Closed

Obama and the Cloward-Piven Strategy

The increase in welfare rolls since Obama took office is undeniable.

In the almost 4 years of an Obama Administration, spending on federal welfare programs has increased by a whopping 41%. In 2012, the Federal government will spend $668 Billion and State spending on welfare programs amounts to an additional $284 Billion; that brings total amount spent in 2012 on welfare programs to an unprecedented $952 Billion!

On July 12, 2012 the Obama Administration unilaterally and illegally overturned the welfare reform law of 1996. Prior to 1996, the welfare policies of the 1960's created generations of families able to languish on the tax payers dime and receive a government subsistence. These policies never required recipients to gain the skills necessary to remove themselves from the welfare rolls and rise from poverty to the middle class. The 1996 law required that States have at least half of adult welfare recipients participate in qualified work activities (i.e.; have a job) or enrolled in job education and training programs. The 1996 law signed by President Clinton helped to move 4.7 Million Americans from government dependency to self-sufficiency and resulted in an overall decline in federal welfare caseload by 54%. By fiat, Obama removed the "workfare" requirements, will now issue waivers to States, and effectively remove the federal work requirements. Hypocritically, on July 25, 2012 in front of the National Urban League in New Orleans, Obama stated, "America says we will give you opportunity, but you've got the earn your success."

The Obama Administration plans for a permanent increase in annual means-tested welfare spending from 4.5% to 6% of GDP. This increased spending on welfare will continue after the current recession ends and result in extraordinary wealth redistribution and a permanent expansion of welfare programs. It is projected that the combined Federal and State spending will hit $1.56 Trillion per year by 2022. Overall, Obama plans to spend $12.7 Trillion on welfare programs over the 10 years.

So what is the Cloward-Piven strategy? The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy that calls for overloading the public welfare system in order to create a crisis that would lead government to replace current welfare programs and policies with a national system of guaranteed annual income without any work requirements. Cloward-Piven exploits the gaps between welfare law and practice to increase the number of welfare recipients by informing low-income people of their "right to welfare assistance" and encourage them and extended families to apply for benefits with the purpose and intent to overload and overburden the federal government into effectively creating a permanent underclass that subsists on a government existence funded by tax payers.

So, given the Obama's position and policies toward welfare, the increase in welfare rolls, failure to reduce the unemployment rate, failure to reduce the federal deficit, and federal over reach and regulation of business; it has become apparent to many people that Obama is systematically implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy in his drive to fundamentally transform America into a Social Democracy.
14 answers Last reply
More about obama cloward piven strategy
  1. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

    People still have to work, common misconception that you just receive a check now.

    More people on welfare because more qualify.

    Define welfare. How much of your tax dollars go towards "welfare".

    Im going to try and keep these short.
  2. wanamingo said:
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

    People still have to work, common misconception that you just receive a check now.
    The link to an attack article on Romney is irrelevant, what Romney said about the law change is irrelevant, whether people still have to work is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Obama overturning the 1996 law by executive fiat was illegal. What is relevant is that Obama stated the reason he changed the law was to grant waivers to give States greater flexibility. What is relevant is that Obama and HHS had the ability grant waivers before he unilaterally changed the law.

    If Obama could grant waivers to begin with, then he is purposely misleading the public and the only other purpose for changing the law is to effectively remove the work requirements from the law.

    wanamingo said:
    More people on welfare because more qualify.
    C'mon mingo, I thought you were smarter than that. The fact that more people qualify is part and parcel to the Cloward-Piven strategy.

    wanamingo said:
    Define welfare. How much of your tax dollars go towards "welfare".
    Welfare has been well defined by generations of people dependent on the government for subsistence. And, how much of my (yours, ours) tax dollars go towards welfare is irrelevant to the intent and purpose this post.
  3. wanamingo said:
    How much of your tax dollars go towards "welfare".
    The more I thought about this statement, it is as if you are agreeing to the idea that if the amount of your tax dollars that pay for welfare is acceptable, then it stands to reason that paying taxes for just every program sold as being for the greater good is also acceptable.

    As Alexander Hamilton said: "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything."
  4. I thought that the states were better at governing than the federal gov. Isnt this exactly what you wanted?

    So now instead of blaming the Obama administration you can blame the state gov that implement sh*tty welfare laws.
  5. chunkymonster said:
    The more I thought about this statement, it is as if you are agreeing to the idea that if the amount of your tax dollars that pay for welfare is acceptable, then it stands to reason that paying taxes for just every program sold as being for the greater good is also acceptable.

    As Alexander Hamilton said: "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything."


    The only reason I ask is because Veterans benefits are tied into what some people refer to as "Entitlements" or "welfare" this includes disability and retirement.

    Just trying to figure out exactly what you mean, I also like to talk in numbers and figures.
  6. wanamingo said:
    I thought that the states were better at governing than the federal gov. Isnt this exactly what you wanted?

    So now instead of blaming the Obama administration you can blame the state gov that implement sh*tty welfare laws.
    Of course the States are better at handling things better than the federal government, and the 1996 welfare law gave states block grants to run the welfare program the way the state saw fit...but that is totally beside the point...the point is;

    Obama never had the power to change the 1996 welfare law. Obama using an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law was illegal.

    The questions you really should be asking are; why is issuing an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law illegal, and how he can illegally change the 1996 welfare law without being challenged?
  7. chunkymonster said:
    Of course the States are better at handling things better than the federal government, and the 1996 welfare law gave states block grants to run the welfare program the way the state saw fit...but that is totally beside the point...the point is;

    Obama never had the power to change the 1996 welfare law. Obama using an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law was illegal.

    The questions you really should be asking are; why is issuing an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law illegal, and how he can illegally change the 1996 welfare law without being challenged?


    You mean the executive order to make government more efficient and how HHS decided one of the ways it could run more efficiently was through letting states enact welfare programs (They have to show their plan exceeds the current HHS one before it will even be considered). So its not an order to drop work requirements, again painting your own pictures with your own facts.......

    Also you seem like a well read guy, are you familiar with how many executive orders every single president issues?
  8. wanamingo said:
    You mean the executive order to make government more efficient and how HHS decided one of the ways it could run more efficiently was through letting states enact welfare programs (They have to show their plan exceeds the current HHS one before it will even be considered). So its not an order to drop work requirements, again painting your own pictures with your own facts.......

    Also you seem like a well read guy, are you familiar with how many executive orders every single president issues?
    Ok...the number of executive orders issued by each president is irrelevant. I already know the intent and purpose of executive orders. What HHS decided is irrelevant. The States receiving block grants and having their plans exceed HHS requirements in order to get a waiver was already included in the verbiage of the 1996 welfare law; therefore, not anything new granted by Obama signing the July 12 executive order. So once again...

    Obama never had the power to change the 1996 welfare law. Obama using an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law was illegal.

    Why is issuing an Executive Order to change the 1996 welfare law illegal, and how can Obama illegally change the 1996 welfare law without being challenged?
  9. You guys are real class acts.

    @Chunky - Find the law that president Obama signed to make this happen. Because to my understanding Obama signed a presidential order to make government more efficient and one of the ways the HHS thought it could better serve people was through letting the states decide their own welfare laws should work.

    @OMG - Grow up.
  10. What law was changed? And can you cite the Executive Order?
  11. So do you take issue with states deciding what constitutes "work" or the fact that because clause blah blah wasnt under subsection 118171272 so it cant be changed?
  12. What executive order did he issue, you still havent answered that? Because it appears he issued an order to make gov more efficient. And the HHS complied and they did so by letting states define work. And a state has to show they will exceed the current TANF regulations, so if a state fails to do so or implements stupid work laws it will show, so blame states that half-ass it.

    So tell me some more about how Obama wants to remove right to work and over ride congress when its actually HHS deciding how they are going to implement a more efficient system?

    I also think its funny that all conservative news sites are singing the same song, you would be hard pressed to find one without it saying "Obama guts welfare", its like they are all a hive mind of conservatism.

    You guys have been having some real issues with Chicken little syndrome. The Sky is Falling the Sky is falling....and its all liberal socialist marxist democrats.
  13. Here if you are into legal dribble why dont you just read the actual memorandum (Which I have been pushing you to actually look up).

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html#

    Quote:
    While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.


    This is getting too legalese for me, you might want to consider contacting you local congressional rep and asking them to look into it so I dont have amateur legal scholars copy pasting from different government sites.
  14. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    He's not getting it monster.

    I just wonder how much mingo will protest when an executive order is signed to move all blacks to a FEMA camp, or all gays, or all Asians, or all (insert _____ here).

    You gonna still like these EOs mingo?


    Buddy those comments were inappropriate ... very inappropriate.
Ask a new question

Read More

Politics