yup you don't attack the argument you just attack the arguer. that's called ad hominem and it's a logical fallacy. you would've learned that if you went to a decent school.

starving the beast is the official fiscal policy of the neocons and generally republican leaders

if you disagree please demonstrate why this is false, perhaps by providing your own links that don't include transgender professors

from wikipedia which you didn't actually read: "The tax cuts of former US President George W. Bush's administration, extended by President Obama, are an example. He 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."[4]"

You cannot prove a negative. You need to prove the positive. You say it is a "OFFICIAL" platform of the neo cons. So prove it; one quote from bush doesn't make it the OFFICIAL platform of neo cons.

Here is your own source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_con

Show me where "starve the beast" appears on this?

In fact the word "tax" only appears once in the entire article and it is unrelated to "starve the beast".

Let's face it; you have made the connection. No one else did. I happen to dislike the NEO CONS along with you. I think it is a flawed movement. However it is wise to know your enemies.

Here is the actual goal of neo conservatism. Straight from your source of choice, wikipedia:

"Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it proposes to use American economic and military power to bring bourgeois democracy to other countries."

But you already knew that (I told you a few posts ago).

It doesn't fucking matter, the point is conservatives believe this shit, including Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. You do this every time, you try to focus on semantics or details that don't even matter. Admit running up the deficit is a republican policy and it's exactly counter to fiscal responsibility and I'll actually take you seriously.

Running up the deficit is the doing of both parties. Which is exactly my point.

The difference between me and you; is your still to young to realize that both parties are crap.

BO: "Admit ... and I'll actually take you seriously."

BO; your opinion means very little to me. Quantitatively speaking; it matters about as much as any other random college student. HINT: Not much.

So please save yourself the embarrassment of making demands with no leverage. It doesn't work.

both parties? orly...

http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2011/05/chart-republicans-dont-want-you-to-see.html

booyakasha ali g tellin u how it be. Since there's proof lowering taxes on the rich doesn't improve the economy, and since there's evidence increasing taxes doesn't hurt it I'm pretty sure that means there's no justification for republican deficit spending. y'know other than to starve the beast and bankrupt the country.

anyway look at the numbers, the graphs, the charts - only one party is running up the deficit and that one is your personal preference. QED.

"only one party is running up the deficit"

Oh damn, and here I thought it was Obama breaking all sorts of spending records and deficit records. Must be another misinformation scam by FoxNews.

Good ol' Veta, always keeping me in the know.

Bush II raised the ration of debt to GDP by 116%, Obama has raised it by 18%.

ratio* autocorrect bustin my balls