Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap.
Let’s say you are the governor of a state, and the federal government said to you:
“We will send you millions of dollars for your state. You can use those millions to pay salaries, buy services and buy equipment in your state, to stimulate your state economy.
“Those millions will help grow and improve your hospitals, pay for more doctors, nurses and other medical service providers, and pay for untold numbers of goods and services, in your state.
“The millions then will flow throughout your state, stimulating virtually every business, and benefiting virtually every citizen of your state.
“And it won’t cost you a penny for five years.
“Then, even after that five-year period, your cost will be only 10% of what we continue to send you, so if we send you $100 million, you only will have to spend an additional $10 million in your state.
“Finally, this money will help thousands of your poorest citizens receive medical care they now cannot afford — all at no cost to you.“
What would you say, as the governor who was elected to provide the best for the people of your state?
On the other hand, if you were a governor who cared nothing about your state or the people in it — especially the poor people — a governor who was so locked into political hatred you were willing to throw away hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, just for political spite — what would say?
Look at the map and graphs below, which you also can find here, to see what kind of state government you have:
This is your test: Aside from caring nothing for the health and prosperity of the citizens of their state, what else do the brown-colored state governments have in common?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The 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. Federally funded, 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. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
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 growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.
15 thoughts on “–Here is your test: What kind of state government do you have? Think.”
Why is government the only answer? Increasing Medicad does not increase access to a Doctor unless the government forces Doctors to see these patients. Government can only guarantee equal misery except for the people who run the government for they receive all the benefits of being in control while the rest of the population suffers. You want a good example? Look at Cuba. The Socialist live nicely while the rest of the population is just barely getting by. Also look at Obama Care. Increased cost not efficiencies!
Mark Anthony email@example.com
Hmmm . . . Are you claiming that the millions of additional people now on Medicaid are NOT receiving care from doctors?
So how does single payer work? Does the patient get to choose the doctor etc?
Single payer merely means one payer — in this case, the federal government. It does not dictate the medical provider.
You may be thinking of an HMO, which does have restrictions about doctor selection.
Ok, does the single payer tell the doctor what can be charged for a particular treatment? In other words how are prices set?
All payers, single or otherwise, set limits on what they will pay for any particular procedure.
In my opinion, Medicare sets limits too low. Congress recently has decided to lift limits on doctors’ Medicare compensation, after many years of patching the law. But I believe the limits remain too low.
There is no financial or economic reason for such low limits; the federal government (and by extension, Medicare) never can run short of money. So what possible purpose can such low limits provide?
yes but now prices are based on competing payers. So there is a range for what is paid out.
There’s defiantly a limit on what people earn Rodger. The comment borders stupidity.
I’lk make it easier for you since you claim ignorance. Say you are currently 20 million dollars rich. Tomorrow, the US gives every person 200 million dollars. What happens to you Rodger? No excuses please, you know the daMN answer.
First poster is right, Obamacare didn’t address the issue (medical monopolies), so it’ll make matters worst – I can atest to that. Apply the dam law like you do across other industries – issue resolved.
FDR, I do claim ignorance — ignorance about what the heck you are talking about. I suspect you have exactly then same ignorance.
Penny, Medicare doesn’t base it’s payments on competing payers.
So with single payer for everyone insurance companies would be eliminated? And the Gov could pay what insurance paid or even more thereby attracting more people to become doctors.
In 2010, the Reagan-era former governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, who had been in office from 1983 to 1999, decided to run again. He handily defeated the Democratic incumbent, whose single term had been a series of train wrecks. After the ACA passed, Branstad was saying, like the other rightwing governors, that he wasn’t going to accept the Medicare money. However, some polling came out that indicated that was one of two issues on which the voters strongly disagreed with him (I’ve forgotten the other one), and which might even cause problems with his reelection in 2014. He promptly backed down and took the money, although he vetoed the creation of a state exchange. The program is very popular here.
The people of Iowa must have figured out that receiving hundreds of millions of dollars into their state, plus improved medical services, was better than the dubious pleasure of thumbing their noses at President Obama.
And Branstad must have wanted votes.
Now, if only the people of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas et al were as smart.
With single payer, the government would pay all benefits in Medicare and Medicaid. That wouldn’t eliminate private health insurance companies.
However, I have suggested free, comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman and child in America. That would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies.
And yes, the government could (and does) determine what to pay, and also yes, if it paid doctors more, more people would want to become doctors.
Is there any way the private insurance companies could keep their jobs and salaries if somehow they would be absorbed into the public sector to do the paper work while government merely signed their checks and oversaw them too? (nationalized) After all, insurance companies are only concerned about the money they make and people’s well-being a distant second. Does that fit or would they throw one?