TALKING-HEADS PAID TO DIS POPULISM, SPREAD DANGEROUS GREED
Right when Obama should be offloading all the Goldman Sachs people in his administration, he brings another on board: Goldman Sachs vice chairman Robert Hormats has been chosen for Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley are all making huge profits. They say they're lending. What they've done is make a great deal of money by jacking up fees. Meanwhile, as the bailout money went to the bankers (some of whom say they didn't even want it), the "stimulus" that went to individuals was used to meet immediate expenses or to pay down debt or went into savings. What happened to job creation via Main-Street-infrastructure spending and the like? Not much is the answer.
How much has crash-spending cost so far? The estimate right now is an end-cost of about $24 trillion.
The problem is that the mainstream-news types are selling the idea that the worst is definitely over. However, unemployment is still increasing. Local and state governments are still being squeezed. Foreclosures have not been stemmed.
Just because the biggest banks have made huge profits by increasing fees does not bode well for the citizenry as a whole.
The "too big to fail" was a lie. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke should never have been in the position to do all the secretive favors.
The talking-head panels on the TV business networks who are talking down populism are the same people who up until the day of the Crash, were still in denial. They are still living in unreality. They don't feel what people are going through. Most of those so-called news people know next to nothing about how the economy actually works. The superrich play them like a fiddle. The talking heads have their jobs and get their pay for spreading the Ponzi scheme that is still right there in front of their faces.
They all feel threatened by the bloggers who tell the truth about the Federal Reserve System and all the neocons' imperial lies.
So, what's the plan? The large online mainstream-news sites are making agreements to all start charging subscription and other fees to access content. They plan to do to the Internet what they used to do via paper. They plan on taking the Internet from the advertising model to the cable model, just as what happened to television.
What will happen if they do this? There will be another major shakeout. Many people won't pay but will seek out sites that will remain no-charge. Also, if they are going to pay anything, many will opt for alternative news that will start doing more serious journalism.
The thing the Rupert Murdoch's aren't appreciating is that back in the day; newspapers became expensive, and people didn't want a different paper for each type of topic. TV stations were expensive too. The Internet though allows for billions of topics from millions of sites. There just isn't any way of consolidating by force without a major backlash. Murdoch doesn't seem to understand what happened to America Online. It tried to keep AOL users all on AOL's site. The Internet is too big for that.
The only way around this is ruining the Internet. What's the excuse? The only excuse would be dictatorship. Dictatorship would bring violent revolution, and violent revolution would mean guillotining the greedy elitists who have caused all the pain and suffering. I don't advocate it. I speak against it.
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)