–Australia, you cannot beat America for the title

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

Most Americans believe our Monetarily Sovereign government – the world’s only government with the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars – by some magic can run short of dollars, and therefore should take dollars from the private sector.

We also hold the irrational belief that taking dollars from the private sector strengthens the economy.

We had thought those strange beliefs would assure us of the proud title, “Most Ignorant About Economics.” But, no. As we struggle to pull ourselves from the tar pit of recession and austerity, the Australians try to wrest this bit of exclusivity from us.

Financial Review
Labor reels from $20bn budget hole
Phillip Coorey, Chief political correspondent

The federal government faces a forecast revenue shortfall of more than $20 billion over the next four years, prompting a robust internal debate about whether the budget razor gang should make cuts to offset all the losses or delay the surplus yet again.

Measures under consideration to help plug the revenue hole include increases in tobacco excise, abolishing loss carry-back tax provisions for business, and tightening family tax benefits and so-called middle-class welfare.

So there they go. Australian politicians (undoubtedly bribed by the rich, like American politicians) now wish to make their businesses less able to hire workers and also to take money from poor families.

Will these people stop at nothing in their relentless effort to wrest the “Most Ignorant” title from us and to widen the gap between the rich and the rest?

The Age
Income spread evens out a bit
Tim Colebatch, August 1, 2013

The Bureau of Statistics (says) the Gini coefficient of income inequality has declined by 5 per cent (i.e. less inequality) since the GFC. But between 1997 and 2008, inequality increased by 15 per cent. Two-thirds of that is still there.

The bureau highlights the huge impact of government in reducing inequality by pensions, benefits and free services.

Australia’s politicians, like America’s, are terrified that central government spending on benefits to the middle- and lower-income people will reduce income inequality – the very last thing the rich want.

So, the Australian pols do everything to convince the populace their Monetarily Sovereign government is running short of dollars and needs to take money from the private sector.

And like their American counterparts, the Australian people buy into the myth.

Here’s a bit more from “Labor reels from $20bn budget hole”:

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey Hockey said Prime -Minister Kevin Rudd was softening the population for a ballooning in debt to be associated with the renewed revenue downgrades.

“The government can’t stop spending, spending like there’s no tomorrow. He is playing down the debt challenge because he wants to increase it. He wants to increase the debt.”

Translation: Mr. Rudd is accused of wanting to increase the money supply in Australia’s private sector (That is what “increase the debt” means.) People would actually have more Australian dollars in their pockets. Oh, horrors!

Financial Review
Bank deposits ‘taxed’ for bailout fund
Phillip Coorey and Matthew Dunckley

The Australian Financial Review has learned that the government’s economic statement will contain a deposit insurance levy, which will raise funds to underwrite any Australian bank should it need assistance in the future.

The proposed levy would be between 0.05 per cent and 0.1 per cent. Presently, the government guarantees deposits up to $250,000 without charging the banks.

The revenue raised by the levy will also be added to the budget bottom line, helping the government offset a forecast plunge in revenues since the May budget and meet its target of returning to surplus in 2016-17.

Translation: The levy will help the government meet its target of returning the private sector to deficit in 2016-17 (A government surplus is a private sector deficit).

Treasurer Chris Brown said “we have no plans to tax banks.’’

Translation: We won’t call it a “tax.” We’ll call it a “service fee” Or perhaps a “sock-it-to-the-public stipend.” By not calling it a “tax,” we won’t hurt the economy.

One big bank has warned the levy would be passed on in the form of reduced interest payments on deposits.

Are they saying if we, the government, take dollars from the banks, the banks will spend fewer dollars? We didn’t know that!

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said, “This is a government that cannot control its spending, (so) whenever it gets into trouble, it hits you the Australian people with more taxes.

Translation: “The government should not tax you, because taxes take dollars from the private sector, especially from the rich.

“However, the government should reduce its spending, which puts fewer dollars into the private sector, especially the poor. I know. It makes no sense, but it’s what the rich have paid me to say.”

Bottom line, Australia, you may try to take the title, “Most Ignorant About Economics,” but we are Americans. Nobody beats us. When it comes to economics, we can out-ignorant anyone (except maybe the euro nations).

And, we have a unique weapon that assures us of victory.

We have the Tea Party.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone (Click here)
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. Click here
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Beware of Obama bearing “Grand Bargains.” The big lie that destroys America.

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

Those of you who HAVE read “What President Obama’s ‘grand bargain’ means to your wallet Friday, Nov 2 2012, know that it is a “bargain” only to the rich and a punishment for the middle- and lower-income groups.

The Grand Bargain is a lie, akin to “I’ll be working late at the office, dear,” for Obama is the nation’s political philanderer.

Because he is a Democrat, Obama is “married” to the middle- and lower-income groups, but he cheats on his “wife” every day. His true love is the rich.

His spouse, the middle class, is abused at home with lies, and with threats of Social Security cuts, and with actual cuts to federal spending that would feed, clothe and house her, and further cuts to federal employment — all engineered by her faithless husband, the President.

Meanwhile, Obama will do anything for his rich mistress, who seduces him with campaign contributions and promises of lucrative jobs and a big Obama Library later, and who asks only that he widen the gap between a beautiful rich mistress and the plain, overworked rest of us.

(The Obama model is Bill Clinton who, courtesy of the rich, has become fabulously wealthy, as a “thank you” for cutting the federal deficit. That single act enriched the rich, impoverished the not-rich, widened the gap and led to the recession inherited by President Bush — and Clinton’s mistress has rewarded him ever since.)

Yesterday, as Obama’s latest gift to his mistress, he offered her yet another “grand bargain.”

Obama proposes ‘grand bargain’ on corporate tax rate, infrastructure
By Steve Holland | Reuters

In exchange for his support for a corporate tax reduction, Obama wants the money generated by a tax overhaul to be used to fund such projects as repairing roads and bridges, improving education at community colleges and promoting manufacturing, senior administration officials said.

Think about it. A tax “overhaul” cannot fund anything. The taxes of a Monetarily Sovereign government do not pay for that government’s spending.

If federal taxes were reduced to $0 or increased to $100 trillion, neither event would affect our Monetarily Sovereign government’s ability to spend. Not even by a penny.

So that is one part of the lie.

Then, there is the “tax overhaul” itself. What does that euphemism mean? No one knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea it means another euphemism: “Broadening the tax base.”

And what does that mean? Generally, it means tax the poor more and tax the rich less. It means pawn your wife’s engagement ring to buy your mistress a fur coat — then tell your wife this is a good thing, because you’ve cut your family insurance costs.

Of course, the broadening might include elimination of so-called “loopholes,” also a mystery term. Here is how “loophole” is defined:

1. All money earned by the private sector — all your money and all business money — is owned by the federal government. All of it.
2. Any of your money you are allowed to keep is a “loophole.”

Simple?

Because Obama harps on his proposals being “revenue neutral,” any tax deductions will be matched by tax increases. Money left in the private sector’s left pocket, will be taken from the private sector’s right pocket — and by some magic of mathematics, Obama considers that stimulative.

The most common measure of the economy is GDP, for which the formula is:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports.

So, for instance, if you were to add $100 to Federal Spending and subtract $100 from Non-Federal Spending, would you add to GDP?

The correct answer, of course, is “No,” but counter to all logic and mathematics, President Obama has been telling you, “Yes.”

Bottom line: To cheat on his spouse, Obama relies on one fundamental lie. It is the basis of all of Obama’s “grand bargains.” The BIG LIE is: Federal taxes pay for federal spending.

Eliminate that single lie — six little words — and you eliminate all the misstatements about our economy, the need for austerity, federal deficits, federal debt, Social Security being unsustainable, Medicare being unsustainable, unemployment, the need for spending cuts and broadening the tax base, etc. etc.

Forget the latest grand bargain or grander bargain or grandest bargain. All these “bargains” are based on the BIG LIE, the purpose of which is to widen the income gap. That’s is all Obama’s mistress asks of him.

Instead remember these two simple truths:

Your spouse may not really be working late at the office, and

FEDERAL TAXES ABSOLUTELY DO NOT PAY FOR FEDERAL SPENDING. Remember these words, and the politicians never will be able to fool you, again.

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. Click here
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%

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Will this save Obamacare? Will it panic Obama?

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

The single biggest financial problem facing America’s cities and states is underfunded pension plans.

