A Cloward-Piven Look At The Sieve Called The US-Mexican Border

The more I watch and read of the Children’s Border Invasion in the SW, the more I see an Obama activated Cloward-Piven Strategy. The strategy is in the Immigration Bill (not stated directly) and it’s very present and very much in view in the Children’s Invasion and the $3.7B “Emergency Child Invasion Pay for it But Keep The Border Open Bill.” Obama is staying aloof from this on purpose. He is trying desparately to get the Republicans to claim it. Fortunately, our RINOs are tasting the bait, but haven’t been hooked.

Now Obama’s-Cloward-Piven strategy is simple. Look at the current laws that OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans)(or Canadians) they get to stay and await deportations. Canadians and Mexicans can be shown the door immediately.

Circumstantial evidence does show the Maladministration’s fingerprints are all over this if a few other posts on this site. They knew it and prepared for it, they just didn’t tell us and are acting surprised. The only thing not said was “Oh, I just saw that on the news.”

Where Obama-Cloward-Piven comes in is flood and overwhelm the system. The real Cloward-Piven Strategy is to bankrupt the country by being baby-sitters. Since the Border-Patrol (an Oxymoron lately) is busy changing diapers and such (they had an emergency buy of 45,000 dozen pairs of tube socks) it shows what they do now. The Maladinistration is now advertising for families to take in a refugee kid for $4,000 to $6,000 a month. (nice scam)

And lets not forget the three things the Obama-Cloward-Piven strategy is doing: One old diseases once thought were gone, are back, and Two, who else like ISIS is sneaking in also while the Borderless Patrol is up to it in diaper shit. And how much have imported drugs increased?

Obama may be coming off looking inept, but have you checked what’s left in your pockets with this well planned scam is digging deeper.

The following is from Wikipedia:
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)

This is Wikipedia, but every source has the same message – OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

3 Comments

  1. It looks like their strategy had some impact:

    Guaranteed income’s moment in the sun
    Original Reporting | By Mike AlbertiKevin C. Brown | Alternative modelsHistory
    Guaranteed Annual Income legislation

    In August 1969, in the eighth month of his presidency, Richard Nixon delivered a speech proposing the replacement of AFDC with a program that would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother.” In case the point was missed, he continued: “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”

    Guaranteed annual income had arrived. From the margins of economic thought just a generation earlier, the GAI was now at the heart of President Nixon’s domestic policy agenda in the form of the “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP).

    Nixon himself refused to call the FAP a guaranteed annual income, saying that “a guaranteed income establishes a right [income] without any responsibilities [work] …There is no reason why one person should be taxed so another can choose to live idly.” But, despite Nixon’s rhetorical distinction, many conservatives opposed the president’s plan for just those reasons: they worried not only about cost, but also about the creation of a large class of people dependent on “welfare.”

    Rhetoric aside, the FAP was indeed a form of GAI. The President’s Commission certainly thought so, writing in their letter submitting “Poverty Amid Plenty” to Nixon, “We are pleased to note that the basic structure of the Family Assistance Program is similar to that of the program we have proposed…Both programs represent a marked departure from past principles and assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.”

    Nixon’s FAP was very moderate: it only applied to families with children (childless couples and individuals were out of luck), included a work requirement for householders considered “employable,” and would not have increased benefits for AFDC recipients in states providing relatively high benefit levels.

    For a family of four without any other income, the FAP would provide $1,600 (2013: $10,121). But a family that did have income from employment would get a declining amount of FAP dollars until family income reached $3,920 (2013: $24,798). A family of four that had been earning $12,652 in 2013 dollars would have had its income increased through the FAP to $18,725. Ultimately, the vast majority of benefits would have gone to the “working poor,” a significant departure from then-existing programs that denied welfare benefits to those who were employed.

    The FAP sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives comfortably, 243 to 155, but stalled in the Senate.

    Many Congressional Democrats insisted that assuring the dignity of the poor required a more expansive program than the FAP, and criticized that proposal for its low income floor and work requirements. Representative William F. Ryan (D-N.Y.), who had been the first to introduce legislation for a GAI (in 1968), told the House in April 1970 that “accepting the concept of income maintenance and establishing the mechanics for implementing that concept are two far different things.” And though Ryan suggested “we do well to embrace the concept,” he characterized Nixon’s FAP as “seriously flawed.”

    As an alternative, Ryan pointed to the proposal of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), which had argued for a much higher base income: $5,500/year (2013: $32,910). Ryan argued on the floor of the House of Representatives that:

    [A] guaranteed annual income is not a privilege. It should be a right to which every American is entitled. No country as affluent as ours can allow any citizen or his family not to have an adequate diet, not to have adequate housing, not to have adequate health services and not to have adequate educational opportunity — in short, not to be able to have a life with dignity.

    More at the link.

    I could, were I so inclined, make arguments in favor of President Nixon’s proposal, based on the reduction of welfare from a multitude of programs to just one, and its insistence on a work requirement.

    But I am not so inclined. President Nixon’s proposal, along with every other welfare program we have ever had or even had proposed, is based on the assumption that the taxpayers must somehow take care of people who will not take care of themselves. Oh, it is more commonly phrased cannot take care of themselves, but over four decades of having to work for my own living while seeing the ever-growing population of welfare malingerers has convinced me that “will not” is the correct formulation, not “cannot.”

    There are, to be sure, those who really cannot take care of themselves, and if that were our sole welfare program, you’d see me supporting welfare wholeheartedly. But the current border situation sadly illustrates the problem: we have been, in effect, importing Mexicans to do jobs which certainly exist, but which far too many perfectly physically able American men males could do but won’t do, men males who would rather suck on the welfare teat — mostly by sponging off some poor woman somewhere — that do an honest day’s work. In my industry, I’ve seen it with my own eyes: hardworking Hispanic men, setting walls and pouring concrete, while the liberals all whined, “Oh, there aren’t any good jobs for the black men in Philadelphia.”

    Well, that’s just plain bovine feces: those Hispanics weren’t getting minimum wage or less, but a lot more, they did the job, showed up to work, on time, every day, and worked for an honest living. The immigrants were doing the work because too many good American citizens wouldn’t. Given that I’ve done that work myself, I have no sympathy, none at all, for people who think it’s too hard or too degrading.

    It has come to the point where I’d rather see really needy people go hungry, if it gets the welfare malingerers off the system. When it comes to the lazy, good-for-nothing malingerers, I would have no problem at all seeing them starve to death; they deserve no better. I’d regret the pain inflicted on the truly needy, but anything is better than perpetuating a system in which hard-working, honest people have to have the fruits of their labor taxed away to support the worthless scumbags.

  2. In 1969 I was too dumb to smell the Roses nor see the start of the slow motion collision about to happen. We had passed 1964-65 the years of Lame Brained Jackasses plan of assured self destruction of guns and butter to run a 500K troop war, and add millions to the welfare rolls. We had already passed 1913 the year the dollar died with the invention of Fiat Money, oops the Federal with no Reserves. We had passed the manufactured extended Depression, two World Wars, and two Police Actions of stopping at the 50 yard line in Korea and Viet-Nam. For some strange Federal UnReserved bank we went through most of the 1800′s and up to 1913 without big inflation. Funny, the Progressives gave us Fiat Money with its phoney bank, and gave us the gift of inflation. Up to the 60′s it was calm, then president Jimmuh screwed things up in the late 70′s, and Fiat money inflated.

    Somehow, during high inflation and interest rates in 1974 I was making $15K a year, bought a new car, a three bedroom house on a quarter acre of land and was broke, but joined the ranks of homeowners. Funny how $15K is just out of poverty range now. But, life and Fiat money made things easier a number of years later when mking $45K made paying off that now cheap house off quickly. But other than the house, I had no more real butying power in the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s, Y2K and just a tad more power now. I had an overextending fear in 1974 when I bought the house that remains until today. I wasn’t a Credit Card overextending buyer.

    But now, I see a clouded future thicker than Chinese Smog. I see a ruling class totally detached, I have a kid I’m financing to make ends never touch. And I wonder if we’ll make it through this year. And I still have my nickel bet BO will do the dictator thing in 2016. I feel for the 20 somethings who are starting life in the ditch, along with the early 30 somethings that have their head at the top of the ditch. It seems stores are on constant sales. Prices go up, the the gummint plays games on inflation. Unemployment and underemployment is in the high teens to low 20 percecentages, and BO says we’re more well off today than when he was immaculated. And now the Sinister part of BO is playing the Cloward-Piven game to the hilt to try to destroy us. And yet, I would bet if 80% of the population if they read this would go HUH?

Comments are closed.