I'm getting a close up look at the "New" health care system. I've said before, I have Tricare Prime (military insurance, and therefore, government) because my husband gave 20 years to the United States Navy. We have it under him, but I also gave 4 years.
I dealt with breast cancer 6 years ago and defeated it, but now it comes back with both feet. It came back in my lung and on my spine. After 4 months of chemo-therapy, they think I am in remission. BUT, I have lymphadema. I am in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I can not find a lymphadema therapist who will take my insurance, so I am forced to just deal with it. For those who don't know what lymphadema is, it means that my lymph nodes don't drain the fluid out of my arms and they swell up. Think about a finger that got smashed and the blood is collecting under your fingernail. It always feels better when the burn that hole in and let the pressure off. Well, my arms are swollen tight, an I can't go to anyone to relieve the pressure.
And why is this? Because Tricare Prime is about as bad as Medicaid. The government reemburses at a rate of about 19%. Why would they take government insurance?
And just think, pretty soon, every one will be on government insurance. Think about that one for a while.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Japan VS American Welfare
I got to thinking as this terrible tragedy hit Japan...where are the riots? Where is the looting? I remember Katrina. I remember other tragedies that hit the United States, and the takers were taking to the streets to get what ever they could for free. I remember even riots over Rodney King turning into grab-fests. So, what is the difference?
I decided to look up Japan's Welfare system. I found a very interesting article in the New York Times (not the most conservative rag). Here's a direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/world/welfare-as-japan-knows-it-a-family-affair.html
In a nut shell, you don't get any Welfare unless you're over 65. It doesn't say if you can apply if you're disabled or not. It does however, give some statistics. Only 0.7% receive benefits. They compared that to the United States: "compared with the 4.8 percent of Americans who get grants from Aid to Families With Dependent Children or the 9.7 percent who receive food stamps. About 2.3 percent of Americans receive grants through the Supplemental Security Income program, which serves the elderly, blind and disabled." I looked up the population of the United States: 307,212,123. I did the math, that's a total of 16.8%, or 51,611,636.66. That's a lot of people on government aid. I have to wonder how many are here legally, but that's another discussion. My son gets SSI because he's mentally/permanently disabled. If I take his check amount, and multiply it by the number of people on welfare (knowing that a lot of people will make much more than this), I get the outrageous number of $33,444,340,555.68. What is that? $33.4 Billion? I get confused going that high.
The Japanese Welfare system emphasizes family support first. You are to get aid from your family before you go to the government. Can you imagine that working here? I imagine there would be smaller families among the poor, so it wouldn't go over well. Right now we encourage people to have more kids than they can financially support because the more kids you have, the more money you get.
Japan also has a lower unwed pregnancy rate. Theirs is 1% while ours is 30% and climbing. They have fewer drug addicts and their unemployment rate is lower. Perhaps this is due to a higher pride ratio. They have a concept of shame, where I believe America is losing it's concept of shame. Now it's common for some factions of American society to be proud that they can game the system and get money from the government and live without working. The Japanese have a high work ethic.
I am not writing this to be anti-American. I myself have a high work ethic. I learned it from my father (and my mother). But this article states that the way Japan does their Welfare system does not encourage dependence on the government. It actually strengthens family ties. You treat your children well if you know they'll be taking care of you. You treat your parents well if you know you may need to go to them for support should something happen unforeseen financially. If you want to see how our Welfare system has encouraged dependency on the government, suggest taking it away and watch for the riots. And you can't blame it on the socialists. Apparently Japan has a higher redistribution of wealth that we do, too. I'm not sure if that means the government does it, or just generations pass their wealth on to their children instead of spending it.
Perhaps when President Obama looks to cut the budget, he should revamp our Welfare system. I wonder how many millions/billions/trillions he could save if he just made it where you don't get welfare or food stamps unless a doctor determines (on threat of losing his license - gotta remember Wisconsin) that you are disabled? Or what if they only paid for 3 children? I remember when I lived in Missouri, there was a law coming out that they were raising the number of children covered to 8. There were women going out and getting pregnant just so they could deliver under the deadline and get more money from the government. If you pay for 8 children, and someone who isn't married has 8 children just to get benefits, is that right? America with it's Welfare system has raised a generation of takers and gamers. Let's game the government, see if I can get disability and not even try to get a job.
