Chuck Norris, like most of the Christian right, is incapable of distinguish between rational criticism of one’s opponents and a cheap smear of them. He demonstrates this in his latest Worldnetdaily column entitled The Obama-Clinton, Cloward-Piven Strategy.” It’s argument by innuendo and guilt by non-existent association.
In May 1966, Columbia University sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven published what would become known as their Cloward–Piven strategy in the liberal magazine, “The Nation.” Their article was titled, “The weight of the poor: A strategy to end poverty.”
In short, the Cloward-Piven strategy is a political plan to overload the U.S. public welfare system with the goal to replace it with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”
Wikipedia summarized their strategy well: “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).”
It’s not a coincidence that President Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He even wrote an article there for the school’s magazine, “Sundial.” The full article is still available on the website, Politico.com.
It’s not a coincidence that he happened to go to the same university where two of a few hundred professors wrote something you disagree with two decades before he went there? Then you have some evidence that he took courses from them or had some involvement with them and believed in what that article said, right? Oh no, actually, you don’t. And the article you link to in the school newspaper had nothing at all to do with that article or those people, it was about student activism against American military intervention. So here’s his lame attempt to pretend that Obama is trying to implement that strategy he objects to:
In 2007, there were 26 million recipients alone of food stamps before Obama took office. There are now a record 47 million and climbing. And that doesn’t include the expansion of other entitlements (like Obamacare) given to that skyrocketing number of so-called “needy people.”
Damn those “so-called” “needy people.” They’re all faking it, I bet! But gee, it seems like something happened after 2007 that might be relevant to the question of why the number of people on food stamps increased. I can’t quite put my finger on it…what could it be? Oh yeah, the worst recession since the Great Depression happened in 2008, with the housing and mortgage markets collapsing literally weeks before Obama was elected. Millions of homes were foreclosed on, the unemployment rate skyrocketed and a whole lot more people suddenly became “so-called needy.” Do ya think that might have something to do with the increase in people getting food stamps, Chuck? Silly question. It isn’t clear that Chuck “thinks” at all.
And no, the number of people on food stamps is not “climbing.” The opposite, actually. As always happens after recessions, the economy slowly comes back, people get jobs and are no longer eligible for welfare. And that’s exactly what is going on right now. And the distortions keep coming:
And let’s not forget new entitlements like Obamacare, which will result in government expansion and expenditures by 2022 to the tune of:
Federal expenditures on Obamacare will total $2.3 trillion, a $1.4 trillion increase from the program’s initial estimates;
The combination of budget cuts and sequestration will reduce defense spending by $1 trillion, while total government spending will increase by $1.1 trillion;
Taxes will be increased by $1.8 trillion;
Yet, the national debt will increase by another $11 trillion.
The article he links to is from 2012, before the plan was even implemented, and the numbers are highly inaccurate. The most recent numbers are almost the precise opposite:
The estimated cost of President Obama’s signature health care law is continuing to fall.
The Congressional Budget Office announced on Monday that the Affordable Care Act will cost $142 billion, or 11 percent, less over the next 10 years, compared to what the agency had projected in January…
But the cost of the law has been falling for several years, and now analysts are beginning to assess the evidence of the law’s impact from its first-full year of implementation.
In March 2010, the CBO predicted that the law would cost $710 billion during the period from 2015 to 2019, without trying to come up with projections beyond that. After several revisions, the law is now expected to cost $506 billion – 29 percent less — during those same five years, as shown in the chart.
And the increase in the yearly deficit, and thus the national debt, is not due to Obamacare at all. In fact, Obamacare reduces the deficit and repealing it would increase the debt by over $300 billion over the next few years.
And notice that he doesn’t put any time frames on those time frames. The budget cuts and sequestration deal in 2012 had no connection at all to Obamacare, but he still lists them as if they were relevant and he leaves off the time frames involved. That $1 trillion in defense spending is over 10 years, not one year, and it would still leave the country spending nearly 50% of all the money spent on defense in the entire world.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics in the hands of people like Chuck Norris, who are too stupid and too blinded by partisanship to understand them.