Voting for lies is necessary. The dangerous season of hatred

In case you didn’t see this in a previous “Comments” section, reader “Vincent” wrote: “It is not enough that politicians should be honest; they need to appear honest.”

My response was:

Some politicians appear to be honest. None actually are.

All politicians believe the public is relatively ignorant, and cannot be trusted with the truth. In that, they are correct.

So, you will not hear the truth from Trump, Clinton or Johnson. They all lie.

For instance, they all tell you The Big Lie (Federal taxes fund federal spending.) They believe that you, the public, will punish them for telling the truth, and they probably are correct.

As a voter, the best you can do is determine your own leanings, and select the one candidate most in line with those leanings.

Personally, I cannot subscribe to the basis of libertarianism (less government regulation, which allows the rich and powerful to rule the weak). So that eliminates Johnson.

For similar reasons, I cannot subscribe to the right wing belief that the rich and powerful should rule the weak). So that eliminates the Republican candidate.

By the process of elimination, I am left with the candidate that comes closest to my own beliefs (narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest), even though she still is too right wing for my tastes.

While listing Trump’s and Clinton’s lies is entertaining, in the National Enquirer vein, it is not a good basis for voting.

Then reader “Elizabeth Harris” wrote:

Hillary has the unanimous support of bankers, of neocons, of Wall Street, and the One Percent. She will deliver everything they demand, including mass privatization, the TPP, endless war (perhaps a world war with Russia) and a wider-than-ever gap between the rich and the rest.

For average people, life under Hillary will be a nightmare. And the more it becomes a nightmare, the more they will comfort themselves with the delusion that “Trump would have been worse.” This despite the fact that Trump is opposed by all those who will create the nightmare.

Among common folk, non-stop Trump-bashing is a desperate attempt to deny what they know inside about Hillary and her rich backers. It is a desperate attempt to deny the reality that in many ways, Trump is the de facto Democrat, and Hillary is the de facto Republican. Such people camouflage the economic realities of Hillary by focusing on the social inanities of Trump, such as his proposed border wall, which Congress would never agree to. They focus on Trump’s verbal gaffs about Muslims, while they ignore Hillary’s track record of exterminating Muslims. (Hillary cheered for the destruction of Libya, and has publicly vowed to nuke Iran.)

As President, Trump would not be able to get the US Congress to agree to anything he wants. However Trump would be able to veto the US Congress, and thereby trip up things like the TPP, and war with Russia.

What we need is an ineffective Trump, not an effective neocon-neoliberal Hillary.

And I responded:

True, Trump is not a Republican, but he would appoint more Scalias to the Supreme Court, which would be a disaster for America — unless you like unlimited political contributions, unlimited guns, the reduction in minority voting rights, a theocracy, and jurists who accept free “hunting trips” from the wealthy.

And, Trump’s crazed hand above the button — he wants to nuke ISIS — gives one pause. (Please give me your references for Hillary’s desire to nuke Iran and for her cheering the destruction of Lybia. I’ve not seen those)

And to describe Trump’s vow to exclude Muslims as merely a “verbal gaff” is unbecoming to you, Elizabeth. Is deporting 11 million undocumented Mexicans also just a “gaff”?

By the way, when was the last time any Congress voted for war, and the President vetoed it? Doesn’t it always go the other way?

Unfortunately, Hillary is a continuation of Barack’s policies, which as poor as they may be, still exceeded Bush II and today’s Congress, by a long way,

Sorry, but you can’t shine up a broken Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for a male version of Sarah Palin with a tinge of Hannity.

The point: Today’s election campaign is more hate-filled and dangerous than any I can remember.

On the one side we have people who simply hate Bill Clinton and partly by extension, also hate Hillary Clinton. They say (rightly) that the Clintons are liars and crooked and will endorse war and everything else that benefits big bankers (aka contributors).

On a second side are the people who hate Trump. They say (rightly) that Trump is a liar and crooked, and an incompetent loose cannon who spreads hatred for minorities and hatred for foreigners, and who will appoint fellow bigots to the Supreme Court.

Then, on yet another side, we have the people who hate the federal government because it’s “big” (but seem O.K. with state and local governments — even more crooked and incompetent than the federal government — and hate the laws that protect the poor from the rich.

And we have the Bernie Sanders people and the independents, and the Greens, and all of them lie and hate the others for lying.

Maybe this is the way it always has been, and it only feels like more hatred than ever.

But, none of this would matter much, if you simply do what I suggested to Vincent, and merely vote for the candidate who comes closest to your own leanings.  Heaven knows there are plenty of candidates from which to choose.

There is however, a huge problem with my suggestion: If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives will select the President from the top three candidates, and they will choose Donald Trump for President.

The Republican majority in the Senate will select the Vice President from the top two candidates, and they will select Mike Pence.

Bottom line: If you want Trump/Pence in the White House, vote for Trump or for Johnson, or for Sanders or for Stein (Green Party) or for an independent or even for yourself in a write-in.  They all would be votes for Trump.

There is yet another possibility, of course: The House of Representatives could pick someone else altogether — someone the voters did not select — but that would lead to the destruction of America’s political system. 

These are dangerous times, indeed.

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.


11 thoughts on “Voting for lies is necessary. The dangerous season of hatred

  1. “Personally, I cannot subscribe to the basis of libertarianism (less government regulation, which allows the rich and powerful to rule the weak).” ~ RMM

    I agree with Rodger. However, not all libertarians are the same. Many libertarians are neoliberals (e.g. the Koch brothers and their “Cato Institute”). They want less regulation for themselves, and more regulation for you and me (i.e. they want a police state so they can keep the peasants down).

    Other libertarians, however, do not favor less regulation so much as less centralized regulation. They do not want all power to be held by giant corporations and the federal government.


    “I cannot subscribe to the right wing belief that the rich and powerful should rule the weak. So that eliminates the Republican candidate.” ~ RMM

    Therefore it eliminates Hillary, who is more Republican than Trump in her support for war, Wall Street, neoliberalism, the TPP, and so on.


    “Please give me your references for Hillary’s desire to nuke Iran and for her cheering the destruction of Libya. I’ve not seen those.” ~ RMM

    To be fair, Hillary said she would nuke Iran if Iran attacked Israel with (non-existent) nukes.

    Trump said he would not “rule out” using nukes against U.S.-sponsored terrorist mercenaries (aka ISIS™). He said. “I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. I will be the last.”

    Thus, both Trump and Hillary are ready to nuke someone. I don’t see how this makes Hillary any better than Trump.

    Regarding Libya, when the US government decided to hijack the “Arab Spring” in 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one of the loudest and strongest voices for the destruction of Libya and Syria. “We came, we saw, he died.”

    Also, Hillary is close friends with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who continues to boast of having murdered half a million Iraqi children with sanctions. (“The price was worth it.”)

    Would Trump be any better than these sociopaths? I don’t know, but I honestly don’t think he could be any worse.


    “And to describe Trump’s vow to exclude Muslims as merely a ‘verbal gaff’ is unbecoming to you, Elizabeth. Is deporting 11 million undocumented Mexicans also just a ‘gaff’? ~RMM

    And it is unbecoming of you, Rodger, to ascribe words to me that I never used, such as “verbal gaff.” In any case, Trump talks about excluding Muslims, which for Rodger is worse than Hillary (as Secretary of State) pushing for the outright extermination of Muslims. For me, what a person does is more important that what a person says.

    Regarding deportation, Obama has deported more refugees than all previous presidents combined, even when we include the scandalous “Mexican Repatriation” of 1929-to-1936. There is no reason to presume that Obama II (i.e. Hillary) will be different.

    Again, for me, what a person does is more important that what a person says. We don’t know what Trump would actually do if he was President, but we do know what Obama has done.


    Rodger says that voting for lies is necessary. I presume he means that voting for Hillary is necessary, since everything connected with Hillary is a lie. For example, establishment Democrats say we must vote for Hillary to keep out Trump. Nonsense. If they were worried about keeping out Trump, they would have supported Sanders, who would have easily beaten Trump.

    The truth is they want you to support Hillary because they want you to support war, Wall Street, neoliberalism, and everything else that will continue to impoverish you.

    You know this.
    I know it.
    Everyone knows it.

    Logically then, excessive Trump-bashing is an exercise in neurosis — i.e. denying what you know. Such denial is a flight from reality.

    TO SENIOR CITIZENS: if think you are safe from Hillary, then don’t complain when Hillary privatizes Medicare and Social Security to “save” them. Hillary must privatize them, because the TPP when ratified will let financial firms sue the U.S. government for “lost profits” and “unfair competition” posed by Medicare and Social Security.


    “Today’s election campaign is more hate-filled and dangerous than any I can remember. Maybe this is the way it always has been, and it only feels like more hatred than ever.” ~ RMM

    The hatred has always been there. During the 1950s, for example, Blacks were still being lynched, nuclear war was imminent, 37,000 Americans died in the Korean War, and everyone suspected his neighbor of being evil (i.e. a communist).

    The difference between the 1950s and today is that there is no longer anything positive to counterbalance the hate. For example, during the 1950s there was more job security than there is today. Most (white) Americans were upwardly mobile. Many people worked from nine to five, and took an hour for lunch, which they were paid for. Not all TV programming was aimed at kids.

    And so on.


    1. Actually Elizabeth, someone using your name wrote, “They focus on Trump’s verbal gaffs about Muslims, while they ignore Hillary’s track record of exterminating Muslims. (Hillary cheered for the destruction of Libya, and has publicly vowed to nuke Iran.)

      If those weren’t your words, I apologize. You had better check your Email account for hacking.

      And incidentally, I’ve not seen where Hillary “cheered for the destruction of Libya.” I believe she and Obama favored regime change, which sadly has been a common thread for both parties (Remember Hussein?)

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to be a summary of what you’re saying: “Trump is an incompetent clown, but we can rely on Congress to control him.”

      I assume you are talking about THIS Congress, the one that is so incompetent and clownish it will not even interview the Supreme Court candidate they once loved.

      Speaking of incompetent, I suspect that if Trump had not inherited hundreds of millions from daddy, and was rescued from bankruptcy, also by daddy, he might be sitting in a cubicle phone-selling penny stocks.

      Finally, if Elizabeth Warren were a candidate, she would have my vote. But she’s not a candidate, so I will vote for the candidate she favors.

      Others may wish to vote for the candidate Hannity favors. Warren vs. Hannity . . . Hmmm . . .


      1. Clearly we are not going to change each other’s mind on this issue.

        You like Hillary. I say that Hillary will launch new wars, she will privatize Medicare and Social Security, she will push for the TPP (if it is not ratified by the time Wall Street installs her) and so on.

        Evidently none of these issues matter to you. Evidently the only issue that really matters to you has nothing to do with inequality, or finances, or anything like that. It is the true reason why you support Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. It has nothing to do with the gap between the rich and the rest.

        Tell me Rodger, what is the single most important subject for you? In the realm of politics, religion, and national events, what topic matters to you more than anything?

        We all know what that topic is: _ _ _ _ _ _

        THAT is why you support Hillary. You think she will be best for _ _ _ _ _ _ and I agree with you. And you like Elizabeth Warren because she is just as hawkish as Hillary on this topic.

        I am at the opposite extreme.

        Change of topic…

        You write…” I cannot imagine that TPP is the ‘single most important issue, either for Americans or in reality. Not one American in 1000 understands TPP’.”

        Based on my own experience, every American from age 16 on up knows about the secretive TPP and its horrendous “investor-state dispute settlement” scam, in which corporations will be able to sue government for lost future profits. This topic is all over the social media shared by young people.

        If you don’t believe me, then ask the younger people in your own family if they have heard about it.


        1. Elizabeth, your “_____” has me baffled.

          As I have stated many times, the single most important economic issue is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

          As for every American understanding TPP, you must run in a far more sophisticated crowd than I do.


          1. It’s a binary choice. I get that. Nevertheless, to merely fallback to Clinton is whistling past the graveyard.


  2. If I understand the above post correctly, Rodger is asking people to ignore the b.s. polls, and to not try to guess how other people will vote. Instead, Rodger is asking people to honestly for whoever they think is the best candidate.

    I strongly agree with Rodger’s view, but does that mean Rodger vote for Jill Stein?

    If not, why not? If Rodger says, “Because Stein has no chance of winning,” then Rodger is playing the same game he derides. If, however, Rodger thinks Hillary is the better candidate, then I would like to know why.

    Seriously, the reason why Rodger’s Trump-bashing posts get the least reader comments is not because anyone likes Trump. It is because everyone knows that Hillary is such an elitist psychopath that even a buffoon is preferable to her.

    Looking at a bigger picture, it’s fun to continually bash right-wingers, but we have moved into new territory. Among average Americans of all stripes (liberal, conservative, gay, straight, black, white, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever) the single most important issue is the TPP –aka Obamatrade; the campaign to make corporate sovereignty supreme over national sovereignty. Trump says he opposes the TPP. Is he being truthful? Maybe. The elites despise him, so what does that tell you?

    As for Hillary, she says she is “rethinking” the TPP. No one believes her, because Hillary’s pattern never varies. In the 1990s, she helped push for NAFTA. In 2008 when she ran against Obama, she appealed to the masses by saying that NAFTA was a “mistake.” When Hillary lost the election, she reverted back to supporting NAFTA, plus the TPP, TTIP, and TiSA. Then, during the current election, she again appealed to the masses by claiming to be “rethinking” the TPP. She is utterly predictable. That’s why the One Percent adore her.

    Regarding the TPP, its ratification will have to be done during the lame duck session of Congress after the November 4th election. Between 4 Nov 2016 and 30 Dec 2016 (when the current congress ends) Congress is more unaccountable than ever. Congressmen who lose in the November elections can still vote, but newly elected legislators cannot vote, since they will not yet be sworn in. Many congressmen will be voted out for having supported the TPP. Not having to worry about being re-elected, they will vote for the TPP to pay back their owners, and to take revenge on the constituents who voted them out.

    The final vote for the TPP will probably be very late at night on Friday 23 Dec 2016 when the Christmas weekend puts the nation to sleep. (Congress will not be in session on the 24th or 25th.)

    Then the elitists, their puppet politicians, and the corporate media outlets will all be able to say with a straight face that Hillary had “nothing to do with it.”

    Once the TPP is in place, President Hillary will have “no choice” but to privatize Medicare and Social Security.

    Despite all this, many people will continue to blame everything on Republicans, including Republicans who opposed the TPP.

    And they will continue to wonder why the USA keeps marching ever farther to the right.


  3. I would not vote for any secondary party candidate, because denying Trump and Clinton the 270 vote majority would put Trump in the White House (courtesy of the House of Representatives).

    I cannot imagine that TPP is the “single most important issue, either for Americans or in reality. Not one American in 1000 understands TPP. Those who oppose do so because their favorite medium says so.

    The real most important issue is the Gap between the rich and the rest. The Republicans consistently, both in Congress and the Supreme Court (yes, there are Republicans in the Supreme Court), has taken the side of the rich over the rest.

    As for which candidate is a psychopath, here is::

    THE HARE Test for Psychopathy

    superficial charm
    grandiose sense of self-worth
    need for stimulation
    proneness to boredom
    pathological lying
    lack of remorse
    lack of guilt
    shallow affect
    lack of empathy
    parasitic lifestyle
    promiscuous sexual behavior
    early behavior problems
    lack of realistic, long-term goals
    failure to accept responsibility
    many short-term marital relationships
    juvenile delinquency and criminal versatility.

    You are free to decide for yourself, which candidate exhibits more of those characteristics.


  4. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
    I think Donald Trump is dangerous, and he’s deceptive, and he’s a demagogue.

    “I don’t think it should surprise anybody to see how well he’s doing, because that kind of demagoguery is formulaic, and it’s easy.

    “There are buttons that you can push, of bigotry and xenophobia and prejudice and anger and self-interest and nationalism—false patriotism.

    “The easy thing is to appeal to bigotry and anger and fear; and it’s much more difficult to appeal to our lighter angels, to get us to transcend our narrow self-interest and see ourselves as part of the community and inspire people to make sacrifices and take risks in their own lives, to contribute to the welfare of our nation, and to look beyond the horizon and try to compel our country to live up to her ideals, her great ideals.

    “It’s much easier to see America as a place where you come to make a big pile for yourself and whoever buys the most stuff wins. That we have to fight off people who don’t look like us, or who don’t love like us, or whatever—who are different. And I think those are the dark angels that Donald Trump appeals to, and I very much hope that his campaign of hatred dies on the vine.

    “It’s not surprising, because those are the passions that the Republican Party has been stirring—those kind of hatreds in the service, of course, of other interests. And Trump is actually coming out and saying the stuff that they’ve been saying cryptically for all those years with dog-whistle slogans.”

    Click THIS


  5. You and Elizabeth are the only ones in the world that quote believe unquote that the government can create all the money it wants and control inflation at the same time.

    The oldest definition of inflation is an increase in the circulation of money. Charlatans…


    1. A relatively few people define “inflation” as an increase in the supply of money. The formula for that definition is: Inflation = Supply

      I believe that definition to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

      Most of the world understands “inflation” to mean a general increase in prices (aka “price inflation”). The formula is: Value = Demand/Supply.

      The formula for Demand is: Demand = Reward/Risk

      The Reward for owning money is Interest. That is why the Fed raises Interest rates when it wants to reduce Inflation, and cuts interest rates when it wants to increase Inflation.

      Look around you. The government has been creating vast amounts of money for many years, and the inflation rate today is below the target rate of 2%-3%.


    BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 8/12/16 AT 10:46 AM
    Trump backs off ISIS comments
    Ronald Reagan’s Daughter Blasts Trump’s ‘Verbal Violence’


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