Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. Until the 99% understand the need for deficits, the 1% will rule. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
The Republican party has become a mouthpiece for four extremist groups, none of which care a fig about the health, happiness or financial welfare of the American people:
Group #1. The pious (but definitely not “religious”), gun-loving right wing, that hates women so much, it doesn’t even want birth prevention, much less stem cell research to save lives or even a life-saving abortion life. And don’t get them started on gays.
Group #2. The Tea Party that wants to cut social benefits, under the masquerade of being against “big government.”
Group #3. The upper 1% income group, that sneers at the 99%, but needs their votes.
Group #4. The “defeat Obama no matter what” group that almost has forgotten why it hates him, but really, really, really does.
Combine all this crazy extremism, and you have a truly erratic situation. For instance, what does a wealthy Catholic woman do when she doesn’t want to get pregnant? Ah, problems, problems.
An even greater problem, what does the 1% party do when it needs to attract votes from the very people it despises? Well, first it spends millions of dollars and four years of trying everything possible to destroy the economy, hoping the 99% will blame the President. That worked, for a while.
But heaven forbid, if despite all their machinations, the economy begins to recover . . . well, if you can’t beat ’em, you have to join ’em, i.e., the Romney mantra. So what you were against, you now are for — more than just for, you actually created.
Here are excerpts from an article in TPM
Senate Republicans Signal Big Shift On ‘Obamacare’
Sahil Kapur MAY 30, 2012, 5:02 AM
Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOP’s shift in favor of some of the more popular “Obamacare” provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.
With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate popular elements of the law if it’s struck down — guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parent’s insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”
Whether coverage of pre-existing conditions is economically viable for insurers without an individual mandate is a dubious proposition, but practical realities are taking a back seat to election year imperatives. It’s not a hard sell to voters: you can have all the popular provisions of health care reform without the unpopular ones.
Actually, we could have all the popular provisions without the individual mandate. Our Monetarily Sovereign government, which on August 15, 1971, acquired the unlimited ability to pay any bills of any size, merely should pay for Medicare — for every man, woman and child in America.
Not only would this provide improved health care for the entire nation, while stimulating the economy, but it would remove the onerous burden of Medicaid from the states — three great results, all at one stroke.
Too logical? Too easy? Too beneficial to the 99%?
Despite the blowback from conservatives, who want nothing less than to wipe out the law in its entirety, top Senate Republicans are signaling that they’re behind the strategy of resurrecting some aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
I guess there has been some polling and vote counting. (OMG, you mean the people actually like guaranteeing coverage, insuring young adults and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole?” Who’da thunk? We better get behind it — but please don’t call it “Obamacare.”)
Next Romney (rightly) will claim it as his own. Remember, he was for it, before he was against it, before he was for it.
A GOP health aide explained the strategy on the shift: “Come up with a plan and come up with a plan quick to deal with popular … provisions.” The aide said Democrats would have a hard time turning down a Republican proposal to reinstate some of the law’s most popular pieces.
Now it’s a Republican proposal??? That would be like Bernie Madoff now claiming credit for proposing a plan to prevent Ponzi schemes. Where have you guys been?
The shift is notable because Republicans have spent more than two years pledging nothing less than total repeal of the law. Now, however, the party would be caught in an election-year predicament if the Supreme Court grants them their wish and overturns the law. Warming to these provisions is an important signal that Republicans believe the extent of their anti-“Obamacare” stance over the last few years is politically unsustainable. That’s not sitting well with conservative advocates.
Here’s the problem:
Group #1 is hates pretty much everyone who’s different from them. It wants only that women be pregnant, barefoot and live in the kitchen and the bedroom, and that there’s a gun rack in the pickup. They don’t care for group #2, they actively hate group #3, but they like the idea of group #4 (except they hate Romney almost as much as Obama).
Group #2 doesn’t care for groups #1 or #3, but loves group #4, as a way to take power.
Group #3 thinks groups 1 and 2 are lowbrow idiots, and doesn’t really care much about group 4, either. They will back Romney until it looks like he will lose, at which time they will jump on the Obama train. They can work with Obama (the fake liberal) just as well as with Romney (the fake everything). Money speaks all languages.
Group #4, doesn’t care about the other groups. They are ABO (Anybody But Obama) and sad to be stuck with Romney.
As long as they had the economy tanking, they all could forget their differences, and work together. But with the danger of voters awakening to the truth, we might see some internecine warfare.
On KTRS, Sen. Roy Blunt (MO),(vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference) floated the idea of high-risk pools to cover pre-existing conditions — an idea that presents its own adverse-selection quandary.
Blunt is part of group #4. But he’s stuck on the horns of group # 2.
(He said,) “You know, you do run a risk when you decide you’re not going to have insurance,” Blunt said. “And a lot of those — that odd, that occasional young person who believes they’re not going to need health care, doesn’t get it, and then they have a terrible accident or they have a unique illness that most young people don’t have. These high risk pools give them somewhere to go that is somewhere close to normal insurance.”
And who is going to pay for these high risk pools and “close to normal” (whatever that is) insurance?
Some Democrats think the Republican shift is merely a bluff. “They’re joking, right? This is serious?” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told TPM. “The Republicans — the tea party has never been for consumer laws, never been for protecting families, never been for making Medicare work better. So it’s a continued sham.”
No sham, Sen. Brown. It’s just group #4 possibly taking over from groups #1, #2 and #3.
And what of Romney, the party’s peerless leader? He’ll say whatever they (1, 2, 3 or 4 on any given day) tell him to say and go wherever they tell him to go. He leads from the rear. Way, way, way to the rear.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports