–How much is your child’s life, health and brain worth? Tuesday, Jun 30 2015 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
•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.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

How much is your child’s life, health and brain worth?

That is the question Justice Antonin Scalia and the other four right-wing justices want you and the government to answer.

High court blocks power plant regulations without cost estimates
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY, June 29, 2015

WASHINGTON – A narrowly divided Supreme Court on Monday blocked federal clean air regulations on coal- and oil-fired power plants that have been on the drawing board for a quarter century.

The 5-4 ruling stops the Environmental Protection Agency, at least for now, from imposing new rules designed to reduce the amount of mercury and other toxins that pollute the nation’s air, at an unknown net cost to companies and consumers.

The decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, with the other four conservative justices agreeing.

While the estimated annual cost of $9.6 billion is not widely disputed, the cost-benefit ratio is. Opponents said the benefits are as low as $4 million a year. Proponents said when all secondary pollutants are considered, they’re as high as $90 billion.

Only government agencies, especially the right-wing element of the Supreme Court could put a money value on the mercury and other toxins we breathe.

Here is what Scalia says about his favorite subject, money (what he terms, “free speech).

“One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” Scalia said from the bench. “No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good.”

How much mercury and other toxins, spewed into the air, is “good” compared with the “harm” of big corporations having to spend money?

Apparently, the Supreme Court wishes to listen to arguments about that.

The government said the regulations would prevent premature deaths and illnesses from asthma, cancer and heart disease, and protect pregnant women and unborn children whose fetal brain development can be harmed by overexposure to mercury.

Environmental groups said 4,200 to 11,000 lives could be saved each year.

Question for Justice Scalia et al: If the law would save “only” 4,200 deaths per year, is that sufficient? Or do you require saving 11,000 lives per year?

Or is even that number insufficient to satisfy the Republican Congress?

“The mere fact that the EPA wished to ignore the costs of its rules demonstrates how little the agency is concerned about the effects it has on the American people [and] the EPA continued to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican.

According to Rep. McCarthy, death, asthma, cancer, heart disease and injured fetal brain development are not a “burden” on the public. To McCarthy, the only burden is on corporate profits.

And what about those pregnant women and unborn children? Does the right wing care only about saving unborn children from abortion but not about saving them from mercury poisoning?

Is the difference that you wish to save rich corporations from money costs, but don’t wish to save poor women and children from life costs?

Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund said, “With a few adjustments to its analyses, EPA can ensure that America’s children are protected from the toxic mercury pollution discharged by coal-fired power plants.”

But Richard Faulk, an appellate lawyer who represents companies against environmental damage claims, said forcing the EPA to consider costs represents a “clear victory for industry and the rule of law.

Well, we all can breathe easier now, knowing that industry has a clear victory, despite the toxic effects on the American people. Too bad our children can’t breathe easier.

The Supreme Court ruled last April that the government could compel 28 states to slash ozone and fine particle emissions from power plants because the pollution crosses state lines.

See, it’s like this. Ozone and fine particle emissions cross state lines. Mercury and other toxins stop at the state line and wait for permission from the Supreme Court.

Makes sense to me.

But if it doesn’t make sense to you, how about this one:

(In June) the court blocked the administration from requiring permits for greenhouse gas emissions from new or modified industrial facilities. But the justices said the EPA could regulate such emissions from industries already required to get permits for other air pollutants.

When judges make decisions based on what is best for the moneyed interests, while trying to pretend they’re’s not doing exactly that, the decisions eventually become more inconsistent and nonsensical.

How much is your child’s life, health and brain worth?

Perhaps you should ask the Koch brothers and the dozen or more Republican Presidential candidates.

Then they can tell the Supreme Court.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

–Should SCOTUS be politically neutral or activist? Saturday, Jun 27 2015 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is
the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

A vast chasm lies between “should” and “is,” and nowhere is this more apparent than with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Many people believe the Court should be politically neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, judging each case on legal merits alone.

Yet, cases do not exist in a vacuum. What may be legal in one setting, may be illegal in another.

A soldier legally can kill an enemy combatant, not because of what the enemy is doing, but rather because of who the enemy is.

A military pilot legally can drop a bomb that kills an entire village, or in the case of Nagasaki, an entire city. A civilian cannot legally do that. Context is important.

Further, each Supreme Court justice has a personal history, personal proclivities, unique DNA, all of which affect his/her attitudes.

On these bases, neutrality is impossible, yet perhaps a desirable goal.

Justices are granted life terms, to insulate them from political pressure. Both political parties claim to deplore judicial activism, though these claims refer to decisions with which each party disagrees.

Presidents from each party, nominate judicial candidates whom they feel will be activist in the “correct” direction, and are disappointed when “their” judges do not vote “appropriately.”

American Constitution Society
WHAT TO MAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Date: September 17, 2013

In terms of “readiness to overturn legislation” the Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in late August.

Two leading constitutional law scholars, in Issues Briefs released today by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), buttress Ginsburg’s assertion with in-depth studies of high court opinions and voting behaviors that reveal the court’s conservatives are more often the most activist.

In “The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most,” University of Chicago law school Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, examining twenty high-profile Supreme Court cases on constitutional concerns, explains why the Roberts Court’s conservative justices are just as activist, if not more so, then it’s left-of-center justices.

Stone argues that the high court’s conservative justices, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, are hardly paragons of judicial restraint.

The Roberts court was criticized by legal scholars for being too activist — too far from neutral. Yet:

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. famously said, during his confirmation process, that being a judge is akin to a baseball umpire – you just call balls and strikes.

Whether Roberts meant what he said, at the time he said it, or merely was playing to his audience, never may be known. In either case, his court has been far more that an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Stone’s analysis of the outcomes in twenty cases covering an array of concerns, such as voting rights, Second Amendment, affirmative action, reproductive rights and equality, reveals how the narrative on judicial activism has been badly distorted.

“The traditional understanding – that liberals are judicial activists and conservatives are committed to judicial restraint – would lead one to expect that the moderately liberal justices in these cases would have been the most activist, the moderately conservative justices would have been in the middle, and the very conservative justices would been the most restrained.

“Not so,” Stone continues.

Stone concludes the “voting behavior of the very conservative justices cannot be explained by any commitment to the principle of judicial restraint.”

Which brings us to Justice Scalia’s infamous “originalism.”

(Stone said,) “Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time.

But this view erroneously attributes to the Framers a narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness that belies their true spirit.”

He continues, “The notion that any particular moment’s understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s broad and open-ended provisions should be locked into place and taken as constitutionally definitive would have seemed completely wrong-headed to the Framers, who held a much bolder and more confident understanding of their own achievements and aspirations.”

Instead, Stone sees a group of conservative justices who have let ideology and prejudices influence their work, not a commitment to a serious method of constitutional interpretation.

Clearly, Justice Scalia’s sarcastic, acerbic rants, in which he claims not only to know what the Framers wanted, but that their wants of 200 years ago are inviolate, and must be honored today — those rants are hubric wrongheadness at best and intentional political garbage in reality.

Despite ongoing Republican complaints about political activism, they howl like angry children denied a cookie, when the court is not activist enough.

Obamacare ruling puts Supreme Court on hot seat in presidential race

Infuriated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that kept President Barack Obama’s healthcare program intact, conservative ire was trained particularly on Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush.

What!!? A justice appointed by a Republican president, not toeing the Tea/Libertarian/Republican party line?

Outrageous that this man, whom we appointed, should now vote his conscience and legal beliefs, and against us!!

(Roberts) has voted with court conservatives on many landmark cases, including ones involving campaign-finance laws and voting rights. But he also enraged opponents of the Affordable Care Act three years ago when he cast a deciding vote in rejecting a different legal challenge to the law.

Translation: Roberts voted like our puppet, that money is speech (giving the rich more freedom of speech than the poor) and that voting should be made more difficult for the poor.

We thought we could rely on him to continue providing the same poor quality judging.

“He’s let down the [conservative] movement,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for conservative judicial nominees. “He may feel he has no obligation to the movement.”

Uh, well, in fact, Mr. Levey, as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts should have no obligation to any movement.

Amazingly, Levey seems to have no concept of the Supreme Court’s purpose (despite his being a part of the Committee for “Justice.”

Levey said that the pressure will now fall on Republican presidential hopefuls to spell out in detail their views on court appointments – and simple generalities about being faithful to the letter of the U.S. Constitution won’t cut it.

The last thing the right-wing Committee for “Justice” wants is a judge who is faithful to the U.S. Constitution.

They want a judge who is faithful only to the Republican party — another political hack, mouthing political rhetoric in unison.

And then, it really shifts into insanity mode:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, (who) warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to the “criminalization of Christianity,” (said we) “must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the decision “will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said “the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.”

Rick Santorum: “Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people’s opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said as president, he would “appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.”

Ted Cruz says the Constitution gives the Congress the power to strip the courts of jurisdiction. Furthermore, Cruz suggested that Supreme Court justices be subject to retention elections, so they could be voted out of office if they started abusing their power.

It’s all craziness, of course. “Criminalization of Christianity,” by the Christians on the Supreme Court?

“Resist and reject” Supreme Court decisions?

And Walker’s constitutional amendment to define marriage? Why is an amendment needed? No one is forcing Walker to marry a man.

Santorum bemoans “five unelected judges” making decisions. Apparently, he (and Cruz) feel there is not enough politics in the court, so justices should be elected, then thrown off the bench if they don’t vote “right.”

Ah, the madness in the air is palpable.

But I suspect it isn’t real madness. The Republican Presidential candidates have decided, rightly or wrongly, that their voting base is stupid, bigoted and irrational, so to appeal to primary election voters, they must say stupid, bigoted, irrational things.

How sad, for the Republican party, that the extremists exert so much influence. It wasn’t always thus. Years ago, when I voted Republican, the party actually was composed of people who cared about America.

Anyway, the answer to the title question, “Should SCOTUS be politically neutral or activist?” is this:

SCOTUS should be politically neutral and morally activist.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Federally funded, free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.-

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

Democrat Sen. Durbin courageously addresses the bankster issue Thursday, Jun 25 2015 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is
the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Recently, I wrote to my Illinois Senator, Democrat Dick Durbin, asking why not a single big-bank, bankster has been prosecuted, much less convicted.

Here is the full text of his courageous response, along with my comments:

June 25, 2015
Dear Mr. Mitchell:

Thank you for contacting me about the decision not to prosecute many executives involved in the 2008 financial crisis. I appreciate hearing from you.

“Many” executives? How about “any” executives?

In January of 2013, Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder. This letter questioned the scope and type of charges the Department of Justice had brought against those involved in the financial crisis. The DOJ said it would charge people it believed had broken the law. By the end of 2014, the DOJ had secured over $36 billion dollars in civil penalties related to the crisis.

Somewhat of a shift. The DOJ was supposed to charge people. The billions in civil penalties came from the banks. The people could not care less.

In the wake of the 2008 downturn, we worked in a bipartisan way to rebuild the country and enact common sense reform of the financial system. These reforms addressed many of the practices that led to the crisis.

It was not a “downturn,” Senator. It was a full fledged recession, bordering on a depression. Millions of people were thrown into financial devastation. Sadly, too few were politicians.

The “reforms” did not address the fundamental problem: Banks trading for their own accounts, rather than acting as banks.

Firms cannot think they are too big to fail, and executives must not be allowed to make decisions and not feel the consequences. These notions can lead to excessive risk-taking, and the expectation that the government will save a troubled company.

Except, the government rewarded the “too big to fail” banks by lending them money to keep them from failing. And the executives were rewarded with gigantic salaries and bonuses. Why? I guess we all know the answer to that.

I will keep your concerns in mind as we work to strengthen the American middle-class and protect the financial system from reckless behavior.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

I feel good, don’t you. He will strengthen the American middle-class and protect the financial system. How? I don’t know.

Anyway, you might think the headline of this post was sarcastic, when it spoke of his courage, but it takes a lot of guts to send a constituent a letter so filled with meaningless generalities and outright falsehoods. So kudos to Senator Durbin for his courage.

Now if only he would sponsor a term limits bill. His letter is a perfect example for why term limits are needed.

By the way, the solution to the bankster problem is in #9 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity: Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

Eliminate the profit motive and you eliminate the banksters.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Federally funded, free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.-

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

–And these guys want to be President of the United States? Is this the best America can do? Friday, Jun 19 2015 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is
the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

You might think that “hiring” President of the United States would bring forth our most brilliant, our most honest, our most creative people and our strongest leaders as candidates.

Sadly, it seem to bring forth the dregs — people who crave the honor and glory, and will do the bidding of the rich, like beggars kneeling before kings.

To disabuse you of any false beliefs, we have compiled some comments under the title: “And this guy wants to be President of the United States??”

Rick Santorum:“Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday called the tragic church shooting in Charleston, S.C. — which left nine people dead — a “crime of hate” and connected the event to a broader “assault on our religious liberty.

“You’re sort of lost that somebody could walk into a Bible study in a church and indiscriminately kill people.”

Santorum, the infamous ultra bible-thumping climate change denier, also is a denier of right-wing racial bigotry. He claimed that the guy who said, “I’m here to shoot black people” really was assaulting religious liberty.

No Rick. He was a religious guy, just like you. He sat there for an hour, studying the Bible. Then he took his easily obtained gun and killed 9 black people. Get it?

And we won’t even get into how climatologist Santorum said, “When it comes to climate change, leave it to the scientists.” (Scientists such as Rick?)

Jeb Bush: Another right-wing climate change denier (who one day in the future will claim he knew it all the time), said: ““I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this, by my priest back home, but I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope. Religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm.”

Apparently, Jeb thinks caring for the earth and our environment has nothing to do with us being better people.

Donald Trump: (Re. ISIS): “Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left.”

Hey, it worked in Iraq, didn’t it? And who cares how many American youngsters get killed, so long as Mobile makes a fortune? Spoken like a rich fool.

Rick Perry: “Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

Rick, it sounds like you do have the genetic coding to be an alcoholic, and you have yielded to that desire.

Sober up, “Oops.”

Lindsey Graham: “The Confederate flag is part of who we are. The flag represents to some people a Civil War and that was the symbol of one side. To others it’s a racist symbol, and it’s been used by people, it’s been used in a racist way.

But the problems we have in South Carolina and throughout the world are not because of a movie or a symbol, it’s because of what’s in people’s heart.”

The Confederate flag represents slavery. Is that who you are, Lindsey?

To paraphrase your logic, the swastika must be part of who Germans are. It represents to some people WWII, and to others its a racist symbol. But the racist problems in Germany are not because of the swastika, but because of what’s in people’s heart.

So fly that swastika?

Ted Cruz: “It is the job of a chaplain to be insensitive to atheists”

“I didn’t threaten to shut down the government”

In truth, Ted Cruz makes so many “wacko bird” (per Senator John McCain) comments, they could fill the page. Saying a chaplain’s job is to be insensitive, crosses the border into blithering nuttiness.

As for his claim he didn’t threaten to shut down the government, add that to: The sky isn’t blue; the world isn’t round and water isn’t wet — all equally true.

Mike Huckabee: Doesn’t want to give women access to no-co-pay birth control under the Affordable Care Act, because that tells women “they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government.”

Hmmm . . . So having insurance to pay for birth control proves you cannot “control” your libido? Apparently, in Huckabeeland, women should do without sex or just keep on having babies.

Mike, better talk this over with Janet Huckabee.

Bobby Jindal: (LSU has) “one of the lowest tuition rates in the entire country — less than $10,000” a year for tuition, books, meals and housing.”

Uh, Bobby . . . It costs over $20,000 — more than double. You didnt know that?

But why be surprised by a guy who came into office with a $1 billion surplus, and quickly turned it into a $1.6 billion deficit, while cutting funding for education?

Ben Carson: A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

Ben, are you saying that being jail-raped makes a person gay? How did you ever get to be a doctor? Exactly what is your point?

Marco Rubio: “There’s a lot of issues going on in the country, and immigration right now is not at the forefront. We’re not going to grant blanket amnesty to 12 million people. We’re also not going to round up and deport 12 million people.”

“Our climate is always changing. We’ve had hurricanes in Florida forever. . . . I’m not a scientist, man. . . . I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.

OK, Marco, you don’t want them to become citizens and you don’t want to deport them. So exactly what’s your plan? Does it depend on your audience on any given day?

Apparently, since you’re not a scientist, we should believe you instead of what scientists say??

Scott Walker: When asked whether he believes in evolution: “I’m going to punt on that one.”

“I hate big government . . . A key to success is not how many people are dependent on the government – but rather how many people are not.

Think of it: A potential President of the United States who has to “punt” on whether he believes in evolution? Yikes! What happens if he become President and encounters a hard question? More punting?

Scott, that great enemy of big government, thinks it’s good that his government requires women to undergo ultrasounds for no medical reason, regardless of the patient’s wishes, and regardless of what doctors say is necessary.

Rand Paul: “I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care . . . I’m a physician . . . that means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.”

Perfect. Rand, “the physician,” spreads a myth about vaccines, so he can discourage parents from vaccinating their children. Endangering the lives of our children is what he thinks a President should do.

It also is helpful for Rand, “the physician,” to explain that a right to health care actually is slavery. Some physician he must have been; some President he would make.

Carly Fiorina: “My track record at Hewlett-Packard is very clear. We took a company and doubled it in size to almost $90 billion. We took the growth rate from two percent to nine percent. And yes, indeed, we grew jobs, because we transformed a company that was falling behind and failing to one that was growing and succeeding.”

Sounds great. So exactly why was she fired after only six years?

She “doubled” the size of HP by merging with a company almost the same size (Compaq)– a merger that has proved to be a failure. Carly, here’s how I doubled my pay in just one hour: I married a working woman.

She selectively chose the growth-rate dates. Using date-for-date, revenue growth actually fell from 7 percent to 3 percent, not rose from 2% to 9%. Sort of a difference.

And as for “growing jobs,” the combined HP/Compaq job count declined during her tenure.

Ah, facts, facts. I’m a politician. I don’t worry about facts. I just want the glory of being President, a big pension the rest of my life, plus a Presidential library. Isn’t that what we all want?

All of the above shows that somehow, the American system for picking our Presidents is fatally flawed.

We invariably wind up with a weak, political creature, willing to say or do anything to get money and votes, eager to do whatever the rich tell him to do, and surrounded by flunkees who tell him he’s brilliant.

Think back to the Presidents during your lifetime. Can you remember any honest, bold, effective leaders in the bunch?

This isn’t working. Maybe if we found a way to eliminate campaign contributions, we’d find people who actually wanted to lead this nation, and were capable of doing it, rather than hiring political boobs who just want to get rich.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Federally funded, free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.-

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 644 other followers