Here's the deal. Al Sharpton's point in this video is valid, but the problem arises that people will get the wrong idea that we should return to Reaganomics.
Reaganomics was slightly better than what the Tea Party laissez-faire / anarchist capitalists are advocating, but Reaganomics is vastly worse than what it replaced, which was the New Deal.
The anarchist-capitalists (aka anarcho-capitalists) like to twist the data to suggest that historically, the New Deal failed. It didn't fail except that it didn't go nearly far enough, which Franklin Roosevelt actually knew. He did as much as he could given the political capital he was handed by the people. He said as much.
- They didn't hand him enough to end racism for instance.
- They didn't hand him enough to make the jobs programs permanent.
- They didn't hand him enough to make the jobs training programs for high-skills.
- They didn't hand him enough to make the public jobs programs extend to all ages.
What happened though was that military Keynesianism (WWII) did the job of employing everyone that hadn't finally been employed before the war (about 10% remaining from 25%). The bankster-plutocrats couldn't stop that from happening.Make no mistake about it though, the New Deal if it had been handed enough power by the people could have easily employed everyone to the point of zero unemployment (without war) and could have engaged in high-skills training and could have made the jobs permanent and for all ages, etc.
The obstacle was the upper class, the 1% of the time if you will. The gap between rich and poor had been as wide as now when the 2008 crash occurred and for many of the exact same reasons, such as Reagan's beginning of the systematic dismantling of the New Deal, which dismantling has carried on right on through to Barack Obama today, who did not go after the control fraudsters who deliberately crashed the system because they were prepositioned with their shorts in place (had devised and sold the junk, toxic securities to the people while betting against those securities). Goldman Sachs did that. They admitted it but said it's just "business."
So what does the "Reagan Clip On Closing Tax Loopholes For The Wealthy" mean? It means that you shouldn't give the greedy an inch because they are the camel's nose under the tent. If you don't get it out of there, that camel will end up in your tent pulling it down and causing a great mess ruining everything. Give the greedy an inch, they steal a mile and then another and then another until there's nothing left to steal.
The anarcho-capitalists won't like that saying of mine. They'll complain that I'm not talking about them but about crony capitalists who hide behind government, etc. No, I'm talking about capitalism no matter how pure those anarchists think that they can conceive of it. The very essence of it causes the monopolists. The very selfish (not self-interested) spirit of it is fatally flawed. It doesn't work, never has, and never will. It's dead on arrival and will be buried once and for all by the whole of humanity and rightly so.
Why did I differentiate between selfish and self-interested? Know thyself. The self is God within — the living spirit of righteousness dwelling within. God is not selfish. God even gives to those who hate him. It's the Satanic spirit that withholds. Ask Jesus. Read Jesus. It's there in context — the full context.
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)