Part 10: "Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn"

To Scott:

Scott,

You wrote, "...with respect to the GIGO problem with any "master computer program" - sorry Tom, I wrote and managed some half million lines of database code in my heyday, I know what can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong."

Scott, I understand your reservations; however, you are precluding things based not upon the largest opensource efforts in history. Am I correct about that? It seems strange to me that you didn't at least say that you agree that we should put it to the opensource community. We already had one professional programmer on this thread say it's doable. I doubt Richard Ballantyne would be the only programmer who would say it can be done. How many lines of code is it going to take to get people to Mars and back? Is this something that is not going to even be attempted? I'm not saying here that we do not test the code but embark to Mars with untested code. As Richard Ballantyne suggested, we don't have to start with an all-item CPI. I wouldn't hold out for starting with an all-item PI but only want to see it stated in the bill that it's a goal and with a timeline. Afterall, we aren't going to be limited by funding constraints. It will be national, cyber infrastructure. The NEED Act pays for it all!

It doesn't matter what personalities in history had their ups and downs. We shot for the Moon, we got there. It's been done. So, now we shoot for the stars in economic and monetary reform. Going there starts with people saying, let's do it and not with people saying it's too much.

Hey, this thread is a pep rally. It's taxing to have to rally the troops. I'm smiling (not mad). I know that you, Scott, are for the people and not out for self, first and foremost, and always. Rah, rah!

I hope your cold/mold gets better soon. God bless!

Merry Christmas!

To Joe:

Joe,

Reg. Q will be moot, but there are Money Market Mutual funds by Brokerages that are parts of banks.

As for Shadow Banking disappearing, you really can't assume that from the NEED Act as-is. I can think of many ways to game it, and I'm not even trying. (I won't give anyone ideas, so don't ask).

You said to Ellen, "I know that you have been saying ALL ALONG in this thread (first time I EVER heard it) that banks have to BORROW every dollar they lend." What? She has been saying it quite a bit. The last time was not the first. I didn't go back to count, but you could and then apologize.

Peace!

To Ellen, Scott, and Joe:

Ellen, Scott, and Joe,

I posted so much yesterday, I didn't think I'd be posting today (Christmas Day), but blessed are the peace makers!

We can supply language in the bill that immediately moves us beyond the money-multiplier-only-sans-data issue: (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/). We can render that part of the "debate" moot for purposes of the bill.

Plus, let's say in the bill that banks will not be held liable for clearing checks with money that has been moved into the Revolving Fund. The onus will be on the US government and whether real risk exists or not, Joe. It will be clarifying, fear reducing language, in case you don't see "unintended consequences." If you are right, the worst case is that the additional language will be harmless.

The exact language we use to do that and other things is at this point something we shouldn't care about {provided the final language will accomplish the various tasks with reasonable clarity of purpose and without introducing needless complications. This is an area where we can (and in my view, must) leave it to the system to discover any hiccups and then correct for same without having to go back to Congress}. Our conceptual, plain-language work will be a draft of the bill. We should then massage it to the point that others, such as Dennis Kucinich's staff, can easily understand it to polish it to meet federal standards.

Ellen, Scott, please specify what you see as ambiguities or other difficulties by taking the sections you believe are broken and supplying us in layperson-language with what would make them work. We can worry about "legislative" speak/formatting, etc., later. First, let's have the fixes supplied conceptually in plain language. That way, those who are not getting things based upon how you've approached the issues so far will (might) be able to walk backwards to see the problems. We need everyone to be able to see the problems before we all can determine whether each is real and whether and to what degree we may fix them.

Joe, is it really necessary that you drive Ellen to her knees? Credit money exists. We don't need to resolve your debate with Ellen here and now or even before this bill in a future iteration (under development here) becomes law. I'm positive Ellen would be satisfied by language that will handle her concerns but not upset your plan.

You aren't the only person able to take on driving people to their knees. It's not the spirit that's going to get the bill anywhere.

To John:

John,

Thanks!

"...retirees and pension/mutual funds would require an alternative form of low-risk investment to that provided by interest-bearing (term) deposits...."

Well, it won't be necessary, because not only will Social Security, etc., be easily fully funded, but we will be in a position to enhance benefits well beyond anything usury could afford via a governmental borrowing/bonds. I want to do away with government borrowing. Greenbacking requires no borrowing. The NEED Act is Greenbacking.

Monetary Reform: Series 1

Donate


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 Monetary Reform. Bookmark the permalink.