Part 19: Monetary Reform: Series 1

Difficult conversation, continued:

Joe Bongiovanni,

Okay, now I see where the confusion is.

Of course I saw:

"(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment to the FDIA- Section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"'Such term does not include any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument).'."

I didn't tack it on [you wanted less but are requiring more] in my last go around with you. I plugged it in mentally the first time I read the whole Act, which I've done several times. For you though, let's add it verbatim according to the Act so everyone may see exactly what happens and what it does in reality and not just your mind, Joe.

Here's the end:

"(5) such other obligations of a bank or savings association as the Board of Directors, after consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, shall find and prescribe by regulation to be deposit liabilities by general usage, except that the following shall not be a deposit for any of the purposes of this chapter or be included as part of the total deposits or of an insured deposit:
...
"(C) any liability of an insured depository institution that arises under an annuity contract, the income of which is tax deferred under section 72 of title 26.

"Such term does not include any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument)."

What designation does that take in that position? Answer: § 1813(l)(5)(D). What does that mean?

"...except that the following shall not be a deposit for any of the purposes of this chapter or be included as part of the total deposits or of an insured deposit: [however] Such term does not include any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument)."

It's a negation. Time deposits become deposits become transaction accounts under the NEED Act. I took it as more mess, which it is, for the reason I give below, not that the Act is not a good beginning, as I've said in this thread. If it weren't a good start, I would never have been here spending all this time on it.

I haven't had the time to work through the entire document all by myself, as I work full-time (actually more). That's why I've been asking for help, while you, Joe, have been assuming (acting as if) the bill is perfect, which is clearly not the case, and have made this all take exceedingly longer than it should.

You're giving it the designation "§ 1813 (l)(6)" in your mind. That's the only way it can accomplish what you want (though it's still poorly/awkwardly worded). Now, if you want it to be "(6)," then put that in the NEED Act as follows (and don't moan about it or lick your wounds; just get over it – better yet, don't take it personally in the first place):

"(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment to the FDIA- Section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(6) 'Such term "deposit" does not include...."

I added "deposit" for additional clarification, as "(l) Deposit
The term "deposit" means—."

Frankly {since this NEED Act is amending 1813 (l)}, it should actually read thusly rather than simply prefixing it with (6):

"(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment to the FDIA- Section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) is amended as follows:

"(l) Deposit
(1) Subject to 1813 (l)(2), the term "deposit" means—
[whole thing here with new outline designators]
(2) The term "deposit" does not mean—
(A) any amount on which any interest is paid or which is received or held by a bank or savings association pursuant to a loan agreement for a fixed term of time (as determined without regard to any designation on the agreement as a loan, certificate, or other particular instrument)."

Either way, you change the Act's wording.

This is what collaboration is about. It is not about your sarcasm, as if you arrived at some gotcha moment. You didn't arrive there and shouldn't have wanted to in the first place.

Focus on fixing things. It would have been an easy matter for you to have said very politely, Tom, take a look at ... to see if it ... whatever. That's the style I'm used to. Then it would be an easy matter for me to reply, I think it would improve things if .... Then you'd say, good idea/clarification/edit or have you considered.... [something other than that I wasted all my time copying and pasting – I haven't; but knowing you,..].

Tom

P.S. I will not be posting here for a few days at least, as I have a day job and a night job.

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 Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.