Paul Krugman is an op-ed columnist with The New York Times and a professor. In talking about universal, single-payer healthcare, such as Medicare for all, he said, "The perfect can be the enemy of the good here." He was making the point that holding out for the perfect in the political situation that is the current U.S. might result in no legislation to cover everyone.

The reason the perfect cannot be had is because the house is divided. The house needs to divide so that those against the Commons will be one house and those in favor will be in another together without the selfish ones ruining everything.

You see here why forced unity is such a terrible idea. Empire builders forced people to live under consolidated rule so that everyone is a slave to evil including the ruler. It is awful.

Paul also said the following:

Greenspan played essentially a game of Three-Card Monte. In fact, it's a twenty-five-year-long card game of Three-Card Monte. In 1982, there was the Greenspan Commission on Social Security, which raised payroll taxes, which is the tax that falls most heavily on ordinary working Americans, to generate a surplus in Social Security to pay for future payments. Then, in 2001 he comes out in favor of tax cuts to eliminate a surplus, which is primarily, even at that point, the surplus generated by his previous tax increase on Social Security, but he doesn't propose cutting that tax. He proposes cutting income taxes on high-income people. And then, when the surplus goes away, which it did almost instantly—and, of course, he's lying when he says that everybody believed we had these huge surpluses. I wrote a book right at the time called Fuzzy Math saying—explaining all the reasons why you shouldn't actually believe in those surpluses, those surplus projections. As soon as the surpluses went away, he said, "Oh, well, we've got to cut Social Security benefits." So it was really raise taxes to protect Social Security, use the resulting surplus to cut taxes for rich people, let's cut Social Security—an amazing story.

And he knew what he was doing in 2001. You can't — this is Greenspan. He was a Washington operator par excellence dating back to the Ford administration. When he said in his Greenspan-speak all this stuff about, you know, glide path to zero debt and all that, he understood that he was giving a full-speed-ahead for the Bush tax cuts, and then he danced around any attempt to hold him accountable for it.

Now, what Paul doesn't then go on to say though is that this is pointing exactly at the fact that the entire Federal Reserve System, which isn't either federal or a reserve, is a scheme for the rich to drink the blood of the people via interest earnings. When the budget is balanced, the private bankers don't make the money they make when the U.S. government borrows from them. Why did the U.S. government ever agree to a system of borrowing from private bankers? The people were tricked by the power elite at the time. The legislation was not with the informed consent of the governed. It was completely illegitimate.

Do we say that doing away with the Federal Reserve will fix things? No. It should be abolished though and will be. The house is divided. The greedy one will still be in it to sabotage whatever good is attempted. It's why they attack other nations who haven't done a thing to provoke them other than have the things the greedy want to steal, because the greedy have a covetousness disease and need spiritual help. Nothing else will save them.

In referring to financiers, Paul said, "I don't hate these guys. I don't want to punish them. There's no envy. I just want them to pay taxes like the rest of us." Well, if he loves them and loves truth, he'll stop accepting a certain amount of hypocrisy that is just less hypocritical in his eyes than what the Republicans call for. He's accepting the lesser of evils. It isn't right. Doing that has been the error all along. The standard is too low when it isn't as high as it can be known. We must raise the expectations and reject those who don't want to join. We must do it without coercion or bitterness or vengeance in our hearts. We must do it while warning those who will refuse to join. We must warn them without compromise of the dire consequences of continuing down their wrong path of selfishness.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.