●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
There is a value to losing. It teaches you what you might have done better. Without losing, there is scant progress. The player who never loses eventually loses – loses his motivation for improvement, loses his competitiveness, loses his desire to learn, loses his morals and his compassion.
Losing teaches you life. Losing teaches you humility — if you let it.
The Republicans lost. This election presumably was one of those “teachable moments.” So, what did the Republicans learn?
Here are a few excerpts from an article in the Washington Post:
Life after defeat for Mitt Romney: Public praise, private questions
by Philip Rucker
Romney’s top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.
Some top donors privately unloaded on Romney’s senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.
They learned Romney should have been “insulated and defended” against his history with Bain Capital and his millions in earnings.
Romney told the donors he believed Hurricane Sandy stunted his momentum in the final week of the campaign. . .
They learned not to have a hurricane interrupt a carefully crafted campaign.
Although Romney himself stopped short of placing any blame on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who praised President Obama’s leadership during the storm, several Romney supporters privately pointed fingers at the outspoken governor.
“A lot of people feel like Christie hurt, that we definitely lost four or five points between the storm and Chris Christie giving Obama a chance to be bigger than life,” said one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
They learned the fault was Chris Christie’s for saying something nice about Obama.
Romney advisers have said they were disappointed with Christie’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention because they believed the speaker focused too much on himself and not enough on the candidate. Republicans close to Christie, however, said the Romney team approved the final draft of the speech.
They learned that Christie’s speech caused Romney’s defeat.
Some of his top donors immediately pointed to the campaign’s early strategic decision to frame the race as a referendum on Obama rather than a choice between two different governing philosophies and leadership styles.
They learned losing was a matter of poor framing.
A second member of Romney’s national finance committee said that while the campaign’s tactics and fundraising organization were executed well, the strategy and message were “total failures.” This fundraiser added that the campaign’s cautious and adversarial relationship with the news media proved detrimental.
“That strategy was we don’t want to define differences, we want it to be a referendum not a choice, but it was always going to be a choice. Elections are a choice. Their fundamental premise was incorrect — and when you’re incorrect on this level, you are shunned by people in the party,” said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
They learned not to be adversarial with the media, and that they should have presented defined differences, whatever they may have been.
In sum, the Republicans learned they should have insulated Romney, prevented a hurricane, not let Christie talk and to define differences. Hmmm . . . sounds a bit superficial.
What do I hope the Republicans really learned?
I hope they learned that when you encourage such candidates as Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Cain, people will begin to believe you are a party of mean, nutty extremists — and Americans don’t like mean people, nutty people or extreme people — at least not to be President.
I hope they learned that when you give serious attention to birthers and to celebrity grouches like Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood, people will be even more disposed to dislike you and to doubt your sanity.
I hope they learned that a majority of voters believes in the availability of abortion during the first trimester, or in cases of rape or to save a mother’s life. Despite all those massively magnified photos of microscopic fetuses, the majority of people believe there are private personal, social and health issues into which the federal government should not stick its nose. We do value our privacy.
I hope they learned that women are an important voting constituency, who hate when strange men disrespect them or force life decisions on them.
I hope they learned that screaming idiots, of the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh ilk, actually can have a negative effect, particularly on people capable of rational thought.
I hope they learned that a candidate should have his own beliefs, and that the voters do not trust someone who will say anything and repeatedly change positions to please his current audience and the most extreme segments of the party.
I hope they learned we each make our own religious decisions, and do not want the majority forcing their religious beliefs on us.
I hope they learned that Americans do not want religious fundamentalism ala the Taliban, and that our ancestors came here to avoid that dictatorship of church.
I hope they have learned that Americans basically are decent people, who still believe in “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
I hope they have learned Americans care about fairness and protecting the underdog, and that we do not want to be ruled by the richest 1%, and we want everyone to have decent food, housing, education and health care.
I hope they learned people want their leaders to care about them and protect them.
Unfortunately, both parties have become so immersed in political strategies and tactics, they have forgotten why they are running for office, and why we should care who wins.
Reminder: The goal is not to defeat this candidate, or to occupy that office. The goal is to serve the people of America. The goal is to make America better. Both parties have forgotten that, or don’t care, but the Republicans lost, so they need to remember and to care more.
I have the feeling that if someone woke Romney in the middle of the night, and asked, “Why do you want to be President?” his first thought would be to say, “Tell me who you are, so I know what to answer.”
Is it too naive for candidates to care about America and the men, women and children living here — to put our nation and our neighbors first, and strategy and tactics last — to reach down and lift the “the homeless and the tempest-tost”?
Is it really too naive?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%
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 Imports