Almost every U.S. non-federal government has them, and being monetarily non-sovereign, local governments have two very poor payment options: Soak the taxpayers, or first borrow and then soak the taxpayers to pay the loans.

Part of the underfunding comes from retiree health costs, and it is here that salvation may be at hand:

New York Times
Detroit Looks to Health Law to Ease Costs
By Monica Davey and Abby Goodnough, Published: July 28, 2013

As Detroit enters the federal bankruptcy process, the city is proposing a controversial plan for paring some of the $5.7 billion it owes in retiree health costs: pushing many of those too young to qualify for Medicare out of city-run coverage and into the new insurance markets that will soon be operating under the Obama health care law.

Officials say the plan would be part of a broader effort to save Detroit tens of millions of dollars in health costs each year.

It is being watched closely by municipal leaders around the nation, many of whom complain of mounting, unsustainable prices for the health care promised to retired city workers.

Similar proposals that could shift public sector retirees into the new insurance markets, called exchanges, are already being planned or contemplated in places like Chicago; Sheboygan County, Wis.; and Stockton, Calif.

A study issued this year by the Pew Charitable Trusts found 61 of the nation’s major cities wrestling with $126 billion in retiree health costs, all but 6 percent of that unfunded.

All over America, local governments will see Obamacare as a partial solution to otherwise impossible financial problems. Will the Obama administration get on board with this “help-on-a-silver-platter” opportunity?

If large numbers of localities follow that course, it could amount to a significant cost shift to the federal government.

Authors of the health care law expected at least some shifting of retirees into the new insurance exchanges, said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. “But if a lot of them do, especially big state and local programs that’s going to be a huge cost for the United States government, and it’s mandatory spending.”

And therein lies the problem — the false belief that the federal government can’t afford to pay the bills, and the even more ridiculous beliefs that somehow the cities and states can afford it — or that the retirees should do without.

The Chicago plan would phase some of the city’s 11,800 retirees and their family members not eligible for Medicare out of city coverage by 2017 — (shifting them) to insurance exchanges. The changes are expected to contribute to a larger effort to save Chicago $155 million to $175 million a year in retiree health care costs by 2017.

Now visualize all those Republican-dominated states that have resisted creating Obamacare insurance exchanges. Visualize the billions of dollars in costs that could be shifted from cash-strapped local governments to our Monetarily Sovereign federal government — our government that never can run short of dollars.

Visualize local politicians wanting that money.

The Republicans will howl and moan and scream about the extra costs to the federal government. They will resume the lies that the government is “broke” and “can’t afford” these extra costs, and has to “live within its means.” (John Boehner probably still has those speeches ready for re-use.)

But money to a politician is like raw meat to a starving dog. The local guys will snap up all they can get.

Add these billions to the billions states will receive for Medicaid support, and you have an irresistible force for Obamacare. Obama couldn’t be happier. Right?

Well, not so fast. There is a problem. Obama’s super rich supporters won’t like it. They don’t want the middle- and lower-classes receiving free healthcare. They want those people to spend their last dollars or to do without.

They want the gap between the rich and the rest to widen, not narrow. What’s the good of being super rich, if the “little” people are just as happy as you are, and you can’t make them beg?

No, it’s important to the rich that the underclasses be needy. So this is what I predict:

1. The red states will cave. They’ll say, “Too hell with our phony, austerity ideology; we need that real Obamacare money.”

2. National Republicans will continue lie and complain about “big government,” and the deficit (money supply growth), and continue trying to reinvent themselves as a more compassionate party that really, truly loves minorities — and continue to claim it’s just their message, not their actions, that lose them elections. (Ah, those poor misunderstood Republicans.)

But, being politicians, they’ll lead from the rear, and won’t change until the voters force change.

3. The biggest name to exhibit doubts will be Obama himself — not doubts about his health care plan, but doubts about federal finances. Our “bribed-by-the-rich” President, who supports the fake “need” to balance the federal budget, will find more ways to punish the middle- and lower classes at the behest of the rich.

Yes, he will support his signature accomplishment (for which, by the way, he personally expended little effort), but he will pull more money from middle Americans to “pay for” it.

He again will increase FICA, the most regressive tax in U.S.history. Social Security benefits will be cut, yet again. He will send more federal employees to the unemployment rolls.

Via his notorious “Grand Bargain,” he will ensure that the deficit (money supply growth) will continue to fall. He will cut spending on the myriad projects that benefit the middle- and poor-classes.

4. History will show that Obamacare was a partial success — a complex, convoluted, unnecessarily byzantine partial success, that really should have been a much simpler, much more inclusive, much better Medicare-For-All plan.

Obama will be lauded for insuring more people and for cutting the deficit, just as Clinton was (Never mind that the Clinton surplus caused a recession).

The rich will be happy with Obama. They will give him his big library (as they did, Clinton), and reward him with lucrative speaking engagements (as they do, Clinton) and give the Obama kids great jobs (like Penny Pritzker received).

And for the rest of his life, the Obama’s will enjoy the thrill of hobnobing with rich, famous white people, who privately think he’s a jerk, but love the glory that surrounds him.

The middle- and lower classes will struggle more than ever. The gap between the rich and the rest will widen.

And all will be well with the world.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Obama: Lift the middle class by raising taxes and cutting social benefits

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

Imagine if someone said I’m going to cure your hunger by raising the price of food and by restricting your access to food. What would you call that guy? A liar? A con artist? Wouldn’t you wonder what his agenda really is?

Imagine if someone said I’m going to improve education by eliminating government support for education and by closing the schools. What would you call that guy? A liar? A con artist? Wouldn’t you wonder what his agenda really is?

If you think those examples are ridiculous, consider what President Obama has said and done.

New York Times
Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric
By JACKIE CALMES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR, Published: July 27, 2013

President Obama said he was worried that years of widening income inequality and the lingering effects of the financial crisis had frayed the country’s social fabric and undermined Americans’ belief in opportunity.

“Upward mobility was part and parcel of who we were as Americans. And that’s what’s been eroding over the last 20, 30 years, well before the financial crisis.”

“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise. That’s not a future that we should accept.

“I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve our security.”

Mr. Obama in the interview called for an end to the emphasis on budget austerity that Republicans ushered in when they captured control of the House in November 2010.

Wow, he’s concerned about income inequality, and strengthening the middle class and improving their security. That sounds really great. And most importantly, he wants to end the emphasis on budget austerity, which has killed our economy. This is really wonderful.

New fiscal cliff bill to increase FICA taxes for Alabamians
By Dana Beyerle, Times Montgomery Bureau, Published: Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The tax fix Obama said he will sign did not retain the 2 percentage point FICA, or Social Security, tax reduction from 2010. “It’s going to affect everybody,” said Gadsden CPA John Parr. “If you make $50,000, it’s going to cost you $1,000.”

Huh? Are you saying the guy who expressed so much concern about the middle class, actually signed a bill to increase the single most regressive tax in American history? Hmmm . . . why would he do that?

According to the Wall Street Journal, there does not appear to be any political motivation from either the Republicans or Democrats to extend the FICA reductions in to 2013

“No political motivation from the Democrats”? How could that be? The leader of the Democrats, the President of the United States, said he’s opposed to income inequality and the widening of the income gap between rich and not rich.

Huff Post,July 28, 2013
John Boehner Rejects Obama’s Grand Bargain On Debt Ceiling

Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount.

Now wait a minute. The guy who said he wants to improve the security of the middle class, wants to cut Social Security? And he wants to cut Medicare and cut Medicaid, the three programs that most help the middle class? Hmmm . . . why would he do that?

And this guy wants to increase taxes and cut federal spending (the vast majority of which benefits the middle- and lower- classes), but he says he wants to end the emphasis on austerity? Hmmm . . . why would he do that?

What would you call such a guy? A liar? A con artist? Don’t you wonder what his agenda really is?

As for me, I’d call him a President who has been bribed by the super rich (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later) to widen the gap between the rich and the rest — and who is willing to do it by conning the middle class into believing he cares about us.

He may not be the worst President in our history. We’ve had plenty of bad ones. But on the “sneaky/deceptive/secrets” scale, he ranks way up there with the worst. No wonder he enjoys spying on us and hates Edward Snowden.

“My fellow Americans. The pea is under one of these three shells. Now watch carefully as I shuffle the shells . . . “

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: