–Sorry to say this: Obama really is a liar and a traitor to the middle class. But Romney would have been worse

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Are you shocked that someone should be so disrespectful as to call the President of the United States a liar and a traitor? Even I am shocked at my own words. They burn in my throat. But what else can you call a man who was elected on the solemn promise, often repeated, that he would benefit America by lifting the struggling middle and lower classes — a man who had zero intention to do so?

By Jake Horowitz (jhorowitz@policymic.com), 14-Nov-2012

Obama Sets Steep Tax Target – (via WSJ) “President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade – double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.

Mr. Obama, in a meeting Tuesday with union leaders and other liberal activists, also pledged to hang tough in seeking tax increases on wealthy Americans. In one sign of conciliation, he made no specific commitment to leave unscathed domestic programs such as Medicare, leaving the door open to spending cuts many fellow Democrats oppose.”

So here is how Mr. Obama will help the middle and lower income groups. He will raise taxes on the upper income group and he will cut Medicare, Social Security and food stamps.

Got it? He will claim to remove $1.6 trillion from the economy. (Will that help you and your children?) He will reduce social programs (Will that help you and your children?)

And he will continue to tell you that in some mysterious, magical way, this will make you happy. That’s called an “Obama compromise:” Give the rich what they really want – an increased gap between them and the rest of us – then claim this is good for us.

And it continues:

Today, Obama meets with CEOs from GE, Honeywell, Wal-Mart, Ford, Chevron, and IBM to discuss the fiscal cliff.

What do you think all those rich guys will tell Obama? Will they say, “Raise rich people’s taxes, don’t raise poor people’s taxes, and above all, don’t cut the social programs they need so desperately”? Sure they will.

For many years, MMT and Monetary Sovereignty have been working under the delusion that the President “doesn’t get it,” and if only we could explain it better and more simply, he would see the error of his ways. It was a fool’s mission. The President gets it. He’s no fool. And he has plenty of smart people advising him, and they get it, too.

But he does the bidding of the 1%. He learned about money in Chicago, from people like convicted swindler Tony Rezko, who magically got Obama some real estate at a big, big discount. Obama believes in magic, and hopes you will, too.

The demand that taxes be raised on the 1% is a magicians misdirection, forcing you to believe he is for the “little guy.” The rich don’t give a fig about that income tax increase. They never will pay it. But the President wants to cut social spending even more, and that is what will increase the gap.

Obama’s whole “grand bargain” is a charade to fool the voters. It really is a discussion about the best way to increase the gap without being too obvious. As you will see, when this all is resolved, the middle and lower classes will take a big hit, and the 1% will not even be scratched.

Bottom line: Any plan to reduce the deficit will reduce the money supply, and by formula, will reduce Gross Domestic Product. There is no mechanism by which any tax increase and/or any spending cut can have a positive effect on economic growth. Obama knows this. The rich know it. The poor, who elected Obama, don’t. So he will let them suffer for their ignorance. “Liar”? “Traitor”? Add “cruel” to the description.

But then, Romney would have been even worse. He would have appointed another Scalia. That’s why I voted for Obama.

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 cure for the fiscal cliff: The fiscal slide

The so-called (originally by Ben Bernanke) “fiscal cliff” is, to quote Wikipedia;

. . . laws which, if unchanged, will result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and across-the-board spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Translation: The fiscal cliff results from reduced deficits.

Some analysts have argued that “fiscal slope” or “fiscal hill” would be more appropriate terminology because while the cumulative economic effect over all of 2013 would be substantial, it would not be felt immediately but rather gradually as the weeks and months went by.

Translation: Whatever the fiscal cliff is, it will be “substantial” and felt over weeks and months –actually, for years.

The Congressional Budget Office reported an increased risk of recession during 2013 if the deficit is reduced suddenly, while indicating that lower deficits and debt over time improve long-term economic growth prospects.

Translation: Sudden deficit reduction will cause a recession, but through the unfathomable magic of political mathematics, slower deficit reduction will improve economic growth.

How does that work? No one seems to know, or if they know, they aren’t telling.

Nearly all proposals to avoid the fiscal cliff involve extending certain parts of the 2010 Tax Relief Act or changing the 2011 Budget Control Act or both, thus making the deficit larger by reducing taxes and/or increasing spending.

Translation: As we said, to avoid a recession, increase the deficit, but to grow the economy, reduce the deficit. You may find this confusing, but the voters seem to understand it perfectly, as the vast majority favor reducing the deficit while avoiding recession.

What does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) say?

Large budget deficits would reduce national saving . . .

Uh, er, excuse me, CBO, but how can lower taxes (taking less money from the people) and increased federal spending (sending more dollars into the economy) reduce savings? The actual formula is Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

Interest payments on the debt would consume a growing share of the federal budget, eventually requiring either higher taxes or a reduction in government benefits and services.

Translation: Raise taxes, cut benefits and destroy lives now, so we don’t have to raise taxes, cut benefits and destroy lives later. (The lives already will be destroyed; no need to do it twice.)

By the way, CBO, but what is that weasel word, “eventually”? Federal spending already has grown massively without tax increases. So why would future spending require tax increases, especially for a Monetarily Sovereign government having the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency?

Bottom line: Cutting the deficit reduces GDP, and is unnecessary, because the government can create unlimited dollars (and for you debt hawks, no, this does not cause inflation.)

Then, there is this from Fox News (My bible for facts):

Boehner calls on Obama to ‘lead’ on averting ‘fiscal cliff’
Published November 09, 2012
FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner on Friday put the ball in President Obama’s court over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” calling on the president to step up with a solution to avert the double-whammy of spending cuts and tax hikes that threatens to trigger another recession.

“This is an opportunity for the president to lead,” Boehner said late Friday morning. “This is his moment to engage the Congress and work towards a solution that can pass both chambers.”

Translation: We dare you to try to do anything that will benefit the country and make the Democrats look good. We double dare you. Remember your last term? Our filibusters still wait at the ready.

Boehner had already telegraphed that he wants the president to be in the driver’s seat on a deal, and not pass the tough decisions to Congress. “We’re ready to be led,” he said.

Translation: You may be in the driver’s seat, but my foot is on the brake.

The Congressional Budget Office said failing to avert the spending cuts and tax hikes would send the nation into another recession and drive up the jobless rate to 9.1 percent by next fall.

But trust us, in the long term, recession and unemployment actually will be good for America. The higher the jobless rate, the better things will be for the Republicans in 2014. We did it before; we can do it again.

The CBO analysis says that the cliff would cut the deficit by $503 billion through next September, but that the fiscal austerity would cause the economy to shrink by 0.5 percent next year and cost millions of jobs.

Translation: That’s our plan: Cut the deficit; cause a recession.

Democrats continue to demand that the Bush-era tax rates lapse for those making $250,000 and up. Republicans continue to insist on keeping tax rates stable for everyone.

Translation: Taking dollars from the rich, somehow does not take dollars from the economy. No one knows how that works, but it’s great demagoguery, especially to influence clueless voters.

Boehner, though, has said he’s willing to accept “new revenue” in exchange for serious entitlement cuts.

Translation: This has been our goal all along. Cut Social Security. Cut Medicare. Cut Medicaid. Cut aid to the poor. Do everything possible to increase the income gap between the rich and the rest.

Many of his Democratic allies hope Obama will take a hard line when he addresses the matter Friday. Republicans warn that a fight could poison efforts for a rapprochement in a bitterly divided Capitol and threaten his second-term agenda.

Translation: If you sacrifice the benefits to the poor and middle classes — benefits Democrats have struggled to achieve for 70 years — we promise to help you with voters. Really, we do. Would we lie?

A new study estimates that the nation’s gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent next year if all Bush-era tax rates were extended and would expand by almost 3 percent if Obama’s 2 percentage point payroll tax cut and current jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended as well.

Translation: Cutting taxes grows the economy. Amazing. Who could have predicted that. Next you’ll try to tell us that increased spending (the other way to increase the deficit) also grows the economy.

