The suicide bombers of American Society

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

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

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

Have you wondered why the so-called “religious” right has turned into a forum for mean-spirited, cold-hearted, selfish people, who are as far from religion as one could stray?

Have you wondered where all these negative generalizations about the poor, the immigrant, the black, the Jewish, the gay and virtually everyone other than a white, adult, has-a-good-job and American-born-to-American-citizens, came from?

We are not born bigots. We are not born haters. Those traits must be learned. Consider, for instance, the Cato Institute:

The Cato Institute was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch.

Cato Policy Analysis No. 224 April 27, 1995
SSI: The Black Hole of the Welfare State
by Christopher M. Wright, Southern lawyer (Alexandria, Virginia), and publisher of The Deficit Letter and Activists Online.

Executive Summary
Congress is finally reforming the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Unfortunately, the reforms currently under consideration fall far short of the dramatic overhaul that open-ended entitlement program needs.

In Cato-speak, “reform” means cutting any program that primarily benefits the lower income groups.

SSI is one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the federal budget, and its costs are projected to accelerate by another 60 percent by 2000.

Translation: “’Welfare’ is our little code word for money given to lazy, low-income people (All low-income people are lazy). SSI pumps dollars into the pockets of low income Americans and into the economy, which stimulates the economy.

“This narrows the income gap between the very rich and the rest of you – a bad thing for us very rich people.”

SSI was originally designed to provide a safety net for low-income senior citizens, but it is now experiencing spectacular growth in recently eligible population groups, including drug addicts, the mentally ill, immigrants, and children.

Government projections indicate that between 1990 and 2000 the number of immigrants on SSI will have grown fivefold and the number of drug addicts and alcoholics eightfold.

Translation: “Addicts, the mentally ill and children are at fault for their own misery. As a lesson, they should be made to starve in the streets. Or let them commit crimes to support themselves. Then, the government can support them in jail.”

Many of the House Republican proposals, such as ending SSI for immigrants, are sensible, but they are insufficient to cap SSI’s skyrocketing costs.

In Cato-speak, “sensible” (and the aforementioned “reform”), means cutting any program that benefits the lower income groups. Sure, we’re cutting benefits to immigrants, but we have to keep cutting, cutting, cutting — to drive these people into the ground.

Some of the SSI reforms recommended in this study include the following: (1) terminating automatic cost-of-living increases for SSI . . .

Translation: “Reduce real (inflation adjusted) benefits to the poor.”

(2). . . eliminating lump-sum payments to SSI recipients . . .

Translation: “The lump sums are generated because the claims process and resulting appeals drag on for months and even years, and benefits are paid retroactively to the date of application. The solution is not to speed up the claims process, but to punish the needy for government inefficiency.

(3). . . ending all childhood disability benefits . . .

Translation: “There is no need to pay childhood disability benefits. Kids don’t work, and it doesn’t cost anything to care for a disabled kid, does it?”.

, (4). . . creating an enrollment cap . . .

Translation: “We should help only a certain (diminishing) number of poor people. Any additional people can simply starve.”

(5). . . scaling back mental impairment benefits . . .

Translation: “We don’t believe the psychiatrists’ definitions of ‘mental impairment,’ and anyway, if you’re nuts, you don’t deserve to get any help. You should wander the streets, get a job, commit a crime or go to jail to feed yourself. We’ll be glad to pay for your jail time, but not for anything else.”

“Hitler was right. These people are lazy slugs, who are a drag on the economy and a blot on the gene pool.”

. . . and (6) ultimately privatizing disability insurance.

Translation. “We are the Koch brothers. We own Koch industries. Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States, with an annual revenue of about $98 billion. We like rich people. Rich people are our friends.

“Some of our friends own insurance companies and other investment companies. Can you imagine how much richer we and our friends will become if SSI is privatized. Wow! We can smell the meat a’cookin.’”

Over the past several years, the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) has been plagued by exploding costs for taxpayers.

Translation: “O.K., so SSI is paid for by our Monetarily Sovereign government. It doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. But let’s not quibble over details.”

The combined federal expenditures of SSI and its sister program, Disability Insurance (DI), are now $55.3 billion. Disability has become the fourth largest area of federal entitlement spending after Social Security retirement, Medicare, and Medicaid.

SSI is a troubling case study in how federal entitlements continually expand beyond their original mission. Today, SSI is one of Washington’s primary fiscal black holes.

In Cato-speak, a “fiscal black hole” is a program that pays increasing amounts of money to the poor and to the economy. It is NOT a program that gives wonderful tax breaks to us rich people.

Possible reform measures include terminating the SSI program at the federal level and returning to the states the responsibility for providing assistance to low-income aged, blind, and disabled persons.

Translation: “The federal government, which has the unlimited power to pay any bill of any size, without collecting taxes (i.e. it’s Monetarily Sovereign), should not have to pay for SSI.

Instead, let the states, which already teeter on the brink of insolvency (i.e. they’re monetarily non-sovereign) should be burdened. This will assure that SSI benefits to the poor cease to exist, which is what we really want.”

If SSI continues at the federal level, enrollment should be capped and expenditures limited. And children and substance abusers should no longer receive cash assistance.

Other federal programs already address the needs of children, and substance abusers should be forced to compete for new drug treatment slots.

Translation: “The federal government is broke, but poor people are getting rich on SSI payments. Drug addicts and children are perfectly able to compete for treatment. Why should we have to care about them, anyway?”

The Senate Finance Committee report at the time of SSI’s inception declared that federal assistance would “provide a positive assurance that the Nation’s aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-poverty-level incomes.”

Despite the focus on adult assistance, disabled children were included in SSI, apparently without much discussion or examination of what the costs might be.

Translation: “O.K., so a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals wanted to help the Nation’s aged, blind and disabled. And I know it doesn’t cost me a cent, but why do we also have to help kids?”

Why SSI Keeps Growing and Growing
No one knows precisely why SSI has grown so rapidly and unexpectedly in the past six years. Many factors are probably responsible for the cascade.

Translation: “We have no idea what we are talking about, but if anything helps the aged, the poor or the disabled, and above all, if it helps disabled children, we are firmly against it.”

A sharp increase in disability claims followed the 1990 recession. Similar correlations have been observed in other nations between a poorly performing economy and spikes in the number of disability claims.

Translation: “We can’t understand why, during recessions, people actually lose their jobs and their health insurance.

“And, we can’t understand why, being in desperate straits, they claim disability, rather than simply firing a few of their maids and gardeners, like we do.

“This makes me so mad, I hardly can enjoy sailing my yacht.

Several states, including Illinois, California, and Michigan (which has terminated general assistance), have taken steps to switch disabled residents from state relief programs to SSI.

Translation: “The states (which are going broke, because they must rely on taxes) want the federal government (which never can go broke, because it does not rely on taxes) to pay for relief programs.

“This makes me so mad I hardly can enjoy flying in my private jet.”

Should their claims be denied, claimants can pursue several layers of appeal; 80 percent of appeals are now ultimately successful.

Lawyers in Pennsylvania run ads declaring, “Social Security is well known for denying meritorious claims that later are approved. . . . Don’t let a bureaucrat determine your future. Keep appealing.”

Translation: “The government denies meritorious claims, so for some reason, the greedy people appeal again. Outrageous.

“This makes me so mad, I no longer enjoy my hourly compliments from my butler.”

So that’s Cato, founded by Koch, Rothbard and Crane. Yes, we know about billionaire Koch. What about Rothbard?

To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama.

Are you conservative, libertarian, anarchist, socialist, or what? We are Misesians! The media will typically describe all non-socialists as conservatives, so we are usually lumped in among them, though the actual orientation of the Institute is libertarian.

This designation can encompass a wide range of thought from Jeffersonian classical liberalism to the modern anarcho-capitalism of Murray N. Rothbard.

The core conviction is what matters: peaceful exchange makes everyone better off; private property is the first principle of liberty; intervention destroys wealth; society and economy need no central management to achieve orderliness.

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

Translation: “Private property is most important, and those who have the most private property should rule. Intervention (i.e government aid to the poor) destroys the wealth (i.e. the income gap) of the rich.

“Big government is unnecessary, because it can prevent the orderliness of the rich ruling the poor.”

And finally, we come to Edward Crane:

Edward Harrison Crane is a co-founder of the Cato Institute and served as its President until October 1, 2012.

In the 1970s, he was one of the most active leaders of the Libertarian Party. In 1980, Crane served as Communications Director to the Libertarian Party presidential ticket of Clark and Vice Presidential candidate David Koch.

Crane sits on the boards of various political organizations, including Americans for Limited Government.

Translation: “I, Edward Harrison Crane, think David Koch should be Vice President of the United States of America. He may be a billionaire, who wants to cut federal aid to the poor, but really, in his heart, he loves you little people.”

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) is committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties. For these liberties to be achieved, it is essential to reduce the role of government and put citizens back in charge of their own lives.

Translation: “Free market reforms” means allow the rich to do whatever they please.

“Reduce the role of government” means cut spending on anything that benefits the middle class and the poor.

“Put citizens back in charge of their own lives” means let the poor swim or drown.

Bottom line: The Kochs and their wealthy cronies not only have bribed the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment), the media (via ownership) and the university economists (via contributions to universities), but also have been very effective in brainwashing the middle class and the poor to believe what the rich want them to believe.

The notion that the poor are at fault for their own misery, is fundamental to the religious right’s “core American liberties.”

Ironically, the vast majority of the religious right is part of the very group who will be most punished by conservatism.

Brainwashed, they use the words the rich have put in their mouths.

They have dedicated themselves to destroying the lives of the poor — and they get mad as hell if anyone tries to warn them that by helping the rich, they are destroying their own lives.

Conservatives are the trained suicide bombers of American society.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
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. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

—–

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.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

6 thoughts on “The suicide bombers of American Society

  1. this is off-topic, but only slightly. it’s a discussion about the recent CBO report comparing single-payer vs. obamacare.

    you probably should do a post on this… this is illustrative of why the repubs are so dead-set against obamacare and, yet, obamacare was voted into law instead of, say, Medicare-for-all despite the fact that it polled well with the public.

    Like

  2. Roger,

    I don’t sympathize for either republicans or democrats. Both are one and the same, they are destroyers of societies for their own good and are so high on opium – they won’t stop until there is a full collapse.

    Anyway – if you want to feed the poor and care for the sick, than why aren’t you promoting productivity of the things poor people need? Like more food, more clothing, more homes, etc?

    With the high salaries they make, perhaps we can make better use of public employees by putting them to work their butts off farming, building homes, working in factories. Work them 15 hours a day, like your average private employee. I bet the prices of homes, food, etc will for sure come down with the increased supplies. That would really help the poor people Roger, as these are the things they consume. Using the words “poor, drug addicts, kids, etc” may work on some people who can’t think for themselves, I feel pity for those fools. Perhaps you should try including the words “force, theft, fraud, evil” next to the word government – but you won’t.

    I’m starting to believe that a few people, like Yves Smith and others, are really government/socialist fanatic agents. I bet this post will either get deleted or the points ignored, that’s all the communists/socialist can do. As a friend of mines use to say, all good and bad deeds are awarded in this live.

    Like

    1. @ Notyellen I do admire your embattled rectitude and willingness to stick with your true beliefs however warped ,fanatical or out of paradigm they might be.

      1. More food? Americans throw out over 40% of all food produced domestically each year. Distribution, not production is the primary problem. (I’m assuming you could care less about increased export potential, so I’m letting that go.)

      2. Until 1998, one local plant here in Georgia employed over 1,200 people making clothing from regional raw cotton. They now employ just 66 people and produce 4 times the material for export than they did 15 years ago. Again, production is not the problem. (See Rodger’s past posts pertaining to Optimal Employment.)

      3. Building homes? Sounds like some sort of forced labor courtesy of the ‘state.’ (Do you realize that sounds exactly like the central government ‘socialism’ you claim to abhor?)

      4. A public sector worker on average makes approximately 7% less than those employed in the private sector. (Where is the outrage for over paid private sector workers?)

      5. The ‘average’ American worker logs approximately 1,700 hours of work per year. Your claim means one worker only works 114 days per year. (That’s total bullsh&t.)

      6. Per usual, common sense challenged disfunctionals throw out phrases like communist/socialist and they have no idea what those words even mean. Rodger has been critical of Yves Smith in the past. Ms. Smith exposing fascist schemes like TPP in a public forum HARDLY makes her a socialist ‘agent.’

      Like

      1. @ Steve I admire your attitude as well, although I’m not sure I’m the one out of touch with reality.

        1. What if Americans throw away 100% of the food? Are you saying that some Americans eat more than they have to while others eat too little? Interesting, I thought that obesity was more of an issue within the poor ranks of society. Anyway, my point is that if you encourage production – there will be more competition, more supplies, which in the end lowers prices for everyone, including the poor. Your solution is to take more (there is already distribution) from the middle class and give it to the poor. Nice way to encourage the middle class to work harder.

        2. I am with you on this point, today we can produce much more than a few years ago. But where did the efficiency gains go? Why do I have to pay higher and higher prices for these items if productivity is much more efficient now days? Do you think that has to do with fractional reserve lending, which allow banks to lend the same money times over, and also allows the government to borrow (yes Roger, borrow) and spend without restraints? I bet it does.

        3. Oh, I don’t want the government to build homes, but if the government really wants to help people, well there are already government workers and the government is already paying them. There is no need to hire new folks, just work the ones you have. If the government really wants people to own homes, than perhaps they need to shift their focus from playing solitaire and watching porn to building homes, farming, etc. Don’t you think that would be a much better use of the public servants we already have?

        4. Right, and than you woke up. And it’s not only the pay and benefits, it’s also the lifelong pension which the tax payers have to foot after the preferred ones retired at 45. You may want to checkout your sources. this: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/federal-pay-vs-private-sector-compensation/?_r=0 and also this: http://casnocha.com/2010/05/disturbing-chart-of-the-day-public-sector-pay.html

        5. Perhaps I work in a more demanding field than most Americans, but the folks I work with put in from 10 to 12 hours daily, and also has to put in time on the weekends. And the best part, all this is on a fixed salary, so no over time. Anyway, private industry employees work more than those in the public industry while making less pay. Must be nice being in charge. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/government-employees-work-less-than-private-sector-employees

        6. I don’t see Roger posting in blogs outside of NC. Try finding him in Mish’s blog or Denninger. Obama can’t implement the TPP without congress approval, this topic is as important as talking about hyenas, it’s stupid and useless. Yves is a wall street insider that heads a consulting firm. I wonder who her firm caters to? Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, it caters to public sector clients? Maybe one of her contracts deals with stupefying the masses into approving anything Oboso does. I laugh when I see posts about how Obamacare is a mess, but now we need a single payer. Wait, hold on? wasn’t Yves pushing Obamacare – now it’s not good enough? Who wold have thunk… The lady has made her vast wealth from the same programs you think benefit the poor. Instead, they benefit people like Yves. Yves herself doesn’t give a rats ass about poor people like us and doesn’t believe her own BS. Why would she ban everyone that posts coherent arguments (without insulting anyone) in her blog? She can’t defend what she knows is a lie. And Roger has done the same.

        Communists and socialists are one and the same. The point of these 2 theories is to provide an idea that is almost logical to the average Joe, one they can not pass up. I mean, think about it – If you have more money, you are wealthier right? So why not just give more money to people – that would make them much wealthier, right?

        Who would ever reject a system that provides for all “at no cost”. Or would most people listen to “idiots” crying wolf and saying you what nobody wants to hear. There is no magic bullet, there is no free lunch, there is nothing but labor. As a politician, which theory would you pick, the one people will obviously agree with (who doesn’t like free things?) or the one they will question you on? If you think politicians are useless scumbags – they are like that because we want them that way.

        As a true leader, you either find a way to make your people more productive or the same people will have a lower quality of live. The fact that we have a currency that transfers purchasing power from laborers to non-laborers and the wealthy is also a problem. But than again, the population doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to fix it. The people have been so con’ed and stupefied that they want more theft instead – not knowing that they are footing the costs.

        If you are a laborer like me, with no investments, no savings and mouths to feed on the sweat of my own labor, I’m sure your view of this topic would be much different.

        Like

  3. The conservatives need to know that a closed system can’t grow. Only an open system grows. Trying to keep the U.S budget in a 3.7 trillion dollar holding pattern, adding here slashing there, is closed system thinking.

    Conservative growth of the .1% is parasitically at the expense of the 99, i.e., zero sum. And when the host dies so does the leach.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s