Tom Usher wrote or added | Under cutting the American labor force was done intentionally so that there would be greater competition for the lowest pay possible while America had a surplus and rather rapidly went from that to being the biggest debtor nation. America and Americans borrowed to pay for things that they would not be able to continue affording due to the loss of jobs. The superrich made all the difference between the higher pay that was once in America and the lowest pay in the poorest nations beginning to develop. The superrich do not care that the American workers are now competing for jobs that are soon to become lower paying than in China and India and Brazil when compared to America's still overpriced cost of living. The only way out is to not buy foreign when possible. The only way to make that affordable is by insisting upon higher standards that were argued for before NAFTA. For everyone's sake, America must return to before NAFTA.
Paul doesn't see a way out. He suggests tax breaks to corporations that would produce in the US. He then though discusses how corporations could simply move entirely and not be headquartered in America thereby avoiding US taxes.
However, that does not address the idea of nationalizing the Federal Reserve. Some people like to call it recreating a sovereign currency. I prefer the term nationalize because it makes clear that the currency is the "nation-state's" currency while "sovereignty" is a lesser understood synonym for that same thing in a democratic republic.
Also, "nationalize" doesn't pussyfoot around the fact that the national currency is a shared or common currency in the leftist sense. The people on the right want to avoid admission that anti-privatization is a good thing anywhere, let alone concerning the money. They do know better though and just don't want to encourage the giving-and-sharing economy across-the-board, whereas I do.
You will notice that my suggestion to raise the standards is a kind of protectionism, but it protects the environment and workers in other nations too. That's why it is based upon unselfishness versus the greed of the plutocrats.
Higher standards is a win-win scenario. NAFTA was a lose-lose for the US and Mexico and I would argue for Canada as well.
All the so-called "free-trade" has been bad for China relative to how it could have been there. China is absolutely wrong that pollution is an inevitable consequence of industrialization. It is inevitable only for poorly designed, selfish industrialization.
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)