“Running for President is a pretty good gig.” The Trump story

Have you ever wondered why the Republicans had 18 people running for President?
Have you ever wondered about the real reason Donald Trump is running for President?

In May, Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham said, “I’m thinking about running for president. You get a house and a car and a plane. It’s a pretty good gig.”

Indeed it is a pretty good gig, as Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and others can testify. Those are some of the political celebrities whose means of support comes mostly from running for President and/or having run for President.

For instance, Rick Santorum: This is the Evolution denier who, in the November 7, 2006, election, lost by more than 700,000 votes, yet runs for President every term. Seemingly, running for President, and the fame he receives, are the basis for his primary income sources.

But Santorum, Cain et al are mere pikers compared with Donald Trump.

Here is what the Washington Post had to say:

“Of the $63 million his campaign spent through May, more than $6 million — close to 10% — went to Trump properties or to reimburse Trump or his family for expenses.”

How did he do that? Ask Rachel Madow, who on her show gave viewers these statistics about where Trump’s contributor’s money went:

Trump International Golf Club: $29715

Trump National Golf Club: $35,845

Mar-a-Lago Club: $423,000 (Trump rented his own private home. It’s where he lives in the winter. And the $423,000 was for May only.)

Trump Tower (NY): $520,000 (Trump rented his own apartment in New York. It’s where he lives in the summer.)

Trump’s own private jet: $4.6 MILLION (Trump rented his own private jet)

Trump National Doral: $26,000

Trump Hotel, Chicago: $11,000

Trump Plaza: $99,000

Trump Post Office/Hotel: $5,000 (Don’t ask me what this is)

Trump SOHO: $5,000 (Huh?)

Trump Winery: $5,000 (It’s owned by his son-in-law. I don’t want to draw inferences, but three expenses, each for $5,000??)

Trump Restaurants: $125,080

And there are expenses for Trump Grill, Trump Ice (wha??), Trump Cafe

My gosh, does this guy have any personal expenses? Contributors have taken care of his summer home and his winter apartment and much of his food and transportation. What’s left?

And then there are Trump’s books, which he likes to hawk during is paid-for speeches. Nice personal income, there.

Yes, running for President is a “pretty good gig,” especially for a self-proclaimed billionaire, who wants to deport immigrants, who in total, probably don’t have his income or wealth.

But, undoubtedly, Trump will offer his followers some very wonderful reasons why all that money needs to go to him, and his followers will believe, because as we all know, Trump is a very truthful man:

Fact-Checking Trump’s Speech

TRUMP’S CLAIM: Hillary Clinton “is a world class liar”

The facts: According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump’s checked claims have been deemed false or “Pants on Fire” false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:
True: 2%
Mostly True: 7%
Half True: 15%
Mostly False: 17%
False: 40%
Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:
True: 23%
Mostly True: 28%
Half True: 21%
Mostly False: 15%
False: 11%
Pants on Fire: 1%

If Hillary is a “world class liar” what does that make Donald?

Let me count the ways: Liar, greedy, bigot, con man, fear monger, narcissist, mean-spirited, ignorant about foreign affairs, ignorant about economics, ignorant about science, inexperienced.

Does that pretty much cover it?

Be sure to contribute your hard earned dollars to this rich man’s campaign. He needs your help, so he can continue to enjoy his “pretty good gig.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
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.

What we can do about the poor. Yes, there is a solution.

The single biggest economic problem facing America and the world is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The rich would have you believe the fault is with the poor, who are “lazy, criminal, and intentionally unsuitable parents.”

The rich claim the poor would rather wallow in poverty and ignorance, and receive what the rich term “free stuff,” than to work for a living.

It is a lie paid for by the rich and disseminated by the right-wing.

The left-wing would have you believe they truly wish to narrow the Gap.

But they too are bribed by the rich. They wring their hands in false compassion and fake helplessness, saying in effect, “We want to narrow the Gap, but the money isn’t there, so we can’t afford it.”

That too is a lie; that lie too is paid for by the rich.

The facts:
1. The poor are not at fault for their poverty, and
2. The federal government easily could afford to cure poverty in America.

1. THE POOR ARE NOT AT FAULT:

Lock Up the Men, Evict the Women and Children
Posted on May 29, 2016, By Chris Hedges

Matthew Desmond’s book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” like Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed,” is a heartbreaking snapshot of the rapacious exploitation and misery we inflict on the most vulnerable, especially children.

It is a picture of a world where industries have been created to fleece the poor, and destroy neighborhoods and ultimately lives.

It portrays a judicial system that has broken down, a dysfunctional social service system and the license in neoliberal America to carry out unchecked greed, no matter what the cost.

Being poor in America is one long emergency. You teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, homelessness and hunger. You endure cataclysmic levels of stress, harassment and anxiety and long bouts of depression.

Rent strips you of half your income—one in four families spend 70 percent of their income on rent—until you and your children are evicted, often into homeless shelters or abandoned buildings, when you fall behind on payments.

A financial crisis—a medical emergency, a reduction in hours at work or the loss of a job, funeral expenses or car repairs—can lead inexorably to an eviction.

Creditors, payday lenders and collection agencies hound you. You are often forced to declare bankruptcy.

You cope with endemic violence, gangs, drugs and a judicial system that permits brutal police abuse and ships you to jail, or slaps you with huge fines, for minor offenses.

You live for weeks or months with no heat, water or electricity because you cannot pay the utility bills, especially since fuel and utility rates have risen by more than 50 percent since 2000.

Single mothers and their children usually endure this hell alone, because the men in these communities are locked up. Millions of families are tossed into the street every year.

The working poor, now half of the country, have fallen to levels of misery unseen since the Great Depression.

All of this misery — all of it — is funded by the rich. The rigged judicial system, the unaffordable rents, the creditors, the payday lenders, the collection agencies, the evictions — all at the behest of the rich.

“These days, there are sheriff’s squads whose full-time job is to carry out eviction and foreclosure orders,” Desmond wrote. “There are moving companies specializing in evictions, their crews working all day, every weekday.

“There are hundreds of data-mining companies that sell landlords tenant screening reports listing past evictions and court filings. These days housing courts swell, forcing commissioners to settle cases in hallways or makeshift offices crammed with old desks and broken file cabinets—and most tenants don’t even show up.

“Low-income families have grown used to the rumble of moving trucks, the early-morning knocks at the door, the belongings lining the curb.”

And it all is funded by the rich, and for the benefit of the rich, whose sole aim is to widen the Gap between them and the poor.

There is a lot of money to be made off the poor. They are defenseless. And the law is on the side of the predators.

As Desmond noted in his book, in “many housing courts around the country 90 percent of landlords are represented by attorneys, and 90 percent of tenants are not.”

A life of dead ends led many in Desmond’s book to make decisions that, on the outside, could be seen as irresponsible or foolish: withholding rent payments, or as Larraine Jenkins (not her real name) did, blowing her monthly allocation of food stamps on a dinner of lobster tails, shrimp, crab, lemon meringue pie and Pepsi.

But the present is unbearable, and the future, they know, is grim. So they block the future out and seek, for a moment, to make the present endurable.

It is why so many of the poor turn to drugs or alcohol. Jenkins, as Desmond wrote, was not “poor because she threw money away.” She “threw money away because she was poor.”

The rich point at the “Larraine Jenkinses” and exclaim to you in false horror, that the poor waste their food stamps on the high life. And you believe, because you hear the same lie, again and again.

Escape is denied to the poor. Consider college, the seeming door to freedom.

But, a poor child’s time is needed for earning family income. There is no time for college.

Even if the family can survive without the child’s income, college remains too expensive. “Free” tuition is costly. Who will pay for rent and food and books and clothing and a life away?

And then there is the bait and hook of student loans, the permanent indebtedness of loans based on excessive tuitions — loans that uniquely cannot be discharged in bankruptcy — forever indebtedness to the rich.

College loans are the indentured servitude of modern America, massively benefitting the rich lenders and enslaving America’s children.

As the right-wing sneers at the lazy, good-for-nothing poor, and the left-wing cries its crocodile tears for the unfortunate poor, both repeat The BIG LIE

You hear The BIG LIE every day. It’s told to you by the bribed politicians, the owned media, and by the paid university economists. The “BIG LIE says:

— The federal government somehow can run short of its own sovereign currency
— The federal government cannot afford to lift Americans out of poverty
— Lifting the poor would just make them lazier
— The federal government is too big, so spending should be cut.
— The so-called federal “debt” is unsustainable.
— Spending for the poor will cause hyperinflation

If you repeat a lie often enough it is perceived as truth. But the real truth is:

The U.S. federal government cannot run short of the dollars it originally created from thin air merely by passing laws from thin air.
Because the federal government cannot run short of dollars, it can afford to pay any bill of any size at any time.
Just as you did not become lazy when your parents kept you from poverty, the poor will not become lazy if the federal government lifts them from poverty.
Increased spending for the poor does not require federal government employment to grow, and even if it did grow, that growth would stimulate the economy, benefiting everyone.
The federal “debt” isn’t even a debt; it is money deposited in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank — just bank deposits.
Hyperinflation occurs when the Supply of money exceeds Demand. However, our Monetarily Sovereign government controls the money demand via interest rates. Historically, hyperinflation has caused excessive money creation and not the other way around.

The solution — and yes, there is a solution — would be the implementation of the Ten Steps to Prosperity:

THE TEN STEPS TO PROSPERITY:

1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.

2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”

3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.

5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.

6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.

7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.)
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.

8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.

9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.

10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.

Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

Let us stop believing the lies of the rich, and begin to make this a better world. Demand the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

Even if you have no compassion for the poor, do it for your own sake. Prosperity will benefit you, too.

Lifting the poor will not merely save the poor; it will save America. It’s not just charity; it’s not just patriotism; it’s self-preservation.

Perfect example of why the very rich are smarter than us

Both political parties are bribed by the very rich, via campaign contributions. The media are owned by the very rich. And the university economists are controlled by university administrations, bribed by contributions.

Even the Supreme Court justices are subject to that subtle form of bribery known as “freebies”: Free meals, free private airplane rides, free hunting trips, free lodging, free gifts, free tickets, etc.

The Supreme Court justices have legalized the bribery of politicians by claiming money is a form of free speech (Buckley v. Valeo), and because free speech cannot be limited, money to influence elections can’t be limited.

The Court essentially ruled rich people are allowed more protected free speech than the rest of us.

Never mind that many forms of “speech” already are limited, including murder threats, terrorist threats, shouts of “fire” in an assemblage, deceptive sales practices, phone calls, etc.

Further, the Court defines “speech” as expressing an opinion, which logically means that shooting someone with whom you disagree also would be a protected form of free speech.

Logic, however is missing for the Supreme Court justices, who claim that unions and corporations are individuals, with all the same bribing rights as individuals (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and in some cases having rights that exceed those of any individual (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) in which the corporation’s religious rights are more important than the employee’s religious rights.

With all the bribery by the rich, the following should come as no surprise:

WATCH LIVE: CRFB President Maya MacGuineas Testifies Before House Budget Committee
JUN 15, 2016

The House Budget Committee has focused on budget process reform in recent months, hosting multiple hearings covering topics like . . . why Congress must balance the budget.

Most recently we hosted “Fixing the Budget Process” on Capitol Hill featuring remarks from House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) and a panel of experts, including MacGuineas, that discussed the importance of fiscal responsibility in the budgetary process.

The House Budget Committee long ago had decided the federal budget must be “balanced.”

You might ask why this committee composed of 36 members (22 Republicans and 14 Democrats) needed to spend hours listening to the president of the CRFB, an organization whose existence is devoted to — yes, that same balanced federal budget.

What could the Committee possibly learn from hearing what they already believe?

You can be sure Ms. MacGuineas did not show them this:

U.S. DEPRESSIONS tend to come on the heels of federal budget surpluses.

1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

Nor did she show them this:

RECESSIONS repeatedly come on the heels of debt growth reductions, and are cured with debt growth increases.

And certainly, she did not show them this:

The graph shows no relationship between federal deficits — even large federal deficits — and inflation. the peaks and valleys of deficit growth do not match the peaks and valleys of inflation growth:

So, if Ms. MacGuineas merely parrots back what the Committee already believes what is the purpose?

The committee members rely upon Ms. MacGuineas to tell them exactly what they want to hear:

–Federal financing is no different from personal financing. (Wrong: The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign; people are monetarily non-sovereign)

–A balanced budget will help the economy grow. (Wrong: Balanced budgets shrink the economy.)

–The federal government can run short of its own dollars to pay its bills. (Wrong: A Monetarily Sovereign government never can run short of its own sovereign currency.)

–The federal debt is “unsustainable.” (Wrong: The federal government could pay off the entire debt tomorrow, if it wished to.)

–Federal deficit spending will cause inflation. (Wrong: Being Monetarily Sovereign means being totally sovereign over the dollar, which includes controlling the dollar’s value.)

Because most of the Committee members probably know Ms. MacGuineas is lying to them, we are left with two questions:

Why do they want a balanced federal budget, knowing it will lead to a recession or a depression?
Why does the Committee want to hear from Ms. MacGuineas if they already know what she will say is a lie?

I. Why do members of the Committee want a balanced budget, knowing it will lead to a recession or a depression?

The push for balanced budget invariably leads to reductions in Social benefits for the 99% and increases in regressive taxes — both of which widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

By definition, it is the Gap that makes the rich rich. If there were no Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap the richer the rich are.

II. Why does the Committee want to hear from Ms. MacGuineas if they already know what she will say?

The Committee wishes to lend credibility to their current belief that federal finance is like personal finance. They can say, “We went ot an expert and she confirmed we’re headed in the right direction.

The purpose is to fool you into believing a great deal of thought and independent expertise go into Committee recommendations.

We had a similar situation back in 2010. Right-wing Democrat, Barack Obama appointed The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles) to tell him what he wanted to hear: “Policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run”.

Like the House Budget Committee, the Erskine-Bowles committee was “bipartisan,” which is a code word for “Don’t worry about a thing. It has to be fair and good if all we politicians want it.”

In short, Obama wanted to cut the spending that benefits the 99%.

And surprise, the plan did just that. It cut Social Security and it cut Medicare. Those cuts don’t affect the 1%, but the are disastrous for the 99%, as well as for the economy.

And surprise surprise, the omnipresent Maya MacGuineas said, “the Commission released not only a credible plan, but an excellent plan. Of course, it is filled with things people don’t like—that is the nature of deficit reduction. And yet the plan received bipartisan support from a majority of the Commission at a time where, up until now, fiscal leadership has been in short supply”

Notice the sneering tone about the 99%: “Things that people don’t like,” meaning the lazy, stupid poor and middle classes aren’t smart enough to embrace having the bread taken from their mouths.

And “the nature of deficit reduction,” is to cause recessions and depressions, which always punish the 99% more than the 1%.

And there’s that old “bipartisan” word, as though because all those bribed politicians favor something means we, the public, should favor it, too.

Bottom line. It never changes. In a scenario repeatedly coordinated by the rich, bribed politicians appoint a bipartisan Committee, which holds kangaroo-court style hearings, in which carefully selected, well-paid flacks like Maya MacGuineas are trotted forth to lend credence to nonsense.

Based on the pre-ordained findings, the Committee recommends that the Gap between the rich and the rest be widened.

And we believe — not just believe, but angrily argue against anyone who dares to claim the findings are nonsense and we are being lied to.

As I said, the very rich are smarter than us.

=Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.)
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
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.
========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Mitchell’s 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.

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

Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence?

Yesterday, we published “Five Solutions to Gun Violence.”

It contained five proposals, each of which if implemented, would reduce gun violence — if that is what the American public wants.

The title question is, “does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence,” or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

The “more-guns = less-gun-violence” myth is akin to “more-anger = fewer-anger-crimes,” or “more-greed = fewer-crimes-of-greed.”

Reality doesn’t work that way.

If you really want to make sure someone stays lost give him a bad roadmap. Sending him on a wild goose chase will waste his time and energy far better than simply doing nothing.

In that vein, today I saw an article titled,“Omar Mateen, an ‘Americanized Guy,’ Shows Threat of Lone Terrorists” Here are a few excerpts to show how far off course we have been sent:

Omar Mateen had been on a terrorism watch list for incendiary comments he once made to co-workers at a local courthouse.

But the F.B.I. soon ended its examination of Mr. Mateen after finding no evidence that he posed a terrorist threat to his community.

Thus, we see the beginnings of the “blame the FBI” bad roadmap. The notion is that if only the FBI had done its job, Mateen would have been prevented from killing all those people in Orlando.

That is what the gun manufacturers want you to believe. They want you to waste your time, energy, and intellect trying to find ways to make the FBI better able to stop gun violence. They want you to follow a bad roadmap.

The government investigation could take months, but an early examination of Mr. Mateen’s life reveals a hatred of gay people.

This is the second bad roadmap — the search for reasons why this individual did what he did.

The hope is that if we knew he killed those people because he hated gay people, we could prevent future killings by . . . by what?

By somehow convincing bigots that gay people are good people? Is that the plan upon which we will expend thousands of hours and millions of words?

He was a man who could be charming, loved Afghan music and enjoyed dancing, but he was also violently abusive.

Family members said he was not overly religious, but he was rigid and conservative in his view that his wife should remain mostly at home.

The F.B.I. director said on Monday that Mr. Mateen had once claimed ties to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — two radical groups violently opposed to each other.

He could act like the NRA’s mythical “good guy,” and he also could act like a “bad guy.” No news there. That describes millions of Americans. Where does that lead us in any effort to reduce gun violence?

Investigators now face the question of how much the killings were the act of a deeply disturbed man, as his former wife and others described him, and how much he was driven by religious or political ideology.

Let’s say that after wasting months of tedious investigation, we conclude he was “deeply disturbed” (whatever that means). What then? How does “deeply disturbed” get us one inch closer to preventing the next gun murder?

Arrest all the “deeply disturbed” people, forever?

Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam.

So, shall we search for all the “unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam”?

How many millions of those do you think live in America? What about your dopey brother-in-law, or your goofy next-door neighbor. Are they unstable, with no history of embracing radical Islam?

What shall we do when find them? Arrest them all and keep them in jail indefinitely, for being “unstable”?

Mr. Mateen might have been gay but chose to hide his true identity out of anger and shame.

A senior federal law enforcement official said on Monday that the F.B.I. was looking at reports that Mr. Mateen had used a gay dating app, and patrons of Pulse were quoted in news reports as saying that he had visited the club several times.

So he may have been a guy ashamed of his identity. Should the FBI arrest all Americans who secretly are insecure about some aspect of their lives?

He came to the F.B.I.’s attention in 2013, when some of his co-workers reported that he had made inflammatory comments claiming connections to overseas terrorists, and saying he hoped that the F.B.I. would raid his family’s home so that he could become a martyr.

The F.B.I. opened an investigation and put Mr. Mateen on a terrorist watch list for nearly a year.

Mr. Mateen said he had made the incendiary remarks “in anger” because his co-workers had ridiculed his Muslim background and he wanted to scare them. The F.B.I. closed its investigation and took him off the terrorist watch list.

The F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Mateen a third time, but determined that his ties to the suicide bomber were not significant. The bureau had no further contact with Mr. Mateen.

Mr. Comey defended the work of his agents, although the bureau’s handling of the case is likely to be the subject of scrutiny and criticism in the coming weeks.

They interviewed him multiple times and put him on a terrorist watch list, all to no avail. Meanwhile, the gun industry laughs at their efforts, for none of this has any effect on gun violence. It’s all misdirection.

In fact, the inevitable failures to prevent gun violence beget more gun purchases. Orlando will prove to be another financial windfall to the gun makers, as more people are sold on the false notion that carrying a gun will protect them from future mass murders.

Still, cases such as these rankle F.B.I. counterterrorism agents, who believe they draw criticism for any choices they make — either for leaving cases open too long, or for closing cases that don’t seem to have enough evidence.

Don Borelli, a retired F.B.I. counterterrorism supervisor in New York, said there was a danger in criticizing agents who close investigations for lack of evidence. “Can we allow people’s futures to be affected if there is no proven basis for it? That’s the flip side to all this,” he said.

Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, told reporters on Monday that the Justice Department might look to adopt new procedures that would alert counterterrorism investigators if someone who had been on a terror watch list tried to buy a gun.

And if she had been alerted, then what? How would Ms. Yates use that information to prevent future shootings?

“Why did he do this?” his father asked. “He was born in America. He went to school in America. He went to college — why did he do that? I am as puzzled as you are.”

To prevent our finding answers, the gun lobby and their voice, the politicians, has led us down a number of false paths. The purpose is to misdirect us.

They want us to scatter our efforts, by asking:
–“Why did he do it?”
–“What can be done about terrorism?”
–“What can be done about mass murder?”
–“What can be done about undocumented immigrants?”
–“What can be done about Muslims?”
–“What can be done about the mentally unstable?”
–“What can be done about hatred and bigotry?”
–“What can be done to preserve gun rights?”

Thousands of Americans are shot every year. Only a tiny percentage are shot by terrorists, mass murderers, the mentally unstable, undocumented foreigners, Muslims, or bigots. The vast majority of shootings are done by people who do not fit into any of the above categories.

The shooters are people who suddenly get angry, or who want to steal something, or who are part of a street gang guarding its turf. They are husbands and wives and children. They are smart and stupid.

Trying to solve the problems of terrorism, mass murder, the mentally unstable, etc., will make only the most minuscule difference in the overall shooting statistics. Each of these problems is more a diversion than a path to a solution.

That is the gun lobby’s plan. Change the subject. Change the focus, so no solution can be found.

The gun lobby doesn’t want you to know this, but the one common denominator for those thousand of American shootings is the easy availability of guns.

Anyone in America can buy a gun. Even if you are a convicted sex offender, multiple murderer, proven terrorist, child molester out on bail, you easily and legally can buy a gun.

Simply go to a gun show. Simply buy one online. Simply buy one from your neighbor or from a stranger in the street.

There is one, and only one way to reduce the vast number of gun murders: Reduce the availability of guns. Period.

Today, we hear politicians and media pundits debating everything from terrorism to insanity, pretending they are looking for solutions to all the gun murders. It’s all a facade, a pretense.

It’s like preventing dog bites by putting up a “no-collies allowed” sign. Even if the sign worked, and you eliminated all collies, there still will be thousands of dog bites.

The only way dramatically to reduce the number of shootings is to reduce the availability of guns as described in: Five Solutions to Gun Violence:

–Interpret the Constitution properly
–Remove the profit motive from gun manufacture and sales
–Eliminate gangs
–Greater penalties for gun carry during felonies
–Make gun ownership expensive; tax and license gun ownership

If we don’t do this, the gun lobby will continue to have us chasing our tails, searching in the wrong places for small solutions to small problems, while the big problem continues to bedevil us.

We return to the question that started this post: Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence, or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.)
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
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 RECESSION CLOCK

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: