Cloward-Piven on Steroids: Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels

Well some staggering numbers are showing just how much of a "dependency" society the U.S. has become.

This story strongly suggests it's all part of the ongoing master plan that was introduced back in the silly60's by a married couple who were sociologists and political activists. Those two are Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

In short,they called for a plan to overload the welfare systems thus causing a crisis that would create a guaranteed income system that would miraculously end poverty.

I guess they may be getting there except the bankrupting spending policies have created a dependent class that is still in poverty.

The article has "18 reasons" to analyze

Did you know that the number of Americans getting benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million? In other words, the number of people that are taking money out of the system is far greater than the number of people that are putting money into the system. And did you know that nearly 70 percent of all of the money that the federal government spends goes toward entitlement and welfare programs? When it comes to the transfer of wealth, nobody does it on a grander scale than the U.S. government. Most of what the government does involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people. In fact, at this point that is the primary function of the federal government.

Just check out the chart below. It comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it shows that 69 percent of all federal money is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs…

Where did they go wrong ?

Maybe they forgot to figure out where the money was to come from?

CLOWARD-PIVEN: 18 Stats That Prove That Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels


reference;
Thee Cloward–Piven strategy

Analyze This

I was going to link a good Forbes article.

But my phone is in and out of reception.

It discusses social security and has numbers from 2012.

Why in the hell did they think it was ok to spend surplus money on other programs?

Why not keep all of the money/bonds just for socual security?

This is the biggest scam of the "entitlement" issue.

We pay, they spend.

a reply to: xuenchen

originally posted by: xuenchen
Where did they go wrong ?

Any system that is skimming off more of the real economic strength (via compulsory levies) than it puts back in (via creating more aggregate demand, or producing real value), cannot work.
That's not ideology or opinion - that's math.


*WAIT... except if that system's true purpose was to bring down the economy... I guess you could call it "working as intended" then, but that would be just evil. *chuckles*

a reply to: xuenchen

I do not get it, how is receiving something that you pay for an entitlement?

Here the social system is a bit different from one US one. I pay a lot, but I also expect to receive a lot. For example, every month I pay 7,5% of my salary towards healthcare, of course this means I am entitled to healthcare without extra costs.. Same goes with any other thing I pay for. When I would lose the job, of course I would be entitled to the unemployment benefits, that is why I pay them. Just like an insurance company, but no idiot dictates whether you qualify for the insurance or not. At the end, that is what I am paying for. I do not care whether someone else is using the money right now, I know when I need it, I can use it as well.

People have paid their whole lives for medicare, why shouldn´t they use it? Same goes for social security. Most people have worked certain parts of their lives. Now when they are in financial trouble, why shouldn´t they get what they paid for? That is the point of social security systems - eliminating extra worries about future. No need to worry, just like insurance, you pay in and when something happens, you can use it.

a reply to: Cabin

It's different here.

For example; Social Security and MediCare is paid to receivers from money paid by other workers and businesses.

They do not set up personal accounts for your own use at a later time.

Personal retirement savings accounts do exist but those are not government/tax funded.

And extra health insurance exists for people on MediCare because MediCare does not pay for everything.

They've got everything topsy-turvy. Much like any common pyramid con game.

a reply to: Cabin

Our "social" system works different from the one in the US aswell, and I still oppose it.

Why? Because it's mandatory instead of voluntary, and thus not really "social" anymore.
See, the term "social" is originally a synonym for "helpful", "cooperative" or "charitable", which are all voluntary acts.

Our system would still work if it was voluntary (sustained by the human virtue of charity), or if it was a optional (like a private insurance contract for example)... and if it was set up like that, I'd be all for it.
There is no need to take the voluntary part away from it.

*In fact, I would even claim that forced "socialism" is destructive to the human virtue of charity.
I just find it much harder to give after I've been robbed.
Carry this image to the extreme: some people wouldn't even end up depending on charity, if they hadn't been robbed in the first place.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why does everything need to be personalised?

As far as I know, Medicare was started somewhere in the 1960s. Of course such a system needs to be run by people working currently, because many people were either retired or retiring when the system was started. They had no way of putting their effort in. Although this does not exactly mean you are paying for others, as you will also receive it when you retire. It is a situation, where you pay for others and later others will pay for you. Unless all people already retired or retiring are left out, there is no other way for such policy to work than younger generation paying for the older one. When the younger generation retires, the next generation pays for them. At the end you do receive what you pay for.

I know when I am paying for the universal healthcare, there are many people who have not put in a dime. This country was started in 1991, which means there are still many people living who were already retired back then and I am partly also paying for their healthcare.

Very comparable to your situation is the local pension system here. As I described many people were retired back then. Should an 85-year-old get a job, simply to survive, because the system where they worked collapsed? They already worked their whole lives, give them a rest... From the current taxes I pay all their retirement is paid, although I will also receive my pension, when I get old and partly it will be paid by the next generation after me.

a reply to: Cabin

The point is a financial system can't recover the initial loss.

That's why it's a ponzi scheme.

They have to keep borrowing more and more to keep the game from collapsing.

And they also have to keep "lowering" the output.

Everything is based on debt, not current retainable production.

a reply to: ColCurious

I personally do see several problems with the voluntary system.

1) There are idiots in every group who do not think ahead. At the end, if they get in trouble, crime is often the way out. Also there exists additional stress society, especially for the weaker members. Will the insurance company accept the claim or deny it? People with lower salaries do not have anything to put aside, it is not normal when a person has two options - starve/lose home or think on the future and put aside... At the end, this only results with higher crime levels, as well as generally less productive society (more health problems, more stress, relationships suffer etc)

2) Private companies will inflate the prices significantly. There are additional advertising costs, sales people to be paid, profits to be made. This leads to significantly higher prices for the average joe. Looking at the prices at US hospitals, makes me sad, the costs of even non-profit hospitals are incredible, simply to break even. Insurance companies try to find excuses not to pay out the insurance, all that. When private interests are involved, in near to every sector this leads to significant extra costs for the same service.

3) Many people who need help would not receive it. Not everyone is a marketing genius or is able to symphatise with the public. Getting the necessary funds to get out of trouble needs one to be able to symphatise with people, so they would give something to the charity. Even currently there is a problem with parents using their kids to gain additional funds for the family (letting beg or something), that would possibly become much larger one and in the end many people would rather give the money to the "lying" child than to some older person needing help.

4) When you give money to charities, most of it is not help somebody. I saw some stats on the largest charities in US, only a small % of funds received went to someone, other was just used to pay the employees, pay the CEO etc.

Personally I do not find anything bad in the forced "socialism", although that is not something I would say is socialism. The so-called forced "socialism" is something that has proven to work in most advanced capitalist nations, Nordic is the best example and at the end this has results with lower national debt, more peaceful society, less crime, strong education, healthier more productive society, as well as economically very competitive etc. Personally I do believe in saying: " Socialism for the needs, capitalism for the wants" and I truly hope some day at least some nations in the world will achieve a system like that.

a reply to: xuenchen

What usually happens to the folks running a Ponzi scheme? A: They go to jail. In this case, they're all dead or no longer 'worth' prosecuting.

What happens when one Ponzi scheme collapses? A: Another takes its place. Let's not frighten everyone with the details of the other outcomes.

ETA: And who knows ... maybe this will devolve into something with a plot like the movie Rodinus just put up a review on.

a reply to: xuenchen

Everything depends how the system is run. In US the main problem I personally see is the for-profit companies inbetween, who are inflating the prices to extremities, which leads to very high costs of services, which leads to higher national debt.

The countries with the strongest social system all have lower debt levels than other advanced nations (by these countries I am referring to Nordic nations).

Here the unemployment reserves became too big (over 5% of the government budget, 25% of yearly social security costs), so they lower the taxes paid for unemployment insurance. The government debt is currently under 10% despite universal healthcare, fully government-paid university tuitions, reasonably good social system.

I do not say there are no problems here, but I do believe Nordic nations, especially Finland, Sweden and Denmark are a good example of how a country can have a very strong social system, reasonably low national debt while staying economically strong.

a reply to: Cabin

originally posted by: Cabin
1) People with lower salaries do not have anything to put aside, it is not normal when a person has two options - starve/lose home or think on the future and put aside...

I agree, and they have even less to put aside (let alone give to others) when they have to pay extensive taxes, justified in that "some idiots didn't think ahead", as you've put it.

originally posted by: Cabin
2) Private companies will inflate the prices significantly. There are additional advertising costs, sales people to be paid, profits to be made. This leads to significantly higher prices for the average joe.

Not true.
I don't know what exactly the Americans are doing wrong with their system, but private insurance here in Germany provides excellent coverage for reasonable prices, so the argument that profit is a bad incentive for providing good healthcare is plain wrong.

originally posted by: Cabin
3) Getting the necessary funds to get out of trouble needs one to be able to symphatise with people, so they would give something to the charity.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you reword it?

originally posted by: Cabin
4) When you give money to charities, most of it is not help somebody. I saw some stats on the largest charities in US, only a small % of funds received went to someone, other was just used to pay the employees, pay the CEO etc.

Well, then give to charities that are not frauds, or just skip them altogether and give directly to the people in your community.
Also, even in a minarchistic state, fraud would still be punishable by law.

I hear ya on this one Xuen. Society was warned about this all the way back to the start. If we cross the ratio between producers and takers, the end becomes a mathematical question. Not an economic one. How's your math?

originally posted by: [post=17837449]ColCurious
I agree, and they have even less to put aside (let alone give to others) when they have to pay extensive taxes, justified in that "some idiots didn't think ahead", as you've put it.

Why should one set something aside, when they are already paying for the "insurance" to the government? You already have one policy, that covers everything, why get another?

What I was meaning by low-paid people, is that companies are unlikely to raise their salaries significantly, even if they had to pay less taxes. Rather it would go towards lowering the costs of products, although even the couple of % lower monthly food bill would not mean much to a very poor family. Social security system helps the poor more than a 3% lower food bill. Unless minimum wage is high, possibly the people would be in more trouble than currently. At least currently they can rely on the social security system if problem arise. If they get out their problems, get to a better position, they will continue giving back. That is how collective pot works. When you get in trouble you use it, when you are in better position, others use it etc.

Not true.
I don't know what exactly the Americans are doing wrong with their system, but private insurance here in Germany provides excellent coverage for reasonable prices, so the argument that profit is a bad incentive for providing good healthcare is plain wrong.

I can not comment much on this as I do not know German system that well. Although I am 100% sure, the prices would be even lower, if the insurance companies were not inbetween. The companies have staff as well, who needs to be paid, that alone raises the prices. If there were only hospitals to run and the doctors/nurses/essential staff to pay, machinery to buy, upgrades to hospital housing, the prices would be lower.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you reword it?

From individual standpoint, when one needs help, often they need to do certain campaign, unless they have lots of good contacts/generally very good reputation in the area. In order for the campaign to work, one needs to emotionally appeal to the people seeing it, otherwise people would be very charitable. A crying child in need would get the funds necessary, but a 40-something average-looking non-charismatic guy would have serious problems getting the funds for cancer treatment or just getting out of downward spiral - emotional appeal is one of the most important aspects of charity. People give charity selectively, usually based on emotions, how the person/story makes them feel. At the end too many people in need would be left out.

originally posted by: Cabin
4) When you give money to charities, most of it is not help somebody. I saw some stats on the largest charities in US, only a small % of funds received went to someone, other was just used to pay the employees, pay the CEO etc.

Well, then give to charities that are not frauds, or just skip them altogether and give directly to the people in your community.
Also, even in a minarchistic state, fraud would still be punishable by law.

Technically that is not fraud. Professional charity companies are usually not solely not dependent on volunteers, but use regular staff, who does it as a job a´la going from door-to-door asking for charities.

Giving it directly in the community has one problem. The people who are not very sociable or popular would not gain the funds necessary. I have seen such charity system in some areas and often it can turn out to be more of a popularity contest than actually helping everybody in need. Children and generally more popular people get what they need, others are left out, whatever their trouble, unless they manage to be very persuasive (very tragic story for example)

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: Cabin

Our "social" system works different from the one in the US aswell, and I still oppose it.

Why? Because it's mandatory instead of voluntary, and thus not really "social" anymore.
See, the term "social" is originally a synonym for "helpful", "cooperative" or "charitable", which are all voluntary acts.

If you benefit from the protective aspect of your society, then it should be mandatory to give back to it too.

If you have chosen to live in a structured society, instead of completely independant in the wild, then you have made your voluntary choice, no?

I told my teens that too. If they want to stay under my roof, they have to take part in chores and remain respectful of the other household members. Otherwise they can choose to brave the elements alone and be free of that obligation (freeing us from obligation to them as well).

originally posted by: Cabin
Why should one set something aside, when they are already paying for the "insurance" to the government? You already have one policy, that covers everything, why get another?

To make this short, it all comes down to independence and personal responsibility.

You seem to trust your Government - I'd rather trust myself.
If a company #s me over, I can chose another one... that's not so easy with Governments.
If I put my trust solely in my Government and they # me over, I'm done.
Even if your Government was trustworthy at one point, they can always be corrupted... and then you're done.
The only way to live truly free and independent, is to except that you are personally responsible.

originally posted by: Bluesma
If you benefit from the protective aspect of your society, then it should be mandatory to give back to it too.

Yes, I just distinguish between state and society.

originally posted by: Bluesma
If you have chosen to live in a structured society, instead of completely independant in the wild, then you have made your voluntary choice, no?

If society were to form an alternative minimal state here I could choose, I would.
Alas, the state doesn't allow the people to reform it in such a fashion - instead it reacts violent.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Cabin

It's different here.

For example; Social Security and MediCare is paid to receivers from money paid by other workers and businesses.

They do not set up personal accounts for your own use at a later time.

From what I understand, where Cabin is, it is the same in that respect.
Where I am it is also, and yet this perspective is common.
If you paid into it, you have the right to take that back too- that is why you are paying into it!
Even if it is not a "private" account. I pay for some members of my society when they need it, and then have the right to have them pay for me for me when I need it. It's called solidarity. A nation of people who support each other equally. If you put in, then you have the right to get back.


I'm kind of smiling to myself because I remember a time I could not fathom this very simple concept either.

Somehow, my american education formed me to perceive the world in terms of "givers" or "receivers"
(losers or winners, good guys/ bad guys...).
Only in another culture did I get introduced to the concept that all people (including myself) are BOTH a winner and loser, strong and frail, giver and receiver, gentle and harsh, etc. etc. , at different times.

Sometimes I am in need and receive, other times I am not, I provide.
Same with all the people around me.
This is the essential difference in view.


Just seeing myself that way means I don't get stuck when I fall, indentifying with that state as what kind of person I am. It makes for people who easily get back up with a little hand, as they do not consider themselves definitively "a receiver."

a reply to: xuenchen



I don't know how long I and many others have been saying this.

Whatever war we're fighting, it sure as hell looks like we're losing.

a reply to: xuenchen
I think that if it were actually the Cloward-Piven startegy there would be a a guaranteed annual income by know.

What ever is actually happening might share some characteristics but I think Cloward-Piven get's thrown around way too much.