US Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) are called the Gang of Six. They are supposedly working a plan to reduce federal deficit spending because the federal government borrows to fund the deficit and pays interest on that borrowing. The National Debt is so large ($14.3 trillion estimated for this coming May), that the government is spending over 40% of annual tax revenues in interest payments.
It sounds like a serious problem, but it isn't. It sounds like a problem that only wizard economists can fix if at all, but it isn't.
This Gang (very apt term because banksters are behind it), wants Republicans to agree to raise taxes a bit while Democrats agree to deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid (the only health-coverage for most of the poorest of the poor), and Social Security.
The idea is to chop $4 trillion in 10 years. Since they seem to be planning $1 in tax increases for every $3 in cuts, at least $3 trillion in cuts to benefits and services would be necessary. All other things being equal, that's over $300 billion a year in cuts averaged over the 10 years.
This Gang of Six is made up of what are called Deficit Hawks. I have come to realize that Deficit Hawks ignore the real solutions. They do that because the real solutions would benefit everyone rather than the elitists who fund Deficit-Hawk politicians.
This Gang of Six is not as blatant in that as Paul Ryan, who is the Ayn Rand loving, anarcho-capitalist economic airhead, Chairman of the US House Budget Committee. Ryan put forth a plan to cut $6.2 trillion in 10 years without raising taxes but with privatizing Medicare. Talk about the road to Serfdom.... slave-wages here we come.
Now look. I said solving this is not difficult at all, but nobody is harping on it. The reason for that is as I stated above. The elitists funding politics won't allow the solutions to be discussed. It will require the grassroots harping on the solutions to force real solutions, not these stupid non-solutions by the likes of this Gangster Sicks.
The real solution doesn't require one cent in cuts or one cent in tax increases.
The easy method to get out of the current situation without raising taxes or cutting spending is by nationalizing the Federal Reserve and then issuing tax-and-interest free United States Notes pegged exactly in real-time to real productivity so that there is zero overall inflation or deflation but everything the American people would want funded is funded.
This is not complicated!
Great projects have been built through the ages that were not, I repeat!, were not paid for via capitalism. The Great Wall of China was built solely because it was decided to be built. It took a huge labor effort. It was not built to be a future tourist attraction and capitalist profit-center. The same can be said of the Great Pyramids of Egypt.
While the decisions to build such gigantic projects were very likely not made by consensus decisions of the whole populations, greater projects than those by far could be build by exactly such consensus- or even democratic-decision making.
The US Super Highway (freeway, not tollway) system was a political decision. Unfortunately, the US borrowed money during the same years that system was being built rather than funding all public works via tax-and-interest free United States Notes pegged to the real productivity that, that highway system represented.
The money was created as the libertarians moan "out of thin air," but creating money has always been such a power to confer value in a unit of exchange (not that we even need a medium of exchange or trade in the end).
The libertarian capitalists point to the fractional-reserve system a the way other money is created as debt compounding on the original money created also as debt by the Federal Reserve and funded for deficits by the issuing of US Treasuries (debt).
The US-Treasuries part could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen.
Also, the fractional-reserve method of creating more money as interest-bearing debt could also be eliminated simply by increasing the original money (United States Notes) issued into the system by the government to pay for all sorts of goods and services covering everything currently covered that the Deficit Hawks want to cut.
Why, we could fund the elimination of all poverty nearly instantly if we put our minds to it.
So, what's standing in the way? The answer is as simple as the solutions. The greedy sociopaths are standing in the way. They want more for themselves relative to others even if it ultimately means less for themselves. Read that again. They want more for themselves relative to others even if it ultimately means less for themselves. That's right. They are insane.
Funding everything we need and want that is truly productive would raise the overall quality of life for everyone on the planet. The poorest of the poor now would be richer in quality of life than the richest of the rich now. The richest of the rich now would be better off for sure, but they don't want that simply because they want the sociopathic position of controlling and using and abusing others. As I said, they are insane.
Let me state that there are degrees of this insanity. Therefore, some people are more sick in this way than are others who also go along with it. In addition, this mental disease is so sinister that those who are sick with it really don't know how it feels not to have the disease. They often don't know they are sick with the disease.
What's to be done? I said what's to be done a bit ago: Harp on it. Harp on it until they repeat it in circles where it can't continue to be ignored. There will be stupid, dismissive, non-answers; but don't take those for answers. Keep pressing the points for real responses because real responses will mean the insane ones, the ones bought and paid for by the sickest of the elitist capitalists, will be shown to have no reasonable grounds for blocking the common people from finally having the great quality of life they've been denied for being lied to and for being less savage than the sociopaths (who perversely enough often think of themselves as being more refined than the masses). They're just monsters in powdered wigs is all. Some of the worst people in history were the most "refined." To be truly refined is to be as righteous as possible though.
I've kept posting and posting and tweeting and tweeting about nationalizing the Fed and issuing USN (United States Notes), but I can't do it alone. There are only a handful of people, if even that, in the whole world who have on and off again kept pecking away at this issue, but it's going to take hundreds of thousands and millions and tens of millions of people to come to understand how simple this all is.
Economics is as simple as rolling off a log. There's nothing to it. The elitists would have you falsely believing that even the most fundamental things in economics are dark and mysterious things that about which no one has a handle and that must be studied and written about in long tomes and only by those who have been consecrated by the dimwits at the economics departments of the major universities, blah, blah, blah. It's a farce! I've been writing about it for years now in very simple, straightforward, clear and plain terms.
The world is a house where the whole people need borrow from no one to build whatever they need and want. Economics is the management of that household, that estate. That's all. It's simple, very, very simple.
Join the Christian Commons now. We will bring forth, per Jesus Christ.
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)