–How dare he? Obama moves to stop climate change

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•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.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


The following post has been edited by the Republican National Committee, Pete Peterson, the Koch Brothers and Judges Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito.

As every educated person Republican knows, climate change is happening right now a fraud, just like evolution, Social Security, Medicare, anything that helps the poor, and any need for gun control.

But President Obama has decided to follow ignore the learned scientific opinions of virtually every climate scientist Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Donald Trump et al, and plow ahead with actions to prevent a climate disaster affecting all of human kind Republicans from enriching the rich while screwing the public.

To keep you ignorant informed, we present excerpts from the right-wing nut-case nonpartisan Washington Times.

Obama admin grants green groups unprecedented power in crafting climate policy: Senate report

As the Environmental Protection Agency crafted rules to limit carbon emissions from power plants, key stakeholders — including the American public — had little to no influence over the debate while powerful environmental activist groups were given unprecedented access to and influence over administration officials, a Senate committee charged Tuesday.

A report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee breaks down in detail off-the-books meetings and email conversations, sometimes through private, non-government accounts, between top EPA officials and leaders with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations.

Those secret, “off-the-books” meetings considered the most up-to-date scientific knowledge failed to consider the Koch brothers’ money needs.

Alleged collusion between the EPA and the environmental movement, along with the fact that a host of former environmental activists have found their way into high-level positions in the Obama administration, is nothing new.

But the Senate study, relying on emails and other records obtained during an ongoing investigation, makes clear that the EPA and top environmental groups see themselves as deeply intertwined in the push to cut carbon pollution and pursue other pieces of President Obama’s broad, controversial climate-change agenda.

It is encouraging outrageous, that those knowledgeable and concerned about the environement selfish activists wish to cut carbon pollution, when Pete Peterson and most Republican candidates understand there is no climate change at all.

Other stakeholders, such as the energy industry, manufacturers, and members of the public, only took part in the rulemaking process through the normal, legally required public comment period that comes between a proposal and finalization of a rule.

Republicans care only what is best for the rich businessmen public good.

The report comes one day after Mr. Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy formally unveiled the Clean Power Plan, which will require a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions from power plants by 2030.

The plan has touched off a firestorm across the country, with Republicans in Congress vowing to block the regulations in any way they can, Republican governors promising to ignore the rules entirely and a coalition of 15 attorneys general readying new lawsuits challenging the plan in federal court.

Though the vast majority of the public is deeply concerned about climate change The Tea/Republican Party of the Rich Republican Party is angry, because reducing carbon emissions not only will cut air pollution, but will reduce the disaster of climate change will cost the Kochs money.

The Clean Power Plan regulations follow similar rules limiting emissions from new fossil fuel-fired power plants. Those rules, and others, were heavily influenced by environmental groups

Limiting pollution and global warming is exactly what environmental groups are supposed to do to save our children and the planet completely unnecessary. Unfortunately Fortunately, the Republicans are dedicated to the health and survival of rich businessmen, campaign contributors the human race.

The report lays out numerous examples of environmental activists meeting with top EPA officials at coffee shops or other locations outside agency headquarters, presumably to skirt visitors logs and otherwise shield the frequent contact between the two camps.

The Washington Times tries to imply a clandestine and sinister meaning to fortunately for everyone, learned environmental activists meet with EPA officials in coffee shops.

Here’s a great big “Screw you”“Thank you” to the Washington Times for being such a blatant tool of the very rich watchful guardian of the public good.

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. 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)

The Ten Steps 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.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

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.


11 thoughts on “–How dare he? Obama moves to stop climate change

  1. Of course, Obama’s move to stop climate change is too little too late. It’s not impossible the Koch Bros understand this, so why bother?
    We are all going to hell anyway. Lets go first class!


  2. Obama Didn’t Kill Coal, the Market Did

    The primary reason for the public revolt against coal is simple: It causes death, disease and debilitating respiratory problems. A decade ago, coal pollution was killing 13,000 people a year. Today, the number is down to 7,500, which means that more than 5,000 Americans are living longer, healthier lives each year thanks to cleaner power.

    Don’t tell that to the Republicans.

    In short, reducing our nation’s coal consumption has meant a healthier country with more jobs — at no extra cost to consumers. Is there anyone who thinks that’s a bad deal?

    It doesn’t matter what the public thinks. The real question is, what do the Koch brothers and Pete Peterson think?


  3. What those guys think brings to my mind the utterly ignorant, redneck jury in the movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Everyone a Koch and a Peterson. Forgone conclusion. Group think. Kill the innocent. Justice? Integrity? BAH!

    Also, thinking about the Gap between the rich and the rest: Could this be more than a way to sustained enrichment at the expense of the rest of us? Dare we mention that the same attitude now being carried by the rich was the same attitude carried by the Truman administration in its decision to annihilate two “Jap” (subhuman) cities; or the war room scene from Dr. Strangelove where the top brass are being told by George C. Scott to strike first, the Russians would lose 100 million while we (America) would suffer 20 – 25- 30 million casualties–tops!

    I have a lady friend who’s convinced the rich are in a conspiracy to gradually kill off everyone (99%) by way of the Gap then have the world to themselves. My first reaction was she was paranoid as hell; not even the rich could be that hideous. Then the more I thought about it….the more I didn’t want to think about it.

    Is concentrated influence a calculated ticking time bomb, where even the 1% are aware they would suffer a few casualties…tops!?


  4. For the time being that is correct, although automation and population growth are picking up speed and the (working) poor will be out of work and hope in even larger numbers though perhaps not entirely 100%, such as tomato pickers and sanitation workers. People get in line around the block at dawn for 5 job openings.

    But If there’s no gap (no poor and no available comparison) then what do we call everyone without any poor? Is everyone rich, or everyone poor, or everyone leveled out to the middle? Does MS hold potential for a non-gap, i.e., can the bottom be raised without interfering with the top?


    1. Right, if there were zero Gap, there would be no rich and no poor.

      A Gap, in of itself, is not bad. It is inevitable. The problem today is that the Gap is too wide.

      Eight of the ten Steps (except 8 and 9) would not “interfere” with the top, and would narrow the Gap.


      1. I think the good news is the gap doesn’t have to be removed entirely. We could do well to keep just enough of it to remove poverty but not so much that the rich would feel uncomfortable at the growth of ‘neuvo riche’ creeping in next door. They NEED to be able to look down their noses at the minions. But I have to wonder if they would even accept THAT.

        Centuries of ignorance and “being better off” just won’t disappear; it’s passed on father to son and daughter. This attitude is running into a head on collision with our natural technical evolution that seems to be trying to make us a complete success by means of ever more powerful, job drudgery eliminating machines. This in turn can release us to use our minds (instead of repetitive muscle movements) as life long students and researchers doing what pleases us, all paid for by MS.


    1. And this statement, from just one scientist, out of thousands, “puts the lie to rest”?

      That is known as “confirmation bias.”

      He may be right, but the probability is he’s wrong. Many scientists make many claims, every day. You are free to believe only those whose claims agree with your preconceived notions.

      Anyone who is not a scientist is well advised to agree with the majority, unless they themselves have special knowledge in this area. I assume you have no such knowledge.


  5. An article all climate change deniers should read — but won’t.

    Climate Denial

    Naomi Oreskes in 2004, carrying out a scientific test, looked at all the papers regarding “climate change” she had found in refereed journals between 1994 and 2003.

    Asking how many of these 928 articles argued against the consensus (IPCC) position, she found the number to be “zero.” She concluded that “there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

    This conclusion has been confirmed by later studies.

    The climate changes over the past 60 years can be explained by no natural processes, only by human-caused increases in greenhouse gases.

    Insofar there has been any change in the sun’s effect on the Earth, it has been in the direction of cooling since 1970, while the planet’s atmosphere has continued to warm.

    Although water vapor is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, it is also the dominant feedback agent. And, as CO2 emissions make the temperature go up, evaporation increases, putting more water vapor in the atmosphere, which further increases the temperature.

    The water-vapor feedback doubles the warming that would by caused by rising CO2 alone. Water vapor largely explains, therefore, why Earth’s climate is so sensitive to CO2 increases.

    An examination of long-term trends shows that 90 percent of the glaciers worldwide have been shrinking.

    Continued global warming will be much more harmful for human beings than helpful, due to increasing heat waves, droughts, storms, sea-level rise, fresh water shortage, and food shortage.

    With regard to plants and animals, current climate change is much more rapid than change in the past, so the ways in which species adapted in the past are generally impossible.


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