Voters can be made to believe anything. So let’s admit that cutting the deficit hurts the economy, but tell them we need to cut the deficit to help the economy. Then, we can cut benefits to the middle and lower classes, increase unemployment and widen the income gap — and the voters actually will believe we’re trying to help them!

Instead of causing a fiscal cliff, we’ll cause a fiscal slide. Both will push the lower 99% income groups to the bottom; one will just do it a little slower.

Ah, the voters, bless ’em. We tell them white is black, and black is white, and they believe it. Anyone want a ride down the fiscal slide?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Lesson in life: When a plan always fails and never, ever can succeed, do it.

I have a plan to protect our children. It is a proven plan that has been tried in the past and failed miserably. It is a plan that was demonstrated to cause a dramatic increase in crime, and has been responsible for many thousands of deaths among our young people. It is a plan that is guaranteed to send thousands of our young people to jail.

My plan absolutely will cost our society many millions of dollars and thousands of lives and destroy many families, and not only doesn’t work, but actually worsens the problem it is supposed to solve.

My plan is called “Prohibition.”

What? You say that name is taken? “Prohibition” was the name given to a plan to save us from the most potent, the most dangerous, most addictive drug America ever has known: Alcohol? And all Prohibition did was increase alcohol consumption and crime? Wow. I didn’t know.

O.K., so “Prohibition” didn’t work, in fact made things worse, but if I keep my plan but give it a new name, I’m sure it will work. So, my new name for my plan is “War on Drugs.”

What? You say that name is taken, too? You say the “War on Drugs” has had exactly the same results as “Prohibition”? More drug use? More crime? More cost? More young people in jail? More lives and families destroyed?

Could it be that (and this may be a stretch) Prohibition and the War on Drugs have had the same results because they are the same plan?

Now, let me get this straight. You’re telling me if I have a plan that fails miserably, and even exacerbates the problem I’m trying to solve, changing the name of the plan won’t work? Hmmm.

So, how did we solve the problem of the most potent, most dangerous, most addictive drug America ever has known? You say we legalized it, regulated it and taxed it? You’re kidding. That’s how we solved the problem? Legalization?

Well that sounds crazy. Surely, if you outlaw a product that people want and will risk jail or even death to obtain, that should reduce usage. It doesn’t? Who’d a thunk?

So, if legalizing, regulating and taxing alcohol was proven to reduce usage, crime, jail time, financial and social costs and the destruction of our youth, do you think that maybe, just maybe, that same proven idea could work with currently illegal drugs?

Oh, you say Colorado and Washington State have begun the process by legalizing recreational use of the most benign of the illegal drugs, marijuana? What is the likelihood that the rest of the states and the federal government will learn from experience and legalize the recreational use of any drug someone wants to put in their own bodies?

I mean, the Democrats talk about privacy, and the Republicans complain about too much government intrusion on our lives. And taking recreation drugs is a private, personal decision, like drinking alcohol.

So could it be that the government should simply let people eat, drink, smoke and otherwise ingest whatever they want? And if we did that, might millions of lives and billions of dollars be saved?

So what’s the problem?

Ah, I see. You say that if only we tried harder, we could make Prohibition and the War on Drugs work. Makes sense to me. As I always say, if a plan does not work, never has worked and never can work, and actually makes things worse, keep doing it.

Only more so.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

P.S. I have an idea. Next, let’s have a “War on Sugar.” Oh, Mayor Bloomberg already has begun that?

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–What have the Republicans learned?

There is a value to losing. It teaches you what you might have done better. Without losing, there is scant progress. The player who never loses eventually loses – loses his motivation for improvement, loses his competitiveness, loses his desire to learn, loses his morals and his compassion.

Losing teaches you life. Losing teaches you humility — if you let it.

The Republicans lost. This election presumably was one of those “teachable moments.” So, what did the Republicans learn?

Here are a few excerpts from an article in the Washington Post:

Life after defeat for Mitt Romney: Public praise, private questions
by Philip Rucker

Romney’s top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.

Some top donors privately unloaded on Romney’s senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.

They learned Romney should have been “insulated and defended” against his history with Bain Capital and his millions in earnings.

Romney told the donors he believed Hurricane Sandy stunted his momentum in the final week of the campaign. . .

They learned not to have a hurricane interrupt a carefully crafted campaign.

Although Romney himself stopped short of placing any blame on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who praised President Obama’s leadership during the storm, several Romney supporters privately pointed fingers at the outspoken governor.

“A lot of people feel like Christie hurt, that we definitely lost four or five points between the storm and Chris Christie giving Obama a chance to be bigger than life,” said one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

They learned the fault was Chris Christie’s for saying something nice about Obama.

Romney advisers have said they were disappointed with Christie’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention because they believed the speaker focused too much on himself and not enough on the candidate. Republicans close to Christie, however, said the Romney team approved the final draft of the speech.

They learned that Christie’s speech caused Romney’s defeat.

Some of his top donors immediately pointed to the campaign’s early strategic decision to frame the race as a referendum on Obama rather than a choice between two different governing philosophies and leadership styles.

They learned losing was a matter of poor framing.

A second member of Romney’s national finance committee said that while the campaign’s tactics and fundraising organization were executed well, the strategy and message were “total failures.” This fundraiser added that the campaign’s cautious and adversarial relationship with the news media proved detrimental.

“That strategy was we don’t want to define differences, we want it to be a referendum not a choice, but it was always going to be a choice. Elections are a choice. Their fundamental premise was incorrect — and when you’re incorrect on this level, you are shunned by people in the party,” said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

They learned not to be adversarial with the media, and that they should have presented defined differences, whatever they may have been.

In sum, the Republicans learned they should have insulated Romney, prevented a hurricane, not let Christie talk and to define differences. Hmmm . . . sounds a bit superficial.

What do I hope the Republicans really learned?

I hope they learned that when you encourage such candidates as Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Cain, people will begin to believe you are a party of mean, nutty extremists — and Americans don’t like mean people, nutty people or extreme people — at least not to be President.

I hope they learned that when you give serious attention to birthers and to celebrity grouches like Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood, people will be even more disposed to dislike you and to doubt your sanity.

I hope they learned that a majority of voters believes in the availability of abortion during the first trimester, or in cases of rape or to save a mother’s life. Despite all those massively magnified photos of microscopic fetuses, the majority of people believe there are private personal, social and health issues into which the federal government should not stick its nose. We do value our privacy.

I hope they learned that women are an important voting constituency, who hate when strange men disrespect them or force life decisions on them.

I hope they learned that screaming idiots, of the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh ilk, actually can have a negative effect, particularly on people capable of rational thought.

I hope they learned that a candidate should have his own beliefs, and that the voters do not trust someone who will say anything and repeatedly change positions to please his current audience and the most extreme segments of the party.

I hope they learned we each make our own religious decisions, and do not want the majority forcing their religious beliefs on us.

I hope they learned that Americans do not want religious fundamentalism ala the Taliban, and that our ancestors came here to avoid that dictatorship of church.

I hope they have learned that Americans basically are decent people, who still believe in “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

I hope they have learned Americans care about fairness and protecting the underdog, and that we do not want to be ruled by the richest 1%, and we want everyone to have decent food, housing, education and health care.

I hope they learned people want their leaders to care about them and protect them.

Unfortunately, both parties have become so immersed in political strategies and tactics, they have forgotten why they are running for office, and why we should care who wins.

Reminder: The goal is not to defeat this candidate, or to occupy that office. The goal is to serve the people of America. The goal is to make America better. Both parties have forgotten that, or don’t care, but the Republicans lost, so they need to remember and to care more.

I have the feeling that if someone woke Romney in the middle of the night, and asked, “Why do you want to be President?” his first thought would be to say, “Tell me who you are, so I know what to answer.”

Is it too naive for candidates to care about America and the men, women and children living here — to put our nation and our neighbors first, and strategy and tactics last — to reach down and lift the “the homeless and the tempest-tost”?

Is it really too naive?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: