Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================
Is Newt Gingrich a closet Democrat?
In 2003, he founded the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), a collaboration of public and private sector leaders dedicated to the creation of a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that saves lives and saves money.
(See: Center for Health Transformation.)
His site further says:
Under his leadership, Congress passed transformational legislation including welfare reform, the first balanced budget in a generation, funding to strengthen our defense capabilities, and the first tax cuts in sixteen years.
Amazing! Newt Gingrich led Congress to balance the budget, while increasing defense spending and cutting taxes. Although balancing the budget is nothing to crow about, (It led to the 2001 recession — as budget cuts invariably do — cured only by the Bush deficits), I’m fascinated with the math that allows tax decreases plus spending increases to equal a balanced budget. Anyone think there may be some numbers missing from Newt’s self-written adulation?
But the most interesting part is what Gingrich says on the page titled “Insure All Americans,” a notion that must be anathema to those conservative, self-reliant Republicans. Here is a selection of his goals and solutions:
We agree in principle with the idea that it is good for all Americans to have health insurance – it encourages improved health and lowers costs within the system. However, this coverage should come via private sector and state mechanisms, and not as the result of a federal government mandate that forces every American to purchase health insurance.
Not sure what those “mechanisms are, but O.K., it sounds suitably right wing. Yet, just below that statement, one of Newt’s listed “solutions” is:
Require that anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond.
Huh? That $50,000 is pretty inclusive. It digs deeply into the middle class. In fact, close to 40% of all Americans filing tax returns earned $50,000 or more – quite a departure from his right-wing, anti-mandate declaration. And with the implied, income-based evaluation, he sounds awfully much like one of those (ugh) liberal Democrats.
Another solution Gingrich puts forth:
Design insurance products to reward healthy lifestyles and wellness and penalize poor health.
“Penalize poor health”?? An insurance product that penalizes poor health? The sicker you are the more you are penalized? This is a solution? Think about that one for a bit.
And then there’s:
Make the management of chronic disease the priority of public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I’m not sure how this “penalizes poor health,” but it’s a good idea – except that it seems to say all the persistent and long-lasting and expensive diseases (the definition of “chronic poor health”) – cancer, heart disease, birth defects, autoimmune diseases et al — would be covered by public Medicare and Medicaid, while little stuff like sniffles and rashes would be covered by private insurance.
Can such a system actually work? Doesn’t sound very private-industry, self-reliant, right-wing Republican to me. Sounds more like the public solution a Democrat might favor.
And then there’s:
Encourage the use of personal health records for portals to health education, cost and quality data, and personal health histories.
Wow, Newt! Talk about a Democrat, “big brother, big government” solution. The Tea/Republican, right-wing should have a fit. Again, it has the smell of the liberals hanging all over it.
But finally:
Enlist faith-based organizations to educate the value of personal responsibility, health, and wellness.
Ah, solidly right-wing Republican. Give money to religious organizations to do whatever, rather than have the government do them. Breach the wall between religion and government. One small step for religion; one giant step for theocracy.
So, I guess Newt is not a Democrat after all. He’s a right-wing, conservative, big-government liberal, walking both sides of the fence. You know what happens when you walk both sides of a fence? Visualize it.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
==========================================================================================================================================
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
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Rodger, you said:
“I’m fascinated with the math that allows tax decreases plus spending increases to equal a balanced budget.”.
It is the math of “love of power” by the banking cartel.
As a mercy to mankind our creator put in “bug” in the math of compound interest (usury). The math of compound interest is never able to keep up with physics (growth of the real economy).
Depressions are a clue (evidence in the real laboratory of the world) that we need to change our currency issuance system (money creation system).
Mansoor H. Khan
http://aquinums-razor.blogspot.com/2011/11/here-is-how-bankers-game-works.html
LikeLike
That is the old: “Compound-interest-leads-to-infinity” belief that simply will not go away, no matter the evidence.
First, you use the word “usury” to describe any sort of interest — the biblical description. Now, several thousand years later, current usage describes “usury” as excessive or illegal interest.
Using an obsolete term, in an attempt at confusion, does exactly that: It confuses, just as saying air, earth, fire and water are the four “elements,” when “element” now has a completely different meaning.
As for economic growth not being able to keep up with interest, look around at reality. The United States is 235 years old, and economic growth has had no difficulty “keeping up.” In fact, today we are starved for the money interest creates.
Finally, bringing “our creator” into an economics discussion is the same as bringing God into any scientific discussion. It leads to invalid, unscientific conclusions, which neither can be proven nor disproven. See: Creationism.
I know I won’t convince you, because I suspect you have become enthralled with a quasi-scientific / religious, writer, who proposes an interest-free world as mandated by God. But I doubt there is data to support his beliefs, and his obsolete use of words is indicative of that.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
It’s actually a stock/flow comparison error.
People borrow money to invest, yes, but that creates a flow of economic activity (turnover) much greater than the actual amount of money borrowed (ie asset turn per year > 1).
That then generates wages per year and profits per year from which the interest per year is paid.
You can tell these people have never invested in a business.
LikeLike
Neil,
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
Why do we depressions?
My point is very simple: Money Supply = Gov Money + Bank Money
Why not grow Gov Money when Bank Money is shrinking or not growing fast enough?
Because issuance of bank money is much more profitable and gives more power to the private bankers.
Incentives are all wrong.
Mansoor H. Khan
LikeLike
” I guess Newt is not a Democrat after all. He’s a right-wing, conservative, big-government liberal, walking both sides of the fence. You know what happens when you walk both sides of a fence? Visualize it.”
I can visualize it,but I really have a problem with it.As a basic principle of life I believe there is always three possible future results;i.e.,future prices can only go up,go down,or be the same.In this case Newt can only fall,remain on the fence or (GULP) finish.
And how does a convicted (by his peers) liar get to even be considered???
Oh,that’s right.”You can fool most of the people most of the time”
LikeLike
Newt’s true talent is the art of deception.
LikeLike
I seem to remember that Newt was fined $300K for ethic violations, censured by Congress for ethic violations, and was forced to resign from office because he was going to be impeached.
Why in the world would anybody vote into the office of president, a candidate who was forced to resign as Speaker of the House because of ethics violations?
Am I being unreasonable to feel this way?
LikeLike
I feel the same way. I have felt increasingly incredulous, not only that anyone gives Newt and other candidates any credibility, but that no one seems to notice how strange it is that the “campaign” started so early and with such media overload. It seems like mainstream media organizations are putting on a show for us, and I can’t help but think there is some coordinated effort to both distract, and to re-frame any actual debate that remains. Does this make me a conspiracy theorist?
LikeLike
Critical,
After suffering through Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Donald Trump, the right wing is so desperate for a viable candidate, they will latch on to anyone who has not been seen by at least three witnesses raping a child, a nun and a dog — no, if Cain is an example, it would take at least five witnesses.
Part of the problem is the confusion among the ultra-right about what it wants. They have signed the no-tax-increase pledge, yet want to increase FICA, simply because Obama cut it.
It’s very difficult to please your base when what your base really wants is a non-government, fundamentalist Christian rule based not on the Constitution, but on the old Testament, while it preaches patriotism, the Constitution and the new testament of Christ.
So you are left with a bunch of insults to the human gene pool running for President.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
To run as a Republican these days you have to appear to agree with the following:
1. Get rid of government oversight
2. Get rid of birth control
3. Declare Christianity the state sponsored religion
4. Use military force for everything – Kill, Kill, Kill.
5. Blame all negative societal outcomes on government intervention – people wouldn’t be poor, sick, starving, unemployed or uneducated if government would just get out of their lives. I think they view government as the new Satan.
6. When #5 doesn’t work blame the individual for not being responsible enough or for not trying hard enough – witch hunt.
7. Cut taxes on the rich (while raising them on the middle class) and say “There Is No Alternative”. Those are the job creators, they need a tax break. You’re a lowly peasant, if you get a tax break you’ll just waste the money.
So it requires you to be either very, very, very Dumb (read Palin) or very corrupt and or just plain don’t care what you are for or against as long as it gets you elected (read Romney – the flip flopper).
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting article on why people vote Republican:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
I’m a registered Republican in the state of Illinois but haven’t voted for one in five years.
LikeLike