2148337003_a861df4a7e

Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation – A Critique and Second Opinion


By Mitch Gurney

May 2009

Recently a family member sent me an email regarding a commentary Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation by Star Parker. Prior to receiving the email I was not familiar with Ms Parker who is the founder and president of a social policy think tank, Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education (CURE). In her commentary she expresses her opinions regarding Federal assistance for America’s needy and the current drama of corporate bailouts, describing these as America’s legacy of socialism. She references to a book she wrote about six years ago, Uncle Sam’s Plantation.

I don’t know whether it was intentional or an accidental consequence of being brief on the details but Ms Parker unfortunately makes a few errors and omissions that convey misleading information in her commentary.


With respect to the bailouts she implies the Obama Administration is solely responsible by making the following statements:

“Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

“There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.”

“Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

To support her thesis of “America’s legacy of socialism” and of government “taking over the economy” Ms Parker creates an impression these activities are those of the Democrats alone by linking Obama’s current plans to previous actions undertaken during the Carter and Johnson administrations while failing to point out the more recent bailout activities launched by the Bush administration. She makes no mention of Nixon’s efforts in the 1970’s to manage the marketplace with measures such as price and wage controls and removing the U.S. from the gold standard and makes no mention of any bipartisan support along the way.

We should be able to recall easily enough the corporate invitation to join “the plantation” did not begin with Obama but with the Bush Administration. Sadly however he has continued what Bush started. But that shouldn’t come as a big shock for those who understand there’s no real difference between the two parties especially when it comes to serving their corporate benefactors – corporate entities that fund our elected officials with campaign and lobbyist contributions thereby acquiring a disproportionate degree of influence over national and foreign policy.

In terms of potential taxpayer obligations the bailout figures are sobering indeed. They consist of numerous programs some of which we may not be as familiar with due to a lack of publicity about them. The more publicized programs are the two bailouts of course; $700 billion “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP) signed into law in October 2008 by President Bush and the $787 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (ARRA) signed into law in February 2009 by President Obama. Both passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support. The other less publicized programs are those implemented by the Federal Reserve and Treasury. These programs do not require Congressional or Presidential approval or involvement. There are 11 such programs to date each fall under the “Term Auction Facility” (TAF). Since inception these programs have essentially operated with little public transparency or scrutiny even though taxpayers a fully obligated. In just over the past 14 months the government has committed some $13 trillion dollars of which $2.5 trillion has already been spent or lent. To put this debt obligation into perspective our 2009 GDP is tracking toward $11.3 trillion.

Democrats do have more of a legacy for promoting socially oriented support programs in contrast to the Republicans and in this respect there is a point of difference between the two parties. Both parties however have a legacy for showing corporate favoritism.

There is a huge difference between America providing assistance for our needy and the bailouts and how these activities relate to socialism which is defined broadly as;

“An economic system of government which advocates state ownership of the means of production with equal distribution of goods among the people. In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer.”

This definition does not fit to the government’s activities of providing assistance to our needy or to the bailouts in particular. I suggest that rather than government “inviting companies to the plantation” that government instead is dragging its citizens to the plantation to save insolvent companies. In exchange for bailout funds these companies are transferring their bad debts and toxic assets to the taxpayer. If this scheme actually works and these same companies are made whole again they will survive to live another day prospering and profiting once again from the very same citizens now enslaved on the taxpayer plantation paying huge debts far into the future. This is hardly socialism resulting in “equal distribution of goods among the people.”

I have not read her book so I do not know how she describes the federal assistance programs she refers to in the following statements, but in her commentary she mixes up the history and makes a clumsy association resulting in misleading information:

“I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.”

“A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960′s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.”

The “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” (TANF) was a program implemented in 1997 and replaced a program called “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” (AFDC), a program created under the name of “Aid to Dependent Children” (ADC) by the Social Security Act of 1935. TANF also replaced the “Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training” and “Emergency Assistance to the Needy Families with Children.”

TANF was created by the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act”(PRWORA) which was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton in August 1996 becoming Public law 104-193. PRWORA was a bill that was a “cornerstone of the Republican “Contract with America” and signed into law by Clinton as part of his promise to “end welfare as we know it.” PRWORA was considered at the time to be a “fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor.” It was heralded as a “reassertion of America’s work ethic by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, mainly due the skills workforce components it contained.” PRWORA shifted welfare management primarily from the federal level to the state level with TANF managed on the state level through grants made by the Fed.

