I saw this over on "Time for America to get small: U.S. citizens must retrench, stop borrowing, and save their way back to prosperity," by Eric Margolis. The Smirking Chimp. February 8, 2009.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched mass social welfare schemes in the 1930s similar to ones that Obama is proposing. Roosevelt's New Deal may have staved off popular revolution but it did little for the economy. It took goading Japan into war to end the Depression.
Now, I just posted the following a day or so ago; but it bears repeating over and over until it sinks into the mainstream consciousness of the whole world. It's original with me — meaning I didn't read it or hear it somewhere else. It may have occurred to others already. I would be surprised if it hasn't. It may be written somewhere on the Internet too. I haven't though seen it, obviously. That's not helping the cause of debunking the laissez-faire crowd though. It needs to be everywhere.
Okay, FDR's New Deal dropped the unemployment rate from an estimated 25% to around 10%. That's fairly well known. The war (WWII) dropped the unemployment rate to zero. That's understood. What seems to be a major disconnect is that the war was government employing the troops. More importantly though is that the same troops rather than having been used to fight a war could have been employed by the government in much more productive work.
Here's something most people, to the best of my knowledge, don't know. When FDR went to employ the unemployed, he was forced by the greedy not to offer government-provided skilled jobs directly with direct government-provided skilled-jobs training. In case the reason isn't obvious to you, the more capitalist, laissez-faire leaning in society (who still had huge power despite the depression) knew that if the government trained up skilled workers who then did infrastructure and other work directly for the government (not under capitalist contractors), including producing goods and services at high wages and benefits and with no capitalist nation to attack the U.S. for doing that, the so-called socialist government would have wildly succeeded thereby ruining all the propaganda of the capitalists against socialism.
I write this not as one who advocates coercive socialism. I'm against coercive socialism and coercive capitalism both.
Don't let the laissez-faire crowd lull you to sleep with their stories about how laissez faire isn't coercive. They have a huge body of literature that in the end always admits, albeit in euphemistic terms, such a "Club for Protection," that they will "defend" their system with violence if push comes to shove, and even voluntary socialism competing with them is "shove" in their book. I've run into very few total pacifists who claim capitalism.
Their club is meant to sound like a nice, little, neighborhood club. In reality though, it's a deadly militia that will murder socialist for the sake of the ultra wealthy (plutocrats) who have duped the lowly libertarian-capitalist minions. They'll deny this, but they are not pacifists. You shall know them by their fruits. Who fights the way they do? Christians don't.
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)