As I told you, two years ago . . . Saturday, Jul 14 2018 

As I told you, two years ago . . .

. . . Here are excerpts from two posts (You can click the links to see the full flavor of what was written.)

They were not the only posts on the subject, but they are a representative sample.

September 15, 2016: What kind of President will Donald Trump be

Trump singled out as the one person he admires, Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia.

In true dictatorial style, Trump wishes to build an “iron curtain,” a “beautiful” Berlin wall, around America.Image result for dictator

Like dictators Stalin and Hitler, Trump wishes to rid his nation of those he considers undesirable — Muslims, Mexicans, other Latinos, gays.

Like all dictators, Trump is enamored with himself. He plasters his name on everything — buildings, airplanes, businesses. He tries hard to create a “cult of his personality” as did Stalin, Mao, and the Perons.Image result for dictator peron

The Trump Foundation even paid $20,000 of charity money, for a portrait of Trump.

Like all dictators, Trump is a thin-skinned egomaniac. Say anything negative about Trump, and you will be subject to a flurry of insulting, even threatening Emails. As President, he will do more than threaten.

Similarly, say something complimentary, and he will reciprocate. He already has said that because Putin speaks well of him, he speaks well of Putin.

Like most dictators, Trump’s primary appeal is to the less educated, the people who are more susceptible to lies, bluster, and fraud — the people who are more likely to find appeal in bigotry.

And like all dictators, Trump wishes to control the media. Why? Because once the media are under control, the people know only what the dictator wants them to know.
This is why Putin has that “80% approval rating” Trump admires. Kim Jong Un probably has 100% approval.Image result for dictator kim jong un

Dictators love to demonstrate physical invincibility. Putin, for instance, removes his shirt while riding horseback, to demonstrate his virility. And then there was Mao, swimming in the Yangze.

Image result for dictator mao

Like dictators Mao and Putin, Trump is in “perfect health.” In fact, he would be “the healthiest individual ever to the presidency.” We know this, because his doctor, Harold Bornstein jotted a quick note, dictated by Trump, telling us so.

Bottom line: Donald Trump has told us again and again, in many different ways, that he will be a dictator if we elect him.

Should we fail to listen with our own ears and fail to see with our own eyes, what Trump has made obvious, we and our children will join in the misery seen by the people of Russia, China, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Cuba, and other dictatorships.

Yes, friends, it can happen here. And when it does, we will have only ourselves to blame.

And then, two weeks later, came this post (excerpts):

Friday, September 30, 2016: Astounding similarities: Hitler in America. It’s happening now.

Of whom does the following remind you?

A host of earlier biographers have advanced theories about Hitler’s rise, and the dynamic between the man and his times.Image result for hitler

Some have focused on the social and political conditions in post-World War I Germany, which Hitler expertly exploited — a yearning for a return to German greatness; unemployment and economic distress; and longstanding ethnic prejudices and fears of “foreignization.”

“Make America great again,” anti-Muslim, build a wall.

Hitler as a politician who rose to power through demagoguery, showmanship and nativist appeals to the masses.Image result for mussolini

Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” 

Do demagoguery, showmanship and nativist appeals sound familiar? And which egomaniacal politician describes everything about himself as “incredible.”

A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “Mein Kampf” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.”

Which politician not only lies the most of any in recent memory but repeatedly denies the incontrovertible evidence of lies?

Hitler was an effective orator and actor, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies.Image result for dictators

Which politician is a professional TV actor? Who boasts about huge rallies with thousands of cheering people? Which politician breeds hatred of minorities?

He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.

Which politician yells “Get ’em outa here” when heckled? Which politician promises to enforce “law and order”?

Hitler increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans.Related image

He often harked back to a golden age for the country, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.

Which politician repeatedly tells us we are losing to the Chinese, losing to the Mexicans, losing to the terrorists — losing, losing, losing — but is vague about plans (sometimes claiming they are “secret.”?)

Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” Hitler said, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”Image result for dictator saddam

Seen any political slogans printed on hats and repeated constantly in speeches, to remind the “feeble” masses?

Hitler’s rise was not inevitable. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed.

(But) in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an “erosion of the political center” and a growing resentment of the elites.

(There was) the belief of Hitler supporters that the country needed “a man of iron” who could shake things up. “Why not give the National Socialists a chance?” a prominent banker said of the Nazis. “They seem pretty gutsy to me.”Image result for dictator Idi Amin

Does resentment of elites (aka “the establishment”) ring a bell? What about the need for change, to “shake things up”?

(Hitler’s) conservative coalition partners believed either that he was not serious or that they could exert a moderating influence on him.

Know of any politicians whose own party continues to try to moderate them? Was there speculation about any politicians not really being serious about running for President?Image result for putin

Hitler, it became obvious, could not be tamed.

The independent press was banned or suppressed and books deemed “un-German” were burned.

Think. Which American politician wants to sue the press for unflattering articles?

Germans believed, “It cannot happen here.”  But, as the author asks . . .Image result for trump

What persuaded millions of ordinary Germans to embrace Hitler and his doctrine of hatred?

How did this “most unlikely pretender to high state office” achieve absolute power in a once democratic country and set it on a course of monstrous horror?

It happened in Germany. Actually, it has happened in many countries. People fundamentally are the same, everywhere, and everywhere they can be led like sheep to the slaughter by Hitlerian leaders.

Yes, it can happen here. It, in fact, is happening here, right in front of our noses. Don’t believe, even for one second, that we are immune, and that dictators only happen in other countries. Those “other countries” thought the same thing.

The Republicans won’t stop Trump’s plan to be our dictator. They are too frightened, just as the good Germans were too frightened to stop Hitler.

It remains for you independents and Democrats to end this horrifying drift toward totalitarianism.

America can be saved. Your children and grandchildren can live in a free America.

But you must speak now to your Representative and Senators. And you must vote in November.

You simply must.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The fake trade and NATO wars Friday, Jul 13 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:Image result for carnival barker


The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders

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

We often have discussed the difference between ignorance and stupidity. We all are ignorant about the vast majority of facts in the universe. Being intentionally ignorant, however, is stupidity.

We discussed the ignorant trade “war” at When ego meets ignorance: Who pays for tariffs? You do, Jun 16 2018

It is a “war” in which your government shoots at the enemy and also shoots at you, and the enemy’s government does likewise.

With both government’s shooting at both sides, how does one win such a war? One doesn’t. A trade war not only is ignorant, but it is intentionally ignorant, i.e. stupid, which partly explains why Donald Trump has caused it.

But the stupidity is not his alone. Many in the media share it. Consider this article in today’s Chicago Tribune:

Reciprocity is the method to Trump’s madness

Image result for victor davis hanson

Victor Davis Hanson

By Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, authorvdh@gmail.com

Critics of Donald Trump claim there is no rhyme or reason to his foreign policy. But if there is a consistency, it might be called reciprocity.

Trump tries to force other countries to treat the U.S. as it treats them. In “don’t tread on me” style, he also warns enemies that any aggressive act will be replied to in kind.

The underlying principle of Trump commercial reciprocity is that the United States is no longer powerful or wealthy enough to alone underwrite the security of the West.

It can no longer assume sole enforcement of the rules and protocols of the postwar global order.

Several bits of ignorance all packed into four short sentences:

First, the “aggressive acts” are those perpetrated by Trump. It was Trump who started the trade wars and it is Trump who has directed criticisms and threats toward NATO and specifically, toward Germany and England.

Second, the United States, unlike the euro nations, is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the infinite ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar, to underwrite our military.

As such, it is infinitely wealthy. The euro nations are not.

In fact, the more dollars the U.S. government pumps into our military, the wealthier our nation becomes. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is based on federal spending. The more the federal government spends, the higher goes GDP.

Third, the U.S. does not, and never has, assumed “the sole enforcement of whatever the term, “rules and protocols of the of the postwar global order” is supposed to signify.

And if we did, wouldn’t that be exactly what we want? Think about it. Would we really want someone else to “enforce the rules . . . etc.”?

This year there have been none of the usual Iranian provocations — frequent during the Obama administration — of harassing American ships in the Persian Gulf.

Apparently, the Iranians now realize that anything they do to an American ship will be replied to with overwhelming force.

Is this something that Trump supposedly has accomplished?

Aside from loudmouth bluster about “fire and fury against the North Koreans (whom Trump now loves and admires), we see no evidence of his “overwhelming force.”

Trump’s main effort against Iran has been to free them to continue making nuclear weapons. Are we supposed to believe that Trump’s ending of the Iranian deal has now frightened Iran so much, they will become placid?

Utter Trumpian idiocy.

Ditto North Korea. After lots of threats from Kim Jong Un about using his ballistic missiles against the United States, Trump warned that he would use America’s far greater arsenal to eliminate North Korea’s arsenal for good.

Yes, Trump scared Kim Jong un so much that Kim continued to manufacture nuclear weapons, ditched a meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and instead visited a potato farm.

Ooooh, that “overwhelming force” of Cadet Bonespurs. Another Trump failure which he will claim was a smashing success. And which his followers will believe.

More important, most NATO countries have failed to keep their promises to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.

What the American public doesn’t understand it that it does us absolutely no good for NATO nations to spend 2% or even 10% on defense. Two reasons:

First, the U.S. likely would not spend a penny less on defense, no matter how much NATO nations spend.

Second, spending by the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government costs American taxpayers nothing, and it stimulates economic growth.

There is not a single economic reason why America needs Europe to spend more on defense.

Why does Germany by design run up a $65 billion annual trade surplus with the United States?

Why does such a wealthy country spend only 1.2 percent of its GDP on defense?

And if Germany has entered into energy agreements with a supposedly dangerous Vladimir Putin, why does it still need to have its security subsidized by the American military?

Well, he asked three questions, so I’ll give three answers:

One — Trade Deficit: Germany runs a trade surplus (i.e. a goods and services deficit), with the U.S. because more of our consumers wish to purchase German goods than German consumers wishing to purchase U.S. goods.

Further, as we frequently have noted America, being Monetarily Sovereign, benefits from our trade deficit. We receive valuable and scarce assets, goods and services, in exchange for U.S. dollars, which the U.S. can create endlessly and at no cost.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills.”

Thomas Edison: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.  The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. . . . It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency.

Those wishing for the U.S. to run a trade surplus do not understand economic reality.

Further, Germany is monetarily non-sovereign. Unlike the U.S. it does not have the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, simply because it has no sovereign currency.

Germany is similar to the U.S. cities, counties, and states in that it uses a currency over which it has no control.

So, to survive long-term, Germany requires the income that a trade deficit provides. By contrast,  the U.S. needs no income. It creates U.S. dollars ad hoc, by spending dollars. The U.S. government never can run short of U.S. dollars. Never.

Two — Defense: Our spending for Germany’s defense benefits us. It allows us to surround Russia with troops and weapons, and gives us better military access to Africa.

Three — Subsidized security This question is completely nonsensical. Having an energy agreement with “supposedly dangerous” (supposedly??) Russia, has nothing to do with the need for security.

Trump approaches the North American Free Trade Agreement in the same reductionist way. The 24-year-old treaty was supposed to stabilize, if not equalize, all trade, immigration and commerce between the three supposed North American allies.

There is no need to equalize trade, immigration and commerce among the three Monetarily Sovereign nations.

It never quite happened that way.

Unequal tariffs remained. Both Canada and Mexico have substantial trade surpluses with the U.S. In Mexico’s case, it enjoys a $71 billion surplus, the largest of U.S. trading partners with the exception of China.

Canada never honored its NATO security commitment. It spends only 1 percent of its GDP on defense, rightly assuming that the U.S. will continue to underwrite its security.

Not one of the above is bad for America. It is all Trump’s excuse for creating conflict. All dictators want conflict, because that cements their power.

During the lifetime of NAFTA, Mexico has encouraged millions of its citizens to enter the U.S. illegally. Mexico’s selfish immigration policy is designed to avoid internal reform, to earn some $30 billion in annual expatriate remittances, and to influence U.S. politics.

The above must have beoen written by Trump, for it has no basis in fact. There is zero evidence that Mexico is encouraging its people to leave.

This reminds us of Trump’s infamous “They’re not sending their best. They’re rapists . . .”

The immigrants are coming to make a better life for themselves and their children, just as all American’s ancestors did — just as your parents and grandparents did.

Mexico is not sending anyone. This is all a Trump fever-dream being disseminated by Hanson.

Yet after more than two decades of NAFTA, Mexico is more unstable than ever. Drug cartels run entire states. Murders are at a record high. Entire towns in southern Mexico have been denuded of their young males, who crossed the U.S. border illegally.

How does that prove Hanson’s assertion that Mexico is exporting too much to the U.S. and “sending” us criminals? Again, it sounds like a rambling Trump “attack-everyone-and-every-thing” speech.

But in 2016, red-state America rebelled at the asymmetry. The other half of the country demonized the red-staters as protectionists, nativists, isolationists, populists and nationalists.

But Trump followers are exactly that: Protectionists, nativists, isolationists, populists and nationalists — and way too many are bigots.

However, if China, Europe and other U.S. trading partners had simply followed global trading rules, there would have been no Trump pushback — and probably no Trump presidency at all.

Trump’s election had nothing to do with trading rules. It had more to do with the electoral college and gerrymandering, plus a very weak Democratic nominee,  that allowed a minority to win over a majority.

Had NATO members and NAFTA partners just kept their commitments, and had Mexico not encouraged millions of its citizens to crash the U.S. border, there would now be little tension between allies.

“Crash” the border? Did you grandparents “crash” the border. More phony language from a Trump devotee.

Again, a rich and powerful U.S. was supposed to subsidize world trade, take in more immigrants than all the nations of the world combined, protect the West, and ensure safe global communications, travel and commerce.

After 70 years, the effort had hollowed out the interior of America, creating two separate nations of coastal winners and heartland losers.

Ah yes, the divide and conquer idea. The people on the coasts (i.e. the blue New Yorkers and Californians) supposedly are rich, while the people in the middle (except for the blue Illinoisans) are impoverished — a favorite Trump theme.

And all of this is the fault of the trade deficit.

Trump’s entire foreign policy can be summed up as a demand for symmetry from all partners and allies, and tit-for-tat replies to would-be enemies.

No, Trump’s entire foreign policy can be summed up as: Buddy-up to dictators, and make war with allies.

Did Trump have to be so loud and often crude in his effort to bully America back to reciprocity?

Who knows?
But it seems impossible to imagine that globalist John McCain, internationalist Barack Obama or gentlemanly Mitt Romney would ever have called Europe, NATO, Mexico, and Canada to account, or warned Iran or North Korea that tit would be met by tat.

“Globalist”? “Internationalist”? “Gentlemanly”? Even Trump’s silly name-calling has seeped into Hanson’s language.

What do these terms signify with regard to trade deficits? Hanson has nao idea. But calling names is mandatory for a Trump follower.

Email him, and ask him why he writes such nonsense. His Email is at the top of his comments.Image result for victor davis hanson

(By the way, I looked for a photo of Hanson here, and this is what I found):

Perhaps that tells it all.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

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
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

What can America do about a President who is a traitor? Wednesday, Jul 11 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:

King George III


The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders

……………………………………………………………..
What does the Constitution say about a President who is a traitor?

The question nagged me after reading this week’s news and commentary. For instance:

Giuliani’s New Tactic: Arguing Trump Can Literally Get Away With Murder 
New York Magazine, By Margaret Hartmann

The New York Times obtained a 20-page letter Trump’s attorneys sent Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in January, arguing that he could not have obstructed justice because he has total, unfettered authority over the Justice Department.

Rudy Giuliani said that while he only agrees with about 80 percent of the argument laid out by Trump’s former legal team, he thinks a sitting president can’t be indicted or subpoenaed.

Giuliani explained that if there’s a criminal in the Oval Office, the law can’t touch him until the Legislative branch acts. “If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day. Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”

In the eyes of some backers, Trump only can be touched by the political process of impeachment, not by the legal process of indictment or subpoena.

In short, Trump’s flunkees believe the American President, like a king, is above the law.

Fox News editor correctly predicts Trump will ‘fly into Brussels like a seagull’ and ‘defecate all over everything 
Kathryn Krawczyk

Fox News politics editor Chris Stirewalt said Trump would “fly into Brussels like a seagull” and “defecate all over everything, squawk, and fly away,” he told host Shannon Bream.

Trump went into the NATO meeting prepared to challenge the organization, saying the U.S. protects its allies more than they protect America and deserves a break on tariffs to make up for it.

That prompted concern from former diplomats and even Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), who warned Trump against making consolations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump is meeting with Putin next week.

“I want to tell these Republicans, quit kidding yourselves,” Stirewalt said on Fox News @ Night. “You will not stop Donald Trump from undermining NATO … and you will not stop him from realigning U.S. foreign policy to be more favorable toward Russia.”

So far, Stirewalt has been right. Trump didn’t even make it through Wednesday’s breakfast before tearing into Germany for being “captive to Russia,” and on Tuesday he said his upcoming meeting with Putin may be the “easiest of them all.”

Only time will tell how many more messy bombshells Trump will drop.

Two things are clear:

  1. Putin’s primary goal, for several years, has been to divide and weaken NATO.
  2. Putin has leverage over Trump, either financially  (i.e. Trump Moscow and other properties), or privately (i.e. tapes of Trump conjoining with prostitutes).

Trump historically accuses people of his own faults. He accused Hillary Clinton of being “crooked” at the same time he was paying a $25 million fine for his crooked Trump University, and paid IRS fines for his crooked Trump Foundation.

He routinely calls opponents liars, and has coined the expression “fake news,” while he himself has set records for lying. (See: Trump lies.”)

In the following article, he follows the same pattern:

Trump kicks off NATO summit by accusing Germany of being ‘captive to Russia‘ 
THE WEEK, Peter Weber

Trump tweeted that NATO was bilking the U.S., implicitly undermined struggling British Prime Minister Theresa May.

(Then he said), “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia.”

Trump has criticized just about every NATO ally, but has rarely if ever criticized Putin — “Frankly, Putin may be the easiest [meeting] of them all,” Trump said  — and there is widespread concern on both sides of the Atlantic that Trump will say or do things to undermine the U.S.-Europe alliance.

Driving a wedge between Europe and the U.S. is believed to be one of Putin’s key priorities.

It is difficult to see what could be more traitorous than destroying NATO on behalf of Putin and Russia.

So the question remains, “What can America do about a President who is a traitor?”

Is he untouchable by the law? Will our too-political Congress cave to power, as Dukes, Marquesses, and Barons did in the eras of British kings?

Brett Kavanaugh Once Argued That a Sitting President Should Be Above the Law
THE WEEK, By John Nichols

(SCOTUS nominee) Brett Kavanaugh has been an open advocate for precisely the sort of imperial presidency that the founders of the American experiment feared—and that Donald Trump relishes.

As Bloomberg News has noted, “Kavanaugh addressed some of the constitutional issues that could emerge from an investigation like Mueller’s in a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article.”

What Kavanaugh wrote ought to trouble everyone who believes that the president is a servant of the people, rather than “a king for four years.”

I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.

The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.

“Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Image result for king trumpWill SCOTUS decide that, like King George, who ruled us before we fought the Revolutionary War, Donald Trump is above the law?

Did 25,000 American revolutionary soldiers die for our nation to come to this??

Even if a submissive, political Congress fails to act, you retain the power to prevent Trump’s imperial government from ruling you and your children.

Just vote in November.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

A new idea about U.S. border protection Saturday, Jul 7 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:Image result for child cage
The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders

………………………………………………………………..

The Trump administration has ranged from hysterical to frantic to horrified about undocumented immigrants.

The Trumpian belief is that virtually all immigration from the south is dangerous; the border with Mexico should be made impenetrable with a steel wall; and that anyone managing to sneak across immediately should be treated harshly, without benefit of any legal process.

They should be arrested and/or deported and punished by being separated from their children (who also should be punished).  The byword is “zero tolerance.”

The danger from these brown-skinned or Muslim people is said to be so great that severe, even cruel and unconstitutional steps to prohibit entry, should be implemented.

According to this (and previous) administrations, what are these terrifying dangers? Supposedly, the immigrants:

  1. Are criminals.
  2. Bring drugs to America.
  3. Take jobs from American citizens
  4. Do not work, but take social benefits paid for by taxpayers
  5. Do not speak English.
  6. Are uneducated.
  7. Are different in that they do not follow U.S. mores.

Do current solutions work? Are these dangers real?  What should be done?

We Americans have some experience with broad-scale prohibitions.  During the 1920s and early 1930s, alcohol was a drug that was said to cause criminality, interfere with work, require social spending to treat, and is against our national mores.

So we banned alcohol and spent many millions of dollars to enforce that law. That didn’t work. It just caused even more criminality, and increased our jail population.

Later, we banned smoking by people under the age of 18-21 (depending on state). We spent many millions to facilitate the ban.

That didn’t work. Smoking by teens became common, and though few teens are legally punished for smoking, retailers have been punished for selling cigarettes to under-age people.

In addition to alcohol, we have banned the use of myriad other drugs, ranging from marijuana, through heroin, and even to more potent, mind-altering, man-made drugs. We spend billions to enforce our ban. That hasn’t worked. Instead, it too created criminals and served primarily to increase our jail population.

Car drivers are banned from speeding, a typical American amusement. We spend millions to enforce the ban. That hasn’t worked, though it has added to our court load and increased our jail population.

There is a pattern to all this: When we pass a law against something that a large number of people wish to do, the main effect will be to spend millions on enforcement and to create a large number of criminals.

And so it is with immigrants. When forced to choose between a miserable future for themselves and their children, versus a better life with the risk of jail or deportation, many people will choose the latter.

So we spend millions on border protection, laws, courts, jails, and deportations. And still the immigrants come.

Someone (Albert Einstein? Mark Twain? Benjamin Franklin? Your father?) said, in effect, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.”

Perhaps a bit of original thinking is in order.

What if . . . just what if . . . we opened our borders? 

Now before you immediately assume disaster, let’s look at reality. The vast majority of people who want to enter, are the same kinds of people as the millions of immigrants for the past thousands of years: Good people just trying to make a better life.

And, in their efforts to make a better life, they also made America a better place for all of us. Immigration is exactly what has created America.

Since 1492, and even earlier, with Columbus and before, millions of people have come through our relatively open borders.

Some have been criminals; most were not. Some dealt drugs and other forms of “snake oil.” Most did not.

Rather than taking jobs and social benefits from those who preceded them, they created jobs by being consumers, builders, taxpayers, and dreamers. They were farmers, blacksmiths, poets, musicians.

They became the American melting pot.

Many were uneducated. Many did not speak English. And they were different, and that difference contributed to our unique “Americaness.”

Here we relish our differences — the hyperactives of the East, the slow, hospitable Southerners, the bible-belt mentality blending with the Midwest friendliness, the self-sufficient cowboys, the California trend starters, the rock-ribbed traditionalists of the Northeast.

The first immigrants came to North America from what currently is called Russia, between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago.

The first colony from Europe was begun in  Jamestown (now Virginia), in 1607. The legal entity known as the United States of America began in 1776.

And still the people came, unrestricted for thousands of years. Between 1820 and 1880, political and economic conditions brought over 2.8 million Irish immigrants to the United States.

It is important to note that extensive federal legislation dealing with immigration was not enacted for some time.

At first it was unclear whether the federal government was given the authority by the Constitution to regulate immigration. Also, unrestricted immigration was desirable as a means for obtaining labor and achieving growth as a nation.

Discontent with an open immigration policy increased with the tremendous rate of immigration and with the change in the composition of immigrants. German Catholic immigrants came during the 1840s.

American society did not accept the Irish Catholics and Germans, and movements to limit immigration began to form.

Note the similarity to not accepting Muslims and Mexican Catholics.

After the Civil War, federal law began to reflect the growing desire to restrict immigration of certain groups. In 1875, Congress passed the first restrictive statute for immigration, barring convicts and prostitutes from admission.

The 1875 Act also attempted to deal with the problem of Chinese labor in the West. Imported Chinese labor had been used since 1850, and the tension between the Chinese workers and the settlers of European descent ran high.

The Chinese, like today’s South Americans, were thought to be taking jobs from “real” American citizens. It wasn’t true, of course. Their labor actually created jobs.

Congress adopted a law outlawing so-called “coolie- labor” contracts and immigration for lewd and immoral purposes. In 1882, Congress took even stronger action in the Chinese Exclusion Act, the nation’s first racist, restrictive immigration law.

America had an open-borders policy until 1875, and even then the policy remained quite limited and scarcely enforced. And all the while, we grew and became the magnificent nation we are, today.

Mounted watchmen of the U.S. Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted.

The inspectors, usually called Mounted Guards, operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than seventy-five, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration.

Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws.

Customs violations and intercepting communications to “the enemy” seemed to be of a greater concern than enforcing immigration regulations in the early years of the twentieth century.

After 1917, a higher head tax and literacy requirement imposed for entry prompted more people to try to enter illegally.

By creating laws against immigration, we created lawbreakers. It is ever thus.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the importation, transport, manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages went into effect at midnight on January 16, 1920.

With the passage of this constitutional amendment and the numerical limits placed on immigration to the United States by the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, border enforcement received renewed attention from the government.

The numerical limitations resulted in people from around the world to try illegal entry if attempts to enter legally failed.

The history of U.S. immigration can be summarize by two statements:

Until only about 100 years ago, America had largely open borders, and with that loose immigration, we grew and prospered.

The act of passing a criminal law creates new criminals, non-productive people who must be dealt with by non-productive segments of our society: The police, the courts, the lawyers, and the jails.

All this is a drain upon society.

Now, having not learned from history, we devote ever more of our national assets to keeping out the very same kinds of people who built America.

The facts are that undocumented immigrants:

  1. Are proportionately less likely to commit crimes than are native born citizens.
  2. Are not an important source of drugs, the vast majority of which comes in via legal channels.
  3. Do not take jobs from American citizens but rather create jobs.
  4. Do work, do pay taxes, and do not take social benefits paid for by taxpayers
  5. Either know English or learn it, and their children learn it, in any event, are not a burden on the country.
  6. Want their children to be educated and productive members of society.
  7. Acclimate to U.S. mores.

In our misguided attempts to keep out the few worst, and those different from “us,” we bar the many thousands of the best. To purify to absolute whiteness, we exclude the multitude of colors that together make us beautiful.

My suggestion is not only to open the borders, but to help immigrants to become citizens and to contribute to our society. (See the “Ten Steps to Prosperity,” below.)

Yes, we should continue to bar those who are criminals or other state enemies. But our immigration policies, far from “making America great, again,” instead throw out the baby with the bathwater.

For cowards, no wall is high enough

The iron curtain we’ve erected on our southern border does not protect us. It simply makes us cowards and deprives us of what has built America.

We must make the path to citizenship faster and easier. Bring in those valuable families and help them to contribute to our success.

Rather than assuming all immigrants are criminal, open the doors to those wonderful minds and hands, and simply prosecute the small minority of those who become criminal when here.

That is the approach that always has worked in the past. It has made America great. It will make America great, again.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

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
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
Image result for america builds mexico wall higher

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: