So long as U.S. banks are required to accept U.S. government checks — which is to say so long as the Republic exists — then the government can and does spend without borrowing, if it chooses to do so.
Why though don't you say right out, James K. Galbraith, that the government can and should issue debt-free/bond-free money directly into the economy by-passing the entire banking industry? People don't know what your statement above means. It's too coded. Why do it?
We don't have time. The grassroots Tea Partiers hardly speak cryptic economese. We aren't selling to Peter G. Peterson. His spirit is out to buy the Earth. Nevertheless, may he repent of his hyper-greed/selfishness. You have to win over the common people. How can we stop preaching to the New Deal economist choir?
We can and should have interest-free, tax-free, fiat United States Notes as the full legal tender of the nation to use to completely eliminate the National Debt and to pay for whatever the people want in the way of productive goods and services thereby also eliminating inflation and deflation while ushering in huge debt-free growth.
Money at this level would simply be a tracking/measuring device. In reality, the people could decide to provide goods and services without money, per se, provided they would be intelligent enough to do what is right — that is be righteous; but that's another article/ideology.
Why are the Federal Reserve bankers given free money that they release as debt and charge the people interest on their government's own money? It is the largest financial crime there has ever been.
The bankers are needless middlemen and women — leeches/parasites. It's an entire wasted, unnecessary layer — very stupid.
Those Federal Reserve bankers are not chosen by the people. They are chosen from within their closely held, private, elitist organizations. Their loyalties are to their employers, the bankers, and not to the people. Their loyalties are to the banking industry and not to the nation or nation-state or the people's government.
The health of the nation is not gauged by the health of the banking industry. Â As the banking industry goes, the nation need not follow.
The nation-state could do better without a banking sector. We need no institutionalized lenders charging the diabolical usury.
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)