Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. Until the 99% understand the need for deficits, the 1% will rule. 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.
In their single-minded effort, not to benefit the nation, but to gain power, my formerly favorite political party, the Republicans, moved from reasonably sensible to extreme, right-wing, mean-spirited nuttiness.
They put forth a dozen candidates, all of whom embodied serious derangement, and finally wish to be led by the “Zelig” candidate, a man having no core beliefs.
The right-wing anti-spending votes have hurt terribly, and will continue to hurt, the lower 99% income group, while enriching the upper 1%. Some might say the 99% deserve reduced Social Security, reduced Medicare and . . . well, reduced everything . . . along with increased taxes, because they vote for these criminals. But, I feel sorry for them.
Yes, anyone earning less than $300K per year and voting Republican is self-destructive and ignorant, but we all are ignorant about different things, and much of the 99% just happens to be ignorant about economics. No crime there.
But, it brings me to the following article.
There was one positive aspect to right wing nonsense: The belief federal taxes should be reduced. Yes, federal taxes are an unneeded drain on the economy. They can and should be reduced each year, and eventually, eliminated.
Yet now, even that wee bit of sense is beginning to disappear.
GOP showing small shifts on taxes
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: May 25, 2012
In GOP activist circles it is known simply as “the pledge,” and over the past generation it has become the essential conservative credential for Republicans seeking elective office. Of the 242 Republicans in the House today, all but six have signed the pledge.
But now, an increasing number of GOP candidates for Congress are declining to sign (Grover Norquist’s) promise to oppose any tax increase, a small sign that could signal a big shift in Republican politics on taxes.
And there you have it. Federal spending adds dollars to the economy; adding dollars is stimulative. Federal taxing subtracts dollars from the economy, which is anti-stimulative.
So, what do the Tea/Republicans now wish to do? Increase taxes.
Said Richard Tisei, an NRCC Young Gun and former Republican state senator in Massachusetts who is running against Democratic Rep. John F. Tierney. “If there’s a loophole that can be closed that ends up generating additional revenue that can be used specifically to pay down the national debt, I’m not going to lose sleep. And I don’t want to be bound by the pledge not to close it.”
Translation: “I want to take dollars from taxpayers’ pockets and give it to our Monetarily Sovereign
nment, which doesn’t need the dollars, (because it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the dollar).”
Freshman Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who signed the pledge in 2010, recently posted an open letter to constituents indicating that he would not renew the promise as he runs for reelection. He said he fears it could stand in the way of an everything-on-the-table approach to tackling the mounting debt.
“Averting bankruptcy requires us to grasp the severity of our fiscal condition and summon the courage to speak boldly about the difficult steps needed to increase revenues and sharply decrease spending,” he wrote.
Translation: “Never mind that in the entire history of the universe, no Monetarily Sovereign nation ever has been, or ever can be, forced into bankruptcy. If the federal debt today were $100,000,000 trillion, the federal government could pay it off tomorrow, by pushing one computer key, and this would not add a single dollar to the economy.
But hey, if that’s what you fools want, I’ll vote for it. My election is more important than your money.
Sure, Rigell knows this. We all do. It’s just our cynical ploy to benefit our 1% money boys at the expense of you poor 99%ers. We know you’ll vote for us, anyway, because we taught you to hate Obama.”
Norquist said that in the days of the debt-ceiling debate last summer, Republicans held firm against tax increases and wrested a deal from Democrats to lower deficits through spending cuts alone.
“That was when the pledge was tested and the commitment of Republicans not to raise taxes was really pushed hard. And Obama and the spending interests failed, and Republicans and the taxpayers won,” he said.
Translation: “We made sure the recession wouldn’t end, so we could blame it on Obama. We all are praying for another recession before November.”
Democrats have said they will not agree to renew some of the tax breaks or avert the defense cuts, as Republicans want, unless Republicans agree to impose higher taxes on the wealthy.
Translation: “Because those Republicans have moved to extreme, right-wing derangement, we Democrats have been forced to move to partial right-wing derangement. Votes are votes.”
Democratic attacks on Americans for Tax Reform and Norquist as obstacles to a debt deal, some Republican candidates report that they are hearing from more voters who want them to reject the pledge than the opposite.
Translation: “Taxpayers have been so brainwashed by the 1%, they actually are begging Congress to take more money out of their pockets — and we’re still recovering from a recession!!”
“Voters want me to represent them and not special interests,” said Gary DeLong, a member of the Long Beach City Council, who will (not sign the pledge).
Translation: “I’m going to represent my re-election by voting to take more money from you voters, and you poor slobs want me to do it! Ain’t democracy wonderful?
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a fiscal conservative who has tangled with Norquist, said he believes candidates are starting to understand that the ATR pledge’s power has been exaggerated by Norquist and the media and that Norquist is wrong when he asserts that it is nearly impossible to win a Republican primary without signing the pledge.
“That’s him patting himself on the back,” Coburn said. “And I think it’s bull crap.”
Translation: “You people have plenty of money. You can afford more taxes. You don’t need so much Social Security. And if you ate right and exercised, you wouldn’t a medical insurance plan as good as mine.
And if you 99%ers say you’re hurting, that’s bullcrap.”
6 thoughts on “–Politicians get it bass-ackwards: Say, “Yes,” to taxes, “No,” to spending. As usual, 99% are screwed.”
no representative should sign any pledge from anyone. grover does not hold any office (off topic, but the entire grover thing makes me sick, our government is fucked)
Bottom Line: Perhaps ypu could post a new Mitchell’s Law.
Elect to office Only those candidates that would endorse,
“An alternative means to raising revenue (if revenue is desired),
instead of personal income taxes”
As stated on ” 60 minutes” (12/11/11)”
President Obama said,”You can’t raise revenues by lowering taxes unless you get the money from somewhere else.” ?
Answer him !!
DO IT, OR NO SECOND TERM !!
Now for my foolish question.
Would collecting interest on our own money raise more revenue than income taxes ?
I await Obama’s answer, as well as yours.
Quotes from “Google”…”JUSTALUCKYFOOL”
Those who understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, understand that the federal government (unlike you and me) does not need a “source” of money. Being sovereign over its sovereign currency, it has the unlimited ability to create dollars.
it no longer (after August 15, 1971) needs taxes or borrowing. If taxes and borrowing were $0, that would not reduce the government’s ability to pay its bills by even $1.
Either Obama understands this, but realizes the American public won’t, or he is ignorant of economics. I vote for the former probability.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…by pushing one computer government, and this would not add a single dollar to the economy? Did you mean “by pushing one government computer key”? Also I am a bit unclear on the ending of the sentence “this would not add a single dollar to the economy”. Rodger, could you please elaborate as my frail mind does not understand. Thank you.
Yes, thanks. One computer key. I need an editor.
As you probably know, federal “debt” is nothing more than the total of outstanding T-securities. Here is how the government “borrows,” say from China.
1. China deposits already existing dollars into its checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank.
2. China then instructs the FRB to debit China’s checking account and credit its T-security account, also at the FRB.
Now here is how the government pays off the so-called “debt:”
The government instructs the FRB to debit China’s T-security account and credit China’s checking account. No new dollars created.
It’s exactly the same as you telling your bank to transfer money from your checking account to your savings account and then back again.
As you can see, federal “borrowing” is much different from personal borrowing.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
thank you sir!