Interesting.  Solar, your starting point is cultural and moral.  Individual's starting point is constitutional and economic.

Quote from: alienhand on November 02, 2018, 03:43:28 AM
Interesting.  Solar, your starting point is cultural and moral.  Individual's starting point is constitutional and economic.

Unfortunately, they're inseparable. We can save the country financially, but if we don't correct our culture, we're dead.
The American dream is all about Freedom and liberty, but there's a culture of angry, lazy and scared youth out there who have been sold the idea that socialism can quell their anger and fears, all they have to do is relinquish what is essentially free thought to the govt, the  great equalizer, the great protector of the weak.

That's Right, the left has purposely created a generation of weak and fearful men, snowflakes if you will. And unless we reverse this effect, no amount of spending curation will make a hill of beans.
However, I believe Trump is the man to make this correction, simply by doing what he's doing, showing them that capitalism works for all people, and his "In Your Face" style of governing is an example of how real men work, not the pussy whipped Bush family style, of 'Kinder Gentler" Bullshit.

Anyway, it'll take a bit of tough love, but I think it's doable, we just all need to recognize the damage PC inflicts and fight back.

Quote from: Individual on November 01, 2018, 08:47:52 PM
I'm not seeing any process in motion by which change will accomplish anything lasting.
All things equal, strength is in numbers. Conservatives do not represent a majority of the voting population, nor are all those who vote for GOP candidates conservative. By what means do you feel cultural America can/would be brought to accept "living within ones means"? When only the top 10% of taxpayers are paying equal or more than what government is spending per person, how would you define a "Fair Tax System"? How might you entice voters to demand a tight budget when that would for most voters require giving up something government is providing them?

I maintain that our problems are rooted primarily in the change which occurred in 1913, the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, which has collectivized all citizens and States under control of our Federal government. Those who are taxed the most are willing to pay more, giving liberal politicians the means to attract votes of those who see government programs as their primary means of support, with negative consequences primarily impacting those of the middle class working taxpayers who are diminishing in numbers AND are the primary source of conservatives remaining.

While we may win an election now and then, I see no way of making significant and lasting changes without taking the power of the purse from our Federal government FIRST.

See Reply #46, I saw his response before I saw yours.
But to answer your "Fair Tax System", do your own research, obviously you know nothing of a fair tax, or you wouldn't have asked.
Once it's instituted, the IRS essentially disappears, no one will have money taken out of their paycheck, that's a huge selling point, and they don't have to file to get it back.
The poor are not known for being a huge driver in the purchase of new products, so they won't really be affected, they'll no longer pay a tax on used cars etc, so again, they won't care.

But as I've pointed out, you can cut all the spending you want, bu unless you change the culture, forget it. Hell, we could eliminate the 16th and 17th, but that will not stop the socialists from killing off capitalism.
Are you not seeing reality?

Oh, and one other point, you claimed "Conservatives do not represent a majority of the voting population", that is partly true. The base makes up the majority voting block of the Conservative Right, while the remainder, the Majority of the electorate, now supports the GOP, which is "Why We Keep Winning"!

It's always been a harder sell for conservatives to pitch self-reliance, responsibility, and hard work.  Unfortunately, it's more innate in humans to look for easy pickin's, avoiding work, and stealing, rather than to work one's ass off for the benefits down the road. 

Liberals, progressives, and leftists ... selling the freedom from work, govt hand outs, and jealousy of people who work hard and have more ... always have a built-in lead from the starting line.  Conservatives always have had, and always will have, their starting blocks about 15 yards behind the liberals' ...... in a hundred yard dash.

We have to run twice as fast, work twice as hard, to stay in the game against Marx, Alinsky, Cloward-Piven, Obama-Clinton, and their current sycophants.

That's just how it is.  Hopefully humans change, which is what God is waiting for, I'm sure.

The percentages / likelihood of a decent, responsible person gaining the presidency is probably just as we've seen.  Washington, Lincoln, Ike, Reagan, Trump, out of all of them .... is probably a good definition of the odds.  Maybe JFK if he'd had the time; he seemed like an OK guy while he was poking everything in a skirt that got within 20 feet of him, lol.

It's also true that America has adopted a lot of socialistic programs and affectations, thanks to the largesse of a hugely successful capitalist, free society.

We've said "Oh, OK, let's start up just a few collectivist systems for welfare, unemployment, disability, retirement, medicine, and taking in everybody from the globe who wants to wander in and be taken care of".

As long as it doesn't take over the government, America has been OK with limited socialism because we got so damned rich with capitalism.  We've had money to burn on feel-good safety nets and sharing the wealth.

Unfortunately, that has become our no-shooting civil war for the moment - leftists trying to push the sharing of the wealth toward full government communism, and conservatives trying to keep it down to socialism-lite, without the govt and society being fully bastardized.

Just realized that my list of good presidents has an interesting tie - in :

Washington - Rev War
Lincoln - Civil War
Ike - WW2
Reagan - Cold War
Trump - Obama / Clinton final putsch to end America

verrrry interesting .......

Quote from: AndyJackson on November 02, 2018, 07:42:44 AM
It's always been a harder sell for conservatives to pitch self-reliance, responsibility, and hard work.  Unfortunately, it's more innate in humans to look for easy pickin's, avoiding work, and stealing, rather than to work one's ass off for the benefits down the road. 

My opinion and I may be wrong. The problem is liberalism/socialism is a philosophy of pleasure while these things you are espousing are a philosophy of pain.  A philosophy of pleasure will always win out against a philosophy of pain.  Another thing, if a person doesn't feel like they can be self-reliant or no matter how hard they work they still lose they won't work hard or make attempts to be self-reliant.  They have to have some kind of way to believe they can.   If they're told they're guaranteed nothing or life is not fair what is the motivation for them to do things right?  For solar, working hard seems to be a philosophy of pleasure and not pain and he believes he can achieve success.  How do we take this way and put it on to others? Give people hope that working hard will lead to success and turn working hard into a form of pleasure and not pain.  I think if this can be answered you will see the demand for socialism decrease.  Solar is onto something with this on how he views life.

I'm going to give another opinion.  It seems to be the belief here and other conservative groups that liberalism and socialism come from envy and jealously.  Maybe for some that is true but I think socialism and liberalism come from something else and that is despair.  Look at Obama.  His speeches are about hope.  What he does is he appeals not to their envy or the disdain that someone has something you don't have but he appeals to people's despair.  The people who went for Obama don't believe they can even succeed at all.  Socialism and liberalism that he and others promise gives people who vote for him and them hope.  The people he and socialists appeal to are those without hope at all and Obama promises them a new tomorrow and a better life. 

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2018, 05:39:40 AM
See Reply #46, I saw his response before I saw yours.
But to answer your "Fair Tax System", do your own research, obviously you know nothing of a fair tax, or you wouldn't have asked.
Once it's instituted, the IRS essentially disappears, no one will have money taken out of their paycheck, that's a huge selling point, and they don't have to file to get it back.
The poor are not known for being a huge driver in the purchase of new products, so they won't really be affected, they'll no longer pay a tax on used cars etc, so again, they won't care.

But as I've pointed out, you can cut all the spending you want, bu unless you change the culture, forget it. Hell, we could eliminate the 16th and 17th, but that will not stop the socialists from killing off capitalism.
Are you not seeing reality?

Oh, and one other point, you claimed "Conservatives do not represent a majority of the voting population", that is partly true. The base makes up the majority voting block of the Conservative Right, while the remainder, the Majority of the electorate, now supports the GOP, which is "Why We Keep Winning"!

My question was "How do YOU define a Fair Tax System?", just a consumption tax?
While I might agree that would be better than what we have currently, the changes I have been trying to promote would not preclude States from employing a Fair Tax system or any other form of taxation acceptable to their citizenry, and would also eliminate the IRS. But it would also give control of much of the current spending by the Federal government back to the States, and make it more difficult for Federal laws to be created which would impose hardship upon States. An example would be the Federal minimum wage, Congress might pass a minimum wage law, but without setting a wage amount, leaving each State to determine a minimum wage that best fit their States ability to impose and result in more people looking for and finding employment producing adequate income to reduce, of not eliminate, dependency on government aid which would also be the responsibility of each individual State without funding from the Federal government.

I still am unable to see how you are going to change the culture, and I've not proposed cutting spending at all, simply moving the acquisition of revenue to where it will be spent.

"Are you seeing reality?" So you find it difficult to discuss political differences without resorting to such comments?
Do you really not see the fundamental change made to our government as a result of the 16th and 17th amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act?

We should see support of the GOP confirmed by the results of the midterms in the next few days. But the real test will be the 2020 elections.

What, exactly, is it you feel we are winning? What changes have occurred that can/will not be undone the next time the Democrats are in power? Has any major change comparable to Obamacare been achieved? Or any of the numerous Federal welfare programs, such as those created by FDR or LBJ?

In my opinion, we have won a battle, getting Trump elected along with a majority in both Houses of Congress. But the only long lasting wins were the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations to the Supreme court. Lets hope Trump can replace Ginsburg also before he leaves office.

Quote from: Individual on November 02, 2018, 11:49:20 AM
My question was "How do YOU define a Fair Tax System?", just a consumption tax?

It's not how I interpret it, just look up the Cruz plan, that is it in its simplicity.

QuoteWhile I might agree that would be better than what we have currently, the changes I have been trying to promote would not preclude States from employing a Fair Tax system or any other form of taxation acceptable to their citizenry, and would also eliminate the IRS.

That's just silly, no State can eliminate the IRS through a Fair Tax, the individual would still be liable to the Fed.

QuoteBut it would also give control of much of the current spending by the Federal government back to the States, and make it more difficult for Federal laws to be created which would impose hardship upon States. An example would be the Federal minimum wage, Congress might pass a minimum wage law, but without setting a wage amount, leaving each State to determine a minimum wage that best fit their States ability to impose and result in more people looking for and finding employment producing adequate income to reduce, of not eliminate, dependency on government aid which would also be the responsibility of each individual State without funding from the Federal government.

Ca already has a min wage above govt standards.

QuoteI still am unable to see how you are going to change the culture, and I've not proposed cutting spending at all, simply moving the acquisition of revenue to where it will be spent.

You can't change culture via govt, you can only get it out of the way. Cultural change will come when people see less govt interference in their ability to ear a living absent of govt.

Quote"Are you seeing reality?" So you find it difficult to discuss political differences without resorting to such comments?
Do you really not see the fundamental change made to our government as a result of the 16th and 17th amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act?

I'll say it again, "Are you seeing reality?" You want it all today, this is not even remotely possible, the Fed is a leach/host symbiotic relationship that cannot be removed without killing the host, it must be effected through a slow procedural change, that's the reality I speak of. In the least, it will take a minimum of 3 decades to institute, assuming it ever happens.

QuoteWe should see support of the GOP confirmed by the results of the midterms in the next few days. But the real test will be the 2020 elections.

So you don't think Trump will be reelected?

QuoteWhat, exactly, is it you feel we are winning? What changes have occurred that can/will not be undone the next time the Democrats are in power? Has any major change comparable to Obamacare been achieved? Or any of the numerous Federal welfare programs, such as those created by FDR or LBJ?

For starters, one of LBJ's successes was in destroying the Black nuclear family, and now Trump has awoken them to the tune of 40% approval and growing.
Oh, and the Dims will be lucky to recover in the next 30 years, assuming they ever do.

QuoteIn my opinion, we have won a battle, getting Trump elected along with a majority in both Houses of Congress. But the only long lasting wins were the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations to the Supreme court. Lets hope Trump can replace Ginsburg also before he leaves office.

The "ONLY Wins?" Really?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_nov02

Trump at 51%

If he  is that high on election day  he might help elect  more senators.

The ep has taken the lead  in CT for  governor.

Quote from: alienhand on November 02, 2018, 10:45:04 AM
My opinion and I may be wrong. The problem is liberalism/socialism is a philosophy of pleasure while these things you are espousing are a philosophy of pain.  A philosophy of pleasure will always win out against a philosophy of pain.  Another thing, if a person doesn't feel like they can be self-reliant or no matter how hard they work they still lose they won't work hard or make attempts to be self-reliant.  They have to have some kind of way to believe they can.   If they're told they're guaranteed nothing or life is not fair what is the motivation for them to do things right?  For solar, working hard seems to be a philosophy of pleasure and not pain and he believes he can achieve success.  How do we take this way and put it on to others? Give people hope that working hard will lead to success and turn working hard into a form of pleasure and not pain.  I think if this can be answered you will see the demand for socialism decrease.  Solar is onto something with this on how he views life.

The pleasure of working hard and succeeding were significantly washed out of our existence when the family, church, schools, things like Boy Scouts ..... were destroyed to varying degrees.

That's where hard work and success were celebrated and encouraged / enabled.  It's no accident that these are the biggest targets of communists, dems-progs-libs-leftists, et al.  It's written verbatim in their various playbooks.  Dismantle all those things, and you're left with a pliable, mopey, society of slugs.  Ripe for the picking, and more than willing to get a free (even if it sucks) ride.  If it all works out the way they shoot for, the people willl rather have a shitty free ride, than an earned, high-quality existence.

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2018, 12:16:35 PM
It's not how I interpret it, just look up the Cruz plan, that is it in its simplicity.

That's just silly, no State can eliminate the IRS through a Fair Tax, the individual would still be liable to the Fed.
Ca already has a min wage above govt standards.
You can't change culture via govt, you can only get it out of the way. Cultural change will come when people see less govt interference in their ability to ear a living absent of govt.
I'll say it again, "Are you seeing reality?" You want it all today, this is not even remotely possible, the Fed is a leach/host symbiotic relationship that cannot be removed without killing the host, it must be effected through a slow procedural change, that's the reality I speak of. In the least, it will take a minimum of 3 decades to institute, assuming it ever happens.
So you don't think Trump will be reelected?
For starters, one of LBJ's successes was in destroying the Black nuclear family, and now Trump has awoken them to the tune of 40% approval and growing.
Oh, and the Dims will be lucky to recover in the next 30 years, assuming they ever do.
The "ONLY Wins?" Really?

I see nothing to gain by attempting to explore the pros and cons of various methods of change in ways that might eliminate or at least reduce the consequences they place on future generations if you feel you already have the perfect, or at least the best plan to accomplish the same thing.
I'll be content to find solace in the euphoric feelings presented, and hope for the sake of all they will continue.

I'll just respect Reagans 11th commandment, and look elsewhere for those who might be receptive to discuss ways and means by which we can bring government under control of the people.

Quote from: Individual on November 02, 2018, 06:48:35 PM
I see nothing to gain by attempting to explore the pros and cons of various methods of change in ways that might eliminate or at least reduce the consequences they place on future generations if you feel you already have the perfect, or at least the best plan to accomplish the same thing.
I'll be content to find solace in the euphoric feelings presented, and hope for the sake of all they will continue.

I'll just respect Reagans 11th commandment, and look elsewhere for those who might be receptive to discuss ways and means by which we can bring government under control of the people.

OK, tell us, how do you plan to institute abolishing the 14th and 16th ?

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2018, 08:58:23 PM
OK, tell us, how do you plan to institute abolishing the 14th and 16th ?

We're a long way from even attempting to discuss "HOW" we might accomplish anything at all.
I would hope we could first identify clearly, in a more or less unanimous way, what we would like to accomplish and then move on by identifying various methods and means by which such changes could presented to others increasing the momentum.
Actually, the amendments I have for years been bringing up as needing to be repealed are the 16th and 17th, and only recently have added the 14th amendment because of our immigration issues.
The thing about elections is that those who supported the winning candidate quite often did so for greatly varying reasons, which regardless of the voter margin do not provide a mandate for change on any one issue. I, for example, would have voted for the Republican candidate no matter who it was, or what their agenda was, simply because I knew none of the third party candidates regardless of their agenda being more acceptable to me had any chance at all to win the election and the least desirable outcome would have been for Hillary Clinton to win, or any other Democrat had she lost the primary.
For me the most important issue to resolve is for the people and the States to retake control of our Federal government, reducing its size and scope, where our representatives are made subservient to their constituents who by number of votes have put them in the position they hold rather than the amount of dollars a few large donors had made to their campaigns.
If you feel I'm wasting time, yours or mine, by attempting to begin a rational discussion to achieve a growing consensus to bring about change, say so and I will again leave this forum in peace contented by the assumption that those who claim to be conservative here will at least support conservative views going forward.
As I'm likely much older than most, if not all, of those posting here I can only hope that the year 1913 will not be forgotten as issues we currently are dealing with reach a crisis point sometime in the future.