It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.” 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. ”
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."
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.”
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This isn't Obama's fault!
Originally posted by marg6043
let get something straight, no president I mean NO president be Republicrat or democrap can stop the national deficit, as the government has to keep working and that means money to support everything that they do
The deficit will keep increasing regardless of what promises the whores running for the white house tell the hopeful voters.
Originally posted by David9176
He inherited a trillion a year deficit when he walked into office....during economic collapse.
What should he have done eh?
CUT ALL SPENDING AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS while the economy spun out of control?
Originally posted by Plugin
Obama himself said before being elected, that the debt is dangerous and that there should be less spending.
But as Bush, they really ain't in control. They got their advisers and so on. The increase in debt is important for economy growth, so they are somewhat successful in that but when things go really wrong, and the interest rates get much higher, no way they can repay the debt.
Amazing though how fast the debt increased in such a short time period.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! America were not fighting any wars under him, or started any, the persian war started in 1991 and ended the same year,