+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: What are the goals and objectives of American liberalism?

  1. Default What are the goals and objectives of American liberalism?

    Here is an excellent discussion of the goals and objectives of American liberalism.

    Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their "punish the wealthy" agenda, are fighting to keep blacks and other minorities poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

    "Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two liberal activists who were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They 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, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty."

    Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

    In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

    Cloward–Piven strategy

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) 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 left-wing[1] magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

    The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They 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, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...”[2] 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 pluralist 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).

    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 stated 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 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.”[3] 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 redistribution of income.[3]

    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."[4]

    Impact of the strategy

    Cloward and Piven themselves, in papers published in 1971 and 1977, argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for.[8] Political scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that that the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads.

    In his 2006 book Winning the Race, commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward-Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy "created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction."[9]

    According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007, "Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired."[10]

    Some commentators have blamed the Cloward-Piven strategy for the near-bankruptcy of New York City in 1975.[11][12]

    Conservative Fox News commentator Glenn Beck has referred to the Cloward-Piven Strategy on his broadcast since 2009, stating that it forms part of the basis for President Barack Obama's economic policy. On February 18, 2010, he said, "you’ve got total destruction of wealth coming... It’s the final phase of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."[13]

    Richard Kim, writing in 2010 in The Nation (in which the original essay appeared), called such assertions "a reactionary paranoid fantasy..." but says that "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."[14] The Nation later stated that Beck blames the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" for "the financial crisis of 2008, healthcare reform, Obama's election and massive voter fraud" and has resulted in the posting of much violent and threatening rhetoric by users on Beck's website, including death threats against Frances Fox Piven.[15] For her part, Piven vigorously continues to defend the original idea, calling its conservative interpretation "lunatic".[16]

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. #2

    Default

    It might be important to qualify that question:

    Modern Democrat liberalism =/= classical American Revolution liberalism.
    Last edited by Joe Six-pack; Jul 06 2011 at 04:26 PM.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Six-pack View Post
    It might be important to qualify that question:

    Modern Democrat liberalism =/= classical American Revolution liberalism.
    The liberalism(classical) is dead. Never will return. More than anything, is an ideology surpassed by others, and I am sure that many liberals of that period nowadays would be anarchist, some kind of collective anarchist.
    Property is theft. NO GODS, NO MASTERS. AGAINST ALL AUTHORITY. apt-get install anarchism
    Economic Left/Right: -9.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kilgram View Post
    The liberalism(classical) is dead.
    Ideas, unlike people, don't die.

    Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Six-pack View Post
    Ideas, unlike people, don't die.

    Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed.
    It is. The ideas transformed in others more advanced And the most advanced is... the utopia. HAHA
    Property is theft. NO GODS, NO MASTERS. AGAINST ALL AUTHORITY. apt-get install anarchism
    Economic Left/Right: -9.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Six-pack View Post
    Ideas, unlike people, don't die.

    Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed.
    You are mistaken, JSP.

    These foolish ideas ended up on the 'trash heap" of history!


    ..........

    "Official seal of certifiable truth" ... and we should also add, "Enormous national debt!" A failed relic of the past! How many millions of people did Joseph Stalin have to slaughter to force people to accept the foolish and discredited teachings of Marx and Engels?

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kilgram View Post
    It is.
    You are entitled to your erroneous opinion on that subject. Go back and read what I said, there is a difference between the two ideas.
    Last edited by Joe Six-pack; Jul 06 2011 at 05:10 PM.

  9. Default

    The Goals and Objectives of American Leftwing ideology is quite clear.

    Create the closest approximation to a European-style parliamentary Social Democracy that the Constitution will allow.

    California is currently the vanguard.
    Last edited by SiliconMagician; Jul 06 2011 at 05:18 PM.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiliconMagician View Post
    The Goals and Objectives of American Leftwing ideology is quite clear.

    Create the closest approximation to a European-style proportionately representative Social Democracy that the Constitution allows.

    California is currently the vanguard.
    you are very correct.

    This is another goal of American Leftwing ideology.

    "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."

    In other words, the Left wants to pay people not to work. This tactic is rampamt in the inner cities of Dertoit and Chicago where Obama has served as a community organizer.

    The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5K...eature=related
    Last edited by James Cessna; Jul 06 2011 at 05:26 PM.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cessna View Post
    Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their "punish the wealthy" agenda . . .
    I stopped reading after this silly Tea Party meme.

    Progressives work for a more just and democratic society, with higher living standards and education for everybody, not just the rich and powerful.

    Ooooo, that hurts Tea Party sensibilities, with their hatred of education and their eternal use of scapegoating of "welfare queens" to explain their lack of success in life.
    Last edited by Landru Guide Us; Jul 06 2011 at 05:31 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks