Why the passion to destroy lives?

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..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

These excerpts from an article in the Chicago Tribune  have me puzzled.

Maybe you have the answers.

Legal hurdle looms for fast deportations

Battles brew over immigrants’ right to hearing before ouster

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s plan for putting hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants in the country illegally on a fast track for deportation is likely to trigger the next major legal battle over immigration enforcement.

These are people — men, women, and children — people just like you and me. The vast, and I mean VAST majority are good people, hard-working people, people who lead orderly lives, trying to build a better world for themselves and their children.Image result for deport children

They are the very people who historically have built melting-pot America.

So why is there now a great passion to destroy their innocent lives by shipping these people out of the country?

Judges have put on hold the president’s temporary ban on travel to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries. That executive order, as originally proposed, could have affected tens of thousands of travelers and U.S. visa holders.

Why would America want to ban U.S. visa holders? We can’t even use the “criminals” excuse.

But the administration’s efforts to step up immigration enforcement and streamline deportation — outlined in memos from Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly — could affect far more people, including potentially most of the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

Why do we want to injure 11 million lives.  What is the need?

One part of that effort — the expanded use of what the law refers to as expedited removal — is almost certain to face a constitutional challenge in the courts.

Noncitizens living in the country illegally can be arrested and held for deportation, but they have had a right to a full hearing before an immigration judge before they can be removed from the U.S.

At such a hearing, they may rely on the help of a lawyer and can argue they have family and work ties here. If a ruling goes against them, they may appeal in the immigration courts and in federal court. The process typically takes years.

In his Feb. 20 memo, however, Kelly complained the immigration courts were clogged and the removal process was too cumbersome, and he called for a new approach.

“The surge of illegal immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed” the system, he said. “There are more than 534,000 cases currently pending on immigration courts dockets nationwide — a record high.” In some areas, he said, it takes “as long as five years” for a case to be heard by an immigration judge.

Not only is the process life destroying, but it clogs up our courts and costs a great deal of money. So is it all worth the time, effort and cost?

To speed up deportations, Kelly proposed to use expedited removal, with no hearings before a judge, for those immigrants who cannot prove they “have been continuously present in the United States for a two-year period” prior to their arrest. The new procedures would not be limited to border areas and could be used to deport immigrants living in the interior of the country.

Kelly said the law since 1996 has authorized the government to “remove aliens expeditiously,” and he said his agents “shall make full use of these authorities.”

The American Immigration Council said this approach means a Homeland Security agent “operates as prosecutor and judge and often arrests an individual and orders him or her deported on the same day. With limited exceptions, the government takes the position that noncitizens subject to expedited removal have no right to appeal.”

Is this what we want in America — Homeland Security agents wandering the country, having the power of life or death over millions of people? Has anyone considered the consequences of allowing agents absolute power?

Given the truth that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” does America wish to create a squad of absolutely corrupted goons extracting “favors” from otherwise innocent people?

What does America gain from such cruelty? Is this what “makes America great, again?”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited the Fifth Amendment, which says, “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

Because the language refers to “no person,” and not “no citizen,” its protections cover “even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary or transitory,” the court said unanimously in 1976.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the same people who are so protective of the Second Amendment, wanting even mentally disabled people to carry life-taking weapons, care so little about the Fifth Amendment that saves lives?

What is the motive?

Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reducing the level of immigration to the U.S., said the administration is following the law.

No, not just following the law. It’s more like enthusiastically and zealously bending the law in an effort to destroy as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.

Why? What is the goal?

Cornell law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr: “These executive orders will eventually impact millions of more people. And we will be litigating this for years.”

Trump conducts a photo op of him casually signing an order;  then he goes on with his glittering life, while millions of people see their lives shattered. Is this what America is all about?

Oh, I’ve heard the excuses.  One goes something like this:

“My parents came here legally. Why should these people be allowed to come here illegally.”

All that means is, “I was lucky. Why should these people be lucky, too?”

And then there’s Trump’s:

“These people are criminals and rapists.”

A typical Trump lie. (Does the man ever tell the truth?) The fact is these immigrants are less likely to be criminals than the population at large, and the comparatively few who are real criminals can be deported without objection.  But why deport the innocent ones?

And then, the ever-popular:

“These people are here illegally, which makes them criminals.”

No, that doesn’t make them criminals. It’s a “gotcha” excuse to call them criminals.

Imagine this: A police officer is beating a girl with his nightstick. She covers her head, so the officer he beat her because she resisted arrest. She’s a criminal, but the officer invented an excuse for beating her.

And finally, thoroughly debunked:

“They’re taking jobs and using resources without paying taxes.”

Actually, they’re consumers who create jobs by buying stuff, and contrary to popular myth, they do pay taxes.

So what is the real reason for the rush to destroy lives?  Why have we become so mean-spirited and uncaring?

I have a hypothesis about this. See if you agree.

  1. Millions of guns have gone into millions of hands, and now even mentally challenged people can get killing machines.  As a result, there are far more killings of innocent people.
  2. We have witnessed the terrorist actions of “9/11,” “Oklahoma City,” “Boston Marathon,” “Pulse nightclub,” and so many others.
  3. The atomic bomb and the “doomsday” clocks have made life seem more tenuous.
  4. Social media have reduced “in-person” contact, which dehumanizes those we don’t know intimately.

So we have developed a “fortress” mentality.  Every stranger seems to be a threat. Everyone not exactly like us is to be feared. We want to get them all away from us.

We reject those who look, talk, or pray differently;  we feel no compassion for them. In fact, we hate them and want to punish them scaring us by their presence.

And into this mix of anger and dread come the opportunist scare-mongers, who gain power by telling us our lives hang by a thread, and they alone can save us. 

They tell us that hatred and bigotry are justified by circumstance, so we need not feel guilty about our lack of morality. We are told hurting innocent men, women, and children is wise if it can chase away the danger — a danger that exists primarily in the tales told by the scare mongers.

My hypothesis is that Donald Trump is a coward, a little man whose daddy saved him from numerous failures, a boy who sneaked his way out of the military, a man who hides behind his gold plate and towers, and who now wants us to be cowards, too.

He wants us to shiver behind a massive wall of shame. He wants us to destroy the people who scare him, while we arm ourselves against the bogeymen he has created.

It takes more courage to be open and welcoming than to be remote and hidden. Leaders are more popular during wars, because the people want a strong person to shelter them from their fears.

Knowing this, would-be tyrants frighten us by inventing enemies and then claiming to protect us from the enemies they invented.

I  had been puzzled about why we seem to have this great passion to injure people that have done us no harm — why we are so mean-spirited these days.

Now you know my hypothesis.

What’s yours?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

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

ECONOMICS LAWS

•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.

•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

This is your life in Trumpland.

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

My first job out of college was with a company called “Booth Fisheries,” which at the time was the largest frozen fish company in the world. Booth sold many species of fish, the availability of which varied weekly.

Booth put out a weekly price list to reflect this changing availability.

Now, you might think that when a species was in short supply, Booth would raise the price, and when a species was plentiful, Booth would lower the price, and mostly you would be right.  But not always.

There were times when Booth was completely out of a certain species, but would offer it at a very low price on its weekly list.

When I asked the sales manager about this, he said, “People refer back to these price lists, so I always like to include some very low prices for reference. Then if someone complains about our high prices, I can say,

Then if someone complains about our prices being too high, I can say, ‘Look at where Cod was last month’ or ‘Check Pollock last week. Our prices are very low.’

“But,” when I said, “wouldn’t they realize that we had no Cod or Pollock to sell them at those prices?” he would respond, “I’d just say our prices were so low we sold out quickly.”

But that was a crazy lie. Didn’t they ever catch on?”

And he responded, “One thing to remember Rodger, in business and politics, bullsh*t baffles brains.”

Here in America, we live life in Trumpland, where bullsh*t always baffles brains:

♦Financial Times, 3/1/17: US attorney-general Jeff Sessions failed to disclose during his confirmation hearings in January that he twice met the Russian ambassador while acting as a close adviser to Donald Trump during last year’s presidential campaign.

Mr Sessions met Sergey Kislyak on September 8 in the then-senator’s private office in the US Capitol building, after having spoken with him earlier at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The meetings occurred as Russian officials were mounting an increasingly aggressive effort to interfere with the US election in a bid to aid Mr Trump’s chances of winning, US intelligence agencies concluded this year.

[Sessions simply forgot he met with the Russian ambassador. Wouldn’t you?]

♦President Trump, who signed legislation that nullified a recent reguImage result for water pollutionlation prohibiting surface-mining operations from dumping waste in nearby waterways, said he was eager to support coal miners who had backed his presidential bid. “The miners are a big deal,” he said Thursday. “I’ve had support from some of these folks right from the very beginning, and I won’t forget it.” 

[Trump supports two things: Votes and water pollution.]

Image result for global warming

♦Mother Jones: Donald Trump has a lot of things to say about global warming. He’s called it an urgent problem, and he’s called it a hoax. He’s claimed it’s a scam invented by the Chinese, and he’s denied that he ever said that. He’s promised to “cancel” the historic Paris climate agreement, and he’s said he still has an “open mind” on the matter. [And that’s definite.]

To head the Environmental Protection Agency , Mr. Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, who has made a career of suing the EPA over clean air and water initiatives. [You just can’t make this stuff up.]

♦Trump: “I’m going to drain the swamp.” The new Trump regime is noImage result for crooked bankersthing more than Goldman Sachs Inc., a rancid government stuffed with more Goldman Sachs stooges than any other U.S. regime in history. [Maybe he has a different definition of “drain.”

♦Over the pImage result for police brutalityast several years, the US Department of Justice exposed such abuses from local police departments as unjustified shootings and racism. New Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will “pull back” on civil rights lawsuits and investigations against police.

♦Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue nominated as agriculture secretary, is supposed to ensure the safety and quality of America’s food.  Under Governor Perdue, Georgia slashed its budget for food safety 29 percent. Two years later, at least 714 people were sickened by salmonella traced to peanut paste produced in Blakely, Georgia. Nine people died, triggering one of the largest food safety recalls in U.S. history. Trump called to cut 75% to 80% of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

♦Trump Image result for war civilians killedhas criticized Obama for being overly cautious against al-Qaida. In Trump’s first military raid in Yemen one American sailor was dead and three other service members were injured.

Numerous civilians, including women and nine children, were among the Yemenis killed. Nothing worthwhile was accomplished, but Trump proposeImage result for atomic bombs to increase military spending by $54 billion and cut nonmilitary programs by the same amount.

[Now that Trump has proved himself to be an able Commander-in-Chief, we have nothing to worry about.]

Image result for trump excludes press♦June 2016: The ‘Blacklist’: Trump has excluded Univision, BuzzFeed, Politico, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, The Des Moines Register.(“We’re not issuing credentials to anyone from The Des Moines Register based on the {uncomplimentary} editorial that they wrote earlier in the week.”)

[Thank goodness Trump isn’t a petty, egocentric, vindictive, tin pot dictator, or he would have barred more of the major media.]

February 2017, Trump excludes New York Times, CNN, Politico and others from briefing. [Oops!]

We have entered a new land, Trumpland, where bullsh*t always baffles brains.  As a final demonstration, we conclude with this

Image result for crazy people with guns

♦Wayne LaPierre (NRA) blamed the U.S. mental health system and its inability to track those with mental health problems, and noted that some states fail to include those adjudicated as mentally ill in the national instant check system for gun purchases.

“We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics,” LaPierre said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump killed a regulation that required the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally disabled people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the FBI database used to determine whether someone can buy a firearm under the 1993 Brady Bill. The rule would have applied to about 75,000 people who were “adjudicated as a mentally defective” [Does it get any Trumpier than this?]

In answer to the final question, “Does it get any Trumpier than this?”: Yes it does, and yes it will. We only are at the beginning of Trumpiness.

Soon, Congress will pass laws to:

  • provide health care to more people that actually will provide health care to fewer people
  • to save people money, that actually will cost them money
  • to increase the number of doctors and hospitals that actually will reduce the number of doctors and hospitals
  • to save the Monetarily Sovereign government money while costing the monetarily non-sovereign states more money
  • to increase the public’s access medical insurance that actually will reduce the public’s access to medical insurance

Can’t get any more Trumpy than that.

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

Donald Trump and I know more than the generals. You do, too.

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

Last year, Donald Trump famously said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.”

I believe him, because he also said:

“I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.”
“I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?”
“Nobody knows more about debt. I’m like the king. I love debt.”
“I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world.”
“Nobody knows more about taxes than I do — and income than I do.”
“Nobody knows banking better than I do”
“I understand money better than anybody.”
“I think nobody knows the system better than I do.”
“I know more about contributions than anybody.”
“Nobody knows politicians better than Donald Trump.”
“I know more about Cory (Booker) than he knows about himself.
“Nobody knows more about trade than me.”
“Nobody knows jobs like I do!”
“Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
“There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”
“I know more about offense and defense than they (the generals) will ever understand, believe me.”
“There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me.”
“I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”

Is our President great, or what? Even North Korea’s Kim Jong-un can’t compare. Kim once claimed, he drank 10 bottles of Bordeaux during one meal. (Eh, not impressed.)

And his dad, Kim Jong-il, said he shot 38 under par in his very first round of golf, including 11 holes-in-one. (Child’s play. Those other 7 holes must have been lousy.)

So if I can believe the two Kims, I certainly can believe the one Trump when he says he knows more than the generals — because I do, too.

Here’s why:

Mattis hands over plan to ‘rapidly defeat’ ISIS
By Robert Burns and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Monday gave the White House a plan to “rapidly defeat” the Islamic State group, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The strategy includes significant elements of the approach President Donald Trump inherited, while potentially deepening U.S. military involvement in Syria.

O.K., let’s get real, here. There absolutely, positively, 100% is no way we will “rapidly defeat” ISIS, unless “rapidly” means “within the next few hundred years” and “defeat” means “survive.”

Instead, I’ll believe this headline: “Mattis hands over plan to survive ISIS for the next few hundred years.”

ISIS is not a country or a team. ISIS is an idea, a concept related to religion. You cannot defeat an idea or a concept related to religion — not even in a few hundred years.

We have not even defeated such concepts as “Vaccination causes autism,” “Global warming is a hoax,” “Evolution is a myth,” and “My religion is better than your religion.” And those ideas aren’t backed with guns.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said Mattis, who traveled to Iraq last week to help inform his thinking, presented the results of a 30-day strategy review at a Cabinet-level meeting of the National Security Council.

It’s unclear whether the meeting included Trump, who said last week his goal is to “obliterate” Islamic State.

Does it really matter whether Trump was at the meeting? Really?

Davis described the Mattis report as “a framework for a broader discussion” of a strategy to be developed over time.

A framework for a broader discussion of a strategy. Does it get any more nebulous than that? And it took him 30 days. 

Even Donald Trump and I can come up with a “framework for a broader discussion of a strategy.” Here’s my framework for a broader discussion: “Let’s all sit down and discuss strategy.”

Good framework? And it took me only a few minutes.

Here’s Trump’s framework:

In a Jan. 28 executive order, Trump said he wanted within 30 days a “preliminary draft” of a plan to “defeat ISIS.”

See, I told you I believed him.

He could have said, “I want to see your plan.” But apparently, he believes that for the past few years, our military has been just sitting around, waiting for a President to tell them we need a plan.

So he gave them another 30 days to come up with one.

Davis said the report defines what it means to “defeat” the group, which he wouldn’t reveal to reporters.

Trust me on this one: “Defeat” will mean: “Wherever we happen to be at any given time in the future, we’ll claim we’ve defeated them.”

Beyond military options, the officials familiar with the review said the report increases emphasis on nonmilitary elements of the campaign already underway, such as efforts to squeeze Islamic State finances, limit recruiting and counter propaganda that is credited with inspiring violence in the U.S. and Europe.

Been there; done that. Does “doing exactly what we have been doing for years” count as a new plan?

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week the emerging strategy will target not just Islamic State militants but also al-Qaida and other extremist organizations in the Middle East and beyond, whose goal is to attack the United States. He emphasized that it would not rest mainly on military might.

Wait. You mean we haven’t already “defeated” al Qaida by squeezing their finances, limiting their recruiting and using counter propaganda? 

The officials familiar with the review say the recommended approaches will echo central elements of the Obama administration’s strategy, which centered on the U.S. military supporting local forces rather than doing the fighting for them.

Mattis already has signaled publicly he sees no value in having U.S. combat forces take over the ground war.

So in summary, we are going to rapidly defeat ISIS by using Obama’s strategy of bringing the boys home — you know, the strategy Trump and the rest of the Republicans so roundly have criticized.

Neither Trump nor I went to West Point, nor does either of us have any military experience (Well, I did spend 6 years in the reserves, so maybe I have more experience than Trump.)

But I agree that Trump and I both know more than the generals if this is their plan to “rapidly defeat ISIS.”

I’d guess, you know more, too.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ECONOMICS LAWS

•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.

•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

Obamacare and the great “states’ rights” con

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

BACKGROUND

When we have been fooled, we deny or point at others. But no one can deceive us as effectively as we can. We know what words, what thoughts, will turn us best.

There may be a handful of Congresspeople who have the courage to say and do what they believe is ethically or economically right. But for the most part, Congress is amoral, caring about two things only: Money and votes.

I know for certain that many members of Congress understand Monetary Sovereignty. They understand that the U.S. federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.

They know that by controlling both the supply and the demand (via interest rates), the U.S. government controls the value of the dollar (inflation).

They know that federal taxes and taxpayers do not fund federal spending, so federal deficits are not a burden on future taxpayers or on the government.

And they know that the monetarily non-sovereign state and local governments, businesses, individual citizens have none of these powers. State and local taxpayers do fund state and local spending for governments which often do run short of dollars.

Given those facts, it’s clear that we taxpayers benefit when the federal government spends more and the state and local governments spend less. 

The words “states’ rights” are meant to convey the notion that the federal government is too big. The ruling class asks us to reduce the federal government and to lay more financial responsibility on the local governments.

The pitch is insidious: “The federal government, being too huge, and being housed far way, in Washington, DC, ‘does not understand’ your local problems as well as your nearby state government. Image result for obamacare repeal

The pitch is: Your state government “knows and cares more for you.”

It is utter nonsense.

The criminal next door is the most deceptive. The one you trust most can swindle you best. Your mirror is the truest liar.

Consider Illinois. There is no “Illinois,” and you know it. There is Chicago. There is Scales Mound, IL. There is Morrisonville, IL. There is Kenilworth, IL. There is Jonesboro, IL.

Are they alike? No, they are places on a map surrounded by a thick black line, with the word “Illinois” inscribed, but they are no more alike than the sun and the sun flower. In Illinois, Chicago is progressive and downstate is conservative.

What then is Illinois? It’s as though you owned two blue hats and one red hat. So what is your hat color?

  1. The problems and needs of Chicago are not the problems and needs of Scales Mound, Morrisonville, Kenilworth, nor Jonesboro.  Using the “states’ rights” logic, one easily could argue for “counties’ rights” or even “cities’ rights.”
  2. Today, very little reason exists for most Illinois laws to differ from Texas laws or Minnesota laws.
  3. Illinois politicians neither are more honest, more competent, nor more caring about Illinois taxpayers than are members of the U.S. Congress. Money and votes: It is all we are to them.
  4. Illinois not only is broken but broke, and so deeply in debt it functionally has lost the ability to borrow or even to pay its existing debts. Illinois is Greece without the history. Everything from schools, to roads, to fire and police protection, to infrastructure to pride is severely stressed and badly in need.

If Rolls Royces were a penny each, Illinois couldn’t afford a wiper blade. Yet the “states’ rights'” advocates want Illinois to pay more so the “too big” federal government can pay less.

The concept of “states’ rights,” began with the original Colonies, which were small, European-style nations. Their leaders wanted federal protections but treasured their own powers.

That hasn’t changed.

Ultimately, this deceit was formalized with the 10th Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As though 18th century authors could list in one short document, all the necessary needs of a 21st-century superpower.  Really? Laughable, and you know it.

Today, the myth that each little state should have different laws still remains. But why? What is the logical purpose?

Why must criminal and civil laws in Illinois be different from criminal and civil laws in Iowa or Texas? Is a murderer in one state deserving of a different trial and a different punishment from a murderer in another state? Why not one national murder law?

Is there a logical reason why the air and water in one state should be cleaner than the air and water in another state, or why food should be less adulterated and pharmaceuticals should be purer, from one state to another?

Why does each state have different healthcare laws? What is the logic?

“They” say local laws provide citizens with “more choices.” But you don’t need more choices. You need fewer and better choices.

Who are “they”?  The very rich — the ruling class — are “they.”

Reality:

  1. Politicians disclaim responsibility for laws that defy voter bias.
  2. Federal politicians have been told by the ruling class to trim federal budgets and to shift financial responsibility to the states.
  3. Supreme Court justices, concerned less with the practical effect of laws and more with their political agenda, are children of their own prejudices. They claim to seek a federalist “balance of power” between the states and the federal government, but such a “balance” does not, cannot, exist.

“Balance of power” between federal and state governments is an impossible concept, a meaningless concept, having zero relationship to fact.

Southern states claimed states’ rights when defending “separate-but-equal” bigotry laws. But America understands that morality, amorality, and immorality all cross borders. There was no justification for one state to need black or white drinking fountains while adjacent states did not.

Yet, today’s conservative Supreme Court might rule differently, based on “states’ rights,” and we will believe it if already we are wont to believe it.

For seven years, the Republican Party has debated a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (i.e ACA and Obamacare, nee Romneycare). Seven years. The lie could have been found in one year.

Still, the Republican electorate believed the lie they told themselves.

Most concerns with ACA purportedly had to do with costs to the consumer and with states’ rights, though the real concern was the name applied to it:  Obamacare. OBAMA care.

During those seven years, numerous “repeal and replace” votes were taken and numerous plans were submitted, and numerous revised votes and revised plans are sure to be submitted in the tomorrows ahead.Image result for obamacare repeal

They all will be built upon two wounds to America:

  1. Fewer poor will afford health care
  2. The states and the American people will be burdened with more financial liability.

All the plans will roll back the very purpose of ACA: More people protected. That widening of the Gap is exactly what the rich want.

WHAT IS THE CON?

Federal spending costs taxpayers nothing, while local spending is a cost to taxpayers.

Since federal politicians are no less honest, understanding or compassionate than local politicians, why move expenses from the federal government to state governments? Why spare the infinitely wealthy to burden the impoverished?

“States’ rights” advocates will claim this gives the states “freedom of choice.” But that is an ephemeral and meaningless excuse. Choice among bad alternatives is no choice at all.  And, whose “freedom” of choice? Certainly not yours.

The real purpose of “repeal and replace” is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. Without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are. They widen the Gap by taking from you and giving to themselves.

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending; state taxes fund state spending.

Most state taxes are regressive: Sales taxes, property taxes, water/garbage fees — all are inverse proportion to income and wealth.

Thus, moving expenses from the federal government to state and local governments widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest — the primary goal of the rich.

So they can pay less tax money while costing you more tax money the rich sell you the false notions that:

*The federal government is too big (or spends too much)
*Federal deficits are a burden on you, while state and local deficits are not a burden
*The federal government cares less and knows less about your needs
*The Constitution’s 10th Amendment requires state spending over federal spending, and
*State spending gives individuals and families more “freedom” of choice

All lies. All part of the con.

You will see it in the Republican Obamacare “solution,” which undoubtedly will continue to include lower payments by the federal government, higher payments by the states, fewer people insured, and fewer doctors and hospitals available to the serving class — exactly what the ruling class wants.

As the realization sinks in, you serving class folks may rue the day you voted to make this happen to you, though even the Democrats can’t claim innocence.

They should have pressed leaders for Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity: Federally funded Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America.

Should have.  Should have. Should have.

If by now you feel hopelessness creeping in, you may be starting to see reality. The ruling class, the billionaires, run the world. They are the royalty, the kings and queens of yore, forever skirmishing, battling, climbing for the best view.

In the wars, ending Obamacare is an inch in the endless effort to widen the Gap between the ruling class and the serving class. In that effort, no Gap is wide enough.

The very rich, Donald Trump, and his “Heinrich Himmler,” Steve Bannon, don’t care about you or your healthcare or your children or your life.  You only are necessary to provide the serving class part of the Gap.

For them, you are a mere rung in their climb to the top.Image result for GINI index

[The GINI index. A rising line indicates greater inequality — a widening Gap between the ruling class and the serving class.]

 

The ruling class cares only about widening the Gap, and Obamacare is their latest “states’ rights” con, just another tactic to keep the serving class down.

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