Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Nancy Pelosi Says She’d Back Simpson-Bowles Plan
WASHINGTON — Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.
But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.
I’m no longer surprised that Pelosi (as stalking horse for President Obama) would sacrifice Social Security and Medicare in favor of the ridiculous, completely unnecessary anachronism, known as the “debt ceiling.”
Obama is a liberal only by comparison with the Tea/Republicans. Today, we have no liberals. The liberals are conservatives and the conservatives are fascists.
During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, the California Congresswoman said that she would support what’s known as the Simpson-Bowles plan. The co-chairs — former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Morgan Stanley director Erskin Bowles, a Democrat — have worked recently to revive it, and the political class speaks of it as if it passed and is an official recommendation of the commission.
The “political class” speaks of it as though it actually made any sense, which of course, it doesn’t.
At the end of March, a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan was given a vote on the House floor. It was annihilated, 382-38, with Pelosi and most Democrats voting against it.
But Pelosi, the day after the vote, said that she could still support the plan if it stuck more closely to the original version put out by Simpson and Bowles. “I felt fully ready to vote for that myself, thought it was not even a controversial thing … When we had our briefing with our caucus members, people felt pretty ready to vote for it. Until we saw it in print,” she said. “It was more a caricature of Simpson Bowles, and that’s why it didn’t pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it.”
Heaven help the working poor. Or the non-working poor. Or the working or non-working middle class. Or all of America.
Yet when the Simpson-Bowles plan had been originally unveiled, Pelosi called it “simply unacceptable.”
The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it “simply unacceptable” to the Democrats’ liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi’s rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they’ll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.
Wake up, America. Obama is not whom you thought he was. He’s far right wing on everything except, perhaps, Israel. The problem is, Romney is exactly whom you think he is: A clueless rich man, who will say anything, no matter how nuts, to tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
So the November choice will be: The Fraud vs. the Sleaze. You decide who is who.
The Washington Post reported:
[President Obama] warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.
Perfect: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and additionally increase taxes by $800 billion, thereby assuring a recession if we are lucky and a depression if we’re not.
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [White House chief of staff William] Daley recalled.
Gulped? How about them having the backbone to shout: “This if f*cking stupid. How can you grow the economy with spending cuts and tax increases?”
Remember, Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports
But cuts to Social Security and Medicare will decrease Federal Spending, decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption, while a tax increase also will decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption. With all elements of GDP decreased, what would increase GDP?
I’m just coming around to thinking that Obama will be remembered as the worst President since Jimmy Carter — maybe worse, yet. And then, I start to think of Romney as President . . .
Please folks, contact your Senators and Representatives. Don’t bother trying to explain Monetary Sovereignty to them. They never will understand it. Just tell them: “If you cut entitlements and/or raise taxes, I won’t vote for you.” That, they’ll understand.
Five dunce caps to Pelosi, each to be shared with Obama. (Two people can share one hat if the heads are small enough.) Fortunately there is no Simpson-Bowles committee on dunce caps.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports