Speaking the truth can and does alter the future. The Federal Reserve was forced to act in ways it didn't want to. The more the grassroots gets on to them, the more they'll attempt to conform so they won't be dismantled, as they should and ultimately will be.
The ultra-rich are scrambling to make themselves appear better. It won't work. Only giving and sharing will work. Watch.
There are debates always on-going about tax policy.
If it runs on taxes and is run by the state (public enterprise) ostensibly for public benefit, then it's socialized.
Public schools, roads, parks, police and fire departments, and many other things in the U.S. used to be primarily socialized. It was better then. The only thing that needed to be done was to improve upon them, not to privatize them, which has ruined much and especially the better tendencies toward giving and sharing.
If it runs not on taxes (could be subsidized) and is run by the state (public enterprise) for public benefit, then it's nationalized and socialistic.
If it runs on taxes and is run by private enterprise for private and ostensible public profit or benefit, then it's privatized.
Much of what used to be done by the people acting in concert has been given to private entities by those who voted in the selfish spirit. We have reaped what they sowed. We have reaped the sub-prime Ponzi scheme for instance. That scheme is of course indicative and only the tip of the iceberg (while there are any ice bergs left, no thanks to the privatizers of course).
If it runs not on taxes for private profit, then it's private.
This includes the so-called public companies, which aren't public at all, but rather their stocks are traded in the privately owned so-called public markets — called public because they are open to the public as any private business is "open to the public." It isn't a private club open only to club members except that having enough money to invest may be considered being a member of the club so to speak. (Our task here does include semantics after all.)
If it runs not on taxes and is run by private enterprise but for public benefit and under the higher supervision and regulation of the state, then it might be a pseudo-nationalized entity such as the U.S. Postal Service.
If it runs not on taxes and is run by private enterprise but for public benefit and also not under the higher supervision and regulation of the state in terms of setting rates and the like, it might be considered a wholly private charity. It might be what is termed a religious organization.
If it runs not on taxes and is run by the state (public enterprise) for private profit and benefit, then it's subverted state-capitalism. Such was the case in Soviet Russia where Stalin and his directors reaped the lion's share of the benefits for themselves.
If there are no taxes or money and everything is for public benefit (cooperative) and there are no overlords but only servants to one another and all, then it's closer to pure communism and Christianity.
Money, the definition of which is a moving target (by virtue of those who set themselves up as the arbiters of such things), is collected by the state. It is generally termed public revenue. Social Security taxes are earmarked for Social Security benefits; however, the government may and has used Social Security funds (borrowed them) for other than Social Security benefits. There are many taxes that are likewise earmarked.
There is also the general revenue such as income taxes. General tax revenues may be thought of as a pool from which many benefits, services, and costs are paid.
Curve Ball: The Laffer Curve
Capitalists and others measure things. They measure money and taxes and debts and payments, etc. First they define what they are measuring. That's important to know. How something is defined (what is included and excluded) can determine the true value of the measurement. The computer science expression, "garbage in, garbage out" is appropriate here. Another expression that is helpful is that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Of course, not all measurements are lies in the commonly understood meaning of the term "lies." The point though is that statistics can be and often are used to twist and mislead.
The Laffer Curve theorizes that by cutting taxes on the wealthy they invest more money on income production. Increased income taxed at lower rates nets more tax revenue than higher tax rates on less income.
It didn't work out that way though. See: "The New Laffer Curve Logic and the Lack of Evidence for It." Economist's View. January 28, 2008.
In addition, it's too simplistic a worldview. That type of income production isn't the definition of what is good. Income isn't inherently good. After all, there is evil income (or income from evil for those who have a difficult time comprehending the former way of putting it).
Also, with tax cuts came closing down loopholes and tax shelters. Therefore, tax revenues remained the same. When tax cuts for the wealthy come without corresponding loophole eliminations or when they come with increases in loopholes, then tax revenues won't go up nearly as much if at all.
Also, many wealthy people don't use funds from tax cuts to invest in ways that expand the economy. They might just invest in financial instruments that are smoke and mirrors, such as with many of the derivatives of sub-prime mortgages that were repackaged and securitized but were junk investments (a house of cards).
Understand here that the U.S. economy has been said to have shifted from a manufacturing economy where the U.S. workers actually made things to a service economy where workers mundanely serve people just spending money not earned from making things but just from more of the same (serving people; waiting on them). Well, the U.S. economy has shifted to a financial-services economy, and historically those have failed.
See: "The Old Titans All Collapsed. Is the U.S. Next?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603461_pf.html by Kevin Phillips. The Washington Post. May 18, 2008.
Look, the ultra-rich pay people to couch greed to get people to support error. It's that simple. Rupert Murdoch is a prime example. He's a monopolist. He's been consolidating mass media to himself for decades. The more of it he owns, the more the people hear only what he wants them to hear. He doesn't control it all yet. He will fall before he ever reaches that stage. That doesn't keep him from heading in that direction though. It doesn't prevent him from paying people to further his monopolist agenda.
That's why when you read about or hear about The Laffer Curve in a Murdoch publication or on a Murdoch network, you rarely get the other sides of the story. You usually only get what will further Murdoch's family's private-empire building.
The self-styled laissez-faire (let-do) capitalists will define and redefine gross domestic product in ways to support their propaganda. They don't really want to use a balance sheet where real values and real liabilities are compared.
They want to avoid the true costs of all their investments. They especially want to avoid the global environmental costs. Those costs are going to far outweigh the supposed benefits. Actually, there are no benefits when the environment is degraded. Thinking that there are real benefits is just short-sightedness. It's foolishness.
Also, those capitalists don't want to take responsibility of the losses incurred from their inflationary schemes. If total tax revenues stand still as a percentage of GDP but the dollar keeps tumbling in value, that revenue buys a whole lot less. It means that revenues are worth less. The people closer to the bottom then suffer while the rich only get richer by taking more of an even shrinking pie.
Interest on the Debt
Let us not forget that the people's taxes to pay interest on the debt are paid to the ultra-rich. It's a scheme.
Privatized Central Banks
It's the scheme of the private central bankers.
No Public Oversight
There is no public oversight of the private central bank. If oversight is right anywhere, it's right concerning the private central bank. The Federal Reserve should undergo a complete and transparent audit by the federal government and not contract it out to any corporation.
Criminal Capitalist Profit Centers
We should never forget that capitalism includes income-producing crime. Capitalism isn't just the so-called legalized forms. Huge income is funneled to the ultra-rich via criminal enterprises. In fact, they make more money that way. They don't declare it. They don't pay taxes on it. They just live off it. It comes from the banks and clearing houses laundering money. That's what they do.
Just factor in those losses (liabilities) of that when you consider the real balance sheet.
This is all a shame on humanity of course. We don't need to be operating this way at all. We could very easily just un-harden all of our hearts and treat one another properly. All we need to do is follow what Jesus said as much as possible. I have no doubt that were we to do that, then doors would open bringing forth miracles beyond what Jesus did himself. He said himself that greater things would happen.
When are the people of the world going to spread the truth?
After you read this, do you tell others about it? Do you write about it? Do you promote it?
You know it's right. If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
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)