The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
========================================================================================================================================================
In the previous post ( We already have lost the war), I reprinted excerpts from an article written by John Mauldin, in which he asked, “When would a wise Jew have begun making plans to leave Germany?”
He reminds the reader about a series of events occurring in pre-World War II Germany that presaged the holocaust, events each of which would have given the “wise Jew” a clue about what was to happen. In each case, Mauldin asks whether this is the point at which the “wise Jew” should have seen the handwriting on the wall, and left. You might wish to read that post before continuing with this one.
The point of today’s post is that some of the same events occurring in pre-war Germany are occurring now in America, and this time, the main target is Islam. So the question is: When would the wise Muslim begin to make plans to leave America?
Here is one parallel with yesteryear:
Americans’ bias against Jews, Muslims linked, poll says By Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, January 21, 2010
A (Gallup) poll about Americans’ views on Islam concludes that the strongest predictor of prejudice against Muslims is whether a person holds similar feelings about Jews.
The poll, conducted in the fall (of 2009), is the latest large-scale survey to find a high level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. . . The Gallup poll asked Americans about their views of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism and found that 53 percent see Islam unfavorably.
And here is another hint for the “wise Muslim.”
Ground Zero:Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat by Romesh Ratnesar, Time, August 18, 2010
President Obama’s statement on Aug. 13 endorsing “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan” has unleashed another storm of partisan bloviation. Obama is “pandering to radical Islam,” says Newt Gingrich; John Boehner finds Obama’s comments “deeply troubling.” On this issue, the President’s critics have public opinion on their side: nearly 70% of Americans in a CNN–Opinion Research Corporation poll say they oppose a Ground Zero mosque.”
And yet another hint for the “wise Muslim”
Growing Bias Against Muslims In America Posted in Liberaland by Alan, 9/13/2010
“There is a hatred, an open hatred, and a lack of tolerance for people who are Muslim,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She said she has seen an uptick in discrimination complaints among Muslim workers in her region, which includes Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.
Claims of bias against Muslims in the workplace rose to 1,490 last year (2009) from 1,304 in 2008 and just 697 in 2004, according to EEOC figures. Last year’s total was even higher than in the year after the 9/11 attacks, when bias claims hit 1,463. Figures from this year are not yet available.
No, I am NOT suggesting that Muslims should leave America. On the contrary, my fervent prayer is that the anti-Muslim demigogs and the hate-mongering bigots will quit America and the Muslims will stay with us to enrich our multi-faceted society. But if you read the previous post and think about what happened in Germany and now is happening in America, you will see disturbing parallels.
We have not gone so far as a “Crystal Night” in America, yet. We like to think we are the compassionate land of the free – we like to think it couldn’t happen here — but in truth, no nation is immune from the bigotry disease. Perhaps the killing of bin Laden will reduce the heat, but I suspect that one more 9/11 tragedy will unleash the dogs of hatred, perhaps far worse than anything we have seen.
========================================================================================================================================== No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.
Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up my future.”
The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
==============================================================================================================================================================================================
We all are aware of the euro nations’ financial problems, especially the problems of the PIIGS – Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. We have discussed the fact that because these nations, in surrendering their Monetary Sovereignty, surrendered their control over their money supply. They are unable to create the money necessary to support their economies.
I predicted in a 1995 speech at the UMKC, “Because of the Euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.” However, not all European nations surrendered their Monetary Sovereignty. Among the nations choosing to remain Monetarily Sovereign are Poland, Romania, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom.
Here are some sample news items:
Bloomberg; 5/25/11: “Poland’s economic-growth forecast was raised to 3.9 percent from 3 percent at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
5/27/11: According to Capital Economics, a British research group, Romania’s economy will grow by 3% this year compared to a previous forecast of 1%, followed in 2012 by a 2.5% advance. The recovery will be fueled by private consumption, but also by the resumption of investments. Also the research group states that Romania has the second best potential for economic development in the region, along with Bulgaria, Poland and Russia.
OCDE:1/2/11 – Sweden is expected to continue to recover strongly from the recession as high saving, low interest rates and an improving jobs market encourage consumers to step up spending, according to the OECD’s latest Economic Survey of the country.
Bloomberg: 5/26/11: The mainland (Norway) economy will expand 3.3 percent this year and 4 percent in 2012, after growing 2.2 percent in 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said yesterday.
The Monetarily Sovereign nations are doing better than the monetarily non-sovereign nations. No surprise there for those of you who have been reading this blog. The key, of course, is for a Monetarily Sovereign nation to realize it’s Monetarily Sovereign. Not all do.
Why the British economy is in very deep trouble, Financial Times, Posted by Neil Hume on May 26, 2011
Here’s something for the Chancellor and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to chew on: a warning from Dr Tim Morgan, the global head of research at Tullett Prebon, that the deficit reduction plan won’t work and the UK is headed for a debt disaster.
Morgan says sectors that account for nearly 60 per cent of UK economic output are critically dependent on debt (public or private) and set to contract rather than expand. This will render economic growth implausible and means the burden of public and private debt will prove too heavy for the nation to carry:
Over the past decade, the British economy has been critically dependent on private borrowing and public spending. Now that these drivers have disappeared – private borrowing has evaporated, and the era of massive public spending expansion is over – the outlook for growth is exceptionally bleak.
Sectors which depend upon either private borrowing or public spending now account for at least 58% of economic output. These sectors are now set to contract rather than expand, which renders aggregate economic growth implausible. And, without growth, there may be no way of avoiding a debt disaster.
The UK, wisely avoided surrendering its Monetary Sovereignty, then forgot why it did so. It thinks, “the era of massive public spending is over.” Why? It has no idea. It believes it’s monetarily non-sovereign.
This puts the UK in the same position as the U.S., whose politicians, media and old-time economists do not understand the implications of Monetary Sovereignty. Read any article or listen to any politician, and you will not be able to tell whether the subject is a Monetarily Sovereign nation or a monetarily non-sovereign nation. They say exactly the same things about both.
What would you think about an investment advisor who gives exactly the same advice to a wealthy, married old man with no children, as he gives to an impoverished single, young woman supporting five children? If someone says exactly the same things, makes exactly the same predictions, and offers exactly the same advice regarding two diametrically opposite monetary situations, that person is a fraud.
I have just described the debt-hawk media, politicians and old-time economists.
============================================================================================================================================================================================== No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.
Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up my future.”
The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
==========================================================================================================================================================================
Here are five headlines and the first lines of their articles, from the May 26th Washington Post. What do these five articles have in common? What is their fundamental premise?
Senate rejects GOP budget plan that would overhaul Medicare
The Senate voted 57 to 40 against GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal, with all but five Republicans supporting the spending plan.
Plum Line: Senate Dems up pressure on GOP over Ryancare
Senate Democrats are going to hold a vote today on the GOP budget plan that includes the proposal to end Medicare as we know it, in an effort to put Senate Republicans on the spot and keep up momentum after the big Dem victory in NY-26.
2chambers: Ryan says Democrats have ‘lied to’ voters about his budget plan
One day after his party — as well as his 2012 budget blueprint — was dealt a stinging defeat in a New York special election, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that the election was not a referendum on Republicans’ proposed changes to Medicare, and he argued that Democrats had distorted the issue for political gain.
The California researcher who could save health-care reform — and the budget
Joe Selby has been named director of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Ezra Klein: When ex-budget directors stop being polite and start getting real
Peter Orszag, concluding a column on why Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms won’t work to control costs.
The fundamental premise is that the federal deficit should be reduced, and not one of these articles even questions it, much less discusses it. Imagine a group of people discussing the best way to sail from Europe to India, without falling off the edge of the world. Many ideas are debated fervently, but the fundamental premise – that one can fall off the edge of the world — never is discussed. When the fundamental premise is wrong, all solutions will be wrong. And that is why there never can be a good solution to our economic problems, no matter how long, passionately and cleverly we debate.
