A disgrace of leadership. Starvation in America. Sunday, Oct 18 2020 

As you read excerpts from the following article, keep several facts in mind.

  1. Unlike state and local governments, the United States government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of dollars. Even if it collected zero tax dollars, the U.S. government could continue spending, forever.
  2. The American people are running short of money, and many are entering a starvation phase they never before had experienced.
  3. U.S. politicians, especially conservatives, claim that federal deficit spending (aka “money printing”) will cause inflation or will have to be paid for by our children. Neither claim is true. They both are part of what is known in economics, as “The Big Lie.”

It is a disgrace. The wealthiest government on earth, having infinite resources, is intentionally allowing its people to fall into starvation.

In the history of the United States, inflation never has been caused by federal deficit spending. Inflation always is caused by scarcity — shortages of vital products, usually food or energy (oil).

And the claim that aid given now will be paid for by our children later, not only is false, but makes no sense on the face of it.

No one pays for federal spending, not our children, not taxpayers, not anyone. All federal spending is funded exactly the same way: The federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays for something.

State and local governments don’t operate that way. They are not Monetarily Sovereign. They use tax dollars to pay their bills. The federal government does not.

What becomes of those federal tax dollars you send to the Internal Revenue Service or the U.S. Treasury? They are destroyed upon receipt. They cease to exist in any money measure. That is why there cannot be a definitive answer to the question, “How much money does the federal government have?” The correct answer is: It has infinite money.

And as for worries about future children paying for federal stimulus dollars, our children are paying now, by sliding into poverty.

Many children and adults will die too soon, by not being able to afford medical care or by inadequate nutrition. Many brilliant brains will be wasted by not being able to afford college.

This is today’s America, the once “golden land,” that now has been turned into “misery land.” And it all is unnecessary.

At the touch of a computer key, our federal politicians could end poverty in America. Yet, because their own bellies are full, they focus only on being re-elected, not on the welfare of the people.

The Democrats want to spend money into the economy; the Republicans refuse. It is that simple.

There is no apolitical way to sugar-coat this. It is the Republican Senate, led by Senator Mitch McConnell, that primarily is responsible for the currently growing poverty in America.

The Democrats are responsible for not explaining the facts to the American people, but at least they want to pump money into the economy. The Republicans don’t.

The blood of today’s impoverished and dying Americans is on GOP hands.

Yahoo Money
Millions of Americans are entering poverty amid pandemic as stimulus runs out
Denitsa Tsekova·Reporter, Sat, October 17, 2020
Millions of Americans have been thrown into poverty as government aid dried up in the last five months, according to a pair of studies, and those ranks will likely swell without more relief on the way.

“Poverty is rising in the United States,” Zach Parolin, a researcher at the Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy told Yahoo Finance (video above). “More families, once again, are struggling to put food on the table, struggling to provide for their families at a time when we have the means to be able to help them out.”

Eight million more Americans fell below the poverty threshold since May, a study by Columbia University found. A similar study from the University of Chicago and Notre Dame estimated 6 million Americans entered poverty for the same period.

A figurative “wall” divides federal wealth from starving people. The wall is guarded by Congress.

Without further government intervention, more Americans could follow, facing food insecurity, utility shutoffs, and even homelessness.

What a disgrace, what a cruel disgrace.

Visualize that to the left is a vast pile of wealth — money, food, medicine, education etc. — and to the right are homeless, starving people.

In between is a wall, guarded by the U.S. Congress, intentionally preventing the impoverished people from receiving aid.

That is America, today.

Poverty in the U.S. actually declined at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, thanks largely to two provisions in the CARES Act: stimulus checks and the extra $600 in weekly unemployment benefits.

Since then, there has been no second round of checks, and the extra unemployment benefits expired at the end of July.

“That’s just a lot of money that they’re going to have to do without,” Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist, told Yahoo Money. “It means people are going to be cutting back on what they can.”

While the funding provided under the $2.2 trillion CARES Act was the largest economic stimulus package in history, its effects won’t last long enough to support those in financial hardship, especially when the job market and the economy haven’t recovered.

“Unless we see a miraculous employment recovery,” Parolin said, “it’s certain that families are going to need some extra income support to be able to pay the bills and put food on the table.”

The fading effect of the stimulus comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin continue talks for a bipartisan stimulus deal.

But disagreements on price tag and key provisions, lack of GOP support, and the proximity of the election all lower the prospects of a deal before the election.

The bottom line is quite clear. The Republicans, having for decades told their constituents that federal deficits are bad for the people and bad for the economy, now do not want to tell the simple truth: Federal deficit spending is necessary for economic growth.

So despite the fact that predictably, deficit spending for stimuli has been beneficial, with none of the politicians’ dire predictions realized, the GOP would rather see people starve than to admit they have been lying all along.

I hate to put this in such stark political terms, but there is no way around it: The Democrats want more stimulus; the Republicans want less. Period.

With no additional support, experts warned that the economy will slow and fewer jobs will be created. Protections for renters and borrowers also are set to expire, likely leading to another increase in poverty.

The so-called “protections for renters and borrowers” merely shifted the pain to landlords and lenders, who also are people suffering from the recession.

The solution is not to transfer pain from one group to another, but rather for the federal government to pump dollars into the pockets of all the people.

Only the federal government can spend money without feeling pain.

“Poverty is going to continue to rise,” Meyer said. “You’re going to have people having had more and more weeks out of work, and only a fraction of those lost earnings replaced. That’s going to accumulate over time.”

The financial hardships caused by this will likely mean a rise in people who can’t pay rent and utility bills, who will struggle to buy food, and who could even lose their homes.

“It’s sad to say,” Parolin said, “we can probably expect to see an increase in homelessness in the United States.”

At least 38 states have paid out all their funds available under the Lost Wages Assistance (LWA) program. (David Foster/Yahoo Finance)

The above article should make you furious. All this pain, all this hunger, all this tragedy in America, coming mostly from the party that promised to “Make America Great, Again,” is completely unnecessary.

Way back in April we published an article titled “The coming depression; The problem and the solution.” It began:

There is no other way to say this. We (in the U.S.) are headed for a depression because we have an incompetent and untruthful government.

Our fundamental problem is the lack of money in the private sector. The solution is for the federal government, which being Monetarily Sovereign has unlimited money, to pump dollars into the economy.

Sorry, but it isn’t any more complex than that.

Problem: Lack of money. Solution: Add money. How much money? What the economy lost due to the virus.

The economy needs at least $7 Trillion net added from the federal government. But, our Congress is spending far too little and spending way too late.

Unless Congress and the President deign to see the light, we have no way to prevent a depression.

That was April, yet Congress and the President still have not seen the light.

So you will suffer, sadly, needlessly, disgracefully. We will have a depression. The blame is directly on the shoulders of Congress and the President. You trusted them. They failed you.

Be sure to vote.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Will people still work if the government gives them money? Saturday, Oct 17 2020 

There is a rather widespread belief that if the government simply gives people money, they won’t work. Instead, they will be satisfied with the money they are given.

Long days, hard labor another day at the office for Oregon firefighters - CNN.com

Forest Fire Fighter: Median pay, $40,815 a year.

The variables in this hypothesis are: The amount of money, the people’s needs, the jobs available, the salaries available, and perhaps most importantly, the psychology of the people with regard to work.

There is a strange paradox that the people who labor hardest or at the least appealing jobs are paid the least.

It’s a paradox only because, for instance, one would think an employer would have to pay more to get someone willing to dig in a windowless, damp, dark, dreary, dangerous mine than to a teacher sitting in a comfortable, clean, often air-conditioned room, with windows to the outside.

Where would you rather be: A mine or a classroom?

Yet the median coal miner’s salary is about $29 per hour and the median elementary school teacher’s salary is about — right, that same $29 per hour.

When those coal miners, school teachers, forest fire fighters, et al are out of work, Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) refers to them as “buffer-stock.”

When you are nothing more than “buffer-stock,” you have no ambitions, preferences, or human needs.

You are just a peg to be fitted into an appropriately-sized government hole.

And having none of those aforesaid ambitions, preferences, or needs, you will be satisfied with whatever amount of money you have and/or receive.

So, if you are a buffer-stock person formerly making $50,000 a year, and the government was to pay you $30,000 a year, you will be satisfied, and not work to earn even more. At least, that is the belief of MMT and others with similar views.

California construction firm buys Lunda Construction

Highway construction worker: Median pay: $45,940 per year

And that is why MMT suggests its Jobs Guarantee.

Rather than having the government simply give you money, MMT et al would give you a minimum wage job, that you may or may not (probably, not) like, to prevent you and the other lazy slugs from just lolling about, doing nothing but collecting the dole.

The MMT rationale is that having any job, even a crap job, will look good on your resume, and help you find a job.

Puleeeze! I personally have hired hundreds of people, and never have found that make-work on a resume was more attractive than no-work.

Quite the opposite.

The myth of the lazy poor is rampant and ignores the reality that pay scales tend to be inverse to effort or benefit to society.

The laziest people on earth probably are the billionaires who resent having to walk, drive, lift, wash a dish, make a bed, set an appointment, wait in a line, fill out a form, or rear a child.

For those rich, their primary contribution to society is to give falsely appreciated property to charity, thereby gaining more in tax deductions than the cost of the property. (Hello, Donald Trump, who hasn’t paid taxes in most of the past 20 years).

These entitled few are given tax breaks that allow them to pay little or nothing against millions or even billions of annual income.

Yet there is annoyance, even among your fellow buffer-stocks, when a poor person receives any sort of free ride. Taking a few dollars in food stamps receives sneers even from the middle classes.

When there is a mention of Step 3. of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below) [Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in Americasimilar to social security for all], there is heard in our land, plaintive moans, “Who will pick up our garbage; who will pave our streets; who will mow our lawns, who will do the dirty work the rest of us can’t bear to touch?”

The whole notion of the “buffer-stock” not caring to earn more and lift their standard of living is demeaning, ridiculous, and ignorant.

BUT, let’s say it’s true. Let’s say that if you simply give all those road construction workers the equivalent of their salary, and they decide not to work, what would happen?

First, it would stimulate the economy. When state and local governments pay bills, they use existing, recirculated dollars. No stimulus there.

But when the federal government pays bills, it uses newly created dollars, which increases the nation’s money supply and stimulates Gross Domestic Product.

Second, there would be a shortage of road construction workers, which would lift their salaries, and that would narrow the Gap between the richer and the poorer. A narrow Gap benefits the masses, which should be both a moral and economic goal of any nation.

In Summary, people are not “buffer-stock.” They are humans with hopes and dreams for themselves and their children. Whatever they have, they want more.

If unemployed people need money, give them money, not junk jobs.

Don’t pretend it is morally unsavory to do for the poor exactly what the government does for the rich. The less affluent need money, so give them money.

The inverse relationship between effort and reward is an abomination. If being given money means fewer people will accept junk jobs, good.

That will help force employers to make the jobs less “junky.” Work environments will improve and the pay will increase. Those are good results.

Every man, woman, and child in America should receive Social Security, and the benefits themselves should be increased. The result would be greater economic growth and a narrower Gap between the richer and the rest.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The monstrous Supreme Court myth of “originalism” Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 

What is the purpose of the Supreme Court?

That simple question has no simple answer, and the Constitution is mostly silent about it.

Here are some not-so-simple answers:

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself.

The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).strict teacher | Yogi Mehtab

Thus, in 1803, the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided what its power will be.

That circular reasoning gives the Court whatever power it wishes to exercise on any given day.

(Remember the words, “not found within the text of the Constitution itself.” We’ll return to those words later.)

If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you judge cases? Would you judge according to your interpretation of”

  1. the plain, 1780s language in the Constitution?
  2. the words of the Constitution as they are used, today?
  3. what the framers of the Constitution meant in the 1780s?
  4. what the framers would have meant had they known about today’s realities?
  5. what you believe is best for America, today?

Today, as the Senate “debates” the fitness of Amy Coney Barrett, these questions become important.

Here is what Judge Barrett claims to believe:

Much of the hearing focused on such matters as Barrett’s judicial philosophy of Constitutional “originalism” and “textualism.”

She believes the Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the founding fathers in mind and statutes should be interpreted in accordance with the actual words or “text” used by legislators.

Judges should not impose their own policy beliefs to advance changing cultural norms.

Perhaps she thinks this is what she believes. Perhaps this is an honest answer, but I doubt it, for it is a lie.

Begin with the fact that the founding fathers did not know of today’s science: electronics, atomic energy, weapons of mass destruction, medicine.

Add to that the fact that 1780’s morality is quite different from today’s, especially with regard to women, people of color, and children.

By today’s standards, the founding fathers were blatant, selfish bigots, who believed that they were superior human beings, and the rest of us were inferior.

And add to that the fact that yesterday’s words often mean something quite different, today.

There is not a single paragraph, not a single sentence or word in the Constitution, that is not subject to interpretation.

Let us parse, for instance, just one sentence in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A well regulated: How “well” is well? How is “well” to be evaluated and who does the evaluation? Specifically, what is meant by “regulated”? Whose regulations must be followed — city, county, state, or federal?

Militia: What is a “militia”? Is it the U.S. army? Is it the National Guard? Is it the state police, county police, city or village police? Or is it some other, unidentified group, and if so, what are its powers?

being necessary: This phrase can mean “is necessary,” or it can be conditional, as in “when a well-regulated militia is necessary,

to the security of: What exactly does “security” mean? Does it have to do with foreigners who might attack us? Or does it refer to internal security from lawbreakers? Or does it have to do with individuals’ protection from an unfair government?

Currently, the United States, depending on interpretation, does not have any well-regulated militias, and if such are “necessary, we are not . . .

. . . .a free State,:  What then, is a “free state.” Free from what? Every law that ever has been, or ever will be passed, diminishes in some way, some citizen’s freedom, though it may enhance others’.

Not only are all of these words debatable, but just within the past few years, the entire 13-word phrase has been effectively eliminated.

We now come to the only part of the Amendment that has been left intact.

the right of the people: Which people? Does this include children of any age? Criminals? Non-citizens? And where can this “right” be exercised? In Congress? In a court of law? In jail? On the street?

to keep and bear: Where does “keep” mean? In a house? In a safety-deposit, bank vault? In a pocket? And where may one bear an Arm? In one’s hand? In one’s clothing? In one’s car?

Arms: What are “arms”? Atomic bombs? Fighter planes? Cannons? Machine guns? Poison gas? Tanks? Or does “Arms” include only what the founders knew about (i.e. “intended”): Swords? Muskets? Flintlock pistols?

shall not be infringed. Currently, “infringe” means to limit or undermine. So does this phrase mean there are to be no limits at all?

When Amy Coney Barrett claims she will follow “original intent” and the “actual words,” she either is lying or is naive, or both. She will do exactly what she claims she will not do: She will advance her own policy beliefs according to her own view of cultural norms.

Barrett, and other so-called originalists, like to paint themselves as innocent, blank slates, whose only information comes from the indisputable words of the Constitution.

They use the “I-can’t-help-it; that’s-what-the-Constitution-says” (or doesn’t say) excuse for doing exactly what they want to do.

Here is an example of that devious, originalist thinking:

Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks at all, issued a joint statement with Justice Samuel Alito, that the Court’s 2015 ruling “read a right to same-sex marriage…even though that right is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

He wrote it had “ruinous consequences for religious liberty” of those who might object.

Justice Thomas, who has spent his inferior career denying he is black, now uses the “nowhere to be found in the text” line as his excuse for ruling that his own religion‘s interpretations of civil law are to be found in the text.

(Remember, that the purpose of the Supreme Court itself is “nowhere to be found in the text,” so is Justice Thomas issuing a defacto objection to all his rulings?)

Despite related references in the Constitution, Thomas apparently believes religious dogma trumps the law.

There is a widespread notion, especially strong among conservatives, that Justices should not create new law. Rather, law-making is to be left to Congress and to the President.

Supposedly then, the Supreme Court should pretend America remains in the 17th Century, pretend to ignore the real world around them, and pretend to be robots who, without compassion, mercy, or care, judge only as our omniscient founding fathers would have judged.

Originalism is a myth, a monstrous myth, perpetuated through the years by an overly Christian, overly white, overly male, overly old Court. It is a myth that has excused and created numerous cruel, thoughtless legal opinions that have devastated millions of American lives.

The originalists sit on high, looking down, both literally and figuratively, divorced from the human needs of real people, and coldly rendering decisions destined to inflict pain.

I do not respect the “originalists” on the Court. They are callous, heartless, cold-blooded, archaic machines, who have forgotten the fundamental purpose of government: To improve the lives of the people.

Originalists are the strict disciplinarian, “anti-Ginsburgs” of our generation.

Amy Coney Barrett may be an intelligent woman, but without compassion she has no reason being put in a position of such power.

We only can pray, the harm she does will be short-lived and soon forgotten.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Planned Parenthood vs. Guns. Which do you favor? Which do you oppose? The very odd paradoxes. Sunday, Oct 11 2020 

Zygote - Wikipedia

Zygote: At this stage a human being?

.

Objections to abortion come in two “flavors.” The moral objection is that the fetus is a living human being, and anything done to terminate a fetus is murder.

This question devolves to timing. When does a human life begin?

Is an egg a human being? Most people would say, “No,” although the human egg, the largest cell in the body, contains almost everything required to make a human; the sperm, the smallest cell in the body, adds very little.

Is a human created the moment the egg is fertilized? Is a human created the moment a heartbeat can be detected?

Or when the fetus reacts to some stimulus — touch, sound, chemical? At what point during the pregnancy should the termination of a fetus be considered the murder of a human being?

Or, does human life begin only when the fetus emerges?

Despite the fury with which those questions are debated, there is no “right” answer. You can argue and present evidence until you turn blue, and you will not be able to prove anything. It’s all subjective.

We don’t even know how to define life, let alone determine when or if the end of a fetus should be defined as “murder.”

The other “flavor” is religious. Religions have rules that are couched in “morality,” but often have very little moral theme. Attending mass, eating kosher, covering your head, protecting the Qur’an, are not moral conscripts. They merely are religious rules, arbitrarily changeable, more akin to club rules than to morality.

Abortion is not even mentioned in the Old or New Testaments or in the Qur’an, though religious scholars have debated abortion for at least two thousand years, perhaps longer:.

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development.

In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.

Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.

Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.

In 1920 the Soviet Union became the 1st modern state formally to legalize abortion.

In the early period after the 1917 revolution, abortion was readily available in state operated facilities. These facilities were closed and abortion made illegal when it became clear that the Soviet Union would have to defend itself against Nazi Germany.

After World War II women were encouraged to enter the labor force, and abortion once again became legal.

Strangely, some people even object to the use of condoms, which seems to indicate they believe a sperm is a human being. Others object to “the pill,”  indicating the egg itself must be considered a human.

In sum, abortion laws have little to do with morals or with god. They are man-made (as opposed to woman-made) rules related to genital power and national interests.

I mention all this because of an odd paradox.

Consider Planned Parenthood. It is an organization reviled by some because it provides abortions. But it also:

“. . . provides a wide range of confidential, safe, expert health care. The majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are preventive: care that helps prevent unintended pregnancies with birth control and sex education, reduce the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”

Think of Planned Parenthood as a tool people can use, not only to end pregnancies, but to prevent pregnancies, and to educate themselves about many aspects of human reproduction and health. In this sense, Planned Parenthood does not abort; people abort.

Why do I phrase it that way? Because of guns, and the oft-heard defense of guns: “Guns don’t kill; people kill.”

There are several reasons why people own guns: For self-protection, for sport, to prevent and commit crimes. Guns are but a tool, the primary purpose of which is to threaten or kill. As a tool, the purpose of a gun is determined by the user.

So here we have two tools, Planned Parenthood and guns, that are tools, and as tools, their use is not determined by the tool but by the user.

The purposes of Planned Parenthood primarily are educational and self-protection, and secondarily to kill. The purposes of guns secondarily are entertainment and self-protection, but primarily to threaten and kill.

A real weirdness is revealed when you realize that the people who most avidly defend guns often are the same people who most avidly oppose Planned Parenthood. 

Another interesting thought: Those people who favor guns, while opposing Planned Parenthood, seem to care nothing about the aftermaths.

That is, what do gun owners do about people who have been shot?

What care is provided by, for instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) or any gun-owner group, for the people who survive a shooting, but are left with horrible disabilities, disfigurements, and terrible pain? What care is provided by gun owners for the families of people who are shot?

Similarly, what care is provided by abortion opponents, for unwanted children who sadly often suffer a lifetime of parental neglect? What care do pro-lifers provide to impoverished parents trying to care for those unwanted children? What care do anti-abortionists provide to mothers whose health is damaged by an unwanted pregnancy?

Ironically, it is the abortion providers, not the abortion opponents, who are more active in “sex education, reducing the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screening for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”

NRA Applauds Barrett. As a “pro-lifer” she opposes abortion, yet she favors anti-life guns. 

Guns and Planned Parenthood: So different, yet oddly parallel, like two trains on adjacent tracks, running in opposite directions.

Do you favor all types of guns? Do you oppose Planned Parenthood?

Why?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: