As a student in the University of Oklahoma’s Masters of Social Work Program, one of my first experiences involved sitting through an all day poverty simulation. In this simulation, students were forced to play the role of people living in poverty. It’s never a bad idea to be able to empathize with the people you are supposed to be helping, though this simulation was more of a reflection of the liberal mind than the reality of poverty in America. Students were given a kit describing the identities they were to assume, their lot in life and very limited resources. They were then told to go play in the simulation and bring themselves out of debt with the resources they had. The deck was already stacked against the student and it was impossible for anyone to accomplish what they were supposed to because of that. That’s the way liberals tend to view America, a place not of opportunity, but of oppression, where the masses live in abject poverty because of the unfairness of our economic system. The very idea that this type of “role playing” is taking the place of what once used to be education is also a bit disturbing, this was a Master’s Degree program and we are playing games based on delusions of people who think they can make two plus two equal five.
The next part of the assignment entailed writing a reflection paper detailing your thoughts and personal experience with the simulation, and how it will impact your world view as a social worker. In other words, did it indoctrinate you into liberalism? I always hated these types of assignments because they never like to hear what I have to say when I “reflect” on something. I always figured if they don’t want my opinion, they shouldn’t ask, so I gave it them. In this case I cited the statistics concerning the amount of money spent trying to alleviate poverty since 1969, which is of course is over a trillion dollars, and the fact that the poverty rate is actually higher now than it was then. They didn’t like this too well, God forbid if you tell a liberal their social engineering programs don’t work. Once again I had to sit and listen to a liberal who is clueless about reality, who lives in a world where her opinions are protected and institutionalized, tell me I may not be fit for social work because of my stance on social justice. The first time of course being at NSU when I was told disagreeing with “white privilege” was the reason I shouldn’t be in social work. These people are truly the fascists of our time. Anyhow, with the president’s insistence that poverty and income inequality be the defining issues of the 2014 midterm elections I thought this might be an appropriate subject on this Saturday morning.
Nothing frustrated me more, as a student, than listening to these people go on and on about how compassionate they are about poverty and then seeing a picture of Barrack Hussein Obama hanging on their wall, as if they are related to him or something. In my opinion this represented the height of idiocy, because if they really cared about poverty, they would at least entertain the idea that perhaps Obama’s socialism is causing it. Therein lies the point however, in the minds of the left, they would rather see everyone brought down a level, so everyone suffers equally, as opposed to creating better economic opportunity. They believe that more people would be “unfairly left behind” if the economy improved. Believe it or not, I also had a professor tell me that an improving economy would mean less work for social workers. There’s the truth of their compassion in nine words.
The truth about poverty in America is very different than the left would have you believe, or at least it was. It is rapidly changing as Obama’s policies are literally destroying the economy and any chance at economic independence. Don’t get me wrong, there are people who do live in very impoverished conditions, but even the majority of people who do live in “poverty” are enjoying far better living conditions than the rest of the world. The poorest in America make up some of the richest across the globe my friends.
The national poverty center is responsible for establishing the poverty threshold; they determine whether or not people are considered to be living in poverty based on their income. Keep in mind that these income thresholds do not include any benefits that may be received through the state. Also, these rates vary depending on the state due to differences in the cost of living. Typically, the poverty rate for an average family with two adults and two children is an annual income of about 22,000 dollars. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ In America, it appears that you can afford a lot of stuff on 22,000 dollars a year because well over 80% of those living below this threshold have cell phones and video games while more than 50% have computers as well. In fact the vast majority of those living in poverty are enjoying the everyday comforts that are recognized as part of everyday American life. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs If they are starving perhaps it is time to reevaluate what they are spending their money on. Remember, the poverty levels do not reflect any “in-kind” benefits from the state.
Things are rapidly changing, since January of 2008, 1,154,000 Americans have left the labor force joining the ranks of those living in poverty. People continue to leave the labor force in overwhelming numbers as there is simply no work to be found. The unemployment rate among teens is 20% and among African Americans it is even higher. Obamacare, as well substantial over regulation on free market enterprise have all but destroyed any economic opportunity this country once provided. The congressional budget office also just reported that Obamacare will force another 2.5 million people out of labor participation because working will threaten their subsidies. That is how socialism destroys incentive and motivation while creating dependency.
Oddly enough, the left, who supposedly take such an interest in alleviating poverty and advocating for equality, are deafly silent in the face of these dire circumstances. Any position they do take usually entails more support for the growing welfare state while attacking conservatives for offering solutions that may actually work. Again, the left isn’t concerned with actually alleviating poverty, they are more concerned with creating a world in which they, as social engineers can pull the strings and determine outcomes. They would rather see everyone equally poor as opposed to seeing an improvement in economic opportunity. To their depraved minds this is fairness.
I know many people understand this; having majored in social work however gave me a unique perspective. I have seen firsthand the depths of this depravity, and I can honestly say that it seems the methods to this madness are institutionalized in our universities. The “Cloward Piven” plan is written into the textbooks and many people graduate college simply believing that’s just the way it is. They graduate believing that America is evil and wealth needs to be redistributed in order to pursue the ever elusive “social justice.”
If the left was truly concerned about creating income equality and helping the impoverished get back on their feet then it would be logical to conclude that President Obama would be the last person they would want to support. Given their undying loyalty to a man who is destroying economic opportunity and increasing the poverty rolls, it is also reasonable to conclude that it is being done on purpose in order to usher in the promised “state sponsored Utopia.” The worse things become the more the left calls for the failing polices that have caused conditions to worsen. Many may think of that as liberal idiocy; however, it’s obvious to anyone paying close attention that the destruction of the economy has been socially engineered, and the worse it becomes the more of an excuse they have for more government control. I think this is called the Hegelian Dialectic.