"...we could tax the conversion of dollars into yuan to compensate for China's subsidy.Â We could set that tax by the rate of intervention that China takes.Â Right now, it's about a 35% benefit they give on conversion of currency, so we put a 35% tax on it, and that would even things out.Â And then if China stopped doing that, we'd stop the tax." — Peter Morici
Tom Usher's take:
That's a form of Capital Controls, and they work up to a point.
I'm not for punishing the Chinese people. I'm for fairness. I do think that the US should atone, but it was the US elite that got the US into doing the things it ought not to have done and to not do the things it ought to have done. The same though holds for China. China has an elite. There's no doubt about it. That elite is in bed with other elitists everywhere. That's the problem: selfishness led by elitists duping the minions and sycophants.
So, I've been speaking out. Others have been speaking out. We are met with strange voices that seem to think that all the evil is in the US though. That's hardly correct.
The world is in a class struggle and has been since the beginning of so-called civilization. It's a very, very rare people who have managed unselfishness. That's not because unselfishness is anti-human nature. It's because the elitist kill for power and distort everything such that the masses are falsely led to believe that human-on-human violence is human nature. It is not in the main. It is an aberration and needs to be stopped.
People need to become enlightened rather than remaining retarded, and I don't care which religions say what about that. Any religion that authorizes violence is wrong about it and that includes the Old Testament and the Qur'an and certain variants of Buddhism or Hinduism, etc.
Now, this Peter Morici is one tough competitor, but I'm not sure I can say that he's out for helping America only. I don't know enough about him. I really want a giving and sharing economy, but we have a hyper selfish, hyper greedy global system. It's awful. We have to start where the people will even be willing to start, where they will even begin to grasp what's going on. That's why I haven't advocated that the whole world instantly jump to a moneyless society because the people wouldn't know what to do with themselves since they have not been brought along in the giving-and-sharing-all way and spirit.
So, can I endorse Peter Morici's points here? I can endorse some of them, even the vast majority but only in a qualified way. I certainly do not want to settle on the mixed economy. I don't advocate coercive measures against capitalism, which is greed — plain and simple. I do advocate that capitalist see the light of unselfishness and take that into their hearts and then act accordingly given the system at the time.
Should the US do nothing for the American people vis-a-vis the Chinese greedy elitists? No, the US should focus on full employment for Americans without making things worse for those in other nations but rather better. It can and should be done. All we need to do is to be smart rather than pathetically selfish/self-centered, which is stupid in the long run.
For starters, check out the call for United States Notes.
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)