In a Monetarily Sovereign nation, deficits are what supply money to the economy. Without deficits, America would have no money and no economy. Because a large economy has more money than does a small economy, a growing economy requires a growing money supply. So growing deficits are necessary for economic growth. Further, a Monetarily Sovereign nation has the unlimited ability to pay any bills of any size, instantly.
All efforts to reduce the deficit, i.e. reduce the money supply, by necessity must result in recessions and depressions, and that is exactly what history has shown us. (See: Facts about Monetary Sovereignty )
Our economic problems cannot be solved so long as the discussions are based on a faulty premise. Only when we acknowledge the basic truth of Monetary Sovereignty – federal deficit spending is necessary and sustainable — will we create a solid foundation for economic progress.
We can’t find our way home if we take the wrong path.
========================================================================================================================================== No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.
Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up my future.”
Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Kermit the frog famously said, “It isn’t easy being green.” It also isn’t easy convincing people that traditional economics not only is hypothetically wrong, not only is factually wrong, but is wrong to such a degree it is extremely harmful to our economy.
The more extreme debt hawks believe the U.S. federal government should run a balanced budget or even have no debt at all. The more moderate debt hawks feel some debt may be necessary at times, but to them, federal debt is like bitter medicine you take only when absolutely necessary.
All debt hawks, whether extreme or moderate, are long on twisted “facts” but short on evidence.
Their “facts” inevitably include federal deficit and debt measures, projections for the future, debt/GDP ratios, and spending on Medicare and Social Security.
However, when they interpret the facts, they provide no evidence that their interpretations reflect reality.
By contrast, here are facts and a few opinions, which you may interpret for yourself.
1. Fact: Money is the way modern economies are measured. By definition, a large economy has a larger money supply than does a small economy. Therefore, a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. QED
The graph below shows the essentially parallel paths of GDP vs. perhaps the most comprehensive measure of the money supply, Domestic Non-Financial Debt:
One could argue that money begets production or that production begets money, and both would be correct. The point is that money supply (i.e. debt) and GDP go hand-in-hand. Reduced debt growth results in reduced economic growth.
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + NonFederal Spending + Net Exports.
Thus, by formula, a cut in federal spending cuts GDP.
2. Fact: All money is debt and all financial debt is money. In addition to being state-sponsored, legal tender, there are four criteria for modern money:
–Monetarily Sovereign money must be defined in a standard unit of currency.
–MS money has no, or limited, intrinsic value.
–The demand for money is determined by its risk (danger of default or devaluation, i.e., inflation) and its reward (interest rates).
–To have value, money must be owned by an entity other than the entity that created it.
The above criteria describe many forms of money, including currency, bank accounts, T-securities, corporate bonds, and money markets. All forms of money are debt, and a growing economy requires a growing supply of debt/money.
2.a. Fact: Federal “deficit” is a statement of the net amount of money the federal government has created in one year. Opinion: The word “deficit” is pejorative. A more neutral description would be money “created” or “added,” as in, “The government has created $1 trillion,” or “The government has added $1 trillion to the economy.”
Compare the psychological meaning of those statements with the current phrasing, “The government has run a $1 trillion deficit.”
3. Fact: U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.
4. Fact: Recessions tend to follow reductions in federal debt/money growth (See graph below), while debt/money growth has increased when recessions are resolving.
Taxes reduce debt/money growth. No government can tax itself into prosperity, but many governments tax themselves into recession.
Recessions repeatedly come on the heels of deficit growth reductions, and are cured with deficit growth increases.
5. Fact: On August 15, 1971, the federal government gave itself the unlimited ability to create debt/money by completely abandoning the gold standard. This ability is called Monetary Sovereignty.
Because the federal government now has the unlimited ability to create dollars, it neither taxes or borrows in order to obtain dollars. It simply creates them ad hoc. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.
When you pay your taxes, you take dollars from your checking account. These dollars were part of the M2 money supply measure.
When they reach the Treasury, they cease to be part of any money supply measure. They effectively are destroyed. To pay its bills, the federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc.
6. Fact: Federal “debt” is the total of outstanding Treasury Securities. Here is how Treasury Securities, incorrectly termed “borrowing” come into existence.
–You tell the government to debit your checking account and credit your Treasury security account by the same amount. The process is similar to transferring money from your checking account to your bank savings account.
To “pay off” the Treasury Security, the government simply debits your T-security account and credits your checking account.
Thus, the government could pay off all its so-called “debt” tomorrow simply by debiting all T-security accounts and crediting the T-Security owners’ checking accounts.
The entire process neither adds nor subtracts money from the economy (but for interest paid).
Our Monetarily Sovereign government does not borrow the money it has already created but rather exchanges one form of U.S. money (T-securities) for another (dollars). The entire “borrowing” process is nothing more than an asset exchange.
Do T-securities have any benefit? Yes, federal interest payments add to the money supply, an economically stimulative event. Federal interest payments help the government control interest rates and the dollar’s value. (The higher the interest, the greater the value of the dollar, and the more the economy receives in growth dollars.)
The most important purpose of T-securities is to provide a safe place to store unused dollars. This stabilizes the dollar while increasing its value.
T-securities (debt) are not functionally related to the difference between taxes and spending (deficits). They are related only by laws requiring the Treasury to create T-securities in the amount of the deficit.
The Treasury can create T-securities (debt) without a deficit, and the government can run a deficit without creating T-securities. Federal debt is not functionally the total of federal deficits.
The federal government could pay off the entire so-called “debt” today, merely by returning the dollars to the T-security depositors.
7. Fact: Federal taxes, as a money-raising tool, are unnecessary, harmful and futile:
— unnecessary because since 1971 (when the U.S. government became fully Monetarily Sovereign), the government has had the unlimited ability to create money without taxes,
— harmful because taxes reduce the money supply, which reduction leads to recessions and depressions, and
–futile because tax money sent to the government is destroyed upon receipt by the U.S. Treasury.
When you send taxes to the government, you are sending M2 dollars, but when they reach the Treasury, they cease to be part of any money supply measure. They effectively are destroyed.
Our Monetarily Sovereign government does not store dollars for future use. It can create unlimited dollars ad hoc by paying bills.
The so-called “debt” merely accounts for the total outstanding T-securities created out of thin air by the federal government.
The government decides to create T-securities equal to the deficit, but this requirement became obsolete in 1971 when we went off the gold standard and became Monetarily Sovereign.
Today, the federal government creates money by spending, i.e. it credits checking accounts to pay its bills. This crediting of checking accounts adds dollars to the economy.
The federal “deficit” is the net money created in one year and the federal “surplus” is the net money destroyed in one year. In short, deficit spending creates money and taxing destroys money. If taxes fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, this would not affect by even one dollar, the federal government’s ability to spend.
Further, (opinion)all tax (money-destroying) systems are unfair. See: http://rodgermitchell.com/FairTaxes.html. For a country with the unlimited power to create money, spending is not related in any way to taxing.
8. Fact: Contrary to popular myth, there is no post-gold standard relationship between federal debt and inflation. (See graph, below)
Also, contrary to popular myth, inflation is not caused by “excessive federal spending.” Inflation is caused by shortages of crucial goods and services, most often oil and/or food. (See the graph, below)
In this regard, hyperinflations are not caused by “money-printing,” but rather by shortages. So-called “money printing” (ala Zimabwe and Germany), were the governments’ response to hyperinflation, not the cause.
The Zimbabwe inflation was caused by food shortages. (The government stole land from farmers and gave it to non-farmers.) Money “printing” was the faulty response to inflation, not the cause.
The most recent inflation was caused by COVID-related shortages of oil, food, shipping, computer chips, metal, housing, lumber, and labor, among other things. As the shortages have been reduced, so has the inflation.
WWII Context: During World War II, many consumer goods were in short supply because production was focused on the war effort. When the war ended, the supply of goods resumed, and the previously unmet demandwas suddenly able to be fulfilled.
Oil Crises: Similarly, during the oil crises of the 1970s, the reduced supply of oil caused prices to spike, not because of a sudden increase in demand, but because the existing demand couldn’t be met.
COVID-19 Pandemic: Supply chain disruptions and production bottlenecks during the pandemic created shortages in various goods, leading to price increasesonce supply constraints eased and the pent-up demand was met.
While the underlying demand might have been consistent, the ability to fulfill that demand was constrained by supply issues. When supply bottlenecks were removed, the previously suppressed demand could finally be expressed, leading to price increases.
Latent Demand: The concept of latent demand suggests that consumers’ desire for goods remains constant, but it is the availability of those goods that fluctuates.
Supply Constraints: Supply-side constraints create temporary mismatches between demand and supply, leading to inflationary pressures once those constraints are lifted.
Observing changes over time can reveal the true causes of economic phenomena. By examining what happens just before and during an inflationary period, we often find that supply-side disruptions are the primary drivers.
Gradual Demand Changes: Demand usually changes slowly, giving the economy time to adjust. This gradual change rarely leads to significant price fluctuations on its own.
Sudden Supply Changes: Supply-side shocks, such as natural disasters, geopolitical events, or production bottlenecks, can occur rapidly and unpredictably. The economy struggles to adjust quickly to these disruptions, leading to price increases as a balancing mechanism.
9. Fact: There is no post-gold standard relationship between federal debt and your taxes.
Unlike state/local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, the federal government does not use tax dollars to pay its bills. It creates new dollars, from thin air, every time it pays a creditor.
The sole purposes of federal taxes are:
–To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.
–To assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring all federal taxes to be paid in dollars.
Taxes do not pay for federal spending. Federal spending creates dollars.
9.a. Fact: Federal deficit spending does not use “taxpayers’ money.” Federal spending creates money ad hoc.
When the government spends it credits bank accounts. No taxes involved. By definition, deficit spending means taxes do not equal this year’s spending let alone previous year’s spending. Only surpluses use taxpayers’ money, by causing recessions.
For the above reasons, our children and grandchildren will not pay for today’s money creation. Still, they will benefit from today’s deficit spending — better infrastructure, army, education, R&D, safety, security, health, and retirement.
Any time you hear or read about the federal government spending “taxpayers’ money,” know that the person is ignorant about Monetary Sovereignty. The federal government doesn’t spend taxpayers’ money. Period.
10. Fact: There is no post-gold standard relationship between low interest rates and high GDP growth. Opinion: The opposite seems true:
The interest rate and economic growth lines move in opposite directions.
Why do high interest rates stimulate? Opinion: High rates force the federal government to pay more interest, pumping more money into the economy.
The Fed increases interest rates to fight inflation. But increasing interest rates increases the prices of goods and services, i.e. causes inflation.
The Fed, in a sense, is using leeches to fight anemia.
11. Fact: The Federal debt/GDP ratio is a meaningless fraction, because it measures two, mathematically incompatible pieces of data. It’s an apples/oranges comparison. GDP is a one-year measure of output; federal debt is the net outstanding T-securities created since the nation’s birth.
The T-securities created years ago affect this year’s debt in the debt/GDP ratio, while even last year’s GDP does not affect this ratio. See: Debt/GDP
Because federal debt is the total of T-securities, and the federal government has the functional ability to stop creating T-securities at any time, the Debt/GDP ratio easily could fall to 0, depending on federal law.
11.a. Fact: The debt/GDP ratio does not measure the federal government’s ability to pay its bills. The government does not pay bills with GDP; it creates the money ad hoc to pay its bills.
Were GDP to be $0, the government still could pay bills of any size, simply by crediting the bank accounts of its creditors.
12. Facts: In 1979, gross federal debt was $800 billion. In 2009 it reached $12 trillion, a 1400% increase in 30 years. During that period, GPD rose 440% (annual rate of 5.5%>) with acceptable inflation. The same 1400% increase would put the debt at $180 trillion in 2039, a mean annual deficit of $5+ trillion.
This calculates to a 9.5% annual debt increase for the past 30 years. Repeating that growth rate would put the 2010 deficit at about $1.14 trillion, and the 2011 deficit at about $1.25 trillion. The deficit for year 2039 would be about $15.8 trillion.
Opinion: I know of no reason why the results would not be the same as they have been in the past 30 years. However, increasing the debt growth rate above 9.5% might show even better results:
In the 10 year period, 1980 – 1989, federal debt grew 210%, from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion (a 12% annual debt increase), while GDP grew .96% from $2.8 trillion to $5.5 trillion (a 7% annual increase). During that same period, inflation fell from 14.5% in 1980 to 5.2% in 1989. See graph, below.
The peaks and valleys of federal deficits (blue) generally correspond to the peaks and valleys of real (inflation adjusted) Gross Domestic Product growth. The reason: GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports
Facts: In summary, large deficits have coincided with real (inflation adjusted) GDP growth
12. Facts: Any health insurance proposal that covers more people will cost more money. Extracting that money from doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, by necessity, would reduce the availability of health care.
Increasing taxes on any individuals (even the wealthy) or on businesses, will depress the economy by removing money from the economy. Only the federal government can supply additional money while stimulating the economy.
13. Fact: Social Security is supported neither by FICA nor by a trust fund. Were FICA eliminated, and benefits doubled, Social Security still would not go bankrupt unless Congress decided to make this happen.
In June, 2001, Paul O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury said, “I come to you as a managing trustee of Social Security. Today we have no assets in the trust fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow.“
Yet, SS continues to pay benefits. Your Social Security check comes from a mythical trust fund that contains no money and receives no money.
Social Security (and Medicare) benefits are paid ad hoc by the U.S. government, not from a trust fund, and are not dependent on FICA taxes. which (opinion:) can and should be eliminated. See: FICA
14. Fact: The finances of the federal government are different from yours and mine and businesses’ and state, county and city government finances.
Unlike the federal government, which is Monetarily Sovereign, we cannot create unlimited amounts of money to pay our bills. We first need to acquire money, either by borrowing or by saving, to spend.
The federal government does not acquire money. It creates money by spending. As an accounting principle, the tax money you send to the government is destroyed upon receipt. Then the federal government creates new money to pay its bills. The government has no fund from which it pays bills.
Fact: Were taxes to decrease to zero, this would not change by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend.
Opinion: The failure to recognize the difference between the Monetarily Sovereign federal government and all other entities, which are monetarily non-sovereign, is the primary reason for recessions and depressions.
15. Fact: The federal government has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay any bill of any size. It never can run short of dollars; it never can go broke.
Opinion: The federal government should distribute dollars to each monetarily non-sovereign state, on a per capita basis.
The states would determine how they distribute the dollars (to counties, cities and/or taxpayers). I suggest a distribution of $5,000 per person or a total of $1.5 trillion.
Fact: In 1971, the U.S. went off the gold standard, thereby becoming a Monetarily Sovereign nation, and at that moment, all economics textbooks became obsolete. Sadly, mainstream economists, the politicians and the media have not yet caught up.
Summary: So there you have a list of facts, plus a few opinions, which I have noted. Read the facts and draw your own inferences.
You can find a great number of debt-hawk sites (i.e. Concord Coalition, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget), which in essence are privately funded think tanks, paid to influence popular belief, with propaganda masquerading as data.
There, you will see data showing the size of the federal debt. These data are presented in a way designed to imply that the debt (money created) is too large.
But you will find no proof of these ideas. You will see no historical graphs equating debt with any negative economic outcome, simply because such graphs do not exist. Debt hawks believe federal deficits are so obviously bad, no proof is needed.
Yet, despite lacking proof, debt-hawks have foisted their opinions on the media, the politicians, weak-minded economists, and the public, much to the detriment of our economy.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
