Forward

[wolferine]

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 titled "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.

Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. In February 1981, he made his first public speech, calling for Occidental to divest from South Africa in response to its policy of apartheid.[25] In mid-1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in Pakistan and India for three weeks.[25] Later in 1981, he transferred to Columbia University in New York City.

[Standtall]

.

That seems pretty irrefutable to me.

[wolferine]

That seems pretty irrefutable to me.

Period, end of story.

Obama re-election would be the end of the world as we know it.

[Guerilla poster]

Period, end of story.

Obama re-election would be the end of the world as we know it.

Change, amirite?

[wolferine]

Change, amirite?

Forward.... over the cliff.

[Guerilla poster]

Forward.... over the cliff.


Are you going to take drastic action?

[wolferine]

Are you going to take drastic action?

Probably.

[2pac Shakur]

Is our military a form of welfare?

[wolferine]

Is our military a form of welfare?

What's your opinion? I know you are here to defend Obama. Or blame Bush or the same thing.

[2pac Shakur]

What's your opinion? I know you are here to defend Obama. Or blame Bush or the same thing.

I think it is. Along with aid to other countries.
If you are concerned about our country going broke, you should be concerned about unnecessary military/war spending. But I'm sure you are gonna vote for Mitt. So you aren't being consistent.

[erosewater]

Karl Marx
Barack Obama

coincidence? I think not

[Wigmeister General]

At least now I have the proof.

[wolferine]

I think it is. Along with aid to other countries.
If you are concerned about our country going broke, you should be concerned about unnecessary military/war spending. But I'm sure you are gonna vote for Mitt. So you aren't being consistent.

Energy is a national security interest.

I would rather be a country with a strong military who can kick ass than one that is weak and getting it's ass kicked.

[2pac Shakur]

Energy is a national security interest.

I would rather be a country with a strong military who can kick ass than one that is weak and getting it's ass kicked.

So how's that been working out the last 12 years or so?
You paying more or less for gas?
How about that deficit? You realize the wars and defense budget are a very big part of that, right?

[wolferine]

Karl Marx
Barack Obama

coincidence? I think not

Nostradamus was right.

The main thing I wanted to write about was Nostradamus’s prediction for the upcoming presidential elections in November. Some think that he clearly stated that Obama will win, (something that seems more likely because Hilary is now out of the race), and he has also said less than pleasant things about what will happen once Obama actually becomes president.

[wolferine]

So how's that been working out the last 12 years or so?
You paying more or less for gas?

Obama has destabilized the ME with his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in Egypt and Libya and soon to be Syria.

[2pac Shakur]

Obama has destabilized the ME with his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in Egypt and Libya and soon to be Syria.

He has destabilized it by continuing the policies of W.
(D) and (R) will both work hard to destabilize the ME.
Flagwaverz like you will wave your flagz and say we need to get our cheap oil.
Meanwhile Exxon will get the cheap oil. And charge you an arm and a leg.
(D) and (R) laugh all the way to the bank and the flagwaverz keep voting for them.

:usa:

[Guerilla poster]

Karl Marx
Barack Obama

coincidence? I think not

O am a brack b

[wolferine]

He has destabilized it by continuing the policies of W.
(D) and (R) will both work hard to destabilize the ME.
Flagwaverz like you will wave your flagz and say we need to get our cheap oil.
Meanwhile Exxon will get the cheap oil. And charge you an arm and a leg.
(D) and (R) laugh all the way to the bank and the flagwaverz keep voting for them.

:usa:

I should buy more Exxon stock. But only if Romney wins. Romney would be pro business.

Obama would be pro Marxism and there is no profit in that.

[2pac Shakur]

I should buy more Exxon stock. But only if Romney wins. Romney would be pro business.

Obama would be pro Marxism and there is no profit in that.

Kind of like you should have bought Enron stock when W got into office.

[Standtall]

Karl Marx
Barack Obama

coincidence? I think not

Whoa! Mind is blown now.

[ADoubleDot]

I should buy more Exxon stock. But only if Romney wins. Romney would be pro business.

Obama would be pro Marxism and there is no profit in that.

Kind of like you should have bought Enron stock when W got into office.

one of you is a fool, but at this distance I can't tell which

[ShebaPoe]

Is our military a form of welfare?

The military is almost self-funding. The trade deficit is the nominal ROI on military spending.

The trade deficit, which we enjoy without a currency adjustment, offsets military expenses. If one considers the lack of currency adjustment PLUS the trade deficit, then the military is probably a profit center for the government.

I'm not morally ok with it. But financially, it is the antithesis of welfare, in fact, in terms of return, it is, hands down, the best investment our government makes.

"here is paper with white guys on it. Please give us your oil and your real goods"

[MathinTucson]

Energy is a national security interest.

I would rather be a country with a strong military who can kick ass than one that is weak and getting it's ass kicked.

If defense spending would have been held at year 2000 levels (~$300B), do you think that we would be getting our asses kicked right now? By whom?

And if more spending = more security, shouldn't we be spending more on defense? Why not double it, just to be safe?

[wolferine]

If defense spending would have been held at year 2000 levels (~$300B), do you think that we would be getting our asses kicked right now? By whom?

And if more spending = more security, shouldn't we be spending more on defense? Why not double it, just to be safe?

We spend enough now to be able to kick ass. Spending more would be wasteful.

Why not turn your question around on social programs. Why not freeze medicare, medicaid and social security to 2000 levels? Obama wants to double or triple spending on social programs with his Obamacare and other wealth redistribution.

[MathinTucson]

We spend enough now to be able to kick ass. Spending more would be wasteful.

Why not turn your question around on social programs. Why not freeze medicare, medicaid and social security to 2000 levels? Obama wants to double or triple spending on social programs with his Obamacare and other wealth redistribution.

I'm not defending Obama, and I will support just about any reduction in federal spending. But the country was not in danger in 2000 when military spending was 50% of today's level. So let's cut military spending in half along with reducing social spending.

[Standtall]

I'm not defending Obama, and I will support just about any reduction in federal spending. But the country was not in danger in 2000 when military spending was 50% of today's level. So let's cut military spending in half along with reducing social spending.

I think we clearly were, but did not know it.

[Standtall]

That being said, I think military spending is probably about 80% too high. Maybe 90%.

[MathinTucson]

I think we clearly were, but did not know it.

Not from a threat that a large conventional military force was going to prevent. The issue at that time was intelligence.

[Harry]

I think we clearly were, but did not know it.
We knew. It was even in a memo too the highest level of government.


On this day in 2001, President George W. Bush, while vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, received a classified intelligence memo titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”


The memo said that “clandestine, foreign government and media reports indicate [Osama] bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ‘bring the fighting to America.’”


It noted that “after U.S. strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.”


Terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City, killing all on board and thousands more in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed, destroying nearby structures and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon, in Arlington, Va. The fourth jet, redirected to Washington, crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pa., after some passengers and crew members attempted to retake control of the plane.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25834.html

[ShebaPoe]

Is our military a form of welfare?

The military is almost self-funding. The trade deficit is the nominal ROI on military spending.

The trade deficit, which we enjoy without a currency adjustment, offsets military expenses. If one considers the lack of currency adjustment PLUS the trade deficit, then the military is probably a profit center for the government.

I'm not morally ok with it. But financially, it is the antithesis of welfare, in fact, in terms of return, it is, hands down, the best investment our government makes.

"here is paper with white guys on it. Please give us your oil and your real goods"

[Standtall]

The military is almost self-funding. The trade deficit is the nominal ROI on military spending.

The trade deficit, which we enjoy without a currency adjustment, offsets military expenses. If one considers the lack of currency adjustment PLUS the trade deficit, then the military is probably a profit center for the government.

I'm not morally ok with it. But financially, it is the antithesis of welfare, in fact, in terms of return, it is, hands down, the best investment our government makes.

"here is paper with white guys on it. Please give us your oil and your real goods"

I saw that somewhere before.

[ShebaPoe]

It's still true.

We got just about the whole world to use our currency for trade.

Objections to US military spending are better made on a moral basis than a financial one.

[MathinTucson]

It's still true.

We got just about the whole world to use our currency for trade.

Objections to US military spending are better made on a moral basis than a financial one.

We were running huge deficits when military spending was $300B. Even if other countries trade with the US because of its military, why is today's level of military spending required?

[wolferine]

We were running huge deficits when military spending was $300B. Even if other countries trade with the US because of its military, why is today's level of military spending required?

Ever hear of inflation? And how is our debt or trade imbalance today compared to 2000? Double? Triple?

[FormLetter]

We were running huge deficits when military spending was $300B. Even if other countries trade with the US because of its military, why is today's level of military spending required?

Iraq and Libya both threatened and planned to engage in oil trade not denominated in USD. See what happens to them? Iraq costs a lot of money.

[ShebaPoe]

We were running huge deficits when military spending was $300B. Even if other countries trade with the US because of its military, why is today's level of military spending required?

Trade deficit is higher, so we're getting more bang for our buck, and investing for the future. America, f**k yeah.

Obama care supporters should LOVE military spending. How else cab we run the deficits needed to fund that shit? We're gonna need more military spending for that, and to pay SS to all these retirees.

I assume you're happy about it, so :h5:

[MathinTucson]

Trade deficit is higher, so we're getting more bang for our buck, and investing for the future. America, f**k yeah.

Obama care supporters should LOVE military spending. How else cab we run the deficits needed to fund that shit? We're gonna need more military spending for that, and to pay SS to all these retirees.

I assume you're happy about it, so :h5:

Trade deficit is higher so military spending should be doubled. That's not a strong argument.

Not sure how Obamacare supporters feel about military spending. I can't speak for them. But most Americans worship the military, so most of them probably do like it.

[ShebaPoe]

Trade deficit is higher so military spending should be doubled. That's not a strong argument.



It is, actually.

You want to rob an old lady, you don't need a lot of firepower. Maybe a bat. $20 at Dick's. You want to rob an adult male, probably best to bring a gun. $500. You want to rob an oil kingdom, you're going to need tanks, planes and lots of people. You want to rob a nation of 1.4 billion people? That's going take 11 aircraft carriers, a bunch of subs and a whole lot of nuclear shit.

You can see how it gets expensive, right?

[ubernerd]

So, the strategy is to equalize incomes the same way a lawnmower equalizes grass?

[ShebaPoe]

So, the strategy is to equalize incomes the same way a lawnmower equalizes grass?

Only strategy I endorse is fixing a unit of currency. Like we had in the old days, when a dollar was specified as a quantity of silver, and gold's value was proportional to the unit.

[FormLetter]

That still permits credit to pyramid on top of the currency base.

[ubernerd]

Only strategy I endorse is fixing a unit of currency. Like we had in the old days, when a dollar was specified as a quantity of silver, and gold's value was proportional to the unit.

I was referring to this:
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".

I should have quoted it. The Cloward-Piven strategy seems to be make us all equally poor ("a guaranteed annual income").

On military spending, I agree that the threat of military force is what keeps our counterfeit money scheme going. Still, there might be diminishing marginal returns on military spending. Can we already kick the whole world's ass? Do we need to be able to kick all the asses simultaneously?

[ShebaPoe]

That still permits credit to pyramid on top of the currency base.

Sure. But a dollar of silver can never be devalued. So if the banks go crazy with credit, your silver is still worth a dollar.

[ShebaPoe]

I was referring to this:
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".

I should have quoted it. The Cloward-Piven strategy seems to be make us all equally poor ("a guaranteed annual income").

On military spending, I agree that the threat of military force is what keeps our counterfeit money scheme going. Still, there might be diminishing marginal returns on military spending. Can we already kick the whole world's ass? Do we need to be able to kick all the asses simultaneously?


CP strategy may very well result in the poor being fed into wood-chippers.

Poverty will be here as long as stupidity is here, and we know what Einstein said about that.

[ubernerd]

And this time, they should just pick one metal and not try to peg gold/silver.

[ubernerd]

Sure. But a dollar of silver can never be devalued. So if the banks go crazy with credit, your silver is still worth a dollar.

Darn. Should have quoted again. I'm home sick today and not on my best game.

[MathinTucson]

It is, actually.

You want to rob an old lady, you don't need a lot of firepower. Maybe a bat. $20 at Dick's. You want to rob an adult male, probably best to bring a gun. $500. You want to rob an oil kingdom, you're going to need tanks, planes and lots of people. You want to rob a nation of 1.4 billion people? That's going take 11 aircraft carriers, a bunch of subs and a whole lot of nuclear shit.

You can see how it gets expensive, right?

I see how it gets expensive, but I don't agree that other countries buy Treasuries so that the US won't invade them. Why couldn't you argue that they buy Treasuries for the same reason that US citizens buy them -- they are perceived (correctly or not) as a relatively good investment. People look at history and assume that it will continue -- happens all of the time.

[ShebaPoe]

Stability is an important part of the attractivness of government debt. It's a good investment (at least in part) because...

The US is essentially impervious to that thing that has brought down almost every country: conquest. The US gov is stable (at least in part) because its armed forces keep it stable.

Greece has a similar debt to GDP as the US. Our borrowing costs are lower. Thank you, Pentagon; this saves us hundreds of billions.

[FormLetter]

Sure. But a dollar of silver can never be devalued. So if the banks go crazy with credit, your silver is still worth a dollar.

I think that is wrong, but not entirely wrong. Just partly or mostly wrong. Though I'll allow for the possibility that your use of the word "devalued" wasn't quite what you meant.

So there are 100 oz of silver, and 1 oz = 1 dollar. Good, we have a definition. Now enter the bankster, who reserves their banking all fraction-like (because they didn't get a college degree they can't do algebraic reserve banking, had to stop at fractions), and now there are 400 dollars out there in total. 100 of those are actual silver, while 300 are just paper or 0s and 1s.

If I interpret your post right, you're saying that the silver isn't devalued, so the 100 oz of actual silver still has the same purchasing power. But the credit-based money must also have at least some purchasing power too. So total purchasing power increased, but that's not realistic.

I think the value of the silver dollars actually decreased in terms of purchasing power because now there are 400 dollars out there instead of the original 100.

I'll agree that the actual silver dollars may carry a premium in purchasing power relative to the paper and digital dollars though.

[ubernerd]

I see how it gets expensive, but I don't agree that other countries buy Treasuries so that the US won't invade them. Why couldn't you argue that they buy Treasuries for the same reason that US citizens buy them -- they are perceived (correctly or not) as a relatively good investment. People look at history and assume that it will continue -- happens all of the time.

There has been good reason for other countries to believe that treasuries would be a good investment. The U.S. government, with its military strength, has always had the ability to extract more wealth from its people. This reason has been looking shakier in recent times and China has reacted by reducing their holdings of treasuries.

That U.S. citizens have considered the government's ability to extract wealth from themselves and their neighbors to be a good investment was due to a combination of misinformation, not thinking very hard about it and prisoner's dilemma.

[FormLetter]

So a country has something cool to sell, like petroleum. They sell it, the US buys it, and now they hold some USD. What are they going to do with them besides plow them back into Treasuries?

[wolferine]

So a country has something cool to sell, like petroleum. They sell it, the US buys it, and now they hold some USD. What are they going to do with them besides plow them back into Treasuries?

Get military protection from their enemies?

Does the US have bases in Saudi Arabia?