NOTE: We are migrating to new servers tonight. During this time login has been disabled. Once this message disappears, then the migration will be complete

Is STARVE THE BEAST Treason?

8 posts / 0 new

Given the Right's Starve The Beast strategy calls for the willful sabotaging of government revenues and the creation of massive debt, it is a deliberate effort to undermine the fiscal health of government and negatively affects government's ability deal with emergencies. If some other nation managed to do the damage the GOP has done to our nation, would some not that say it was an act of war? If the Democrats employed such a destructive strategy, what would Ann Coulter and others on the rabid Right accuse them of?

Is Starve The Beast a form of sedition or treason? Has it crossed that line?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

While I hate the general misuse of the metaphor, if you want to call it a War on Democracy, I will not object. If you think the Pledge of Allegiance has any substance beyond the symbol, the question of harming democracy does raise 'unAmerican" conclusions. By the standards set by the Right, this would indeed be Treason, but I find that a bridge too far if we respect dissent and free speech. I perfer public shunning to a hanging for the perpetrators.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

They think of it as a transition fase. Remember when the first stupid Bush president announced to the world that there was a "new world order"? Well they thought then that their evil gang was pretty much in a position of control that was irreversible. They believed that they were above any and all government and that they would eventually eliminate the need to continue with the farce of government as they operate it. There could have been no other explanation for Bush's pronouncement. Fortunately for the world, those fools aren't near smart enough to build the kind of single company owned planet that they dream of and everything that they thought they gained is all going to fall apart and they are going to have to eventually face justice, a la Nuremburg styled trials.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

Quote DRC:While I hate the general misuse of the metaphor, if you want to call it a War on Democracy, I will not object.
Leaving aside the obvious question: what's the definition of democracy... why would you confuse/conflate two strategic thrusts of the far Right: Starve The Beast, and voter suppression? Unless you consider every dishonest political appeal during elections to be a war against democracy. But that still doesn't come close to the treachery the Right exhibits in its Starve The Beast campaign. Perhaps other such well-funded and organized internal threats to the nation have existed, but I can't think of any. Maybe someone else can.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Thank You For Such A Good Topic To Discuss.

I was not familiar with the term "STARVE THE BEAST". I am now. My first impression is that it goes hand in hand with the terms, "POISON PILL LEGISLATION" and "THE TWO SANTA CLAUSE THEORY".

If I am off base with my thoughts, please tell me. I want to know more about this kind of philosophy. There's a proverb that goes, "Correct a wise man, he will thank you. Correct a fool, he will become angry." I want to be a wise man. I will listen to any and all criticism.

I feel that if any member of our representative government deliberately hides his/her true agenda through deception (no matter how "clever" that deception may be), then they should be called into an official session before congress and made to testify on behalf of their actions. If under oath they are found to be guilty of misrepresenting their true beliefs and actions... then they should be impeached.

If someone hides a "poisonous pill", by design, into a piece of legislation, there has to be accountability for it. It is an act of sedition. It could very well be treasonous. If they are found to be guilty of sedition and or treason, then they HAVE to go! They no longer have the privilege to represent us... we the people.

The 1st example that pops into my head that would fall under this type of sedition, is whoever has supported the cause of the "FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE".

To me, a financial derivative is nothing more than insurance. If someone wants to purchase insurance against one of their own personally held stock investments, I'm cool with it. If someone wants to purchase insurance against someone ELSE'S stock investment... I have a MAJOR problem with it!

To me, it's simple. (Maybe too simple. If it is, let me know.) I can own homeowners insurance to protect my home if it catches on fire. I cannot own homeowners insurance on my neighbor's home because I'll burn it down to collect the profit. Even worse, I shouldn't be able to own multiple homeowners insurance policies on my neighbors homes without them EVER knowing about it! That would breed chaos and destruction and tear at the very fabric of community. (Isn't "chaos and destruction" as it currently stands, an apt description of our monetary system?)

No one should be allowed to have insurance on something that they do not own.

If I am correct, than any member of our representative republic government that has helped to push this fallacy along should "get the axe" and be impeached.

Sedition is an act, deemed by legal authority, that seeks to undermine the established order. In this case, the "established order" is WE THE PEOPLE. If a member of our representative government is acting against the over all good of the people that they are supposed to be representing... then they got to go!

The only time in our history that these impeachment trials should remind us of, are the "Salem witch trials"! "WE" (the citizenry) can't peacefully make this happen. The "separate but equal" branches of government should begin impeachment hearings on each other until balance has been achieved. Right now, things are SO out of alignment.

Thank you again for the topic.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

The poison pill in 2006 that was for screwing the postal workers is a great example IMO of economic treason. All the fillibusters the GOPimps have done since 2008 is another example of economic treason. They have done everything possible to keep our economy from coming out of the mess they mostly created while screwing everyone that has a different agenda than theirs every chance they get.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Quote Fletcher Christian:If someone hides a "poisonous pill", by design, into a piece of legislation, there has to be accountability for it. It is an act of sedition. It could very well be treasonous. If they are found to be guilty of sedition and or treason, then they HAVE to go! They no longer have the privilege to represent us... we the people.

What if a poison pill sabotages some destructive piece of legislation being passed by a far Right "majority"? Such questions always haunt us given our un- and antidemocratic system.

I revile the anti-democratic nature of the Senate which gives a mere 18% of the US population 52% of the seats, as I do the EC which can impose on the nation a president rejected by the People.

Given this system, the far Right can wield power it could never have in a truly democratic representative body. So if Senators that represent a minority of the nation try to pass some obscene bill, do I NOT want some Senator to filibuster or introduce a poison pill? YES! Of course, the better answer is to reform our system... but it's virtually reform-proof. States with only about 4.5% of the population can thwart any reforms.

Yikes! No wonder the US is so screwed up!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I see your point "Pierpont". Right now it's a far right "majority". It wasn't 2 years ago. It was a far left "majority". Any way you slice it, the same problem exists.

I find it offensive that they get to set their own rules on how much of a majority is required in order to enact a decision. First it was 51, then it's 67... if the "right thing to do" ever does become obvious, they'll change it to 75% majority. It's all a ruse!

All you can do is "try". That's the best that anyone can do. It sounds so lame (because it is). I feel that most of the wrongs of our government are due to bad deeds going unchecked. If some honest fellows would just put the "check" into the checks and balances of our system... who knows? Maybe it would start to steer in the right direction.

At the very least... there would be some sort of official representation/documentation that someone saw something wrong and tried to do something about it.

You're right. No wonder the U.S. is so screwed up!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system