The original Cloward-Piven notion was designed by its authors to overwhelm the ability of America to deal with an elevated demand for "entitlements". It targeted the demand side of the equation, with the intent that it would wreak the ability of government to meet the "needs" of its subjects.
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. [Cloward-Piven at pg. 510]Cloward and Piven were nothing if not forthright in their Collectivist scheming.
But the Obami have refined the Cloward-Piven strategy considerably. They have added a supply-side to the original demand-side of the earlier Collectivist schemers. This super-charges the "transformative" power of the design.
Obama and his myrmidons are using a variety of Collectivist ideas to both raise the expense of government and finally cripple the ability of the economy to deal with that expense. This is in keeping with a drive to "fundamentally change America" that has been on-going for well over a century. They now have the tools to do what had only been dreamed.
The end-game is to kill off market-based (capitalist) economics in the U.S., while contemporaneously imposing a collectivist welfare state. The favored replacement for the market-based economy, based on every indication shown by this administration, is some variation on fascist economics. Most Americans know very little about economics in general; they know much less about fascist economics. Fascist economies are much less threatening than are socialist economies, since they leave the nominal ownership of private capital in the hands of its owners. Few Americans realize that American politicians have been practicing fascist economics for many decades, and that leaders of both major parties have been enamored of the concept for at least that long.
GM and Chrysler are two examples of a typical corporatist collective, originally conceived by Benito Mussolini and his fellows as a more successful mode of socialism. The elements are typically three; 1) government (in ultimate control), 2) owners (who maintain some operational control), and 3) labor (who also have some control). Only big business can be successfully co-opted into the corporatist collective. Small, entrepreneurial firms are too hard to control, and present too many decisions for any but a market economy to accommodate. Just as individual liberty cannot be abided by the Collective, entrepreneurial activity cannot be abided by the corporatist collective model of economics.
The way Americans fight both Obama's collectivist prongs is by insisting on keeping our liberties. Neither a Collectivist welfare state or its economic models can abide individuals who insist on acting as free people.