PDA

View Full Version : Economics According to this guy,Obama knows what he is doing !


ROYC75
06-30-2010, 09:50 AM
The sad part, It sounds so true and something our country does not need .

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: ( an Obama classmate at Columbia.) Overwhelm the system

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is
brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the
U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos --
thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As
Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of
Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to
socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and
entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're
alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn
the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that
desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health
care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health
care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health
care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a
criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy
unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million
potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and
bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat
contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars
to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions).

HonestChieffan
06-30-2010, 09:53 AM
The logic is hard to dispute. His failures are a failure only if you had some expectation it would work.

He is dangerous that cannot be disputed. The G20 sees it, many here see it. The ones who don't are what he is counting on.

Brock
06-30-2010, 09:57 AM
Isn't this guy a Vegas bookie or something?

ROYC75
06-30-2010, 10:35 AM
Makes you wonder why so many of his college classes & records are sealed.

FD
06-30-2010, 10:49 AM
Isn't this guy a Vegas bookie or something?

He's a former libertarian presidential candidate, never made it out of convention but I believe he came close. He's also a radio host.

Oucho Cinco
06-30-2010, 11:14 AM
Makes you wonder why so many of his college classes & records are sealed.

I don't really wonder. He is a phony placed in office by muslims.

blaise
06-30-2010, 11:35 AM
Isn't this guy a Vegas bookie or something?

It's the same name at least.

Duck Dog
06-30-2010, 11:48 AM
Will conservatives fight to get America back or will there be a mass exodus?

The Mad Crapper
06-30-2010, 12:56 PM
Will conservatives fight to get America back or will there be a mass exodus?

:shake:

Last one out hit the lights and grab the flag.

Chocolate Hog
06-30-2010, 12:57 PM
This guy is a former Liberterian now trying to kiss the Republican ass.

banyon
06-30-2010, 01:00 PM
Everytime you hear this "cloward-piven strategy" stuff, it's pretty much time to tune out and let the lunatic conspiracists mutter and rant to themselves.

The Mad Crapper
06-30-2010, 01:02 PM
Everytime you hear this "cloward-piven strategy" stuff, it's pretty much time to tune out and let the lunatic conspiracists mutter and rant to themselves.

OK I'll put you down on the side that Obama isn't evil, he's just stupid.

HonestChieffan
06-30-2010, 01:04 PM
Everytime you hear this "cloward-piven strategy" stuff, it's pretty much time to tune out and let the lunatic conspiracists mutter and rant to themselves.

Ignore the content, deflect. Look!! its George Bush!!

banyon
06-30-2010, 01:05 PM
Ignore the content, deflect. Look!! its George Bush!!

Hey, i mentioned Bush in my post!

Or not. Dishonest Strikes again!

ROYC75
07-01-2010, 08:16 AM
Everytime you hear this "cloward-piven strategy" stuff, it's pretty much time to tune out and let the lunatic conspiracists mutter and rant to themselves.

Please give us your (Would that be expertise ) opinion on the job Obama is doing with his current administration?

IMHO, I just can't find very many things he has done well? I will give him the benefit of the doubt that the Democratic party that helped steer him down a horrible road to recover, of which they wish to lay all the blame on Bush. It was a complete CH screw up from all 3 sides of the government.

banyon
07-01-2010, 09:30 AM
Please give us your (Would that be expertise ) opinion on the job Obama is doing with his current administration?

IMHO, I just can't find very many things he has done well? I will give him the benefit of the doubt that the Democratic party that helped steer him down a horrible road to recover, of which they wish to lay all the blame on Bush. It was a complete CH screw up from all 3 sides of the government.

I think I've stated it previously, but I'm pretty well disenchanted with his approach to governance. It's half-a**ed and governs by sensitivity to polling rather than leadership.

The stimulus package could have helped in the recession, but it was crafted to be a poorly thought out hodgepodge of pork barrel pet projects.

The health care bill didn't provide universal care, didn't have a coherent theory about lowering costs, and basically acted as a giant handout to insurance companies and their lobbyists.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we were supposed to radically revamp the strategy or let them resolve their own civil conflicts and we've just floundered and let (especially Afghanistan) get much worse. Worse than that, we continued Bush's mistake of ignoring the role of the pustuns in Pakistan and their potential to seize control of that government.

His reaction to the gulf oil spill was lethargic and incompetent.

We don't even have a budget now, much less a strategy for lowering the long term deficit.

The vision and leadership that he should have shown on new and cleaner energy independence has been nonexistent.

So, no, I haven't been too enamored of anything he's done to date, with very minor exceptions. He reminds me of my current boss. He likes to dabble in everything, but not really seriously tackle or address anything. It's like a presidency on ADHD. It certainly hasn't helped that he has two of the most tone-deaf and ineffectual leaders in Congress in my lifetime in Pelosi and Reid. They need to both go, and the sooner the better. I think of any reason, this quality of Obama is the reason Rahm Emanuel is frustrated and doesn't want to finish out the term.

The main problem in this forum is that people confuse my pointing out stupid criticisms (like "He's a Musloom, sleeper cell, Kenyan! Wants to take all our guns, is the devil incarnate!") with actively supporting him. They are not one and the same, but the logically challenged confuse them all the same and conclude I must be some far left dedicated yellow dog supporter.

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Everytime you hear this "cloward-piven strategy" stuff, it's pretty much time to tune out and let the lunatic conspiracists mutter and rant to themselves.

Is it because Cloward and Piven never existed, or they existed but never came up with the strategy, or they existed and came up with the strategy but never wrote it down, or they existed and wrote it down but no one ever tried to implement it, or not enough people tried, or . . . what?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4

banyon
07-01-2010, 09:48 AM
Is it because Cloward and Piven never existed, or they existed but never came up with the strategy, or they existed and came up with the strategy but never wrote it down, or they existed and wrote it down but no one ever tried to implement it, or not enough people tried, or . . . what?

This article pretty well covers it IMO:

(Oh, noes BEP, it's the Nation):

The Mad Tea Party
Richard Kim
April 15, 2010 | This article appeared in the April 12, 2010 edition of The Nation.

Leftists like to say that another world is possible, but I was never quite sure of that until I started reading tea party websites. There, a government of leftists is not only possible, it's on the cusp of seizing permanent power, having broken American capitalism and replaced it with a socialist state. Down that rabbit hole, Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are communists, and "The Left"--which encompasses everyone from the Democratic Leadership Council to Maoist sectarians--is a disciplined and near omnipotent army marching in lockstep to a decades-old master plan for domination called the "Cloward-Piven strategy" or, as of January 20, 2009, "Cloward-Piven government."

What is this plot? According to David Horowitz, who apparently coined the expression, Cloward-Piven is "the strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis." Named after sociologists and antipoverty and voting rights activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who first elucidated it in a May 2, 1966, article for The Nation called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," the Cloward-Piven strategy, in Horowitz's words, "seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." Like a fun-house-mirror version of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine theory, the Cloward-Piven strategy dictates that the left will exploit that crisis to push through unpopular, socialist policies in a totalitarian manner.

Since Obama's election and the financial crash of 2008, Horowitz's description has been taken up by a clutch of tea party propagandists--from TV and radio hosts Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, National Review editor Stanley Kurtz and The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi--to explain how both events could have happened, here, in the U-S-A. In their historical narrative, it was Cloward and Piven's article that gave ACORN the idea to start peddling subprime mortgages to poor minorities in the 1980s, knowingly laying the groundwork for a global economic meltdown nearly thirty years later. Beck calls Cloward and Piven the two people who are "fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system." It was Cloward and Piven who had the diabolical idea of registering (illegal or nonexistent) poor and minority voters through Project Vote and the Motor Voter Act, thus guaranteeing Obama's "fraudulent" victory. And it is the Cloward-Piven strategy that guides the Obama administration's every move to this day, as it seeks to ram through healthcare reform, economic stimulus and financial regulation (all of which, in reality, have enjoyed majority support in many polls taken during the last two years).

As proof, Beck & Co. point to what they see as a shadowy web of associations: Cloward and Piven worked in alliance with welfare rights organizer George Wiley, who mentored Wade Rathke, who went on to found ACORN, which sometimes coordinated registration drives with Project Vote (whose board of directors Piven just recently joined), a previous incarnation of which employed Obama to run a Chicago chapter in the early '90s. They also repeatedly cite Emanuel's statement, made in November 2008 after the passage of TARP but before the stimulus, that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." From The Nation's pages to the White House's brains and muscles--it took only forty-four years!

All of this, of course, is a reactionary paranoid fantasy. Rahm Emanuel is no more Frances Fox Piven's stooge than Obama is a Muslim. But the looniness of it has not stopped the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory from spreading across tea party networks. And the left's gut reaction upon hearing of it--to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery--does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact. In order to respond, alas, we have to understand, and that means going through the looking glass.

Horowitz first wrote of the Cloward-Piven strategy on his website Discoverthenetworks.org, which claims to be "a guide to the left." His description is a crude and false account of what Cloward and Piven argued. For example, the words "capital" and "capitalism" never appear in their article. The piece is about precipitating a crisis in the welfare system by legally enrolling masses of eligible recipients, which the welfare bureaucracy could not handle, thus creating a demand for more radical reforms, like a guaranteed minimum income--a proposal that Nixon, of all people, floated in 1969 and that, in fact, Democratic-majority Congresses voted down through 1972 [see Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich, page 15]. Moreover, as Piven recently explained to me, although the article was written as a strategic thought experiment, in many ways it described and reacted to changes already sweeping the nation, chief among them the civil rights and welfare rights movements, which created newly politicized constituencies to which the Democratic Party had to respond. "The mainstream," Piven says, "was responsive to the idea that we could end poverty because of these movements." In short, the stresses placed on the welfare system were caused by a confluence of factors, of which an article published in The Nation, it is safe to say, was but one, and most likely a minor one at that.

Nevertheless--history and facts be damned--it is Horowitz's caricature of Cloward-Piven that is now the Rosetta stone of American politics for the tea party's self-styled intellectuals. Glenn Beck has brought up Cloward and Piven on at least twenty-eight episodes of his show over the past year. Beck is sometimes aided by a blackboard on which he has diagramed something called "The Tree of Revolution," which links Che Guevara, SEIU and ACORN's Wade Rathke to Saul Alinsky, the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, Bill Ayers and, perhaps most improbably, to White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. In the center of the tree's arching trunk, above SDS and Woodrow Wilson (!?) but below Barack Obama, who adorns the tree's crown, Beck has scrawled "Cloward & Piven."

Beck's tree, however, is derivative of and pales in comparison with the flow chart created by Jim Simpson, a self-described businessman and former George H.W. Bush White House budget analyst and the leading proponent of the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory. Cribbing from Horowitz, but adding his own very special embellishments, Simpson has penned an 18,000-word, six-part exposť of the "Cloward-Piven strategy," which can be found on the websites Americanthinker.com and Americandaughter.com. I have read it so you don't have to. The central innovations of this wild and woolly compilation of right-wing myths, published in installments during the summer and fall of 2008, are to attribute nearly every past, present and future crisis to Cloward and Piven and to link them to Obama's political past and agenda. Among the schemes Simpson credits to the Cloward-Piven strategy are healthcare reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, cap and trade, immigration reform, hate crimes legislation and public financing of elections. For Simpson, the Cloward-Piven strategy is vast, vast--"a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s." And beyond: somehow, Gorbachev's Crimean dacha is implicated, as are Saddam Hussein's palaces.

Most integral to Simpson's theory, however, and where his rather impressive skills as a collagist descend into the orthodoxy of Fox News, is ACORN, which he says has been "the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear" since 1970. In what is by now a familiar right-wing story line, ACORN is responsible for the global economic crisis. By using the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act--itself a conspiratorial response to the bogus crisis of housing discrimination--ACORN enrolled masses of low-income people in subprime mortgages, creating a housing bubble that caused stock markets around the world to crash, paving the way for bank nationalization and socialism via the bailout and the stimulus. Whew! There are, of course, more than a few pages missing in this whodunit--for instance, that it was ACORN that tried to warn Congress about risky and predatory lenders; that it was too-big-to-fail banks and complex financial instruments that spread the contagion across the worldwide economy; and that in fact the banks have not been nationalized. [For a debunking of this myth, see Peter Dreier and John Atlas's "The GOP's Blame-ACORN Game," October 22, 2008.]

If Simpson's chain of events is not particularly original, his theory of intentionality is: according to him, the left, guided by the Cloward-Piven strategy, was fully aware that subprime mortgages would produce a calamitous financial bubble; it supported subprime lending not to help minorities become homeowners but to sabotage capitalism from the inside. "The failure is deliberate," he writes repeatedly in italics.

Like others on the right, Simpson sees Obama's election itself as a machination of ACORN, which registered millions of felons, illegal aliens and dead citizens to vote through Project Vote and the Motor Voter Act, which Cloward and Piven championed and which Bill Clinton signed in 1993. (Voter fraud seems to be Simpson's enduring preoccupation and the subject of an early 2007 article on Cloward-Piven.) By the logic of the Cloward-Piven strategy, he suggests, voter registration efforts were aimed at corrupting democracy, not expanding it. This argument depends on the denial of several key realities: that changing demographics have altered the balance of party power, that legally increasing the voting rate of key constituencies is a common and legitimate practice of both parties, and that the Republican Party consistently fails to win over minorities because of the policies it promotes. What Simpson and Beck want to cast doubt on is that the democratic process could elect Obama, or that democratic majorities would endorse the agenda Obama has proposed. In the months before the 2008 election, Simpson wrote, "It is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone."


Beck and Simpson have played the tea party's Paul Reveres, warning the masses of the Cloward-Piven assault. But nearly the entire orbit of tea party luminaries have taken it up in some way. In October 2008 the Washington Times ran an op-ed by Robert Chandler called "The Cloward Piven Strategy," and Stanley Kurtz wrote about it in National Review Online. Mark Levin, author of the bestseller Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, has discussed it on multiple occasions on his radio program, as did Rush Limbaugh on the March 4 broadcast of his show. In a January 13 interview, Beck asked Sarah Palin if she had seen and believed in the case he had been making on Cloward and Piven. Palin replied, "I do. I do believe it.... It has to be purposeful what they are doing. Otherwise--otherwise I would say, Glenn, that there is no hope, that there are no solutions."

In February, Kyle Olson, a GOP hack who runs an ersatz education nonprofit called the Education Action Group, posed as a student and requested a videotaped interview with Piven, which she gave in her home. Olson posted a portion of the interview on BigGovernment.com, a website run by Andrew Breitbart, who released the "prostitute and pimp" undercover ACORN sting in 2009. Olson captures nothing so dramatic: Piven lucidly discusses homeowner civil disobedience during the Great Depression as a model for how foreclosed homeowners today could refuse to leave their homes and thus create pressure on banks to renegotiate mortgages--a strategy advocated by Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and, yes, ACORN.

Suffice it to say, if Beck and crew believe half of this crap, they belong in an asylum in the middle of Shutter Island, where they can tend to their survival seeds and sleuth out imagined conspiracies apart from the rest of the human population. The danger, however, is that they will maroon a sizable portion of the electorate there with them. Since Obama's inauguration, references to the Cloward-Piven strategy have popped up with increasing frequency in op-eds and letters to the editor of local newspapers, including those in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Snippets of Simpson's tome or Beck's rants appear frequently in the comments section of blogs and articles; a search for the term "Cloward-Piven strategy" generated more than 255,000 Google hits.

Why does the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory hold such appeal? And what, if anything, does it accomplish? On one level it's entertainment. It allows believers to tease out the left's secrets and sinister patterns. Since none of the evidence that supposedly confirms the existence of the Cloward-Piven strategy is, in fact, secret, this proves rather easy to do, and so the puzzle is both thrilling and gratifying.

On another level, the theory is an adaptive response to the tea party's fragmentation. As Jonathan Raban pointed out in The New York Review of Books, the tea party is an uneasy conclave of Ayn Rand secular libertarians and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals; it contains birthers, Birchers, racists, xenophobes, Ron Paulites, cold warriors, Zionists, constitutionalists, vanilla Republicans looking for a high and militia-style survivalists. Because the Cloward-Piven strategy is so expansive, it allows tea party propagandists to engage any one--or all--of the pet issues that incite these various constituencies. For some, the left's "offensive to promote illegal immigration" is "Cloward-Piven on steroids." For others, it is the Cloward-Piven "advocates of social change" who "used the Fed, which was complicit in the scheme" to "engineer" the 2008 fiscal crisis. In his speech at the tea party convention in Nashville, WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah notes that Obama was just 4 when the Cloward-Piven strategy was written. "We think," Farah said. He paused dramatically before adding, "Without the birth certificate we really just don't know," as a sizable portion of the audience broke into applause.

Racial and class resentments, however, are never far from the surface, no matter which subject is slotted into the great Cloward-Piven conspiracy machine. The word "radical," for example, is almost always preceded by the word "black" when it can be (George Wiley), but nobody is ever called a "white radical" (Bill Ayers). Whenever grammatically possible--and sometimes even when it is not--Cloward and Piven are identified as "Columbia professors" and Obama as a "Harvard graduate." (Beyond just heaping Nixonian scorn on elites, the Cloward-Piven conspiracy credits the left with an almost divine intelligence.)

And as of now, the Cloward-Piven strategy is most often used to put two classes of people on the tea party's enemies list: those who work for the Obama administration and those who work to increase the political power of poor people of color. (Doing both--as was the case with Van Jones--can be fatal.) It is the latter target that is particularly appalling: here is a so-called populist movement promulgating a master narrative that holds poor people to blame for the world's woes. The precise impact of this conspiracy theory and the broader movement it incites on Obama's legislative agenda is, as of now, unclear. But the toll it has taken on organizations that advocate for poor people of color could not be more stark. On the weekend the healthcare reform bill cleared the House, tea party activists descended on Washington to decry "the end of America"; their bitter pill was soothed by front-page coverage of the end of something else--ACORN announced it was on the verge of bankruptcy, the victim of what CEO Bertha Lewis called "a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right-wing attacks."

Perhaps most critical, the Cloward-Piven conspiracy theory pushes the tea party's kettle closer to a boil. In its obsession with voter fraud and the potential illegitimacy of the 2008 election--and the democratic process itself--the conspiracy suggests a tit-for-tat strategy for victory: if the left is going to cynically manipulate the system to produce tyranny, then so will we. How? To begin, there's the tried-and-true tactic of suppressing the poor minority vote--which would next place Project Vote in the tea party's cross hairs. But why stop there? Like every good conspiracy theory, this one too is a call to arms.



http://www.thenation.com/article/mad-tea-party

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 10:01 AM
This article pretty well covers it IMO:

So, basically, Richard Kim used flowery prose, tumescent with adjectives and adverbs like ludicrous and hack and caricature, and beeyo considers the case closed.

Sure, they said they wanted to overwhelm the system, then over time the foundations they started or were later asked to chair, enacted initiatives that overwhelmed the system, but anyone who sees intent in something like that is a loon.

banyon
07-01-2010, 10:11 AM
So, basically, Richard Kim used flowery prose, tumescent with adjectives and adverbs like ludicrous and hack and caricature, and beeyo considers the case closed.

Sure, they said they wanted to overwhelm the system, then over time the foundations they started or were later asked to chair, enacted initiatives that overwhelmed the system, but anyone who sees intent in something like that is a loon.

So, basically, the article alleged the factual background to the article and it's subsequent citing, and Baby Lee considers that all it had was flowery adjectives for 19 paragraphs.

The article is clear. The old 60's article had a very limited scope related to raising the minimum wage, there's NO (ZERO) evidence that the mainstream or any significant left-oriented movements had taught or based anything in the last 30 years on it, and the conspiracy theory pretends that somehow, despite no one mentioning it or it appearing to play any relevant role in policy choices, it's been there all along at the root of the conspiratorial tree as the active and focused agenda of everything left.

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 10:19 AM
So, basically, the article alleged the factual background to the article and it's subsequent citing, and Baby Lee considers that all it had was flowery adjectives for 19 paragraphs.

The article is clear. The old 60's article had a very limited scope related to raising the minimum wage, there's NO (ZERO) evidence that the mainstream or any significant left-oriented movements had taught or based anything in the last 30 years on it, and the conspiracy theory pretends that somehow, despite no one mentioning it or it appearing to play any relevant role in policy choices, it's been there all along at the root of the conspiratorial tree as the active and focused agenda of everything left.

Your misapprehension of fact is astounding.

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 redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family CANNOT BE AIDED appreciably by job retraining, HIGHER MINIMUM WAGES, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now.

banyon
07-01-2010, 10:21 AM
Baby Lee:

You think this is some well-conceived political commentary?:

http://www.americanthinker.com/ACORN%20Networ.jpg

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

banyon
07-01-2010, 10:26 AM
Your misapprehension of fact is astounding.

You are nit picking my glossing over "establishing" and "raising" and the word choice in that post?

That somehow negates the entire post?

Diction fatality! is that how it works?

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 10:31 AM
Baby Lee:

You think this is some well-conceived political commentary?:

http://www.americanthinker.com/ACORN%20Networ.jpg

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html


Whether every one of his points carry indisputable truth is a different question from whether there is a conscious effort to shock the system to bring about social change.

Much like the folly of arguing that this guy's vapidity is proof that all who dislike soccer are insane.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yBkbj_S3etY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yBkbj_S3etY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

But good on you trying to minimize the aims of the initial article, despite clear contrary language contained in it.

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 10:48 AM
You are nit picking my glossing over "establishing" and "raising" and the word choice in that post?

That somehow negates the entire post?

Diction fatality! is that how it works?

Do you seriously not see the difference between a minimum wage, and guaranteed annual income? Seriously?

It's considerably more radical than a slip in diction, notwithstanding the consensus that diction is more concerned with speaking style than sentence construction.

Dave Lane
07-01-2010, 11:00 AM
Your misapprehension of fact is astounding.

So a minimum wage level proposed by Nixon a republican and voted down by the democrats is the basis for a 30 year plan to usurp the government? Did I miss something?

Baby Lee
07-01-2010, 11:01 AM
So a minimum wage level proposed by Nixon a republican and voted down by the democrats is the basis for a 30 year plan to usurp the government? Did I miss something?

Pretty much everything. I'm at a loss, the thing is printed in English and everything. They say that the minimum wage CANNOT HELP because they're women. What they're seeking is a guaranteed annual income for everyone, income not wages, money paid for existing, regardless of contribution to society, regardless of work for wages.

The Mad Crapper
07-01-2010, 11:06 AM
According to a new Rasmussen Report survey released today, 28% of likely voters believe the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 66% who think we’re on the wrong track.

banyon
07-01-2010, 11:56 AM
Pretty much everything. I'm at a loss, the thing is printed in English and everything. They say that the minimum wage CANNOT HELP because they're women. What they're seeking is a guaranteed annual income for everyone, income not wages, money paid for existing, regardless of contribution to society, regardless of work for wages.

The primary point was that the article was focused on that one issue, and that there's no proof anywhere that such a strategy was subsequently discussed or implemented elsewhere.

Another telling sign is that Cloward and Piven are historical footnotes who never went on to hold any positions of prominence anywhere in the left's political constellation.
Posted via Mobile Device

ClevelandBronco
07-01-2010, 12:05 PM
Will conservatives fight to get America back or will there be a mass exodus?

IMO, the game is over. They won. There's nothing left to save and nothing worth saving except our memories.

ROYC75
07-02-2010, 08:56 PM
The primary point was that the article was focused on that one issue, and that there's no proof anywhere that such a strategy was subsequently discussed or implemented elsewhere.

Another telling sign is that Cloward and Piven are historical footnotes who never went on to hold any positions of prominence anywhere in the left's political constellation.
Posted via Mobile Device


Look at the spending. Look at how the administration making comments about not letting a good crisis go to waste.

banyon
07-03-2010, 12:30 AM
Look at the spending. Look at how the administration making comments about not letting a good crisis go to waste.

Who made those comments?

tiptap
07-03-2010, 05:30 AM
I would just like to know why the conspiracy isn' imagined to be with the Republicans and large corporations. Wasn't it the the intent of the Republicans to raise the national debt so it would be difficult for Democrats should they gain power to institute new spending and to put pressure on the social safety net of Social Security and Medicaire without having to introduce unpopular new taxes? Corporations are interested in reducing the power of governments so that they can fill the void on their own financial interest. Certainly most conservatives think that Corporations have the real brain power and therefore are the real suspects in any conspiracy. Just asking

ROYC75
07-03-2010, 06:59 AM
Originally Posted by ROYC75 View Post
Look at the spending. Look at how the administration making comments about not letting a good crisis go to waste.

Who made those comments?


Spending ? You serious ? Look at what has been spent ?

A good crisis ? Really, Uh, his lil buddy Rahm Emanuel.

banyon
07-03-2010, 07:52 AM
Spending ? You serious ? Look at what has been spent ?

A good crisis ? Really, Uh, his lil buddy Rahm Emanuel.

The guy that's leaving because he can't get things done? Man, he must have some serious control over the agenda, huh?

What do you mean "spending"? By looking at the history of the debt accumulation, you would think it's Republicans that believe in the "cloward-piven" hypothesis, if that's supposed to be your evidence. Moreover, 90% of the countries in the world are accumulating a national debt and probably haven't heard of any "cloward-Piven". It's a natural outgrowth of democratic government and a flaw. People want things, but don't want to pay for them. That's not a conspiracy, that's human nature.

kcfanXIII
07-03-2010, 10:00 AM
Whether every one of his points carry indisputable truth is a different question from whether there is a conscious effort to shock the system to bring about social change.

Much like the folly of arguing that this guy's vapidity is proof that all who dislike soccer are insane.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yBkbj_S3etY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yBkbj_S3etY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

But good on you trying to minimize the aims of the initial article, despite clear contrary language contained in it.

i'm all for freedom of speech and all, but anybody with that accent and wearing a john deere hat should not be allowed to express his views on youtube. i made it until he tried to connect socialism with satan and soccer because they start with an s. freaking idiots...