About half of American voters are afraid the government will run out of money. It literally made me break out in a sorry laugh.
- Want tax cuts rather than public spending
- Didn't see the Crash of 2008 coming straight at them
- Don't know that 9-11 was an inside job
- Fall for Exxon's fake science saying that human beings pumping CO2 into the air has no impact
- Believe there's a War on Terrorism
- Thought the invasion and occupation of Iraq was good and would be a cakewalk
- Now think Obama is right to be ratcheting up the attacks in Afghanistan
- Think it's more cost effective to have everyone under private health insurance than under Medicare
- Think that the government is likely to do too much rather than not enough to stimulate the economy
It's amazing. It's a song. The talking heads on Fox really have the people thinking about 10 seconds out, is all if that.
The problem isn't with how much public spending. The issue is on what.
More than half of the American voters want more nuclear power plants. Who are they? How many of them know anything about the nuclear cycle from leaching (uranium mining) all the way through to the storage of spent fuel? How many of them can compare that whole process with alternatives sources of energy and especially in terms of direct costs and also consequential costs in pollution and accidents?
Where are the cross-tabulated-poll results based upon reasonably anticipatory methodologies? I don't see them in the public realm anywhere. How are the people to consider complex public-policy matters without publicly available data?
Where is Obama on this? He's sticking his wet finger in the plutocrat driven wind and then tossing the bucket right into it with all the people downwind.
It's amazing that people don't realize that the economy was strong — much stronger than it is now, when the tax rate was at 90% for the top bracket. All the tax cuts for the superrich and the Globalization (read deregulation) led to the current crisis. It led to all the jobs moving elsewhere rather than raising standards worldwide — the last thing the greedy ones who took everything offshore wanted. They wanted to rape the workers of the world and their lands. That's what they've done. They aren't done yet either. They'll also turn back around to try to further rape the U.S.
I'm not for the current system or for any coercive alternative. I'm for the truth. The truth is that given the choice between the more laissez-faire capitalists system versus social democracy, social democracy is vastly superior. The only reason it hasn't done even better in those Scandinavian countries where it's been used it that they occasionally cave into the outside pressures and temptations (undercutting-deals) from the laissez-faire greedy types. However, those are not the only given choices. There is also the choice — the only one that will work in the end — of Christianity that is Jesus's political economy. If you don't know what that is, read about it here on this site.
The mass media, think tanks, polling firms, public relations firms, advertising firms, government propagandists, CIA, and others all conspire to twist the mindset of the common people into believing a bunch of garbage. The stuff coming out from Fox is garbage. Anyone who buys it is duped.
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)