How not to amend proposed legislation:
Obviously, Joe is the "don't confuse me with the details" sort. He apparently hasn't been around, or even ever heard of, a legal fight over the placement of a single comma in a statute.
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. That was no joke. It's lost on Joe though.
Well, it matters whether he thinks so or not.
I wouldn't want my name attached to the NEED Act as is without qualification. It needs a fine-tooth combing. Joe incorrectly thinks it's salable as it stands.
Well, it really doesn't matter much what Joe thinks about it because as a salesman, if he were to stick around long enough for anyone with any brains to get to see what he's up to, he'd get the door slammed in his face. Don't shoot the "messenger"? He does it himself, in both feet.
To everyone else who does care about sweating the details, the lack of a designator on the clause to amend 1813(l) is an easy matter to fix; but poor Joe is so utterly stuck up, he can't even bring himself to agree with that. It would be admitting he's not perfect/infallible. Rather than admitting it, he twists what I've done as if I haven't done it. I did the im pardonable. I actually pointed out something that Joe can't point to something else to say that I'm wrong. In other words, Joe turned out to be wrong all along but can't admit it. His way of dealing with it is by feigning boredom and hoping to dupe others into cognitive dissonance that the designator really is there when it is clearly not but ought to be in the way I suggested or something very close to it.
"Who cares about making things clearer. Let's just muddle through." No way! That's Joe's way of doing things that got us into this economic crisis.
Let me also say that Joe ducked supplying the list of all the experts in every agency and discipline who signed off on the bill as it stands -- not even a link, not even a name.
You'll also note that he ducked my clear and correct point concerning the cash-flow crunch on the banks that forecast interest earnings and commit to projects that then won't be funded. Does the NEED Act say the Revolving Fund will be used to handle such projects? It does not. Could it? Should it? If it should, how? There would have to be deadlines. There would also have to be audits.
Let's not make Joe's head spin though. We don't want to think too big around him. He might get mad and not want to communicate but rather pout.
Lastly, I will make clear that Joe has a problem communicating with people who are socialists and communists even Christians and not Marxists. I rather suggest that, that's his main problem concerning me -- that and that I didn't see the need for his not seeing that Ellen said that banks do create money (akin to check kiting) but that there is more to bank accounting and practices, what with all the exotics, etc., and MMT aspects than Joe's 1930's mind-set can wrap around.
Joe's attitude is that the NEED Act is don't touch it but just take it or leave it. Well, we'll see about that. It's not his bill. It's Dennis Kucinich's on behalf of the whole people. There's no way that Dennis would agree with plenty of the stuff Joe has said here callously about banking staff being thrown out of work. I dare say that Dennis would take the thought seriously and would not be put off by anyone wanting to avoid that or to be sure a solid safety net were in place.
Anyway, I don't need Joe, obviously a sore loser with his huge chip on his shoulder. There are others here and elsewhere who are interested in actually getting things through into law and know that that will require fixing real things that are pointed out, such as I have clearly done.
Now, I must get back to work on other things.
But I will say to anyone and everyone, that anyone who "lets" Joe "own" this thread is a fool.
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)