A Next Generation Republican Agenda

smithAt some point soon, Republicans will be forced to develop a governing agenda built on something other than white paranoia, something with roots in real world problems and an emphasis on practical solutions. Hollow rhetoric that glorifies the rich while blaming our problems on “takers” is far too removed from reality to sustain scrutiny or support policy making.

We need alternatives.  Those alternatives start with a fresh recognition of the most important problems our country faces and the manner in which traditional Republican values can best be applied toward solutions.

Some of those problems are described in more detail here. First, a newly dynamic global economy is radically increasing the rewards an ordinary worker can earn from knowledge-based work. However, it takes a long time for anyone to develop the skills to adapt to that highly dynamic market. Developing a prosperous, stable 21st century economic and political system means opening access to the knowledge economy to as wide a segment of the population as possible.

Second, employment as we have understood it for more than a century is no longer the only or even the most common way to earn a living. A policy environment which is wholly dependent on promoting employment amounts to spitting in the wind. The economy will not produce “jobs” in the traditional sense for everyone who needs to earn a living. Employment has ceased to be a mark of character or success.

Finally, the application of market values to nearly every aspect of our culture is corroding the institutions that support representative government. Our governing institutions are too bloated, too slow, and too unresponsive to meet basic needs in such a dynamic environment. Trying to sustain a bureaucracy-driven central mother-state is racking up costs that cannot be sustained.

By the same token, our private “social capital” institutions are withering. In an intensely market-driven economy, anyone who chooses financially sub-optimal values will be steadily shunted toward the cultural margins. Motherhood, church attendance, and volunteering for example, do not pay well. A pure market economy will steadily and relentlessly eliminate them from social relevance. Political involvement suffers from the same phenomenon. At the moment when we most need to transform our governing institutions, the political structure that supports them is deeply ill from neglect.

We do not have a problem with makers and takers. That’s a self-congratulatory line that allows the affluent to disengage from real problem-solving. Our challenge is a central state which has become too bulky to sustain politically, administratively, and financially.

We can remedy this problem while still preserving the network of social support that makes capitalism survivable. The problem is best addressed by reforming our core institutions to make them lighter, requiring less bureaucratic administration and shifting decisions farther into the personal realm.

Two simple reforms could protect the less fortunate and blunt the impact of market competition on social institutions while encouraging economic dynamism, thus forming the core of a next generation Republican agenda: a fully tax-funded, state-administered private insurance system and a minimum income. Together, these two innovations could end poverty as a political issue while radically reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

They would cost only slightly more in taxes, while reducing the cost most people pay for health insurance and social safety net taxes. And they would open the way for Republicans to begin addressing other reforms that could open up economic dynamism and opportunity for far more Americans than ever before.

The combination of a basic income and tax-supported private insurance would blunt the three main problems we face. It would weaken the power of central state by shrinking the bureaucracy for the first time in a century.

It would give workers breathing space at the beginning of a career, or during gaps in employment, providing a simple means to adapt to market changes. It would relieve pressure on families by supporting a spouse who wants to stay home to care for children. Finally, these reforms would blunt the pressure that is eroding public involvement in voluntary institutions, relieving the winner take all atmosphere is that so severely punishes individual decisions to invest in anything other than commercial activities.

With a stronger, more reliable safety net in place, Republicans would be freer politically to finally reform our tax system. We could flatten and simplify personal rates, eliminating most tax expenditures while bringing corporate rates more in line with global norms.

Republicans could begin to re-establish their influence among urban and minority voters by credibly tackling their most important priority, access to a quality public education. Breaking up the educational monopoly that traps urban students under a blanket of low expectations is the gateway to a new Republican urban agenda. Make urban public education credible again, and city life will be radically transformed, rewarding the party that accomplishes that feat for generations.

The social safety net is an expensive, bureaucratic mess, premised on the assumptions of a 20th century industrial economy that no longer exists. Republicans are right to see it as a target for reform.

However, until Republicans are ready to accept the fundamental importance of the social safety net, we will have no basis on which to rebuild our influence. Instead of working to destroy the safety net, we should make it leaner, smarter, and more effective, taking the entire question of poverty relief off the table while gutting the power and influence of the central state.

Strengthen families and traditional social institutions. Make it easier for a spouse to remain at home to raise kids. End welfare, food stamps and Medicaid once and for all. Remove the central government from its role in deciding, on a case by case basis, who is truly deserving of your tax money and who isn’t.

These are the goals that could free the Republican Party from its ugly quagmire and give it new energy. Don’t expect to the GOP embrace these ideas soon, but as white identity politics steadily loses its luster, this could be the agenda that lets the Republican Party find its feet again as the party of business, prosperity, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Political Theory, Republican Party, Social Capital, Welfare State
94 comments on “A Next Generation Republican Agenda
  1. rob says:

    interesting ideas that would make me vote for a GOP senator and congressman if they embraced such ideas. Unfortunately, especially in Texas it seems like Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and friends are driving the GOP agenda … so until that changes I will rather vote Democratic.

  2. Anse says:

    Another excellent column. If I keep reading this blog I might end up challenging my association with the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, while I am very interested in this idea of a minimum income and a tax-funded insurance program, I can’t go all the way and embrace this view that these two reforms would allow us to completely deconstruct the regulatory state. Institutions like the SEC exist to ensure the transparency and fair play necessary to a functioning market economy. They may not do a great job of it, but that’s not excuse for not having it. I suspect you would agree with that, too, Mr. Ladd.

    • goplifer says:

      The regulatory environment would be mostly unchanged by these reforms. I think there are a lot of people on the left and the right who would like to see changes in the way we handle regulation, more or less in line with this concept. Less effort to dictate details and more standards.

  3. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    Clearly, everyone just needs to pull themselves up by Dan’s bootstraps, and then everything will be OK.

    I am not sure why some folks cannot get past the, “well I did, everyone else should be able to do it too” viewpoint. I wish everyone was as earnest, level-headed, hard working, smart, and full of initiative as Dan. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

    I wish I could play the sax like John Coltrane, play basketball like Jordan, and was as creative as Steve Jobs. Alas, that is not the case either.

    • flypusher says:

      “I wish I could play the sax like John Coltrane, play basketball like Jordan, and was as creative as Steve Jobs. Alas, that is not the case either.”

      10,000 hours of practice, that’s all you need! You are too lazy 😛 !

    • DanMan says:

      That’s your problem homebody, you spend you time wishing and hoping. You get the Dusty Springfield award today.

  4. Crogged says:

    While we worry about incentives and those dang poor people. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/08/having-their-steak-and-eating-it-too/

    • DanMan says:

      meh, looks like the cattle guys are employing the same methods global warming scientists are…use g’ment money to fund studies that are backed by other scientists bidding for more g’ment studies to solve a crisis they declare by using the results of the studies that fund their existence. At least the cattlemen produce something.

      Let me remain consistent though. This is what you get when government grows to big to manage. I’d say cut the subsidy here as well.

      And as far as I’m concerned the USDA needs to be completely disconnected from welfare unless it is to provide protein in drab green containers of generic products. Right now the USDA expenditures are 80% welfare and 20% ag related. Thanks Pigford.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Somewhere is a schoolteacher banging their head.

      • Anse says:

        The Koch brothers used their private wealth to fund a study in global warming and found out that yes, the climate scientists are right. There are a lot of sources for funding scientific research. Lots of oil companies would no doubt be delighted to give some of those scientists some money. It can’t be helped if they get the same results the Koch brothers did.

    • 2boldlygo_ says:

      Neither you nor the author of the piece you linked to seem to have any idea of what the beef checkoff program is or who pays for it. It is not a subsidy using “public funds”, as Andrew Sullivan claims – the funds are collected from cattlemen and are used to support the beef industry. Unless you raise and sell cattle, you have never paid a PENNY into this program.

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, turtlehead. That teacher is in a union mandated rubber room pulling full pay to stay out of the class room.

  5. glennkoks says:

    Danman,

    There are lots of reasons why this recovery has been so anemic. Placing the blame solely on Mr. Obama is like placing the blame of the recession on Mr. Bush. Personally I don’t give much credit to Presidents when the economy is booming nor do I blame them much when it busts.

    Demographically the timing of “The Great Recession” was pretty poor. Many of the Baby Boomers lost their jobs and much of their wealth from 2008-2010. Not many companies want to invest time and capital re-training someone in their late 50’s. Long before the economy went south there were economists predicting a long slow period as the Baby Boomers passed their peak earning years and before the millennials reached theirs.

    There are bright spots, Energy, housing and the auto industry seem to be coming on strong.

    • flypusher says:

      ” Not many companies want to invest time and capital re-training someone in their late 50′s.”

      A most excellent point to bring up. We’ve undoubtedly read a number a individual hard luck tales of being long-term unemployed and a futile search for a new job. A common theme I see is the ages; almost always mid 50s to early 60s. Many of them would be reliable and productive workers. Age discrimination is supposed to be against the law, but can anyone doubt it’s happening? That has to be the worst time to get zapped; likely the house isn’t paid off quite yet, kids haven’t finished college, and you still need a few more years to grow the retirement fund.

      • GG says:

        Age discrimination is rampant and disgusting. People in my age group have a strong work ethic and are great, reliable employees, much more so than the kids coming out of college, many of whom don’t have any work ethic at all. This subject really pisses me off.

      • glennkoks says:

        flypusher, Is it age discrimination for a company not to want to spend a year or two training a person just a few years away from retirement? I would like to think that if I hire somebody and go through the expense of training them I will get a good return on my investment.

        When I started my career my boss told me flat out that the first year he will lose money on me and he wanted a verbal commitment that I would stay at least 2 years. Which I did and am still working for him and very thankful he gave me the oportunity.

      • flypusher says:

        “flypusher, Is it age discrimination for a company not to want to spend a year or two training a person just a few years away from retirement? ”

        I can understand that, but I would answer that someone’s who’s mid fifties is likely planning to work for at least another decade, and the trend is towards later retirement ages (voluntary or not). What your company did seems reasonable- get a commitment on both sides.

      • glennkoks says:

        flypusher,

        Personally I would hire an aging baby boomer before I would hire someone from the newer generations.

    • DanMan says:

      Glenn, I agree there are many reasons the recovery is not happening. I responded to a question specifically about Broncobama asking me to name one. I surely did not list all of them in that category but the ones I did list are all Obama.

      But I am glad you gave me the opportunity to declare main reason the 2008 recession hit and that was directly tied to the housing bubble. You want to open the can of worms Obama owns in this regard? The grand community organizer was a huge driver of this epic distortion.

      • glennkoks says:

        Danman,

        I have never know any politician either Republican or Democrat to reign in an economic bubble. Both parties had ample opportunity to stop the madness and both chose fuel the flames. The name Phil Graham comes to mind as does Alan Greenspan.

      • DanMan says:

        one party owns the entire housing bubble and you know it, it has had huge detrimental consequences to the very people it was touted to help

      • glennkoks says:

        Dan,

        You are not talking about that whole CRA forced banks to loan money nonsense are you? You are smarter than that. Pure greed, bundling, easy money from the FED and a pinch of deregulation was the cause of that. Not the CRA

    • DanMan says:

      So Glenn, maybe you can answer the question that not one member of the rucas posse will…Did you know Obama was lying about his Obamacare promises? or do you just accept that as a means to the ends?

      As to the CRA/housing bubble all you have to do is look at who profited and who is being protected by the current administration.

  6. John Galt says:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-mysterious-and-alarming-rise-of-single-parenthood-in-america/279203/

    Excerpts…

    “In 2007, a married mother earned an average income of $57,194, nearly double that of single moms. Even after the recession hit married couples the hardest, average real incomes of single moms were just 60 percent of married moms in 2012… More than 80 percent of moms with spouses are employed, but only 60 percent of single mothers are in full-time jobs — perhaps due to the difficulty of managing children alone. Similarly, single dads are less likely to be in full-time jobs (69 percent) than married dads (88 percent). There is much more research to do, but this much we know: Single parents work less and learn less because they are the sole caretakers for their children…Paying for childcare can also be incredibly costly, driving down the incentives to work. Research confirms this intuition in several ways. Mothers who live near their mothers or mothers-in-law participate in the labor force significantly more than mothers who do not live close…For single and married women without children, the average difference in income in 2012 was $857—almost inconsequential compared to the almost $19,000 difference between single and married mothers.”

    So, if you end up with a child and without a reliable partner, you are far more likely to be un- or underemployed and poor because raising kids is time consuming and expensive (no kidding). The article comments…
    “A recent report by the International Labor Organization shows that the US is the only country in the top fifteen most competitive ones that does not mandate paid maternity leave, paid sick leave and does not guarantee paid vacation time.”

  7. kabuzz61 says:

    I will have to say, this comment section gets the award for “throw more money at the situation” instead of conducting a societal investigation as to why the problem of single parent ‘mom’s’ is growing as is the benefits they garner from the taxpayer. Conversely, unemployed people who have and would again work, help the company make a profit so the company can add to their compensation fund don’t deserve extra help in the ‘great economy’ with 7+& unemployment. So to sum it up: You are for giving handouts to those that hardly work and stop assistance to those that did and will work. Great minds here.

  8. glennkoks says:

    A little off topic and it may make me a hippocrit but while I am for social safety nets and helping mothers raise kids I have a hard time swallowing extending unemployment past 26 months. I have a hard time excepting anything over six months really but certainly not more than a year.

    At some point it becomes counterproductive and you incentivize it.

    • goplifer says:

      I agree completely. If you are drawing unemployment compensation for more than a year you’re probably not “unemployed” anymore. There needs to be another category for that situation.

      Unemployment insurance is a very expensive component of the safety net. The costs it imposes on employers (it is funded partly by employers) actually makes it harder for companies to hire. It has to be short term or it will become structurally unsustainable.

      Once again, Republicans could have a lot more credibility on this issue if they had some alternative to offer. We don’t, and the country will pay a price for the refusal to think beyond the logic of the 47%.

    • John Galt says:

      I can see a rationale for extending benefits temporarily during high-unemployment recessions, as was done in this one. Jobs aren’t there and providing people with cash supports their own subsistence while benefitting the economy, as all this money is used for housing or other consumption. But, I agree, at some point it has to end, and that point has probably passed.

    • Crogged says:

      We set up our economy to deliver these body blows (either through failed regulation or just because free markets change), then blame the victims and act as if it were an act of God or the ‘irresponsibility’ of the victim. Certainly the author’s premise means the unemployment issue would be moot. It’s time to seriously consider these proposals due to the changing facts as given in this post. Rising inequality of opportunity is hurting this nation. Trotting out your personal experiences and then applying them to everyone is known as the fallacy of composition. We will never have a way of determining who ‘deserves’ benefits, somebody will always take advantage of any system of redistribution we develop (and we do have a system of redistribution right now–it’s just from the bottom up). Let’s have a floor and let creativity, innovation and industriousness determine who is rewarded.

      • DanMan says:

        We already do but it is under attack Crogged. Obama lining up unemployed behind him today to excoriate the GOP for not providing them UI is a classic example of beating the slaves until moral improves. He claims he has never met anybody that would trade a job for UI checks yet that is all he offers them. It is his policies that have them unemployed yet they are called “beneficiaries”. It really is pitiful but it is very effective. Has been for centuries.

      • Texan5142 says:

        “It is his policies that have them unemployed”

        Care to site a specific policy that has them unemployed.

      • DanMan says:

        Probably the biggest is uncertainty in the area of taxes, insurance laws changing by the minute and the huge cost of unemployment insurance on employers because he passes out dollars like candy to keep people disincentivized but lets not discount specifically the taxes on medical devices that have decimated that industry in Minnesota for one, 3.8% tax on capital gains from home sales, Keystone and the general lockdown of federal lands to energy development is in the mix, destabilizing food and energy prices by maintaining the ethanol subsidy, forcing the closure of coal plants and thus destroying mining jobs and on and on and on. The damage done to GM is all on Obama and his Chicago gang, I know I’ve bought at least 15 GM cars and trucks over the years and won’t touch one now and I bet I’m not alone in this regard.

        But all Obama has to do is claim its Bush’s fault after 5 years and you guys eat it up so lets not discount the megaphone he has to swing opinion and destroy optimism.

      • Crogged says:

        Businesses do not determine head count because of ‘uncertainty’-they do it based on educated assessment of the demand for the goods and services they offer. Uncertainty is called something else, namely ‘risk’. Taxes and government always change; there is no way to end the uncertainty of taxation and regulation.

      • DanMan says:

        “Taxes and government always change; there is no way to end the uncertainty of taxation and regulation.”

        wow, the disconnect is unprecedented here

      • Crogged says:

        Yes there is a disconnect, there is the entirety of a situation in opposition to your view of one percent of it. Since when have regulation and taxation never changed? You do realize we had much more direct regulation of economic activity in the 1950s? We told energy companies how much to charge for oil?

      • John Galt says:

        I think uncertainty is a big factor in the feeble recovery, at least from the jobs side. Companies are actually doing quite well, with profits at or near record highs (as a percent of GDP). In ordinary times, companies would invest these profits in expansion, R&D, or reduction of debt. In aggregate, they’d be hiring. So why aren’t they this time? Part of it is that this has been a “balance sheet” recession in which debt played an oversized role and it has therefore been paramount for companies (and individuals) to reduce it. This means less investment and less consumption, which means less need for expansion and hiring.

        But another part of it is uncertainty, which is extreme right now. Companies (and individuals) know the tax code will change at some point, probably soon and probably in a major way. Without knowing how, it is difficult to plan for the future. Companies are sitting on an estimated $1.7 trillion in overseas cash, expecting some sort of tax holiday will occur to allow them to avoid the present tax rate. While some of this money supports overseas expansion and activities, a lot is just sitting there. The health care plan is an issue, too, but it seems like health insurance is a perpetual worry for companies.

        You can accuse Obama of being less than visionary about economic policy during this recovery, and I wouldn’t argue with you. But to lay this all at his feet, absolving Congress – particularly the GOP-led House, where both budgets and tax bills must originate – of any responsibility is simply absurd.

      • DanMan says:

        1950s? how old are you?

        “Yes there is a disconnect, there is the entirety of a situation in opposition to your view of one percent of it.” What are positing here? what situation and what’s my 1% and then who owns the other 99% in that situation?

        “Since when have regulation and taxation never changed?” yer killing me bub. Obama has made at least 14 changes to his Obamacare law since it passed. I think any insurance company that jumped in bed with this administration deserves the agony they are dealing with but that doesn’t help the people that had insurance, want insurance but can’t get it now or had policies cut mid treatment.

        Where and when in the 1950s did we tell energy companies to charge a set fee for product? Are talking about new and old oil prices (benchmarked as existing domestic vs. Brent on the international market?) from the beginning of the DOE era under Carter?

      • Crogged says:

        Again, please tell me one period of four years where there was no ‘uncertainty’ of taxation or regulation? I lost my job in 2008 because the Bush tax cuts were ending in 2010?

      • DanMan says:

        great post until…

        “But to lay this all at his feet, absolving Congress – particularly the GOP-led House, where both budgets and tax bills must originate – of any responsibility is simply absurd.”

        care to guess how many jobs bills Harry Reid is sitting on from the house? I’m basically a guy with no party but the current method of brinksmanship and blocking legislation is all on Harry Reid. Hell there is not even debate any longer. Patty Murray and Paul Ryan came out of no where with their budget and nobody read it before voting. Yeah, they are all tools though. Paul Ryan is made out to be a smart fiscal player and he got rolled by a gym teacher in Murray. Unless he agrees with dem spending, which it appears he does.

      • DanMan says:

        ” I lost my job in 2008 because the Bush tax cuts were ending in 2010?”

        Not sure if you’re asking or stating but I hope all is well now. I quit my job in early 2009 to save my company from having to lay me off. They contract me now and allow me to work with my old clients as well by virtue of relaxing my no-compete contracts. I’m basically where I was 12 years ago with no complaints.

        I recall a huge slow down occurred in the summer of 2008 that was caused by a whole lot of uncertainty. Obama was cruising towards winning the election, the banks were being bailed out by huge stimulus funding and I was trying to sell a house. We saw in a matter of weeks the whole mortgage lending industry basically shut down. I would have kept that house had I known the no down loans that were keeping rents so low were going away.

        It was a very lean couple of years for sure.

    • geoff1968 says:

      To eliminate any excuse for not having gainful employment after a certain time span shouldn’t the state be expending more effort matching bodies to jobs?

      Beyond that there are more than a few places, like Detroit, that a jobs deserts? You might have a labor pools, but there is no employment available under any circumstance-even the local McDonald’s.

      Simply believing that a person should get off their tail and get a job doesn’t work, but don’t tell that to the hard right in our party.

      • DanMan says:

        Yeah right Geoff. That 50 years of GOP rule absolutely destroyed Detroit didn’t it? der

      • geoff1968 says:

        Post hoc ergo propter hoc

      • geoff1968 says:

        And a non sequitur. 10 yards. Automatic First Down.

      • DanMan says:

        hey pal, you’re the one that threw the interception

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, are you suggesting that the collapse of the auto industry in Detroit was the fault of the city’s Democratic leadership? Because that, well, that is pretty far-fetched.

      • DanMan says:

        Where’d you get that John Galt? The local municipal unions destroyed Detroit finances like they are doing throughout the nation. It was the UAW and weak corporate leadership that destroyed GM. Now do I think UAW members backed local candidates beholden to whatever union backed them? Yep.

      • John Galt says:

        So, the population of Detroit dropped from 1.8 million to 700,000 in 50 years because of the municipal unions. Riiiight.

        Or maybe it was because incompetently run car companies got their rear ends handed to them by foreign automakers while the domestic unions helped push them over the cliff.

      • geoff1968 says:

        I think that’s very close to being my point, and it takes a Village Idiot. There is no one group or individual responsible for the collapse of Detroit. They fu’ud themselves. Management, unions, political leadership, and so on, are all responsible for what has happened.

    • Crogged says:

      And Glen let me address the ‘incentive’ of unemployment benefits, since I received the benefit twice, in 2008 and again in early 2010. My annual income of unemployment would have been 19,200 dollars. Taxable of course. Oh, I forgot, I owed child support, so my annual income was 9600. For how long do you think I felt entitled to such high on the hog living? We don’t have to balkanize the methods by which we maintain our near feudal living standards on the ‘takers’ with strange taxation policies. So those men who had child support obligations and jobs paying less than 1600 a month are ‘incented’ to remain on unemployment. Oh we did make sure Paris Hilton didn’t pay any more in taxes, but she didn’t return my cold call or respond to my resume.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I heard that there are about a million people in the long-term unemployed category.

      Do you really believe that 1,000,000 Americans are scamming the rest of us?

      [I guess I should add that I burned up about 24 months of unemployment 2009-2011. I was turned down for a lot of jobs and didn’t get any response about many more. It’s completely flukey that I got a part-time job that included tasks that actually enhanced my hireability in some circles.]

  9. glennkoks says:

    Since we can’t regulate morality or fatherhood and we live in the real world not an ideological one where every father works hard to support his wife and kids. I am not repulsed by the idea of using my tax dollars to help mothers stay home and raise a family.

    In contrast some of my friends on the far right have no problem at all with their tax dollars being spent on prisons to house some members of society who might have turned out a little different if their mom was not working two jobs just to keep them fed.

    We do know that the first seven years of life is crucial in a childs development.

    It kind of goes against some of my more libertarian beliefs but I consider education and the family unit social “investments” more than “welfare”.

    • John Galt says:

      You bring up a good point that there is a cost of not doing anything. We incarcerate more of our population than any other developed country at a staggering cost. Spending money earlier might turn this money pit into productive tax payers. What is the return on investment from spending on child education and welfare?

      • flypusher says:

        The walk and the talk don’t sync for many people. You hear the “children are our future” line ad nauseum, but actions suggest that children are looked at more as burdens rather than assets at times.

      • DanMan says:

        “but actions suggest that children are looked at more as burdens rather than assets at times”

        John Galt sees them as tax payers to cultivate so there’s that.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You mean we have more people that break our laws don’t you?

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, Dan, taxpayers. The people with jobs, as opposed to those on welfare or in jail. Presumably you’d rather have more people with jobs than not. And when they pay the taxes that support the retirement benefits you will ardently protest is not a handout because you paid for it, you will be glad. So why don’t you try supporting policies today that make that more, rather than less, likely.

    • GG says:

      Ironic isn’t it that some of those on the far right are totally against abortion AND against helping those same mothers once that child is born? I get a kick out of hearing them on this subject.

    • DanMan says:

      Glenn I believe they are trying to push the 14th emergency appropriations to fund another three month extension of UI. Obama has been in office almost 5 years. Dems took the senate and house in 2006 and pushed through every conceivable democratic scheme they had dreamed of for years between Jan. 2009 to Dec. 2011 and have had the luxury of Harry Reid blocking budgets for years while we cruised along with built in $1 trillion plus deficits ever since. Obama has “pivoted” to the economy at least times and will announce another pivot within two weeks.

      We are told the economy is stronger than when Obama took office. That unemployment insurance stimulates the economy, etc. The reality is workforce participation is reaching depression era levels or lower. The young people of today have bought a bag of magic beans with Obama. That will take some real change to correct.

  10. lomamonster says:

    The troll is so well read that he just cannot resist sharing, eh? Quick! Hijack the forum before it’s too late!… Yawn.

  11. flypusher says:

    “Strengthen families and traditional social institutions. Make it easier for a spouse to remain at home to raise kids.”

    Could you elaborate on this one a bit more, Chris. I’ve always been amazed and disgusted by the total disconnect between the empty lip service society pays to motherhood and how unwilling it is to put $ where mouth is regarding the task of raising children.

    • DanMan says:

      Why should society put any money towards mothers? Seems like a father should be doing that. Your wife would starve if she waited for me to contribute to the plight you provided her.

      Although I must say DanMa’am does spoil me when she gets home from her second job and before she leaves for that third one. I’m sure I deserve it though.

      • goplifer says:

        The woman who gives you all of this free time deserves considerable appreciation.

      • flypusher says:

        ” Your wife would starve if she waited for me to contribute to the plight you provided her.”

        Your most clueless and wrong comment to date! You will be hard pressed to top it!

        “Why should society put any money towards mothers? Seems like a father should be doing that.”

        Spoken like a troll or someone who completely missed the point. Although this will probably also fly way over your head, I’ll give it a try. The way our current society/economy has turned out, a family takes a big financial hit if a parent drops out if the workforce to do full-time childcare. There’s no earnings from that person to add to retirement accounts. Skills valued by employers, especially with this shift towards a more knowledge based economy, aren’t being learned or maintained, therefore earning power drops. There are fewer jobs that pay well enough for just one person working outside the home to offset that financial sacrifice. It’s not wise to have such financial disincentives attached to a task that society needs.

      • DanMan says:

        There are plenty of jobs that pay well enough to maintain a single earner household. You’re telling us all those years of feminists demanding whatever they are always demanding is for naught? I’m glad my life partner never got caught up in that falderal as it would have been most unrewarding for us.

        Three or four days ago Chris listed one of the problems facing our society was the lack of education and training at a young age to get a jump start on a career. I figured out as a kid to work harder, be early, stay late and do the best you can with what’s in front of you. It has allowed for many opportunities. If it works for a rube like me it should work for any other able person presented the same choices.

        My hunch is most folks that want a single earner household can achieve it if their priorities are aligned. Single moms tend to be exempt from such latitude but that goes back to choices. I’m comfortable with my choices.

      • flypusher says:

        And as usual, none of your preaching addresses the fact that two income households have a distinct financial advantage over one income households, and the market driven economy isn’t valuing the the latter (with its stay at home parent).

      • goplifer says:

        If you think you’re a conservative, but you find yourself consistently at odds with Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Charles Murray, you’re more than a little confused.

      • GG says:

        I’m going with troll trying to disrupt the dialogue out of spite towards Chris. Now, I wonder why that would be?

      • John Galt says:

        “Why should society put any money towards mothers?”

        Because you need today’s children to become tomorrow’s taxpayers so that your Social Security and Medicare can be paid, your neighborhood is safe, and all is right with the world. A burgeoning underclass of poorly educated, ill-adjusted children raised in struggling families is not going to make that happen.

      • DanMan says:

        poor GG.

        “I’m going with troll trying to disrupt the dialogue out of spite towards Chris.”

        To quote Hillary “Dissent is patriotic!” Chris provides a great forum while posing as a conservative to gin up comments from liberals like those of you in the rucas posse. Hit counts keeps him relevant and entertaining.

        “Now, I wonder why that would be?”

        Because you have no original thoughts of your own GG. You need somebody to agree with you to give you affirmation. flypusher, turtlehead and the gang are here for you..

      • GG says:

        Yes, Sparkle, you are SO original…….LOL. What is this Rucas posse anyway?

        Jealous because no one visits your blog?

      • DanMan says:

        backatcha Chris. If you think you’re a conservative and find yourself at odds with the constitution I wouldn’t say you in particular are confused. The word I would use is spelled differently.

      • Bart-1 says:

        OK, so if one person doesn’t agree with the room he is repeatedly labelled a “troll” by them? (I count ten times here so far) Whether it is Capt Sternn, Kabuzz, Danman, or anyone else that is a real conservative, that seems to be modus operandi here now. So much for an open arena for the exchange of dissenting ideas. Crogged what is the debate tactic you listed where name calling practiced again?

      • goplifer says:

        Currently, the hallmark of a “real conservative” is a persistent persecution complex. Add something substantive to the discussion or go somewhere else.

      • DanMan says:

        eh no worries Bart, glad to see you though. Chris can ban me if I’m upsetting his applecart. I don’t know if he’s calling you out or me. He’s just another liberal projecting but at least he keeps his posts updated and interesting.

        You can’t get more of the persecution complex on display than to listen to just about any dem speech. Obama’s teleprompter is loaded chockablock full of them. Listen to David Plouffe for three minutes and marvel at his Rachel Maddow like delivery of the junk. They have so pit every class against itself in an effort to divide and conquer that its really moving towards every man for himself now anyway. Kind of cool really but the corruption will be a challenge to get used to.

        Wonder what ever happened to el bobbybob and despo? Man they took the war on wimmins to level 11 in their Hillary attacks didn’t they?. You were around when we sent despo into delirium weren’t you? fun times when we got him to admit they actually were plugged into Obama’s campaign after having them deny it for months on end. I think it came when el bobbybob’s mention as a bundler went public. Last I heard bob moved to Colorado to get away from hurricanes.

    • goplifer says:

      Why, yes I could.

      There are a lot of socially valuable forms of work people might like to devote themselves to which markets do not reward. A basic income will not make mother/fatherhood the eight-figure job it perhaps deserves to be, but it would cushion the cost of the decision, making it more accessible for more people.

      Frankly, if someone claims to be “pro-family” then it’s hard to understand why they would be unwilling to help pay the costs of pro-family policies. That seems like shirking. Or hypocrisy.

      Tax me, please. I want to work. My wife wants to work. I’m not going to be satisfied living on a basic income or being subsidized by a basic income. But I would be happy to pay more in taxes for an environment in which the ladies (and a couple of men) down the street did not necessarily have to hold a second job (parenting is the first job) to take care of their families. I would love to live in a more authentically family-friendly environment, where people paid more than lip service to support family values.

      • DanMan says:

        Well by all means Chris pay as much as you want and even more than you can if it makes you happy. I have never been one to equate government vote buying with charity and security. Maybe we should award badges and ribbons to those who pay the most! Since I don’t care for such adornment perhaps I would be less motivated to give to the government.

        Which means I would be free to spend my extra cash on things I prefer. Like restaurants, shopping, saving and travel. If there we enough like minded people there would be a lot of eating out, buying of goods , financial security and personal growth and outreach. And that activity would require people to tend to those restaurants, stores and factories, banks and hotels, etc.

        Or we can tax the snot out of each other and declare winners and losers based on who can be persuaded stick with the elected winners for the scraps they promise….

      • John Galt says:

        The next time you are spending your extra cash on restaurants, shopping and travel, look at your waitress, hotel desk clerk, or cashier and ask yourself what you think they earn. Ask yourself how one raises a child on that income level. Then ask yourself if you think you work that much harder than they do.

      • DanMan says:

        Well John Galt I have worked as a waiter, bus boy, cook, landscaper, mechanic, meter reader, filing clerk, warehouse stocker, floor sales in retail, field tech, lab tech, carpenter, a/c installer and a few other positions before I decided maybe higher education was a better path. I worked my way through the same state school Chris attended. I don’t recall being envious of others wealth too much because I was intent on making the present my preparation for the future.

        My motivation is I am responsible for me and mine. Anybody that relies on government largesse for their income and security have it much harder than me in my opinion. But that is my opinion. Those same folks may very well be third generation welfare recipients who can’t fathom keeping a schedule and providing a service someone will pay them for. Are they happy? who knows?

        The rucas posse is quite happy to label me racist, homophobic, mysinogistic and generally heartless and mean. Big deal. I don’t give wingwangdo to a cats azz what others think of me, especially if they don’t know me. I consider it projection anyway.

        As to your last comment about perceived hard work? I’m a WASP. I am never satisfied with what I have because I enjoy the pursuit of obtaining what I want. So I compare my effort to my perception of my effort. To compare my effort to someone else’s was only useful if I thought I could do it better and get paid to do so. As someone who is paid for his services, that is exactly how I like it.

    • flypusher says:

      ‘To quote Hillary “Dissent is patriotic!” ‘

      Dissent is one thing, trolling is another. And you Dan, are doing the latter. What, because you dare to disagree????? No, it’s all about HOW you choose to state said disagreement. For an example of how to dissent without being a troll ( although I doubt you want to do so), I point towards any of fifty ohms’ posts when he does not agree with Chris. That is how rational, well-behaved ADULTS express a difference in opinions.

      • DanMan says:

        Well flypusher shall I list all the names you have called me in the past two weeks? I don’t see any 50ohm posts so as far as I can tell he mainly attracts like minded liberals such as yourself.

      • flypusher says:

        I treat people the way they treat me. If you don’t want to be snarked at, don’t jump in here with a boatload of snark. If you can’t refrain from dishing it out, be prepared to take it.

      • DanMan says:

        here’s another heapin’ helpin’ bigboy, how’s that taste?

      • flypusher says:

        Zero flavor or imagination.

  12. DanMan says:

    Well bless your heart, you’re welcome.

  13. DanMan says:

    I had a hard time containing my laughter at this one Chris. You want to improve education? get it out of the control of liberal democrats beholden to their unions. Your fresh alternatives look suspiciously like Woodrow Wilson central planning dogma circa 1914.

    “Employment has ceased to be a mark of character or success.” bwahhahahaha, you calling out your rucas posse?

    I like this attempt to appear above the fray and on the outside. Good delusional theater that plays well to your school of hammerhead snarks. How much does Ax pay you for this?

    • goplifer says:

      Thank you for providing such relevant, thoughtful, and well-considered insights, accompanied by research and intriguing data.

      I’m looking forward to reading Woodrow Wilson’s 1914 planning document. Fascinating.

      • GG says:

        Still no research or well-considered insights. Typical Dan/Sparkle trollery.

      • DanMan says:

        You bring so much to the forum GG. Read The Roosevelt Myth. Oh wait. Have somebody read The Roosevelt Myth to you.

      • GG says:

        It’s my choice to read and respond or read and not respond. It’s better to maintain silence than open your yap and reveal complete ignorance as you do Sparkle. Many times I’m here reading and not commenting. Maybe because I’m reading between work. Something I doubt you are burdened with.

    • DanMan says:

      GG baby you still can’t resolve I’m not Kathleen McKinley. And you’re calling me ignant? Poor thing. But like a blind squirrel you did actually get something right. My work is not a burden.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: