Uncle Sam's Plantation

Progressives say that conservatives only care about rich people and power. Common sense would tell you that in order to stay in power they would want as many people to become rich as possible.

 

Progressives also like to say they are for the poor. What do you suppose common sense would tell you about how the progressives operate to stay in power?

 

Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation

Star Parker

Monday, February 09, 2009

 

Six years ago I wrote a book called "Uncle Sam's Plantation." I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

 

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

 

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.

 

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

 

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.

 

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

 

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

 

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

 

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.

 

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

 

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

 

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education."

 

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."

 

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

 

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

 

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.

 

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

 

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation?page=2

 

 

And the main stream media continues to try to help spread the lie...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eib2di9bq4

 

[attach=full]2755[/attach]

Obviously written by a racist, ignorant, moron.

 

There is one big flaw in his claim about Obama trying to get everybody a hand out. The new law makes it so people must purchase insurance themselves.

 

Doesn't make sense that purchase insurance = hand out.

 

Where's the socialism?

 

His opinion has no merit whatsoever.

 

As for your videos showing guys going "NO WE AIN'T RACIST" whoopy... it doesn't counter those who ARE racist among the T(errorist) Party.

.

.

Obviously written by a racist, ignorant, moron.

 

There is one big flaw in his claim about Obama trying to get everybody a hand out. The new law makes it so people must purchase insurance themselves.

 

Doesn't make sense that purchase insurance = hand out.

 

Where's the socialism?

 

His opinion has no merit whatsoever.

 

.

.

 

Star Parker is a black woman.

 

Second. BS, everyone will have to purchase health care. It's all going to be subsidized. Just more IRS welfare, like getting back more in a return than you paid in.

 

It's getting so they might as well move the IRS from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Uncle Sam's Plantation, future tense... (i.e. Liberal Progressive Utopia)

 

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Trifecta/Flatscreen_TVs_And_Forced_Prostitution%3A_Welcome_To_Your_Socialist_Nightmare_/3440/

More "SKY IS FALLING" clairvoyance. It never ends.

.

.

BTW, can you list ANY EXAMPLE AT ALL of this alleged socialism the morons in the video are speaking of?

 

The shit's getting pretty deep when they start talking about women being made into whores.

 

What's pathetic is people like you actually play into this horse shit.

.

.

And for another thing, we were supposed to be a socialist country under Clinton too... remember?

 

How come THAT never happened?

.

.

It's continuing to happen. Under Clinton, Bush and Obama.

 

You still can't get past your myopic view of what socialism/government control is.

 

The government doesn't have to technically "own" an industry or sector of the economy to make it socialist.

 

Right now the federal government has control of health care, education, a major industry, is moving on the financial industry, and has said that energy is soon to come.

 

What else is there?

 

The government in Italy and Germany didn't "own" the companies either, but they were in control of the socialism there.

So how are they controlling health care?

 

And don't say "MEDICAID/MEDICARE" duh.. that is OPTIONAL..

 

I wanna know how they are controlling my Dr., My insurance, my choices..

 

The only form of "CONTROL" I saw in the new HCR, would have been Republicans/Blue Dogs trying to control who can and can't get an abortion.

.

.

So how are they controlling health care?

 

And don't say "MEDICAID/MEDICARE" duh.. that is OPTIONAL..

 

I wanna know how they are controlling my Dr., My insurance, my choices..

 

The only form of "CONTROL" I saw in the new HCR, would have been Republicans/Blue Dogs trying to control who can and can't get an abortion.

.

.

 

 

Really? You're sticking to that talking point?

 

So telling every American what their health insurance plan must include, but can't include too much, isn't control?

 

Making insurance companies nothing but collection agencies for the government, isn't control.

 

Setting up panels to decide what the best treatment and drug for each condition is, and if the local doctor deviates he can be fined, isn't control?

 

i.e. contributing to Medicare/Medicaid is optional?

Really? You're sticking to that talking point?

 

So telling every American what their health insurance plan must include, but can't include too much, isn't control?

 

Making insurance companies nothing but collection agencies for the government, isn't control.

 

Setting up panels to decide what the best treatment and drug for each condition is, and if the local doctor deviates he can be fined, isn't control?

 

i.e. contributing to Medicare/Medicaid is optional?

Fined? That's a rumor, sorry, not true. The Dr.'s have it as an option to receive more money from the medicare/medicaid system by following the guidelines.

 

And yes, medicare and medicaid is optional .gov health care... you always have the option of A: getting a job and buying insurance, or B: growing old and continuing to buy your own off the fortune you have amassed for yourself over the years... nobody is twisting your arm.

.

.

Fined? That's a rumor, sorry, not true. The Dr.'s have it as an option to receive more money from the medicare/medicaid system by following the guidelines.

 

And yes, medicare and medicaid is optional .gov health care... you always have the option of A: getting a job and buying insurance, or B: growing old and continuing to buy your own off the fortune you have amassed for yourself over the years... nobody is twisting your arm.

.

.

 

So telling doctors that they either treat patients as the government panel says or they don't get as much in compensation, even if the doctor believes another treatment is better, isn't government control?

 

See Romney Care in Mass. It's all going to be medicare in a decade.

 

Want some more Kool-Aid/Soylent Green.

So telling doctors that they either treat patients as the government panel says or they don't get as much in compensation, even if the doctor believes another treatment is better, isn't government control?

 

See Romney Care in Mass. It's all going to be medicare in a decade.

 

Want some more Kool-Aid/Soylent Green.

Where are you getting your info from? The Dr.'s will still get the same compensation they are now, nothing has changed except that they will be given an incentive to do a better job. No, that isn't government control at all.. don't know where you get that it is.

.

.

Where are you getting your info from? The Dr.'s will still get the same compensation they are now, nothing has changed except that they will be given an incentive to do a better job. No, that isn't government control at all.. don't know where you get that it is.

.

.

 

It's in the bill that the gov't is compiling panels to decide what the "best" treatment for different ailments is and doctors either use the treatments in the guidelines or be compensated less.

Which page, I wanna read it.

.

.

NAACP: House Slaves Of A Mostly White DNC

When Tea Party Express spokesperson, Mark Williams crossed the line, Tea Party organizations and members denounced him. When Cedra Crenshaw, a Republican black mother, is tossed off a ballot in Illinois because she might win, thus advancing the cause of blacks with more conservative views, the NAACP is silent. That's because their real goal is advancing the cause of Democrats, not black people..

 

Big picture, slavery is as alive and well in the Democrat Party, as it was when the late Senator Robert Byrd donned his Kleagle costume. And organizations like the NAACP legitimize it in the eyes of blacks everywhere.

Bender, I can't believe how uninformed you are in almost every discussion.

 

 

Sticks and carrots.

 

 

The Government uses a a series of incentives and penalties to control the doctors and lead them by the nose to a desired outcome. By telling doctors that they will get paid more money if they "CONFORM" to the specific treatments to save the Government money, then the doctors are no longer going to be doing what is the best for the patient but instead will be doing what is best for their bank accounts.

 

 

 

Control the money, control the industry, and the socialists/progressives have taken control of the money.

 

http://www.runawayslavemovie.com/site/

Bender, I can't believe how uninformed you are in almost every discussion.

 

 

Sticks and carrots.

 

 

The Government uses a a series of incentives and penalties to control the doctors and lead them by the nose to a desired outcome. By telling doctors that they will get paid more money if they "CONFORM" to the specific treatments to save the Government money, then the doctors are no longer going to be doing what is the best for the patient but instead will be doing what is best for their bank accounts.

 

 

 

Control the money, control the industry, and the socialists/progressives have taken control of the money.

I've taken control of nothing. Wish I had though. Sounds like a great deal for us.

 

Can you cite a source? You too, IWS. I can't seem to find a thing about this panel that decides treatments for illnesses. I would like to read about it and see what's what.

Bender, I can't believe how uninformed you are in almost every discussion.

 

 

Sticks and carrots.

 

 

The Government uses a a series of incentives and penalties to control the doctors and lead them by the nose to a desired outcome. By telling doctors that they will get paid more money if they "CONFORM" to the specific treatments to save the Government money, then the doctors are no longer going to be doing what is the best for the patient but instead will be doing what is best for their bank accounts.

 

 

 

Control the money, control the industry, and the socialists/progressives have taken control of the money.

I've taken control of nothing. Wish I had though. Sounds like a great deal for us.

 

Can you cite a source? You too, IWS. I can't seem to find a thing about this panel that decides treatments for illnesses. I would like to read about it and see what's what.

Of course not. It's all part of the new trend in "white oppression" that's hit America.

 

Were being indoctrinated, the Dr.'s are being told what to do, this horror, that horror, ohhh how the people are being oppressed and need to take their country back.... whoaaa is me a black man's in office, and all that.

.

.

 

I've taken control of nothing. Wish I had though. Sounds like a great deal for us.

 

Can you cite a source? You too, IWS. I can't seem to find a thing about this panel that decides treatments for illnesses. I would like to read about it and see what's what.

Of course not. It's all part of the new trend in "white oppression" that's hit America.

 

Were being indoctrinated, the Dr.'s are being told what to do, this horror, that horror, ohhh how the people are being oppressed and need to take their country back.... whoaaa is me a black man's in office, and all that.

.

.

 

If any of that is what you have gotten from any of what has been been posted on this thread, you are very well uninformed. It has nothing to do with what is being done to a "white" person.

 

Nice try to spin the subject.

 

Right along the progressive line.

Still not seeing a source, IWS/Times. Thus far, I'm forced to conclude (until presented evidence otherwise) that the panels you described are non-existent, rendering that point moot.

'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists

By Joseph Ashby

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim.

 

 

AP argues that the bill's end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.

 

 

The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:

 

 

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.

 

 

The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.

 

 

What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

 

 

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.

 

 

Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."

 

 

McCaughey goes on to explain:

 

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

 

 

Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:

 

 

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

 

 

On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.

 

 

Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

 

 

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

 

 

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

 

 

Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn't be concerned about a federal "death panel."

 

Where in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to force individuals to buy a product from a private company? Where in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to decide who lives and who dies?