came up were pretty much the same.

[Ed Anger]

Prepare for alien attack? Put a taco under a box trap. Done.