I've Said For A While The Republican Party Needs To Find The Next Jack Kemp

[JDaveG]

I'm not saying Marco Rubio is him, but this seems a step in the right direction:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/08/rubio_having_a_job_that_pays_10_an_hour_is_not_the_american_dream.html

From the article:

Our modern day economy has wiped out many of the low-skill jobs that once provided millions with a middle class living. Those that have not been outsourced or replaced by technology pay wages that fail to keep pace with the cost of living. And even many of the middle-skilled white- and blue-collar jobs have also been lost to automation or shipped overseas.

At least until a few decades ago, our economy proved sufficiently dynamic and innovative to replace old jobs with new ones. But this hasn’t happened in recent years.

Social factors also play a major role in denying equal opportunity. The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.

Fifty years ago, today, when the War on Poverty was launched, 93% of children born in the United States were born to married parents. By 2010 that number had plummeted to 60%. It should not surprise us that 71% of poor families with children are not headed by a married couple.

The decline of marriage and the increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock is driven by a complex set of cultural and societal factors. But there is another interesting impediment to marriage worth keeping in mind. A 2011 report by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of adults with college degrees are married, while only 47% of those with a high-school education or less are.

A lack of education is contributing to inequality in other ways as well. The jobs that have replaced the low and middle skill jobs of the past pay more. But they require a high level of professional, technical, or management skills. And we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain those skills.

What’s worse, children from lower income families are the least likely to get an advanced education. The result is a vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty.

Real free enterprise doesn’t cause wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few while leaving everyone else to live off the leftovers. And it does not, as some in both parties have forgotten, lead to corporatism, where those with the power to influence government win at the expense of everyone else.

Real American free enterprise is about a broad and growing economy that creates opportunities for everyone to get ahead. It creates the opportunity to become wealthy. But it also creates good and stable middle class jobs like the ones my parents had.

It’s wrong for Washington to tell Tallahassee what programs are right for the people of Florida – but it’s particularly wrong for it to say that what’s right for Tallahassee is the same thing that’s right for Topeka and Sacramento and Detroit and Manhattan and every other town, city and state in the country.

A nation as large and diverse as the United States of America should have a menu of state level policy options that is just as large and diverse.

Already, we see evidence that when states can manage the resources necessary to experiment with such programs, they see dynamic and transformative results.

For example, while Washington debates how and whether to fund the existing unemployment insurance program, states are finding innovative approaches to get people into good paying jobs.

In Utah, in order to continue receiving unemployment benefits, the long-term unemployed were required to take online training courses that focused on skills needed for modern professionals, with topics spanning from resume building to career direction to interview skills.

The state tracked the progress of the participants and found that, before the courses, their professional preparedness was at the equivalent of a D+. But upon completion of the training, their preparedness had climbed to a B+.

And remarkably, what began as a requirement quickly turned into a sought after tool. 36 percent of participants found the courses so helpful that they voluntarily completed more training than required.

[yachtsman]

Like the Democrats respected Jack Kemp? They demonized him like they do everyoine else

Edited January 11, 2014 by yachtsman

[Boogie Man]

Kemp reminded me of Hart without the libido

[JDaveG]

Like the Democrats respected Jack Kemp? They demonized him like they do everyoine else

I don't care about whether Democrats respected Kemp or not. I'm talking about the fact that back when Kemp was around, there was a Republican with real ideas for dealing with poverty and hopelessness that didn't involve telling poor people to suck it up and grow a pair. Reagan's best rhetoric centered around Kemp's ideas.

More to the point, there was a Republican I could vote for without feeling like I needed to go take the Crying Game shower afterward.

Of course, given the current state of the party, I fully expect Rubio to be labeled a RINO and ostracized by talk radio pundits and corporatist plutocrat whores.

[marvinthemartian]

I was always a big Jack Kemp fan. I really figured he had a good shot to be President one day.

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

Of course, given the current state of the party, I fully expect Rubio to be labeled a RINO and ostracized by talk radio pundits and corporatist plutocrat whores.

Or during primary season he abandons all of this sensible rhetoric in favor of talk radio talking points and corporatist plutocrat drivel that the party has become known for.

[JDaveG]

Or during primary season he abandons all of this sensible rhetoric in favor of talk radio talking points and corporatist plutocrat drivel that the party has become known for.

Now you're just trying to feed my cynical side. Which is by far my best side.

Yeah, we could be talking about Rubio in a few years as Obama 2.0. The guy with the big ideas and the grand rhetoric who turns out to be just another d-bag out to cement his own power. That's a script I would write. And probably what I should expect.

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

Now you're just trying to feed my cynical side. Which is by far my best side.

Yeah, we could be talking about Rubio in a few years as Obama 2.0. The guy with the big ideas and the grand rhetoric who turns out to be just another d-bag out to cement his own power. That's a script I would write. And probably what I should expect.

Isn't cynicism one of the first courses they teach at law school?

I really want to believe this, because it's true. But I have absolutely no faith on anyone following through on it. Even though I didn't vote for Obama I at least took comfort in the belief that he was an idealist and wanted to truly change the system. What a fool I was.

[yachtsman]

I was always a big Jack Kemp fan. I really figured he had a good shot to be President one day.

he tried for the Republican nomiation more than once. He had minimal support.

[Boogie Man]

To succeed in politics, values, honesty, integrity and above all, dutiful civil service must be sacrificed.

Each President, U.S. Senetor and Congressman have sacrificed to varying degrees.

Those who chose to remain firm, remain low level local politicians or HOA directors, lol.

[Meatstick]

"Real free enterprise doesn’t cause wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few while leaving everyone else to live off the leftovers. And it does not, as some in both parties have forgotten, lead to corporatism, where those with the power to influence government win at the expense of everyone else."

And you like this guy? You can't be serious.

[JDaveG]

"Real free enterprise doesn’t cause wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few while leaving everyone else to live off the leftovers. And it does not, as some in both parties have forgotten, lead to corporatism, where those with the power to influence government win at the expense of everyone else."

And you like this guy? You can't be serious.

I know right? What we need is more wealth accumulated in the hands of a few, more corporatism, more power brokering.

Because that's what America is made of, amirite?

[Meatstick]

The free market is a myth. It always has been. Minus whale ask santa for a unicorn.

[Meatstick]

"The people who own the country ought to govern it"

[JDaveG]

The free market is a myth. It always has been. Minus whale ask santa for a unicorn.

And I see Rubio's words as addressing that myth.

[Andras]

Social factors also play a major role in denying equal opportunity. The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.

Sorry

[Meatstick]

He started his statement with "real free enterprise doesn't"...

Real free enterprise doesn't exist.

Sorry

Sorry, but there is a lot of truth to that.

[Andras]

No there isn't. The truth would be "two incomes help lift you and your children out of poverty."

Oh, I just bought a new car. THANKS, MARRIAGE!

[Meatstick]

No there isn't. The truth would be "two incomes help lift you and your children out of poverty."

Oh, I just bought a new car. THANKS, MARRIAGE!

You're missing the point.

[Andras]

No, I think you're trying to defend a dumb comment. Just because I think it's a dumb comment doesn't mean I'm not getting it. Maybe you're trying too hard to simplify it, along with Rubio. Getting married doesn't magically bring in more income. That's the truth of the matter. Getting that second job along with the tax breaks is what does it. He may as well have said, "Another job lifts a child out of poverty."

Also, it's funny to see a party so paranoid about their traditional marriage get behind a message that promotes marriage as an economic solution. Marriages that have a high rate of divorce. Marriages based financially while one of the main leading causes of divorce, and any break-up, is financial hardships. So much for the sacred marriage claim. "Get married to have more money!"

[Meatstick]

You're still missing the point.

[Andras]

I have no point

[capologist]

Not a big Rubio fan...

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

No, I think you're trying to defend a dumb comment. Just because I think it's a dumb comment doesn't mean I'm not getting it. Maybe you're trying too hard to simplify it, along with Rubio. Getting married doesn't magically bring in more income. That's the truth of the matter. Getting that second job along with the tax breaks is what does it. He may as well have said, "Another job lifts a child out of poverty."

Also, it's funny to see a party so paranoid about their traditional marriage get behind a message that promotes marriage as an economic solution. Marriages that have a high rate of divorce. Marriages based financially while one of the main leading causes of divorce, and any break-up, is financial hardships. So much for the sacred marriage claim. "Get married to have more money!"

Marriage by itself isnt a solution, but I think that stability certainly is and the fact is that most people born into poverty aren't born into stable situations. That's why I have always supported gay marriage, because any children raised in a stable environment are bound to be better off regardless of the gender of the parents.

Unfortunately, our current welfare system doesn't promote stability. In truth, it encourages quite the opposite. So the cycle continues. I'm certainly not opposed to welfare, but there has to be a way to do it that doesn't give incentive to the precise environment that perpetuates poverty.

[Andras]

There are plenty of reasons for the lack of incentives and it isn't solely BECAUSE of welfare. The economic climate outside of welfare isn't as appealing to those on welfare as some like to believe. It's a lot deeper than is portrayed by either party. It's a problem across the board. There's no progress for majority. It's just a stalemate and people aren't going to choose the harder side of the stalemate when neither side has a damned clue what the problem is.

I simply take offense that Rubio would think people are either dumb enough to believe marriage is the alternative and better solution to welfare as if it is some magic wand.... or foolish enough to follow along in the dream world that everyone will just get married and live happily ever after.

Marriage as an economic solution is a great way to increase divorce rates and further tarnish that 'sacred' institution. It's a fantasy that can't happen but wouldn't even be a logical solution if by some chance it could happen. All he is suggesting is to double team the problem. Spitting into the ocean. A band-aid for a heart attack.