–Recognize the buzz words used by political, lying whores

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and 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.
==========================================================================================================================================
Sorry for insulting whores, who work hard for their money, but how do you know when a politician is lying? Aside from “When he’s moving his lips,” he will use certain buzz words that tip you off.

In the post, “No, it’s not your imagination. The upper 1% really are screwing you more,” we listed ten ironic “suggestions” for how the upper income 1% can continue to increase the income gap.

Here are those suggestions, together with examples of how they are being followed. The purpose is to show you the context in which politicians use their buzz words to destroy the 99%. Listen for them the next time you hear a politician open his/her mouth:

1. Raise taxes via a national sales tax or VAT. Poorer people devote a greater percentage of their income on consumption.

April 6, 2010: Speaking at a New York Historical Society event, Obama adviser Volcker said a VAT is “not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and concluded: “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes.” (Newsmax)

2. To “save” Social Security, tell the 99% it’s “insolvent”, so you must reduce benefits and continue to increase the SS starting age. Also, continue to tax SS benefits, as these benefits are most important to lower income people. Maintain or even increase the FICA tax. This tax directly punishes lower salaried people.

(Mitt) proposes that Social Security should be adjusted in a couple of commonsense ways that will put it on the path of solvency and ensure that it is preserved for future generations.

First, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that the retirement age should be slowly increased to account for increases in longevity.

Second, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes.

3. To “save” Medicare, tell the 99% it’s insolvent, so you must reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. That way, more of the best doctors will opt for “boutique” practices that only the 1% can afford. Don’t pay for expensive procedures (that only the rich can manage). Continue to tax medical expenses based on percentage of income. (Poor people get no benefit at all.)

The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries.

4. Cut federal salaries and benefits to “save taxpayers’ money.” Federal agencies employ the 99%. Military equipment production companies hire the 99%. Cut postal and other government employment. Cut domestic spending, as the vast majority of domestic spending benefits the 99%.

As the chief architect of the House Republicans fiscal 2013 budget proposal, (Paul) Ryan proposed extending the current federal pay freeze through 2015, cutting the size of the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition and increasing employee contributions to retirement plans. Ryan says this would save taxpayers approximately $386 billion over 10 years.

Note: Federal taxpayers do not pay for federal spending.

5. “Broaden the income tax base” (code words for increasing the number of lower income people forced to pay taxes). Continue the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT); it catches more of the 99% every year, and the 1% know how to avoid it.

The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

6. Cut federal spending to “stop spending money we don’t have” and to reduce “big government.” The reason: Most federal spending creates jobs for the 99%. Especially cut food stamps, unemployment compensation, Medicaid, aid to education, job training and all other federal aid programs. The upper 1% don’t use them.

“We need to stop spending money we don’t have,” said Paul Ryan at the Iowa State Fair on Monday. “President Obama has given us four years of trillion dollar-plus deficits. He is making matters worse, and he is spending our children into a diminished future.”

7. Cut financial assistance to the states, Medicaid, food stamps and farmers. Virtually everything the states do benefits the 99%, and since the states are monetarily non-sovereign, they have nowhere to get money except by taxing their own people. The rich know how to avoid this.

The House Agriculture Committee on Thursday unveiled its approach for a long-term farm and food bill that would reduce spending by $3.5 billion a year, almost half of that coming from cuts in the federal food stamp program.

8. Continue to spread the myth that the U.S. government — a government having the unlimited ability to create dollars — is, or soon will be insolvent, like Greece, and that federal taxes pay for federal spending. These false ideas confuse the 99% and give you a good excuse to cut anything that benefits them. Continue the federal debt limit exercise. Pretend federal finances are the same as personal finances.

“Washington isn’t broken — it’s broke.” By EDWIN FEULNER and SEN. JIM DEMINT

“The United States is becoming too much like Greece and could easily end up in the same place.” By Peter Morici, June 15, 2012 FoxNews.com

9. Continue to allow banks to trade for their own accounts, and always bail them out when their investments go sour. Never accuse any banker of criminal activity. Banks are special.

