–Fed embraces madness: Repeatedly does the same thing, expecting a different result

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
==========================================================================================================================================

Never before have I reprinted a posting from this blog, but I will do it now, because it is even more appropriate today than it was when first published, three years ago. First, please read the following article from Yahoo News:

Market enthusiasm over Fed’s latest easing fades as US budget discussions continue
By Pan Pylas, AP Business Writer | Associated Press; 12/13/12

LONDON (AP) — Any enthusiasm over another monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve faded Thursday as investors monitored the progress of budget discussions in the U.S. As had been widely predicted, the Fed said Wednesday it will spend $85 billion a month on bond purchases to drive down long-term borrowing costs and stimulate economic growth.

The total includes the replacement of an expiring Fed program with a commitment to purchase $45 billion a month on long-term Treasurys. Those purchases, and the Fed’s renewed commitment to keep interest rates low until unemployment falls to a more normal level, are intended to spur borrowing and spending in an economy still growing only modestly since the financial crisis of 2008.

So, there will be no monetary stimulus. Instead, the Fed will drive down long-term interest rates. (Short-term rates have been near zero, and that has accomplished nothing, so the focus shifts to long-term rates.)

Here is the article published September 9, 2009, titled “The low interest rate/GDP growth fallacy”

The article contains a graph which has been brought up to date:

================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
THE LOW INTEREST RATE / GDP GROWTH FALLACY

       The Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation. To fight recession, the Fed does the opposite. It cuts interest rates.
      This may sound logical except for one, very small detail. The opposite of inflation is not recession. The opposite of inflation is deflation. So doing the opposite of what you would do to counter inflation makes no sense when trying to counter a recession.
      We could have a recession with deflation. We could have a recession with inflation, which is called “stagflation.” The history of Fed rate cuts, as a way to stimulate the economy, is not a good one. The Fed, under Chairman Greenspan, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: A recession that President Bush’s tax cuts cured.
      The Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: The 2008 recession.
      Why does popular faith hold that cutting interest rates stimulates the economy? Because popular faith views only one side of the equation. For each dollar borrowed a dollar is lent. $B = $L. That much is trivial.
      Cutting interest rates does cost borrowers less. So, the theory is, a business needing $100 million would be more likely to borrow if interest rates are low than when they are high. Further, consumers are more likely to spend when borrowing is less costly. So making borrowing less costly stimulates business growth and consumer buying. At least, that is the theory.
      What seems to be ignored is the lending side of the equation. When interest rates are low, lenders receive less money. And who are the lenders? Businesses and consumers.
      You are a lender when you buy a CD or a bond, or put money into your savings account. When interest rates are low, you receive less money, which means you have less money to spend on goods and service — which means less stimulus for the economy.
      In short, interest rates flow through the economy, with some people and businesses paying and some receiving. Domestically, it’s a zero-sum game.
      A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Cutting interest rates does not add money to the economy. That is why there is no historical correlation between interest rates and economic growth. During periods of high rates, GDP growth is not inhibited. During periods of low rates, GDP growth is not stimulated.

Please review the following graph:

Blue is interest rates. Red is GDP growth. Not only are low interest rates not associated with high economic growth, but the opposite seems to be true. There seems to be a correlation between high interest rates and high GDP growth. How can this be?
      When interest rates are high, the federal government pays more interest on T-securities, which pumps more money into the economy. This additional money stimulates the economy.
      This shows why the Fed’s repeated rate cuts do not seem to stimulate the economy. The action has been shown, time and again, to be counter-productive. Cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy is like pouring water on a drowning man.
      Do you remember these headlines: “Employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March.” “The U.S. central bank has lowered rates by 3 percentage points since mid-September” “The loss of jobs signals another interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve later this month.” “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged Wednesday that the country could be heading toward a recession, saying federal policymakers are ‘fighting against the wind’ in combating it.”
      Rate cut after rate cut did nothing. So what was the Fed’s plan? More rate cuts. During the previous recession, the Fed also attempted rate cut after rate cut, also to no avail. The recession, finally ended with the Bush tax cuts. The Fed has not learned from experience, but stubbornly adheres to the popular faith that interest rate cuts stimulate the economy.
Rate cuts do not stimulate the economy. They never have. They never will.
      “Stimulating” an economy means making it larger. A large economy requires more money than does a smaller economy. Therefore, the only thing that stimulates the economy is the addition of money.
      Rate cuts, by reducing the amount of interest the federal government pays, actually reduce the supply of money. We are on the edge of a recession, because the economy is starved for money. The coming “stimulus” checks will help, but they are too little and too late. This should have been done months ago, and the amounts should be far larger.
      The only way to prevent or cure a recession: Federal deficit spending. There is no excuse for recession or inflation. These problems are not economic failures. They are leadership failures.

You also might find another post, “Low interest rates: The sneak tax on you” of interest.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

108 so-called “economists,” who put their reputations and their legacies on a shameful letter

The National Taxpayers Union, the self proclaimed “America’s independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers” has managed to dupe 108 so-called “economists” into writing a truly stupid letter.

You can read the letter, then see the “economists” who were foolish enough to attach their names to it:

Fiscal Cliff Tax Hikes Risk Economic Damage.
An open letter to Congress:

December 11, 2012
Dear Members of Congress:

As the nation approaches the so-called “fiscal cliff,” we, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to carefully consider the relative merits of tax increases and spending restraint. Increasing taxes would likely slow or reverse our nation’s fragile economic recovery and undermine long-term growth. Restraining the growth of expenditures, however, would help stabilize the government’s fiscal imbalance and create a more conducive environment for robust expansion.

Tax increases and “restraining the growth of expenditures” both reduce the deficit by an equal amount and reduce GDP growth, also by an equal amount. GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports.

By the way, when you worry about your own budget, do you feel your problem is you make too little or you spend too much? Think about it.

Some in Congress have advocated allowing the 2001 and 2003 taxpayer relief laws to expire for some or all taxpayers. Such an action would have a significant, negative impact on the economy. Low taxes can have a constructive economic effect by keeping money in the private sector, where it is far more likely to be utilized for efficient purposes.

Low taxes and high spending both “keep money in the private sector.”

By contrast, raising taxes would divert resources into the relatively inefficient public sector, thereby curbing potential job creation and economic growth. This effect would be even more pronounced during a persistent slump.

Raising federal taxes does not “divert resources to the public sector.” If you had even a modicum of understanding about Monetary Sovereignty, you would know that federal taxes only take money out of the private sector. Period. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government does not use tax dollars.

Further, the spending cuts being contemplated (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, military) would remove dollars from the private sector – exactly what you claim to oppose.

In particular, Congress should avoid raising marginal tax rates on income and taxes on investment, such as capital gains and dividends taxes. These types of taxes most directly and meaningfully affect job creation.

Do we detect some extra concern for the mistreated, upper .1% income group? Is that why you don’t want to raise taxes on the richest people, “in particular”?

Additionally, lawmakers must resist other destructive proposals that would boost effective tax burdens, such as curtailing itemized deductions for higher earners or imposing discriminatory taxes on energy or other industries. Such policies are merely revenue-raising ploys when executed outside the context of comprehensive tax reform that includes correspondingly lower marginal rates. And like other tax increases, they would serve as inadequate substitutes to much-needed spending restraint.

We see your hearts truly do bleed for those higher earners and their unprofitable energy companies.

While some Members of Congress are concerned about the short-term impacts of slowing the growth of federal expenditures, they must uphold their commitment to the American people to address the alarming trajectory of U.S. spending and borrowing. There are more tangible benefits to consider as well: research has shown that spending restraint is superior to tax increases for both deficit reduction and long-term economic vitality. This has proven true in many other developed nations that have implemented fiscal adjustments.

Really? Which countries have cut deficits and as a result, achieved long-term vitality? I’d love to watch you struggle to come up with your non-existent “research.”

To best foster a strong economy, Congress should ultimately create a simpler system of taxation with a broader base and low rates on income and investment. Simultaneously, it should prioritize government programs and pursue entitlement reforms that bring the budget to sustainable balance. Individuals and businesses are depending on — and deserve — greater certainty in policy making that affects their everyday financial decisions.

In summary, you want “simpler” taxation on a “broader base” (i.e a flat tax that takes more from lower income people), low rates on investment (i.e. low rates on the wealthy) and entitlement reforms (i.e. cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps et al).

We have but one question: Were you “economists” bribed or threatened, or did you receive your degrees by mail order?

To all readers of this post: If you feel like looking these guys up, and telling them what nincompoops they are, I would have no objection.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned (affiliations listed for identification purposes only):

James C.W. Ahiakpor, California State University, East Bay
Donald L. Alexander, Western Michigan University
Howard Baetjer, Towson University
Charles W. Baird, California State University, East Bay
Stacie Beck, University of Delaware
James P. Beckwith, North Carolina Central University
Daniel K. Benjamin, Clemson University
Michael Bennett, Curry College
James T. Bennett, George Mason University
William Beranek, University of Georgia
M. Douglas Berg, Sam Houston State University
Richard E. Bernstein, Temple University
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado at Boulder
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michael Bond, University of Arizona
Scott C. Bradford, Brigham Young University
Charles H. Breeden, Marquette University
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Lawrence Brunner, Central Michigan University
Phillip J. Bryson, Brigham Young University
James L. Butkiewicz, University of Delaware
William N. Butos, Trinity College
Victor Canto, La Jolla Economics
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Kenneth W. Chilton, Lindenwood University
Lawrence R. Cima, John Carroll University
Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of Miami
John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Michelle Connolly, Duke University
Michael Connolly, University of Miami
Mike Cosgrove, University of Dallas
Eleanor D. Craig, University of Delaware
Wayne Crews, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Ward S. Curran, Trinity College
Lawrence S. Davidson, Indiana University
Anthony Davies, Duquesne University
Ronnie H. Davis, Florida Institute of Technology
Clarence R. Deitsch, Ball State University
Stephen J. Dempsey, University of Vermont
Joseph S. DeSalvo, University of South Florida
Floyd H. Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Frank Egan, Trinity College
John B. Egger, Towson University
Richard E. Ericson, East Carolina University
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Eugene F. Fama, University of Chicago
Dorsey D. Farr, French, Wolf & Farr
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Price V. Fishback, University of Arizona
John A. Flanders, Central Methodist University
Garry A. Fleming, Roanoke College
Harold D. Flint, Montclair State University
James Forcier, University of San Francisco
Bill Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Michele Fratianni, Indiana University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
David E.R. Gay, University of Arkansas
Gregory Gelles, Missouri University of Science and Technology
Robert Genetski, Classicalprinciples.com
Paul J. Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation President
Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John’s University
Adam Gifford, Jr., California State University, Northridge
Otis W. Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
Stephan F. Gohmann, University of Louisville
Rodolfo A. Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Linda Gorman, Independence Institute
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Anthony J. Greco, Louisiana University
William B. Green, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth V. Greene, Binghamton University
John G. Greenhut, Texas A&M University – Commerce
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Earl Grinols, III, Baylor University
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
David L. Hammes, University of Hawaii – Hilo
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Scott Harrington, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum President
Charles L. Hooper, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
James L. Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
Austin Jaffe, Pennsylvania State University
D. Bruce Johnsen, George Mason University School of Law
Richard E. Just, University of Maryland
Alexander Katkov, Johnson & Wales University
Peter Kerr, Southeast Missouri State University
E. Han Kim, University of Michigan
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Kishore G. Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Ben Kyer, Francis Marion University
Nicholas A. Lash, Loyola University Chicago
Don R. Leet, California State University, Fresno
Norman Lefton, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
Tony Lima, California State University
Jody W. Lipford, Presbyterian College
Hong Liu, Washington University, St. Louis
Edward J. Lopez, San Jose State University
Donald L. Luskin, Trend Macrolytics, LLC
R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho
Glenn MacDonald, Washington University, St. Louis
Keith Malone, University of North Alabama
Yuri N. Maltsev, Carthage College
Henry G. Manne, George Mason University
Richard D. Marcus, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Michael L. Marlow, California Polytechnic State University
Deryl W. Martin, Tennessee Technological University
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
Roger E. Meiners, University of Texas – Arlington
Stephen Mennemeyer, University of Alabama, Birmingham
Harry Messenheimer, Rio Grande Foundation
Thomas Miller, University of Connecticut
Jim Miller, Former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director
David M. Mitchell, Missouri State University
James E. T. Moncur, University of Hawaii
Wilbur Monroe, U.S. Treasury Department, International Affairs (Ret.)
Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation
Michael Morrisey, University of Alabama
Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama Law School
Ronald M. Nate, Brigham Young University – Idaho
James F. Nieberding, Cleveland State University & North Coast Economics, LLC
James. B. O’Neill, University of Delaware
Lee E. Ohanian, University of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Donald J. Oswald, California State University, Bakersfield
H. Edwin Overcast, Black & Veatch
Richard A. Palfin, Economic Analysis
Penn R. Pfiffner, Construction Economics, LLC
G. Michael Phillips, California State University, Northridge
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Barry W. Poulson, University of Colorado at Boulder (Ret.)
Richard W. Rahn, Institute of Global Economic Growth
R. David Ranson, H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc.
Farhad Rassekh, University of Hartford
Mark William Rider, Georgia State University
Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Philip Romero, University of Oregon
Larry L. Ross, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Timothy P. Roth, University of Texas, El Paso
Charles K. Rowley, George Mason University
Paul H. Rubin, Emory University
John Ruggiero, University of Dayton
John Rutledge, Rutledge Capital, LLC
Robert Sauer, Royal Holloway, University of London
Robert Haney Scott, California State University, Chico
John J. Seater, North Carolina State University
Richard T. Selden, University of Virginia
Ann Sherman, DePaul University
Vlad Signorelli, Bretton Woods Research
Daniel Smith, Troy University
Chester Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University
Frank Spreng, McKendree College
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Craig A. Stephenson, Babson College
Derek Stimel, Menlo College
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, University of California, Los Angeles
John A. Tatom, Indiana State University
Jason E. Taylor, Central Michigan University
Rebecca Thacker, Ohio University
David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute
Wade L. Thomas, State University of New York at Oneota
Richard Timberlake , University of Chicago
Stephen A. Tolbert, Montgomery County Community College
David G. Tuerck, Suffolk University
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute President
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University Program on Freedom and Free Societies
Kamal P. Upadhyaya, University of New Haven
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard K. Vedder, Ohio University
George J. Viksnins, Georgetown University
John Volpe, Catholic University of America
Ralph Walkling, LeBow College, Drexel University
Alan Rufus Waters, California State University, Fresno
Paul W. Wilson, Clemson University
Michael K. Wohlgenant, North Carolina State University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Frank Wykoff, Pomona College
Thomas L. Wyrick, Missouri State University
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Robert Niehaus, President, Robert Niehaus, Inc. (signature consent received after date of letter’s release)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–You think you’re smart? So why do you do the dirty work of the .1%?

Those who understand economics are aware of this, very simple fact: The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign (since August 15, 1971), never can run short of its sovereign currency, the dollar.

Congress never needs to ask anyone for dollars – not you, not me, not China. The government never needs to ask us for tax dollars, and never needs to beg China for borrowed dollars. So, no amount of deficit or (misnamed) “debt” is “unsustainable.”

Further, being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has the unlimited ability to set the value of the dollar, so it is no accident that inflation continues to hover near the Fed’s desired rate of 2% – 3% per year. The U.S. government is the absolute sovereign over the dollar.

For the past 15 years, I have struggled to make this concept so clear even a child could understand it. Others have struggled even longer. Yet after all this effort, not one person in a thousand has learned this basic idea.

Attempts to educate the politicians, the media, the mainstream economists and the public have failed. In previous posts ( The Obama conspiracy dance continues. Hope you’re enjoying the show) and ( Revealing the conspiracy: A recommendation for followers of MMT and Monetary Sovereignty) I have explained how the ultra-wealthy, the .1%, has spent billions to bribe politicians, control the media, intimidate the economists and brainwash the public about our economy.

The key to their success is in getting the public to do the dirty work of misinformation. The public has been taught not only to scorn the government, but to scorn those of the 99.9% who receive any sort of benefits – from the government or from business.

Receive a pension? You’re scorned. Receive food stamps: Scorned. Housing assistance, Medicaid, do you march for social justice? Scorned. It has come to the point where my suggesting increased federal help for anyone, immediately invites the rejoinder that people receiving assistance will become sloths, and then “who will pick up the garbage.”

Just as dictators teach their soldiers to kill their own neighbors, the .1% has taught the 99.9% to hate anyone asking for more. Consider unions. Many Americans hate unions, simply because unions demand a minuscule fraction of what the .1% already has.

National Memo

Koch Brothers Win, Democracy Loses: Michigan Passes ‘Right To Work,’ Governor Will Sign
December 11th, 2012, Jason Sattler

Without one hearing or any public comment in the midst of a lame-duck session after an election where Republicans lost five seats in the State House and their presidential candidate lost the state by 9.5 percent, Republicans in both Michigan’s House and Senate have passed so-called ‘right to work’ legislation.

Republican governor Rick Snyder, who campaigned as a moderate and continually said that ‘right to work’ was not on his agenda now, says he will sign the legislation.

Thus Michigan will become the 24th state in the union to pass legislation that bars unions from automatically collecting dues from all employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement. This highly symbolic move to strike at the heart of unions in the state where unionized auto workers helped create the middle class would not be possible without the support of multi-billionaires, specifically the Koch brothers and Rich DeVos, founder of Amway.

I now will hear from those brainwashed by the Kochs and DeVos of the world, reciting the transgressions of unions – as though the super rich do not transgress. That union guy who gets paid a couple dollars an hour too much for doing too little work — he is the criminal. The Kochs and DeVos, who are paid billions for traveling the world in private jets – they have “earned” their sloth.

Who says so? You of the 99.9% say so.

The bill that Snyder will sign is nearly identical to model legislation written by Koch-funded group American Legislative Exchange Council. Another Koch-funded group, Americans for Prosperity, has been advocating for the legislation, reportedly pressuring lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, who had previously refused to support the anti-union measure.

How do they “pressure” It’s spelled M-O-N-E-Y. The Kochs et al, have more than do the unions, and the Supreme Court has given free rein to the .1%, to spend, spend, spend.

A group calling itself “Freedom To Work” has deluged Michigan’s TV airwaves in support of the legislation, arguing that the bill would both create jobs and “protect collective bargaining.” According to state rep. Brandon Dillon, Freedom To Work is funded by Amway’s DeVos

Yes, protecting collective bargaining is the primary concern of Rich (appropriate name) DeVos. You believe that, don’t you?

Longtime Michigan political advisor Dana Houle (says): “Don’t anyone think that passing ‘right to work’ in Michigan is about economics, about jobs, about business,” Houle said. “It’s about wiping out the political and electoral power of unions so they can’t stand in the way of Dick DeVos electing apparatchiks who will enact his radical religious-right and anti-public schools agenda.”</blockquote>

And, the public — 99.9% of it — is all for cutting the power of . . . the 99.9%. The public often is for outrages committed against their neighbors. Dictators count on it.

Outside the Capitol, thousands of union supporters protested and several were hit with pepper spray, including former congressman Mark Schauer.

Ah, the police. Solid members of the 99.9%, always ready to do the bidding of the .1%, while the public applauds. Those protests are so messy. Better to have nice clean cuts in employment, salaries, pensions, medical care, education and housing for the poor. I mean, we all hate big government handouts — oh, except those tax handouts given to Mitt Romney and other mega-rich folks.

Have any of you police, you of the 99.9%, have you pepper-sprayed the Koch brothers or their unsavory political allies? If not, why not? The Kochs and the right wing politicians are the ones stealing dollars from your pockets.

Or would you rather pepper spray a union member?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–The Obama conspiracy dance continues. Hope you’re enjoying the show.

In case you don’t believe there is a conspiracy to widen the income gap, or you just hate the word “conspiracy,” consider “Fix the Debt.” It is a gang of rich guys, plus bought-and-paid-for, politicians, all dreaming up ways to screw you.

Here is what the notorious Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says:

Fix the Debt Holds Event on Health Care and Taxes

On Tuesday, the Fix the Debt Campaign held an event on ways to reform the tax code and health spending. The event included speeches from Sen. Rob Portman, NEC director Gene Sperling, and Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, along with many other experts from across the political spectrum. Panelists discussed how health care spending should be reined in and what the best ways to reform the tax code.

Translation: “Across the political spectrum” means the “wealthy and the toadies of the wealthy.”

“Reined in” means cut your health care.

“Reform” means “broaden the tax base” which in turn means “tax the middle and bottom more, and tax the top less.”

Unfortunately, the lower 99% income group has fallen for the Big Lie of the upper 1%, so will continue to pay an ever higher price for their ignorance.

And here comes the President, still pretending to be a friend of the 99%:

Yahoo News
By Mark Felsenthal | Reuters

In his weekly radio address, the President renewed his call for Republicans to extend middle-class tax cuts while letting tax rates go up for the wealthy. He also said he would be willing to find ways to bring down healthcare costs and make additional cuts to government social safety-net programs.

Translation: “Bring down healthcare costs” means take money from doctors, hospitals, and the pharmaceutical companies -– i.e from the economy -– and transfer it to the government, which has neither need nor use for it, but merely destroys it upon receipt.

“Additional cuts to government social safety-net programs” means . . . well, you know what that means: Steal dollars from the pockets of the lower income groups.

The President continued:

“We can and should do more than just extend middle-class tax cuts,” he said. “I stand ready to work with Republicans on a plan that spurs economic growth, creates jobs and reduces our deficit – a plan that gives both sides some of what they want.”

Translation: “I stand ready to work with the 1% to remove dollars from the economy, i.e. austerity, which will slow the economy and increase unemployment.

“I know this never has worked in the history of the world, because mathematically reducing the money supply cannot stimulate an economy. But you don’t know that, so you will buy into it and suffer for your ignorance, while the 1% will laugh and laugh, all the way to their (overseas, tax sheltered) banks..

Republicans have balked at tax rate increases, which they say would hurt small businesses and brake economic growth.

Translation: “Actually, the Republicans are right. Any increase in tax collections, by definition, removes money from the economy. So yes, a tax on the rich, or on the poor, hurts small business – also hurts big business and middle-size business. All taxes hurt business.

“However, let’s face it. The 1% seldom pays the top tax rate. They are too smart for that. Ask Warren Buffett, whose top tax rate is lower than his secretary’s (probably lower than yours, too.) But, by insisting on an increase in the top tax rate, I cover my butt with my constituents, who think I am working for them, while the 1% knows this is all a charade.

“Boehner knows the truth, too, but he is dancing with me, so he can cover his butt with his constituents. Eventually there will be a cosmetic increase in the top tax rate and a huge reduction in social spending, creating a big decrease in the federal deficit. Together that will punish everyone except the 1%, who will reward all us politicians for widening the income gap.

“Meanwhile, the public will applaud at how I’ve struggled to save the economy.

“I hope you are enjoying my show.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: