Brexit: How Obama “bailed then failed”

I received this letter written by someone named “Mike,” whom I do not know, other than he lives in the UK

Hi everyone.

Thoughts on this subject have been asked for, so here goes!

Brexit – where do I start? Some background first….

When the UK joined in the early 70s and voted to remain in 1975, we joined what was then called the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market. There were no political connotations, it was simply a free trade area.

Over the years since then, the EEC morphed into the European Union (EU) which created a European Parliament, a European Court, a European Currency (the Euro) with a European Central Bank, a European Foreign Service and many other institutions and trappings of a sovereign state.

On the stocks at the moment is a proposal to create a European Armed Force in ‘opposition’ to NATO.

Many of us (52% as it turns out) were deeply disturbed by this as we found that our laws, passed by Parliament, were being overturned by the EU; that the decisions of our courts were being overruled by the European Court and by the European Court of Human Rights; and that we were powerless to prevent anybody with “European Citizenship” from travelling to the UK and, if they could not find work, from drawing our Welfare Benefits.

In fact, because Britain is more prosperous than any other country in the EU (yes, even Germany), many hundreds of thousands did come here from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, Greece and, amazingly, France – there were a net 300,000 last year alone – causing great strain on our housing stock, schools and hospitals.

While we attempted to negotiate with the other EU countries a deal which would alleviate our difficulties, concessions were derisory and we could see further problems arising if the flood of refugees from the Middle East and Africa were eventually granted EU citizenship as Germany, in particular, was suggesting.

There was also on the table a proposal that Turkey would join the EU which would eventually add a further large population entitled to travel here.

These issues have been a festering problem in British politics ever since the premiership of Margaret Thatcher but they came to prominence when the financial crash provoked problems within the Euro Zone.

The weakest economies – mainly in the south of Europe and, principally, Greece – collapsed and became reliant on the strongest economy, Germany.  The EU economy within the Euro Zone faltered and stagnated and calls to free the UK from all this became louder.

In an attempt to stifle these calls, David Cameron said that he would make a further effort to negotiate a deal and, once these negotiations were over, we would have an In/Out Referendum. We’ve had it and you know the result – we want out.

It’s a result that Pam and I voted for – principally on the constitutional issue. We didn’t vote for a European Union in 1975 and we don’t like what the Common Market has turned into. The nearest analogy that I can think of in US terms is States’ Rights and we didn’t like our rights being surreptitiously removed.

Incidentally, and I hate to have to say this, but President Obama did the Remain in Europe campaign, himself and the US no favours by saying that we would have to go to the end of the line for a trade deal with the USA if we left the EU.

Were we back of the line after Pearl Harbor; in Korea; during the Cuban Missile Crisis; with President Reagan in facing down Gorbachov; during Operation Desert Storm; or after 9/11?

We don’t expect favours or thanks but a little consideration would be welcome.

Of course, we recognise that there is going to be a downside: the financial institutions, having lost their bets on Britain staying in are screaming but they’ll get over it; the eurocrats and their masters in the EU are furious but if they want to go on trading with us, they’ll have to calm down and come to a sensible deal.

I suspect that a short-term slimming down of our economy is a price worth paying to get back control of the country.


Here is my response:

You are correct.

The EU was invented by the rich, insatiable bankers who always want to grab more and more money and power.

At least the UK was smart enough to keep their own currency (i.e. remained “Monetarily Sovereign”).

Greece, France, Italy, et al surrendered the single most valuable asset any nation can have — their Monetary Sovereignty — and so have been at the mercy of the rapacious bankers, who have been bleeding them ever since.

Way back in 2005, I spoke at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, where I said, “Because of the Euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.”

That goes for the EU.  Nations can have free trade without giving up their Monetary Sovereignty. But the bankers feel that doesn’t allow them to steal enough.

As for Obama, he is a pseudo-liberal, a right-winger in disguise. He opted for cutting Social Security and Medicare, begged for a “Grand Bargain” that would have widened the gap between the rich and the rest, and brought into existence the Simpson/Bowles Committee designed to cut all social spending.”

Now, he backs the EU, because it is a feeding trough for bankers.

(Obama always has been a flunkie for the bankers. Presumably, they will return the favor and support him and his family in luxury, for the rest of their lives.)

In his role as bank stooge, he bailed out the banks, then failed to prosecute a single lawbreaking bankster. He long will be remembered as the “bailed and failed” President.

The UK people made a great move, and if they get a wise Prime Minister, they will prosper well beyond any of the EU nations, which will continue to be bled by the banksters.

Congratulations and Godspeed to the UK.

The EU is nothing more than a direct money transfer system from the people to the bankers. The people are impoverished while the bankers grow richer.

The Brexit allows the UK to regain its Monetary Sovereignty. It has the power to do whatever is best to grow its economy and to benefit its people (and that, after all, is the fundamental purpose of government).

Britain will not need to adhere to any ridiculous “debt” limits or unlimited immigration, or the negation of its laws, as it creates the money to pay for jobs, food, housing, education, infrastructure and all other aids for its people. It will be able, if it wishes, to end poverty in the UK.

The greedy bankers will scream at the loss of a cash cow. Surrogates for the rich, like Obama, will tell the English they would be better off as slaves to the EU. The bankers will do everything possible to punish the populace for refusing to be Greece.

But if England stands firm against these criminals, that nation will become a shining beacon of economic freedom and human success.

We only can pray the next U.S. president will be as smart in his/her dealings with the bankers. America does not need another “bail and fail” President.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.


8 thoughts on “Brexit: How Obama “bailed then failed”

  1. I favored a Brexit like “Mike” did, but I disagree with “Mike” on some details.

    1) “We were powerless to prevent anybody with ‘European citizenship’ from travelling to the UK and, if they cannot find work, from drawing our Welfare Benefits.”

    Since the U.K. creates its spending money out of thin air, no money comes out of anyone’s pocket to pay welfare benefits. The more benefits are paid out, the more money circulates in the U.K. economy. Thus, the more jobs are created overall. Besides, if immigrants got no jobs and no welfare benefits, they would resort to crime.

    2) “Britain is more prosperous than any other country in the EU, including Germany.”

    False. Many Britons voted “Leave” because they had no prosperity. The EU’s fishing quota, for example, devastated the U.K. fishing industry. I have been to the U.K. and I saw much poverty there. The social tension in London was awful. Millions of people with very bad attitudes. Only Detroit was worse. The cause is neoliberalism,

    3) “300,000 immigrants came to the U.K. in 2015 alone, causing great strain on our housing stock, schools and hospitals.”

    The strain is not caused by immigrants, but by elitist politicians who impose austerity in order to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. There is more than enough money to provide schools, housing, and hospitals for everyone, including immigrants. Your enemy is not immigrants, but neoliberal politicians.

    4) “The weakest economies – mainly in the south of Europe and, principally, Greece – collapsed and became reliant on the strongest economy, Germany.”

    They did not become reliant on Germany. On the contrary, the euro caused Germany to become a debt parasite that is reliant on Greece.

    Greece has a trade deficit, and cannot create its money out of thin air. Therefore Greece must continually borrow more and more money from bankers. The bankers in turn are paid off by the ECB, which maintains the debt on Greece. Over 90% of “bailout” money goes to the bankers. Since Greece has no money, Greece makes debt payments by giving its public assets to the rich. This is a deliberate and systematic campaign of looting and pillaging.

    I very strong favored a Brexit, because the EU is a dictatorial and neoliberal monstrosity. I regret that many Britons who voted “Leave” were motivated by immigrants. However, since the public is stupid, and is motivated by emotion (not logic) I’ll settle for whatever victory over the bankers and elitists that I can get.


  2. Yet, at the same time they were voting for ‘Brexit’ (which I believe will be cancelled/subverted by the Commons), the politicians were talking about how quickly after the ‘Brexit’ they could get hooked back up to the European Common Market — which means that in the end, nothing really will change.


    1. The Common Market was a free trade agreement. It’s purpose was to make trade easier and more efficient, which given the small geographic size and proximity of the European nations, made sense.

      The EU is a banker’s takeover of national governments. It’s purpose is to enrich bankers at the expense of the populace.

      Both systems fulfilled their purpose.


  3. I am from Sweden and voted in 2003 against the euro. I voted for the krona and monetary sovereignty.

    EU started as a project to erase frictions between nations.

    But the problem is that the nations of Europe are starting to fall apart internally because of debt-deflation and socio-economic fragmentation.

    A war between member-nations are not very likely today, but the risk for civil war seems to have increased and that will break up the union.


    1. You were wise.

      Your comments are well taken. Today, I feel sorry for the Brits, who are being sold on the idea that Brexit was a mistake and a new vote should ensue.

      Who is spreading that idea? The wealthy bankers, those unelected rulers, who had created a lucrative scam to bleed EU nations.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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