OBAMA'S PROPOSED FINANCIAL REFORMS ARE WAY TOO WEAK
- The Federal Reserve will retain control, and that control will be vastly increased.
- Mortgage and perhaps other "originators" of loans will not be allowed to sell the loans 100%. They will have to keep some of the risk (retention).
- All derivatives will be regulated to some extent.
- Consumer protection will be increased and a new entity will be formed to oversee this: Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This will be to curb or eliminate predatory lending.
- The "too big to fail" entities will be subjected to a predefined system to deal with insolvency.
- Hedge funds, insurance companies, and possibly others, will be regulated to some degree under the above.
(See: "A New Financial Foundation," by Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. Washington Post. June 15, 2009.)
Not very bright — far, far from brilliant
What this means though is that the fox will continue guarding the chicken coop. The Federal Reserve itself is not being reformed or nationalized. So far, it will remain a private, un-audited, un-auditable, entity with complete control (increasing) over the U.S. currency. This is not good at all!
Furthermore, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details concerning the regulations. Is it a trite cliché? No, in this case it is definitely an apt truism. Bankers and others have always set up easily rolled back regulatory systems.
Look, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal actually dealt with all of this. Ronald Reagan, among others, came along and ruined the New Deal. Now, here are the not so bright, not very unselfish, bankers (banksters in the eyes of those who see the theft that has taken place) only putting some of it back together again; and the New Deal was itself much too weak to begin with if one is going to have a coercive system and untrustworthiness.
Having to pay private bankers interest for the creation of money, so far, will remain. That's not necessary or good. There should be no payment of interest to private parties on the creation of legal tender (the nation's/people's currency). Right now, the currency is not the people's. It is the private bankers.
It would be a very simple matter for the U.S. Congress through the U.S. Treasury to create interest-free United States Notes pegged to true productivity. This would result in a huge and immediate reduction in Income Taxes going to paying private bankers for making an accounting entry in their central computer. If the United States Notes were used to pay off the National Debt, which would also be as easy as simply doing it, the National Debt would disappear and there would be zero Income Taxes going to paying interest on that debt.
Are the Republicans truly interested in tax cuts? That would be the largest capitalist tax reduction without a reduction in governmental services in world history.
The United States Notes would not have to be backed by any metals (so-called "real money"; a farce) or any commodity. The only thing required is that the United States Notes be the agreed upon medium of exchange. So long as the supply would be exactly for real productivity, there would be no inflationary or deflationary pressures. The Congress could very easily institute an automatic, fixed formula and system for pegging the money supply to actual need and to automatically regulate for zero inflation/deflation. Retirement savings and income would then be reliable even where there are catastrophic events that would sink the people under the current, selfish, privatized system.
The inflationary interest will continue under the currently floated plan. That's not good. The money supply, if there is even to be one (it isn't truly needed or desirable for the people in general), should be pegged to productivity and contain zero interest which is inflationary.
The Federal Reserve, at a minimum, should be publicly owned and controlled. The people should have independent bank and other financial institution examiners and regulators who do not go through any revolving doors with those they regulate (no being hired by the regulated bankers after leaving the civil service). The regulators should be public servants (career civil servants). That's the best mundane Band-Aid. It is not the best solution. It is based upon a lack of trustworthiness and also upon coercion.
The Federal Reserve System (that is based upon usury) is a bad system. It was put into place ostensibly to prevent exactly what has continued happening over and over: booms and busts; the so-called business cycle. It has not worked and will not work. It is inherently inflationary, which is not necessary and not good.
This mixed economy that is somewhere between people's notions of capitalism and socialism is a waste. It's the wrong spirit: selfish.
They gave trillions to the rich sharks and wolves all of which the taxpayers will still have to work off. That was wrong and should be reversed.
The plan as put forth is vague and woefully inadequate.
The bankers are saying that they want to regain the trust of the people and the world. Who can trust the evil system of usury and the self-centeredness of the system of mammon? Who can trust a people who need to be coerced rather than loving truth and righteousness?
What is really needed is the Christian Commons. People need to understand from whenst the right and best system comes.
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)