Tom Usher commented or added the following:
"In actual fact governmental regulation of business – including health and safety regulation – has always existed in the U.S. Even during the Colonial period, hundreds of laws regulating 'commerce hampered strict free trade." Health and safety regulations hamper violence and greed but not enough. The dark-hearted, selfishly motivated souls of the wickedness known as capitalism refuse to comply even with the most basic standards designed to protect the health and safety of people. The argument used by the laissez-faire types has been that people vote as consumers with their pocket books and business will end up doing the right things because that's just good business and sensible, etc. They claim it's an economic law. So, before there were regulations, why were things so much worse in terms of health and safety, not that health and safety are good enough yet? The reason they were so much worse is because greedy capitalists do not do the right things, the moral things, the decent things, the "love they neighbor as thyself" things but rather the worst they can get away with. The more they take for themselves leaving less for others, the more those others will fight over jobs with lower and lower wages and fewer and fewer benefits and lower and lower health and safety standards.
"the Congress and the courts would have to come to grips with a massive amount of empirical evidence that demonstrates that economic regulation (including healthcare regulation) is costly and counter-productive and actually harms consumers." Massive lie, that is. What evidence "that demonstrates that economic regulation (including healthcare regulation) is costly and counter-productive and actually harms consumers"? Cough it up. I've seen the garbage passed off as evidence by these guys. It's hogwash through-and-through. There can be and have been stupid regulations. To use that as an argument that regulations on balance have been worse than having none at all is even dumber. Before most of the regulations, things were hellish for a much higher percentage. The problem with most regulations has been with the greedy fighting and ignoring them.
What's wrong with Obamacare is that it wasn't modeled first on the best healthcare system in the world, and that's France's. What Obama didn't do is look at every healthcare system in the world and take the best of the best and improve on it. Instead, he caved into the corporations as planned from the beginning. Obama never even attempted to bring the rest of the people along on single-payer even though the majority were actually in favor of it when he was elected. It was a hot issue with people ready for single-payer to be put front and center.
By not fighting for single-payer, by refusing to put all the arguments for it out there front and center, Obama left the door wide open for ridiculous articles such as this one to be entertained by the still ignorant dupes.
It was deregulation that allowed the current recession/depression. Tea Partiers who think otherwise are being thickheaded and ignorant dupes of the Plutocrats.
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)