Tom Usher wrote or added | Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, and Tom Ferguson, Professor of Political Economy, University of Massachusetts, are right on in this video. The rest of them are shills for privatization.
Cutting entitlements is absolutely not necessary. Ending the Federal Reserve System and Neoliberal economics worldwide is.
This was all planned out before the crash. I wrote that this was their plan to railroad in privatization so the rich will get richer still while the middle class is crushed into fighting for the scraps of minimum wages. Remember, the wealth gap right now is the highest in American history. When it was at its lowest average, America was at its peak in the world (approximately 1950).
These stinking people are the same ones who created the deregulation environment that caused the crash. If you listen to them rather than to those who are dead set against them, you will regret it if you even remember your error – Americans suffer from historic amnesia. They let the Svengalis of the world banksters lull them into a stupor of changed subjects.
The problem is not, I repeat, is not with the deficit. It is solely with interest-bearing currency (privately monopolized money of the Federal Reserve) and where the money is spent (on allowing banksters to borrow at zero percent to buy up competitors, paid huge undeserved bonuses, and to invest at interest paid by your taxes rather than lending to businesses; and Pentagon spending).
These people are asses. Don't listen to them. Don't follow them. Don't fall for their utter garbage. They are only out to get yours and leave you and yours with as little as possible. They are greedy pigs. They are swine Jesus warned of. Casting your pearls before them will cause them to turn on you to rip you apart to devour you. What they are saying is wicked, wicked, wicked!
There was Bill Clinton sitting on the stage with the very ones he said he was a fool to have listened to about deregulation and the neoliberal economic agenda.
Why is anyone listening to Alan Greenspan still for instance? He's been thoroughly discredited in terms of having two economic brain cells to rub together. He hates Populism for crying out loud. Alan Simpson would eat your children so his kind can have excess.
Let them repent!
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)