Talk:Starve the beast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] 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)