Cloward-Piven
-
<H1 id=firstHeading class=firstHeading>Cloward–Piven strategy</H1><H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty." The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."[1]The strategy
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2] They wrote:
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redlstribution of income.Focus on Democrats
The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[4]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[5]
Reception
Historian Robert E. Weir argues that the original goal of the strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms.[6] A major article in the New York Times in 1970 investigated the welfare system and discussed the impact of the Cloward–Piven strategy.[7]Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because "Great Society programs 'had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.".[8]Robert Chandler claimed, "The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward–Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government."[9] Other observers credit the city's bankruptcy to the mismanagement caused by politics, encouraging "frequently maturing short-term debt that left officials constantly scrambling to pay off loans"[10]
References
- <LI id=cite_note-0>
-
Waiting for a response from Sev or Heck.... waiting for
"haha that can't be true, haha"
The truth is in the news, all over the place, and in
the actions of the left in Congress and the WH.
We're in big, big trouble.
-
Waiting for a response from Sev or Heck.... waiting for
"haha that can't be true, haha"
The truth is in the news, all over the place, and in
the actions of the left in Congress and the WH.
We're in big, big trouble.
-
Still? Progessives on the board have no comment?
Afraid of speaking on the subject?
Can't deny it? don't want to admit it?
It's real, and it certainly looks like exactly what is
happening right now.
"pulleeze, make Cal make it go away !"
Most Americans are now understanding that all of Obama's
violations of his previous promises... has a huge ulterior motive.
Cloward-Piven. Read up about it.
-
Reckon the libs can't handle the truth.
Ignoring the truth isn't going to help anything.
Cloward-Piven.
We are in a sub-cultural, destructive takeover
of ... us and our country, our way of life, our economy,
our freedoms....
Truth is, libs can't manufacture ANY kind of rebuttal to
what is really going on.
-
Chill. I've read what you've presented, and I find it really interesting, but the most objective data I've been able to find on it is wikipedia's article, which you've already posted. The rest of the results are from pages with a right-wing agenda, at first glance, anyways. It's better to be thought an idiot, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. If and when I know more about this, I'll let you know how I feel; but when all I see are people that are claiming it's going to be the "end of capitalism," I'm going to have a very hard time taking them seriously.
-
It is funny how liberals will ignore the facts. Just because it is not presented on CNN or MSNBC they wont believe that radicals have taken over in many aspects of how politicians can get elected. How many times have we heard of community organizations and unions voting in blocks to get their man in office.
And as we speak there are many Acorn workers who have been indicted for voter fraud during the 2008 elections.
Oh say it aint so, make it go away says vt and heck.
-
Maybe Heck hath no comment.
Can't spell "Cloward-Piven" ???
Or, is ignoring, because he doesn't
want to deny ALL of reality ?
-
Waiting for a response from Sev or Heck.... waiting for
"haha that can't be true, haha"
The truth is in the news, all over the place, and in
the actions of the left in Congress and the WH.
We're in big, big trouble.
Waiting for a response from Sev or Heck.... waiting for
"haha that can't be true, haha"
The truth is in the news, all over the place, and in
the actions of the left in Congress and the WH.
We're in big, big trouble.
I've read about this strategy. I don't doubt that it is used by some groups. But where is the evidence that this is used as part of some massive conspiracy by the current Congress and the WH?
From the text above, this strategy was supposed to overload government systems, with the ultimate goal of socialism. I don't see how this worked as advertised. If anything, this strategy underlines the resiliency of the US system of government; the flaws pointed out by overloading the system led to MORE restrictive welfare rules (the 1996 "end to welfare as we know it"), not a breakdown of the system and subsequent socialism.
-
That's an excellent reply - it's just that the trends of incredulous overspending,
and the contradictory deletion of 500 billion from Medicare, and the addition of 30 million
customers TO medicare, and the bringing ? on board of illegal aliens into hc and welfare...
and the threatening cap n trade...
Cloward-Piven is more a possible explanation for what is really going on.
Because right now, a lot of what is going on, makes not a bit of sense.
-
That's an excellent reply - it's just that the trends of incredulous overspending,
and the contradictory deletion of 500 billion from Medicare, and the addition of 30 million
customers TO medicare, and the bringing ? on board of illegal aliens into hc and welfare...
and the threatening cap n trade...
Cloward-Piven is more a possible explanation for what is really going on.
Because right now, a lot of what is going on, makes not a bit of sense.
That's an excellent reply - it's just that the trends of incredulous overspending,
and the contradictory deletion of 500 billion from Medicare, and the addition of 30 million
customers TO medicare, and the bringing ? on board of illegal aliens into hc and welfare...
and the threatening cap n trade...
Cloward-Piven is more a possible explanation for what is really going on.
Because right now, a lot of what is going on, makes not a bit of sense.
You are correct that the 30 million newly covered will either be covered by Medicaid, or will be partially covered by subsidies. And part of this money will come from 500 billion in cuts to Medicare. I see this as fiscally responsible. If this were Cloward-Piven in action, I would expect that the 30 million would have been covered without corresponding cuts somewhere else in the govt.
I am not 100% sure, but I think cap and trade has been shelved for now. I think a much more stripped down energy bill is now being considered. I think two things happened; 1. it was recognized that this may not be the best policy when we are just coming out of a severe recession and 2. this is probably not politically feasible even if some wanted to do it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/.../26climate.html
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ss...conference.html
As for overspending, I agree that we need to address our debt. But I'm not sure we have gone out of control with our spending, if the extra stimulus money spent in 2009 and 2010 really does end up averting Great Depression II.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downch...r=c&local=s
This graph shows that as a %of GDP, spending is largely constant from 1995-2008. IMO, the reason our debt is out of control is largely due to the two tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, as well as reduced revenues due to the worldwide financial crisis, shown in the graph below. We have been deficit spending from approximately 2000-present.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downcha...r=c&local=s
The only way I see us dealing with the debt is some combination of two things; either letting tax cuts expire in a few years to maintain current levels of spending, or cutting somewhere. The only logical place where we can actually achieve some savings would be in some military reduction. I say this because Medicare and Social Security disbursements are currently completely paid for by FICA taxes, and other services in the budget don't even compare with our defense spending.
-
tjs7 -
That's excellent food for thought. I can't even argue with you !
dammit. LOL
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login