Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's Most Powerful Voting Block
Financial Sense University ^ | 12/02/2004 | Reagan Renaissance

Posted on 12/03/2004 6:55:38 AM PST by writer33

Last time we discussed some methods for creating political power. Today we are going to focus on exercising political power. Next week, our three part trilogy will culminate with an article specifically detailing how conservatives can create and exercise enough political power to restore the Constitution as the governing law of the land. In spite of the fact that socialism and its erosion of our property rights have been steadily escalating for more than seventy years, the trilogy details how we can rapidly recover our lost freedoms and end socialism quickly. Assuming the accuracy of the Gokhale-Smetters projections, we can safely accomplish this within the next decade before the oncoming tidal wave of socialism's unfunded liabilities can drown our economy or torpedo the American Dream.

After he understood the lessons of Ronald Reagan's two landslide elections (the majority of Americans are truly conservative and they will go to the polls to vote for trustworthy like-minded candidates), Newt conceived the idea of the Contract with America in hopes that conservatives would pull together and vote as a block. It worked. Whenever athletic teams or businesses are lucky enough or sufficiently skilled to develop the equivalent of an unstoppable play or a winning strategy, they keep running it over and over until it stops working. Not Republicans, so far the Contract with America has proved to be a "run once and throw it away" disposable. Carl Rove's strategy for Bush in 2004 bears only a superficial resemblance in that Bush and the Republicans grasped victory by making a definite appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party, but there was not an itemized list of carefully defined issues accompanied by a pledge to enact them. Asking the right questions, is the proper starting point to finding the right answers.

Why aren't Republicans rerunning a clearly proven strategy to win every election? In some circles, Republicans are referred to as the "stupid party" and by others as the party of perpetual foot-shooters. Has Newt Gingrich been the only Republican to recognize the truth? Unlikely. Could it be that Republicans are simply too independent to commit to another contract? Possibly, but I suspect the truth actually lies behind the scenes of the Contract with America's staggering success and the carefully crafted failures of its two most important parts. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, expectations were high that Republicans would be able to deliver on a number of the Contract's ten items, but almost no one had any expectation that Republicans could deliver on all ten, particularly the Balanced Budget and Term Limits Amendments. It was natural for Republicans to defer the most difficult items to be the last votes to be taken. There were precious few Americans who were not amazed when the first eight parts of the Contract were not only passed, but passed surprisingly easily. Members of Congress were in a state of shock approaching outright panic as the roll call came to Mark Hatfield who was obviously feeling enormous pressure as he prepared to cast his Senate vote that could send the Balanced Budget Amendment to the States for ratification.

Having to balance future budgets would have been distasteful enough for the 1995 Congressional incumbents who were members of the "professional" political class (most members that were not newly elected in the 1995 Republican sweep). But if the Balanced Budget Amendment passed, that would leave the vote on Term Limits as the only remaining item on the Contract with America. "Professional" politicians were confronted with the stark realization that they were about to be faced with having successfully passed the first nine items on the list. Defeating Term Limits after successfully passing every other part of the Contract could only be seen as purely self-serving. It would not only be embarrassing beyond belief, but it would also invite almost certain voter retaliation and defeat in subsequent elections since polls at the time showed that more than 80% of Americans wanted Term Limits to pass. We the people had finally come to terms with Congress. Career Congressmen saw themselves as being forced to commit hara-kiri with regard to their chosen careers. If eighty percent of Americans wanted Term Limits, at least that many Congressmen saw themselves as being within one vote of their own personal Faustian Bargain. The overwhelming success of the Contract brought the Republicans the power they sought, but now it was on the verge of being at the expense of their political souls. Faust would have been envious of the escape contrived by Dole and Hatfield et al.

We the people were turned away from what would have been the greatest victory for freedom in more than a century. The Balanced Budget Amendment went down to defeat one vote short of passing. After the Balanced Budget Amendment failed to pass, it made it easy for "professional" politicians to let Term Limits, the last item of the Contract, die a silent death for "lack of support". "Professional" politicians saved themselves from entering the politician's personal hell (being out of office) by votes that left the people of the United States effectively trapped in socialism. "Professional" politicians in the Republican Party made a clear choice; better that We the people rot in hell than they.

