This article was first published in "The Nation" on May 2, 1966. It suggests a strategy for ending poverty. This strategy is all about redistribution of wealth. The tactics they suggest include creating crises in which the goverment welfare system is overwhelmed by too many people requesting benefits.
The end result is buying, nay enslaving the poor urban masses, by ensuring thier loyalties to thier "benefactors"
I have always said that liberals breed liberals. They use thier liberal viewpoints to enslave, not liberate.
No strategy, however confident its advocates may be, is foolproof. But if unforeseen contingencies thwart this plan to bring about new federal legislation in the field of poverty, it should also be noted that there would be gains even in defeat. For one thing, the plight of many poor people would be somewhat eased in the course of an assault upon public welfare. Existing recipients would come to know their rights and how to defend them, thus acquiring dignity where none now exists; and millions of dollars in withheld welfare benefits would become available to potential recipients now-not several generations from now. Such
an attack should also be welcome to those currently concerned with programs designed to equip the young to rise out of poverty (e.g., Head Start), for surely children learn more readily when the oppressive burden of financial insecurity is lifted from the shoulders of their parents. And those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - GB Shaw
What say you?
