I just wrote a comment over on Facebook in which I had so much fun that I thought I'd post is here. It's pretty self-explanatory:
Honestly, the French have the highest rated healthcare in the world and it's very socialistic, sort of like the US military only much better.
Chris has a friend who posted a long comment not too long ago about the libertarian capitalist who drives to work on the public roads, etc. It goes on and on through all the different publicly owned things everyone has come to expect and should. I can dig it out if you're interested.
As for the blah, blah, blah, you mentioned are you really suggesting that Phil Gramm and Rubin and Summers and Greenspan, et al., didn't drive through hyper deregulation that led to leverage at north of 30 to 1? Come on. Then it got even worse under Bush-43. The CDOs were all toxic (on purpose). It was all a house of cards.
The "bad" bank now is Freddie and Fannie, and the idiots will kill them with the toxics hidden in then that have been put there in the last several months. You won't hear about that on FOX. Rick. You'll hear plenty about killing them but not the real reason, which is to write off the toxics of Wall Street via US taxpayer's dollars going forward for decades (and you thought healthcare would saddle the nation). They could have created a separate bank to do that, but they picked Freddie and Fannie because those institutions were to help poorer people.
The Fed is buying its own created debt and paying interest on it. These guys are nuts. Bernanke wants no leverage restrictions at all. Do you know what that means when the member banks of the Federal Reserve won't have to have any deposit reserves at all to create money by issuing debt? Well I do, and it's pure Hell. It's over ten times worse than what we have now.
They've saddled the U.S. taxpayers for generations at this rate. If you think the CDSs in the hundreds of trillions of balloon dollars were bad (you do think it was bad, don't you?), then you won't like what they have in store at all. Not only are they still not ready to control the CDSs, they are planning new exotics to hedge the hedges. It's bet on the bet about the bet on the bet only no one will know what the underlying asset is because there's to be pure nothing. Now that's a bubble they'll burst when they figure the people are in amnesia again! Can you say quadrillions? That's what they're planning. It won't take long what with the short attention span of Americans. Hell, the Tea Party already has them all thinking one way when the real problem is somewhere else.
We need to dump the Fed and nationalize the Federal Reserve Notes declaring them all to be interest-free, pure fiat, United States Notes to be used to pay off all obligations and then issued directly into the economy by federal spending on whatever we want (again interest free) and, hold on to your hat, tax free too! That's right, Rick, no interest on the National Debt, no National Debt, and no taxes with money pumped in without inflation or deflation and resulting in full employment. Is it all too good to be true? No, it's too good for the hyper-selfish greedy to go along with it because they wouldn't be able to suck the common people dry.
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)