...Koch Industries accused Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, on Wednesday of spreading "false information" about the company by suggesting it was behind the move to tie a demand to keep the government open only if financing was eliminated for Mr. Obama's health care law.
"Koch believes that Obamacare will increase deficits, lead to an overall lowering of the standard of health care and raise taxes," Philip Ellender, the company's chief spokesman, wrote in a letter to senators. "However, Koch has not taken a position on the legislative tactic of tying the continuing resolution to defunding Obamacare, nor have we lobbied on legislative programs defunding Obamacare."
Other conservatives showed a new flexibility. Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama and a fierce critic of the health care law, came out of the meeting and said: "My primary focus is on minimizing risk of insolvency and bankruptcy. There are many paths you can take to get there.
"Socialized medicine is just one of the component parts of our debt and deficits that put us at financial risk. Are there paths that can be created that do not include socialized medicine?" he asked. "Yes."
This is all such a major waste all the way around. The most important thing here is that the US government doesn't have to borrow a dime from anyone, ever. The US Treasury can issue all the debt-free money we need. We don't have to pay bond holders a penny in order for our government to fund itself and our entire economy without any price inflation or deflation. This has been known for at least more than a century because Abraham Lincoln did just that to fund the Civil War! His issuance was a bit inflationary, but that hurdle can be easily overcome via modern computer technology.
Just look up United States Notes.
That we borrow to fund our government is simply a means of transferring via taxes the wages and salaries of poorer people to richer people behind the whole bond industry. Think banksters. It's a scheme.
It would be extremely easy to end, and doing so would be a hugely liberating benefit to humanity, us.
As for the Koch Brothers, they may not want to be front and center taking the heat for the stupid moves of the libertarians pushing the anti-government line right now, but too bad. They have been behind the entire movement for many, many years. They can't escape with the lines they are spewing right now.
And as for socialized medicine, anyone against socialized medicine is an extremist, a laissez-faire capitalists who wouldn't draw a consistent line concerning the US military, the local police, the local fire department, and the public sidewalks.
What do we want, to have to pay a user fee every time we walk to the corner grocery store? Some greedy morons would have us doing just that. No money to the troll on the sidewalk, no getting to the grocery. Starve you undeserving souls who believe it is best and right that we as human beings equally share the ownership of the public (that's publicly owned) sidewalks and roads, etc.
Let's not go the greedy way anymore. It's a mental deficiency. Even modern scientific studies have confirmed that the cooperative way is better than the competitive way.
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)