And I know where I'm coming from. I have family (a sister-in-law and her husband) who are dirt poor. They currently live with his grandmother. If I weren't paying 2 mortgages, I'd support them more. They try hard. He goes from job to job, but at least he tries to work. He has too much pride to apply for any government aid. When he has a job, he has money, when he's between jobs, he doesn't. We gave them a huge food basket (from all members of the family) for Christmas. I don't usually help out with money, because she's not very responsible with cash, but we do with other things.
It's time America took responsibility for it's own. We need to help out our family members and try to shame people that are on assistance. I remember when people would try to hide the fact that they were paying with food stamps. Now it looks like any other credit card. Perhaps all the cashiers could say, "Oh, is this food stamps?" when they take the payment.
I decided to look up Japan's Welfare system. I found a very interesting article in the New York Times (not the most conservative rag). Here's a direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/world/welfare-as-japan-knows-it-a-family-affair.html
In a nut shell, you don't get any Welfare unless you're over 65. It doesn't say if you can apply if you're disabled or not. It does however, give some statistics. Only 0.7% receive benefits. They compared that to the United States: "compared with the 4.8 percent of Americans who get grants from Aid to Families With Dependent Children or the 9.7 percent who receive food stamps. About 2.3 percent of Americans receive grants through the Supplemental Security Income program, which serves the elderly, blind and disabled." I looked up the population of the United States: 307,212,123. I did the math, that's a total of 16.8%, or 51,611,636.66. That's a lot of people on government aid. I have to wonder how many are here legally, but that's another discussion. My son gets SSI because he's mentally/permanently disabled. If I take his check amount, and multiply it by the number of people on welfare (knowing that a lot of people will make much more than this), I get the outrageous number of $33,444,340,555.68. What is that? $33.4 Billion? I get confused going that high.
The Japanese Welfare system emphasizes family support first. You are to get aid from your family before you go to the government. Can you imagine that working here? I imagine there would be smaller families among the poor, so it wouldn't go over well. Right now we encourage people to have more kids than they can financially support because the more kids you have, the more money you get.
Japan also has a lower unwed pregnancy rate. Theirs is 1% while ours is 30% and climbing. They have fewer drug addicts and their unemployment rate is lower. Perhaps this is due to a higher pride ratio. They have a concept of shame, where I believe America is losing it's concept of shame. Now it's common for some factions of American society to be proud that they can game the system and get money from the government and live without working. The Japanese have a high work ethic.
I am not writing this to be anti-American. I myself have a high work ethic. I learned it from my father (and my mother). But this article states that the way Japan does their Welfare system does not encourage dependence on the government. It actually strengthens family ties. You treat your children well if you know they'll be taking care of you. You treat your parents well if you know you may need to go to them for support should something happen unforeseen financially. If you want to see how our Welfare system has encouraged dependency on the government, suggest taking it away and watch for the riots. And you can't blame it on the socialists. Apparently Japan has a higher redistribution of wealth that we do, too. I'm not sure if that means the government does it, or just generations pass their wealth on to their children instead of spending it.
Perhaps when President Obama looks to cut the budget, he should revamp our Welfare system. I wonder how many millions/billions/trillions he could save if he just made it where you don't get welfare or food stamps unless a doctor determines (on threat of losing his license - gotta remember Wisconsin) that you are disabled? Or what if they only paid for 3 children? I remember when I lived in Missouri, there was a law coming out that they were raising the number of children covered to 8. There were women going out and getting pregnant just so they could deliver under the deadline and get more money from the government. If you pay for 8 children, and someone who isn't married has 8 children just to get benefits, is that right? America with it's Welfare system has raised a generation of takers and gamers. Let's game the government, see if I can get disability and not even try to get a job.
And I know where I'm coming from. I have family (a sister-in-law and her husband) who are dirt poor. They currently live with his grandmother. If I weren't paying 2 mortgages, I'd support them more. They try hard. He goes from job to job, but at least he tries to work. He has too much pride to apply for any government aid. When he has a job, he has money, when he's between jobs, he doesn't. We gave them a huge food basket (from all members of the family) for Christmas. I don't usually help out with money, because she's not very responsible with cash, but we do with other things.
It's time America took responsibility for it's own. We need to help out our family members and try to shame people that are on assistance. I remember when people would try to hide the fact that they were paying with food stamps. Now it looks like any other credit card. Perhaps all the cashiers could say, "Oh, is this food stamps?" when they take the payment.
Friday, March 11, 2011
My views on Capitalism
First, here's the definition of Capitalism from Answers.com: Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
First, you have to wonder what a free market is. Here's Answers.com definition of a free market: Free Market: An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Now, you have to ask yourself, is America actually based on a free market? Do you know (I don't) how many regulations are attached to every transaction we make? I don't know any small business owners except my husband's boss. We have been restricted until business are chocked. I took a business class a couple years back and it said that America is actually a mixed market.
And the definition of a mixed economy? Mixed economy: An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises.
So, that does explain what we have better. In a free market, if someone fails in their business, they file bankruptcy. They tried, and the market wouldn't support what they wanted to do. They can analyze before they go under and try different things to prop it up. Maybe they picked the wrong product, maybe their prices are wrong, etc. But the point is, the government isn't involved.
Then, there's something fairly new to me: State Capitalism. Here's a definition from Wordnet: an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production
I fear that's what our country is headed to. President Obama was not raised in America, so he's not fond of Capitalism. I somehow think he would love State Capitalism, because his actions say that he doesn't think the American people are smart enough to handle their own affairs. How do I come to this conclusion? He bailed out the banks. If a few banks fail, others will come in and do the job. We won't be left with no banks. He bailed out General Motors. If the people were happy about this, they would not have nicked name it Government Motors. There have been car companies that failed in the past. My dad had a Studebaker (actually 2 at different times). I did a web search and found the following site http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1002/gallery.failed_car_companies.fortune/index.html It lists 6 car companies that failed. The first one they talk about is Crosley Motors (1939 - 1952). He developed a car that was sold in Department stores for $250 and got 50 miles to the gallon. I suppose it wasn't consumer need that made that one go out. It was probably the big 3 squeezed him out of existence. Can't have a car that cheap that gets that good of gas mileage. The rest are the Tucker Corporation (1944 - 1949), Cunningham Motors (1950 - 1955), DeLorean Motor Company (1975 - 1982), and Vector Motors (1971 - 1993). (One was based in Canada, so I left it off.)
Companies come and go. That's capitalism. If you can't cut it, you're out. But for the government to step in and take over the company, and lets not be naive, when they give money for a bail out, they are in control. If someone gives me millions of dollars so my business doesn't fail, you better believe I feel obligated to listen to them. I found one article that said that credit card companies have been bailed out, too. If you have more than $10,000 in debt, they can reduce it because the federal government is paying them. That means that I am paying for someone else's credit card debt with my taxes. That's not a free market, or even a mixed economy. That's socialism and redistribution of wealth.
So back to capitalism. If I want to buy something, lets just say I need the services of a doctor. In a free market, I could pick the doctor that charges the least amount, go to him and pay in in cash, or set up a payment plan with HIM. But, since we are a mixed economy or even edging close to socialism, I can't do that. I have to go to my insurance company who then tells me who is in their system. In my case with military insurance, it's who is willing to accept the pittance of amount of money the government will pay them. The variety of doctors I can go to is getting smaller and smaller.
Using that same example, if the doctors charge to much, no one will come to them, and they won't be able to make payroll. They'll be forced to lower their prices to attract clients.
But this administration (and to be fair, a few previous to this one) are choking us with regulations and restrictions until we are not a free market. They claim that capitalism is dead and doesn't work, and yet, they don't give the proper atmosphere for it to thrive. The definition at the beginning is not in effect now. No wonder we have problems.
First, you have to wonder what a free market is. Here's Answers.com definition of a free market: Free Market: An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Now, you have to ask yourself, is America actually based on a free market? Do you know (I don't) how many regulations are attached to every transaction we make? I don't know any small business owners except my husband's boss. We have been restricted until business are chocked. I took a business class a couple years back and it said that America is actually a mixed market.
And the definition of a mixed economy? Mixed economy: An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises.
So, that does explain what we have better. In a free market, if someone fails in their business, they file bankruptcy. They tried, and the market wouldn't support what they wanted to do. They can analyze before they go under and try different things to prop it up. Maybe they picked the wrong product, maybe their prices are wrong, etc. But the point is, the government isn't involved.
Then, there's something fairly new to me: State Capitalism. Here's a definition from Wordnet: an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production
I fear that's what our country is headed to. President Obama was not raised in America, so he's not fond of Capitalism. I somehow think he would love State Capitalism, because his actions say that he doesn't think the American people are smart enough to handle their own affairs. How do I come to this conclusion? He bailed out the banks. If a few banks fail, others will come in and do the job. We won't be left with no banks. He bailed out General Motors. If the people were happy about this, they would not have nicked name it Government Motors. There have been car companies that failed in the past. My dad had a Studebaker (actually 2 at different times). I did a web search and found the following site http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1002/gallery.failed_car_companies.fortune/index.html It lists 6 car companies that failed. The first one they talk about is Crosley Motors (1939 - 1952). He developed a car that was sold in Department stores for $250 and got 50 miles to the gallon. I suppose it wasn't consumer need that made that one go out. It was probably the big 3 squeezed him out of existence. Can't have a car that cheap that gets that good of gas mileage. The rest are the Tucker Corporation (1944 - 1949), Cunningham Motors (1950 - 1955), DeLorean Motor Company (1975 - 1982), and Vector Motors (1971 - 1993). (One was based in Canada, so I left it off.)
Companies come and go. That's capitalism. If you can't cut it, you're out. But for the government to step in and take over the company, and lets not be naive, when they give money for a bail out, they are in control. If someone gives me millions of dollars so my business doesn't fail, you better believe I feel obligated to listen to them. I found one article that said that credit card companies have been bailed out, too. If you have more than $10,000 in debt, they can reduce it because the federal government is paying them. That means that I am paying for someone else's credit card debt with my taxes. That's not a free market, or even a mixed economy. That's socialism and redistribution of wealth.
So back to capitalism. If I want to buy something, lets just say I need the services of a doctor. In a free market, I could pick the doctor that charges the least amount, go to him and pay in in cash, or set up a payment plan with HIM. But, since we are a mixed economy or even edging close to socialism, I can't do that. I have to go to my insurance company who then tells me who is in their system. In my case with military insurance, it's who is willing to accept the pittance of amount of money the government will pay them. The variety of doctors I can go to is getting smaller and smaller.
Using that same example, if the doctors charge to much, no one will come to them, and they won't be able to make payroll. They'll be forced to lower their prices to attract clients.
But this administration (and to be fair, a few previous to this one) are choking us with regulations and restrictions until we are not a free market. They claim that capitalism is dead and doesn't work, and yet, they don't give the proper atmosphere for it to thrive. The definition at the beginning is not in effect now. No wonder we have problems.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Tax the rich more?
I just did my taxes. No, I'm not the rich, and I am not poor enough to qualify for earned income credit. I fall right in the middle. The working class that unions are trying to incite. I decided to do a little research on the brackets and a few other things.
Here are the tax brackets:
Not over $16,750 ($8 an hour) 10% (single $8,375 which is $4 an hour)
$16,750 - $68,000 ($8-32.69) 15% ($8,375-34,000 $4-16.35)
$68,000 -$137,300 ($32.69-66) 25% (34,000-82,400 $16.35-39.62)
$137,300-$209,250 ($66-100.60) 28% ($82,400-171,850 $39.62-82.62)
$209,250-373,650 ($100.60-179.64 33% ($171,850-373,650 $82.62-179.64)
over $373,650 (over $179.64) 35% over $373,650 (over $179.64)
I notice a couple things in this. First, the single rate for the 10% and the lower part of the 15% bracket are below the minimum wage (Federal is $7.25, and I'll list the states that have a higher one later in this post). That means that they probably get it all back. They don't ACTUALLY pay 10-15% of their wages in. Possibly that's why there's such a big jump between the first 2 brackets. It doesn't matter what you put on the first one, they get it back. Let's put this in perspective and subtract the percentage from the higher amounts of these:
$16,750 would be $1,675, but they more than likely get it back.
$68,000 would be $10,395 and unless they're creative, they don't get it back.
$137,300 would be $34,325 which is half way into the second bracket!
$209,250 would be $58,590 and we're just $10,000 short of the yearly wage of the 3rd bracket.
$373,650 would be $130,777.50 (and I had to do that one twice!).
Now, I'm not sure (because I'm not a tax expert) whether you pay that higher percentage on the whole wage, or you pay the lower tax on the first part, then the higher bracket on what's in that level, etc. I wouldn't doubt that they make it that complicated. That lowers it a little bit. For instance, the $209,250 would end up paying only $43,000 a year instead of $58,590. Oooh, big tax break.
So, after figuring the hourly wage for each, I wondered what the minimum wage was. I didn't realize that a state could institute a higher minimum wage than the Federal one. Federal minimum wage is $7.25. The following states have a higher minimum wage, listed with their actual minimum wage:
Alaska $7.75
Arizona $7.35
California $8.00
Colorado $7.36
Connecticut $8.25
Illinois $8.25
Maine $7.50
Massachusetts $8.00
Michigan $7.40
Montana $7.35
Nevada $8.25
New Mexico $7.50
Ohio $7.40
Oregon $8.50
Rhode Island $7.50
Vermont $8.15
Washington $8.67
American Samoa $2.68-4.69
Washington, D.C $8.25
Guam $7.26
N. Mariana Is. $3.55
Puerto Rico $5.08-7.25
U.S. Virgin Is. $7.25 (unless you're a small business, then $4.30)
Now do you wonder why the Territories don't want to become states? The government and businesses would lose money big time. In Puerto Rico, if a company makes less than $250,000 a year, they don't have to pay attention to that nasty little minimum wage thing, and only need to pay $4.30. I can also see why people from American Samoa come here.
Taking this a little further, I decided to see what the qualifications for Earned Income Credit were. This you won't believe:
$13,460 (single) - $18,470 (married) no children ($6.47-8.88 an hour) Credit $457
$35,535 - $40,545 1 child ($17.08-19.49) $3,050
$40,363 - $45,373 2 children ($19.41-21.81) $5,036
$43,352 - $48,362 3 children ($20.84-23.25) $5,666
And better yet, here's what qualifies you for earned income credit, and can be counted as a dependant child:
Can be son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister or descendant of any of them. They have to be under 19 or under 24 and a full time student.
Oooh, let me move my nephew in and qualify for earned income credit. That would raise the amount I could earn because I only have one qualifying child. I could have taken over $5,000 off my taxes. What a crock. And the left says the tax breaks go to the rich?
Here are the tax brackets:
Not over $16,750 ($8 an hour) 10% (single $8,375 which is $4 an hour)
$16,750 - $68,000 ($8-32.69) 15% ($8,375-34,000 $4-16.35)
$68,000 -$137,300 ($32.69-66) 25% (34,000-82,400 $16.35-39.62)
$137,300-$209,250 ($66-100.60) 28% ($82,400-171,850 $39.62-82.62)
$209,250-373,650 ($100.60-179.64 33% ($171,850-373,650 $82.62-179.64)
over $373,650 (over $179.64) 35% over $373,650 (over $179.64)
I notice a couple things in this. First, the single rate for the 10% and the lower part of the 15% bracket are below the minimum wage (Federal is $7.25, and I'll list the states that have a higher one later in this post). That means that they probably get it all back. They don't ACTUALLY pay 10-15% of their wages in. Possibly that's why there's such a big jump between the first 2 brackets. It doesn't matter what you put on the first one, they get it back. Let's put this in perspective and subtract the percentage from the higher amounts of these:
$16,750 would be $1,675, but they more than likely get it back.
$68,000 would be $10,395 and unless they're creative, they don't get it back.
$137,300 would be $34,325 which is half way into the second bracket!
$209,250 would be $58,590 and we're just $10,000 short of the yearly wage of the 3rd bracket.
$373,650 would be $130,777.50 (and I had to do that one twice!).
Now, I'm not sure (because I'm not a tax expert) whether you pay that higher percentage on the whole wage, or you pay the lower tax on the first part, then the higher bracket on what's in that level, etc. I wouldn't doubt that they make it that complicated. That lowers it a little bit. For instance, the $209,250 would end up paying only $43,000 a year instead of $58,590. Oooh, big tax break.
So, after figuring the hourly wage for each, I wondered what the minimum wage was. I didn't realize that a state could institute a higher minimum wage than the Federal one. Federal minimum wage is $7.25. The following states have a higher minimum wage, listed with their actual minimum wage:
Alaska $7.75
Arizona $7.35
California $8.00
Colorado $7.36
Connecticut $8.25
Illinois $8.25
Maine $7.50
Massachusetts $8.00
Michigan $7.40
Montana $7.35
Nevada $8.25
New Mexico $7.50
Ohio $7.40
Oregon $8.50
Rhode Island $7.50
Vermont $8.15
Washington $8.67
American Samoa $2.68-4.69
Washington, D.C $8.25
Guam $7.26
N. Mariana Is. $3.55
Puerto Rico $5.08-7.25
U.S. Virgin Is. $7.25 (unless you're a small business, then $4.30)
Now do you wonder why the Territories don't want to become states? The government and businesses would lose money big time. In Puerto Rico, if a company makes less than $250,000 a year, they don't have to pay attention to that nasty little minimum wage thing, and only need to pay $4.30. I can also see why people from American Samoa come here.
Taking this a little further, I decided to see what the qualifications for Earned Income Credit were. This you won't believe:
$13,460 (single) - $18,470 (married) no children ($6.47-8.88 an hour) Credit $457
$35,535 - $40,545 1 child ($17.08-19.49) $3,050
$40,363 - $45,373 2 children ($19.41-21.81) $5,036
$43,352 - $48,362 3 children ($20.84-23.25) $5,666
And better yet, here's what qualifies you for earned income credit, and can be counted as a dependant child:
Can be son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister or descendant of any of them. They have to be under 19 or under 24 and a full time student.
Oooh, let me move my nephew in and qualify for earned income credit. That would raise the amount I could earn because I only have one qualifying child. I could have taken over $5,000 off my taxes. What a crock. And the left says the tax breaks go to the rich?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Cloward and Piven
How many people (beyond watchers of Glenn Beck) have heard of Cloward and Piven, or the the Cloward-Piven strategy? Better yet, why are the other major talk radio hosts not talking about it? This is not a conspiracy theory. Francis Fox Piven is not some sweet little old lady that Glenn Beck is just picking on. When he says that she's the most dangerous woman in America, he doesn't mean she's physically imposing. It's her policies that have the ear of Presidents.
In case you haven't heard of her policies, there's a web site that goes into detail on them. http://cloward-piven.com/ There's an even more extensive article (using the following same quote) here: http://www.canadaka.net/forums/us-politics-f18/the-cloward-piven-strategy-to-implement-socialist-revolution-t8516.html
Here's a quote grabbed from the site: Quote:
Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.
The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.
Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute.
On August 11, 1965, the black district of Watts in Los Angeles exploded into violence, after police used batons to subdue a man suspected of drunk driving. Riots raged for six days, spilling over into other parts of the city, and leaving 34 dead. Two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were inspired by the riots to develop a new strategy for social change. In November 1965 - barely three months after the fires of Watts had subsided - Cloward and Piven began privately circulating copies of an article they had written called "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later (on May 2, 1966), it was published in The Nation, under the title, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."
Their whole premise was that if you collapsed the Welfare system, the poor would be angry that their entitlements were gone and rise up in protest, and take over the government. They knew that there weren't enough communists at the time to do this, they had to "use" the poor for their own needs. Isn't this the definition of slavery? They were using the poor (both black and white, anyone on welfare) as useful idiots.
Our nation went through a Great Depression in the late 20's early 30's. I tried to google Great Depression Riots, and only found that they demonstrated. I saw pictures of protests with signs, but there was no violence. The article said that there were some local riots, but the pictures were of people holding signs. That's a peaceful demonstration. If the people today (specifically in Wisconsin) walked around holding signs (can you say Tea Party?) I would have no argument. But they're trying to burn our country to the ground.
Have any of you seen Aliens 2? The Union bosses are like Burke....as Ripley said, "You sent those people in there without telling them what was there?" The Union bosses are telling them things to incite them, without telling 1) the truth or 2) what could happen should they get what they're asking for. Have you ever wondered what would happen if this form of government we have right now collapsed? What I can't figure out is why the anarchists are working with communists and Marxists. Anarchy is the lack of all government. Communism is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Marxism is "the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."
So, why would they all unite in America? Because, 1) they hate capitalism, but they are willing to use it to make themselves rich (kick the ladder out when they get to the top) and 2) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Have you considered what will happen once this system of America does collapse? They will all start fighting to instill their form of government. There are subtle differences between Marxism and Communism, but they are not a Republic. Do you think the people will be happy with either of these? Do you think these Idealists who are currently pushing for these forms of governments are going to be exempt from the oppression? Doubt it.
And that's why Piven is so dangerous. She's doing the same thing. She just flat out hates America as it is currently. She wants socialism. But we tried socialism in America already, it's just not taught in our schools anymore. The Jamestown colony started out as a socialism project. They decided that 1/3 would farm, 1/3 would look for gold and 1/3 would defend the colony. Do you know what happened? Everyone slipped out to look for gold. No one worked on the crops and they almost starved. I have forgotten for right now what his name was, but a Captain came in, and saw the problem. He granted OWNERSHIP of land to everyone, only requiring that they put 1/10th of their crops into the public store for winter. If everyone can draw from the store what they need without working, they won't work. It's human nature to not work. That's why welfare is so dangerous. That's why disability is so dangerous. That's why unlimited unemployment is so dangerous. Do I think all of these should be cut out? No. But there should be time limits on Welfare and Unemployment. It should be harder to get disability. Do you even need to prove anything anymore? I've seen people that I was shocked they were on disability. They looked perfectly able to me to work. Makes me almost want to claim disability for epilepsy. I could probably get it. But, if you have unlimited Welfare, why look for a job? You probably get more on Welfare with food stamps than you could from a minimum wage job. I've seen people on government assistance with better stuff than me. I mean I-phones, high end shoes and clothes, fancy hair cuts/weaves. Then the socialists say that the problem is all of our stuff. Look at who has the stuff! If you look at the average working class (and I don't include color in that statement because I lived in a mostly black working class neighborhood in Missouri) and they live within their means, are proud that they bought a house and keep it up well, and they only have what they can afford. The Unions are trying to get these people to envy the "rich" when they should be looking at the Welfare state and wondering why they have so much more than the working class. They would actually be happier if the working class could become dependent on Welfare. And that brings us back to Piven. If all the working class lost their jobs, because the Unions win at getting a "living wage," they would have to go on welfare. Where is the pride in that? When I was growing up, it was a shameful thing to be on food stamps. But now they made it just like a debit card, who knows you're on food stamps? I think if I were a cashier, I would say in a loud voice every time, "OH, is this food stamps?" We need to work on shaming these people that they are 3rd generation welfare recipients and make work the ethic again.
In case you haven't heard of her policies, there's a web site that goes into detail on them. http://cloward-piven.com/ There's an even more extensive article (using the following same quote) here: http://www.canadaka.net/forums/us-politics-f18/the-cloward-piven-strategy-to-implement-socialist-revolution-t8516.html
Here's a quote grabbed from the site: Quote:
Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.
The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.
Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute.
On August 11, 1965, the black district of Watts in Los Angeles exploded into violence, after police used batons to subdue a man suspected of drunk driving. Riots raged for six days, spilling over into other parts of the city, and leaving 34 dead. Two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were inspired by the riots to develop a new strategy for social change. In November 1965 - barely three months after the fires of Watts had subsided - Cloward and Piven began privately circulating copies of an article they had written called "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later (on May 2, 1966), it was published in The Nation, under the title, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."
Their whole premise was that if you collapsed the Welfare system, the poor would be angry that their entitlements were gone and rise up in protest, and take over the government. They knew that there weren't enough communists at the time to do this, they had to "use" the poor for their own needs. Isn't this the definition of slavery? They were using the poor (both black and white, anyone on welfare) as useful idiots.
Our nation went through a Great Depression in the late 20's early 30's. I tried to google Great Depression Riots, and only found that they demonstrated. I saw pictures of protests with signs, but there was no violence. The article said that there were some local riots, but the pictures were of people holding signs. That's a peaceful demonstration. If the people today (specifically in Wisconsin) walked around holding signs (can you say Tea Party?) I would have no argument. But they're trying to burn our country to the ground.
Have any of you seen Aliens 2? The Union bosses are like Burke....as Ripley said, "You sent those people in there without telling them what was there?" The Union bosses are telling them things to incite them, without telling 1) the truth or 2) what could happen should they get what they're asking for. Have you ever wondered what would happen if this form of government we have right now collapsed? What I can't figure out is why the anarchists are working with communists and Marxists. Anarchy is the lack of all government. Communism is "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Marxism is "the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."
So, why would they all unite in America? Because, 1) they hate capitalism, but they are willing to use it to make themselves rich (kick the ladder out when they get to the top) and 2) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Have you considered what will happen once this system of America does collapse? They will all start fighting to instill their form of government. There are subtle differences between Marxism and Communism, but they are not a Republic. Do you think the people will be happy with either of these? Do you think these Idealists who are currently pushing for these forms of governments are going to be exempt from the oppression? Doubt it.
And that's why Piven is so dangerous. She's doing the same thing. She just flat out hates America as it is currently. She wants socialism. But we tried socialism in America already, it's just not taught in our schools anymore. The Jamestown colony started out as a socialism project. They decided that 1/3 would farm, 1/3 would look for gold and 1/3 would defend the colony. Do you know what happened? Everyone slipped out to look for gold. No one worked on the crops and they almost starved. I have forgotten for right now what his name was, but a Captain came in, and saw the problem. He granted OWNERSHIP of land to everyone, only requiring that they put 1/10th of their crops into the public store for winter. If everyone can draw from the store what they need without working, they won't work. It's human nature to not work. That's why welfare is so dangerous. That's why disability is so dangerous. That's why unlimited unemployment is so dangerous. Do I think all of these should be cut out? No. But there should be time limits on Welfare and Unemployment. It should be harder to get disability. Do you even need to prove anything anymore? I've seen people that I was shocked they were on disability. They looked perfectly able to me to work. Makes me almost want to claim disability for epilepsy. I could probably get it. But, if you have unlimited Welfare, why look for a job? You probably get more on Welfare with food stamps than you could from a minimum wage job. I've seen people on government assistance with better stuff than me. I mean I-phones, high end shoes and clothes, fancy hair cuts/weaves. Then the socialists say that the problem is all of our stuff. Look at who has the stuff! If you look at the average working class (and I don't include color in that statement because I lived in a mostly black working class neighborhood in Missouri) and they live within their means, are proud that they bought a house and keep it up well, and they only have what they can afford. The Unions are trying to get these people to envy the "rich" when they should be looking at the Welfare state and wondering why they have so much more than the working class. They would actually be happier if the working class could become dependent on Welfare. And that brings us back to Piven. If all the working class lost their jobs, because the Unions win at getting a "living wage," they would have to go on welfare. Where is the pride in that? When I was growing up, it was a shameful thing to be on food stamps. But now they made it just like a debit card, who knows you're on food stamps? I think if I were a cashier, I would say in a loud voice every time, "OH, is this food stamps?" We need to work on shaming these people that they are 3rd generation welfare recipients and make work the ethic again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)