Replies

If we have a conservative nominee would “be willing to” actually fix things, then we can confidently elect them and expect success.

I don’t share that confidence. As I have stated numerous times, our country is so far off the rails that any conservative we elected to cut entitlement spending even 10% would likely see congress change hands within two years and he/she would be slaughtered in four.

Look at Wisconsin.... a small cut to benefits and they shut down the capital for weeks. Realistically, what do you think will happen when they cut food stamps, welfare, social services, union contracts, pensions, medicaid, medicare, and social security?

I could support such a candidate, but our problems won’t be fixed in two, four, eight, or even sixteen years. We are looking at drastic cuts in government spending spread out over decades to get out of the hole we find ourselves in. Reagan could not do it and he was the finest communicator and most pursuasive President we have seen in my lifetime.

If we have a conservative nominee would “be willing to” actually fix things, then we can confidently elect them and expect success.

I don’t share that confidence. As I have stated numerous times, our country is so far off the rails that any conservative we elected to cut entitlement spending even 10% would likely see congress change hands within two years and he/she would be slaughtered in four.

Look at Wisconsin.... a small cut to benefits and they shut down the capital for weeks. Realistically, what do you think will happen when they cut food stamps, welfare, social services, union contracts, pensions, medicaid, medicare, and social security?

I could support such a candidate, but our problems won’t be fixed in two, four, eight, or even sixteen years. We are looking at drastic cuts in government spending spread out over decades to get out of the hole we find ourselves in. Reagan could not do it and he was the finest communicator and most pursuasive President we have seen in my lifetime.

If such a "true conservative" President was a "nice guy" and not brash, on a Churchillian or even Cromwellian scale, I agree, they would be playing strictly by the rules and trying to convince Congress to give them what they want. Such a Mr. Nice Guy would simply tug on the reins a bit, but the horse would continue running headlong towards disaster.

IMHO, the Wisconsin Governor is one such Mr. Nice Guy. Great guy, but he's more of a Bradley than a Patton.

By "be willing to" I was meaning get political support going for drastic measures and then do them.

Why no political leaders have popped up yet who fit the bill for the Presidency is because a) they need real confidence in their vision b) they need to have the correct vision c) that vision includes several changes that have to happen simultaneously and d) a few industries would have a lot of change to deal with that, even though it would ultimately be healthy for the entire economy, they certainly would not suggest such ideas on their own.

Then...

Success convinces. The "visionary" would have to be simultaneously doing the changes and marketing them to the public like crazy, constantly pushing and pushing to gain support and action from supporters, in effect, steamrolling the opposition on all fronts. With how treasonous some of the Congress and the current administration is, I think we're a bit beyond worrying about keeping critics happy who will never be happy as long as they're not in power themselves. IMHO, I'd make it clear to Congress that I'm seeking their passage of the right legislation that I want, but I'm also going gangbusters with Executive orders to fix many, many wrongs. Basically, it's emergency time and they do not know what to do. If Congress is left to it's own devices, America will have a drastic economic collapse. All they keep doing is the will of lobbyists and polls; they don't have a wisp of a solution amongst the lot of them.

The size of the economy makes it more resilient than it seems at first glance. More important to my "vision" is that the enormous size of the U.S. economy also makes nominal GDP increases during a "boom" time yield more prosperity than would seem possible at first glance. If the Federal government actually dramatically slashed it's own size and put itself "back into it's own cage", along with the spending reductions which would enable it to realize surplus, it would also inspire people and business in America to earn, since the future taxation prospect would be lower taxes, not higher, in America. With a constant set tax rate, GDP increases would result in very large tax revenue, adding to surpluses that could be used to pay down the debt much faster than expected.

IMHO, income tax, even government's need for tax revenue at all, could be shrunk to levels that would seem incredibly cheap. But it will never happen as long as we have most of Congress bought and paid for by various industries who are looking only at their short term easy money ideas, and half of Congress bought and paid for by far leftism that seeks to run American into the ground.