HOW ABOUT PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY NOW?

The conservatives (so-called) have been hammering for years to privatize Social Security. Just think if they had gotten their way where the common people would be right now with the bottom falling out of the equity markets. As it is, "private retirement savings accounts - like 401(k)'s - have lost some 20 percent overall since mid-2007." (Source: Retirement accounts have lost $2 trillion. examiner.com. Oct 7, 2008 11:41 AM.)

When the time comes to bailout the Wall Streeters, we're all in it together. When the time comes to guarantee retirement for seniors and others, they're on their own is the idea behind privatizing Social Security.

Listen, private retirement is where we were before anyone saw the need for and established Social Security. Why go backwards? We went backwards with all of the privatizing that started with Ronald Reagan's disastrous presidency and that was helped along in a major way by Bill Clinton's centrism (hardly the center — much more to the "right" than most are willing to admit).

The only thing wrong with Social Security is that it's a coercive law, but privatization is a coercive measure as well. The privatizers want privatization only up to the point that they aren't hurt by it, such as when they want a bailout. Why isn't privatization good right now that they would fall without being on the public dole?

They laughed at the people collecting welfare, but now they're on a sort of welfare. It's a farce kind of welfare, since they don't have any means-testing associated with whether or not they qualify. You know in order to get food stamps, the recipient isn't allowed to earn above a certain amount or own anything worth above a certain amount. A new car where the owner has sizable equity will preclude that owner from getting food assistance. He or she can just sell the car is the idea. Well, are the rich Wall Streeters being asked to just sell their cars or yachts or penthouses or second or third vacation homes, etc? No they are not.

Oh, it's an emergency and the whole economy would collapse if the rich and greedy were not bailed out by the lowly tax payers. Hogwash. It's all hogwash.

If the same money were poured into the real needs (not just wants) of the poor and lower class, there would be a much better kick for the economy. The difference though would be that the rich would have gambled and lost. Then they could go on the real dole and get assistance just the way the poor do.

Actually, in a good world, they wouldn't have to fall that far at all, because the bottom would have risen a great deal. Let's lift the poor so there aren't any. Why are we always focused on the rich? They don't need it.

Donate


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.