The Republican tax plan

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

For seven years the Republicans voted to get rid of Obamacare, without having a plan to replace it.

Image result for paul ryan with chart Finally, they offered the America Health Care Act (AHCA), a plan of such monumental idiocy — it denied 24 million people their health care — that only two people on earth supported it: President Donald Trump (who had no idea what was in it, but loved it) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (who knew what was in it, but cared nothing about those 24 million people).

Fresh from that victorious demonstration of incompetence, the Republicans now are developing a tax plan. Based on the right-wing’s history of governance, one only can pray it takes at least another 7 years — better yet, 70 years — to develop this plan (by which time Justice Neil Gorsuch will have led the court in denying all rights to females, non-whites, and anyone earning less than $1 billion a year).

Here are a few excerpts from an article in the March 27, 2017, TIME Magazine:

Will the BAT Be the Tax That Changes Everything?
Haley Sweetland Edwards

There are lots of reasons for California Representative Devin Nunes to be excited about his job these days. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he is leading a classified investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections, and as a member of President Trump’s transition team, he played a key role in staffing the new Administration.

Yes, that Devin Nunes, the guy who was supposed to lead an investigation of a possible Russia-Republican joint effort to elect Trump, but who instead worked with Trump and the Republicans to undercut the investigation.

He’s the one to trust with a tax plan.

Nunes is one of the most vocal champions of the central, mind-bending provision of the House Republican plan to overhaul the corporate tax code. It would lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, from 35%, eliminate levies on all U.S. exports and impose a 20% tax on imports.

Said another way, it is a system designed to cause a trade war between the United States and the rest of the world.

The combination of the import tax together with the retaliatory taxes other nations would apply, dramatically would raise the cost of all our imports, which amount to 13% of our entire Gross Domestic Product.

“Why,” you might ask, “would the Republicans offer yet another, blatantly wrong plan?”

It’s a mix that is expected to raise an estimated $1 trillion in federal revenue over a decade, according to the Tax Foundation, making it the linchpin for passing any comprehensive tax-reform bill this term.

“It’s a really, really big deal,” Nunes says of the proposal that House Republicans hope Trump will formally embrace in the coming weeks.

Yes, indeed, it is a “really, really big deal” to take $1 trillion out of our economy, for that is exactly what a $1 trillion increase in federal revenue does.

It has the same effect as charging each man, woman, and child in America, an additional $3 thousand apiece in taxes.

The proposed plan would cost an average family of 4 and extra $12,000.

But the tax has also earned really, really big enemies, igniting something of a conservative civil war in Washington, with House Republican leadership lining up in favor and deep-pocketed activists and lobbyists vehemently opposed.

The BAT, opponents say, would force big-box stores out of business, drive up the cost of everything from baby formula to avocados and potentially spark a devastating trade war. “I think we need to be realistic about what a huge risk this is for our economy,” says David French, the top lobbyist for the National Retail Federation.

Sound familiar? Like the AHCA, here is yet another nutty Republican plan to reward the rich and screw the rest, so ill-conceived that even many Republicans can’t stomach it.

Proponents of the plan–which Trump hinted at in his address to Congress–say it is bold and revolutionary at a time when the country is clamoring for big changes that would curtail corporate taxes and encourage more U.S. manufacturing. The BAT is not just a new tax rate, after all. It would burn down the current tax code and replace it with something entirely new.

To Republicans, “bold and revolutionary” plans require that, for instance, instead of remodeling your house, you burn it down and build a — what? A shed? An outhouse? Apparently, it doesn’t matter, so long as the plan is “bold and revolutionary.”

Liberals, conservatives and every President from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump agree that the corporate tax is broken, ineffective and needs to be fixed.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the 35% corporate tax rate is among the highest in the developed world. But because of loopholes, it produces less federal revenue, as a percentage of GDP, than most other countries’.

See the confusion? Which is the problem — a tax plan that collects too much because the rate is too high or one that collects too little because of loopholes? They are opposites.

So exactly what needs fixing? And why?

This is how it would work: if a company makes a T-shirt in Oklahoma and sells it in California, it deducts its capital and labor expenses, and then pays a 20% tax on what it made from that T-shirt.

If a company imports a T-shirt from China and sells it in California, then it doesn’t get to deduct the cost of the T-shirt, but it still pays 20% on what it makes selling it.

If a company makes a T-shirt in Oklahoma and sells it in France, it pays no U.S. corporate tax on its sales at all.

Read the above description again, then please tell me: What economic problem is this “plan” supposed to solve?

The whole thing boils down to an import tax. And who pays import taxes? You do.

The greater the percentage of your income spent on manufactured goods, the more your income is absorbed by taxes.

And who spends a greater percentage of income on goods, the rich or the rest? Right, the rest of us spend vastly more of our income on goods than do the rich.

Thus, this latest plan, like all Republican plans, is designed to tax the rich less and to tax the poor more.

On paper, it’s pretty clear to see why companies that are primarily exporters, like Boeing and Dow Chemical, stand to gain from the tax–and why companies that are primarily importers, such as Walmart and Target, are nervous.

Walmart and Target won’t pay the additional import tax. Customers of Walmart and Target will. And who are those customers who will pay higher prices? Mr. & Mrs. Middle America, not the Trumps, the Kushners, or Trump’s Goldman Sachs multi-millionaires.

John Connaughton, a University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor of financial economics, predicts that other countries will file legal challenges “out the wazoo” at the World Trade Organization, demanding that it declare the BAT a violation of international trade laws.

For Trump, who reportedly is involved in 3,500 lawsuits, the reputation of America may be of little concern.

In a normal year, with less mercurial politics and a more predictable White House, the BAT would be dead in the water. There are too many short-term losers, too much opposition from powerful industry actors and too little consensus among Republicans.

Who gets hurt doesn’t matter to Trump, so long as it isn’t Trump getting hurt.

As usual, whatever plan put forth will ignore Monetary Sovereignty (the absolute fact that federal taxes pay for nothing).

Looking for a good tax plan? How about this: Eliminate FICA.

In one quick stroke, Congress and the President could do more for the economy and for the middle classes, than anything that has been proposed so far.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting 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 FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business 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

The only two elements in economics you need understand

Economics is complex, arguably more complex than any other science, if indeed, it is a science at all. In its essence, economics is the study of human psychology — complex in its own right — multiplied by the study of money.

Move over quantum mechanics and rocket science; economics is the big boy of intricacy.

And yet all of economics boils down to two, very simple, and very fundamental elements. And because these elements seldom are taken into consideration by economists, problems in economics become even more intractable than they otherwise would be.

Imagine a discussion of cooking without taking meat, vegetables, or flavor into consideration, and you approach comparability.

The first element is Monetary Sovereignty, which is discussed in many posts on this site, most specifically here and here.

Briefly, U.S. Monetary Sovereignty means the U.S. government created the first dollars, and still today retains absolute control over the dollar. It creates dollars at will (by spending); it destroys dollars at will (by taxing); and it regulates the Demand for the dollar and the Reward for owning dollars at will (via interest rates), thus regulating the Value of a dollar.

Having total control over the dollar U.S. government can pay any invoice denominated in dollars, and unlike state and local governments, the U.S. government neither needs nor uses taxes to fund its spending. Even if all federal taxes were $0, the U.S. government could continue spending, forever.

The federal government never can run short of dollars.

You wouldn’t know these absolute facts from all the articles you read bemoaning the spending of federal “tax dollars” (though federal tax dollars are not spent; they are destroyed upon receipt), or a cost to future taxpayers (though future taxpayers will not pay for today’s spending), or the need for the federal government to save money (though an entity with the infinite ability to create dollars need not save dollars).

You wouldn’t know the federal government, unlike state and local governments, does not “waste” money in the usual meaning of “waste.” Every dollar the government spends on anything is stimulative. Even so-called “helicopter money” (mythical dollar bills dropped from a helicopter) would not be wasted.

You wouldn’t know the universal question applied to all federal spending — “Who’s going to pay for it?” — is nonsensical. The answer always should be the same: The federal government.

The second element is psychological, Gap Psychology, which also is discussed in many of the posts on this site, most specifically here and here.

A characteristic of human psychology is for those in any class to wish to distance themselves from those in a “lower” class, while coming closer to those in a “higher” class.

Briefly, Gap Psychology recognizes that people self-divide into classes according to income, wealth, power, fame, and other arbitrary segments, in which some classes generally are considered “superior” to others.

Those two elements, Monetary Sovereignty and Gap Psychology, explain everything in economics.

Yet amazingly, you seldom, if ever, hear either of those basic elements, much less both of them, mentioned in a discussion of any economic issue.

Consider U.S. healthcare insurance. Every solution put forth by any politician, any economist, or any medium attempts to minimize federal funding and deal with the sloth of the poor.

Yet, in reality, neither is a problem at all. The federal government can afford anything (Monetary Sovereignty), and contrary to popular myth, the poor work as hard or harder than do the rich (Gap Psychology).

The only real health care problem is how to provide the best health care to everyone.

The solutions involve creating better and more doctors, nurses, hospitals, treatment methods and drugs, not where to obtain the money or how to restrict the services.

The same two elements — Monetary Sovereignty and Gap Psychology — involve problems in education, food, housing, jobs, immigration, poverty, voting rights, infrastructure, etc.

Everywhere we turn we unknowingly confront those issues, “unknowingly” because they seldom are mentioned.

And that is the irony. The two primary elements of economics seldom are mentioned in any discussion involving economics.

Worse, the two primary issues in economics — Monetary Sovereignty and Gap Psychology — seldom, if ever, are taught in college economics curricula.

Imagine curricula in medicine not teaching anatomy, germs, or drugs. Imagine curricula in physics not teaching mathematics, relativity or quantum dynamics.

Is it any wonder that economics fails us at every turn? Is it any wonder that people can create the disasters known as the eurozone or the American federal tax system.

Economics is not a physical science like physics or chemistry. In economics, such predictions as, “If this, then that,” are difficult to quantify, though there is a branch of economics, econometrics, attempting to do just that.

“This” may be a complex of events that never are repeated exactly, and a lack of precise repetition makes prediction suspect.

In the physical sciences, the lack of repetition is evidence a hypothesis is wrong. Economics, however, accepts it as normal. Image result for avoiding the poor

If you are a stock or commodity investor, you have seen the work of “chartists,” people who look at historical graphs to predict the future.

Their work has the smell of science, but it’s sheer guesswork, having scant value — though it does keep a large number of people employed and an even larger number of people investing poorly.

Even this website has used graphs to predict the future — but while those graphs may be indicative, they are not proof.

Why show data that don’t prove anything? Because they lend credibility to the point we wish to make.

And that is all economics can do. Sans proof, economics can supply only credibility. And whenever you read any article, or hear any talk, involving anything in economics, ask yourself one simple question:

“Did this properly take into account Monetary Sovereignty and/or Gap Psychology?”

If the answer is,”No,” the article has no credibility.

That will be the best BS detector you ever will own.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The cost of science denial

Science is not always right. In fact, science advances by being wrong and then conducting research to discover why it was wrong, an effort that leads to better answers.

Almost everything you think you know about the world results from that process: Hypothesis —> Test —> New Hypothesis.

Many science deniers use a different system: Rumor —> belief —> unshakable belief.

Non-scientists do not know more about science than do the real scientists.

The notion that a layman can get away with saying any damn fool thing he or she wishes, and then justify it by saying “Scientists often are wrong,” is nothing more than blissful — and harmful — ignorance.

Here are some examples of that blissful — and harmful — ignorance:

Beetroot for AIDS: Fighting denialism in Mbeki’s South Africa
HIV researcher and doctor Glenda Gray worked through the dark days of Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS denialism. In an era of fake news and climate scepticism, her story has lessons for us allBy Sarah Wild

By 2000, 1 in 5 pregnant South African women were HIV-positive, with about 70,000 infected babies born each year.

Under Nelson Mandela, I was drafting South Africa’s plan to tackle HIV and AIDS, including the roll-out of nationwide treatment.

But in 1999 a new president, Thabo Mbeki, had prejudices about science. Mbeki’s line was that poor nutrition, rather than HIV, was the cause of AIDS.

(Government officials) were advocating beetroot and garlic to prevent AIDS!

A huge problem is the transmission of HIV from mother to baby during childbirth or breastfeeding, which is preventable by giving the mother antiretroviral drugs (ARVs).

But Mbeki’s government would not provide ARVs. I saw the effects of this firsthand. We were counting the dead bodies, many of them babies.

Scientifically, mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and its prevention, weren’t contentious. Why would anyone object to giving AZT or nevirapine – internationally approved drugs that reduce HIV’s ability to replicate – to a pregnant woman to prevent her infecting her baby?

Some even were saying that AZT was toxic and that we were killing black women by using it.

Administrators and civil servants kowtowed to Mbeki whether they believed in AIDS denialism or not, and so toed the party line at whatever cost. I once had a call from a doctor at another hospital, who said, “I have an HIV-pregnant woman in labour. I hear you have the drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission during childbirth. Can I send an ambulance to fetch them?” The ambulance rushed to our unit, and I gave the driver the package.

When he got there, the hospital boss confiscated the drugs and phoned me, saying, “How dare you send that medicine!”

(Today), when the ARVs finally (have been) rolled out it is like Lazarus syndrome. My patients went from needing wheelchairs and oxygen tanks, from lying on stretchers, to healthy.

Children I was treating went back to school. ARVs were the most amazing thing to happen to South Africa.

In 2008, Mbeki resigned and interim president Kgalema Motlanthe, on his first day in office, appointed a new health minister. It was like waking up from a nightmare. Mbeki’s stance on HIV was ultimately his undoing, and with him gone South Africa began making ARVs available in all its clinics, to anyone who needed them.

Well, that was South Africa, a backward people. Fortunately, such ignorant science-denial could not happen in The United States of America, a scientifically sophisticated nation.

If one of our leaders arbitrarily denied the scientific consensus, he would be run out of town. Right?

Can a new history of vaccination silence doubters?
Controversies and scandals cannot obscure the self-evident success story of vaccines told by Meredith Wadman in “The Vaccination Race”

EVERY year, millions of children and adults are vaccinated against diseases that only a few decades ago were terrifying and deadly, including rubella, polio and measles.

Meredith Wadman’s meticulously researched book begins with the heart-rending account of a baby girl born in 1964 who survived just 16 months before succumbing to the effects of maternally transmitted rubella. She spent only nine days of her life outside hospital.

The fear and horror these diseases cause is a fading memory, and despite the fact that vaccines work, the sceptics are gaining ground, their claims given credence by a handful of Hollywood stars and now by US president Donald Trump.

-/-

Trump energizes the anti-vaccine movement in Texas
Some mothers have stopped immunizing their young children because of doubts about vaccine safety.

President Trump’s embrace of discredited theories linking vaccines to autism has energized the anti-vaccine movement. The movement is raising doubts about basic childhood health care.

Public health experts warn that this growing movement threatens one of the most successful medical innovations of modern times. Globally, vaccines prevent the deaths of about 2.5 million children every year, but deadly diseases such as measles and whooping cough still circulate in populations where enough people are unvaccinated.

Measles was eliminated in the United States more than 15 years ago, but the highly contagious disease has made a return in Texas, in part because of parents refusing to vaccinate their children.

The modern anti-vaccine movement is based on a fraud. A study published almost 20 years ago purported to show a link between childhood vaccines and autism. The data was later found to be falsified, and the study was retracted.

Scores of large-scale, long-term studies from around the world since then have proved that there is no connection between vaccines and autism.

Some Texas public schools are dangerously close to the threshold at which measles outbreaks can be expected. A third of students at some private schools are unvaccinated.

Jinny Suh worries about the risk that the school’s unvaccinated children pose to her 4-month-old, who is too young to be immunized. “I’m sure there are people I go to the grocery store with and go to the park with” who have unimmunized children, she said. “This is a public hazard. You can’t see germs.”

In some parts of Texas, vaccine coverage is slipping below the 90 to 95 percent level that experts say is needed to prevent an outbreak. Many private schools have the highest rates of unvaccinated children, exceeding 20 percent.

One part of the anti-vaccine movement’s message is that vaccine-preventable diseases aren’t dangerous if people get modern medical care. But that’s a myth, and the failure to vaccinate can be catastrophic.

One only can wonder how many children President Trump will kill with his anti-science, anti-vaccination ignorance.

Donald Trump, the non-scientist, does not know more about vaccination than do the doctors. He not only threatens the lives of our children; he threatens the lives of all people:

Trump’s Budget Slashes Climate Change Funding
NELL GREENFIELDBOYCE
If there was any doubt over President Trump’s views on climate change, those doubts evaporated with the unveiling of his proposed federal budget on Thursday.

The budget would end programs to lower domestic greenhouse gas emissions, slash diplomatic efforts to slow climate change and cut scientific missions to study the climate.

“It’s terrible from the perspective of having any concern at all about climate change,” says Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute’s climate program and a professor at George Mason University.

Previously, Trump had described climate change as a hoax, but he also (hired) EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (who) has questioned whether CO2 is causing the globe to warm.

In a press briefing Thursday, Mick Mulvaney, the head of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, was unequivocal about the administration’s attitude toward the issue.

“We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Mulvaney said when asked about climate funding. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”

At the Environmental Protection Agency, the proposed budget “discontinues funding for the Clean Power Plan, international climate change programs, climate change research and partnership programs, and related efforts.”

Donald Trump does not know more about global warming than do the climate scientists.

If President Trump’s vaccination denial doesn’t kill you and your children with measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, diphtheria, polio, and tetanus, etc., he will get your family later with the multitude of disasters caused by his global warming denial.

You are trusting your life and our planet to Donald Trump.

There are stiff penalties for ignorance.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THE RULES

•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 no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives 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 the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•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..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

An example of raw bigotry and an important question.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Today I received a disgusting and ignorant Email, excerpts from which are shown, below:

Dear Fellow Conservative,

By now you’ve heard about the young black thugs who viciously attacked and brutalized my teenaged son because he expressed support for Donald Trump.

These dreadlock-wearing punks shrieked “F*** Donald Trump” in this gentle boy’s face over and over again as they cornered him, and cast repeated insults about white Americans.

For those of you who don’t know the current code words of bigotry, “thugs,” and “dreadlock-wearing punks” mean “black kids.” Today’s bigots, like those of the Ku Klux Klan lynching days, want you to hate blacks.

They also want you to believe that whites are oppressed by blacks, an irony readily accepted by some whites.

Barack Obama caused many blacks, Muslims, illegal aliens, and politically correct “social justice warriors” to feel they have the right to attack Trump supporters, cops, businesses, kids — anything and anybody — without going to jail or getting deported.

I’m sick of it, and I’ve decided to do something about it.

My wife and I have launched the National Campaign to lay the groundwork for SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE to run for the United States Senate in Wisconsin to replace Left-wing extremist Tammy Baldwin! If you’re with me, please sign the Official Sheriff Clarke for Senate Pledge. The Sheriff needs to know you’re a supporter — and we need to know you’re with us.

Milwaukee’s conservative black Sheriff CORRECTLY says “BLACK LIVES MATTER” is a terrorist movement, a hate group, and calls it “Black LIES Matter.” He called Al Sharpton a “charlatan,” and said he “should shut up and go back into the gutter.”

Sheriff Clarke says the pro-Amnesty politicians are literally “aiding and abetting criminality by offering sanctuary” to rapists, child molesters, murderers, and other criminal illegal aliens.

Other code words are “amnesty” and “sanctuary,” which generally are applied to undocumented immigrants. In this case, the bigots lump these people together with blacks, to comprise a group called “rapists, child molesters, murderers, and other criminal aliens.”

Not by coincidence, those also are the words of the man who now is President of the United States.

In America, no politicians offer help to such criminals, but facts are not part of the bigotry belief system.

He told Ryan and McConnell: “Get it done, dammit. We’ve waited long enough. Note to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell: Go big, go bold, go fast. The disconnect in DC with GOP and voters: McConnell thinks the goal is to move cautiously. WE VOTED FOR THEM TO GO BIG & BOLD.”

You know what Sheriff Clarke told the crowd at President Trump’s inaugural “Deplora-Ball”? He’s tired of the RINOs saying we have to compromise with the Democrats: “The only reason I’ll be reaching across the aisle is to grab one of them by the throat!”

Does your senator talk like that?

Does any rational human being talk like that?

Does he urge black voters to “leave the Democrat plantation”? Does he say, “I’m tired of this race card thing”? Does he call Planned Parenthood “Planned Genocide”?

Does your Senator post this on Facebook? “Islam: Don’t Try to Understand ‘Sick Ideology’ of Islamism; Destroy It.”

NO! Your Senator does NOT speak like that, because nobody in Washington does. Let’s get one who does — Sheriff David Clarke.

Do his racial comments sound like he’s “tired of this race card thing”?

As for “genocide,” it’s a word that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, or even with abortion, but a great deal to do with hatred of blacks.

This man deserves a bigger stage, and he wants to run: he just has to know that he has enough national support to combat the liberal money his opponent gets from Hollywood, the “Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund,” “Lesbian PAC,” and elsewhere.Tammy Baldwin is their Holy Grail: a hard left socialist, in-your-face lesbian, and screaming feminist. SHE MUST GO!

Now, the hatred extends from blacks and Muslims to gays, lesbians, socialists, and feminists. Is there anyone but white, males who are worthy of respect?

Sheriff Clarke lists his heroes as Justice Scalia, Clarence Thomas, President Reagan, and John Wayne.

The disgusting Email goes on and on, spewing hatred with almost every sentence. I doubt whether Scalia, Thomas, Reagan and Wayne (Wayne?) would have agreed with any of this. But there is a point to be made here:

This vicious bigotry is found among conservatives, but not among liberals. Why is that?

What is there about the conservative movement that lends itself to such emotions? Surely, it’s just a minority — one hopes — but bigotry was an important part of Donald Trump’s appeal, and here is an Email coming from Breitbart, Trump’s favorite medium.

So these are the questions:

Is bigotry a necessary component of conservatism?
What is the relationship between the two?
Can conservativism rid itself of its bigotry
If so, will it still be conservatism?
Does it say something about America, for a politician to run on such a platform, and believe he can win?
In a Monetarily Sovereign nation of unlimited resources, what is the function of bigotry?

Those are questions, not just for conservatives but for all of us. It leaves us with one last question:

What do we want America to be?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: