Economic Stimulus Should Target Poorest, Criminal Probes Should Follow Trail to the Top
With fuel prices still rising and housing still falling off a cliff, the economy is going to need more than a 125-basis-point interest-rate reduction (by Krishna Guha. Financial Times. January 30, 2008) and a meager $150 billion stimulus package ( by David Lawder. Reuters. January 31, 2008).
It doesn't matter that housing prices have fallen in terms of inflation versus deflation (Financial Times. January 31, 2008) when people are being laid off or hit by foreclosures and all the basic necessities are going up in price.
They are going at it all wrong, but of course, that's intentional. What people should be asking for is for the poorest of the poor to be given the infusion of financial help. Helping the most those who have been worst off the longest is the best approach. At the same time, no one should be left behind.
Also, the people looking into wrong-doing will fail forever to correct the problem. (by Jane Sassen. Business Week. January 31, 2008.) What they won't do is follow the trail to the top where the first decisions were made to harm the lower classes for the further gain of those who are already astronomically wealthy. ( Reuters. January 30, 2008.) The people need to realize that those who control the central banks and largest corporations deliberately caused the financial bust.
The people need to realize that the libertarian, objectivist, capitalists system (advocated by the tobacco and corporate funded Cato Institute; Ludwig von Mises Institute; Ron Paul) is a trick against them ("Critiques Of Libertarianism," by Mike Huben, editor, and his highly underrated blog). It is the method for choking the definition of God. And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. Mark 4:19.
This world means the status quo that is, among other things, capitalism. The deceitfulness of riches is an expression that is nearly ignored as if there is no truth in it. Riches here also means the status quo conception. It doesn't mean here the richness of all ships rising with the tide, which I advocate. The lusts of other things means everything that is ultimately harmful (selfish where self is not in God and God within). Choke the word is exactly what capitalism does. Being of the freely giving and sharing spirit, doing no harm, being only beneficial for all is the real spirit of God. Becometh unfruitful is what is happening constantly under the spirit of selfishness. The fruit of selfishness is always a net loss. The problem with seeing that is a matter of the proper versus improper definition of ultimate (eternal) gain versus loss.
To be clear here, we aren't advocating punishment upon necessary exposure. We are advocating repentance out of a working conscience.
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)