–The right-wing rationale explained: Why you should be screwed

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

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 ultimately 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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

Here is a message I received from right-winger Scott Rigell, U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 2nd congressional district. He succinctly explains why you receive far too much money from the government, and why he believes you should be impoverished:

The Biggest Threat to the Pentagon Budget Is Mandatory Spending
Assessing the Effects of Defense Cuts, and Just As Critically, The Cause

Last week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel provided sobering insight into the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget. Much of what the Secretary shared caused a sharp reaction across the defense community and on Capitol Hill, with options including a reduction in the end strength of the Army to pre-WWII levels, retirement of the USS George Washington (CVN-73) halfway through its expected service life, and increased cost-shares from active duty and retired service members for TRICARE.

The federal government will collect about $3 trillion in taxes in 2014; yet in a year of record tax revenue, there is continued compression on the defense budget. These reductions are principally a result of our collective failure to address mandatory spending within our overall federal budget. This spending is automatic, never voted on, and makes up almost two-thirds of the government’s annual expenditures.

He begins with the BIG LIE, the absolute falsehood that federal taxes pay for federal spending. They do NOT.

If federal tax collections fell to $0 or rose to $999 trillion, neither event would affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend.

Then Rigell amplifies the BIG LIE:

Our failure to reform mandatory spending is adversely impacting our nation and our national security in two critical areas. First, our growing budget deficits put unyielding pressure on aggregate spending levels, including defense spending.

Any time a politician pulls out the “national security” card, you can be sure he’s lying. Is America’s national security at risk? Is there some nation willing to attack the United States of America, the most powerful nation in world history? Are you in danger from anyone other than our own government?

Further, budget deficits do NOT put any “pressure” on spending levels. The federal government could cut taxes and double spending tomorrow, with no problem whatsoever. Federal finances are not like personal finances, not like business finances, not like state or city finances — not even like euro nation finances.

The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency.

You and I do not have a sovereign currency. Your state, county and city probably do not have a sovereign currency — at least not one internationally accepted. The euro nations like Greece, France and Italy do not have sovereign currencies. None of them has the unlimited power to create money.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign. can pay any bill of any size at any time.

Rigell is lying through his teeth, when he says, ” . . . growing budget deficits put unyielding pressure on aggregate spending levels. . . “ Either he’s lying or he’s too ignorant about federal finances to be a U.S. Congressman.

Then he compounds the BIG LIE:

Second, and I view this as no less serious than the first, is the increased exposure our nation faces from the reckless and increasing level of our national debt, which currently exceeds $17.4 trillion.

The national “debt” is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank, the safest bank in the world. These deposits essentially are identical with savings account deposits at your local bank.

How does your local bank “pay off” your savings account? It simply transfers your dollars from your savings account to your checking account. How does the federal government “pay off” the misnamed federal “debt”? The same way. It simply transfers your dollars from your T-security account to your checking account.

No new dollars needed. This is no burden on the federal government at all.

By misnaming deposits as “debt,” the politicians use the BIG LIE to make you believe the government is in some sort of financial difficulty.

Why do the politicians want you to believe the BIG LIE?

Rigell tells us.

The war against terror is constant, and the current upheaval in the Ukraine reminds us that peace and stability in different regions of the world are fleeting.

Ah yes, the “war against terror,” an invented war that never can end, provides lying politicians with the perfect, eternal excuse for “national security” spending.

And now, right on time, here comes Putin, our latest bad boy, to provide our politicians with yet another excuse to feed the military/industrial complex.

Putin conveniently steps into the shoes of Stalin, Khrushchev, Castro, Amin, Hussein (and his fake weapons of mass destruction), bin Laden, Khamenei and an endless list of other monsters. We are “threatened” by Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and Mexico.

(Mexico? Sure. Have you never heard of that other eternal “war”, the war on drugs? That war too requires sealing our borders and endless “national security” spending.)

But, now comes the punch line in this sad joke:

So what’s the solution? It starts with meaningful reform of Medicare, Social Security, and other programs that are not advocated for in the President’s budget.

So there it is. The liars don’t even have the honesty to call it what it is. They say “reform,” as though somehow cutting benefits to Americans is an improvement. No, it’s not “reform.” It’s very simply, stealing from the 99% and giving to the 1%, pure and simple.

What’s needed is the political courage to address today the fiscal challenges which will burden future generations of Americans tomorrow.

Yours in Freedom,
Scott Rigell

Good old Scott Rigell, is oh, so concerned about burdening “future generations tomorrow.” (“future generations tomorrow?” Huh?)

But, he’s not at all concerned about burdening current generations, today. He wants to burden them by cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting food stamps and other poverty aids, cutting anything and everything that benefits the 99% and might help close the gap between the rich and the rest.

Bottom line, the single biggest threat facing America is not the phony, invented war against terrorism or the war on drugs. The single biggest threat to our freedom is the growing gap between the rich and the rest.

Rigell’s repeated statement of the BIG LIE has been paid for by the rich (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later). The purpose: To widen that gap between the rich and the rest.

Rigell is a liar and a traitor, who has been bribed to take away your freedom. Don’t believe a word he says.

Yours in Feedom,
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

P.S. You have a “Scott Rigell” representing you, too. Don’t believe him (her) either.

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Why do you vote for these mean, incompetent jerks — Medicaid version

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

The fundamental purpose of ACA (aka Obamacare) is to provide poor people with healthcare. The program is massively flawed. It’s a complex, convoluted mess, that by comparison, makes the U.S. tax code look simple.

We should have federally funded, comprehensive Medicare (all parts), for every man, woman and child in America. No deductions. No exceptions. Healthcare for all.

ACA is a weak substitute. It’s weird limitations are based on the ignorant assumption that the federal government cannot afford to fund Medicare for all, so benefits must be restricted to what ACA provides.

That said, like it or not, ACA is the law of the land. It’s here and it’s not going away any time soon, despite many crazy votes (is it up to 50 yet?) by an increasingly screwball Republican House majority.

Study: States that reject Medicaid expansion lose money
Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY 12:04 a.m. EST December 5, 2013

The 20 states choosing not to expand Medicaid will lose billions of dollars in federal funds, according to a new study released Thursday.

By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion, while Florida could lose $5 billion, Georgia could lose $2.9 billion and Virginia could lose $2.8 billion.

To say this is abjectly stupid, does not do justice to the words “abjectly” or “stupid.” It’s beyond stupid. It’s mean stupid. It’s stupidity, not just for political vengeance, but to satisfy a deep-seated hatred of the poor.

The federal government has offered to pay 100% of the Medicaid expansion cost for the first 3 years, and 90% thereafter. It’s an absolute slam-dunk winner for all states accepting the ACA expansion, and a dead loser for those that don’t.

So my question, to all you who live in those 20 states: Why did you vote for those jerks? They not only are mean, immoral bastards, but are costing you money.

Many Republican governors have said increasing Medicaid could add to the federal deficit. Medicaid, however, is a federal program, Sherry Glied, lead author of The Commonwealth Fund study said, and residents of states that have not expanded the program are still paying taxes to support it. They’re just not getting the extra benefits in their states.

O.K., let’s take a deep breath, here. It’s true that nearly all citizens in those 20 states: are being cheated financially, and the poor citizens are being cheated out of health care.

Further, all Americans are being cheated by the state Republican governments, because billions are not being sent into the economy. Citizens of each state buy in many states. Those dollars are being reduced. By not accepting Medicaid expansion, the Republicans are bleeding the entire economy.

But taxes do not pay for the program. You who understand Monetary Sovereignty know that federal taxes do not pay for federal spending, and even if FICA were $0, the federal government could continue supporting Medicare and Social Security forever — even with double the benefits.

Obamacare is free money to the states, and many states refuse it, out of ignorance or malice.

Bottom line: If you live in one of the Republican-controlled states that refuse to expand Medicaid coverage, your state politicians are stealing dollars from your pocket, your spouse’s pocket, your children’s pockets and your family’s, friends’ and neighbors’ pockets, just as though they had lined you all up at gunpoint, and demanded you give them you money.

If you enjoy being robbed, you’ll love your local, conservative government, bought and paid for by the upper .1% income/power group.

It would be better to take your money to Las Vegas. You’ll lose, but at least you might meet a showgirl.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Right-wing irate that the poor may avoid starvation

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

It works like this: The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create dollars. But somehow, for reasons never explained, the federal government is said to be in danger of running short of dollars.

Meanwhile, America’s poor are said to have too many dollars. So Congress has decided the poor should receive fewer dollars from the federal government.

But wait. Those slippery poor may have found a way to survive, and this is felt to be outrageous. As explained by Bloomberg News:

States Veto Food Stamp Cuts as $8.6 Billion Deal Fades
By Derek Wallbank and Alan Bjerga Mar 7, 2014 12:00 AM ET 0 Comments Email Print

Congress last month passed a revamp of agriculture and food policy that was supposed to save the U.S. government $8.6 billion in food-stamp costs over a decade.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, the U.S. federal government has no need to save costs.

That may not happen now that some states are finding a way to avoid the cuts.

New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania are triggering extra nutrition spending by adding money to a home-heating subsidy tied to increased food-stamp aid. The move feeds needy families while thwarting spending-reduction goals.

Deficit watchers say they’re disappointed, while anti-hunger activists are lobbying other states to do the same. If more follow, the federal government would have to spend much of the $8.6 billion it planned to save, as states reduce spending on other programs to meet the new mandate.

How horrible. The federal government would have to spend $8.6 billion to feed poor men women and children — people who should be prepared to starve so that rich bankers and other 1%ers can enjoy their federal subsidies.

Under the previous farm law, states that gave residents as little as $1 a year in home-heating assistance — a move nicknamed “heat-and-eat” — could qualify that person’s household for an average of $1,080 in additional food stamps annually from the U.S. government.

About 15 states and the District of Columbia did just that, catching the attention of lawmakers who sought savings through the farm bill.

“States were gaming the system,” Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts said last month.

Good old compassionate Pat Roberts. He empathizes with the poor, the hungry, the needy. According to Wikipedia:

Roberts’s voting record is conservative. Among other issues, he is pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage and supports the Patriot Act, and loosening restrictions on NSA wiretapping.

Roberts opposed President Barack Obama’s health reform legislation; he voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in December 2009, and he voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

The new law raises to $20 a year the home-heating aid needed for a household to get extra food-stamp money. The idea is that most of those 15 states will stop qualifying residents for the food aid and save the U.S. government money.

In 2006, In that year, the senator voted to increase offshore oil drilling, to include provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to deny funding for low-income energy assistance and for environmental stewardship, and effectively to exempt Army Corps of Engineers project analyses from independent review.

Roberts voted to exclude oil and gas smokestacks from mercury regulations, and to reclassify the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Cabinet department — moves widely seen as pro-business and anti-environment.

The house that Roberts claims as his residence in Dodge City, Kansas is actually owned and occupied by campaign contributors C. Duane and Phyllis Ross.

So Roberts is anti-poor, anti-environment and lies about his real residence, which actually is owned and occupied by his campaign contributors.

He is perfect.

Back to Bloomberg:

New York state said it raised home-heating spending by $6 million, triggering an additional $457 million a year in federal food-stamp spending to about 300,000 households.

“We didn’t expect that or we would’ve written it in the language to prohibit it,” said Iowa Republican Steve King, chairman of the House Agriculture subcommittee that oversees food stamps and nutrition aid. The move, while legal, is “perverse, just perverse,” King said in an interview.

It is “perverse, just perverse” that liberals have found a way to feed hungry men, women and children. These people should be made to starve.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about this compassionate guy.

King supports the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would ban federal funding of abortions except in cases of what the bill calls “forcible rape”. This would remove the coverage from Medicaid that covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest.

Translation: Women are at fault for being raped.

King opposed the McGovern amendment (to the 2012 farm bill) to establish misdemeanor penalties for knowingly attending an organized animal fight and felony penalties for bringing a minor to such a fight.

Translation: Dog fighting is a good, wholesome activity for adults and children.

King introduced an amendment to the House Farm Bill that would legalize previously banned animal agriculture practices such as tail-docking, putting arsenic in chicken feed, and keeping impregnated pigs in small crates.

Translation: Big deal, a little arsenic never hurt anyone. And as for animals, they’re no better than poor people.

King has voted against each stimulus bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, saying, “Our economy will not recover because government spends more. It will recover because people produce more.”

Translation: I don’t know how that works, but my stupid constituents will buy any sort of BS I throw at them.

King gained prominence by being one of 11 in Congress to vote against the $52 billion Hurricane Katrina Aid package.

Translation: Screw the homeless and impoverished. They’re just a bunch of liberal freeloaders.

In July 2013, speaking about proposed immigration legislation, King said of immigrants, “For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

Now that we understand the quality of those who want to gut funding for the poor, let’s return to Bloomberg:

“These federal cuts have made it harder for our state’s most vulnerable residents to put food on the table. The state has intervened on behalf of these low-income New Yorkers,” Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said. “New York is stepping up to help families in need.”

Connecticut is spending an extra $1.4 million to preserve federal food-stamp money for about 50,000 households, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy said the day before Cuomo’s announcement. Pennsylvania said March 5 it will spend $8 million to preserve $300 million in food-stamp funding for up to 400,000 families.

“This was always budget-driven,” Vollinger said in a telephone interview. “Discussions in Washington can be academic, but $90 a month for needy families is a real number. It’s shifting a burden to the states, and it’s doubtful how many of them will be able to do it.”

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, never can run short of dollars. The states, being monetarily non-sovereign, can and do run short of dollars. Sadly, the states must do what the conservatives won’t do.

“True reform would have included stringent work requirements for food-stamp eligibility,” said Andy Roth, government affairs vice president with Club for Growth, a Washington small-government advocacy group. “Even better, devolve the program back to the states” as block grants, which would end the temptation to exploit quirks in federal law, he said.

The Club for Growth, one of many Koch Brothers front organizations, is consistent in its efforts to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. Not a day goes by when this nefarious group, funded by some of the richest people in the world, doesn’t try to make the lives of the poor ever more miserable.

For them, an ideal world would be one in which the 1% are all-powerful masters, and the 99% are abject slaves.

Sadly, nearly all conservative voters are part of the 99% that the 1% wishes to subjugate.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–The limit to human progress

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

We believe we have progressed. Our sciences have given us knowledge. We know more about the universe, more about the world, more about medicine, electronics, causes and effects.

Productivity has increased exponentially. In many areas today, one person can accomplish more in one day than a thousand people in bygone days, could accomplish in a generation.

But though we know more and can accomplish more, our intelligence and our beliefs have not progressed. We still believe in magic. We still believe in non-facts. Our beliefs still are ruled by our desires.

In short, we are no less stupid than we ever were and ever will be.

Consider health and medicine. We intentionally ingest what we absolutely know for sure, not only will shorten our lives, but will make our later years far less pleasant. We knowingly choose to live more miserably and die sooner.

Fatty foods, cigarettes, recreational drugs — what logical, intelligent being intentionally would absorb life shortening, life worsening chemicals?

Simultaneously, we spend billions on vitamins and beauty enhancements. The illogic is stunning.

Here are four examples of human stupidity, that give lie to the belief we are making any sort of progress — examples that demonstrate why “progress” is a hazy concept in the eye of the beholder — examples that demonstrate why, as a species, we may be doomed to remain on a treadmill, like each of the animals of the forest.

I suggest our species suffers from self-destructive, psychological defects that put a ceiling on what we ever can know and accomplish.

And somewhere, there may be another species, with the same brain structure we have, but lacking those psychological defects, that species eventually will rule the universe.

What, for instance, could be more important to human progress than the health of our children?

Bloomberg view
Unvaccinated Kids Make Everyone Sick

One of America’s essential national defense shields is under attack from within, and the aggressors are people you wouldn’t normally consider dangerous: parents of young children.

As more and more resist having their school-age kids vaccinated, they are destroying the herd immunity that everyone relies on for protection against whooping cough, measles and other dangerous, sometimes fatal, infectious diseases.

The dangers of vaccines have been thoroughly debunked. A report published this week in the journal Pediatrics, however, shows how hard it is to convince anti-vaccination parents of this. In fact, the harder researchers pushed the benefits of vaccines, the more the parents resisted.

Although science often is wrong, what logical person would risk the lives of their children betting that rumors are correct and the vast majority of medical evidence is wrong?

Which brings us to religion. The bible is not science. It is a series of parables, written by men, to explain and make memorable, ethics and morality.

We long have known that the certainty of punishment, not the severity of punishment, is the strongest prevention for misdeeds. If you absolutely, positively are sure you will be caught and punished for committing a crime, you would be quite unlikely to be a criminal.

Yet, many people claim to believe in God, and they also commit crimes. How is it possible to believe an all-knowing, all-powerful entity watches your every move and knows your every thought, and will punish you for the evil you do — how is it possible to believe that, while still lying, cheating and breaking the law?

Answer: It isn’t possible, and the only conceivable reality is that the people who claim to believe in God really don’t, but the mere fact of claiming belief is socially acceptable.

And advocating for that belief is even more socially acceptable. It makes one a “better” person:

Religion in the Science Class?

Creationism, creation science, intelligent design and other theories that set out to challenge widely held scientific explanations about the origin of the universe have no place in the public school curriculum.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to believe the religious theories of creation (as well as other theories) but it does not permit them to be taught in public school science classes.

Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate in several school districts as to whether creationism should be taught as a “competing scientific theory” in high school science classes.

A staunch defender of religious freedom in America, the Anti-Defamation League explains why the teaching of these religious theories of evolution doesn’t belong in the classroom.

Not only are we psychologically limited from understanding the truth about the universe, but we are emotionally resistant to learning we have been wrong.

Why Do We Even Have A Debt Ceiling Law?
Doug Mataconis, July 12, 2011

It’s been remarked here at OTB several times by myself and other contributors that the existence of a law placing a limit on the national debt, which then must be amended every time government borrowing approaches the limit, a vote which nobody likes and everybody demagogues, is fundamentally silly.

It’s worth noting, though, that we have not always had a debt ceiling, in fact we didn’t have one until 1917, and the reasons for it coming to existence are fairly interesting:

The debt ceiling was first enacted in 1917. Why? The date tells all: we were about to enter the Great War. To fund that effort, the Wilson government needed to issue Liberty Bonds. This was controversial, and the debt ceiling was cover, passed to reassure the rubes that Congress would be “responsible” even while the country went to war. It was, from the beginning, an exercise in bad faith and has remained so every single second to the present day.

The debt ceiling is a comparatively recent fiction, foisted on the American public, to obscure the reality of federal financing. Try to explain that to Mr. & Mrs. America, and you not only be met with disbelief, but invective (“How dare you try to change by beliefs by telling me facts?”)

And then there are guns, which much of America believes “don’t kill people,” although the prime purpose of guns is to kill. America also believes “good people” with guns can “stop bad people” with guns, but angrily resists any sort of test to show whether a potential or current gun owner is “good” or “bad.”

Why more guns won’t make us safer People may think firearms will protect them, but statistics show otherwise
By Sean Faircloth

Firearm assaults on female family members and intimate acquaintances are approximately 12 times more likely to result in death than are assaults using other weapons.

The vast majority of gun owners are not planning on shooting their girlfriends, wives, or partners. But in a fit of anger or jealousy or some other overwhelming emotion, a gun can become a convenient way of lashing out. The decision to shoot can take a second, and then can’t be undone. It happens every day in this country.

As the Harvard School of Public Health found, “guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime.”

In a sane world, getting a gun would be treated more rigorously than buying a car, and government-mandated safety training and psychological screening would be required before purchase. Yet most gun advocates would object to even these steps.

I propose there is a fatal flaw in human thinking — a suicidal flaw that may have had evolutionary purpose, but will constrain our ability to understand, populate and rule the universe. We fast may be approaching the ceiling to our earthly abilities, and eventually, like the Neanderthals, may be replaced by beings not limited as we are.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: