It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
You might think that a guy who is a businessman, a multi-billionaire, a guy who provides massive financial information to the world, a guy who has been both a Republican and a Democrat — you would think that guy would understand money.
Sadly, no. Or at least he doesn’t understand federal money.
It’s so disappointing, so disheartening, to read the same-old, same-old ignorance coming from this new guy on the Presidential block.
How Mike Bloomberg’s new retirement plans stack up vs. other Democrats
Dhara Singhand, Ben Werschkul, Yahoo Finance•February 16, 2020
Mike Bloomberg unveiled on Sunday his presidential campaign’s plans for retirement and Social Security, tackling the subject for the first time as a contender for the Democratic nomination.In laying out his retirement security plan, the former Republican and New York City mayor’s plan echoed most of his fellow Democrats by promising an increase in Social Security payouts.
Yet he also drew distinctions between their proposals and President Donald Trump’s, by introducing a new minimum benefit to ensure that all recipients are at least above the poverty line.
O.K., so far, so good, depending on how big the increase will be and what form it will take.
I’m not a fan of trying to determine whether a person is above the poverty line; it’s too difficult because of the many different forms of “income” (free food, free education, free housing, etc.), but the sentiment is good.
That said, it all falls apart:
With Social Security projected to run out of funds in the coming years, Bloomberg’s proposal also made mention of “consider [ing] options for preserving and strengthening Social Security’s long-term finances, while maintaining and enhancing benefits for the neediest recipients.”
Social Security is an agency of the U.S. federal government. Social Security’s long term finances are identical with the long-term finances of the U.S. government, i.e. infinite.
The U.S. government cannot run short of dollars. Who says so?
Well, Alan Greenspan says so:
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
Who else says so?
Well, Ben Bernanke says so:
Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
‘
Who else says so?
A representative from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank says so:
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on (borrowing) to remain operational.”
So, if it is impossible for the U.S. government to run short of dollars, it makes no sense to say that an agency of the federal government, the Social Security Administration, can run short of dollars. It is just plain wrong.
Yes, it impossible for Social Security, an agency of the government, to run short of dollars, unless that is what the government wants — or wants you to believe.
So, Mr. Bloomberg, please spare us your “considering of options.” There’s nothing to consider. Simply fund Social Security with federal spending. Period.
Get rid of the phony and regressive and useless FICA tax. It pays for nothing.
Get rid of the phony and useless Social Security Trust Fund. It pays for nothing. It’s a mirage, the sole purpose of which is to fool the peons into accepting limitations and reductions in benefits and increases in taxes, while the rich, like you, Mr. Bloomberg, receive endless tax benefits.
The article continues:
It also lays out a plan to “supplement” lower-income retirement options by creating a public savings option with automatic contributions for all income earners — similar to what South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar have also proposed.
“Americans who have worked for decades deserve the opportunity to retire without facing constant financial pressure,” Bloomberg said in a statement.
“As president, I will strengthen Social Security to allow seniors to do just that.”
Sounds good on the surface, except for that “automatic contributions for all income earners” part. Is this one of those “work-’til-you-drop” plans, where you get nothing unless you have a job?
The rich love those kinds of plans because the rich always think of the poor as lazy slackers who will take unfair advantage of handouts from the government. (Of course, the rich sweat from their hourly labors, and receive no breaks from the government. Right?)
However, the candidate was vague about how he’d pay for his ideas, especially with some estimates showing the retirement trust fund could become insolventsometime within the next 20 years.
Bloomberg’s rivals have released much greater detail on how they’d fund big-ticket changes, which include taxes on higher salaries and capital gains.
And there you have it. The false premise that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.
But if federal taxes were necessary to fund federal spending, how did net deficit spending total well over $20 Trillion (with a big “T”) in the past 80 years? That’s $20 Trillion of spending that was done without taxes.
Apparently, Bloomberg is like the rest of the pols, afraid to say the truth, that the U.S. government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither uses nor needs tax revenue, as it creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor.
Or, Bloomberg is like the rest of the pols, unwilling to say the truth, because he wants to prevent the poor from coming any closer to the rich — an example of Gap Psychology (the desire of those higher in any social hierarchy to separate themselves from those lower).
I had great hopes for Bloomberg, because much of his thinking is good, and he has the money to kick Trump’s butt.
I just wish, at long last, someone would tell the truth about Monetary Sovereignty, and cut the “How will you pay for it”? nonsense.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
5. Salary for attending school
6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
9. Federal ownership of all banks
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Rodger, I can read Bloomberg a different way. Even before FDR was elected, he believed that a war with Germany was inevitable.
But faced with the strong isolationist block, he could not admit it and win elections. He used various ways to camouflage the military buildup and aid to Britain until Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Then, he could, as they say, come out of the closet. Bloomberg has said that he is an admirer of FDR. He is certainly smart enough to understand how money is created, but may also be smart enough to not admit it, at least not right now.
He is in the spot that all candidates who understand modern, sovereign money are in. Despite all that you and others have done, the public has not received a simple explanation of the basics that they can understand from a powerful source that they might consider to be reliable. No candidates can get off message by trying to educate the public.
I am not claiming this is right, but always the optimist, I hope it is. And looking at the field of Democrats, I don’t see anyone else who has much of a chance to beat Trump and capture the Senate.
Best,
Tip
LikeLiked by 1 person
Additionally, Roosevelt had an administration filled with anti-Semites, though ironically, the Jews loved him.
” . . . may also be smart enough to not admit it, at least not right now.”
Sadly, they all are “smart enough not to admit it . . . at least not right now.” I continue to wonder when the right time will come.
LikeLike
I’ll become eligible for 100% Social Security at the end of the next Administration’s term, just when fears and lies about Social Security’s solvency will likely reach a fever pitch.
I don’t have much hope for a solution before that unless one party or the other gains complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government – and if that party is the Republicans, it will resemble a “Final Solution” of basically starving Seniors (like me).
I expect they will cut benefits in the false promise, which many of them may actually believe, that it will somehow “balance the budget” as if that was even desirable. (As you know, lies come in cascades, not just singly).
I’ve written about Social Security before, using the Money Multiplier to show that a dollar spent is MORE than a dollar generated in the real economy: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Asking-How-to-pay-for-Soc-by-Scott-Baker-Banking_Social-Security_Social-Security_Social-Security-Cuts-150513-279.html
And I even rebutted a bonafide economist who was simply wrong about Social Security’s ROR: https://www.opednews.com/articles/A-rebuttal-to-those-who-di-by-Scott-Baker-AARP_Economics_Money_Seniors-150615-58.html
Included in both articles was the Monetary Sovereign point that the federal government could simply create money as needed to fund whatever it wanted to, even referring back to the Coinage Clause in the Constitution that allows Congress to “coin (make) Money.”
Nothing has moved the needle, including massive amounts of QE created by the Fed out of thin air (yes, I know, to buy MBS’ but at make believe values, so that amounts to the same thing), and if anything, ignorance on this point is higher today than it was then.
The multiplier effect doesn’t get much better attention, aside from Andrew Yang’s failed attempt at a Citizen’s Dividend. I’m not sure what it will take to keep the American people from voting against their own interests.
LikeLike