TANF’s primary objectives were to reduce the number of recipients by providing temporary assistance limited to 60 months in one’s life time aiming to get people off assistance, primarily through employment. Specific requirements and effects of the program as outline by Wikipedia are as follows:

  • Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
  • Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
  • Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
  • Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

TANF falls under the umbrella of Social Security as did the programs it replaced and as such became a mandatory part of the U.S. federal budget. As explained in this video which explains the budget process, mandatory in that once legislation of this nature is enacted it cannot be altered or changed by Congress or the President until it expires.

I believe it is the above legislation Ms Parker is referring to when she states:

“I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.”

She is correct in that the number of recipients receiving assistance has declined. Since TANF was implemented in 1997 there has been a steady decline in the number of recipients and many advocates have herald the program a success. In 1996 there were over 12 million recipients, by 2007 there just about 4 million (see chart).

It appears the legislation has accomplished its primary objectives in reducing the number of recipients receiving assistance. But there are multiple ways in which to measure the success of a program and it appears by Ms Parkers following statement that in some areas it has fallen short of expectations:

“Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.”

In some respects one could point out that the success of the legislation she “had the privilege of working on” in 1996 is a contributing factor to the conditions she now describes as “black poverty is the same.” During the signing ceremony Clinton had acknowledged the program was not perfect and that future refinements might be necessary. This leaves me wondering what her expectations are in relation to the legislation by her following statement:

“I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism… but, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.”

In terms of the corporate bailouts we are indeed heading in the wrong direction. But in terms of the needy receiving government assistance, TANF expired in 2005 and was reauthorized in the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005” through Senate bill S. 1932. The bill passed the Senate with a tie-breaking vote cast by V.P. Cheney. The bill was signed by President Bush in February 2006 becoming Public Law 109-171. This legislation is effective until September 2010. At the time it was estimated the Act would reduce, over the next five years, $40 billion in the mandatory spending.

Those savings may not be realized now in light of our current financial crisis and growing unemployment which is near 16 percent. The number of recipients receiving TANF assistance may increase, not because of any specific actions undertaken by the Obama administration, but as a result of the prior commitments made in the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”

The Congressional voting records indicate the legislations had wide Republican support with weak support among the Democrats. While PRWORA primarily passed with bipartisan support the “Deficit Reduction Act” had only two Democrat Senators voting in support. The Republicans may be anticipating and gearing up for a tough battle over TANF with the Democrats in 2010.

PRWORA – Congressional actions

Public Law 104-193; signed by Clinton

Congressional Major Actions Timeline

Senate Vote

House Vote

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 – Congressional Actions

Public Law No: 109-171, signed by Bush

Re-authorized TANF which expires in September 2010 (see pgs 3- 4)

Congressional Major Actions

Senate Vote

House Vote

Even if in a haphazard manner Ms Parker raises some valid issues and concerns. But regardless of our political or religious differences we have looming on our horizon a far greater U.S. fiscal challenge that as a society we will need to come to terms with in the near future, a point made clear in State of the Union’s Finances –A Citizens Guide. If we fail to get government spending under control soon we may all become America’s needy.

Mitch Gurney

Addendum:

May 17, 2009

At the time of composing the above commentary I did not discuss the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” (ARRA) in detail and I had not researched it and therefore unaware of any impact it might have on TANF. But having now researched the legislation I find there is.

Regarding TANF, I had made the following statement:

“Those savings may not be realized now in light of our current financial crisis and growing unemployment …the number of recipients receiving TANF assistance may increase, not because of any specific actions undertaken by the Obama administration, but as a result of the prior commitments made in the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.”

Well…what the government taketh away it soon restoreth.

ARRA Public law 111-5 is a supplemental appropriations bill “for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.” It provides additional funding for TANF, outlined in Title II – Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families, Sec 2000 -2006 and in Subtitle B – Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals, Sec 2101- 2202 – Emergency Funds for TANF Program.

In my only reference to ARRA I stated that it like TARP had “passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support” and I stand corrected:

One should never underestimate the political complexities of our government. In a reversal to TARP only three Republican Senators voted in favor of ARRA which garnered full support of the Democrats in the Senate. In the House 11 Democrats and all the Republicans opposed the legislation.

ARRA – Congressional Actions

Public Law 111-5, signed by Obama, 2/17/2009

Congressional Timeline

Senate Vote

House Vote

Print Friendly
  • Anonymous

    SORT OF STUPID ON YOUR PART, WILLIAM.

  • Anonymous

    THIS REBUTTAL IS PURE UNADULTERATED B.S.  I’M STICKING WITH STAR PARKER’S OPINION….SHE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE AND THIS JERK HASN’T.
    WHO IS MITCH GURNEY; IN HIS WORDS = I am a political activist living in Northern
    California. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA…A BASTION OF LIBERALISM.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_37OOX6J5Y2ZK6QZ43AZYI77IXI HIBARITO

    You speak of a typical non cogent Utopian Liberal
    point of view.  And as usual blame
    someone else game going back to the trough of blame. While I do not give the
    previous administration a pass, they were the catalyst to many issues. But the
    seat was one fair and square and the President’s DONKEY is parked in it. It is
    no wonder that you are accidental on being brief on the details. Short on
    substance I suppose. President Obama was elected as a voice for the Black
    American for hope and change. There is no other single populace that has and is
    suffering the most with the continuing crumbling of the inner city and the more
    than double unemployment rate. One in seven Americans is on food stamps and
    federal assistance. And since when do food stamps become a catalyst to the
    economic recovery? Hire more grocery baggers, checkers and security because if
    more people are on food stamps, they will stimulate the economy by spending
    their food stamp money? And extended unemployment compensation is a direct cash
    infusion into the economy because people will spend the money? The president
    has created the new plantation and the Fed along with loose monetary policy is looking
    for more victims.  The Federal Government
    has become a financial pedophile-this administration has robbed and strapped our
    future children, grand children and great grand children with a debt they can
    never repay. The complexity of this government by your corrected admission is
    not complex. Stop the Spending Stupid, Balance the Budget and stop strangling
    the economic engine- business- by excessive regulations.

    • Mitch Gurney

      Hibarito:
       
      Typically I don’t respond to comments made to an article I wrote over 2 years old, nor defend my opinions if I render one in an article. Doing so only results in a circular debate that goes nowhere. But in either case I am entitled to my opinion just as you are to yours.
       
      After reading your comments I wondered whether you were actually commenting on my particular article or merely venting at the world at large. In contrast to my article, you offer no facts but merely go on a tirade of sorts.
       
      In this article I expressed no personal opinions nor suggested any economic impact that support for those in need might have on our economy.  
       
      Perhaps you got fired over the question I asked; as to whether we as a society, one that takes great pride as the ‘wealthiest nation on earth,’ have a responsibility to assist and care for those in need. Personally I think that we do. My personal belief follows along the Christian values so many conservatives claim to personify; that I am my brother’s keeper.  I translate this to mean beyond my immediate family members and as support use these examples among many others found in the Bible:
      “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Deuteronomy 15:11
      “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.” Proverbs 19:17
      “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13
      “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9
      “Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’” Matthew 19:21
      See other related passages in the Bible summarized here:
      http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/poor.htm
       
      I support the assistance we provide to those in need in the manner we currently do, limited in timeframe, but believe we should take this a step further and help one find work so they can pull themselves from their hardships.
       
      As far as some “cogent utopian liberal” point of view, having not expressed any personal views I am not sure in this case that label is applicable. I don’t even know what such a point of view is or how it might manifest in our world. I have no illusions though that achieving a utopian society is even possible. This seems far beyond the scope of most humans, at least within the thousands of years of our history thus far.
       
      I understand the conservative ideology that if society gives to the needy we create freeloaders. What often is not recognized by some conservatives is that corporations and the wealthy can become just as dependent on government support, hence fostering the need for lobbying etc. So in that context I agree with you, let’s “stop spending stupid” and as we cut spending for those in need as you suggest let’s also stop allowing the corporate and wealthy elite – the least needy among us – from sucking on the government tit through corporate tax subsidies, tax havens, corporate tax holiday’s, special tax breaks for the wealthy, the long term gaming of corporate profits via the weakening of the dollar, and much more. For additional reads may I suggest?
      http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/20-million-unemployed-8-11.html
      http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/corp-profits-doomed-8-11.html
      http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-08-03T07%3A21%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=3
      http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/

      • Anonymous

        DEAR MITCH,  IT IS MY OPINION THAT ALL READING YOUR ARTICLE AND YOUR ADD ON’S WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE OUR MONEY AT GUN POINT AND SPEND IT AS THEY SEE FIT.  THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS, YOU, AND CONSERVATIVES, MYSELF AND STAR PARKER.

  • Gonegolfing

    A true Democrat wrote this. It’s the other guys fault. They did it not us. etc.

    • http://justanothercoverup.com William Cormier

      No, a true Democrat did not write this. An Independent wrote this, but even if he was a Democrat, your comment might carry some validity if you stated exactly where he missed the point and substantiated your allegation like Mitch did in his critique with links to other sites and authorities.

      As it stands, your comment is just another example of partisan trolls that use one-liners in an effort to disparage any article/story/event that disagrees with the GOP’s authoritarian/fascist agenda.

      From here forward, we will not be approving any more one line comments that do not honestly challenge an articles content and/or substantiation. Post a comment that has substantiation or an opinion that honestly disagrees with any article on this site and it will be approved – but one-liners will no longer be tolerated.

      Site Administrator

  • OneCitizen

    Mitch; Maybe you should read the book before you make comments, about comments on the book. I found it very informative and generally accurate in the analysis. The basic facts are true:
    trillions of dollars since LBJ; black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births, higher drug use and incarceration. This book should be mandatory reading in EVERY public school, welfare office, and prison (although I won’t be holding my breath…) PS: the philosophy doesn’t apply to just African-Americans, but to all people (regardless color) that want FREEDOM.

  • Eric

    Mitch- Roosevelt ended the gold backing of currency. Nixon ended silver backed Certificate (currency). I suggest that both Star Parker and Mitch Guerney read the marvelously researched (including coiuntless hours in the “hoods” of the Ninties)- “The Burden of Bad Ideas” written by
    Heather MacDonald, published in 2000. Says it all regarding the Welfare Plantation concept.
    Mithch, face it- our government failure in California derives in the most part from more and more people doing less and less while being paid more their non-work efforts.

  • Eric

    Mitch- Roosevelt ended the gold backing of currency. Nixon ended silver backed Certificate (currency). I suggest that both Star Parker and Mitch Guerney read the marvelously researched (including coiuntless hours in the “hoods” of the Ninties)- “The Burden of Bad Ideas” written by
    Heather MacDonald, published in 2000. Says it all regarding the Welfare Plantation concept.
    Mithch, face it- our government failure in California derives in the most part from more and more people doing less and less while being paid more their non-work efforts.

  • http://freedomtofascism.com/ Scott

    I think you missed the point. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican argument, but a statement about the problem with “Big Government” and how it enslaves its people. The book was written in 2003, long before the current atrocities committed by Obama. Ms star was then speaking against the “progressive” government spending, including Bush AND all progressive predecessors, regardless of ticket color. The references to Obama were simply pointing out the irony of a man of color enslaving his constituents with even more Big Government spending… where the current “Mastuh” is a man of color. “Thank you, Suh”.

  • WhatACrocka

    Ya’ll just keeps it to yousef’s. Lets us keep on keepin on hittin da pipe! Jest gimme Mo dat Bling Bling, Keep it on comin! Mo free money from Obama’s poisonal stash.

    Dey bee’z makin lazy, no account Chinamenzes beholden money addicts outta U.S.

  • John Borak

    No matter where it started — and it goes back a LOT further than the Bush administration — the effect is the same.

  • Don McCormick

    We need to realize that some problems are unsolvable by human effort. As Jesus said “the poor will always be with you.” Give folks in need a hand up not a hand out – no free lunch. Everyone can do something so, no work – no pay (no free money). The essence of capitalism is personal (corporate) responsibility. Fail and try again. Even the uneducated can make a go of it by learning the rules (fair or not) and working with their brain, brawn or both. But I digress.
    The response to Star Parker was a needed element if discourse is to have value and meaning. However we are marginally served by “nit-picking” at statistical errors rather than jumping into the cerebral fray.
    Kudos, Mr. Gurney, for venturing into the primordial swamp of philosophy, morals and politics.

  • Don McCormick

    We need to realize that some problems are unsolvable by human effort. As Jesus said “the poor will always be with you.” Give folks in need a hand up not a hand out – no free lunch. Everyone can do something so, no work – no pay (no free money). The essence of capitalism is personal (corporate) responsibility. Fail and try again. Even the uneducated can make a go of it by learning the rules (fair or not) and working with their brain, brawn or both. But I digress.
    The response to Star Parker was a needed element if discourse is to have value and meaning. However we are marginally served by “nit-picking” at statistical errors rather than jumping into the cerebral fray.
    Kudos, Mr. Gurney, for venturing into the primordial swamp of philosophy, morals and politics.

  • Gary

    The problem with placing blame for perceived wrongs by the government on political parties fails to recognize that the only real difference between the two major parties in the United States is the animal they use as a mascot.

    Almost without exception, politicians believe that the answer to any problem is more government money thrown at the problem. The only answer one usually gets when pointing out that some program isn't doing what it was supposed to do is that not enough money has been spent.

    IMHO those who find fault with Star Parker's commentary aren't really interested in solving any problems, they are content with the status quo. If there were full employment, those working in employment agencies would be out of work. If there were no poor people, those in welfare agencies would be out of work.

  • Gary

    The problem with placing blame for perceived wrongs by the government on political parties fails to recognize that the only real difference between the two major parties in the United States is the animal they use as a mascot.

    Almost without exception, politicians believe that the answer to any problem is more government money thrown at the problem. The only answer one usually gets when pointing out that some program isn't doing what it was supposed to do is that not enough money has been spent.

    IMHO those who find fault with Star Parker's commentary aren't really interested in solving any problems, they are content with the status quo. If there were full employment, those working in employment agencies would be out of work. If there were no poor people, those in welfare agencies would be out of work.

  • http://horatio1937.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-ways-of-thinking-idea-that-will.html Horatio Green

    There is a Theory of Everything for society that will work. It is elegant and certainly far- reaching, uses minimal technology to accomplish, serves more than one purpose, is consistent, and has symmetry, simplicity, and uniqueness. It will solve every problem and dilemma presented in Star Parker’s column and her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation. It will solve 99.9% of society’s ills. It is beautiful and elegant in every way.

    Read more …

  • http://horatio1937.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-ways-of-thinking-idea-that-will.html Horatio Green

    There is a Theory of Everything for society that will work. It is elegant and certainly far- reaching, uses minimal technology to accomplish, serves more than one purpose, is consistent, and has symmetry, simplicity, and uniqueness. It will solve every problem and dilemma presented in Star Parker’s column and her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation. It will solve 99.9% of society’s ills. It is beautiful and elegant in every way.

    Read more …

  • Mitch

    Continued:
    I too agree with some of the points shared by Jim in that we need to stop pointing fingers. A recent posting by the editor of this site, William Cormier; “Is It Time To Cross Partisan Lines and Unite To Fight A Common Enemy?” http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=655 sums up my sentiments best and which I have written similar views in previous articles as well.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

      This comment did not post:

      Mitch;

      Thank you Jean for sharing your opinion but if you have something specific that points out an error in the data I provided please share them.

      My article was well researched but error and oversight is always possible. I addressed the issue raised by Harry who was pointing out a generalized statement I made about Republicans widely supporting both Bush’s TARP bailout program and Obama’s ARRA bailout. I added an addendum to my posting correcting my error clarifying that the Republicans had widely supported Bush’s but reversed themselves by not supporting Obama’s.

      I believe the crux of your issue might be found in your statement:
      …it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premise:
      "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
      “The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

  • Mitch

    Continued:
    I recognize I may have left you unfulfilled with that issue but by choice answering her premise was not the purpose for this article at all, which is a rather deep subject in its own rights. Does a society possessing an abundance of wealth, intelligence, and wisdom have a responsibility to provide assistance to its less fortunate members in time of need and now for failing corporations as well? Should some distinctions be made between the two? Admittedly these are deep subjects and I am sure others have written about this and whoever writes about it today may find it necessary to include the “monstrous moral and spiritual problems” now being created through the governments massive corporate bailouts that began during the Bush administration and has continued with Obama that some might argue could lead to “all sorts of problems” now when corporations “turn over their responsibilities” for their success to others – i.e. taxpayer bailouts.

  • Mitch

    Continued:
    I recognize I may have left you unfulfilled with that issue but by choice answering her premise was not the purpose for this article at all, which is a rather deep subject in its own rights. Does a society possessing an abundance of wealth, intelligence, and wisdom have a responsibility to provide assistance to its less fortunate members in time of need and now for failing corporations as well? Should some distinctions be made between the two? Admittedly these are deep subjects and I am sure others have written about this and whoever writes about it today may find it necessary to include the “monstrous moral and spiritual problems” now being created through the governments massive corporate bailouts that began during the Bush administration and has continued with Obama that some might argue could lead to “all sorts of problems” now when corporations “turn over their responsibilities” for their success to others – i.e. taxpayer bailouts.

  • Mitch

    Continued:
    I too agree with some of the points shared by Jim in that we need to stop pointing fingers. A recent posting by the editor of this site, William Cormier; “Is It Time To Cross Partisan Lines and Unite To Fight A Common Enemy?” http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=655 sums up my sentiments best and which I have written similar views in previous articles as well.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

      This comment did not post:

      Mitch;

      Thank you Jean for sharing your opinion but if you have something specific that points out an error in the data I provided please share them.

      My article was well researched but error and oversight is always possible. I addressed the issue raised by Harry who was pointing out a generalized statement I made about Republicans widely supporting both Bush’s TARP bailout program and Obama’s ARRA bailout. I added an addendum to my posting correcting my error clarifying that the Republicans had widely supported Bush’s but reversed themselves by not supporting Obama’s.

      I believe the crux of your issue might be found in your statement:
      …it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premise:
      "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
      “The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

  • Mitch

    Thank you Jean for sharing your opinion but if you have something specific that points out an error in the data I provided please share them.

    My article was well researched but error and oversight is always possible. I addressed the issue raised by Harry who was pointing out a generalized statement I made about Republicans widely supporting both Bush’s TARP bailout program and Obama’s ARRA bailout. I added an addendum to my posting correcting my error clarifying that the Republicans had widely supported Bush’s but reversed themselves by not supporting Obama’s.

    I believe the crux of your issue might be found in your statement:
    …it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice:
    "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
    “The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

  • Mitch

    Thank you Jean for sharing your opinion but if you have something specific that points out an error in the data I provided please share them.

    My article was well researched but error and oversight is always possible. I addressed the issue raised by Harry who was pointing out a generalized statement I made about Republicans widely supporting both Bush’s TARP bailout program and Obama’s ARRA bailout. I added an addendum to my posting correcting my error clarifying that the Republicans had widely supported Bush’s but reversed themselves by not supporting Obama’s.

    I believe the crux of your issue might be found in your statement:
    …it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice:
    "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
    “The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

    The comment section still is not working properly. This comment was entered by the author yesterday:

    We apologize but during the time when the site was having issues with comments posting the following comment was made to this article but failed to appear. We believe in posting all comments whether favorable or not and strive to answer them when a response appears is required.

    From: Jean W, 8/16/2009
    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

    From Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation – A Critique and Second Opinion, 2009/08/31 at 7:04 PM

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

    The comment section still is not working properly. This comment was entered by the author yesterday:

    We apologize but during the time when the site was having issues with comments posting the following comment was made to this article but failed to appear. We believe in posting all comments whether favorable or not and strive to answer them when a response appears is required.

    From: Jean W, 8/16/2009
    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

    From Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation – A Critique and Second Opinion, 2009/08/31 at 7:04 PM

  • Mitch

    We apologize but during the time when the site was having issues with comments posting the following comment was made to this article but failed to appear. We believe in posting all comments whether favorable or not and strive to answer them when a response appears is required.

    From: Jean W, 8/16/2009
    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."
    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

  • Mitch

    We apologize but during the time when the site was having issues with comments posting the following comment was made to this article but failed to appear. We believe in posting all comments whether favorable or not and strive to answer them when a response appears is required.

    From: Jean W, 8/16/2009
    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."
    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

  • Mitch

    Bill:
    Thanks for your comment…

    Yes Jennifer I did mean months, and not days. Tthank you for calling that to my attention and I have made the correction. Some how I missed that even after many proof reads…

  • Mitch

    Bill:
    Thanks for your comment…

    Yes Jennifer I did mean months, and not days. Tthank you for calling that to my attention and I have made the correction. Some how I missed that even after many proof reads…

  • Jennifer

    I think you have a slight error in the paragraph beginning "TANF’s primary objectives were to reduce the number of recipients by providing temporary assistance limited to 60 days in one’s life time". By 60 days, you meant 60 months correct? That would be the 5 year limit times 12 months.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

      I'm William Cormier, the Editor and owner of this site. I am unaware of the length of time that TANF is allowed, but I believe the max in the state of Georgia is two (2) years, but I can tell you that if you're disabled in the State of Georgia – getting on the program is almost an impossibility and actually counter-productive. If a recipient gets TANF, they have to work folding clothes or something like for a certain amount of hours per week. We don't have the gas money for that, an at $212.00 per month, which is what my sister qualifies for with two children, as far as we live from town, every penny of that TANF money would be spent on gas. Furthermore, my Ford Explored is "locked" into 4-wheel drive and we don't have the money to get it fixed. If we're extremely lucky, we get 8 to 10 MPG – so as desperately as she needs financial support, especially since she receives only $345.00 per month in SSI for a special needs child; I support their family with a measly $975.00 per month in Social Security Disability and our money never pays all of our bills, and we live with the barest of necessities. (We haven't had TV for months.) TANF is a cruel joke, and she will never apply for it again.

      Maybe Democratic states have a better version of TANF, but in Georgia, they do everything in their power to make sure you don't get it, and if you live far from town, it's completely worthless – and it was designed to be that way.(IMO) Who cares about a program that is essentially worthless in its face???

  • Jennifer

    I think you have a slight error in the paragraph beginning "TANF’s primary objectives were to reduce the number of recipients by providing temporary assistance limited to 60 days in one’s life time". By 60 days, you meant 60 months correct? That would be the 5 year limit times 12 months.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/wjcormier wjcormier

      I'm William Cormier, the Editor and owner of this site. I am unaware of the length of time that TANF is allowed, but I believe the max in the state of Georgia is two (2) years, but I can tell you that if you're disabled in the State of Georgia – getting on the program is almost an impossibility and actually counter-productive. If a recipient gets TANF, they have to work folding clothes or something like for a certain amount of hours per week. We don't have the gas money for that, an at $212.00 per month, which is what my sister qualifies for with two children, as far as we live from town, every penny of that TANF money would be spent on gas. Furthermore, my Ford Explored is "locked" into 4-wheel drive and we don't have the money to get it fixed. If we're extremely lucky, we get 8 to 10 MPG – so as desperately as she needs financial support, especially since she receives only $345.00 per month in SSI for a special needs child; I support their family with a measly $975.00 per month in Social Security Disability and our money never pays all of our bills, and we live with the barest of necessities. (We haven't had TV for months.) TANF is a cruel joke, and she will never apply for it again.

      Maybe Democratic states have a better version of TANF, but in Georgia, they do everything in their power to make sure you don't get it, and if you live far from town, it's completely worthless – and it was designed to be that way.(IMO) Who cares about a program that is essentially worthless in its face???

  • Pingback: Who’s in your wallet? | Justanothercoverup.com

  • Jean W

    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

  • Jean W

    From what I've just read, Mitch Gurney wrote WITHOUT proper research. Harry Jones should write! And thank you, Jim, for your input. Reading Star Parker's piece, it appears that Gurney didn't answer her basic premice: "Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

    I believe Obama and his band want to bring SOCIALISM to our country! It scares me.

  • Jim

    Look what the enablers have done since the 60s, look at the breakdown of the family, look at our education system which never has enough money and still the reading skills of the inter city just keeps getting worse.
    The problem is government, the breakdown in the families and our churches. Many churches want to stay in their comfortable four walls. If you want to see how well a church is doing, look at the community around the church. We are the church and need to be help people every day, in our work place and through volunteering our time to needy causes.
    From my perspective, what I see are many successful ministries and foundation not wanting any government involvement. The bureaucrats only get in the way, making it more difficult to help and increase the cost, thus less people getting the help they need.
    Jim

  • Jim

    Look what the enablers have done since the 60s, look at the breakdown of the family, look at our education system which never has enough money and still the reading skills of the inter city just keeps getting worse.
    The problem is government, the breakdown in the families and our churches. Many churches want to stay in their comfortable four walls. If you want to see how well a church is doing, look at the community around the church. We are the church and need to be help people every day, in our work place and through volunteering our time to needy causes.
    From my perspective, what I see are many successful ministries and foundation not wanting any government involvement. The bureaucrats only get in the way, making it more difficult to help and increase the cost, thus less people getting the help they need.
    Jim

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    I did indeed…I stand corrected…thanks for your homework and contributions…as you will note I added an addendum.

    • Jim

      Let’s quit pointing fingers and get down to the root of the problem; government buying votes by enabling people. Yes, people sometimes need help, and we need to have programs in place to help them. If the program isn't designed with incentives to help them out of their situation, then it's just another enabler. Yes I acknowledge there are those who can’t help themselves for reasons beyond their control they need our assistance. (continue next comment)

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    I did indeed…I stand corrected…thanks for your homework and contributions…as you will note I added an addendum.

    • Jim

      Let’s quit pointing fingers and get down to the root of the problem; government buying votes by enabling people. Yes, people sometimes need help, and we need to have programs in place to help them. If the program isn't designed with incentives to help them out of their situation, then it's just another enabler. Yes I acknowledge there are those who can’t help themselves for reasons beyond their control they need our assistance. (continue next comment)

  • Harry Jones

    "The more publicized programs are the two bailouts of course; $700 billion “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP) signed into law in October 2008 by President Bush and the $787 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (ARRA) signed into law in February 2009 by President Obama. Both passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support. "

    Your words, not mine.

  • Harry Jones

    "The more publicized programs are the two bailouts of course; $700 billion “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP) signed into law in October 2008 by President Bush and the $787 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (ARRA) signed into law in February 2009 by President Obama. Both passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support. "

    Your words, not mine.

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    My article has nothing to do with the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    My article has nothing to do with the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

  • Harry Jones

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

    "On January 28, 2009, the House passed the bill by a 244-188 vote. All but 11 Democrats voted for the bill, and 177 Republicans voted against it ."

    "On February 10, the Senate voted 61-37 (with one 1 not voting) All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor .

    Hardly bipartisan!!

    btw only 3% of the stimulus (?) money has hit the streets because Pelosi's stimulus bill….isn't. It's a pork package that is payback to Democrat supporters. This economy belongs to the Democrats now and will be their downfall. I was around during Carter's 1 and only term. Obama is Carter Lite!!!

  • Harry Jones

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

    "On January 28, 2009, the House passed the bill by a 244-188 vote. All but 11 Democrats voted for the bill, and 177 Republicans voted against it ."

    "On February 10, the Senate voted 61-37 (with one 1 not voting) All the Democrats voted in favor, but only three Republicans voted in favor .

    Hardly bipartisan!!

    btw only 3% of the stimulus (?) money has hit the streets because Pelosi's stimulus bill….isn't. It's a pork package that is payback to Democrat supporters. This economy belongs to the Democrats now and will be their downfall. I was around during Carter's 1 and only term. Obama is Carter Lite!!!

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    Yikes, in my own defense I did do my home work, lots of it. I think it is safe to say most would accept what Parker had said at face value without digging for the rest of the story. Granted, the Deficit Reduction Act had only two Democrat Senators voting in support. I apologize for my oversight and thanks for calling it to my attention.

  • Mitch Gurney

    Harry:
    Yikes, in my own defense I did do my home work, lots of it. I think it is safe to say most would accept what Parker had said at face value without digging for the rest of the story. Granted, the Deficit Reduction Act had only two Democrat Senators voting in support. I apologize for my oversight and thanks for calling it to my attention.

  • Harry Jones

    "Both passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support"

    You're dead wrong , do your homework.

  • Harry Jones

    "Both passed Congress with mostly bipartisan support"

    You're dead wrong , do your homework.

Subscribe By Email for Updates.
UA-2668157-1
%d bloggers like this: