ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The United States enters a time of great change

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 15 2011, 7:14 am

In other posts, I have talked about socialism as being an economic system in which the workers own and control the means of production. I have also distinguished that from what I called "welfare capitalism". In the context of the above discussion, I suppose that such "welfare capitalism" can be considered to be qualitatively different from "pure capitalism". It has qualities that are different.


Those qualities include the distribution of government welfare benefits to the poor or to those in sudden and severe need of massive medical attention. Such a system can be thought of as improving the economy. Now, I will admit there is room for honest and sincere debate concerning such thinking. Still, it is possible to believe that thought. It is possible that Piven and Cloward believe that thought - particularly in regards to the short term economic well being of "the poor".


Beck's formulation does no even consider that possibility, and instead talks in deeply conspiratorial tones about "collapsing" the economy.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 15 2011, 7:26 am

Aside from economic considerations, there is also another dimension to the discussion engaged in over the last few pages. That is in regards to what I and others would call the legitimacy of any given government. Under social contract theory, any stable government in some way or another functions by the consent of the governed. There is an argument that the welfare programs initiated or greatly expanded in the sixties and early seventies were a result of the need to maintain the government's legitimacy among certain elements of the population.


Why?


1) The non-violent civil rights movement was making demands to redress grievances related to perceived past practices of discrimination and to poverty in general of certain racial groups.


2) Urban areas were beginning to experience riots carried out by the frustrated and the dis-affected.


3) Social tensions in general were being aggravated by the war in Vietnam.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 15 2011, 7:39 am

Scholars like Piven and Cloward noticed what they perceived to be a connection between social disruption and societal willingess to establish or expand welfare programs. They saw that expansion of welfare was occuring in order to maintain the legitimacy of what was otherwise a capitalist state. In a sense, welfare was a means of saving capitalism, and not destroying it. Welfare was being used to regulate the poor, hence the title of their book Regulating the Poor.


The Blaze link you provided and other writings of Frances Fox Piven in a sense are based on a concern that you have expressed. That because government welfare policy is a maater of "regulating" the poor, the welfare receiving poor are no more than dependents of the state. She wants to turn the tables, allow welfare reform to be a means of empowering the poor by establishing a means of organizing them.


Such organization can lead toward socialim, or it can result in greater success amongst the poor in coping and adapting within a capitalist system.


Commenns or questions?

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 15 2011, 7:20 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 15 2011, 7:39 am

>

>Scholars like Piven and Cloward noticed what they perceived to be a connection between social disruption and societal willingess to establish or expand welfare programs. They saw that expansion of welfare was occuring in order to maintain the legitimacy of what was otherwise a capitalist state. In a sense, welfare was a means of saving capitalism, and not destroying it. Welfare was being used to regulate the poor, hence the title of their book Regulating the Poor.

>The Blaze link you provided and other writings of Frances Fox Piven in a sense are based on a concern that you have expressed. That because government welfare policy is a maater of "regulating" the poor, the welfare receiving poor are no more than dependents of the state. She wants to turn the tables, allow welfare reform to be a means of empowering the poor by establishing a means of organizing them.

>Such organization can lead toward socialim, or it can result in greater success amongst the poor in coping and adapting within a capitalist system.

>Commenns or questions?

>


 


I think I have discovered the reason for our disagreement.


Conservatives believe the following to be facts:


1. The US was set up to be a free market system.  It is in the Constitution that we must have a republic in which people are guaranteed the right to what they own. The Founders wrote that we must not allow people's personal property to be taken away by government.  (This is essential to our beliefs, as essential and important as the right to life.)


2. Any system of government or economy that undermines #1 is by definition overthrowing the economy.  


3. A system that redistributes wealth is the ultimate Anti-Capitalism (like the Anti-Christ, or the Great Satan in the Muslim religion), in that it does two things:


a) It forces people to give up what they earn to others, which is directly against #1.


b) Because people are inherently lazy (we believe this to be a fact) unless they have some kind of incentive to work (we also believe this to be a fact), a guaranteed income will hold those people down at a lower level and make it impossible for them to ever gain ground in their economic standing.


4. The only way that America will work is if we are a meritocracy.  The minute we stop being a meritocracy, everything we know will fall apart because our entire system of government is set up to govern people who function in a meritocracy.  Our system of government cannot function in a socialist system, so it would need to be changed to something other than a constitutional republic in order to work.


 


If you believed these things to be facts, would you see why we think that Glenn Beck is correct when he made the assertions he did about Piven?  I should add that we also believe it to be a fact, based on Piven's other writings and her affiliations, that she knows all of the above and still willingly accepts her views because she wants an overthrow of the current system.  We also believe that many of the people our President surrounds himself with believe the same thing Piven does, based on their writings and their speeches.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 16 2011, 6:21 am

I don't think I will have time to address all of your points, but let me start and perhaps I will finish up later.


starfleet_officer1: "Conservatives believe the following to be facts:"


caltrek2: Excellent formulation. We are now comparing beliefs. 


 


1. (Conservatives believe) The US was set up to be a free market system.  It is in the Constitution that we must have a republic in which people are guaranteed the right to what they own. The Founders wrote that we must not allow people's personal property to be taken away by government.  (This is essential to our beliefs, as essential and important as the right to life.)


caltrek2: Yes, even many liberals believe the Constitution was in part about property rights. It was also about rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, etc.


2. Any system of government or economy that undermines #1 is by definition overthrowing the economy.  


Well, remember that the Constitution itself provides for the ability to amend that document. It also has an emphasis on due process, implying that there are circumstances where property can be seized: as a penalty for a crime, for example. Moreover, changes have been made since the the 18th century. Founders like Jefferson beleived that a periodic revolution was probably not a bad idea.


3. "A system that redistributes wealth is the ultimate Anti-Capitalism (like the Anti-Christ, or the Great Satan in the Muslim religion), in that it does two things:


a) It forces people to give up what they earn to others, which is directly against #1."


caltrek2: Yes, that is what many conservatives believe.


"b) Because people are inherently lazy (we believe this to be a fact) unless they have some kind of incentive to work (we also believe this to be a fact), a guaranteed income will hold those people down at a lower level and make it impossible for them to ever gain ground in their economic standing."


Also what conservtaives believe. Others disagree. Socialists, for example, maintain that it is not so much laziness that is the problem, but the"fact" that workers are alienated from the product of their work. This econmic alienation results in psychological alienation as well. Even liberals believe that some forms of work can be rewarding. The performing arts for eample, wherein entertainers not only entertain there audiences, but find enjoyment themselves.


My wife's cousin's are retired and not in need of additional money. Yet they have a hobby of making wood items of craft: mail boxes, bird feeders, wood file boxes etc. THey make these items in part because of the sheer enjoyment of collaborating. The husband builds the objects from srcatch, the wife paints them. They then sell them, unconcerned about whether people actually buy them. Because of their lack of concern at maximizing their profit, they sell there items at very reasonable prices. They could not live off of the profits, but they have other sources of income, so that is not a concern.


"4. The only way that America will work is if we are a meritocracy.  The minute we stop being a meritocracy, everything we know will fall apart because our entire system of government is set up to govern people who function in a meritocracy.  Our system of government cannot function in a socialist system, so it would need to be changed to something other than a constitutional republic in order to work."


China is also a meritocracy. Indeed, there are forms of socialism that are meritocracies. The difference is that it is not a market place where merit is compared, but tools such as exams.  Even in the United States, being able to call yourself a licensed engimneer, real estate agent, or attorney very much depends upon your ability to demonstrate certain basic knowledge.


"If you believed these things to be facts, would you see why we think that Glenn Beck is correct when he made the assertions he did about Piven?"


No, because you have still not demonstrated that Piven intended to "collapse the economy."  To plan to do something usually is taken as meaning that you intend to accomplish a certain goal. Their is no evidence presented to date showing that intent. If Beck is going to use words in a manner where the meaning is not the usal meaning, then he may as well be talking a forieign language, or perhaps sepaking in code. If he is speaking in code, then it is doubly ironic that he is hatching all of his conspriacty theories.


"I should add that we also believe it to be a fact, based on Piven's other writings and her affiliations, that she knows all of the above and still willingly accepts her views because she wants an overthrow of the current system."


Againn not demonstrated by any evidence presented to date. At best, you have presented evidence that Piven understands what conservatives believe, but that is a far cry from the idea that Piven shares those beliefs. "Overthrow" is a strong word, she ceratinly does want to see changes. Does anybody who believe in making any changes a radical bent on "overthrowing" the existing system?  
 


 

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 16 2011, 1:43 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 16 2011, 6:21 am

>

>I don't think I will have time to address all of your points, but let me start and perhaps I will finish up later.

>starfleet_officer1: "Conservatives believe the following to be facts:"

>caltrek2: Excellent formulation. We are now comparing beliefs. 

>1. (Conservatives believe) The US was set up to be a free market system.  It is in the Constitution that we must have a republic in which people are guaranteed the right to what they own. The Founders wrote that we must not allow people's personal property to be taken away by government.  (This is essential to our beliefs, as essential and important as the right to life.)

>caltrek2: Yes, even many liberals believe the Constitution was in part about property rights. It was also about rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

>2. Any system of government or economy that undermines #1 is by definition overthrowing the economy.  

>Well, remember that the Constitution itself provides for the ability to amend that document. It also has an emphasis on due process, implying that there are circumstances where property can be seized: as a penalty for a crime, for example. Moreover, changes have been made since the the 18th century. Founders like Jefferson beleived that a periodic revolution was probably not a bad idea.

>3. "A system that redistributes wealth is the ultimate Anti-Capitalism (like the Anti-Christ, or the Great Satan in the Muslim religion), in that it does two things:

>a) It forces people to give up what they earn to others, which is directly against #1."

>caltrek2: Yes, that is what many conservatives believe.

>"b) Because people are inherently lazy (we believe this to be a fact) unless they have some kind of incentive to work (we also believe this to be a fact), a guaranteed income will hold those people down at a lower level and make it impossible for them to ever gain ground in their economic standing."

>Also what conservtaives believe. Others disagree. Socialists, for example, maintain that it is not so much laziness that is the problem, but the"fact" that workers are alienated from the product of their work. This econmic alienation results in psychological alienation as well. Even liberals believe that some forms of work can be rewarding. The performing arts for eample, wherein entertainers not only entertain there audiences, but find enjoyment themselves.

>My wife's cousin's are retired and not in need of additional money. Yet they have a hobby of making wood items of craft: mail boxes, bird feeders, wood file boxes etc. THey make these items in part because of the sheer enjoyment of collaborating. The husband builds the objects from srcatch, the wife paints them. They then sell them, unconcerned about whether people actually buy them. Because of their lack of concern at maximizing their profit, they sell there items at very reasonable prices. They could not live off of the profits, but they have other sources of income, so that is not a concern.

>"4. The only way that America will work is if we are a meritocracy.  The minute we stop being a meritocracy, everything we know will fall apart because our entire system of government is set up to govern people who function in a meritocracy.  Our system of government cannot function in a socialist system, so it would need to be changed to something other than a constitutional republic in order to work."

>China is also a meritocracy. Indeed, there are forms of socialism that are meritocracies. The difference is that it is not a market place where merit is compared, but tools such as exams.  Even in the United States, being able to call yourself a licensed engimneer, real estate agent, or attorney very much depends upon your ability to demonstrate certain basic knowledge.

>"If you believed these things to be facts, would you see why we think that Glenn Beck is correct when he made the assertions he did about Piven?"

>No, because you have still not demonstrated that Piven intended to "collapse the economy."  To plan to do something usually is taken as meaning that you intend to accomplish a certain goal. Their is no evidence presented to date showing that intent. If Beck is going to use words in a manner where the meaning is not the usal meaning, then he may as well be talking a forieign language, or perhaps sepaking in code. If he is speaking in code, then it is doubly ironic that he is hatching all of his conspriacty theories.

>"I should add that we also believe it to be a fact, based on Piven's other writings and her affiliations, that she knows all of the above and still willingly accepts her views because she wants an overthrow of the current system."

>Againn not demonstrated by any evidence presented to date. At best, you have presented evidence that Piven understands what conservatives believe, but that is a far cry from the idea that Piven shares those beliefs. "Overthrow" is a strong word, she ceratinly does want to see changes. Does anybody who believe in making any changes a radical bent on "overthrowing" the existing system?  

>


Well, YES, people who believe in changing our economy from a capitalist system to anything other than a capitalist system ARE overthrowing the existing system.  That is the reason why Beck, most conservatives, and I all believe that Piven's statements are knowingly planning to overthrow the economy.  Especially considering that she doesn't want to do it through popular vote, or using the judicial system that was set up in the Constitution, but instead proposes to do it by creating a crisis, overwhelming the welfare system, and revamping it so that it is redistribution of wealth on a federal level (banning the states from having any say).  This is absolutely a plan to overthrow the economy.  

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 16 2011, 5:27 pm

"Well, YES, people who believe in changing our economy from a capitalist system to anything other than a capitalist system ARE overthrowing the existing system."


caltrek2: I see you have decided to totally ignore my distinction between "welfare capitalism" and "pure capitalism".  


In any event, the economy has already been changed to allow for welfare payments to be made to the poor. All Piven wants to do is increase the amount of distribution, a quantitative change as opposed to a qualitative change.


Now, if even quantitative changes result in overthrowing the system, then virtually anybody promoting any change in economic policy is guilty, if it can be called that, of wanting to overthrow the existing system. So the overwhelming majority of adults want to overthrow the system in one way or another. If this is what you are saying, then you are straking out an extremist position in defense of the status quo, and then using language in a manner to make it seem as if it is others who are the extremists.


"That is the reason why Beck, most conservatives, and I all believe that Piven's statements are knowingly planning to overthrow the economy."


caltrek2:  Beck did not say "overthrow", he said "collapse". Please try and pay attention.


"Especially considering that she doesn't want to do it through popular vote, or using the judicial system that was set up in the Constitution, but instead proposes to do it by creating a crisis, overwhelming the welfare system, and revamping it so that it is redistribution of wealth on a federal level (banning the states from having any say)."


Excuse me, but she specifically wrote about the tactics she proposed in the context of the impact that they would have upon elected officials and thier desires to get re-elected. So she very much had in mind the electoral process. She also writes about welfare recipeints asserting their rights under the law to receive benefits, a tactic that is well within the judicial system.


Honestly, did you and I read the same article? 

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 16 2011, 5:42 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 16 2011, 5:27 pm

>

>"Well, YES, people who believe in changing our economy from a capitalist system to anything other than a capitalist system ARE overthrowing the existing system."

>caltrek2: I see you have decided to totally ignore my distinction between "welfare capitalism" and "pure capitalism".  

>In any event, the economy has already been changed to allow for welfare payments to be made to the poor. All Piven wants to do is increase the amount of distribution, a quantitative change as opposed to a qualitative change.

>Now, if even quantitative changes result in overthrowing the system, then virtually anybody promoting any change in economic policy is guilty, if it can be called that, of wanting to overthrow the existing system. So the overwhelming majority of adults want to overthrow the system in one way or another. If this is what you are saying, then you are straking out an extremist position in defense of the status quo, and then using language in a manner to make it seem as if it is others who are the extremists.

>"That is the reason why Beck, most conservatives, and I all believe that Piven's statements are knowingly planning to overthrow the economy."

>caltrek2:  Beck did not say "overthrow", he said "collapse". Please try and pay attention.

>"Especially considering that she doesn't want to do it through popular vote, or using the judicial system that was set up in the Constitution, but instead proposes to do it by creating a crisis, overwhelming the welfare system, and revamping it so that it is redistribution of wealth on a federal level (banning the states from having any say)."

>Excuse me, but she specifically wrote about the tactics she proposed in the context of the impact that they would have upon elected officials and thier desires to get re-elected. So she very much had in mind the electoral process. She also writes about welfare recipeints asserting their rights under the law to receive benefits, a tactic that is well within the judicial system.

>Honestly, did you and I read the same article? 

>


There is no such thing as welfare capitalism.  The welfare state we now see (and its breed that exists in Europe in an even more intense way) is NOT capitalism in any sense of the word.  It is, in fact, an oppressive system that serves to keep an entire class of people down, and ensure that they will continue to vote for the person who enacts it because their choices are to either take their chances with their own abilities (which they have been convinced are not good enough to create wealth) or stick with what they've got, which keeps them alive.


Piven's tactics are not within the acceptable form of changing the economy because she wants to change the economy deviously.  If most Americans vote for socialism, fine--it's voted in and our republic is gone, by our own stupidity.  But for someone to mobilize a largely uneducated population to *create* a crisis, even if the end goal is to get some elected official to vote for policies that she likes, is to circumvent the inherent nature of a representative republic (that is, the representatives REPRESENT the MAJORITY).  


And overthrowing the current capitalist system will collapse the economy.  In fact, we're experiencing it now.  And so is Europe, in an even worse way.  Look at Greece, or Portugal, for example.  They're just further down the road than us.  It is a perfect view into America's future.  Piven wants this to happen because she and her buddies (like Cloward, and Van Jones, and other progressives) believe that the only way that any real change will happen is through a massive crisis like a collapsed economy.  Break it down, build it back up.  I believe that is a universal truth.  In order to rebuild something, it first has to be in a position to be rebuilt.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 17 2011, 6:19 am

"Piven wants this to happen because she and her buddies (like Cloward, and Van Jones, and other progressives) believe that the only way that any real change will happen is through a massive crisis like a collapsed economy."


I suspect that Piven believes that in a collapsed economy the greatest victims would be the poor. So as an advocate for the poor, I can't see her holding the belief you attribute to her. The "massive crisis" she would like to provoke is within the welfare system.


I would also point out that for the poor "crisis" is often a day to day occurence. They have to deal with overwhelimg problems with limited resources at their disposal. I find it interesting how on the one hand you talk about the welfare state as "an oppressive system that serves to keep an entire class of people down" and on the other hand condemn Piven for wanting to "mobilize a largely uneducated population to 'create' a crisis, even if the end goal is to get some elected official to vote for policies that she likes".


Perhaps you and Piven simply diasagree about tactics.  

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 17 2011, 2:30 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 17 2011, 6:19 am

>

>"Piven wants this to happen because she and her buddies (like Cloward, and Van Jones, and other progressives) believe that the only way that any real change will happen is through a massive crisis like a collapsed economy."

>I suspect that Piven believes that in a collapsed economy the greatest victims would be the poor. So as an advocate for the poor, I can't see her holding the belief you attribute to her. The "massive crisis" she would like to provoke is within the welfare system.

>I would also point out that for the poor "crisis" is often a day to day occurence. They have to deal with overwhelimg problems with limited resources at their disposal. I find it interesting how on the one hand you talk about the welfare state as "an oppressive system that serves to keep an entire class of people down" and on the other hand condemn Piven for wanting to "mobilize a largely uneducated population to 'create' a crisis, even if the end goal is to get some elected official to vote for policies that she likes".

>Perhaps you and Piven simply diasagree about tactics.  

>


I completely disagree that Piven thinks an economic collapse would adversely affect the poor.  As you already pointed out, it is a crisis for them already, and she realizes this.  If it can't get any worse, then why not make it worse for everyone else, if it would eventually make the system better?  She believes that a crisis would revamp the system, would revolutionize our capitalist economy to be socialist, and would make everyone equal.  It would pull the poor up, because they can't do it themselves.


You've now moved into the typical Left argument about how the poor have it so bad.  First of all, the poor have it better in this country than any other country, and that is because of capitalism.  Capitalism enables charity, socialism makes the state the only charity.  Americans are the most charitable population in the world, including all governments, including the American government (as stated before in this thread). 


Second of all, the fact that one population have it worse than the majority does not mean that one has the right to circumvent the political process stated in the Constitution, that requires the majority to want to revamp the system in order to revolutionize it.


Third of all, I think you absolutely have a right to believe in whatever tactics you want.  But for you to be advising the President, or for the President to say his greatest advisor is someone who believes the best tactics are the ones that make it so that a minority gets to dictate what the economy looks like...then you have really crossed the line into an impeachable offense.  The President makes an oath to DEFEND and UPHOLD the Constitution.  Of course, this President believes that it is a "document of negative liberties" and that we need to find a way around it.  So I suppose his oath pretty much meant nothing.


Finally, I don't know why you find it "interesting" that the welfare state is an oppressive system that keeps an entire class of people down (incapable of moving up to being rich one day), and that Piven wants to mobilize this class to renew this system on voting day.  Of course, those holding down the oppressed need them to keep them in power.  Human history shows repeated rulers trying to convince the people that they are for "the little guy" when in fact they are for themselves.  These people believe that some people are inherently better than others.  They do not believe in the inherent ability of people to move up independently.  They can have beliefs that range from racism to eugenics to planned abortion of entire populations...all the way down to the simplistic view that the poor will perpetually be held in that rank if they do not receive government help to move up.  It can be as innocent as the latter option, or as insidious as the former.  I'm not sure where Piven falls in there, honestly.  But I know that she doesn't believe in people's independent abilities, and I know that she doesn't believe that all men are created equal.  She *definitely* doesn't believe in the US Constitution, much less capitalism.  


It's not about a simple disagreement on tactics.  It's about planning to collapse the economy (in order to revolutionize it).  I know she thinks she's doing the right thing. But it doesn't matter.  When in any position of power, even as an advisor, she shouldn't be even writing what she wrote.  Not as a matter of the law (because she has the right to do so until she starts actually doing what she wrote, then it becomes economic terrorism), but rather as a matter of responsibility.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 17 2011, 6:22 pm

"She believes that a crisis would revamp the system, would revolutionize our capitalist economy to be socialist, and would make everyone equal."


caltrek: No where that I have read has she said that. Are you a mind reader?


"You've now moved into the typical Left argument about how the poor have it so bad.  First of all, the poor have it better in this country than any other country, and that is because of capitalism.  Capitalism enables charity, socialism makes the state the only charity.  Americans are the most charitable population in the world, including all governments, including the American government (as stated before in this thread)."


caltrek: Yet, there are still poor people in this country.


"Second of all, the fact that one population have it worse than the majority does not mean that one has the right to circumvent the political process stated in the Constitution, that requires the majority to want to revamp the system in order to revolutionize it."


caltrek: Certain laws in place provide for welfare payments to certain classes of people. You may not like that, but that is the way the laws and implementing regulations read. Laws that were made within the framework of the currrent constitutional republic that we live in. Piven simply wants a full court press on the system to pay as many people who belong to those classes of people to receive the legally provided for benefits. What is "unconstitutional" about that?


"Third of all, I think you absolutely have a right to believe in whatever tactics you want.  But for you to be advising the President, or for the President to say his greatest advisor is someone who believes the best tactics are the ones that make it so that a minority gets to dictate what the economy looks like...then you have really crossed the line into an impeachable offense.  The President makes an oath to DEFEND and UPHOLD the Constitution.  Of course, this President believes that it is a "document of negative liberties" and that we need to find a way around it.  So I suppose his oath pretty much meant nothing."


caltrek: Wait a second...I'm advising the president. Above my pay grade. You no, now I am really getting lost. How did the President get dragged in to this?


"Finally, I don't know why you find it "interesting" that the welfare state is an oppressive system that keeps an entire class of people down (incapable of moving up to being rich one day), and that Piven wants to mobilize this class to renew this system on voting day.  Of course, those holding down the oppressed need them to keep them in power.  Human history shows repeated rulers trying to convince the people that they are for "the little guy" when in fact they are for themselves.  These people believe that some people are inherently better than others.  They do not believe in the inherent ability of people to move up independently.  They can have beliefs that range from racism to eugenics to planned abortion of entire populations...all the way down to the simplistic view that the poor will perpetually be held in that rank if they do not receive government help to move up.  It can be as innocent as the latter option, or as insidious as the former.  I'm not sure where Piven falls in there, honestly."


Well, I don't think Piven is a racist a believes in any form of eugenics. She certainly has no indicated any such belief from anything I have read.


"It's not about a simple disagreement on tactics.  It's about planning to collapse the economy (in order to revolutionize it)."


Again the allegation about "planning to collapse the economy" with out one shred of proof that Piven and/or Cloward ever had such an intended plan in mind. Repeating Beck's factually incorrect comment that Piven layed out a plan to collapse the economy over and over again does not make it become factually correct. As I concluded above, you failed to show that there was any such explicit plan in Piven's writings, yet you continue to accuse her of that.


You asked me to provide instances wherein Beck stated something that was not a fact. I showed you such an instance and now you produce all sorts of gyrations, rationalizations, divinations, mind readings, mildly paranoid inferences etc. to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact, Beck represented something as being a fact that was in reality not a fact at all. Piven's article WAS NOT ABOUT "COLLAPSING THE ECONOMY AND HOW THEY PLAN TO DO IT".


It was about organizing the poor to restucture and reform the system of welfare delivery in this country. 


Whether you think that such a goal is laudable or not is irrelevant to my conclusion about Beck's accuracy.


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 17 2011, 6:32 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 17 2011, 6:22 pm

>

>"She believes that a crisis would revamp the system, would revolutionize our capitalist economy to be socialist, and would make everyone equal."

>caltrek: No where that I have read has she said that. Are you a mind reader?

>"You've now moved into the typical Left argument about how the poor have it so bad.  First of all, the poor have it better in this country than any other country, and that is because of capitalism.  Capitalism enables charity, socialism makes the state the only charity.  Americans are the most charitable population in the world, including all governments, including the American government (as stated before in this thread)."

>caltrek: Yet, there are still poor people in this country.

>"Second of all, the fact that one population have it worse than the majority does not mean that one has the right to circumvent the political process stated in the Constitution, that requires the majority to want to revamp the system in order to revolutionize it."

>caltrek: Certain laws in place provide for welfare payments to certain classes of people. You may not like that, but that is the way the laws and implementing regulations read. Laws that were made within the framework of the currrent constitutional republic that we live in. Piven simply wants a full court press on the system to pay as many people who belong to those classes of people to receive the legally provided for benefits. What is "unconstitutional" about that?

>"Third of all, I think you absolutely have a right to believe in whatever tactics you want.  But for you to be advising the President, or for the President to say his greatest advisor is someone who believes the best tactics are the ones that make it so that a minority gets to dictate what the economy looks like...then you have really crossed the line into an impeachable offense.  The President makes an oath to DEFEND and UPHOLD the Constitution.  Of course, this President believes that it is a "document of negative liberties" and that we need to find a way around it.  So I suppose his oath pretty much meant nothing."

>caltrek: Wait a second...I'm advising the president. Above my pay grade. You no, now I am really getting lost. How did the President get dragged in to this?

>"Finally, I don't know why you find it "interesting" that the welfare state is an oppressive system that keeps an entire class of people down (incapable of moving up to being rich one day), and that Piven wants to mobilize this class to renew this system on voting day.  Of course, those holding down the oppressed need them to keep them in power.  Human history shows repeated rulers trying to convince the people that they are for "the little guy" when in fact they are for themselves.  These people believe that some people are inherently better than others.  They do not believe in the inherent ability of people to move up independently.  They can have beliefs that range from racism to eugenics to planned abortion of entire populations...all the way down to the simplistic view that the poor will perpetually be held in that rank if they do not receive government help to move up.  It can be as innocent as the latter option, or as insidious as the former.  I'm not sure where Piven falls in there, honestly."

>Well, I don't think Piven is a racist a believes in any form of eugenics. She certainly has no indicated any such belief from anything I have read.

>"It's not about a simple disagreement on tactics.  It's about planning to collapse the economy (in order to revolutionize it)."

>Again the allegation about "planning to collapse the economy" with out one shred of proof that Piven and/or Cloward ever had such an intended plan in mind. Repeating Beck's factually incorrect comment that Piven layed out a plan to collapse the economy over and over again does not make it become factually correct. As I concluded above, you failed to show that there was any such explicit plan in Piven's writings, yet you continue to accuse her of that.

>You asked me to provide instances wherein Beck stated something that was not a fact. I showed you such an instance and now you produce all sorts of gyrations, rationalizations, divinations, mind readings, mildly paranoid inferences etc. to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact, Beck represented something as being a fact that was in reality not a fact at all. Piven's article WAS NOT ABOUT A PLAN TO "COllAPSE THE ECONOMY".   

>


If someone wrote an article about how to point a gun and shoot a person, very detailed and explicit about how to operate the gun and aim it at the person, and shoot, and how it would be most effective, but did not specify that they mean to murder the person they are aiming at, did they or did they not lay out a plan to murder someone?


This is what I believe Piven did, but she could not explicitly say 'collapse the economy' because of the time the article was written in.  People she has advised and people who belong in the same camp as her have said this, however.  She was cited as one of Obama's closest advisors/teachers, thus the reference to the President.  She is a socialist.  Obama surrounds himself with socialists.  Her tactics are to overwhelm the system, instead of going through the representative process.  She wants to "convince" the politicians by putting them in a position where they are forced to vote one way or another.  She does not want to convince them with logic, but rather create a crisis that would collapse the existing welfare system and get rid of the state-level tier of our republic when it comes to wealth distribution.  Wealth distribution in and of itself is unconstitutional--Wilson and FDR set up the groundwork for getting around the Constitution and no one ever repealed the parts that were outside the frame of the original document.  


Yes, I realize that the fact that it was perverted by these former presidents doesn't mean that I can choose not to follow those parts, but I sure as hell can point out what kind of thinking got us to the point we're at, and it was thinking like Piven's.  Actually, they weren't nearly as radical as Piven is.  


 


How to shoot a gun at a person:


Step 1. First load the gun with bullets.


Step 2. Then hold the gun such that your finger is over the trigger, able to pull.


Step 3. Point the gun in the direction of the person.  The head will result in less shots needing to be fired.  The body will result in slightly more shots needing to be fired.  The extremities result in the least amount of shots needing to be fired.


Step 4. Fire the gun.  Watch out for the recoil.  

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this May. 18 2011, 4:38 am

"If someone wrote an article about how to point a gun and shoot a person, very detailed and explicit about how to operate the gun and aim it at the person, and shoot, and how it would be most effective, but did not specify that they mean to murder the person they are aiming at, did they or did they not lay out a plan to murder someone?"


caltrek: Except that Piven's article was not about shooting somebody, nor was it about collapsing the economy, for the upteenth time it was about reforming the welfare distribution system.


"This is what I believe Piven did, but she could not explicitly say 'collapse the economy' because of the time the article was written in."


I see you continue to insist on wearing the tin foil hat that brings you to that conclusion.


" People she has advised and people who belong in the same camp as her have said this, however."


caltrek: Your defense of Beck's deceptive comments about Piven is that "other people" have said what he attributed to Piven. This does not strike you as unfair, misleading, or otherwise propogandistic?


"She was cited as one of Obama's closest advisors/teachers, thus the reference to the President.  She is a socialist.  Obama surrounds himself with socialists."


caltrek: So it is only socialists who care about formulating government policies that assist the poor? 


"Her tactics are to overwhelm the system, instead of going through the representative process.  She wants to "convince" the politicians by putting them in a position where they are forced to vote one way or another."


No, she wants to overwhelm the system concurrent with the representative process. Getting politicians to listen to reason or logic reminds mean of the commercial about why the speaker is talking to the audience like they are children, because when they are spoken to as adults, they don't listen.


The rich organize to bring pressure upon politicians. The logic and reason they use amounts to threats to withdraw fiancial support come election time and/or to back political opponents with their political contributions. The poor for obvious reasons cannot afford the advertising and paid lobbyists that the wealthy can afford. Therefore, alternatives like petitioning the government regarding grievances, in this case asking for welfare benefits to which they feel they are legally entitled, exercising their freedom of speech and assembly etc. need to be identified.  


You may not like the results when the poor are successful, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.


Hey, here is a thought. To minimize welfare hand outs why don't we as a society set the goal of maintaining full employment?


Why don't we offer decent education and training programs to the poor to help them break the cycle of poverty?


Why don't we pursue government programs that help the employment situation at the local level instead of pursuing trade policies that result in the exporting of jobs to other countries?


Why don't we divert some of that money that goes to building hugely expensive weapons of destruction and use those diverted resources to pay for what I have described above?


Too liberal for you?


Like I say, when we try and talk to you like adults, you don't listen. 

starfleet_officer1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 171

Report this May. 18 2011, 12:52 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ May. 18 2011, 4:38 am

>

>"If someone wrote an article about how to point a gun and shoot a person, very detailed and explicit about how to operate the gun and aim it at the person, and shoot, and how it would be most effective, but did not specify that they mean to murder the person they are aiming at, did they or did they not lay out a plan to murder someone?"

>caltrek: Except that Piven's article was not about shooting somebody, nor was it about collapsing the economy, for the upteenth time it was about reforming the welfare distribution system.

>"This is what I believe Piven did, but she could not explicitly say 'collapse the economy' because of the time the article was written in."

>I see you continue to insist on wearing the tin foil hat that brings you to that conclusion.

>" People she has advised and people who belong in the same camp as her have said this, however."

>caltrek: Your defense of Beck's deceptive comments about Piven is that "other people" have said what he attributed to Piven. This does not strike you as unfair, misleading, or otherwise propogandistic?

>"She was cited as one of Obama's closest advisors/teachers, thus the reference to the President.  She is a socialist.  Obama surrounds himself with socialists."

>caltrek: So it is only socialists who care about formulating government policies that assist the poor? 

>"Her tactics are to overwhelm the system, instead of going through the representative process.  She wants to "convince" the politicians by putting them in a position where they are forced to vote one way or another."

>No, she wants to overwhelm the system concurrent with the representative process. Getting politicians to listen to reason or logic reminds mean of the commercial about why the speaker is talking to the audience like they are children, because when they are spoken to as adults, they don't listen.

>The rich organize to bring pressure upon politicians. The logic and reason they use amounts to threats to withdraw fiancial support come election time and/or to back political opponents with their political contributions. The poor for obvious reasons cannot afford the advertising and paid lobbyists that the wealthy can afford. Therefore, alternatives like petitioning the government regarding grievances, in this case asking for welfare benefits to which they feel they are legally entitled, exercising their freedom of speech and assembly etc. need to be identified.  

>You may not like the results when the poor are successful, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

>Hey, here is a thought. To minimize welfare hand outs why don't we as a society set the goal of maintaining full employment?

>Why don't we offer decent education and training programs to the poor to help them break the cycle of poverty?

>Why don't we pursue government programs that help the employment situation at the local level instead of pursuing trade policies that result in the exporting of jobs to other countries?

>Why don't we divert some of that money that goes to building hugely expensive weapons of destruction and use those diverted resources to pay for what I have described above?

>Too liberal for you?

>Like I say, when we try and talk to you like adults, you don't listen. 

>


Okay, now you're just getting rude like Rusty.  What happened to Rusty, anyway?  All his entries are gone and his account seems to be deleted.  Did he get banned?  Was it because he repeatedly used profanity in his posts?  Well, anyway...


I'll address your points one at a time.  First, I've given you ample amounts of logic to see that if you first believe that it is a fact that the US was set up as a capitalist system, secondly believe that it is a fact that making redistribution of wealth a mandatory thing on the federal level, leaving the states out of it, would be a transformation of our system to a socialist model, and thirdly believe that it is a fact that Piven knows these things and chooses to do them, especially using the methods she chooses, so that the majority does not get to decide what happens to the country but rather, the minority does, then she has written an article about collapsing the economy THROUGH the transformation of the welfare program.  


Second, the poor are a minority.  They are not really even "poor" if you look at it on a global scale of economics (which is what you liberals do, isn't it?).  They have the ability to INDIVIDUALLY rise up, if and only if the capitalist system is kept secure.  They have the ability to VOTE how they want to vote.  No one controls their ability to vote but them.  No one controls their ability to succeed but them.  The rich's "power" that you speak of is only really power if the poor let it be.  My parents chose not to allow that to happen, and they chose to earn their way to the top.  Now they are "the rich". That is the problem with the liberal mindset--as soon as the poor rise up a knotch, they become conservatives because they have assets.  And so the liberals must keep them down in order to keep their voter base.


I agree that we should offer incentives for people to go to school or get training for a trade.  I agree that we should not export as many jobs overseas because it hurts American business and American workers.  We disagree on the methods of making that happen.  I think the way to make that happen is to stop giving Federal funding to schools so they will have to decrease their tuition to get more people in, and also to end all Federal funding of Unions and have states vote on whether they should be Right to Work states, with Unions banned from using any government money (at any level, local, state, or federal) for campaigning whatsoever.


Those weapons of mass destruction are a fraction of the budget and give you the ability to talk about crap on the Internet from the comfort of your home.  I wouldn't cut funding for them, if I were you.  Instead, how about we cut funding for some of the useless programs like the 'green jobs' incentives?  China can certainly make solar panels cheaper than we can--it will NEVER work.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this May. 20 2011, 2:38 pm

Quote: starfleet_officer1 @ May. 18 2011, 12:52 pm

>What happened to Rusty, anyway?  All his entries are gone and his account seems to be deleted.  Did he get banned?  Was it because he repeatedly used profanity in his posts?  Well, anyway...
Wow.  I haven't been around much lately.  Did Rusty get even more obscene?


Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum