Perhaps you'd assume that an economic development grant totaling about $800,000 from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for a gas station must be for a depressed area or the gas station is to be minority-owned or there is some explanation for why the vaunted capitalistic system just didn't fill a need where there was market demand.
The article doesn't indicate anything special about the situation. It just looks as if a rich corporation has been subsidized to build what will probably be a very profitable gas station.
Here's the more in-depth coverage: "," by Aaron Keith Harris. Greene County Dailies. December 28, 2007.
Why are people living in tents in New Orleans so long after Hurricane Katrina but rich gas-station corporations are benefiting from housing and urban development grants?
Thanks tofor the link to the article on Greene County Dailies (cited above).
This is not an endorsement of the Club for Growth. Their written positions include the following:
- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
- Death tax repeal
- Cutting and limiting government spending
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
- Expanding free trade
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
- Replacing the current tax code
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation
We aren't for taxes, period. However, if there are going to be any taxes, they sure shouldn't be where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, which is exactly the result of the Bush-43 tax cuts.
We don't hold with the reverse euphemism called the "death tax." Inheritance is a gift of something that rightfully belongs to all the children of God. The wealthy, via their accumulation, have robbed God's other children. It's why the rich won't get into Heaven until after the camel is done going through the eye of the needle. There's no guarantee after that either.
Cutting and limiting government spending and Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts are really tax issues.
Expanding free trade is meaningless unless the term "free" is first adequately defined. Are people to be free voluntarily to collectivize if they so choose. Also, trade as the Club for Growth is using the term is nowhere near as good as giving and sharing. Such trade is for selfish profit that is a drain on everything and results in scarcity. Giving and sharing when unhampered by the selfish, rather brings forth bounty.
Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits is a ploy for rich corporations and others not having to be accountable for negligence and worse. If people were of the spirit of atonement, who'd resort to lawsuits? Litigation is evil, period. Are the corporations that want tort limitations prepared to stop suing each other?
School choice is just the plea of the rich not to have to subsidize the education of the children of the poor, even though those rich are hoarding the inheritance of those same poor.
Regulatory reform and deregulation is just a call for unbridling the hyper greedy. If everyone were regulated by the Golden Rule and the New Commandment, no one would be asking for more regulations and no one would be asking for fewer.
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)