Austerity anger in Brazil: The BIG LIE of entitlement turns people into flies

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

(To a fly, bullsh*t smells good.)

What is the fundamental reason austerity angers the populace. No, it’s not just that austerity causes poverty. It’s not even just that austerity widens the gap between the rich and the rest.

Yes, it’s both, but it also is something more.

SN News
Protesters out again in Brazilian cities

Scattered street demonstrations popped up around Brazil Wednesday as protesters continued their collective cry against the low-quality public services they receive in exchange for high taxes and rising prices.

The actions followed another night of mass marches around Brazil and nearly a week of unrest that has shocked the country’s leaders.

Note the words “in exchange for.” Like the American public, Brazilians have been brainwashed with the BIG LIE, the myth that Monetarily Sovereign government taxes pay for Monetarily Sovereign government spending.

The people of Brazil justifiably are angry, but for the wrong reason. They believe,in essence, “We pay high taxes; so why don’t we receive service,” not understanding there is no relationship between taxes and services.

Beyond complaints about transit fares, protesters haven’t produced any concrete demands, mainly venting their anger at not just the government of President Dilma Rousseff, but with the entire governing system.

Attorney Agatha Rossi de Paula, who attended the latest protest in Sao Paulo along with her mother, called Brazil’s fiscal priorities “an embarrassment.”

“We just want what we paid in taxes back, through health care, education and transportation,” said the 34-year-old. “We want the police to protect us, to help the people on the streets who have ended up with no job and no money.”

The irony of the situation is that BIG LIE, not the lack of services, is what really created the tension. The rich (who control the politicians and the media) can’t mollify the populace by cutting taxes or by increasing social spending, because either action would narrow the gap between the rich and the rest — exactly what the rich don’t want.

By turning people into flies, and making people believe taxes pay for spending, the rich also have fostered the belief paying taxes entitles people entitled to the benefits of government spending.

It’s similar to the “problem” in America, where paying years of FICA has made American’s wrongly believe they are entitled to Social Security benefits. Yes, Americans are entitled to benefits, but not because they paid FICA.

Americans are entitled to benefits because a Monetarily Sovereign nation easily cans and should provide those benefits. Period. It has nothing to do with FICA.

People are more angered by paying for something not received, than by not receiving a “freebie.” After all, no one “deserves” a freebie.

In summary, austerity breeds anger and civil disobedience not only from the lack of services. It’s not only unemployment or poverty or having to pay taxes or the widening of the income gap. It is because of the BIG LIE, which creates the implication that taxes pay for entitlement.

When the Guillotines are erected, and the peasants march with torches and pitchforks (or simply when the liars are voted out), it will happen because the people have been brainwashed into believing they haven’t received what they have paid for.

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%

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

–How one of the best bills in history — H.R. 676, Medicare for All — is spoiled

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

If you were to select the one best measure of a nation’s greatness, you would be hard pressed to find one better than health care of its people.

Look around the world, and you will see the “best” nations providing the best health care and the “worst” nations providing the worst health care.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence says, “. . . [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Surely, good health is part of that trio.

Because private healthcare insurers do not provide affordable coverage to the broad populace, Medicare and Medicaid were great improvements. But the problem of significant uninsured and underinsured remains.

For a nation that views itself as the world’s leader in most things, this is unacceptable.

Obamacare, nee Romneycare, was an attempt to include more people, but it is a complex, convoluted, inefficient program no one fully understands. Both those who favor it, and those who disfavor it, do so out of ignorance.

For years, I have favored providing full Medicare for everyone — a Medicare coverage so complete that neither Medicaid nor supplemental policies would be necessary.

And such a bill exists — almost. It is H.R. 676, Medicare for All:
“To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes.”

Some features of the bill:

All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the Medicare For All Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care

The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:
(1) Primary care and prevention.
(2) Approved dietary and nutritional therapies.
(3) Inpatient care.
(4) Outpatient care.
(5) Emergency care.
(6) Prescription drugs.
(7) Durable medical equipment.
(8) Long-term care.
(9) Palliative care.
(10) Mental health services.
(11) The full scope of dental services, services, including periodontics, oral surgery, and endodontics, but not including cosmetic dentistry.
(12) Substance abuse treatment services.
(13) Chiropractic services, not including electrical stimulation.
(14) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
(15) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
(16) Podiatric care.

