Dane Ellis Allen wrote:GLENNY J wrote:odamacare. No choices, extreme cost from everything. Slammed down our throats in back door dealings 4 years ago.
Big Government out of CONTROL!
Two classes of people in my country. Those that don't have to buy odamacare and all the people that are once again taxing, stealing, and trying to establish ultimate control.
I think 4 years ago, ObamaCare was pretty fair, but the Republicans made Obama rewrite it 8 times to get the bill to only profit the insurance companies and not to really provide healthcare, since who in the heck will be able to stomach a 6,000.00 deductible? single-payer plan would have been fine, now a poor slob will have to pay a steeply priced premium and pay for most doctor visits.. this is all the Republicans faults.. they held a gun to Obama's head forcing him to edit a once good thing.. 4 years ago
Really Dane?? This debacle of a law has been being written for decades just waiting for the demoncrat party to have control of all three branches of government. The dems have been sitting on this for years. Radicals from both parties have had their hands in this before most of you were even born.
This is what it is really about. collapsing the system to destroy this republic. Adding all the illegal aliens, the middle class, and recruiting trial lawyers (Ambulance chasers) to encourage huge lawsuit payments to break the health care system, and the infamous health care bill are all set to bankrupt America for a takeover of the constitutional rights of Americans and put in place an all controlling regime with two classes. Those in power who live lives of royalty, and the rest of us who will support their lavish lifestyles. Not so? Then read on and ask yourself. "Why so many government give away programs to those who do not need them and to people who do not belong in America. There is only one logical explanation.
Cloward–Piven strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]
The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous
burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty)[citation needed].
The strategy
Cloward and Piven had determined that many people in the U.S. were eligible for welfare, but were not receiving it. They believed that if all these people were to apply for welfare all at once, the local welfare offices would be overwhelmed and the states would be threatened with bankruptcy.
In advocating such disruptions, Cloward and Piven were making a deliberate attempt to incite racial, ethnic, and class tensions, setting whites against racial minorities and middle-class liberals against working-class immigrant groups. This would weaken the already fragile New Deal liberal coalition and threaten the Democratic Party politically, which would cause the Democrats to institute a new welfare scheme in an attempt to maintain the cohesiveness of their coalition (and thus remain in power).
