"An Unemployment Report That Screams Spectacular Failure," by Charles Kadlec - Forbes. Wrong! It screams for more: for public jobs and United States Notes!

...when the government purchases the computer, it is financed through government exactions of one form or another. At the end of the day, every dollar spent is taken either directly through taxation or borrowing, or indirectly through inflation.  As Milton Friedman said, government spending is taxation.

Forbes Article author, Charles Kadlec

...Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in 1939 told the House Ways and Means Committee:"We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...We have never made good on our promise.  I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And an enormous debt to boot!" No truer words could be spoken today.

via An Unemployment Report That Screams Spectacular Failure - Forbes.

That is absolute nonsense. See my immediately preceding blog post: "Bill Still on Monetary Reform: 'SR 23: Baby Birds'."

You may also do a site search on "United States Notes" to see the numerous times I've debunked this.

Also, economist and historian James K. Galbraith and others have laid out the history of the unemployment rate before, during, and after the Great Depression and the direct impact of New Deal spending and hiring. The fact is that Henry Morgenthau's statement does not reflect the direct lessening of the unemployment rate that occurred due to the New Deal.

Don't forget that military hiring for WWII was government hiring. If they could hire for war, we could hire for a different kind of war: A war on poverty and unemployment and crumbling infrastructure and environmental pollution, etc. Doing that would increase productivity way beyond WWII rates because the produce would return more production rather than death and destruction, which are dead ends and a net-loss economically planetary-wise.

We need direct public employment on a massive scale right now. We've needed it since late 2008 at the latest! It could all be paid for without raising a dime in taxes. It is sheer ignorance and/or false propaganda to state otherwise.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.