Thanks for supplying the link to the video.
I agree with your analysis with the exception that I believe more people here actually agree with Steve's "commercial banks fill a good and necessary role" idea. Haven't Scott and Joe more than hinted that they aren't for a socialist, single publicly owned depository for instance. Also, you're not quite as far to the left as I am on Monetary Reform/Publicly Owned Banking, right John? I'm really not sure just how socialistic you are, but I'm sure that will come out if you hang in here (or wherever we end up taking this: a new domain or maybe we occupy Occupy). Did you look at their NYC site? If so, what do you think?
What struck me most was how little Steve had thought it through. It's either that or her intensity was a bit much in person there. Wasn't there more hemming and hawing than there should have been for someone on camera so often concerning these matters? In reaction to being pressed about exactly which person (or group) would make the choices, he avoided being pinned down by falling back on that it won't be easy and must be systemic.
After a bit, he seemed to collect himself and began finding his words by way of describing that everyone would be funded directly by in, our case, United States Money. Those with debts would have to pay them off (not fair it there's no title chain). Those without debts could just be that much richer, less inflation that wasn't mentioned.
No, Steve is bright and does see plenty that the masses (that 90%) he mentioned don't yet see, but he's really wrong about not going right after the banks just because of pension funds and so forth.
Our systemic redesign could certainly protect the pensioners, etc., while we put the banksters (usurers) out of commission on a permanent basis. There's no sense in leaving things that will require yet another jubilee. Once-and-done is the proper way to go. The world's too populated for anything else. We need to fix it in this generation.
Steve Keen doesn't see usury as inherently parasitic. I do. What about you?
Yes, it's cumbersome to look through the comments and cross-reference to the Act and back. I don't have time right at the moment to fill your request but should find some time after my next work session.
I will want to do a better job of zeroing in and reducing the verbiage now that we all pretty much know each others' ideological/mechanical positions.
So, I'm still here and am thinking about this often throughout my workdays.
This topic is really going to take off it we continue raising it. There is a real "window of opportunity," if I may retread the old expression.
I'll tell you, if Ellen doesn't want to start the writing of the Banking Section, I may go at an outline. I think it's that important. I'm sure she could speed the process, but maybe she feels she needs to see genuine interest before she'd participate. Perhaps she thinks we're too radical though. How about it, Ellen? We could use your help and brains, etc.
We need to get at the root cause, and usury is a sign.
Happy New Year!
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)