Against that backdrop, it is easy to understand the "run once and throw it away" attitude of Republicans toward the Contract. There were simply too many Republicans who had a too close encounter with a mandate that turned out be more mandate than they really wanted to bargain for. "Professional" politicians in the Republican Party preferred a second Clinton term and were willing to risk becoming a minority party again rather than risk another Contract with America. And they knew that any Second Contract would have to include Term Limits because of its overwhelming public approval.

That brings us full circle. For the immediate future, the Reagan Renaissance becomes a model that consists of a series of Contracts with Congress for every election that will meld the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party into the most reliable and powerful voting block in US history. There is no danger of a counter attack by Democrats, because everything that Democrats stand for or believe is based on socialism, the antithesis of freedom and free market capitalism. There is no danger from "moderate" Republicans because the model includes a carrot, the large block of votes, and a stick, running well-financed newly recruited conservative candidates against recalcitrant incumbent Republicans in the primaries or against incumbent Democrats in regular elections. Our stick superficially resembles Newt's GOPAC. Unlike GOPAC, our funding will come from members of the Reagan Wing and a large private source, not from the GOP or Republican controlled benefactors. And our candidates will be citizen-statesmen chosen by the Reagan Wing based on their support for the Contracts, not politicians chosen for their Republican allegiance. Since the leaders of the Republican Party have not presented us with another Contract with America, We can simply present them with a Contract with Congress. And the Reagan Wing can present it to them on terms that are going to be very difficult for them to refuse.

History tells us that only one third of Americans actively supported the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. I have seen estimates that at least a third of registered Republicans claim to be conservative. The second American Revolution can be underway before the 2006 election; We can take our freedom back and this time we can do it without firing a shot. We can end socialism in the United States before the boomers become eligible for Medicare and avoid the bankruptcy or hyperinflation that Medicare is certain to produce. If the ball park numbers that I have cited above are even close to being correct, the potential power of the Reagan Wing can be reasonably estimated. With little more than a token appeal to the conservative base, Bush picked up an estimated 4.5 million votes, driving his total vote to almost 60 million. Could a Contract with Congress recruit 20 million voters to the Reagan Wing? You bet it can and with your help, it can be in place before the 2006 election. But the real impact of the Reagan Wing will be made in the 2008 election, the first election where the Reagan Wing can elect a Congress and a President committed to the next Contract with Congress.

Since the series began we have been offering proof that socialism is a flawed economic model that ends in failure every time it's tried. Reagan cautioned us on that memorable night in 1964, "Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." Ash-heap or Renaissance, "we have come to a time for choosing. Every Democracy in history has ended in bankruptcy or hyperinflation when the public learns to vote itself benefits from the public treasury. History's most respected economist, Ludwig von Mises and Ronald Reagan have repeatedly warned us that the United States will not be an exception. The United States has roughly one decade before it drowns under the tidal wave of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and the other socialistic programs. The Titanic could have saved itself by simply changing course. Never underestimate the genius of Ronald Reagan or the power of the American people in the pursuit of freedom:

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness." Ronald Reagan, 1964


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushvictory; conservativevote; contractwithamerica; newtgingrich; termlimits; votingbloc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2004 6:55:38 AM PST by writer33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; steve50; JohnGalt; fporretto; George Frm Br00klyn Park; tacticalogic; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 12/03/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Learn to spell 'bloc'.


3 posted on 12/03/2004 6:58:05 AM PST by Nick Danger (Want some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: international american

Ping!


4 posted on 12/03/2004 6:58:26 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger

Tell the author.


5 posted on 12/03/2004 6:59:06 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: writer33

"For the immediate future, the Reagan Renaissance becomes a model that consists of a series of Contracts with Congress for every election that will meld the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party into the most reliable and powerful voting block in US history. There is no danger of a counter attack by Democrats, because everything that Democrats stand for or believe is based on socialism, the antithesis of freedom and free market capitalism"

Oh how I miss Ronald Reagan!


6 posted on 12/03/2004 7:04:48 AM PST by international american (Proudly posting without reading the article since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: international american

I completely agree.


7 posted on 12/03/2004 7:07:18 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223; HitmanNY; bitt; Stellar Dendrite; Glenn; Lokibob; kellynla; jobim; ...

