Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, 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.
Eleven months ago, I wrote, “When the DINO battles the RINO, the LAWN will suffer.” The post said “The Democrats are the new Republicans; the Republicans are the new fascists.”
Today again, we see how the Republicans and the Democrats have moved far to the right, the purpose being to extend the gap between the upper 1% income group, and the rest of the nation, the 99%.
Why extend the gap? Because both parties are owned by the 1%, which wants not just to be rich, but more importantly, to be as far above the 99% as possible.
Psychologically, the 1% has the dual needs to distance themselves from the 99%, while enslaving the 99%. For the wealthy, the important point is not the absolute number of dollars they own, but the comparative number of dollars — i.e. compared to the rest of the world.
So for the 1%, pushing down the 99% is just as good as lifting up the 1%. It’s the comparison that counts. This is the basis for the economic misinformation being promulgated by the politicians and the media.
Los Angeles Times
Food stamp funds may be reduced
Republicans gain some Democratic support in efforts to trim back on food stamp eligibility in the farm bill. Anti-poverty groups and some Democrats object.
By Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau, June 20, 2012,
WASHINGTON — With 1 in 7 Americans now receiving food stamps, Republicans in Congress are leading efforts to cut back the social safety net program that has swelled to one of the largest in the federal government — and they are getting some support from Democrats.
The farm bill being debated in the Senate reduces funding for food stamps and is finding support from both sides of the aisle as lawmakers look for ways to cut the nation’s rising debt in an election year.
Translation: Yes, we know that for a Monetarily Sovereign nation, the “rising debt” is meaningless. It merely is the total of outstanding T-securities, all of which could be eliminated, tomorrow. But we have brainwashed the public into believing federal “debt” is like personal debt, and so should be reduced.
Why do we run this giant swindle? Because it gives us DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) a perfect excuse for cutting benefits to the LAWN (Lower Average Wage Nobodies).
You see, the highest 1% wage earners, consistently want to increase the gap between them and the other 99%, and cutting benefits is the best way to do it. And the 99% are so easy to fleece. Brilliant, huh?
Trimming back on eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, as food stamps are called, would save $4 billion over the decade. Republicans are pushing to reduce that even more.
Translation: Not only will we take away their benefits, but we’ll starve their kids — really bring them to their knees. That way, we can own them. It’s the perfect con. Take away their money, food, pride, education, jobs and future, then criticize them for being lazy criminals. And they fall for it!
But the shift in attitudes at a time when the economy remains sluggish in many parts of the country has drawn protests from anti-poverty groups and some Democrats.
“Increased SNAP participation has helped millions of families avoid hunger during this deep recession,” said Matthew Sharp, a senior advocate at California Food Policy Advocates. “We see any reduction of the size of benefits as a hit that families can’t afford to take.”
Translation: The DINOs and RINOs will demand huge cuts, and the LAWN finally will acceed to small cuts or no change (which in this time of recession, population growth and natural inflation, amounts to a per-person cut).
Demand a lot; settle for a little, and slowly chip away at the benefits for the 99%. Why not? It’s worked for Social Security, hasn’t it?
“Is the benefit going to the right people? Is the money being expended wisely?” questioned Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has led efforts to change the program, during a recent Senate speech. “Is it encouraging people to look for ways to be productive and be responsible for their families? Or does it create dependency on a series of government programs?”
Translation: “I am Jeff Sessions. I love rich people and hate the 99%. Show me any benefit program, and I will ask this coded question: ‘Does it (insert name of benefit program, here) create dependency on a series of government programs?’
My answer always is, ‘Yes,’ the (insert name of government benefit program, here) turns people into sloths. I say, people should be hard working, productive slaves to the 1% — like me.”
An estimated 45 million Americans received food stamps in 2011 — more than ever, at a cost of $78 billion. The average household using food stamps has a monthly income of $731 and receives $287 in SNAP benefits, the budget office said. Three-fourths of the households include a child, a disabled person or someone older than 60.
Translation: This is outrageous. All those people, bathing in the luxury of $9 thousand per year, have the audacity do ask for food stamps, too? Clearly, that additional $3,400 per year handout is what keeps them from being ambitious, productive workers.
If we take away their food, we can force them to crawl before us, with their charity cups in hand.
The bipartisan bill making its way through the Senate would trim benefits by about $90 a month for about 500,000 households, the budget office said, largely by eliminating automatic enrollment for some households receiving nominal aid under federal home-heating assistance programs.
Translation: We don’t want to make this too easy on those people, who already have such luxurious lives, so let’s eliminate automatic enrollment. And really, does anyone need home-heating assistance? Hey, it’s June; it’s hot outside.
And what’s a measly $90 per month? I spend more than that on shoe shines.
Republicans want to further limit the eligibility requirements. Sessions proposed a pair of amendments that would have saved an additional $11 billion over the next decade, but both were defeated Tuesday.
Translation: Hi, it’s me again, Jeff Sessions, the guy who brings the poor to their knees. What me worry? I’ve got mine.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was leading efforts to restore the food assistance program by paying for its costs with cuts elsewhere to agricultural subsidies.
Translation: The RINOs and DINOs are involved in the old shell game. The RINOs propose some truly outrageous cuts in benefits for the poor, then the DINOs offer to cut benefits for the not-so-poor. Everyone thinks the DINOs are so compassionate, but its all a pre-planned switcheroo — like “bad cop, good cop. Both parties want to cut benefits to the 99%.
Ironically, when you try to explain this to the LAWN, they get angry. I guess the LAWN enjoys being trimmed and stepped on.
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