No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

The Program shall pay physicians, dentists, doctors of osteopathy, pharmacists, psychologists, chiropractors, doctors of optometry, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, physicians’ assistants, and other advanced practice clinicians.

Medicare for All not only would cover everyone, but by eliminating deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance, it eliminates the need to shop around for additional coverages, or even to worry about which form of Medicare to acquire.

Simple, complete healthcare coverage for all of America — exactly what the greatest nation on earth should provide.

So what’s the problem? I can imagine a couple, easily addressed, problems:

Government bureaucrats, not doctors, would make life-or-death decisions about coverages.
As with every health insurance policy, public or private, bureaucrats advised by the medical community, make coverage decisions. Medicare already does that, as does Blue Cross et al. But with no limits, deductibles or co-payments, Medicare for All would be far more generous than any private insurance — and of course, cost-free.

Private health insurance companies would be put out of business and their employees would lose their jobs.
True. Medicare for All is far more efficient, requiring far fewer employees, than the patchwork of private and public insurance options now available. Some people would find jobs in Medicare for All. Most would not. It essentially is what happens when any more efficient system is put in place, whether in private industry or public.

Who would pay for Medicare for All?
And here is where H.R.676 falls apart, for it says that funding would come from:

Funding:
(A) Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

The authors of H.R.676 make the tacit (and wrong) assumption that federal taxes pay for federal spending. They do not accept or understand the fact that a Monetarily Sovereign government creates its sovereign currency by spending.

Whenever our Monetarily Sovereign government pays a bill, it merely instructs its creditor’s bank to increase the numbers in the creditor’s checking account. That is how dollars are created.

Unlike state and local taxes, federal taxes are destroyed. Upon receipt; federal taxes no longer are part of the money supply. They pay for nothing, because they cease to exist in the economy. Dollars exist only outside the federal government.

In reducing the money supply, all federal taxes are recessionary. Medicare for All should be funded by federal deficit spending. The populace would receive a double benefit: Better health care and the economic stimulus of federal spending.

In summary, H.R. 676, Medicare for All, is a great concept. It need not, and should not, be associated with tax increases. The federal government simply should pay for it.

Our current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare state exchanges are the most inefficient, cockamamie approach to health care insurance ever dreamed up in a bureaucratic nightmare.

Medicare for all solves those problems. It would require no state participation, no proof of eligibility, be completely portable, massively reduce employer expenses, cost Americans nothing and provide everyone, rich or poor, with the best available health care.

Why then haven’t Congress and the President jumped aboard? Two reasons:

The rich in total, and the health insurance companies in particular, spread bribe money to maintain the current, inefficient, unfair system. Medicare for All would close the gap between rich and poor — something the rich do not want.

So, I urge you to read the bill and it’s simple explanations at: H.R. 676, Medicare for All, then contact your Congressperson and demand Medicare for All, fully funded by the federal government.

It’s the best thing you can do for our nation.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Ten 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. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Police state: Which vital secret did Edward Snowden reveal? PART II

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

The secret is out:

NSA’s methods usual for Taliban

Unlike many Americans, the Taliban were not surprised by the news (of NSA surveillance).

“We knew about their past efforts to trace our system,” Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the Washington Post.

“We have used our technical sources to foil their efforts and have been able to stop them from succeeding so far.”

The Taliban, knowing their conversations were tapped, would often attempt to mislead snooping Americans, discussing ambushes that never materialized.

So, the Taliban knew all about NSA’s monitoring of our phone calls, and in fact, had devised methods for using that monitoring against us.

And Congress knew all about NSA’s monitoring of our phone calls, in fact, they authorized it.

And the President knew all about NSA’s monitoring of our phone calls, in fact, he was the 2nd President to authorize it.

So, from whom was this vital “secret” being hidden? From us, of course, the schlemiels from whom all government secrets are kept.

Despite John Boehner and Dick Cheney calling Snowden a traitor, and demanding his severe punishment — and despite today’s Chicago Tribune publishing a cartoon showing Snowden stabbing the Statue of Liberty in the back — and despite the huffing and puffing of America’s super-patriots, exactly what vital secret did Snowden reveal to our enemies?

None, that I’ve heard of. Have you heard of any?

Why is the government angry? Because they did’t want you to know they were spying on you.

Let’s face it, the enemy is not stupid. With the exception of current tactical and planned strategic operations or undercover agents or weapons development, there are very few, if any, secrets our enemies don’t already know. Does anyone still accept the blatent bullsh*t that the Taliban and whomever else we consider our enemies, did not know we were monitoring their calls?

Did the Russians not know it? The Chinese? The North Koreans? The Iranians? The Iraqis?

The vast majority of U.S. government secrets are meant to be secret only from the American people, not from so-called “enemies. The enemies already know the secrets or don’t care.

Many secret-classified documents are decades old, and have no security value. The purpose: To hide from the public, government screw-ups.

So the next time you read or hear a self-proclaimed super-patriot frothing in horror, at all the important secrets someone has divulged, and how that person is a traitor, ask this question: Exactly which vital secret did he reveal?

As for Snowden, I don’t care whether his girlfriend is a beautiful pole dancer, who is or is not delighted at getting her name on Facebook. I don’t care whether Snowden is or is not doing this for money or publicity, and not out of patriotism. I don’t even care whether he is hiding in Singapore or Bora Bora.

And I don’t buy the government’s dubious claims that one (or was it 12 or was it 200?) — the numbers kept changing — terrorists were caught as a result of tracking phones.

And for sure I don’t buy General Hayden’s claim (during his confirmation hearing) that the NSA surveillance program would have prevented 9/11. An even bigger monitoring program called Echelon, had been in place for many years. And the hijackers already were being tracked by the US government (just as the Boston bombers were), and you saw how well that tracking went).

It is not surprising that the bought-and-paid-for media already have forgotten about Echelon, a clear violation of the Constitution, while raving hysterically about Snowden revealing some mythical secrets. The media print what the government wants printed.

Until someone answers the question, “Exactly which vital secret did he reveal,” I’ll consider Snowden a hero, for showing us the depths to which our government has sunk, and for taking the heat.

So far as I can see, the greatest danger to American freedom is not little Edward Snowden, who eventually will rot in jail, but the U.S. government.

(If only Snowden had been as big a campaign contributor as the crooked bankers, who really did damage America, he wouldn’t need to worry about jail.)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–You didn’t jail me then, and you won’t jail me now, so I guess it’s all right

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

Because wealthy criminal bankers bribe politicians with big campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later, neither the Obama administration nor the Republican party has shown any desire to prosecute the gangsters who cost the American public trillions.

(It’s more fun to punish poor immigrants who only want to build a better life. After all, how much do poor immigrants contribute?)

So, because the crooks have proven to be immune from prosecution, there is no reason for them to stop cheating the public:

Financial Times
Bid to relaunch synthetic CDO unravels
By Tracy Alloway, Tom Braithwaite and Dan McCrum in New York

An attempt by two big Wall Street banks to revive notorious credit boom-era securities blamed for exacerbating the global financial crisis has failed after investors balked at buying some of the derivatives on offer.

JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley have scrapped a plan to sell “synthetic collateralised debt obligations” – sliced and diced pools of credit derivatives – after failing to find investors willing to take on all of the deal’s different pieces.

Banks sold $61bn worth of synthetic CDOs in 2006, at the height of the credit bubble.

President Obama has done nothing to stop the crime, but the public has wised up, so presumably the criminal bankers will find a new scam to foist on the public.

Presumably, Obama, having been well bribed, will do nothing about that, either.

While synthetic CDOs with a range of tranches have yet to stage a comeback, some banks have been striking customised “single tranche” deals with investors.

“Generally, it is hard to be very precise about exactly what is going on in terms of synthetic deals because banks are extremely nervous about talking openly about it,” said Mark Hale, chief investment officer of Prytania Investment Advisors.

Don’t know why the banks should be nervous. The government won’t punish them. Perhaps the nervousness comes from not wanting customers to learn the details of the swindle.

Bottom line: When criminal activity goes unpunished, it will continue, growing ever worse until it IS punished.

That goes for criminal bankers and criminal politicians accepting bribes.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: