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, and the motive is the gap.
======================================================================================================================================================================================
Considering the glacial pace of the so-called economic “recovery,” one would think that the out-of-power party would have many, many issues to discuss, and many, many proposals to lift the economy.
Apparently, that is not the case. In fact, there now seems to be one, and only one, major issue facing America:
Tea/Republicans vote against gays. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote against immigrants. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans prevent blacks and browns from voting. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote 50 times to eliminate the Romney GOP creation, ACA, without offering an alternative that helps the poor. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote against increasing unemployment compensation. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote against increasing the minimum wage. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote to cut budget for U.S. State Department security. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republican governors won’t expand Medicaid, thus depriving millions of their own citizens healthcare insurance and costing their states millions of dollars in federal aid. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans want to cut Medicare and Medicaid. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans want to privatize Social Security to aid wealthy investors. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans want to prevent women from using birth control. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans repeatedly vote to cut health care for veterans. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich, while “broadening” the tax base to make the poor pay more. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote against more stringent controls of banks. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote to teach creationism in science classes. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans vote to cut food stamps and any other spending that benefits the poor. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans don’t accept global warming and pollution, so don’t want to reduce the use of fossil fuels. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans sponsor the NRA propaganda advocating the carrying of all types of guns anywhere by anyone, any time. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans support racial profiling by local law enforcement. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans create “Stand your ground” laws that allow the shooting of unarmed blacks. BENGHAZI!
Right wing Supreme Court votes to allow the rich to spend unlimited sums to control elections. BENGHAZI!
Right wing Supreme Court repeatedly votes to weaken the wall separating church and state. BENGHAZI!
Tea/Republicans call the rich, “makers,” and the poor, “takers, and repeatedly vote to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. BENGHAZI!
O.K., it’s agreed. BENGHAZI! is the single, most important issue – perhaps the only real issue –facing America.
And specifically what is this single, most important issue? It took President Obama a whole week to agree that terrorists had killed four of our people. A WHOLE WEEK!
And why is this the single most important issue?
Well, how many more times can you vote against “Obamacare”?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
====================================================================================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
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. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with much higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (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
Vertical gray bars mark recessions.
As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
The Democrats are in power and pay better. Unless, of course, the investor would be willing to bet on the loosing team.
We deserve what we get for being liberal morons.
LikeLike
A perfect example of a well-considered retort. Thank you for advancing the dialog.
LikeLike
I think the “fact” that the HPV vaccine makes people retarded (as per Batshyt Bachmann) is even MORE important but what do I know…
LikeLike
== Off topic == Off topic ==
WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT?
Today, Chicago mob boss Rahm Emanuel endorsed Hillary Clinton for US President in 2016.
This and other factors suggest to me that the Money Powers (MPs) are leaning toward installing a Republican after Obama leaves.
Here is my reasoning…
In the past, the MPs ordered their puppet-candidates to base their political campaigns on issues that appealed to the masses. They ordered their candidates to make promises, and then break those promises the minute the candidates were installed. In some cases, Presidents were re-elected because they started wars. (The masses love wars, because the masses see life as a contest between sports teams.)
In 2008 the MPs changed their tactics. Their new trick became the “lesser of two evils.” They select and support two people, a huckster and a clown. The huckster is the figure they plan to install. The clown is the figure they designate to lose the election.
In 2008 the MPs selected Obama as their huckster; i.e. the creep who would best widen the gap. Meanwhile on the Republican side, the MPs selected and supported the pathetic clowns McCain and Palin. Result: Obama was smoothly installed.
In 2012 the MPs selected Obama again. On the Republican side, the MPs selected and supported the pathetic clowns Romney and Ryan. Result: Obama was smoothly re-installed.
This pattern is so clear that in 2011, I knew that Romney and Ryan would get the Republican nomination for 2012, since Romney and Ryan were the most awful of all Republican candidates. (People like Batshyt Bachmann were only there for comic relief.)
And now vile gangsters like Rahm Emanuel are endorsing Hillary. Since no average American likes Hillary (absolutely NO ONE on any side) I suspect that the Money Powers will indeed select Hillary as their Democratic candidate in 2016, so that the MPs can smoothly install some Republican.
This pattern applies to the whole Anglo-American world, and to Western Europe. When there is an election, the Money Powers select two people: a shyster and a clown. The shyster is certain to widen the gap. The clown, by contrast, is so stupid that he might accidentally narrow the gap. Examples of clowns include McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) who were ultra-right-wingers, but clumsy.
For the rich, a left-leaning populist is less dangerous than a clumsy right-wing elitist. The populist is easily controlled, since the masses always vote against their own interests, but the clumsy conservative might accidentally do something to awaken the masses. He might start a wildly unpopular war, or shrug off a huge disaster (e.g. Bush and Hurricane Katrina). Or he might instantly privatize Social Security. In his clumsiness and stupidity, he might do any number of things that accidentally awaken the peasants from their wretched coma.
Therefore, if the Money Powers order their media outlets to keep supporting Hillary, and to start praising some Republican candidate who is slick, who seems intelligent, and who is not a flaming right-wing buffoon, then you can bet that the MPs plan to install a Republican after Obama.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if the MPs start ordering their media to cheer for some hideous Republican oaf like Chris Christie, then the plan is to install another Democrat after Obama leaves. Not Hillary, but some Obama clone.
Issues don’t matter. What matters is the “lesser of two evils” game. Indeed, you can predict who will be the next US president by noting which two figures (Republican and Democrat) the media outlets most endorse. One figure will be a pathetic clown. The other will be a slick liar like Obama. The shyster is the person to be installed.
Of course, this ruse only works because average Americans are so stupid. The masses are given alternatives on the actual voting ballots (e.g. Cynthia McKinney in 2008, and Jill Stein in 2012), but they only vote for a Republican or a democrat.
Canadians, Australians, Western Europeans…they are equally stupid, and thus, equally controlled.
LikeLike
Interesting theory, although in one past election, the Supreme Court unconstitutionally installed the President (Bush). So that was a mighty close one.
Because nearly all politicians are owned by the rich due to campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later, I’m not sure the upper .1% cares who becomes President. They will own him (her).
Who will be the Republican candidate?
LikeLike
Rodger writes, “Because nearly all politicians are owned by the rich due to campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later, I’m not sure the upper .1% cares who becomes President. They will own him (her).”
The rich don’t care about “liberal” versus “conservative. They only care about widening the gap. Hence they carefully select their candidate, and give him money and media support. They want someone who will be accepted by the peasants as the peasants are crushed. Someone who won’t do something stupid, and accidentally awaken the peasants, or jeopardize the Big Lie. Someone who dreams of having a presidential library. Someone who will look good in comparison to the wretched clown on the other side, who is also chosen by the rich.
The rich support Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. One of the twins is designated to be installed in the White House. The other is designated to lose, but he is too stupid to know this. McCain, Palin, Romney, and Ryan all thought they actually had a chance, when they had no chance whatever. They were puppets that the rich used to ensure the smooth installment of Obama.
Romney and Ryan had nothing. No one liked them. Therefore the rich found it necessary to prop them up. The media did this by falsely claiming that Romney and Ryan were extremely strong contenders. This lie was blatantly obvious, even pathetic. It was all part of the plan to smoothly re-install Obama.
Regarding the installment of Bush, that happened in 2000. The rich didn’t start experimenting with their “lesser of two evils” trick until they chose Kerry to run against Bush in 2004. The plan in 2004 was to smoothly re-install Bush, who was still riding the tide of war and 9-11. Meanwhile Kerry seemed dubious and indecisive to the masses.
By 2008 the rich fully applied their “lesser of two evils” trick by supporting the pathetic McCain against the slick weasel Obama.
In 2012 the rich did it again. They re-installed Obama by supporting Romney and Ryan, who were as pathetic as McCain and Palin.
In 2016 the rich will do it once more, since it works every time. Choose a candidate, and have him run against someone so awful that he (or she) has no chance.
Question: Who will be the Republican candidate in 2016?
Answer: We don’t yet know, but we will by early next year. It cannot be Chris Christie, whose arrogance and obesity is a major downer. It will have to be a slick charlatan like Obama, which could be a Democrat or “moderate Republican.”
As 2016 draws closer, an unpopular loser like Hillary will have no chance, and hence will do nicely as the foil to the selected candidate. If you want to know who the rich will install as their puppet in the White House for 2016, then pay attention to the candidate who will most smoothly and efficiently widen the gap, while seducing the masses into accepting it. The one who seems to “make sense,” but is even worse than Obama.
LikeLike
gotta go with smooth Jeb, and Hilarious as the clown
LikeLike
although Biden is an even bigger clown
LikeLike
The idiot patrol is selected.
Prediction: This entire exercise will be even more stupid than the 50th vote against ACA. And the only thing exceeding it in stupidity, will be the media’s breathless coverage of every question and response.
For example:
Committee: Mrs. Clinton, isn’t it true that the President did not call the Benghazi attack, in which four Americans died, an act of terrorism, but instead, when referring to Benghazi, he said, ” “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation . . .”
Clinton: “Terror” vs. “terrorism”? Yes, I suppose so.
Committee: And isn’t it true that it took him a whole 24 hours to use the words “acts of terror,” when speaking to the public?
Clinton: Yes, a full day. I’m not sure how that compares with President Bush’s lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How many days before he admitted he lied? Oh sorry, he never did admit it? And how many Americans died from that lie?
Committee: Well doesn’t that constitute an impeachable offense?
Clinton: Bush or Obama?
LikeLike
@RMM: I received this response from a blogger offering suggestions to fix social security at: http://www.fixssnow.org.
“Modern Monetary Theory holds that we can print money without consequence.”
Any suggestions for a retort?
“Thanks for your question. Our effort centers on the Old-Age/Survivors side of Social Security. Disability is a separate system, and it is a much more complicated issue.
I will tell you what I know from reading the Trustees report. The Trustees continue to project insolvency of the Disability system in 2016. The new report is due out soon. I am looking for that date to move to 2015.
As Social Security is configured today, monetary sovereignty by itself helps neither Disability or Old-Age Survivors. Both are financial systems with defined inputs and defined outputs. Neither system has direct access today to appropriated money. FDR set-up Social Security in this way because he felt that general revenue was a political priority, which was subject to changing values. He wanted to preserve the system, and so it is grounded in individual contributions. The DI system was added after FDR died.
Social Security has changed a lot since FDR, but using general funds to support the system will be a tough sell. This is not a simple issue because Social Security does not serve all Americans. So the government would be subsidizing a system that rewards people for having high past paychecks. The largest payouts go to someone like Pete Stark a wealthy ex-Congressman who divorced multiple times, and fathered 4 children all of whom have been collecting Social Security since birth. I suspect that younger Americans who are trying to pay-off student loans will not see the importance of throwing additional tax dollars to Pete Stark. That is a very tough sell when millions of Americans aren’t even eligible for Social Security.
Modern Monetary Theory holds that we can print money without consequence. Many economists have some doubts. It is best to say that there are risk associated with printing money. Congress would have to explain to younger workers who would rather have their student loans forgiven, why they should take a risk to pay-off the promises of the past. I think that is a tough sell.
The larger problem is that Social Security presents is that it is inflation protected. Inflation is the kryptonite of Social Security. So if printing money leads to inflation, that will drive benefits higher leading to more printing of money. This change very well might send Social Security into a downward spiral.
That is a lot of words which may not even answer your question. If you want me to explain anything here just let me know.
Thanks again,”
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:21 AM, wrote:
Hello,
I wanted to know if your assessment of Social Security took into account that the U.S. is monetarily sovereign?
See:
https://mythfighter.com/2012/05/30/tragic-or-hilarious-social-security-disability-trust-fund-projected-to-run-out-of-cash-by-2016/
LikeLike
There always are consequences to money creation (and, for that matter, to money destruction). If there were no consequences, why create the money?
The sole risk to excessive money creation in a Monetarily Sovereign nation is an inflation that cannot be controlled with interest rate changes — a circumstance that never yet has occurred in the U.S.
There are however much greater risks to insufficient money creation. To cite a few: Recession, depression, poverty, lack of education, lack of research & development, ignorance, sickness and shortened life-spans and the widening of the gap between the rich and the rest.
So one can make a choice; A possible inflation from too much money (which never has happened) or an economic regression from too little money (which is happening right now).
LikeLike
CARTOONS:
http://www.nationalmemo.com/benghazi-prosecution/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298731/-Cartoon-The-cartoon-hillbilly
LikeLike
off topic –
so we all agree federal govt spending is not constrained by revenue, i.e. taxing/borrowing. is the federal budget still constructed as if the date is 8/14/1971? meaning, is the budget based on tax revenue, on paper (or on the computer if you will)? is the FED inflation target involved in the budget creation process? … and i’m not asking for a generic history lesson on the monetary system, if someone knows the answer, please spit out……
LikeLike
Actually, the federal budget is a political fiction, and is not what the government spends. That is not budget, but appropriations.
LikeLike
i know all that, that wasn’t my question. implicit in my previous post is an acknowledgment that the federal budget is a political fiction. i was asking how the “budget”, the “budget” as the masses believe it to mean, is calculated. where do the numbers come from? is it based on prior year budgets, adjusted for inflation? the 1% have to much invested to have not worked this “reasoning” out…
LikeLike
100% politics; 0% everything else. It’s a demonstration set of numbers, the sole purpose of which is to impress then electorate. Has very little to do with prior year spending, prior year budgeting or the price of eggs in France.
You like the military? O.K., we’ll show a big number for the military. You hate the poor? O.K., we’ll shown a small number for food stamps.
And none of this has any relationship to what we’ll actually spend. It’s about as meaningful as each party’s platform.
LikeLike
alright, that’s what i thought. thanks
LikeLike
one more…. however you want to define it, budget or appropriations, under the gold standard, were the numbers based on prior year “budgets”, expected tax revenue, or as made up as they are now?
LikeLike
PERFECT EXAMPLES
LikeLike
blacksocialist,
“…. however you want to define it, budget or appropriations . . . “
There is no “it.” Budget is fiction; appropriations are real. Completely different.
In one sense, expected revenue always has been part of the equation, because in advance of elections, both parties want to demonstrate they are fiscally “prudent” (i.e. reduce deficits below the point of economic growth).
The budget is so fictional, that for many years, the government has operated without a budget. Here is a pretty good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Note that the largest expenditure items are not even included in the budget, because they are for future years.
LikeLike
i think you missed some of what i was saying, but hey, close enough.
LikeLike
If Republicans really want to investigate what went wrong in Benghazi, they need to look in a mirror.
LikeLike
Hmmm . . . wonder why?
LikeLike
Boehner: ‘Democrats Are Probably Fundraising Off Of Benghazi Just Like We Are’
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Josh Schwerin said:
“Unlike the NRCC, we are not fundraising off this terrible tragedy. Speaker Boehner should show some leadership and tell his campaign committee to stop exploiting this tragedy for political gain. While Boehner may not be able to control his caucus, nobody believes that he couldn’t stop the NRCC from fundraising off Benghazi if he really wanted to.”
LikeLike
And then the scandal simply faded away.
LikeLike