This Is Unsustainable: Cloward and Piven Worked!

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty

“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc.

As for the claim that every $1 of welfare generates $1.84 in the economy: that’s just another lie. When the government spends money of any sort, it drains the real economy. Nothing can be ‘generated’ from that. This is just what happens when people use failed economic models — such as Keynesian economics.

No, what we have here is evidence that Cloward and Piven has succeeded and now, after all the years fiscal conservatives spent trying to warn us this would happen, we are about to pay the piper.

10 thoughts on “This Is Unsustainable: Cloward and Piven Worked!

  1. Ah yes- the cloward and piven reference- unsurprising from a beck devotee….

    Shall we discuss the actual numbers of poverty? Or that over the last several decades we have seen poverty levels rise towards the end of long term republican control to their peak once democrats gain gontrol due to failed republican policies…before they then drop? No- I thought not as your posts seem to center on correlation rather then causual relationships.

    And of course, with these numbers coming from Sessions one must take issue giving his track record of proving Disraellis “lies, damn lies and statistics”. And of course thse numbers represent tens of thousands government jobs, and many more indirect jobs. (and oh yea, who was, it that oversaw the largest increase in government jobs in modern history…oh yea- Reagan- pulling his ass out of a recession with government employment).

    Maybe we should be talking about the root causes of povery in what is supposedly the greatest nation on eary…ya think?

    • Define “poverty”. In case you have missed my posts, what you and your friends on the left call “poverty” would be considered middle class in Europe these days. Our poor have larger houses, cars and more and newer appliances than the middle class in these societies, so before you start crying “poverty”, let’s do define it so that we can be sure we are talking about the same thing.

      And Reagan “pulled his ass out of a recession” with tax cuts, tax cuts which led to increased tax revenue, which lead to more defense spending, which led to more jobs and growth and also created the so called “peace dividend” that George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill CLinton enjoyed to the point that we had buildings in New York fall to a terrorist attack.

    • Drugs,

      With respect, I would appreciate it if you would try to stay on topic. You seldom do (personally, I can’t remember the last time you did). In this case, looking at poverty doesn’t matter to the argument I am making in this post. I wonder, do you even understand that?

      What matters is that poverty has been used as an excuse to grow federal entitlements to the point where the govt. is on the verge of financial collapse. The purposes is to cause collapse so people like you have a crisis they can then use to re-form our nation and system of govt.

      As for your ad hominem attack on Beck, that doesn’t matter, either. Unlike yourself, I do not simply accept what others say — I go to the horse to check it out for myself. Guess what I found? I found Beck is right: Cloward and Piven did (and Piven still does) argue for increased govt. spending until the system collapses.

      Finally, as for the root cause of poverty. This will make many angry, but it is true and – personally – the truth is all I care about. Second, before I say it, I want to accuse myself first — because I was guilty of this for the majority of my life and only changed after I started my own company. OK, here it is, the main reason for poverty:

      THE POOR!

      Yes, in large part, I AM blaming the poor for their lot in life. I understand that there are those who have disabilities and illnesses that excuse them, but they are small in relative numbers. The majority are like I used to be (and can still be sometimes). They care more about stuff they do not need, so they spend their money where they shouldn’t. They are also less likely to have the necessary work ethic and more likely to accept and make excuses. There’s more, but this is not a new argument. I discovered it is actually known and accepted by many inside the sociology field while I was in school. It is one of the reasons the welfare peddlers have jaded me: because I know they do not believe they can ‘cure’ anything, they just need their jobs.

      Now, BEFORE you attack me, you need to go look up how many people have gotten rich in this country only to end up poor in short order. That is exactly because of what I just explained: they do not know how to handle money because they do not understand money or how to use it.

      Now, if you truly care about the poor, do not attack my comment. Instead, ask why the poor do not understand how to make and manage money. There is an answer, and it goes to the heart of my argument in this post.

    • “Ah yes- the cloward and piven reference- unsurprising from a beck devotee….”

      Spoken just like an Obama devotee. Oh, the hypocrisy. 🙂

  2. I assume that figure($60k) includes the costs involved, paperwork, home visits, etc. I is still way too high, and if there is no money for education/training, it is money poured down a hole.

  3. It would seem Obama is on my side of this discussion. Given that NEITHER side has cut federal spending in decades, this story can only mean “MORE SPENDING!”

    Obama: Second term would be ‘mandate’ for cuts, tax increases

    Given the current state of our fiscal conditions, these “mandated taxes increases” WILL equal more economic collapse. In effect, exactly what I am arguing: the intentional collapsing of our system through government spending.

  4. Pingback: The Great Fiction | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.