BY WARREN S. HERSCH
NU Online News Service, April 9, 2008, 9:05 p.m. EDTThe percentage of U.S. workers who say they are "very confident" about having enough money for a comfortable retirement plunged to 18% earlier this year, from 27% in 2007. ...The interviews were conducted in January. EBRI recorded a sharper drop in confidence for retirees between 1997 and 1998, but the drop in the percentage of workers who say they are very confident about their retirement prospects is the first drop greater than 3 percentage points since EBRI started the survey series in 1993. Decreases in confidence occurred across all age groups and income levels, but they were particularly acute for younger workers and those with lower income, the researchers report. ....
You will note that the survey was conducted back in January 2008 before many people began realizing that the world is facing recession and deeper and more widespread financial depression (for some; many).
Of course, decades ago, we were told to save 25%. We were told that that would put lots of money on deposit against which lenders could lend, thereby lowering borrowing rates. We were told that the government needed to operate on a balanced budget rather than deficits so taxes wouldn't go to paying interest on the national debt. Look at what happened though.
Booms based upon lower deposits (less and less savings) and still low interest rates led to speculation on margin (gambling with borrowed money) and confusion.
Living expenses versus wages and salaries didn't allow for 25% savings nearly as easily as they had back in the days when one blue-collar income could support a family.
We were also told to put at least 20% down on real estate. We were told to look for solid capitalization rates that could withstand downturns. Who could buy under those principles during the bubble? I couldn't. I didn't buy. It was a sellers market, and they didn't care about a buyer's cap rate. The whole industry was saying appreciation (increasing real estate values) would take care of it. It didn't.
Now I see even more than I did then. I see the whole thing is a scam. Before, I was looking for a living profit-margin from rents. That's not how it's supposed to be. It's un-Christian.
Connect the dots, and you too will see that schemers have set up the current economic system.
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)
Land & Building Fund Donations
Less Applicable Transaction Fees
reflects cleared transactions
& donations before expenses
to the Christian Commons Project™