Sorry. I couldn't help it. This was just too good. Ping!


8 posted on 12/03/2004 7:09:40 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

BTTT!!!!!!


9 posted on 12/03/2004 7:15:16 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: writer33; anymouse

Wow!


10 posted on 12/03/2004 7:16:54 AM PST by BellStar (Will you spend more on gifts this year than last year? Poll http://www.kemah.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Unless the W administration and the GOP members of Congress start demanding that the borders be secured, the immigration laws be enforced and the exorbitant spending eliminated, the GOP rule in may be short lived...
11 posted on 12/03/2004 7:18:17 AM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33
The Titanic could have saved itself by simply changing course.

Personal life & the course of nations is nothing but a set of decisions & the ramifications...

Thank God for Reagan then & President Bush now.

Thanks for thread/ping writer33

12 posted on 12/03/2004 7:19:06 AM PST by DollyCali (We can never repay our veterans...NEVER. Thank you all who served our great country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger

Block works too as in 'blockheads'. Heehee...


13 posted on 12/03/2004 7:21:20 AM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Thanks for the ping. Senator Hatfield was not the only Senator to doom the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Harry Reid of Nevada (yes, the guy who is now the mouthpiece for the Senate Dems) campaigned for election in support of the BBA. Two months after he got into office, he voted AGAINST the BBA. And then, too, it failed by one vote.

Since I've spent 26 years working on the subject of the BBA, I despise Harry Reid. He is equally the suck up and sell out to the unions, etc., as was Li'l Tommy Daschle. Fortunately, Reid is a poorer leader with fewer troops. For those reasons only, not his intent, Reid will do less damage to the United States than Daschle did.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Jennings on Jeopardy! -- Nice Guys Do Finish First"

14 posted on 12/03/2004 7:44:33 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Visit: www.ArmorforCongress.com please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: writer33
bump! bump! bump!



15 posted on 12/03/2004 7:53:05 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

ping


16 posted on 12/03/2004 7:54:05 AM PST by Temple Owl (19064)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

If another man of Reagan's philosphy were to emerge, how would he be received today? He spoke of a smaller, more limited federal government and a return to original Constitutional principles regardless of who's ox gets gored in the process, and of libertarianism in positive, rather than pejorative terms.


17 posted on 12/03/2004 7:57:43 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; writer33

Yes, Reagan spoke of limited government in an ideal sense but the reality on the ground at the time did not allow him that luxury. His primary objective was of more immediate concern. This nation could not have brought the Soviet Communist empire to its knees without expanding government. Reagan was willing to sacrifice his long term ideals for that objective.

I, for one, am glad he did.


18 posted on 12/03/2004 9:28:07 AM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Thanks for the ping!


19 posted on 12/03/2004 9:29:10 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Yes, Reagan spoke of limited government in an ideal sense but the reality on the ground at the time did not allow him that luxury. His primary objective was of more immediate concern. This nation could not have brought the Soviet Communist empire to its knees without expanding government. Reagan was willing to sacrifice his long term ideals for that objective.

He did at least try and apply them to domestic policy and the bureaucratic culture of the beltway. That objective seems to have fallen by the wayside.

20 posted on 12/03/2004 9:31:31 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: writer33; Reagan Man; Reaganwuzthebest; B4Ranch; devolve; MeekOneGOP; PhilDragoo; JohnHuang2; ...
'A TIME FOR CHOOSING' - ping.

(How Conservatives can bring back Constitutional Reform to America.)

21 posted on 12/03/2004 9:32:03 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's not quite time to rest - John Kerry is still out there (and so is Hillary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DollyCali

You're welcome.


22 posted on 12/03/2004 9:42:24 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"Since I've spent 26 years working on the subject of the BBA, I despise Harry Reid."

We tried our hearts out to get him dethroned here in Nevada. Here's his campaign slogan: Harry Reid, independent like Nevada. This couldn't be further from the truth. And of course the Dems and Moderates fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


23 posted on 12/03/2004 9:44:59 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

"If another man of Reagan's philosphy were to emerge, how would he be received today?"

With scorn from liberals, and joy from conservatives. I think he wold make America stronger. No doubt in my mind. He'd win over the hearts instantly.


24 posted on 12/03/2004 9:50:12 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Both men cut taxes and Bush continues to proclaim cutting taxes as his centerpiece. Reagan was committed to keeping America safe...and Bush has continued his policies of expanding and strengthening the military. Most Conservatives decry Bush's support of No Child Left Behind Act but fail to mention the deplorable conditions of the public school system and that forcing schools to improve academic performance is a positive step given the fact that it is the states who are being forced to reform their massive bureaucratic structures without much help from federal funds. Neat trick Bush pulled forcing the states (mostly the blue ones) to reform or go bankrupt.

Moreover, Bush surpasses Reagan in another respect. While Reagan only paid lip service to conservative social issues Bush boldly states his positions on them.


25 posted on 12/03/2004 9:53:23 AM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: writer33

What good is a balanced budget amendment if the budget keeps skyrocketing. What is needed is the right leadership to get the federal government back in its cage. I do not see that happening. The cattle prod that will force more accountability to the government is ridding us of the confounded income tax. A more desireable alternative is a national sales tax. That will put a tight leash on the beast. We shall see...or not.


26 posted on 12/03/2004 9:58:04 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (I never let my schooling interfere with my education. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
"What is needed is the right leadership to get the federal government back in its cage. I do not see that happening. The cattle prod that will force more accountability to the government is ridding us of the confounded income tax. A more desireable alternative is a national sales tax. That will put a tight leash on the beast. We shall see...or not."

Read the entire series for the Reagan Renaissance archived here.
Join the Reagan Renaissance effort whose goals are exactly as you have outlined. The Reagan Renaissance is about making it happen instead of talking about it and wringing our hands over it.

27 posted on 12/03/2004 10:10:37 AM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Most Conservatives decry Bush's support of No Child Left Behind Act but fail to mention the deplorable conditions of the public school system and that forcing schools to improve academic performance is a positive step given the fact that it is the states who are being forced to reform their massive bureaucratic structures without much help from federal funds. Neat trick Bush pulled forcing the states (mostly the blue ones) to reform or go bankrupt.

I can appreciate that, but still find a substantial difference in philosophy. Using the federal government to force the states to reform their bureaucracies is a quite different thing than reforming the federal bureaucracy, and one should not be considered a suitable substitute for the other., IMHO.

Moreover, Bush surpasses Reagan in another respect. While Reagan only paid lip service to conservative social issues Bush boldly states his positions on them.

Personally I'm more concerned about politically conservative substance than socially conservative style.

28 posted on 12/03/2004 10:28:45 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Unfortunately, too many professing "conservatives" think George W. Bush is this century's answer to Ronald Reagan. Michael Medved once said on his radio show that he thinks Bush is just as conservative as Reagan--perhaps even more conservative. As long as Bush is seen as the new standard of conservatism, I don't see anything changing for the better in the near future. The GOP is already poised to forge ahead with more liberal legislation like the New Freedom Initiative and spending increases on socialist programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities and global AIDS relief.

29 posted on 12/03/2004 10:31:48 AM PST by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Unfortunately, too many professing "conservatives" think George W. Bush is this century's answer to Ronald Reagan. Michael Medved once said on his radio show that he thinks Bush is just as conservative as Reagan--perhaps even more conservative. As long as Bush is seen as the new standard of conservatism, I don't see anything changing for the better in the near future. The GOP is already poised to forge ahead with more liberal legislation like the New Freedom Initiative and spending increases on socialist programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities and global AIDS relief.

I think that to some degree, the fact that George Bush is considered the standard of conservativism is a testament to the degree that Bill Clinton advanced liberalism.

30 posted on 12/03/2004 10:38:04 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You have a point, but I believe it was Clinton's liberal agenda, especially in the area of health care, that prompted conservatives to take action. I fear that with Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the complacency among conservatives may be worse than it was after the "revolution" of '94. The fact that government grew more in the last four years than it did in the previous eight is cause for concern.

31 posted on 12/03/2004 10:48:26 AM PST by sheltonmac ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." -Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; tacticalogic
Without out saying it precisely, but what you both are getting at, is that Reagan was a statesman and Bush is politician. Reagan would not compromise what he would say about his principles even if he was willing to compromise with Democrats to achive a legislative political deal. Reagan was willing to say what he believed regardless of how it would affect his electability and he was not willing to say things that he did not believe even if he knew it would help him win elections. That is not true for Bush. And there is not a single conservative who frequents this website that is not holding their breath and wishing against hope that Bush is going to turn out to be a real conservative in this term. Most conservatives are, in fact, hoping that Bush was simply being a clever, but slightly deceitful politician doing exactly the opposite of Bill Clinton. Clinton campaigned as a moderate and governed as the liberal that everyone knew him to be. Bush campaigned as a moderate (compassionate conservative that supported and signed the largest expansion of Medicare in history) and everybody, including me, is holding their breath hoping that now that he has been elected that he will govern as we believe Reagan would have in his second term were it not for the possibilities created for dealing with the Soviet Union by the changing of the old guard to Gorbachev.

The Reagan Renaissance effort is precisely about convincing the leaders and elected representatives of the Republican Party that they must be true to the Constitution and conservative values. Socialism must be ended and as quickly and as fairly as possible. The Reagan Renaissance effort is about replacing elected Republicans or Republican leaders that will not support this effort. The Reagan Renaissance effort outlines the proof that it is possible to take our country back and that it can be done quickly, efficiently, and at minimal economic cost. And it can be done without firing a shot.

You can open the door to the Reagan Renaissance by simply reading the series archived here.

32 posted on 12/03/2004 12:46:12 PM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: writer33
The author states, "We can take our freedom back and this time we can do it without firing a shot. We can end socialism in the United States before the boomers become eligible for Medicare and avoid the bankruptcy or hyperinflation that Medicare is certain to produce."

It sure sounds to me as if the author may have drawn the line between the nouveau Conservatives, yearning for a Reagan Renaissance and the "boomers", as if "boomers" were the enemy.

The "boomers" consist of both liberals and conservatives and of course the great group in the middle, but if the writer thinks he can return us to strict constitutional conservatism without the support of the "boomers" then he/she is really sadly mistaken.

If he/she realizes the current geriatric bloc is extremely powerful surely he/she realizes that in just two years from now the largest group of the "boomers" will be 60 to 61 and the powerful geriatric bloc of voters will be larger than ever.

Some form of Medicare is always going to be with us and the nouveau conservatives better grasp that fact and work with the traditional conservatives within the boomer generation to come up with real workable alternatives.

To cast "boomers" as the enemy is to do so at the peril of the objective.

33 posted on 12/03/2004 1:29:06 PM PST by ImpBill (Twas a very good election for the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator

I agree.


34 posted on 12/03/2004 1:41:39 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

"Personally I'm more concerned about politically conservative substance than socially conservative style."

I completely agree. It's definitely about substance.


35 posted on 12/03/2004 1:44:47 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill; Reaganghost

"It sure sounds to me as if the author may have drawn the line between the nouveau Conservatives, yearning for a Reagan Renaissance and the "boomers", as if "boomers" were the enemy.

The "boomers" consist of both liberals and conservatives and of course the great group in the middle, but if the writer thinks he can return us to strict constitutional conservatism without the support of the "boomers" then he/she is really sadly mistaken.

If he/she realizes the current geriatric bloc is extremely powerful surely he/she realizes that in just two years from now the largest group of the "boomers" will be 60 to 61 and the powerful geriatric bloc of voters will be larger than ever.

Some form of Medicare is always going to be with us and the nouveau conservatives better grasp that fact and work with the traditional conservatives within the boomer generation to come up with real workable alternatives.

To cast "boomers" as the enemy is to do so at the peril of the objective."

I think, not being the author, that the writer is simply stating the liberal boomer mindset that landed us in this predicament to begin with. No, not all boomers are liberal, but it is that era that changed American politics in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the boomers are the ones that got labeled with Social Security, when in reality, it was liberalism that created it.


36 posted on 12/03/2004 1:51:31 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

>>trustworthy like-minded candidates<<

This eliminates the incumbents.


37 posted on 12/03/2004 1:58:25 PM PST by B4Ranch (((The lack of alcohol in my coffee forces me to see reality!)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: writer33

"Next week, our three part trilogy will..."

...deal with how all trilogies are three-part.


38 posted on 12/03/2004 2:05:46 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

I don't read it as being directed toward the boomers as being responsible. The politicians that try to buy votes with our children's money, and the people who are willing to sell them are responsible. The "boom" is the actuarial event that will bring the system down, and the "boomers" simply the manifestation or personification of that event.


39 posted on 12/03/2004 2:06:39 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
This nation could not have brought the Soviet Communist empire to its knees without expanding government. Reagan was willing to sacrifice his long term ideals for that objective.

Strengthening the military should not be equated with expanding government. Expanding the expenditures on one facet of Government, to meet an ongoing crisis, which is within the sphere of that Government, is one thing. What is unconscionable, today, is the expansion of Government into areas that are not the proper function of our Constitutional Government--indeed into areas where Reagan sought to reduce, and eventually eliminate Government.

And the long term ideals might have been deferred. They were certainly not sacrificed.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

40 posted on 12/03/2004 3:11:18 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

"Strengthening the military should not be equated with expanding government."

Agreed. But one needs to take into account the wheeling and dealing that goes on when conservatives seek to increase funding for the military. Often, misguided and opportunistic liberals (and conservatives) see this as their chance to include pork and expansion of welfare state projects into the budget process. That is what happened to Reagan. In order to get funding for the military he had to bite the bullet on increased social spending.


41 posted on 12/03/2004 3:34:20 PM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill
"Some form of Medicare is always going to be with us and the nouveau conservatives better grasp that fact and work with the traditional conservatives within the boomer generation to come up with real workable alternatives."

I strongly urge you to read the complete series. It is not possible, economically or politically, or by any possible compromise to fund the combined unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. The Comptroller of the Currency has already confirmed that our economy has never in history grown at a pace that would make this possible. The growth and competition that is occuring in China and Asia will increase in the future. Our nation as a whole is spending 1.5 billion dollars every single day more than we are producing. Look at this chart that compares the growth to total US income to the growth of total US debt:


We have been consuming our capital base for more than fifty years and the pace has now gone parabolic. No matter what you think, believe or wish for, the United States is facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation when the Medicare liabilities of the boomers begin to mature. No one in their right minds can believe that working Americans at that time are going to willingly sacrifice their own and their families' financial security and future to pay for an unconstitutional benefit that the payers had no opportunity to vote for or against. We have already fought one revolution over taxation without representation. Can anyone seriously believe this would not be the source of another? Can this be anyone's dream of leaving a better America to their children?

These are issues that Americans can effectively and fairly deal with now. If we wait until 2012, it will be too late. If we are to deal effectively with it even by 2008, we must start now. The series provides a discussion of the problems we face and it offers a politically doable solution. While it is not a crisis now, it is a crisis that is coming and by the time the political class in Washington is even willing to admit that the problem exists, it will be too late.

One other fact worthy of mention: Our economy of at least the last three years has been running on debt, not productive growth. Our financial markets, stocks and bonds, are over valued. Mean reversion of those values is a certainty. If it occurs quickly by price reductions, our problem is going to magnified, maybe by multiples. And under stress, the red-blue map could cease to be a picture reflecting our electorial distributions, and could become a map of multiple countries. Our nation cannot survive under socialism. Wouldn't it be better to end socialism now, and by choice? Contrary to what you have stated, Medicare is not always going to be with us. It is an insane promise that cannot be paid for. The boomers are not going to get Medicare regardless, and if they do, they won't want it and it will be worse than useless as medical care. Don't take my word for it. Read the series for yourself. After you have read the series, we can address or tackle any objections that you might raise.

42 posted on 12/03/2004 3:41:08 PM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: writer33

BTTT


43 posted on 12/03/2004 3:43:11 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; writer33
After he understood the lessons of Ronald Reagan's two landslide elections (the majority of Americans are truly conservative and they will go to the polls to vote for trustworthy like-minded candidates)

Yes they are, Americans I believe are overwhelmingly conservative on most issues, give them candidates like RR who is sincere in what he believes in and they will vote for them.

44 posted on 12/03/2004 7:24:53 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

"Yes they are, Americans I believe are overwhelmingly conservative on most issues, give them candidates like RR who is sincere in what he believes in and they will vote for them."

I agree with you 100%. I think if the whole country, 100%, turned out and voted, it would probably go something like 55% conservative, 45% moderate to liberal. No matter how you look at it, a majority.


45 posted on 12/03/2004 8:25:23 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost; writer33
Didn't come to the thread, was invited. And certainly didn't come to argue. Been around FR too long to know that does little good.

All I am saying that to cast all "boomers" and socialists feeding at the teat of government is a bad move.

There have been many of us screaming your argument at the top of our lungs for 30 plus years, to no avail.

This particular boomer is not naive enough to think Medicare in it's present from will survive. But changes will be hard fought and not quick in the coming. Pain will be the price and unfortunately my generation will pay most of it. Contrary to popular thought. We will be the ones who have worked our lifetimes with an eye to the future that will be left with little to no health care. Not the one's paying for it. In the ponzi scheme of Social Security and Medicare we are the ones that have funded it fully and know full well that there won't be enough bodies contributing to keep it solvent.

Under the tutelage of Bill Clinton, the Republican controlled Congress made even more mistakes within the last decade.

My wife and I have enjoyed excellent health benefits as the result of employment with a top Fortune 500 company for years. My wife, disabled in an industrial accident was forced by Republican led congress and law signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 to have her private insurance, who there to fore had been her primary insurer with Medicare being the supplemental (an paying virtually nothing), change 180 degrees. I can't remember the exact name of the Omnibus Bill but it forced her to file for Medicare first (taxpayer funded) and the private insurer became the supplement.

Insane ... yes.

And of course it bodes that in 6 years I too will be forced to enjoy Medicare as my primary insurer and the private sector insurance as the supplemental.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have the cajones to mess with the system and when they do they actually have made it worse.

All I am saying in response to the writer is that it is folly to start laying blame at the feet of the group that has always been the largest voting bloc (the geriatric set) especially when their numbers are about to be tripled.

I'll read the series of articles, but must tell you with statements like the one I lifted in my response which was posted as the result of an invitation to the thread, I can't guarantee that I will be as objective a reader as I might have otherwise been.

Thanks for your efforts. They aren't the first and more than likely won't be the last. But just remember to put your faith in either of the major dominant political parties in this era of the "professional politician" is folly.

The best of them head to DC with bright idealism for a term or two at the most and then fall into the routine of business as usual in their own private and very exclusive little worlds with a few leaving in abject defeat.

So it has been since the beginning of time and usually takes cataclysmic events to event drastic change.

We are currently living through one of those times.

Too old here to get all excited about placing my faith in the deeds and theories of men. Do what I can and leave the rest to God.

Good luck. Sincerely. Just be careful whom you alienate en-bloc.

46 posted on 12/03/2004 9:52:56 PM PST by ImpBill (Twas a very good election for the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

Mediscare has to be privatized. Period. I agree a hundred percent with you. Not all boomers are bad. They just got the bad rap, because most social programs were developed during their time period. It doesn't mean boomers are bad, just unlucky.


47 posted on 12/03/2004 9:56:04 PM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Thank you for realizing the fact that we were the ones that got to fully fund the ponzi scheme for the past 4 decades and will now reap the folly of it all. But trust me, at this age I have a deeper understanding into the nature of people and the geriatric generation who as always been the largest demographic group going to the polls, won't go silently into the night. The new warriors fighting this nightmare best keep that in mind.

Don't know how much science fiction you have followed but the first generation of those being sent to "carousel" won't go easily.

48 posted on 12/03/2004 10:09:08 PM PST by ImpBill (Twas a very good election for the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: writer33
By the way the author is seriously flawed into thinking that he can logically change America's Most Powerful Voting Block", from what has been and still continues to be the most powerful voting block - Americans 50 - 70/80+. A simple study of the demographics of the populace will shred that theory instantly.

Don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing the folly of the SSI/Medicare ponzi scheme and not trying to throw cold water on the effort to affectively change it. But reality is reality and the solution will be much more complex and painful than words on paper or on an Internet Blog site.

49 posted on 12/03/2004 10:17:40 PM PST by ImpBill (Twas a very good election for the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Pithy and to the point. Well said. /;-)


50 posted on 12/03/2004 10:18:33 PM PST by ImpBill (Twas a very good election for the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson