The Huckabee discovered middle class squeeze that the GOP must address
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (95) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I lost my virginity during the Carter malaise era 70s when lower and middle income families were locked out of the American Dream of home ownership due to liberal democratic party induced 18% mortgage interest rates and double digit inflation and unemployment rates.
I got married during the Reagan recovery era 80s and 90s when conservative monetary and supply side economic policies healed a nation.
I got divorced when George W. Bush's 2000s economic policies drove overall and minority home ownership to record levels, where they remain today.
The affluent society is a fact. Our poor are obese. But affluence and girth are no guarantors against anxiety and stress, especially, relatively speaking. We don't access our well being by comparing our lot with that of the average Belarusian.
Some other things happened on the way to record home ownership, in the culture and in the workplace.
I converted to the GOP in 2000 praying for a conservative spanking for my country to arrest its slouching towards Gomorrah, as I swallowed ever more bi-carb to relieve the side effects of working for Mike DeVine.
Which brings me to the issue at hand, and to what I think is one of the main reasons for the anxiety of lower and middle income families: job insecurity and the stress of self employment.
My father and grandfather worked for Southern Railway for 43 and 53 years respectively. Until the 1990s, a very high percentage of Americans worked most of their lives for one stable company.
That America is no more.
I quit high school and worked in a cotton mill for a year and learned more than I would have in the 12th grade. I learned that I wanted to work for me. I got my GED and chose law as my course of study, partly out of a a love for justice, but also because I saw it as path to self employment (Perry Mason TV shows lit my path: Della and a nice view of the skyline out the window).
I don't think my family ever really appreciated the fact of my achievement of working for myself all these years. I have always joked that while I'm sure the stress of running my own business is taking years off my life and lining off my stomach, that its worth it for the freedom.
I learned in that year at the mill that I simply can't suffer fools, especially if they deign to boss me around.
I said all that to address the first cause of this economic anxiety Mike Huckabee addresses.
The job security of post WWII America that most Americans enjoyed and that a high percentage of Americans have a memory of their parent's enjoying is gone.
It has been replaced by a dynamic economy of great rewards and great uncertainty. Americans change jobs 7-8 times in a lifetime. Many more Americans work for themselves. And most of those without education or special skills no longer have the option of well paying low skilled manufacturing jobs.
Result: stress
Add to that, the following:
2 - Divorce
3 - Corrupt culture into which one's children are immersed each day
4 - Keeping up with the Joneses
5 - Gasoline prices
6 - Sin taxes (on the products that the lower income consume instead of going on the vacations they can't afford)
7 - Health insurance they can't afford
8 - Health care they can't afford and do without
9 - The memory of the late 90s technology driven unique hyper-economy
10 - The lack of a memory of the 70s
11 - No new technology driven efficiencies to boost the standard of living since the late 90s
12 - The Housing value/Mortgage credit crunch
13 - Higher food prices
The Democratic Party has won a lot of elections by improperly exploiting the anxieties caused by the above. But, of course, their policies make things worse. They live for class warfare, and my hatred of such is one of the reasons I left the Dem Party.
I love the GOP for its eschewing of class warfare politics. I hate some of the rhetoric of Mike Huckabee that attacks "Wall Street." I have noticed, though, that Huckabee doesn't propose any new laws, when pressed, to punish Wall Street.
Good.
And he does hint at wanting to reduce regulations on small business formation.
Good.
But the main point I want to drive home to my fellow Republicans is that Huckabee has given us a gift that we could use to bury the Dem Party.
FELLOW REPUBLICANS, HEAR ME.
It is no sin to tout the fact that conservative policies help lower and middle income families. It is not class warfare to say that and use that fact to get votes. And it is no sin to advance policies designed to help ease the anxieties and burdens of same.
Don't you see!? If we win this battle, we destroy the Dems. The Dems lie to these people and never help them.
Let's help them! How, you say?
Let's lower or eliminate the federal gas tax. It hurts the poor. Why not pay for roads out of general revenues.
Let's build the fence in a massive project and hire the unskilled at good wages.
Let's drill for our own da*n oil. Good paying jobs.
Let's advance health savings accounts and private soc sec accts.
Let's pick judges that will let parents control schools.
Let's repeal the energy bill and let corn be eaten instead of burned in a motor.
Let's eliminate the Dept of Education or require states to give parents choice if they want federal money.
Let's stand up and proclaim what the GOP has always been, but has not been acknowledged as:
The champions of the poor and middle class.
Our policies let them pull themselves up. We have been empowering them for 27 years. Let's admit it and be proud of it and take away this constituency from the Dems.
[More later on the moral aspects of keeping up with the Joneses, i.e. living beyond one's means, that is at the root of of a lot of the anxiety.]
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I personally know at least two dozen people that have destroyed multimillion dollar fortunes.
Theres always going to be a sizeable number of people that don't want to play the game if it means possibly losing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...wishes they had just taken a job at the post office.
It's better to have loved & lost, &etc.
And please don't imply that it's a zero-sum game, that for every winner there's a loser. There are a lot of smart, clever, hard-working, greedy, aggressive and/or entrepreneurial people who have built, and kept, fortunes in this country.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Not the happiest of people either
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They just keep bouncing back.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
By the third generation the fortune's gone.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I can think of more than a few of those. My point is its something that cuts both ways. There are many people that just don't want to be involuntarily given that kind of stress. The slice and dice world isn't theirs. Theirs is their family, their community and then their jobs.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
That is precisely how the GOP can hammer the donkeys.
Finishing watching the debate tonight, Mort Kondracke made the point that only Huckabee realizes that the middle class, with good reason or not, is very anxious.
We need a candidate to realize this, and explain it to people. For instance, people need to be told that the reason that gas prices are so high are because of greatly increased demand, both here and in China and India, among other places. When Obama or Hillary or whoever starts going on about oil company profits, we need someone who will stand up and say to their face that that is nonsense, and explain to people that record profits result from a record market, and that they are also paying record amounts in taxes, then tell people that the government, both federal and most state gov'ts make more profit per gallon than oil companies. Someone, in front of a national audience, during a debate, needs to call this stuff out as nonsense, and explain it in terms people can relate to.
We must relate to the middle class, and we can do so without engaging in Edwards/Huckabee style populism.
Explain to people why gas costs them more, than outline how to fix it, like drilling for more oil in the U.S.(and explain how nowadays this can be done with no environmental damage. Just the other day, I was a video taken by a camera under a pipeline in Alaska of two elk creating a new elk)
Then suggest a full repeal of the federal gas tax.
Explain that food costs more for two main reasons-global demand is increasing, which means more people are rising out of poverty, and ethanol. The ethanol example is a great way to illustrate the harm that gov't intervention causes.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
How does attacking CEO pay (for just one thing) as something the government has to deal with have anything to do with fiscal/small government conservatism ...?
that while Corporate America CEOs have received million dollar buy-outs for failure, middle class America has had to deal with minimal salary increases, increasing Inflation, rising gas and food prices is not an attack on fiscal/small government conservatism.
I would note, as has the author of this post, that Huckabee hasn't offered policies to "punish" Wall Street. Rather, he's connected with Main Street voters, and advocated the Fair Tax (considered a major tax cut for middle America by letting each individual keep their whole check) and conservative policies to make America secure.
-To make sure America can defend itself.
-To make sure America can feed herself.
-To make sure America can power herself.
It's called connecting the average voter at the orgin of their concern, and advocating conservative policies that make their life better over the course of the next four years.
To add to this point: A study just came out (reported on Drudge) that said the quality of life in Great Britain just exceeded that of America for the first time since the 19th century. You have to be blind to not realize this is a major cause of concern among the voting public.
I don't see what complaining about those "fat cat CEOs" is going to put any more money in the pockets of "the workin man."
I got no interest in a guy who can bite his lip and "feel my pain." I've seen this act before and I didn't really care for how it ended up, really.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Based on what I see and hear from the man, "Huckabee's New Deal" comes much closer to describing what he is doing.
I think that the popular Equality schema is not an aspect of the successful parts of authentic American tradition in government. It is resonant with our Christian beliefs, but IMO Huckabee is wrong for projecting that faith-value into American government.
It is difficult to know where to draw the lines and even GC's cartography makes me nervous.
We preach to the mass media, thinking they will relay the same message.
WRONG.
Huckabee uses the bully pulpit to point out that our platform helps the middle class and poor far better than increases in taxes.
Reagan did the same.
He is not demonizing corporate American, he is relating supply-side economics and deregulation to people who do not understand. They did not understand, because we thought the MSM would relay our message. Huck tapped into the idea that we should deliver the message directly.
He communicates whatever he feels he needs to wherever he is.
In the south he is a Huey Long Populist.
In NH he has become a Chamber of Commerce Conservative.
In NY will he be a state capitalist ?
In CA an Eco Socialist ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Reaching out to your target demographics. Every state cares about a different thing so he tries to address each audience according to their interests.
Notice how he does not change his mind on policies or positions with each group, he just points out different things to different people based on what they are interested in.
If you were a tax cutting pro 2nd amendment candidate, you would not address an economic forum talking about 2nd amendment rights and you would not emphasize tax cutting at the NRA rally.
I see nothing wrong with his approach, and in fact, I think it works well for the local audiences.
To me as a target.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That doesn't mean he should be the GOP's standard bearer.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That doesn't mean he should be the GOP's standard bearer.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I do think there is something to this. We, as Republicans, at least need to recognize and speak to people who may not be doing so well. This is precisely why Huckabee has done so well.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
_if we are not getting through, then it is eduction, the media, or our outreach. Why do liberals speak to them and win when what they are saying is wrong? Huck can not win by being Democrat lite, and if he wins, what exactly is worth winning?
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Which we haven't had since Reagan, save for a few moments after 9/11 when Bush stood on Ground Zero and spoke to our hearts.
Conservative policies win, but we can't just "preach to the choir" anymore. Rather, we need to connect with the Average voter, and convey how our principles will affect their lives in a positive way.
Be it through less regulation, a new tax structure, school choice, personal health care options (vis-a-vis Health Savings Accounts), working to alter our heath care system from response to preventative, taking steps to increase the supply of various medications and therefore decrease their cost-- offer natural options in addition to offering drugs; Also taking steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to decrease inflation.
If we relate, show how conservative principles and policies will affect their lives for the better than we'll stand a shot at winning them over- in the same way Reagan did.
Amen, GC. This cuts straight to the heart of the union voter and the "my dad voted dem, I'm voting dem" demographic which is really their most important constituancy.
many years. I watched many of them go republican. And Huck's rhetoric (sans the Wall Street bashing) and some policies that are not class warfare based, can help us get the rest of them.
One of my main points about Huckabee that needs to be exposed is that, when pressed, he actually is not for any laws to punish Wall Street, and he hints at REDUCING regs on small business.
I am not for Huck. But if the GOP will learn a lesson from him re reaching out to the lower and middle income families, we can be the majority party for 40 years.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
and here's a dirty secret so I'll put it in brackets so bad people can't hear me type it [the dems could be the majority party for 40 years again if they'd stop litmus testing their members on social issues. They have it easier since we have the burden of explaining economics, but thankfully they are too stupid (or evil?) to let social issues go].
2000, and i know the dynamic in the back rooms, and it is SOOOOOOOOO PC dominated. These 60s people have their secular religion of liberal politics, and that is OUR saving grace!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
I think the fact that economic issues are too complex for our shallow media to handle works for the GOP, not against it. Its tax policies may benefit what Hugh Hewitt refers to as the investor class (primarily upper middle class and wealthy), but they make life harder for the middle class, lower middle class, working class and poor.
Back before Goldwater and Reagan liberated all of those poor souls languishing under the burden of outrageous taxes, my working class grandfather bought a house that he payed off in 18 years, a new car every two years, sent three of his four children to college, had health care insurance for himself and his family his entire life, and retired in his early sixties, travelling inside and outside of the U.S. and generally living comfortably until death 20 years later. All of that on a single salary. (My grandmother never worked outside of the home.)
In 2007, it is a struggle for a working class family with two incomes to merely own their own home, much less to purchase new cars regularly and pay their children's college tuition and save for retirement. The idea that a wife can stay home and take care of the children and the family can still enjoy some of the finer things in life (and save for college and retirement) is now unthinkable. This is quite a decline in the standard of living if you think about it.
It's kind of amazing that a labor force that can remember how good life was under the New Deal would allow it to be dismantled so thoroughly through neglect and decay. It's equally amazing that the Democrats are so myopic and doctrinare on social issues that they would allow their natural majority to be frittered away by insisting on taking out-of-touch stances on issues like gay marriage.
I concur with tadams; if the Democrats would bring their social issues platform back in line with middle America, they wouldn't lose another election in my lifetime. (For an example of the type of people who would lead this kind of Democratic party, look at Sentator Jim Webb.) I don't see that happening, but I also don't see the middle class and below continuing to accept the increasing decline in their standard of living relative to the upper middle class and above. I know those of you on the Right don't necessarily like to talk about it, but the widening gap between the rich and poor and the dwindling middle class is real. It won't continue. The middle class won't allow it. They will wake up to their economic interests and start voting them again. Huckabee's win in Iowa is an amazing testament to this. When the middle class is hurting so bad populism breaks out in the Republican party, never mind the Democratic one, you know things are bad.
I think the fact that economic issues are too complex for our shallow media to handle works for the GOP, not against it. Its tax policies may benefit what Hugh Hewitt refers to as the investor class (primarily upper middle class and wealthy), but they make life harder for the middle class, lower middle class, working class and poor.
Just how do they make life harder for the lower classes ? They aren't paying taxes. The overwhelming burden is on the top ten percent of income earners.
Back before Goldwater and Reagan liberated all of those poor souls languishing under the burden of outrageous taxes, my working class grandfather bought a house that he payed off in 18 years, a new car every two years, sent three of his four children to college, had health care insurance for himself and his family his entire life, and retired in his early sixties, travelling inside and outside of the U.S. and generally living comfortably until death 20 years later. All of that on a single salary. (My grandmother never worked outside of the home.)
Really ?? What was in his car ? Safety belts ? MP3 Player ? AC ? What did his insurance do for him ? Lasik ? Gamma Knife if he needed ? Mri ? Laproscopic procedures ?
In 2007, it is a struggle for a working class family with two incomes to merely own their own home, much less to purchase new cars regularly and pay their children's college tuition and save for retirement. The idea that a wife can stay home and take care of the children and the family can still enjoy some of the finer things in life (and save for college and retirement) is now unthinkable. This is quite a decline in the standard of living if you think about it.
That would explain why the greatest percentage of Americans of all time now own homes. We have the highest percentage of college educated Americans of all time. I suppose that corresponds to that overall decline.
It's kind of amazing that a labor force that can remember how good life was under the New Deal would allow it to be dismantled so thoroughly through neglect and decay. It's equally amazing that the Democrats are so myopic and doctrinare on social issues that they would allow their natural majority to be frittered away by insisting on taking out-of-touch stances on issues like gay marriage.
Oh yes life was great under the new deal. We had a word for most of the New Deal, It was Depression. The other part we called war.
You sir are talking out your Hat. (A fashion accessory your grandfather would know from)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Well in that case:
I'm 33 years old. I have not been to college. I spent 6 years in the United States Marine Corps (God Bless the Corps!) My wife works about three 3-hour server shifts a week at a chain restaurant but is otherwise a stay at home mom. I am a self-taught web professional.
We have two children and live in Charlotte, NC. We own TWO homes. Our first home we bought and kept, and now rent out to my mother-in-law. Our new home is a dream come true, spacious, wooded, private, and with land. Not a cookie-cutter, a real home like your grandfather would have owned. We have two cars. One is a standard gas saver with all the modern conveniences like air bags. The other is my indulgence: a 78' Ford F100. We have a Wii. We take real vacations. We have debt, I'll grant you, but we also have savings, an investment account, and a 401k. We have two college funds. OH, and we pay for our own insurance, no employer coverage.
My children have a standard of living far above what I had at their age, as I had a standard of living far better than that of my parents. They, in turn, lived better than their parents.
The democrats would, like you, try to ensure that everyone have what your grandfather had. And nothing more. But I have more, and my children will have more than that.
Increasing decline in the standard of living? Nonsense. The standard of living grows by leaps and bounds, in a nation where those who live below the poverty line can still discuss the Sopranos or download music to an MP3 player.
The standard of living is fine. What is wrong is the expectation that the standard of living is a right and a benefit to be handed out by Uncle Sam. That, and the fact that with greater prosperity comes greater complexity and greater responsibility which brings with it, greater sense of burden. I know there are those who feel their burdens and think they are being squeezed too tight. The simple answer is that they are wrong.
And so are you.
absentee
Absentee, that's great. I hope you really are doing as well as you say are. Although, I'd say you don't really own a house until you pay off the mortgage (that's when a house ceases being a liability and becomes an asset in my estimation ... unless you are charging your mother in law more to live in the house than you're paying to the bank each month). In my family's case, my father did significantly worse than my grandfather (even though he worked hard since he was 17), but I have managed to do almost as well (in some ways). My wife and I went to college for four years (paid for by borrowing money I just paid off about a year ago .. I'm 31), we both work, have one child, have managed to stay out of debt for the most part, won't pay off our mortgage until we're about 54 (I'd guess), will probably be able to pay for our daughter's tuition in full if we stick to just the one child. Oh yeah, and the biggie, we BOTH work long and hard ... the idea of supporting my family on just my income is a wild fantasy. Hell, the thought of having four kids is a wild fantasy.. mainly because I don't want to have more children than I can afford to send to college. Anyways, point taken, anecdotal evidence only goes so far, but surely you must acknowledge that the middle class of the 1950s did a hell of a lot better relative to the upper middle class of the 1950s, no? That's just a historical fact. A lot of middle class people are beginning to find this disparity unacceptable.. and along comes Huck. Get used to it. You're probably going to see a lot more of this style of politicing in the future.
I just thought you wanted the new Deal back.
All we need to do is nuke the rest of the worlds industrial capacity.
Seriously grow a pair and realize The 50's weren't Ozzie and Harriet, the Life of Riley or Burns and Allen. You want an idea what things were like for your typical working Man ? Take a look at the Honeymooners.
I will agree with you on one thing though. We will see more of the Huck style of politicking. As long as we teach our children the most important things in the world are an Xbox, fast car, and a slut
As long as we don't teach the next generation to look beyond toys and personal pleasure in their lives, they will be small easily controlled and afraid. The strength to face tomorrow doesn't come from money, or status symbols. It comes from within and beyond. As long as people are taught, and believe they are victims with nothing beyond whats obvious, thats exactly what they shall be.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There are a lot of simple pleasures you could have for not much money. Save up, buy a bat, ball, and glove and find some other kids and play some baseball. Travel by bike. Don't spend a lot of money on fancy electronic games that hadn't been invented yet. [Seems to me that nowadays you can't even buy an electronic game that lasts - in a few years the game is obsolete].
Another thing about the 50's and house size. In the 1950's, if you lived in a 1,200-1,500 sq ft house you were probably pretty safe. Nowadays there are a lot of places where there are a lot of 1,200-1,500 sq ft houses where people get murdered nearby.
Culturally I think America was richer in the 1950's than it is now.
Any resemblance of 21st century America to Future Shock is probably purely coincidental.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It seems you've identified part of the cause for your angst.
"I'd say you don't really own a house until you pay off the mortgage"
If you can't leverage your home, say, 28 years before your 30 year mortgage is payed off, and use a mortgaged home as an asset, then you're looking at life the wrong way. In fact, you are looking at it like your grandfather would have, like my father in law does. Your mortgage is not an onerous burden, it's your ticket to upward mobility. I own my dream home because of my first home, and it was not paid off at all. I dread to think of the day I pay off a mortgage, it's a waste of green.
And I didn't say it doesn't take hard work, by the way. In fact, that's sort of my point. But I don't make an absurd income and we do absolutely fine. Middle class America has MUCH to be thankful for, and what's more, much more than the middle class of previous generations.
You're barking up the wrong tree highlighting a supposed gap between middle middle and upper middle. That's just class envy pettiness. Want to say more, but it's my turn on Wii Sports.
absentee
You're probably not still checking this thread for comments (I fell off for a few days), but in case you are ... I'm not sure how to leverage my mortgage and use a mortgaged home as an asset, but if it can be done, I hope I find someone who can teach me some day. Personally, I think someone like me gets a better deal from the Democrats, and doing well by someone like me (the majority) is best for the Republic overall. We obviously disagree about what party has the best economic policy and vision for America -- regardless, I'm glad you're doing well for you and yours .. and thanks for volunteering ... I won't hold the fact that you joined the wrong service against you too much. (I'm pro-Army all the way.)
No need to apologize, joli. And no, I'm not speaking out of my hat. I've researched and reflected on this matter for years. I may be wrong, but I'm definitely not just pulling ideas off the top of my head willy nilly. There is substance behind what I am saying.
You do make a valid point here:
Really ?? What was in his car ? Safety belts ? MP3 Player ? AC ? What did his insurance do for him ? Lasik ? Gamma Knife if he needed ? Mri ? Laproscopic procedures ?
One of the major reasons for the decline in the standard of living of the middle class and below is the rise of the consumer culture. I'm not sure the exact size of my grandfather's old house, but I'd guess it to be less than 1500 square feet.. far smaller than what's being built today. Also, back then, far fewer goods and services were considered essential.
Still, can you imagine someone feeding a family of six, paying off a mortgage in 18 years, buying a new car every two years (no exaggeration, he bought a new car every two years), paying three four-year college tuitions, carrying health insurance and retiring comfortably on ONE working class salary? That just amazes me, and yet, I know he was typical of his generation ... the greatest era for the middle class, ushered in by the New Deal.
A Newer Deal is coming, joli. If you want to see the politics of the future, take a look at Jim Webb's efforts to bring the GI Bill back to 1945 standards. Doesn't it strike you as a very curious sign of the times that Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy is now a Democratic senator who combines social conservativism with a passion for economic policy that benefits the middle and working classes? Rather you like it or not, the pendulum is swinging the other way. The middle class is ready to start living with the same sense of security enjoyed by the upper middle class and above again. When a populist like Huckabee rises to the top of the REPUBLICAN caucus in Iowa, the writing is on the wall.
It amuses me to watch members of the Right trying to analyze this trend. They are uniquely unsuited to do so. Hearing them discuss economic issues for the middle class and below is as comical as listening to the Democrats discuss gay marriage; both are just hopelessly out of touch with the majority. Anyways, like it or not, we're going back to the future. History is moving beyond Goldwater and Reagan, which is not to say away from them or against them, but beyond them.
This move needn't take place in the same old suffocating atmosphere of Red vs. Blue, Right vs. Left. The Republicans don't need to be left behind. I know Huckabee is going to probably receive the hatchet job of the century over the next few weeks from the GOP's monied establishment, from which he will probably not recover, but he's the only guy you have got who is looking for the future of your party. The rest of you are stuck in the past .. still looking to a ghost from yesteryear to lead you into the light of tomorrow. I'm not a Republican (just in case you haven't noticed), and I must admit I am suspicious of pretty much any changes Republicans want to make in the tax code because they have historically hurt my bottom line as a member of the middle class, but I am willing to give the Fair Tax proposal a hearing because I appreciate the fact that Huckabee is addressing himself to me and my concerns. That's something that I just have never seen from the GOP, not in terms of economics at least.
I have to tell you, it's a good time to be a Democrat from the old school. I doubt I will be able to enjoy the standard of living my grandfather did (I'm already into my 30s), but if this keeps up, my daughter might.
I would guess you are too young to really remember the 1970's. We had horrible unemployment, inflation, and interest rates and something called stagflation. Those were all products of the type of economics practiced by the Democratic party. (and partly the fault of the Republican party because some idiots like Nixon were indistinguishable from Dems on fiscal issues).
The main reason for the apparent (more apparent than real) decline in living you have noticed is that decade of real decline coupled with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs which was going to happen no matter what since we could no longer compete with emerging industrial nations for low end manufacturing.
I suggest you continue your economics education because you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
this may be a big part of the problem:
"I would guess you are too young to really remember the 1970's"
How many voters out there don't remember? I am 40-something and barely remember it. Only when I think back do I remember my dad having a hard time finding decent work. I remember most of my close were hand-me-downs. I remember wearing a big wad of tape on my glasses most of the time because my parents couldn't afford to replace them. These will be difficult times to make that point because we are getting further and further away from the 70's.
Before you were spouting tripe and handwaving. You had a poorly constructed argument that did not pair with reality. Little more than a chain of whines, that it used to better, and then the plaintive assertion that we had the new deal. The type of thing you'd expect from a small child.
Now you go to this ? Once again the GOP tax cuts hurt your bottom line ? can you explain just how ??
Just how is government supposed to take the fear out of anyones day to day life ?
Whats truly sad is you hate your children enough to make the wish you did. But if your daughter to have the same benefits of your grandfathers generation heres what you do.
1. Tell her not to go to school girls shouldn't its a waste.
2. Get her a job as a cleaning woman
3. Tell her forget about eating out (maybe once a month)
4. Tell her get used to living in 1200 square feet or less.
5. Forget about television
6. Scratch off any advanced medicine
7. Walk or take the bus to work. (Two cars in a family why you'd have to be rich)
I am sure she will love you all the more for what you want for her.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Watch the HTML tags please.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Still, can you imagine someone feeding a family of six, paying off a mortgage in 18 years, buying a new car every two years...paying three four-year college tuitions, carrying health insurance and retiring comfortably on ONE working class salary?
I just moved to Massachusetts from Southeast Idaho, and I have seen this idea from a lot of people I have met here. I knew a lot of families back at home who had a stay-at-home mom. If you manage/invest your money, stay out of debt (as much as possible) and live withing your means you can certainly do all the things you described. Also, a lot of them did it with more then six kids. Not only can I imagine it, but I have seen it. This is just my own personal experience. All of my sisters are married, and they stay at home. It can be done. That is why as a conservatives, I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and the free market. Because that is what will make it possible for me to stay at home with my kids.
Huckabee isn't going to help the middle class with class warfare, populism, and socialism. It has failed every time it has been tried. Huck doesn't even understand economics 101.
The problem with Huckaberry is he dosn't understand the basics of either economics or foreign affairs. Telling a good joke, and saying I fell you pain isn't going to help the middle class. Such talk has always brought everyone down, not the middle class up.
Class Warfare, Populism and definitely not Socialism.
Using rhetoric that connects with voters, and highlights the concerns of the middle class, while offering conservative policies to improve their quality of life and the viability of our Government is not any of the above.
but not so much on this.
One of things that a lot of people who embrace change and embrace job insecurity ... "a great rewards, great uncertainty" economy don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of US who don't find change a good thing.
There are a lot of us who would be perfectly willing to trade a 10% pay cut for a long term job with the same company.
I have NO desire to move towns to stay with my same company or move companies to stay in the same town.
Huckabee understands that and that is one of the reasons that he is getting votes.
The problem tends to be that the CEO types are all the aggressive personality types and they gather like minded people around them and then those people say that its no big deal if people need to shift around every few years.
In the mean time, real people who have to deal with all the stress that you listed have no desire for huge, intense change. They have change in their personal lives and would like some stability in their work lives.
So while I'm with Fred (and then Mitt) and have Huck at the bottom of my pile, Huck is right about this and its something that A LOT of the people I talk to DISLIKE about the GOP in general and one of the reasons that they didn't vote for the GOP in 2006.
It's also part of the Ron Paul phenominon (which is not to say that he's not nuts).
If one of the mainstream candidates can find a palpatable (to chamber of commerce conservatives) to tap into what ails the average working person, then they will shoot past Huck and the others and be on their way to winning the GOP nomination.
It's good stuff and I can relate. We adolesced simultaneously. I lost my virginity around the same time as you, but Franki Valli's December 1963 was playing on my Quadrophonic Stereo...
Let's lower or eliminate the federal gas tax. It hurts the poor. Why not pay for roads out of general revenues.
Agreed. And I think concurrency regulations should always include co-payments for all public infrastructure, including roads.
Let's build the fence in a massive project and hire the unskilled at good wages.
It's sort of liberal, in a TVA public works sort of way, but it would be interesting to see the media forced into having to come down in favor of both sides of an issue.
Let's drill for our own da*n oil. Good paying jobs.
Thanks to technology, there really isn't anyplace that should be off limits any more.
Let's advance health savings accounts and private soc sec accts.
I like it. And I'd also like to see a prohibition on employer-provided healthcare benefits along with a mandate that all who can afford coverage buy it. It would free millions of Americans who currently feel trapped in jobs they hate for fear of losing benefits. I think it would bring a spurt of entrepreneurship the likes of which we've never seen.
Let's pick judges that will let parents control schools.
That's good. But I'd rather see Congress restrict jurisdiction of the courts in educational matters. So long as they are enabled to impose their will and decisions are applied nationally, we're not ever going to restore truly local control.
Let's repeal the energy bill and let corn be eaten instead of burned in a motor.
Hear hear! I'd rather seen corn eaten by a cow more cheaply...yum.
Let's eliminate the Dept of Education or require states to give parents choice if they want federal money.
Yes. Replace No Child Left Behind with No Parent Left Powerless!
Let's stand up and proclaim what the GOP has always been, but has not been acknowledged as:
The champions of the poor and middle class.
When you really look at it, the only real champions of the poor are the middle class. We're much more in tune with the notion "there but for the grace of God go I."
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
There is a WHOLE BUNCH of insecurity in the American res publica these days. Probably the only two groups in America that don't feel it are those who are poor and unmotivated enough to remain comfortably uncomfortable on the government dole and those who are rich enough to not need this month's pay. Everybody in America who needs THIS WEEK'S pay is feeling insecure, even those, maybe especially those, who are well off enough to be the group that the GOP likes to tout as having become members of the "investor class" as wage earners. By way of illustration, my wife has thirty years accrual in the State's Social Security replacement plan that works essentially like a 401K; that's a lot of money the way most people count money. Today, this very day, we're moving that money into mostly cash and CDs, and, yes, maybe even some metal. We know we need that money to live in the manner to which we prefer to be accustomed and we are not prepared to ride the market roller coaster we see coming over the next few years. Now I know I might look back a few years from now and say, boy did I mistime that, but I don't think so, and I am not prepared to take the RISK.
Non-supervisory, non-management wage earners feel themselves to be at the mercy of what can loosely be described as "globalization." The GOP is going to have an almost impossible time gaining the support of the person who lost his or her "good" job to out-sourcing or off-shoring and is now working at WalMart or in some other service or retail job. It is going to have a very hard time convincing the person that still has a "good" job but who just saw his CEO get a huge bonus for his "cost-cutting" measures. Wage earners know who "cost cutting" falls on and it doesn't matter who the wage earner works for. I am reminded of a cartoon published after Prop 13 passed in CA: then Gov. Brown says to the Chief of Staff, "They passed it, so now we have to cut costs," who then turns to the Deputy COS, who in turn tells the Assistant Deputy COS, who in turn tells about ten levels of Assistants to the Deputy Assistant until it finally gets to the Janitor who is told, "You're Fired."
Even those high enough in the organization to have a perceived stake in its well-being are insecure about the future of the organization. I had great hopes for the changes in taxation of dividends as I thought it might make companies start worring about making money on producing something rather than making money off stock speculation. Maybe it has, but there's still all too much of the dynamic where mangement sell some scheme to jack up the stock price to the point where management and a select group of investors can cash out and then kick the company to the curb - and don't say it doesn't happen.
And then there's the non-economic insecurity; people fear not for themselves, but for their children. This is most apparent in but not by any means exclusive to people of Faith. They see a cesspool education system and a cesspool culture. Every day when they send their kids out into it, they don't know for sure who's coming back home - or even if they're coming back home. Support for free public education is very strong in this Country, yet the only plan the GOP articulates is something easily portrayed as dumping the whole system. The GOP has done better on the culture side by remaining the "law 'n order" party at the cost of alienating minority support. But we have lost the moral high ground by the demonstrable fact that many of our "moral leaders" were and are anything but.
We lost much of our claim to the "Security Voter" by our hypocrisy and percieved, and all too often real, incompetence in governing the Country. The Democrats hammered competence constantly because they can't argue policy. The Country buys our policy for the most part, but they no longer trust us to competently run the Country or to run it for the People rather than just the Insiders - our corruption problems, real and contrived, cause much of this loss.
The Ds, and to a lesser extent Huckabee, have seized on this insecurity. The Ds have pandering to it down to a fine art. We once could convince the People that the Ds couldn't be trusted. Now we've convinced them that we can't either, so solutions that once resonated with the so-called Middle Class don't anymore because the Ds have convinced them that we're even less trustworthy and are simply uncaring about anyone but ourselves - as the Ds have defined "ourselves."
So, Huckabee is basically saying, "I see the World as you do and you can trust me to govern as you would," and it is resonant. He was spot-on labelling Romney as the Guy who would fire you; that is a very perceptive characterization if one is trying to appeal to the "Security Voter" I have described.
I can think out some policy solutions, but then most here would start characterizing me as a socialist, but I don't care and I'll save that for another and shorter entry.
In Vino Veritas
Another tremendous post, Achance.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"The GOP has done better on the culture side by remaining the "law 'n order" party at the cost of alienating minority support."
That is a self - serving version of events, the old "blacks don't vote GOP because they are criminals who want handouts" line. The reality is that blacks were at the bottom of the economic ladder and were experiencing severe discrimination. Where the GOP was the progressive party on race, blacks generally supported them. For instance, Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. was a Republican. (His much more famous son, Martin Luther King Jr., much more liberal than his father theologically and politically, was nonpartisan and independent.) But when the GOP began to court the likes of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and demand that blacks accept their impoverished second class status, blacks switched sides.
It is true that more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and similar voting rights and fair housing measures than Democrats, but it is equally true that there was substantial conservative opposition to civil rights and to black advancement in general. All of the folks that refused to live next to, hire or promote, or see their children attend schools with blacks did not live in some rural Mississippi county, and their feelings certainly did not dry up and blow away in 1969. Racism had been deeply embedded in the American culture for centuries, and the civil rights court decisions (to which the term "judicial activism" was originally applied) and laws were deeply unpopular in large areas of the country. Even those that professed to support civil rights in theory were very much opposed to the practice of it when it meant actually having to have a black family live next door, black kids in their schools, black supervisors at their workplace, etc. and much desired for this progress to take place somewhere else. Or they claimed to advocate the "go slow" approach, meaning that progress would happen after they were dead (and their kids and their kids kids etc.).
While some Democrats were not above courting such voters, especially in the deep south and also certain urban mayors, ultimately it was the GOP that gave homes to people like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Pat Buchanan, and yes David Duke (who nearly won the Louisiana GOP nomination for governor). It was Ronald Reagan that swung by places like Philadelphia, Mississippi and Bob Jones University spreading urban legends about welfare queens that did not exist, and then appointed segregationist Ed Meese to attack the very laws and programs that George Romney took part in civil rights marches fighting for. Reagan even went so far as to dismantle Richard Nixon's racial programs, which were later reinstated by none other than Bill Clinton.
Now that we have a basically integrated society, the very conservatives that lost the debate back then are now using the inherent flaws in liberal programs to claim that they were on the side of the blacks all along. Of course, what they do not realize is that when you talk to a black person about the problem with public housing, that black person remembers his mother telling him about how blacks used to live in shanties and tents before public housing. When you talk to a black person about how unfair affirmative action is for whites, that black person remembers how before affirmative action there were almost no black doctors, lawyers, managers, businesses, or even government workers in many areas.
Naturally virtually all blacks will choose well - intentioned liberal failures over conservatives that failed to have good intentions. Conservatives are going to have to grips with that fact before they ever successfully court black voters. I still remember the 1990s where the big GOP strategy of success was hoping Bill Clinton's signing the welfare reform bill would depress black turnout. Turns out the overwhelming majority of blacks supported welfare reform, opinion polls showed 80%, just not a welfare reform bill written by Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Pat Buchanan, etc.
You know, J.C. Watts spent his entire congressional career trying to tell things like that to the GOP leadership. They didn't listen to him, choosing instead to humiliate him by forcing him to run interference for them when Trent Lott, Bob Barr, and other leading GOPers were caught hanging out with the segregationist Council of Conservative Citizens. When Watts decided that he had enough and left Congress, the GOP leadership said (behind his back of course) "Good riddance, he was UPPITY anyway." This was after the Colorado GOP pushed through a state constitutional change to remove black Republican Joe Rogers from the lieutenant governor spot, accusing Rogers of corruption. What was his crime? Trying to get his brother a state job. Oh the horror!
Then again, maybe J. C. Watts and Joe Rogers were just soft on crime I guess.
is so tired and so thoroughly debunked that it is hardly worth the trouble to address. That said, even if it was, it didn't work for Republicans, and all you have to do is look at how well George Wallace polled, and his was a racist campaign though carefully cloaked in codewords and populism - a time-tested "Southern Strategy."
You put a lot of words in my mouth, but I stand by my assertion that law and order stances cost minority support. No, not because "minorities are criminals," but because most minority "leaders" are Leftists first and Leftists attack law and order positions. Since minority voters do tend to strongly follow those leaders, these stances have cost Republican support among minority voters.
In Vino Veritas
when one looks at the new race strategy of the Clintons, it confirms a fact I know.
MANY more dems are racists that repubs. I can also confrim this from comments to me recently by dems who are for Edwards or Hillary.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
But just a comment regarding health savings accounts:
Not that I don't agree it is a better way, but we had it where I worked and it put many people in a very tight spot. We recently got aquired by another company, which offered both traditional and HSA, and a tidal wave ensued, back to traditional health insurance (myself included). It may have been the implementation path we took that caused the problem. The accounts were only funded three months in advance at the transition, and people who tend to use insurance frequently, or had multiple prescriptions, were out of money in a short time. It got to the point that the company had to offer no-interest loans to people. I was more fortunate because I had disposable income to throw at it, but others were not so fortunate.
It would have been expensive, but if the company had put between 6-9 months worth of premiums in the account, it may have been better received.
Anyway, just a thought.
HSAs make a heck of a lot of sense if you get started with them when you are 20. They make far less sense when you are 40 or 50 and already using a lot of health care.
Also, the initial funding provisions frankly suck. You can roll over up to one year's contribution from an IRA. But only once. And it counts against your contribution from that year. So the most you can start out with is $2900 and then you can't contribute any more that year. Stupid. They should allow people to roll $20k into their HSA and they should increase the contribution limits.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Excellent post. the sooner Republicans start taking this issue seriously, the closer we will be to winning over voters and paving a REAL path to the White House.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
I would guess you are too young to really remember the 1970's.
You're right, Oz, I am. I was born in the 1970s. From what I understand though, it was a bad time for many Americans (middle and working class and otherwise) and the economic policies of the Democrats were a contributing factor. My dad was one of the millions who voted Democrat until 1980 and then switched parties to vote for Reagan in his first term. I am a big believer in balance, and I am willing to concede that Reagan had a positive effect by providing that in 1980.
However, I think that thirty years later, it's time to swing the other way. Most don't remember FDR, and his memory has been kept alive mostly by the Right who portray him as a monster on par with Lenin. (The Left have forgotten him in their pursuit of a ridiculous, and for most Americans, irrelevant social agenda.) But the fact of the matter is that he had a very positive impact on the quality of life for a huge majority of middle and working class Americans. I've thought this for about 15 years or so, but I fully expected the Goldwater/Reagan approach to rule politics for my lifetime. I am pleasantly surprised to see that it's not going to. The middle class are beginning to demand economic stability... loudly. Can't you hear it? I keep saying this, but whoa!!! a populist rose to the top of the REPUBLICAN Iowa caucas. That's huge. Of course our inept and elite media don't cover this as the momumental shift amongst the middle class that it is... they are too busy focusing on what I consider to be vanity issues (gay marriage, etc.) and portraying Huck as a Christofascist to notice a huge shift that's going on here. But I notice it everywhere. I'm shocked by what's coming out of the mouths of the mouths of my otherwise conservative friends, family and neighbors.
Like it or not, Republicans, it's coming. Personally, I think it's going to be excellent for the economy. When government invests in its people it can lead to a huge economic boom. (See America 1940 to mid 1970s.)
Use Reply to This... and lay off the bad HTML please.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I just realized I was messing up the flow of the threads by not using "replying to this". Sorry. This format is new to me.
and you see an America that from 1945 to about 1970 had no meaningful competitor in the non-Communist World. Once the European and Japanese economies had recovered, it became a very very competitive World and American "legacy" industries really couldn't survive the competition. Some changed to meet the changing times, at a great cost to many who thought the good times would roll forever, some failed, at even greater cost to the people who depended on them, and some had government/political protection, e.g., regulated utilities, aerospace/defense, health care, automobiles.
I don't wholly disagree with you at least as you describe the perceptions of the res publica, see my post below, but I suspect we'd have serious disagreement over policy solutions.
In Vino Veritas
I see the health savings plan as a typical GOP measure. In theory it is good (particularly good for those with enough disposable income to not have to need this week's, or even month's, worth of wages) but in practice it harms a lot of people.. and given a choice, the majority are going to choose something else. Republicans, if you want to remain relevant, you need to wake up to the fact that people are choosing that something else. Economic policy that is good for employers is not necessarily good for employees (and in fact, it often is not). I'm not a fan of "class warfare", but I'm savvy enough to realize this very basic principle. I don't want to "soak the rich" or "cut those fat cats down to size" or whatever... but I do want to enjoy a little bit of economic security, even if I am just plain old middle class. I know enough about the past to know the dream of economic security for a middle class person like me is not pie in the sky. It's very real. I'm not alone. Again, Huck is the only person in your stable who is in touch with the majority on this and is trying to show your party the future. It is very, very amusing to me to listen to the GOP establishment balk at this guy, because it exposes the natural fissure that exists between the economic interests of employers/investors/inheritors and workers -- something they often are reticent about admitting. I like that Huck acknowledges that the guy who laid you off is different than the guy you work next to ... he has a different bundle of needs and interests and satisfying him with your policy will probably not satisfy the people he's laid off (and vice versa). That's so obvious that people who deny it strike me as absurd, naive, limited in thier intellectual capacities, disingenous or a combination of these.
Achance, you make an excellent point about other major economic factors besides government in the post World War II era contributing to the quality of American life. Obviously, government policy is not the only, or not even necessarily the major, factor in an economy, but New Deal policies did lead to a different distribution of the American economy's largesse than would have occurred had the old laissez fair mentality remained in place. And yes, you're right... I'm sure you and I would have some serious disagreements about policy. I realize as a young FDR-style Democrat I represent the boogey man to many (at best I'm considered deluded or naive, I suppose) but I'm here to just note, my ranks are swelling, which is totally bizarre, unexpected and wholly welcome. I'm truly delighted. When I first realized that as a member of the middle class I favor an FDR approach to economic policy back in the early 1990s, I could barely even discuss politics with my peers because they had no framework to engage my ideas. The best most of them could muster was to mutter socialist, communist or whatever -- so entrenched was the idea that government is always bad. Well, times have changed. I get so many head nods and hell yeahs when I open my mouth on this topic it kind of spooks me. I'm not used to this. It's a different world out there for many of the middle class, and they seem ready to re-explore how government can make their lives more secure. You folks are probably going to have to come grips with this. Huckabee is a sign of the times. I think he is going to go down in flames in your primaries this time around, but I think he represents the only wing of your party that will be relevant 15 years from now. I, for one, really appreciate his efforts to address me.. and his acknowledgment that addressing me is a little bit different than addressing the guy who employs me. I've rarely gotten this kind of treatment from Democrats in the Reagan dominated era I came of age in; to get it from a Republican is great.
I may steal that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
While Huckabuck seeks to capitalize on the feelings of insecurity in America it is important to put this in perspective. I am a lot older than you, but not so old as to remember FDR. (My father hated his policies, but since I knew better I became a democrat and enjoyed the “party of the people” label for a time. The GOP was always known as the party of the wealthy and the corporations. I grew out of this notion about the time of Reagan and have moved rightward ever since. My epiphany came from reading a book by Rush Limbaugh and realizing that I agreed with everything he wrote.
I also remember Ross Perot and his appeal, but he was a self made millionaire and worthy of his following until he knuckled under to Clinton’s pressure to get out. After this I realized he had a weakness when it came to leading when the going got tough.
I also understand the insecurity of this era of change. Where an employee could once work for one of those hated corporations for a lifetime, now it is likely that one will be called upon to update a resume several times in a career. Knowledge of where the economy is going and the ability to properly manage investments are part of the consideration these days and there is no way to “turn back the clock” except in making vague promises and not clearly defining what is meant by working for the middle class or working for change.
I see nothing wrong with confronting this insecurity but a government led solution is the wrong solution. We have just as much insecurity these days about our freedom, something that is sacrificed immediately in conceding any large segment of our lives to government control. Government health care, government education, government food programs, welfare programs, government jobs are all things to be wary of. It will not lead to a Huckabee election or nomination. It is too late for Ron Paul too. Only Obama has the recipe right and I believe he will be swept into the democratic nomination on the wings of the young seeking a world with more security. This is not something we as conservatives should hope to see elected, but we should in no way be trying to out Obama Obama with Huckabee.
I think the GOP has been known as the party of the wealthy since at least McKinley because that's exactly what it has been. Which is fine. They need a party to represent their interests too, and their interests sometimes coincide with the common good. I don't think Reagan did much to change the GOP's position as the party of wealth so much as change the perception. He did this by a) turning the middle class on the poor and b) buttressing the socially conservative wing of the party. Well, 30 years later, I think the middle class is starting to feel again, but by the grace of God go I, and are realizing it behooves them to look out for the interests of the poor because they are the most likely to join their ranks in an economic downturn. If they don't, some of their friends, family and neighbors probably will. As for cultivating the social conservative wing of the party, smart move. The Democrats are idiots for clinging to a socially liberal (and often wacky) agenda and marching ridiculously out of step with the majority of middle America on many, many issues. Their loss is the GOP's gain. Now, along comes a Huckabee: uh oh. This may spell serious trouble for your party. If someone can combine social conservatism while educating the middle class that government is not necessarily the enemy, that is a tool, sometimes weilded by capital (as it has been quite effectively for the past 30 years) and sometimes by labor (go back to FDR), they are going to establish a long, long lasting political majority in this country. I could be wrong, of course, and I like your comment about not trying to out Obama Obama... it's good to have two competing parties, representing somewhat competing interests, seeking alternative solutions to our shared problems and promoting the common good and the common interests as much as possible.
Sadly, the comments “there but for the grace of G-d go I” is an admission of non-responsibility if ever there was one. Fortunately for the R party, there are still a lot of people who realize that the “Lord helps those who help themselves”. My niece was a welfare recipient until Clinton and the R congress passed a limit to the number of years one could have welfare. She immediately went to work in order to bank her welfare for later when she really might need it. She has not been out of work since and has matured into a remarkable person as a result. She is in a much better place now but still has insecurity because of her limited education. The incredible rate of change in our society was foretold in Toffler’s book, Future Shock (1970). The solution seems to be to educate and never stop learning. This is a long way from a politician’s promise to make things alright.
You may be correct that this siren song will have a way of attracting voters. It is not far from Bill Clinton’s policy of trying to find something in government for every voter, to link each citizen to his government in a beholding manner. No doubt if Al Gore had been as fluid a talker as Huckabee or Obama he would not have had to contend with a “stolen election”. Do not believe that the masses can be sweet talked into giving up their freedom. You have to wait for a few more primaries before you write off the GOP, remember only a month ago it was all Hillary all the time.
KC, I am a HUGE fan of personal responsibility. I have worked my entire adult life, as has my wife. I own my home and have managed to amass a nice little chunk of change in savings and stay out of debt (mainly by eschewing the consumer culture and asking myself, do I really need this? before each purchase). My main long term economic goal, which I am on track to achieve in about five years, is to own my own business. All that said, I'm still nobody's fool. I know exactly who most GOP policies are designed to benefit, and it's not me... nor anyone else whose primary income doesn't come from INHERITED wealth. I think strong public schools, good health care, equal access to higher education and federal loans to small businesses to name a few enhance the personal freedom of guys like me, not decrease it. I respect those of you who disagree with me, and you're more than welcome to slug it out in the public arena and push your alternative agenda for the nation. May the best policy win. I must say once again, I never expected my vision of America to get the hearing it is getting right now. I have to tell you, it's been tough being a 31-year-old New Deal Democrat. For as long as I can remember, the free-market-equals-freedom paridigm has dominated the political dialogue of this nation. When I came of age and started really considering these matters, I began to realize the ways in which the free market restrict the freedom of guys like me (guys who don't stand to inherit millions). I have no problem with money, or even capital and wealth. I'm just irritated that those who did nothing more than were born with the right last name got SUCH a headstart on me. If I had my way, I'd vote for a self-made millionare or even billionare for president every time. I truly respect and admire those who built vast fortunes by the sweat of their brows... I'm not much of a fan of those who inherited vast fortunes and did nothing more than ride the wave of GOP tax policy to increase it though. Good luck to you, KC. If I'm wrong, save me from myself. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to work hard to provide for myself and mine. It feels good. I'll see you at the ballot box. (I'll be voting for the person I think is going to advance MY economic interests, not those of multi-millionare capitalists.)
My goodness you have a skewed view of the world, kind of like Joan Baez’s view I suspect. I do not believe your data about most Republican programs benefiting the inherited wealthy class. I also suspect that you know that most wealth is not inherited.
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s235/s235.html#a
(Snippet)
The federal estate tax has been instituted and repealed several times. Usually it has been seen as a source of revenue, rather than a means of redistributing wealth. But the current tax is clearly designed to redistribute wealth: it is imposed on estates with a value of as little as $675,000 and rises rapidly to an effective tax rate of 60 percent - the second highest estate tax rate of any country in the world.
Yet the estate tax does less to redistribute wealth than the continual churning of the American economy. Because wealth and income are both highly mobile in the United States, most fortunes are earned, rather than inherited, and rarely survive past the second generation.
• One study found that among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, inheritances accounted for less than 8 percent of assets.
• A recent study of U.S. millionaires found that 80 percent acquired their wealth in a single generation, without the benefit of inheritances.
• U.S. Trust Corporation surveyed the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans and found that inheritances were a significant source of wealth for only 10 percent of respondents.
I agree with you that the things you cite are opportunities that exist to help everyone in the society.
You are quoting the D talking points about Bush’s tax policies only helping the rich. Of course you know that the rich pay the predominant taxes so I won’t rehash that topic.
I will also remind you that the D party has their share of wealth now, and I am sorry that you emote such class envy. It does not bother me that Gates or Paris have inherited several million dollars. (Gates will likely go down in history as having done the most with his inheritance.) Most wealthy people do something with their money, won’t you when you make it?
Yes, we may well cancel each others votes, but I am used to this too, living in CA I don’t get my way very often. Cheers.
Joan Baez, huh? No, I'm no starry eyed liberal, KC. I'm a pragmatist. You do realize the National Center for Policy Analysis isn't the most objective source of information, right? You also realize that Democrats were trying to raise the exemption on the estate tax up to $2 million but were stopped from doing so by a Republican Congress. (If the exemption were that high, the middle class couldn't be snowed into thinking its abolishment were good for them.)
I'm glad you brought up Bill Gates. He often has extremely insightful things to say about inheritance and government assistance. His mother worked at my alma matter, the University of Washington, and he came to speak there when I attended. In his speech he attributed his success to the GI Bill. Without the GI Bill, his father would not have been able to attend college. If his father would not have been able to attend college, he would have never become a lawyer. If he would have never become a lawyer, Bill Gates would have never dreamed of and achieved the dream of attending Harvard. Had he not gone to Harvard, he would not have spent many late nights playing poker with smart guys and met the folks he eventually launched Microsoft with. (This is his analysis, not mine.) So, he supports the GI Bill and other government investments in its people. He also has stated on several occasions that he will not leave his children a large in tact inheritance. He has been working for the better part of a decade now to invest the fortune he has amassed into programs that will advance meritocracy -- ie, give smart kids like he was without means the opportunity to contribute to humanity to the maximum of thier abilities. Bill Gates is one of my favorite examples of the kind of world I advocate. I'm also a huge fan of Warren Buffet. Anyways ... take care. We're obviously not going to bridge the gap of our disagreement. And for the record, no, I never plan on being rich. I have big plans for my business (I value my independence and I'm sick of working for a boss) but I am not the sort who sits around all day dreaming of yachts, exotic vacations, mansions, etc. I'll be happy to achieve simple economic security.
I only mentioned Gates because he is an example of a wealthy guy who is doing good things with his wealth, and he is the principle reason for a lots of people having a wealthy time. (How many employees in Seattle I am glad he attributes his good things to the GI bill, I too believe that we should give our Vets the best breaks that we can. Gates did however inherit his fortune, (two million) and this is what he plans to leave with his kids. It was this leg up that allowed him to leave school early and start his empire.
I hope we have come around to not being so hard on those who inherit wealth and not being so hard over on having the government provide things that people can and should provide for themselves. The right to a home, food, healthcare, a job for life and free education are things a government can provide only by taxing the people and regulating some of their freedom. While Gates and Buffet are both examples of wealthy Ds, it only shows that when people earn fabulous wealth it is not at the hands of the little guy, in fact it often provides jobs and wealth for them as well. I am glad Gates is providing support for people who merit scholarship support, I am sorry that he restricted the program to minorities, but its his money and his right to do so. Hope you plans go well.
You're probably not still checking this thread for comments, but in case you are... yeah, you make a good point about Gates. As I head into middle age (too fast for my taste), my views on inheritance soften a bit ... just a bit, I used to favor upwards of 80 percent taxation on all estates valued over $2 million ... but I can see how it can be healthy for the common good for families to hold large sums in trust and pass it on and down along with the values that enabled them to amass those sums to future generations .. and onward and upward. I also see how unchecked, unearned wealth and privilege can have a damaging effect on the nation. In a perfect world (and no, I don't think we should try to create a perfect world in the here and now... the 20th century taught us where that leads) the best and the brightest of every generation would rise to the top and everyone willing to work hard and pull their weight would at least get by. I'd like to see a world where not only a barber's son can become a captain of industry, but the son of a captain of industry becomes a bus driver (if that's all his talents allow for). We're nowhere near that (the second part at least), and we never will be, but I still think government has a role to play in promoting meritocracy. I'm all too familiar with the Republican notion that all redistribution schemes of income is immoral, but I see things a little differently. I see certain things as held in common by all .. and I think it's right and just for a person of great means to pay more to support government because he benefits more from the civilization that government provides than others. That's a very old-fashioned idea. I know its completetly unfashionable in Republican circles and even counter intuitive in many Democrat ones (the economic liberals of today are more of the soak-the-rich-corporate-b*stards variety) but that's where I'm coming from.
You are right about the rich, they are always going to have the ability to do things for their children that you and I cannot do. However you are wrong that their children will end up avoiding the meritocracy. Even in the nepotism limit, a manager is not going to allow an incompetent child the authority to ruin a business. Would Hilton put Paris in charge of the hotel complex? How many jobs could such a screw up destroy? You are simply wrong about the rich in general; in specific cases of course we could both find examples that show our case.
The fact is that a Hillary style country (It takes a village) would not allow you to be rewarded for your accomplishmentsas well as a low tax capitalist society. See Ayn Rand for ideas about this. You have to agree that if you were going to be born to a life of poverty but were given a chance to pick the country, that the US would be the best choice – Thank you to Walter E Williams for this. Poor people here live better than middle class in some other countries.
I am glad that you have no illusions about a perfect society, people would mess it up no matter what approach was used. But the estate tax provides a government penalty for putting away money for retirement. Those who do it well enough to end up with a sizable estate can expect the government to take about half of it. The fact is that our economy would benefit tremendously if people all saved for retirement. But how many of us would really like the government to share in our thoughtfulness? In the ideal world people would take care of themselves, society or government would provide a small safety net, and people would all pay an equal share for the chance to support the best country and government ever produced. If they somehow subscribe to the notion that a wealthy person owes society much more than a poor person then they probably believe their lives are worth more, clearly a moral problem. I believe the entrepreneur who takes a risk and could end up like Bill Gates should be allowed to decide what to do with their fortune. Could he give his money to the government? Of course, in fact the IRS will accept any money that you or I want to give them. So will other charities. The important thing is freedom, and individual opportunity. Punishing a man for his good fortune – regardless of how he achieved it is just one of the very crazy ideas of the left.
"Let's lower or eliminate the federal gas tax. It hurts the poor. Why not pay for roads out of general revenues."
The federal gas tax is what, 15 cents a gallon? When gas has gone from $1 to $3 in five years? And no, that 15 cents will not go very far in replacing the $15 dollars per hour lost when a guy has to go from working at a textile plant to working at Target.
"Let's build the fence in a massive project and hire the unskilled at good wages."
Great for people that live in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas or are willing to move there, but no discernible benefit to people that live elsewhere. And when the fence is finished and the people in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, etc. are without jobs ... all we have to do is look at Japan to see that Keynesian economics does not work.
"Let's drill for our own da*n oil. Good paying jobs."
But not very many, and again the benefit will be limited to a few states. Also, the best estimates are that it would take decades to appreciably increase domestic oil production, and even that would make but a dent in our demand. And no, while the power companies are rolling in money they have absolutely no incentive to invest in the alternative energy technology that actually could reduce our need for Saudi, Iranian, or Venezuelan oil and spread the jobs around past the few states that actually have oil reserves or are close enough to the distribution network to support a pipeline or refinery.
"Let's advance health savings accounts and private soc sec accts."
See the answer to gas tax elimination: a great idea helps the guy who went from making $45,000 a year at a factory to $17,500 a year in fast food how?
"Let's pick judges that will let parents control schools."
See the answer to gas tax elimination: a great idea helps the guy who went from making $45,000 a year at a factory to $17,500 a year in fast food how?
"Let's repeal the energy bill and let corn be eaten instead of burned in a motor."
Well, thanks to the free traders and those that hate agriculture subsidies, the corn that will be eaten will be more likely to come from Asia, Africa, or South America than Iowa or Kansas. Good for the Bain Capital folks, good for the third world economies, but bad for Iowa and Kansas.
"Let's eliminate the Dept of Education or require states to give parents choice if they want federal money."
See the answer to gas tax elimination: a great idea helps the guy who went from making $45,000 a year at a factory to $17,500 a year in fast food how?
"Let's stand up and proclaim what the GOP has always been, but has not been acknowledged as: The champions of the poor and middle class."
That may well be true. But your list above does not demonstrate it. America is a much more hostile place for small businesses and skilled workers (as factory workers are not unskilled by the way) than it was in 1980s when Wal - Mart's "made in the USA" ad campaign seemed almost coordinated with his own pro - American administration rhetoric. Wal - Mart kept a lot of factories going in the 1980s with that policy. Well now Wal - Mart is still patronizing those factories, but the problem is that they have all moved to Mexico and China.
Mike Huckabee is only tapping into the same vein of discontent that Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan tried to exploit in the past. Even Bob Dole in 1996 tried to go populist in the late stages of his campaign when he plied the line "a fellow came up to me and said 'the Clinton administration created 11 million new jobs. I know because I have three of them!'", a clear reference to the disappearing factory jobs. The free traders (in both parties by the way) first said to be patient ... that the new jobs would come. Then they said that the workers needed to acquire new skills to work in the new industries. Now they are accusing people that even talk about the problem of engaging in class warfare.
Well realize this: were it not for the gay marriage issue and the war on terror, Bush would have lost Ohio and the presidency with it in 2004. Why? Ohio has lost hundreds of thousands of factory jobs. But that couldn't save the GOP in the Ohio governor and senate races in 2006. If the GOP does not do a better job coming up with concrete policy solutions, Ohio - and virtually everywhere else - will go Democrat in 2008. I think you guys know this already, and that is why you are trying to browbeat evangelicals into accepting a social liberal like Giuliani (or someone who will not offend social liberals by pressing a conservative social agenda like Mitt Romney) hoping that it will somehow allow you guys to steal some blue states. If that is your strategy, fine, show me the states that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney would win in 2008 that Bush lost in 2004 or 2000, and no Massachusetts and New York are not among them (remember, Al Gore failed to carry Tennessee in 2000, and John Edwards failed to carry North Carolina or even help Erskine Bowles in the 2004 Senate race against Elizabeth Dole).
Your alternate reality rhetoric matches the crap being sold by guys like Edwards and Obama, so why not stick with the Democrats?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"The federal gas tax is what, 15 cents a gallon? When gas has gone from $1 to $3 in five years?"
The Federal gas tax is 18.3 centas per hour. State gas taxes
are usually two, three, or more times that amount.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
18.3 cents per gallon
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Don't give the Democrats any ideas... I'm sure they'd love the idea of charging taxes on an hourly basis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
is why Romney is not the right nominee for the GOP. Romney does not have the warmth or sincerity to pull off the everyman touch that those squeezed in the middle class will believe he understands their fears, anxieties, or dreams.
Fred Thompson is a self-made man -- and he isn't a liberal.
This is an excellent diary GC. You make some really interesting points, as usual. :-)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
...class mobility is a reality. I could name two dozen millionaires (and not ones I've read about in Forbes) whose roots are solid working-class roots. That's what the Dems, nearly all of them, miss. Their paradigm is of static classes of people with broad-brush "needs" to be met, and the only imaginable agent that can meet those needs is Uncle Sam.
With upward mobility, folks that haven't arrived yet are sensitive to the issues that affect "the rich" -- the last thing they want to do is expend all the effort to climb the mountain to have the reward taken away from them when they get there.
Republicans have better ideas, market based ideas. So far we have failed to elect leaders that can effectively advance them.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa