EUROPE MORE CONSUMER-PROTECTION ORIENTED AND BETTER ON ACCOUNT OF IT

For the most part, in Europe, they are much more interested in appearing to do the right thing than are the Treasury and Fed here in the U.S. In a nutshell, Germany and France want tighter regulations while the U.S. and somewhat the British want to focus on bailing out the bankers and Wall Street gamblers with few strings attached and little to no transparency.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner are burning down the U.S. economy. They are consuming Main Street with the Wall Street fire.

Now, Ben (via his Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility or TALF) and Tim are working for the monied interests on Wall Street. They are working for the benefit of those who complain about regulation, transparency, accountability, responsibility, stress tests, compensation caps, and the like.

One response to Kovacevich - and other executives like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon who've complained about TARP-related restrictions - is simple: If you don't like it and don't need it, just return the money.

But the reality is bank executives do have a point about onerous government intrusion. The funny thing is this doesn't happen when the government puts insolvent banks under full FDIC receivership, as it did last year with WaMu and IndyMac; that it is happening now suggests yet another peril of the partial nationalization that's occurred for so many others. (Source: "'It's Asinine:' Bank CEOs Burning Mad as Geithner Fiddles," by Aaron Task. Yahoo! Finance. March 16, 2009.)

The mundane view: The people must take over. Main Street must take over. We must stop the arsonists. Proper Risk Management demands no less. We the people have already been committed to spending some $9+ trillion of our tax dollars going forward. We've spent (not the right way, but spent nevertheless) some $2 trillion. We have a right to control what we've purchased. Those entities are no longer private. They are public assets. We own them collectively. We have a right to put in place whatever management policies and practices we want. We are the sovereigns in a democracy.

Despite this, 75% of American voters say they oppose nationalization of U.S. banks. They don't understand what nationalization is because the banks don't want them to know. The bankers on Wall Street don't want the people to know that nationalization happens all the time under the FDIC. If it weren't for such temporary nationalizations, banks would be failing all over the place leaving investors without recourse. Nothing prevents the government from running a bank for a longer timeframe other than scare tactics drummed up by those who crashed the system last year. Crashes would not occur under government run banks that were allowed to function without outside meddling by those who would want them to fail for selfish reasons.

The Fed recently announced that it is conjuring up another $1.5 trillion to go with the other $1.5 trillion they've already conjured up. They are going to buy $1.5 trillion in bond and dodgy mortgage-backed securities (securities that a mingled with bad debt and haven't been sorted out). This is just printing money out of thin air, driving up the National Debt, to bailout the bad managers some more and to cause more debt owed to the Fed at interest to be paid by more income taxes from the people.

Please don't misunderstand the RLCC'S position. We are not mundanely opposed to deficit spending under these circumstances. We are simply concerned about where the money is spent (on what). Consider this post that shows that deficit spending is proper: CONTRARY TO LAISSEZ-FAIRE LIARS, NEW DEAL SPENDING WORKED.

Of course, none of this is remotely close to the real right answer, the solution, that is real Christianity, not the garbage that has been pawned off as Christianity since nearly immediately after the first generation many members of which saw Jesus with their own eyes.

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.