Republicans Do Not Understand Modern Economics or Are Simply For the Super-Rich

Look, I don't like Obamacare. I was, and still am, for Single-Payer, which for me would be a greatly enhanced version of Medicare for all. What I see the Republicans doing though with their refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless they get their way on Obamacare and the fiscal deficit is simply wicked.

They always, and I mean always, speak incorrectly about the fiscal deficit. The fiscal deficit is not, I repeat, is not, a problem right now at all. We are slowly climbing out of a deep and wide recession caused by deregulation, a mainly Republican led effort but with ignorant and foolish Democratic support at the time. The private sector is overly leveraged way beyond the governments debts. If the government stops spending, stops pumping what little money into the economy that it is, the private sector simply will not make up the difference. We will go into another recession.

The fact is that the government should be spending much more on productive projects. That would get us out of this hole and quickly and without inflation if done correctly.


Tom Usher

The real reason the Republicans (many of them in both houses of Congress) appear to be doing this is not because they understand economics but rather because they have an ideology that favors capitalistic monopolists over the egalitarianism of the masses, at least the masses who have not been duped by the likes of the Koch Brothers. Everything they seem to be about is designed to set up the poor and middle classes to be further enslaved by those who want a greater and greater share of the whole pie that will not be grown enough for those at the bottom, those who are not typically nearly as sociopathic, to have even enough. The Republicans want to create a dog-eat-dog economy where the most predatory, the most devouring, the most selfish, evil spirit will eat and eat and eat for itself and starve everyone else in low-wage slavery. They are not democrats (small-d). They are working for the plutocrats who are pulling the strings behind the scenes by spending their often ill-gotten gains in secret ways to strip the people of their democracy, limited as it may be.

Republicans shrug off debt ceiling as economic organizations plea for swift resolution - NY Daily News.


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. Bookmark the permalink.