Republican congressmen vented Wednesday that a signature aspect of President Barack Obama’s financial reform has become too costly and complex to enforce. The so-called “Volcker Rule”— named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker — would restrict banks from trading for their own accounts, a move intended to prevent them from making risky bets with deposits insured by the government.

At a joint House Financial Services subcommittee hearing, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) attacked the rule as being a “self-inflicted wound” for the entire economy, warning that Wall Street jobs could migrate abroad to Canada after the rule starts to go into effect in July.

10. Nominate more arch conservatives to the Supreme Court. Scalia, Alito and Thomas are good models, who have turned the Court into a right wing political organization. The “Citizens United” decision was an excellent step forward. This assures that the agenda favoring the 1% over the 99%, will have the reinforcement of Supreme Court decision.

New York Times: The Supreme Court examined the Arizona immigration law in minute detail, but when it came to revisiting the damage caused by its own handiwork in the 2010 Citizens United case, it couldn’t be bothered. In a single dismissive paragraph on Monday, the court’s conservative majority refused to allow Montana or any other state to impose limits on corporate election spending and wouldn’t even entertain arguments on the subject.

It is not as if those five justices could have missed the $300 million in outside spending that deluged the 2010 Congressional elections or the reports showing that more than $1 billion will be spent by outside groups on Republican candidates this year, overwhelming the competition.

They might also have seen that many of the biggest donations are secret, given to tax-free advocacy groups in defiance even of the admonition in Citizens United that independent contributions should be disclosed.

The court’s five conservative justices struck down a Montana law that prohibited corporate spending in elections — a law passed in 1912 not out of some theoretical concern about money corrupting elections but to put an end to actual influence-buying by copper barons.

But the frustration of the dissenters, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, was clear. He said grave doubt had been cast on the majority’s belief, expressed in Citizens United, that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or even give the appearance of corruption. But he said the majority had made it plain that it hasn’t the slightest interest in reconsidering or altering its decision.

While the real anti-99% dirty work is done by Republicans, Democrats cannot claim complete innocence. They consistently have failed to disseminate the truth, namely that the federal government easily can support all social programs, without taxes and without borrowing.

Yes, it takes courage to argue against popular wisdom, especially when courting voters. But, think back, Mr. & Ms. politician. Why the heck did you run for office, originally? Do you remember when you hoped to do good for America? Do you feel pride, now that you’ve become a crass, meaningless party servant, who “goes along to get along”?

Is political power really worth becoming a lying whore?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================
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 BIG LIE: It’s everywhere. Repetition creates belief, which creates more repetition.

In economics we suffer the BIG LIE. It is a lie, because it is untrue. And it is big, because it adversely affects every facet of our lives. The BIG LIE, in its simplest, most basic form is this:

“A Monetarily Sovereign government unwillingly can run short of its sovereign currency.”

The U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign on August 15, 1971, when it went off a gold standard. The government creates dollars by paying bills. It pays bills by instructing banks to increase the numbers in checking accounts. It can do this endlessly, now that it no longer needs supplies of gold to collateralize dollars. In short, the BIG TRUTH is:

It is not possible for the U.S. government unwillingly to run short of dollars.

Even were all federal taxes and so-called federal “borrowing to fall to $0, the U.S. government could pay any bills of any size, forever. This includes 100% funding of Social Security, Medicare for everyone and every other federal initiative.

Not only is the BIG TRUTH factually true, but it has been proven true. Not only is the BIG LIE factually false, but it repeatedly has been proven false. Yet the BIG LIE is widely believed — so widely believed it seldom even is argued, but rather merely assumed as fact — and he BIG TRUTH is widely derided. There are two reasons.

1. The BIG LIE appeals to ignorant intuition, because though it is untrue about federal finances, it is true about personal finances. While the federal government cannot run short of dollars, we citizens can run short.

2. The BIG LIE benefits the upper 1% income group by increasing the gap between the 1% and the 99%. Most federal deficit spending benefits the 99% more than the 1%. Deficit reductions increase the gap. And most information sources – the media editors and politicians – are part of, or beholden to, the 1%.

Thus the BIG LIE, despite its factual and experiential shortcomings, is repeated everywhere in America and around the world, and seldom even debated. Here are examples of the BIG LIE in the words of the liars:

“We need to stop spending money we don’t have. President Obama has given us four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits.” Paul Ryan

“Spending money we don’t have” applies to people, cities and businesses, all of which are monetarily non-sovereign, not to the Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which creates money by spending. The only way we can “have” money is via federal spending. No federal spending, no “having.”

“With Medicare expected to go bust by 2024 . . . “ Jan Crawford of CBS News

Medicare, as a federal agency, cannot “go bust,” unless Congress and the President decide not to fund it. Even if FICA were $0, the government could continue paying benefits, as always.

“Canada’s path of great budgetary discipline and a very heavy emphasis on growth and overcoming the crisis, not living on borrowed money, can be an example for the way in which problems on the other side of the Atlantic can be addressed. This is also the right solution for Europe.” Angela Merkel, Germany

For every nation, including Canada, Gross Domestic Product = Government Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports. So if Government Spending goes down, growing the economy requires something else to go up. That’s simple algebra. Canada’s is a net exporter, otherwise it would be in a depression.

‘Medicare is the second-biggest item in the entire federal budget and one of the fastest-growing. Over the past 30 years, its cost has doubled as a share of our gross domestic product, and over the next 30, it’s on track to double again. But the revenues that pay for it are not keeping pace.” Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune

The president of AARP recently admitted that FICA does not pay for Medicare or Social Security.

“We need a national sales tax — a consumption tax, like the dreaded but efficient value-added tax — but Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan don’t have the gumption to support it.” David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s budget director

Just as federal spending adds dollars to the economy, federal taxes remove dollars from the economy, which by simple mathematics, reduces GDP growth. Taxes depress economies.

Just as a doctor would treat an illness, we must look for the cause of the ailment. In the case of the deficit, that’s government overspending. So the question clearly is, “Where do we cut?” Gretchen Hamel, executive director of Public Notice.

The need to cut federal spending merely is assumed. No evidence ever is provided. The reason: No such evidence exists.

“The issue of the debt and the deficit – and what to do about it – has paralyzed Washington lawmakers. But when it comes to measures for reducing the deficit on which they might reach common ground, they will get little help in building support for an agreement by turning to public opinion.” Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center

While public opinion is nearly unanimous that the federal deficit should be reduced, there can be no agreement about how. The reason: Every plan for reducing the deficit discloses the BIG TRUTH that deficit reduction hurts the economy.

“Was the budget deficit increase in 2008, Rob Portman’s fault?” Published: Saturday, August 11, 2012, By Stephen Koff, The Cleveland Plain Dealer

The headline uses the world “fault” to describe a deficit increase. The correct word would have been “accomplishment.”

“Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, adding to the urgency for Congress to address the program’s long-term finances.” Aug. 12, 2012, Associated Press writer Andres Gonzalez contributed to this report.

FICA does not pay for Social Security benefits. The best way to “address the program’s long-term finances” would be to eliminate FICA and support SS out of the general fund.

“You must have a balanced plan that reforms the tax code in a progressive, pro-growth manner and produces additional revenue if you are serious about reducing the deficit by at least $4 trillion without disrupting the country’s fragile economic recovery and hurting the disadvantaged.” August 12, 2012, By Erskine Bowles, in St. Louis Post Dispatch

He wants to increase taxes to grow the economy, a mathematical idiocy.

“The long-term entitlement crisis is seeping into the short term. Social Security slipped into the red last year. Medicare follows suit in roughly a decade. And Europe is demonstrating that creditors’ patience with political and fiscal dysfunction is not infinite.” Michael Gerson (from the Seattle Times)

Gerson does not understand the difference between Monetary Sovereignty (the U.S.) and monetary non-sovereignty (the euro nations). Or at least, he pretends he doesn’t understand. As an employee of the 1%, he is paid to disseminate the BIG LIE.

One could go on and on, with repetitions of the BIG LIE. Is it any wonder the public has come to believe and even repeat the BIG LIE? We read the BIG LIE in our newspapers. We hear the BIG LIE from politicians, on radio and TV, and even from our neighbors. We drown in the BIG LIE. Repetition creates belief, which creates more repetition.

And all these repetitions have one thing in common: They express alarm at the size of the federal deficit, but none provides any evidence the deficit harms the economy. The reason for no evidence: The deficit is absolutely necessary for economic growth.

“It’s bad because it’s big,” is the only “evidence” the liars provide, but that is exactly the same as saying, “Gross Domestic Product is bad because it’s big.”

Abraham Lincoln supposedly said, ” . . . you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Old Abe might have been wrong about this one. The 1% has managed to fool nearly all the people about the federal deficit.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–The euro comedy continues. But don’t laugh at their ignorance. Our Tea/Republicans and the Dems are of the same mind.

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.
==========================================================================================================================================

This goes under the heading, “It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.”

Fin Min says Greek concession would strengthen Ireland’s hand
Ireland seeking ECB help in reducing sovereign debt burden

Feb 8 (Reuters) – Ireland would see any European Central Bank contribution to the restructuring of Greek debt as a precedent that would boost Dublin’s efforts to ease the burden of its own sovereign debt, the country’s finance minister said on Wednesday.

And why not? If the ECB is prepared to screw Greece’s creditors to get Greece off the hook, why not screw Ireland’s, too. And while they’re setting precedent, how about helping Spain, Italy and Portugal avoid their debt?

Ireland, widely seen as the poster child among bailed-out euro zone countries, has been lobbying the ECB to help it reduce the burden of its sovereign debt by cutting the cost to the government of bailing out its banks.

“If the ECB are prepared to make this kind of concession to Greece it would encourage me to think that they might be ready to make concessions on the promissory note to Ireland,” Finance Minister Michael Noonan told state broadcaster RTE.

“I see it, if it occurs, as a strengthening of our negotiating position.”

And fair is fair. If you’re going to reduce the debts of the most flagrant budget busters, how about doing something for countries that have had lower deficits, like France, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, and please let’s not ignore the needs of Belgium, Estonia and Luxemborg.

And why not even Germany? Just because they arranged their finances, and made their citizens accept a lower standard of living, so the government could pay its debts, why should they have to continue? So long as “screw the private creditors” is now an accepted EU strategy, everyone should be able to slurp from that trough.

Officials from the ECB, European Commission and International Monetary Fund on Wednesday were attempting to broker a deal that would open the way for a 130 billion euro EU/IMF rescue for Greece and avoid a disorderly default.

While the ECB has ruled out joining private creditors in voluntarily accepting losses on its Greek bonds, it could provide indirect relief by renouncing profits from bonds it bought at below face value.

It works like this. The ECB, which being Monetarily Sovereign, so having the unlimited ability to create euros and pay any bills, will not accept losses on its Greek bonds. But private creditors, who do not have this unlimited ability, will take all the losses. If you understand that, kindly explain it to me.

The ECB’s 23-member Governing Council, which holds a regular monthly meeting on Thursday, has yet to adopt a position, but some policymakers are reluctant to share the burden, in part for fear of setting a precedent.

They don’t want to set a precedent??? See, I told you this would be funny.

A precedent already has existed for years. The precedent is this: Euro-using nations, being monetarily non-sovereign, have but two choices: Somehow create a positive balance of payments or drift into an austerity-induced recession. Monetarily non-sovereign governments succeed long term, only if they have money coming in from outside their borders. This applies to all euro nations, the American states, counties and cities.

Germany succeeds by sucking euros from its neighbors, but what are the neighbors to do? It’s highly unlikely that all euro nations can be net exporters. So where are the euros to come from if the EU won’t supply them?

Unfortunately, despite being able to create euros at will, the EU is afraid to run a deficit. They still live in a pre-1971 world – just as the U.S. government does. Debt-hawk ignorance is everywhere.

I award two clowns to the policymakers who fear setting a precedent more than they fear injuring the private sector. Advice to all prospective lenders: Make sure you get high interest rates for those high-risk bonds. Of course, lenders don’t need my advice. They definitely will demand more interest, which will make the next crisis come sooner, which will cause even higher interest rates, followed by an even sooner crisis. And the downward helix continues.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–AARP continues to peddle — this time it’s false information

AARP, formerly, The American Association of Retired Persons is a huge organization that peddles many things. They peddle insurance, publish a magazine, peddle insurance, produce radio and TV programs, peddle insurance, offer travel packages, peddle insurance, provide tax preparation services and, oh yes, they peddle insurance. They also publish on line, various advice bulletins, some of which peddle insurance.

Like virtually all publishers to the masses, AARP is clueless about economics, so repeatedly gives its members wrong information. For instance:

Frequently Asked Questions, 2/10/12
Why can’t the government just print more money to get out of debt?

First of all, the federal government doesn’t create money; that’s one of the jobs of the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank.

The Fed tries to influence the supply of money in the economy to promote noninflationary growth. Unless there is an increase in economic activity commensurate with the amount of money that is created, printing money to pay off the debt would make inflation worse. This would be, as the saying goes, “too much money chasing too few goods.”

I wrote to them: “The Federal government DOES create money — by spending. Congress and the President authorize spending. When the government spends, it sends instructions to its creditors’ banks. The instructions tell the banks to increase the numbers in the creditors’ checking accounts. That creates dollars.

Banks also create dollars by lending.

Inflation is not caused by “too much money chasing too few goods.” That expression is obsolete. In today’s world market, there cannot be too few goods — with one exception: Oil. For the past 40 years, since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign, inflation has had no relationship to the money supply, but rather to the price of oil.

I notice that virtually all of AARP’s economic statements refer to the time prior to August 15, 1971 (when we became Monetarily Sovereign), and no longer are valid.”

This is not the first time AARP has given that same false information about the economy. On another post last fall, they said:

“First of all, the federal government doesn’t create money; that’s one of the jobs of the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank.”

I wrote to them: “Wrong. Think about it. The U.S. is 235 years old. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913 — only 98 years ago. The Federal Reserve’s main tasks involve interest rate and inflation control. So who creates dollars? The Treasury — on orders from Congress. It creates dollars by deficit spending. Every time you receive a federal payment, dollars are created.

In the same post, they said:

“… printing money to pay off the debt would make inflation worse.”

I wrote: “ Wrong. When someone buys a T-security, their checking account is debited and their T-security account is credited. No money is created or destroyed. Then, when the T-security is paid off, the process is reversed: Their checking account is credited and their T-security account is debited. Again no money is created or destroyed. It’s a simple asset exchange.

Since the U.S. went off the gold standard, there has been no relationship between federal debt and inflation. See: Oil causes inflation. It is very important that AARP not provide false information to its members.

Those of you who belong to AARP might write to them, urging them to at least try to understand Monetary Sovereignty.

And while I’m on the subject of false information, I couldn’t resist showing you this article:

Fla. Man Leaves Million Dollar Home to Uncle Sam
from: The Associated Press | December 12, 2011

A South Florida man willed his historic house worth $1 million to the U.S. government to help eliminate the country’s growing debt. The Miami Herald reports that Uncle Sam put the Coral Gables house up for auction Saturday. The winning bid was $1.175 million.

The house belonged to James H. Davidson Jr. who lived there from his teenage years until he died last December at 87. He also left $1 million to the government.

The Herald reports Davidson had nieces and nephews who live in the area. The government will auction off the contents on the home in January.

How sad. This guy thinks he’s doing a good deed. So instead of giving the money to his nieces and nephews, he destroys it by giving it to the government. Not only does this screw his relatives, but it screws the economy by removing millions from circulation – a double whammy.

I ascribe all this ongoing idiocy to the old-line economists, who continue to hypnotize the media and the politicians, who in turn, hypnotize the public into believing we are pre-1971, when the U.S. still was monetarily non-sovereign.

Be sure to contact AARP, and tell them they have been awarded two dunce caps, of which I have none, yet of which I never will run short. (Just like the federal government, which “has” virtually no dollars, but never can run short of dollars)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: