If you still claim Donald J. Trump was interested only in Ukranian corruption: Thursday, Dec 5 2019 

Image result for godfather

“Do me a favor, though . . . “

Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.): “I will never understand how some of my colleagues, in many ways good people, could ignore or deny the president’s unrelenting attack on a free press, his vicious character assassination of anyone who disagreed with him, and his demonstrably very distant relationship with the truth.”

Professor Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina: “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against. (If Congress gives Trump a) “pass,” then “every other president will say, ‘okay, then I can do the same thing,’ and the boundaries will just evaporate … and that is a danger to all of us.”

Professor Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University, said that the ‘most chilling’ aspect from previous testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was when U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky needed only to announce, but not necessarily execute, anti-corruption investigations.

(In Karlan’s eyes that debunks the idea that Trump and his allies like Rudy Giuliani were legitimately concerned about corruption in Ukraine and were only focused on going after the president’s domestic political rivals.)

“President Trump by pushing for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance and that inviting foreign interference in an election undermines democracy itself.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor and one of America’s top legal scholars (focused on constitutional studies) said about: Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University Professor who argued against impeaching President Trump “(He) was an utter waste of time. His call for solid evidence was a truism. He gave no reason at all to regard the evidence gathered by Rep. Adam Schiff as insufficient to establish impeachable offenses. And his carping about the speed of the process was pointless.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler: “The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. But as they met to frame our Constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all: foreign interference in our elections.”

Just a few years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the President of the United States would be a man subservient to the communist leader of Russia. It would have been even less conceivable that an entire political party, out of personal greed for power, would have supported such a man.

The deviations from law-abiding precedents are not just “Trump being Trump.” They are Trump being a traitor.

It is comical or frightening, depending on one’s view, to watch sophisticated politicians adopt the childish naivety required to believe Trump was really not imploring Ukraine (and Russia before it) to meddle in our elections and to work against a political opponent of Trump, but oh no, rather his only interest was corruption.

The Republican Party, once the party of “law and order,” the party of “family values,” the party of “religious tolerance,”  the party of accepting responsibility for one’s actions, the party of patriotism, and the party of “Constitutional originalism,” this party now has sold its soul to a man who subscribes to none of these.

It is said that “power corrupts,” but the lust for power corrupts even more. 

Donald Trump is a proven criminal, admitted adulterer, intolerant, blame-passing, turncoat who tries to twist the Constitution in order to enhance his own power, and who has gathered around him, an unprecedented coterie of convicted criminals and ne’er-do-wells.

The deviations from law-abiding precedents are not just “Trump being Trump.” They are not just modifications of the norm. They are Trump being a traitor.

It is time for those who care about America as a nation and about the human beings in it, to acknowledge what all the world sees: Our President is a traitor, America is paying the price, and only we Americans can save ourselves.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The Hyperinflation Myth Explained Saturday, Nov 30 2019 

There is a widespread myth that hyperinflations are caused by excessive government money “printing.” Perhaps you are among the vast majority who believe this pernicious myth.

Well, it simply isn’t so, and the belief alone is responsible for great misery, worldwide.

Consider these excerpts from the following article:

Fed analysis warns of ‘economic ruin’ when governments print money to pay off debt
NOV 26 2019, Jeff Cox, CNBC

St. Louis Fed economists warn in a paper of potential “economic ruin” if policies that advocate money-printing to pay off government debts are ever adopted.

Immediately, the article provides us with a misunderstanding. “Money-printing” never is used for paying off U.S. federal debt.

The federal debt is the total of net deposits into Treasury security accounts. When you buy a T-bill, T-note, or T-bond (aka “federal debt”), you open a T-security account, and into that account, you deposit the price of the T-security.

There, your dollars remain, collecting interest, until the T-security matures, at which time, your dollars — the dollars you deposited plus the interest in the account —  are returned to you.

During that entire round trip — you depositing dollars and those same dollars being returned to you — the only so-called money “printing” has occurred daily over a period of years, as your account accumulates interest.

The U.S. federal government could pay off the entire U.S. debt today, if it wished, simply by returning the $20 trillion that currently exist in T-security accounts. No money “printing” or taxes involved.

Returning to the article:

“A solution some countries with high levels of unsustainable debt have tried is printing money.

“In this scenario, the government borrows money by issuing bonds and then orders the central bank to buy those bonds by creating (printing) money,” wrote Scott A. Wolla and Kaitlyn Frerking.

“History has taught us, however, that this type of policy leads to extremely high rates of inflation (hyperinflation) and often ends in economic ruin.”

They cite Zimbabwe in the 2007-09 period, Venezuela currently and Weimar-era Germany . All three faced massive deficits that led to hyperinflation due to money printing.

In fact, all three nations provide examples of the real cause of hyperinflation, and it isn’t money “printing.”

(As an aside, money is  not printed; it is created via bookkeeping. Money has no physical existence. A dollar bill actually is a title to a dollar. Just as the paper title to a car is not a car, and the paper title to a house is not a house, the paper dollar bill, is not in itself a dollar. The actual dollar is nothing more than a non-physical accounting notation on the government’s books.)

The cause of general price increases, i.e. inflation, is shortages. Usually, these are shortages of food or energy. It is shortages, not money “printing” or full employment or excessive demand (as some people claim), that makes prices go up.

Zimbabwe
Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe began in February 2007. . In the late 1990s, the Robert Mugabe government evicted white landowners and gave their farms to blacks.

Many of these “farmers” had no experience or training in farming. As a result, from 1999 to 2009, the country experienced a sharp drop in food production, creating massive food shortages.

The non-farmers were unable to obtain loans for capital development, (money shortage). Food output capacity fell 45%, manufacturing output 29% in 2005, 26% in 2006 and 28% in 2007, and unemployment rose to 80%.

Everything, especially food, was in shortage, which is what caused the Zimbabwean hyperinflation.

Venezuela
Hyperinflation in Venezuela began in November 2016 during the country’s ongoing socio-economic and political crisis.

Since the 1990s, food production had dropped precipitously, with the government beginning to rely upon imported food using the country’s then-large oil profits.

In 2003, the government created a currency control board that placing currency limits on individuals, and that caused widespread shortages of goods.

In 2005, the government announced the initiation of Venezuela’s own “great leap forward”, following the example of Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward. An increase in shortages began to occur that year as 5% of items became unavailable.

In January 2008, 24.7% of goods were reported to be unavailable in Venezuela, with the scarcity of goods remaining high until May 2008, when there was a shortage of 16.3% of goods. Shortages increased again in January 2012 to nearly the same rate as in 2008.

In 2013, shortage rates continued to increase and reached a record high of 28% in February 2014. In January 2015, the hashtag #AnaquelesVaciosEnVenezuela (or #EmptyShelvesInVenezuela) was the number one trending topic on Twitter in Venezuela

General shortages caused the Venezuelan hyperinflation.

The Weimar Republic, Germany
The Weimar Republic experienced hyperinflation, between 1921 and 1923, primarily in 1923.

In April 1921, the Germany Reparations Commission announced the “London payment plan”, under which Germany would pay reparations in gold or foreign currency in annual installments of 2 billion gold marks, plus 26% of the value of Germany’s exports.

Since reparations were required to be repaid in hard currency, one strategy that Germany used was the mass printing of banknotes to buy foreign currency, which was then used to pay reparations, greatly exacerbating the inflation of the paper mark.

The brief German hyperinflation was caused by shortages of hard currency with which to pay for imports of goods, especially food and food production.

The resultant shortages caused the general increase in prices, i.e. the German hyperinflation.

In summary, prices rise not because the people have too much money (Germans, Zimbabweans, and Venezualians certainly didn’t) but because needed products, mostly food and/or oil, are in short supply.

Back to excerpts from the article:

The Fed analysis references a paper on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) in a sidebar box on monetary “owls” — the owls, “suggest that a government that controls a fiat money system is not constrained because it can simply create more money to pay its debts.”

Indeed, MMT supporters argue that a country that runs up debts in its own currency can never default, and as long as inflation remains tame, there really are no problems with government deficit spending.

They further say that public spending can be used to stimulate the economy, that essentially a deficit in the public sector can be a surplus in the private sector.

In this, MMT is absolutely correct, and noted economists agree:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

The article continues:

The total federal government debt is just over $23 trillion, or 103.2% of GDP.

The Fed itself has come under criticism for “money printing,” which it did in three rounds of quantitative easing during and after the Great Recession.

This came along with keeping its short-term lending rate anchored near zero for seven years.

However, the central bank’s stated aims were to bring down long-term interest rates and stimulate economic growth, not to finance the national debt.

And that is exactly what happened. Despite all the hand-wringing from the deficit hawks, inflation stayed low, the economy grew, and the national debt was not “financed.”

Nothing “finances” the national debt if the word “finance” means pays off. The national debt is not like your debt, my debt, business debt or state/local government debt.

The national debt is just the net total of deposits into T-security accounts, that are paid off by simply returning the money in those accounts.

“There are ways in which the government can make investments today, that increase deficits today, that produce higher growth tomorrow and build in the extra capacity to absorb those higher deficits,” Stephanie Kelton, professor of public policy and economics at Stony Brook University, said in a video for CNBC.com.

“Their red ink becomes our black ink and their deficits are our surpluses.”

Kelton added that deficit spending can be used to fund improvements in education, infrastructure and other inequality-reducing programs without causing long-term damage.

Absolutely, 100% correct is Stephanie, a very bright lady with whom I have been in contact for many years.

Some of the most prominent advocates for MMT are Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom identify as democratic socialists, as well as former Pimco economist Paul McCulley.

Too bad Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez do not really believe what Kelton has told them. They continue to search for ways to “pay for” Medicare for All, when the solution hangs right before their eyes: The federal government can and should pay for Medicare for All via deficit spending.

And contrary to what Ocasio-Cortez claims, this does not require more borrowing. Remember this quote from the St. Louis Fed: ” . . . the government is not dependent on credit markets (i.e.borrowing) to remain operational.

Most mainstream economists and Wall Street authorities, however, reject the basis that deficits don’t matter absent inflation.

Bond market guru Jeffrey Gundlach at DoubleLine Capital has called MMT “a crackpot idea,” while former White House economist and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has labeled it “dangerous.”

However, hedge fund king Ray Dalio at Bridgewater Associates said its adoption is “inevitable” amid growing wealth disparity.

“Most mainstream economists and Wall Street authorities” do not understand the truth of Monetary Sovereignty. They still disseminate the “Big Lie,” that federal financing is similar to personal financing, where debt is a burden on the debtor.

Federal debt (deposits) is not a burden on anyone — not on the federal government and not on future taxpayers. It is a benefit to the economy and to taxpayers, and does not cause inflation.

There has been no relationship between changes in federal debt, aka deficits  (blue) and inflation (red).

Addendum
One of the many places where MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) and MS (Monetary Sovereignty) differ is with regard to the relationship between “full” employment and inflation.

MMT claims that one cause of inflation is “excessive demand.” We never have seen anyone point to nationwide demand as excessive (especially when inflation describes not one or two products and services, but an entire nation). We cannot agree on MMT’s proposed solution to inflation: Taxes.

Taxes are recessionary, and the opposite of inflation is not recession; it is deflation. Taxes are austerity, and are not a cure for inflation.

MMT also says that deficit spending at a time of full employment is inflationary. Again, we disagree. Deficit spending means the federal government’s taxation is less than its purchases of goods and services.

It is not clear why the federal purchase of goods and services during times of full employment (if those times ever really have existed outside of WWII), should be more or less inflationary than during times of low employment.

The theory seems to be that during full employment, people have more money (not necessarily true), and they will spend rather than save that money (also not necessarily true), and when they are spending in competition with increased government spending, all that increased demand will cause inflation.

The main problem with that hypothesis is that in the real world, it never actually happens:

1) No one can agree on exactly what “full employment” is.

a. Does “full” employment include single or married, men or women or children and of what age?
b. Does one person earning $100K equal four people each earning $25K?
c. Does “full” include only full-time or part-time work, and exactly what are the definitions of each?
d. Does “employment take into consideration productivity, i.e is one man on a riding mower equal to 4 men pushing manual lawnmowers?
e. And what about unemployed or retired people. Some have a great deal of money to spend; others don’t. How is that accounted for?

2) Federal spending not only increases demand, but it also increases supply. In response to federal contracts, contractors gear up to create more product to meet the anticipated demand.

3) The federal government generally buys different things than the public buys, creating demand in different areas, so a general increase in all prices does not ordinarily occur. Prices may increase in specific products or materials but overall price increases are not caused by federal buying except during major wars, when the government buys so much a broad range of products is affected.

Consider the case of Medicare for All. Will federal funding of this program cause a general increase in prices at a time of “full” employment? Will it cause a shortage of food and/or oil, the main cause of inflation?

That is the real question, and I submit the answer is, “No.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Would you like free healthcare for life? Don't accept the Big Lie Thursday, Nov 28 2019 

This is a message for all Americans: Free healthcare for life truly can be yours, unless you accept the Big Lie.Image result for big lie

Unfortunately, you are treated to the Big Lie almost everywhere. Case in point: Here are excerpts from a typical, Big Lie article that appeared in the 11/25/2019 issue of Reason.com.

More Americans Want Bigger Government—If It’s Free
A more active government wins growing approval, but only so long as it doesn’t raise taxes, require tradeoffs, or interfere with private enterprise.
J.D. Tuccille | 11.25.2019 7:30 AM

Good news for control freaks and nanny-staters across the U.S.: Americans’ support for a bigger, more active government is edging up, potentially creating an opening for politicians and activists who want their countrymen to snuggle in the warm bosom of a nurturing state that provides an ever-greater variety of goods, services, and rules for people’s lives.

There’s just one catch: Americans don’t want to pay for it.

Support for a big, muscular government falls off a cliff if it comes with a price tag.

Consider that the article was published by the “any-government-is-too-much-government” Reason.com, don’t be surprised at the sarcasm delivered by such phrasing as “control-freaks,” “nanny-staters,” “warm bosom of a nurturing state,” and “ever variety of . . . rules for people’s lives.”

If one is blessed with the notion that good people need or want no help, and that only the lazy and indolent ask for it, one can sneer smugly, as J.D. Tuccille does, at those less fortunate.

And when one also is blessed with the abject ignorance of the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty, one can declare, “Americans don’t want to pay for it” without disclosing that Americans do not pay for any federal spending.

That is why net federal deficits now total more than $20 trillion, and neither the government, nor the economy, nor the federal taxpayers have suffered any ill effects.

On the contrary, the economy has been booming since 2008 because the federal government has pumped trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets (aka “running trillions of dollars in deficits”).

The article continues:

“Since 2010, the percentage of Americans saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems has increased 11 percentage points, to 47%, and the percentage wanting government to take active steps to improve people’s lives is up eight points, to 42%,” Gallup reported last week.

Forty-nine percent think the government is doing too much, and 29 percent prefer a government that provides just basic services.

It gets back to the question, “What is the purpose of our government?”

The answer is:

“The purpose of our government is to protect us and to improve our lives.”

Why else would we, and people all over the world, create governments?

Yes, bad government can be burdensome, but bad anything is burdensome: Bad police, bad roads, bad banks,  and bad phones, etc. But we don’t suggest doing without police, roads, banks, and phones. Similarly, it is foolish to suggest doing without government.

Can there be “too much” government? Yes, if the government interferes with the economy, negatively. But even then, it’s not a matter of “too much,” but rather “bad.”

A tiny government can be bad and a huge government can be good. Or vice versa. It’s not quantity; it’s quality that matters.

Here’s the opportunity politicians—especially Democrats—have been looking for as they promise “Medicare for All,” student loan forgiveness, universal basic income, government-supported housing, subsidized child care, and more.

And what is wrong with that? Are we to believe that Americans must suffer in order to be “good”? Must life be difficult so that we may “earn” a decent life?

If so, why then do the rich seem to avoid the miseries we foist upon ourselves?

Why do we allow ourselves to accept the myth that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and so we must sweat and hurt, and strain, while the rich glide through life blissfully?

Though the rich do not want you to know this, our government really does have the ability to provide a “free lunch.” You simply need to understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.

The Reason.com article continues:

Progressive standard-bearers Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made particular waves with their plans for government largesse, but Pete Buttigieg and others have their own schemes for turning the federal government into Santa Claus with a bottomless bag of gifts.

To continue the sarcastic analogy, I don’t hear anyone asking Santa for fewer gifts. The author doesn’t believe the government should provide anything that benefits the poor and middle classes.

Apparently, he believes Medicare should be ended, and students should be burdened with loans. And as for the poor, why give them any help, because it’s their own fault. Right?

But tax cuts for big business and for the very rich are just fine. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuccile?

But a government that provides everything to everybody is going to run up some bills.

Oh, you can cut some existing programs and transfer the funds to other programs, but that’s hardly going to satisfy the demands of “Americans saying government should do more.”

Or, you simply can provide programs without cutting anything. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is perfectly capable of doing that.

More programs and spending will require more resources that have to come from somewhere.

And since bake sales usually fall a bit short when you’re talking about funding government takeovers of large segments of the economy and extensive new programs, that’s going to mean turning tax collectors into busy beavers.

Whoops.

VA Hospital: Socialist

“Whoops,” indeed. Clearly, J.D. Tuccille, the author, is ignorant of the difference between state/local governments’ finances, vs. the federal government’s finances.

If he had even a modicum of understanding about federal finances, he would know that not only does the government not need bake sales, it doesn’t need tax collectors.

And as a further demonstration of his economic ignorance, Medicare for All does not involve a government “takeover of a large segment of the economy,” or a takeover of any segment of the economy.

Like the current Medicare, which Tuccille clearly hates, Medicare for All simply would pay for medical care, not take it over.

“A more active government would almost certainly result in higher taxes,” Gallup adds.

“However, relatively few Americans favor that approach… In the latest poll, 25% would opt for increased taxes and services, 32% want no change and 42% prefer smaller government.”

Support for higher taxes to pay for expanded government is up a bit in the survey from years past, but it remains a distinctly minority taste.

Private hospital: Not socialist

And here is the crux of the problem: The very rich, who control the government, want you to believe that the only way you can have the same benefits the rich and the politicians have (paid-for healthcare, no need for college loans, plenty of money for retirement, etc.) is for you to pay more taxes — and that idea is a gigantic, smelly pile of bull poop.

Keeping you down is the easiest way for the rich to lift themselves up (See: Gap Psychology), and the easiest way to keep you down is to indoctrinate you with the false belief that your taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

That means Americans are growing increasingly enthusiastic about placing orders for health care, higher education, housing, and more from the government—for free.

But when they see prices on the menu, they balk, big time.

And balk they should, for the “prices on the menu” are a lie. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Period.

You, as a federal taxpayer, do not pay for anything. Not only are your tax dollars not used by the federal government, but they are destroyed upon receipt.

Once your tax dollars are received by the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exists in any money supply measure. To pay it’ s bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars. That is how the federal government can continue to deficit spend without ever running short of money.

Medicare for All gains overwhelming support—as high as 71 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey—from Americans so long as they think it’s entirely cost-free and devoid of tradeoffs.

But throw in some real-world qualifiers, and that support erodes.

Unfortunately, those “real-world qualifiers” are as “real-world” as the bogey man meets the tooth fairy.

But this does demonstrate the strong desire for free medical availability. It’s want Americans want, and it is what Americans should receive from an infinitely wealthy government.

“Net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” the Kaiser survey adds.

The notion that there would be “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments” is based on one truth and one fiction.

The truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatment, which is a wonderful thing. Every year, literally millions of poor and middle-income Americans stay sick too long and die too early for lack of funds.

“Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).”

Those so-called “real-world qualifiers” are about as “real-world” as the bogey-man meets the tooth fairy.

The argument about “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” is based on one implied truth and one implied fiction.

The implied truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatments, which is a wonderful thing.

Today, millions of Americans stay sick too long and die too early because they can’t afford medical tests and treatments. Apparently, some (i.e. rich) Americans think this is a good idea, so that doctors and hospitals will be freed up to treat the rich.

So yes, when medical tests and treatments are free, more Americans would use them and live better, longer lives. Isn’t this what we should want?

The implied fiction is that there is a fixed number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to go around, so if the poor start to make use of them, that will cause a shortage, and there won’t be enough for wealthier patients.

Utter nonsense. The creation of today’s Medicare made it possible for millions of the elderly, who formerly could not afford medical care, now to enjoy it. That has not caused a shortage of medical tests and treatment.

On the contrary, the additional money that Medicare has pumped into the medical field has caused a massive expansion of medical resources.

And the expansion would be even greater if Medicare stopped cutting doctors’ fees so much, didn’t require deductibles, and fully funded pharmaceuticals.

Availability follows money. The more money, the more availability. Medicare for all, properly done, would increase the availability of medical tests and treatment.

Costs for these plans are unavoidable.

Warren’s spending schemes would run to at least $26 trillion in new taxes, although she likes to pretend that her scheme would be paid for by a wealth tax that would simultaneously extract funds from successful people while punishing them for their success.

Sanders himself concedes that his plan for government-run health care would cost between $30-$40 trillion over ten years. He honestly admits that it would be the middle class that constitutes the majority of the population—not just some rich people somewhere—who would foot the bill.

Tens of trillions of dollars in new taxes are likely to prove a bit of a hurdle for Americans who want lots of new goodies from the government only if they’re entirely free.

Anyone who understands Monetary Sovereignty knows the above is “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

It should be obvious, even to the ill-informed, that the federal government continually deficits spends and never seems to have any trouble paying its bills.

You can’t do that. Your state, county, and city can’t do that. Your business can’t do that. But the federal government uniquely can.

Why? It is Monetarily Sovereign. It created the very first dollars simply by creating laws from thin air. And those laws allowed the federal government to continue creating dollars from thin air.

The federal government simply cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.

It has no need for tax dollars. It has no need to borrow. Even if all federal taxes and all issuance of Treasury Certificates totaled $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Despite Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous and ironic statements that Medicare for All would require an increase in federal taxes, it simply is not true.

The U.S. government easily could provide a no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for All, that covered 100% of all hospital, doctor, drug, and equipment costs, along with long-term care, without collecting a single penny in taxes.

If you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans about the widely reported growing enthusiasm for socialism.

Capitalism—the free market—remains the preferred choice of 60 percent of respondents, with 39 percent having a positive view of socialism, according to Gallup.

As with everything in this country, the division is increasingly partisan: Positive views of socialism have risen to 65 percent among Democrats and declined to 9 percent among Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism vs. 78 percent of Republicans.

No, if you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans, “What is socialism?”

Contrary to popular wisdom,  Medicare is not socialism. Neither is Social Security. Neither are food stamps and other poverty aids.

The word “socialism” is the handy pejorative the rich like to use whenever federal spending for benefits are discussed. So if anything helps the middle or the poor, the rich shout “socialism.” (Of course, benefits to the rich, like special tax breaks, never are called “socialism.”)

Socialism is government ownership and administration of production and distribution.

The Veterans Administration hospitals, which are owned and administered by the federal government, are socialist. The military is socialist. The federal highway system is socialist. In many communities, the water system is socialist. Most dams are socialist. NASA, the U.S. Treasury, and the Lincoln Memorial are socialist. Your street probably is socialist.

But Medicare is not. Medicare does not own anything. It merely pays for things. The same with Social Security and food stamps and other poverty aids. Paying for things is what all governments do, socialist or not.

Why does the article’s author introduce the word, “socialism”? Either he truly is ignorant of what “socialism” means, which seems impossible considering that he is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor. Or, knowing that the word “socialism” has negative connotations to most Americans, he is trying to con you into believing Medicare for All is a bad idea, and that only the rich deserve the best possible medical care.

Don’t fall for the con. Don’t fall for the Big Lie. Medicare for All could be a free blessing upon you and this nation if you understand the truth: The federal government has unlimited control over its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. That means it can control both the supply and the value of the dollar.

It never can run short of dollars; it can pay for anything, even without collecting taxes; it can prevent and cure inflation.

If you don’t believe me, believe them:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

Yes, America, free healthcare for life can be yours . . .  unless you accept the Big Lie.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A note to those who sneer at Medicare for All Wednesday, Nov 20 2019 

Some people sneer at Medicare for All because it is “unaffordable” or “unnecessary,” or some other non-reason. They sneer at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for backing MfA.

For those people, here is an all-too-common situation:

Nextdoor Blog

Community Brings Hope to a Homeless Neighbor
November 19, 2019
Written by Shannon Toliver

When neighbors Melissa and Jenn were out shopping one day, they came across an elderly woman living in a car with two dogs. By reaching out and uniting their Pennsylvania community, they were able to change this woman’s life in a matter of hours.

Upon approaching the car to ask if she was okay, they discovered Lynn, a retired pharmacist and longtime member of their community who insisted she was fine despite spending the past two years living out of her car due to family losses and piling medical bills.

Although they did not know her, Melissa and Jenn were determined to hear Lynn’s story and help her get back on her feet.

Lynn’s life took a turn when her husband passed away suddenly at just 47-years-old, leaving her with no family beyond her two dogs.

Later, Lynn suffered a series of strokes along with breast cancer rendering her disabled and unable to work.

Lynn had to downsize to a small apartment in order to afford her medical expenses, but soon fell behind on payments and was left without a home.

While evaluating her options, Lynn found out that she did not qualify for additional assistance and could not find affordable housing. Homeless shelters were not an option as she could not bear to part with her dogs.

With no alternatives, Lynn and her two dogs moved into her car with a few remaining belongings. Once the dogs were fed and she had saved enough money, she would take a monthly shower at a local motel and drive around to avoid running into past neighbors and colleagues.

“I didn’t want to have to explain to people that I don’t have a home.

“You feel like somewhere you had to have failed. You accomplished all this but now here you are in the gutter and you don’t want people to know. You don’t want to ask for help,”

Despite her efforts to remain out of sight over the years, Lynn was running out of food and water and decided to accept Melissa and Jenn’s help. The neighbors posted her story on Nextdoor and called on their community to help.

The post gathered hundreds of supportive comments and some neighbors even shared that they, too, were once homeless. Kind neighbors brought Lynn homemade meals, pet food, and clean laundry while local businesses generously donated services such as car detailing, a haircut, and dog grooming.

Eventually, the community raised enough money to house Lynn and her dogs in a fully-furnished studio apartment that had been paid off for the next two years.

Melissa and Jenn surprised Lynn with the apartment in a heartwarming video sharing that, “It was unbelievable the way our community came together.”

Lynn was brought to tears as she thanked her neighbors.

She told ABC News, “It wouldn’t have happened without these angels. I just want people to realize that this can happen to anybody. I had a good job. I had good retirement but I got sick and health insurance only covers so much.

“I have no children. I have no family. I had nowhere to turn. Sometimes, just the kindness of strangers just makes all the difference in someone’s life.”

For the first time in years, Lynn now has a home for the holidays, supportive neighbors that stop by to drop off meals or walk the dogs, and loving friends to spend Thanksgiving with.

Stuff happens.

If this, or something like this, has not happened to you, count yourself as fortunate. Most of us live our lives in ignorant bliss, thankfully not having to contemplate a future with limited money and poor health.

In America, the richest nation in world history, this never needs to happen, but it does because the “haves” cannot empathize with the “have-nots.”

Blaming the poor for their circumstances is a convenient way to rationalize widening the income/power/wealth Gap below us.

No folks, Medicare for All is not “unaffordable.” And Social Security is not destined to be “insolvent.” And anti-poverty aids and free college are not “unsustainable.”

These are the lies, based on Gap Psychology, to justify widening the Gap. The people who spread those lies have no hearts, no compassion.

Kind neighbors helped one woman with their own money. The U.S. federal government could help millions of needy people, and use no one’s money.

The people who argue against this — the federal debt fear-mongers — should feel shame for their callous cruelty.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: