Cloward Piven Strategy
Most of you have read this, but for those that haven't this explains what's going down. I try to spread the word but as I said in a previous post, to no avail. When I was given this article during the Hillary/Obama Primary, I then got it!!!!!!!
For one thing, there are many people who genuinely need help - disabled, orphans, the elderly etc. These people would be screwed without a 'system' to take care of them. Love it or hate it, the welfare system is what they have for now - thus for the Left to destroy the welfare system out of rabid hatred for Capitalism is completely thoughtless & utterly cruel.
Charity happened in Boston when people gave for the injured and the families fo the murders. Obama, representing the state, gave for the OT the 10,000 police earned.
you guys own it, but I grew up in iowa, so we say it too. :)
Speaking of BS, it's sad to hear that the American vocabulary too has been sullied with the word Transition™. Alas, inevitable.
Ps. British enough for you KH? :)
Why do you have a trademark subscript with "transition?" are you referring to optical lenses or a song, maybe?
As some sey say, think don't believe in coincidenses. I think so, especially when it has serious consequences.
Without the meltdown, the moved towards socialism would have experienced a set back, but they're a patient bunch. They have been since they took root during the time of Wilson, maybe even somewhat before (T. Roosevelt)..
Separation of Church and State meant that the feds must keep their nose out of religion; not that the religion should keep their nose out of goverment. The founders encouraged the individual states to support a religion or religions. Public buildings were used for church meetings and churches were used for public meetings. Now the term "separation of church and state" has been perverted to religion being kicked out of government altogther. Maybe that's why charities have adversely affected. No church, no charity. And, then having created the void, Mr. Government steps in with a helping hand.
Did you take away Rozar's point? I thought it furthered the discussion.
Along with churches, many organizations such as Masons, Oddfellows, Lion's, YMCA, etc. were set up in part to have each of the member's family's backs. Like insurance clubs. There are many counter-intuitive premises between organized religion and a a limited govt with a sound Constitution. Let's start with witch trials, but I can give more examples, if you like
The whole point system is interesting in here. Which is why I asked. My goal (now) is to not remove a point unless the comment lacks a good question or keeps posing the same argument with no new information or completely lacks reason. I wouldn't say any of those reasons constitutes "Spam," but we do have trolls. It's kinda funny, because I do not necessarily follow that opposite to point a comment up. Even though it should be inverse, it does tend to trend to a "like" for me and others. I sometimes forget to give a point for something I completely disagree with in order to send the discussion to the "top" of the thread. We don't really talk about this anymore in here, and it's always nice to give some feedback when new people come in.
now you know WAY more than you cared to about it. lol
I'm use to the thumbs up and down. On the Boston Herald, the thumbs up and down are also counted. Some of the post get so profainly vile and personal that they're funny and more interesting than the article. Sometimes I skip the article and go to the comments to get the news as they see it.
This site is odd to me. The thumbs and numbers seem so random. Some with both thumbs shaded, one of either thumb shaded and no thumbs shaded. I posted this article that got 80 comments (mostly not to my subject) but the post got a 3 with a white thumbs up and a blue thumbs down. What does that mean? Do I win a prize:-)
I think it has something to do with the overall design in creating a thread. They did fix this once-but it seems to be a problem again
I was more referring to those utterly incapable of looking after themselves though. I'd gladly donate money to them of my own free will.
A looter without a dole cheque on the other hand, has to find another way. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.
J was working all hours available to him & was exhausted. He did all this to pay for a flat for him & his girlfriend.
She got sacked for being lazy & it was discovered that she was cheating on J with one of the managers at McD's. J gave up the flat & her new boyfriend moved in & took over the rent. J had nowhere to go so I took him in.
The manager guy got sacked from McD's for giving out free food to his mates. They lost the flat. He got her pregnant. They've got a house now, meanwhile J's still living with us. He walks 6 miles a day to get to & from work & often doesn't get home til gone midnight. Much of what he earns is paying off a debt which she ran up.
Of the two parties, who would you consider had the greatest need? J who's working hard & has a new girlfriend with a brain, or a poor jobless pregnant girl who's only got herself to blame for the mess she's created for herself & others?
I chose to take him in because he was worth it. He costs me nothing. She on the other hand... can go fish.
We don't go hungry. I would never put another's needs before those of my family.
I doubt he'll be with us much longer, he plans to get a flat soon with a friend. He wants to be an architect too. I gave him my copy of Fountainhead.
"Walk in the woods where there is no path. Live in conflict with those that are superior to you. You will learn, hopefully not too late, that life's greatest fruits come to those who live a little dangerously. You'll also find that if you make batters work for a hit, they'll respect you more as a pitcher. If they get a home run off of you, it will mean more if they earn it."- Rich Hoffman, Symposium of Justice, (overmanwarrior)
J recently told me I was more like a Dad than his own father. Which was nice but sad at the same time.
I've often said, as many here have thought too, that the fatal flaw of socialism is when there's no one left to pay the bill. The socialist states have all failed but the new wanna be's always think they, and their elitist crowd, can run the people better.
"First they came for the Jews; I did nothing. Then they came for the tradesmen; I did nothing. Then they came for me."
My point is tradesmen (unions) aren't exempt from being looted. They now are by their leaders. They voted in large part for obama but they aren't exempt from the ill effects of socialism. They'll be looted even more like anyone else.
But you truly make the real deal. :-)
gender unknown; fed it
well; and, it "ran" away.
Or so I think, because I
can't find it.
Where we are NOT on the same page is you're willing to let my rights be violated until such time as a fairer system is setup.
I argue you're wrong about this. If my human rights are being violated, it needs to stop NOW. Why should I wait? Am I guaranteed my rights to property or not? You appear to be saying others needs trumps my rights - and that's where the whole problem lies.
I also believe the charities you're describing do exist. They are called "family" and "friends" and "church".
I also do NOT believe if we removed the welfare state we would be destroying "the only means of survival" of a single individual.
Nor am I suggesting that others' needs trump your rights. Right now however, I doubt that many families would be able to survive let alone afford necessary treatments for those whom may be in their care, without the aid of welfare.
The closest thing we have to Rand's idea of government in Great Britain is UKIP (UK Independence Party). If they win the next election (I doubt they will), they will begin to undo the Socialist agenda piece by piece. Two of UKIP's primary goals are to pull the UK out from the bureaucratic control of Europe, & reduce the size of government. It will likely take them years to effect these changes & restore individual rights. The UK & the US are completely tangled up with laws brought in under Socialist government & lobbying. It will take a long time to untangle that mess. It would be impossible to scrap the welfare system overnight as so many & so much relies upon it right now. To attempt to do so would be suicide. It must be thought out & dealt with rationally. Things are likely to get a lot worse before desparation begs for rationality to rule the day.
Meanwhile, according to the Cloward Piven Strategy, it appears to me that the Left are willing to sacrifice the sick, disabled & elderly for the greater good.
Yes - I think the implementers of the CP strategy are willing to sacrifice everybody - for the sake of getting themselves into power. I don't think it's even about the greater good - I think it's just useful rhetoric to achieve the goal of dictatorial power. That's the end game. This isn't about a benevolent central authority seeing that all the needs are met. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face."
I heard about UKIP just in the last year - kind of the British version of the Tea Party here, I gather. Hopefully, it gathers momentum. The response to Thatcher's passing worries me and shows just what you're up against.
I really don't think it ought to take all that long of a time to untangle ourselves from this mess. The frustrating thing to me is we can erect new taxes and programs so quickly, but people think it will take decades or generations to unwind them. Obviously, nothing government does happens "overnight", but there is no reason in my mind that we couldn't be tearing down the welfare state by reductions in payments, working towards zero, over a two year time span.
Will it hurt? Of course it will - it will be TRAUMATIC. But it is a more right thing to do than what we are currently doing, and getting the job done in two years is much better than in four, or eight, or twenty. The longer your time horizon, the more chance it never gets done at all and people accept "socialism light".
I think the problem for us is legislation passed in Europe. Trying to pull out of the EU while being able to maintain trade with Europe could be a tricky business. I can't imagine they'll make it easy for us, seeing as Europe is run by Communists.
NYC/NYS asked the feds for a bail out and President Ford said NO! I guess they were'nt too big to fail.
My take when first reading this stategy was they were doing it from the bottom, up; and, obama is doing it from the top, down;i.e., overload and crash the economy.
Also, while your at it, you may want read saul alinsky's rules for radicals (just the rules unless you want to read his creepy book. It's the bible of socialists as obama and hillary are. After the dedication of the book to his wife, he states that lucifer was the greatest organizer of them all(brief paraphase). I believe as I do in my profession, knowledge is power. Know thine enemy.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawki...
You are correct. Most of us are very familiar with Cloward and Piven. Some on this board have even suggested that we should adopt some of the principles in order to facilitate/ accelerate the collapse. I am of the opinion this is so distasteful and contrary to objectivist principles that I cannot agree. The lessons learned would be counterproductive.