The Trump/Clinton debate results. Here is what will happen:

What people have done in the past is the best predictor of what they will do in the future.

So, here is what will happen at the Clinton/Trump debate:

  1. The debate will open with the biggest debate audience in history, but it will dissipate.
  2. You will shout “Liar! Liar!” at your TV following each candidate’s statement.
  3. Clinton will lie twice, exaggerate seven times  and will dodge two questions.
  4. Trump will lie 57 times, will exaggerate every answer, claim everything he ever has done is “fantastic,” and will deny saying things he previously has said.
  5. Clinton will list the specific instances of Trump lying in the past and during the debate.
  6. Trump will claim that his lies actually are Clinton’s fault, and use the “She started it” excuse.
  7. Trump repeatedly will dodge questions by using the digression that “Clinton is a liar, Obama is weak, America is powerless, and he (Trump) is incredible.”
  8. Breitbart and Fox will ignore Trump’s lies or deny they were lies, or claim the lies were examples of his strength.
  9. CNBC will mention Clinton’s lies, but will focus on Trump’s, and express amazement that anyone believes him.
  10. Trump will demonstrate ignorance about foreign matters, and offer no rational solutions for domestic problems, but instead will blame Clinton for Obama, and blame Obama for everything — and vice-versa.
  11. Clinton will give wonky, boring, forgettable answers to most questions, demonstrate deep knowledge of foreign matters, deny blame for things that went wrong, and claim credit for what went right, even the things in which she was not involved.
  12. Clinton supporters will claim Trump’s lies “prove” he is unfit for office.
  13. Trump supporters will claim Clinton’s lies “prove” she is unfit for office.
  14. Trump will sneer at the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, Emails, her health, Mexicans, “thugs,” Muslims, gays, and Bill Clinton, but offer no specific data to back any of his claims.
  15. Trump’s generalized “solutions” will involve cracking down on the poor and the powerless, while rewarding the rich.
  16. Clinton will decry the Trump Foundation self-dealing, lack of his tax releases, Trump University, bankruptcies, lawsuits, failure to pay his debts, Putin, the wall, bigotry, Trump’s doctor, and the lack of a plan.
  17. Her detailed solutions will benefit the poor, but no one will believe her.
  18. Neither candidate will promise to put crooked bankers in jail.
  19. Neither candidate will mention cheating on spouses.
  20. Trump is expected to be overbearing, unprepared, lying, braggadocio, and bigoted, so if he is slightly less overbearing, unprepared, lying, braggadocio, or bigoted, he will be considered “Presidential.”
  21. Clinton will try to appear factual and logical, but will be accused of being “Nixonesque” deceptive, no matter what she says. She suffers from the “Dr. Fell” syndrome.
  22. Trump will claim the debate was rigged and that he was treated unfairly. He will refuse to participate in future debates.
  23. The followers of both candidates will criticize the moderator for asking “gotcha” questions of their candidate, for asking “softball” questions of the other candidate, and for not challenging the lies of the other candidate.
  24. Clinton supporters will say she “won” and will say they plan to vote for her, but many will not actually vote.
  25. Trump supporters will say he “won,” but not wanting to look stupid, they will claim they don’t support either candidate. Secretly, they intend to vote for Trump, because they hate the same people he hates.
  26. The twenty-five people in America, who really had not made up their minds before the debate, will not make up their minds after the debate.

There it is. Now, you don’t even need to watch. You know exactly what will happen, the most important question being the winner — i.e. the winner of the Falcons / Saints game.

Long term prediction: If Trump wins the Presidency, within three months, no one will admit to having voted for him.  If Clinton wins, within three years, no one will admit to having voted for her or him.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
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 ANNUAL 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.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
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.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring 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 a 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.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

26 thoughts on “The Trump/Clinton debate results. Here is what will happen:

  1. If for some reason Jill Stein is not on the ballot in my state, then I shall vote for Trump, even though I loathe Trump. I submit that millions of other Americans will do the same, even though they too loathe Trump.

    Why?

    Because the lies, the hypocrisy, the neoliberalism, the broken promises, and the “Screw you!” attitude of Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic establishment can no longer be rationalized or glossed over. Hillary’s war mongering is nauseating, as is Obama’s push for the TPP. Hillary’s running mate is even more neoliberal than Hillary is (as impossible as that may seem). And while the democratic primary process has been rigged since 1972, it has never been so blatant as it was this time.

    For average people, it no longer makes any difference whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. Either way we are screwed. A vote for one is as suicidal as a vote for the other. Hence the “lesser evil” ploy no longer works.

    A vote for Trump is not a vote for Trump. It is a vote against Democrat incumbents. It is a middle finger thrust at the Democratic establishment in response to its shameless hypocrisy.

    Every major corporate media outlet, and most bloggers, spend every minute of every day bashing Trump. And yet he is ahead in many poles. The reason for this is national disgust with the Democrat establishment, which is so intense that every bit of Trump-bashing comes across as a desperate attempt to excuse Democrat corruption. Every rationalization such as, “We must think about Supreme Court appointments” comes across as a futile attempt to inspire nostalgia for a time past when Democrats at least pretended to be Democrats.

    Just as neocons and neoliberals are flocking to Hillary, so do many progressive plan to vote for Trump, even though they do not agree with Trump’s opinions. (Actually Trump has no opinions; only outbursts.) Trump is a wild card and a buffoon, but Hillary is downright terrifying.

    As Rodger says, everybody’s mind is already made up. I am only explaining why anyone would make up his mind for Trump.

    Like

  2. Hmmm . . . kind of sounds like you’re saying Trump is the lesser of two evils.

    Apparently, you prefer the Republican establishment to the Democrat establishment.

    Thankfully, Republican G.W. “mission accomplished” Bush was not a warmongerer, nor is Donald “why-can’t-we-nuke-ISIS-and-Europe?” Trump..

    I saw the Republican establishment. It includes such luminaries as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carlie Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Perry.

    A very impressive group. Trump is as honest as they are. How do I know? I attended Trump University. And thankfully, Trump is no hypocrite. Also, I love the idea of banning people based on their religion. Agreed?

    I believe the single most important problem facing America and the world is the Gap between the rich and the rest, a problem the right wing solves by preventing the poor from voting and by ruling in favor of unlimited political donations and Medicaid cuts.

    But I’m delighted to learn that a vote for Trump is not a vote for Trump. Be sure to remind the election officials of that when they are counting the votes.

    Like

  3. How can anyone ban any religion. I mean, wasn’t 911 a catholic job? Or maybe it was the Jewish who did it?

    How about the Orlando shooting, the recent NY/NJ bombings? And i bet this guy has something to do with that religion.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/us/washington-mall-shooting/index.html

    I disagree with prosecuting religions, but the world has a big problem with the Muslims. These people cant live in peace and anywhere they go they want to kill anyone of different religions. Are you going to keep being politically correct until this thing hits your home town?

    That’s exactly what happen in Weimar germany and look where that ended.

    Like

      1. The vast — and I mean VAST — majority of killings in America are done by Christians.

        As long as you asked what I make of this, I’ll answer:

        What I make of your question is that you are an anti-Muslim bigot, desperately searching for any substantiation of your bigoted ideas.

        Being a bigot, you would have found “perfectly good” reasons to send Jews to the Nazi gas chambers.

        Had you lived in colonial America, you would have found killing native Americans quite acceptable.

        Today, you probably hate blacks, browns, and gays, believe you are superior (for some unknown reason), and think Trump is right to wall off America from the rest of the world.

        That is what I make of this.

        Like

        1. “The vast — and I mean VAST — majority of killings in America are done by Christians.” ~ RMM

          I see. So if a killer does not publically proclaim himself to be a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, or whatever, then he is automatically a Christian by default.

          Like

          1. Not only that, the murders have nothing to do with religion.

            I’m sure if you start asking what religion people are, there may indeed be more christians than muslims.

            But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is death in the name of allah.

            Like

        2. Given that i fall in one or more of those hated categories, i guess i hate myself.

          Your response is pretty weak Rodger. You are referring to deaths that have zero to do with religion.

          Muslims kill because of their religion. Lets not act like morons here, you are looking for an escape where there is none. Perhaps you are a super bigot?

          Like

  4. You people (RMM and EH) are still fighting about who is the best candidate for president? Wow.

    Both of you are smart enough to realize that it will be Hillary who wins; whether you vote for her or not. She is the candidate of the establishment, for the establishment, by the establishment. Our vote does not make a difference. Voting for Trump to give the DNC a big fuck you is pointless since he will probably not win; and they are going to laugh their asses off while you rage.

    What we need in this country is to have publicly funded elections and spread the message of monetary sovereignty. I would like to hear ideas on how to accomplish these two things. Just having posts on “Oh my god Trump is a xenophobic liar” or “Oh my god Hillary is the devil himself” are without substance and purpose. We need something in the lines of direct-action, otherwise the situation will never change

    Like

    1. Beaner, you make excellent points.

      The issue of election funding crashes into the issues of free speech and freedom of the press.

      Using everyday English, see if you can craft a law that would satisfy those Constitutional rights.

      I’ve not been able to do it.

      Perhaps you can succeed where I haven’t.

      Like

      1. OH MY GOD DID YOU JUST CALL ME A BEANER! RACIST! Ok not really.

        The issue of election funding I think can be boiled down to this: 1) Money ≠ Speech, meaning that everyone’s opinion should be heard, not just those who have the money to “speak their mind”, and 2) Every political party gets equal amount of money (created out of thin air by Uncle Sam), equal opportunity to participate in the debates, and equal amounts of time for ads (whether these are on the internet or TV). No one donates money to ANY candidate. I think this will at least bring a level of impartiality that will allow for ideas to win, not who has the most loudest voice (more money)

        Also, I don’t understand what election funding has to do with freedom of the press. Can you elaborate Mr. Mitchell?

        Like

        1. Beaner,

          Imagine you own a newspaper, a TV station, a radio station or anything else that could be considered a medium, benefitting from “freedom-of-the-press” guarantees (Think Fox News or Breitbart).

          Your medium could spend millions — even billions — supporting a candidate and be immune from the kinds of laws you mention.

          Like

          1. Private donations will be outlawed. All the money a political party needs shall be given to them by the federal government; this money will be given in equal amounts to all and every party.

            Like

          2. Beaner, you’re missing the point.

            Private donations buy advertising. But if someone owns an advertising medium — for instance a TV network — he doesn’t need to make donations.

            All he needs to do is run commentary on his own network.

            That is how he will avoid the contribution limitation.

            Like

    2. No I am not fighting about who is the best candidate for president. You are confusing me with Hillary fanatics. To me, both are awful. Anyway it no longer makes any difference to average people’s lives whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. To pretend otherwise is infantile.

      “Voting for Trump to give the DNC a big fuck you is pointless since he will probably not win; and they are going to laugh their asses off while you rage.”

      I said I would vote for Trump if for some reason Jill Stein is not on the ballot in my state.

      Like

      1. Liz, please send me your credit card. I have some costume jewelry to sell you:

        The New York Times published this striking piece on the Republican candidate’s “week of whoppers” over the weekend:

        All politicians bend the truth to fit their purposes, including Hillary Clinton.

        But Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election, peppering his speeches, interviews and Twitter posts with untruths so frequent that they can seem flighty or random – even compulsive.

        However, a closer examination, over the course of a week, revealed an unmistakable pattern: Virtually all of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction.

        Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating “an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.”

        The Washington Post published a piece that reviewed one week’s worth of Trump’s speeches, tweets, and interviews.

        The analysis found a presidential hopeful “who at times seems uniquely undeterred by facts” and demonstrates a “disregard for the truth in numerous cases.”

        The L.A. Times ran a similar story of its own, explaining that the “scope” of Trump’s falsehoods is “unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate,” and adding,

        “Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.”

        Politico published a related piece, too, fact-checking the major-party candidates over the course a week. It found, “Trump’s mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration so greatly exceed Clinton’s as to make the comparison almost ludicrous….

        Trump averaged about one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks. In raw numbers, that’s 87 erroneous statements in five days.”

        Slate, meanwhile, published a piece ostensibly intended for debate moderators, noting, “Donald Trump lies. A lot.” The piece broke up Trump’s most frequently told lies into categories for easier reference.

        Or do you prefer to buy bridges rather than costume jewelry?

        Like

        1. The entire power structure of our country is behind Hillary. Democrats and Republicans, neoliberals and neoconservatives, oligarchs, neocons, warmongers, Wall Street thieves, Washington insiders, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Ag, the pushers of the TPP, and everyone else who wants to enslave us is behind Hillary. Everyone who wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security loves Hillary. I’ll bet that John Stumpf of Wells Fargo CEO loves Hillary.

          And all of them are opposed to Trump. That’s all I need to know.

          Like

  5. Readers, put this in your “Democrats, where are the criminal prosecutions?” file:

    “Wells Fargo agreed to pay $190 million in penalties and customer payouts this month after revelations that the bank created credit, savings and other accounts in customers’ names without their knowledge.

    The class-action lawsuit filed Thursday in California Superior Court argues that the company promoted employees who opened fraudulent accounts, while penalizing those who did not, according to Reuters.

    Also, put it in your, “Republicans, where are the objections to lack of criminal prosecutions” file.

    Like

  6. Our Fact Checks of the First Debate, By THE NEW YORK TIMES, SEPT. 26, 2016

    ==============================================================================================================================================

    Fact Check: Trump And Clinton Debate For The First Time, September 26, 20168:48 PM ET

    ==============================================================================================================================================

    Big League Trouble: Trump Faces New Questions About His Charity Finances

    ================================================================================================================================================

    If no lessons are learned, nothing will change:

    Cops Involved in the Murder of Freddie Gray Honored at Conservative Media Gala

    The murders, the protest marches, and the blame deflected from the “bad apples” in the police departments all will continue, until those bad apples are punished.

    ==============================================================================================================================================

    A verbatim comment from Donald Trump regarding the Iran nuclear agreement:

    Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

    An inability to focus and stay on subject does not seem like a job qualification for the man who has his finger on the nuclear button.

    Like

  7. I cannot directly reply to your comment, but here is my response:

    A private entity can take whatever side they want when it comes to politics (they already do) and they can promote that candidate or political party to no end. But these entities should not give money directly to the candidate/political party. All the money the political party uses to pay its staff and volunteers, money that is used to pay for the party’s expenses, should all be public money.

    I think media outlets should spend all the money they want giving a particular candidate/political support; however, this money, should not be directly given to the political party/candidate because otherwise it would be deemed illegal. Fox News can promote Republicans and MSNBC can promote Democrats all they want, but they cannot directly give any money to them.

    I realize that this is a rather imperfect system, but it is the only thing that comes to mind. I would like to know what you, Mr. Mitchell, or any one else thinks. I would like to hear what solutions you propose.

    Like

    1. I like your answer. Two problems to address:

      1. The merger of media outlets into giant media outlets, giving one person outsized influence (already a problem).

      2. The definition of a “media outlet.” (Can a rich person merely start a PAC, but call it a “media outlet”?)

      But, you are on the right track.

      Like

      1. Totally unrelated but, where did you find the set of guarantees that make up the “Full Faith and Credit” that acts as collateral to the US Dollar? I remember seeing those from someplace else (school maybe?), but now I can’t seem to find them anywhere.

        Like

  8. It used to be that in the last election cycle, Republicans were making loud passionate noises on the need for debt and deficits reduction. This year, their voices on the issue seem to be muted. Even the threatened gov’t shutdown days from now is not anymore due to the Senate and Congress’ refusal to fund gov’t spending unless it involves measures to significantly reduce the deficits. Instead the two parties are deadlocked on whether to fund either or both the Louisiana flood control project and the Flint Michigan water supply rehabilitation.

    Also, I don’t know if I missed something but in the recent debate between xenophobic Trump and crooked Hillary, Lester Holt did not bring up the issue of deficits reduction. Although I heard them quarreling over taxes or something.

    Color me positive but I’m seeing this as baby steps progress for both MS and MMT effort to push back against orthodox insanity and gratuitous austerity.

    Like

    1. I hope you’re right.

      The good news for the economy is that both Clinton’s and Trump’s proposed budgets project deficit spending.

      The bad news is that so far (subject to daily change), both budgets will include increased total taxes, and both candidates continue to defend their budgets on the basis of tax savings.

      But the worst news is that despite being the chief economist for the Senate Democrats, Stephanie Kelton (who understands Monetary Sovereignty) has not had the political clearance to tell the public the truth.

      So the Big Lie (“Federal taxes fund federal spending”) continues to rule.

      Watch for dishonest Balanced Budget Amendments again to pop up, especially from Tea Party Republican liars.

      Like

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