OMG! Another wrong, wrong, wrong message to you about Medicare. Tuesday, Sep 12 2017 

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

It simply is maddening, the misinformation you have been receiving about Medicare and Medicare for All.

Those of you who are on Medicare, and even those who are not, understand that the program is an insurance program. Let me repeat that: MEDICARE IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM.

It takes the place of private insurance.

Like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and other health care insurance companies, Medicare does not own hospitals, does not employ health care workers and does not own pharmaceutical companies. It is insurance.

You might expect that to be obvious to anyone who has not been living in a cave for the past 50 years, and it especially should be obvious to people who write articles about Medicare.

So, how can we explain the following article that appeared in Reason.com?

Most Americans Want Government-Run Health Care Until They Find Out the Government Will Run Health Care
And when they find out it means higher taxes, support crumbles further.
Eric Boehm|Sep. 12, 2017

Public support for single-payer health care is growing—in fact, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in July found a majority of Americans support it—but that increase comes with an important caveat.

Most Americans only want government-run health care until they find out that it means the government will run their health care.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and did I mention, wrong.

Medicare for All is not government run health care. It’s government funded insurance for health care. Is it really possible that the author, Eric Boehm doesn’t understand the difference?

An example of government run health care is the Veterans’ Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs is a benefit system for veterans, their families, and survivors that is run by the federal government. As part of the benefit system, the VA owns and operates many VA hospitals across the country.

See the difference? If so, please contact Mr. Boehm at Eric.Boehm@Reason.com, and educate him.

Here is more nonsense from Mr. Boehm:

I thought about that this morning while reading J.D. Tuccille’s excellent piece asking, “Are You Sure You Want Medicare For All?”

He walks through the various ways government-run health care seems to be appealing—it means families no longer have to bear the cost of heartbreaking medical disasters on their own, for example—and the far greater number of reasons why government-run health care would be a fiscal, political, and medical disaster

Sorry to be redundant, but it isn’t “government run health care.” It is government funded health care.

No one says health care is “insurance company run,” so why do they talk about “government run”? There is a reason. It’s part of the scare tactics funded by the insurance industry.

Anyway, the hospitals still would be privately owned and operated. The doctors and nurses still would be privately employed. The pharmaceutical companies still would be privately operated. In short, health care would continue to be privately run, not government run.

Jumping through bureaucratic hurdles for the privilege of accepting substandard compensation isn’t as attractive as it might seem.

That may be why a growing number of physicians refuse to see Medicare patients, others limit the number they’ll accept, and more balk all the time.

Here, Boehm is onto something. The fact is that Medicare doesn’t pay doctors and hospitals enough. 

There is no financial reason for this. Unlike privately owned insurance companies, the federal government cannot run short of dollars. Medicare easily could pay doctors double, triple, or ten time what it now pays.

Here, the problem is the myth we often have discussed — the myth that the federal debt and deficit are too large, “unsustainable,” and should be reduced.

It’s utter nonsense, but it is the prevailing lie — the Big Lie — emanating from Congress and the insurance industry.

Under a single-payer system, options for medical providers may be more limited than they are now—there probably wouldn’t be any better-paying private insurers to take by preference to the government system.

There is no reason why options for medical providers may be more limited than they are now. Because the federal government is far better able to afford to provide options than are any private insurance companies, options should be greater with Medicare for All.

But there also wouldn’t be any private insurers to effectively subsidize Medicare patients.

In the case of a single-payer transition, doctors who find the terms of Medicare for All unacceptable may switch entirely to private-pay (if that’s still permitted), while some percentage will leave medicine entirely.

There is no reason why anyone needs to “subsidize” Medicare. Even the existence of today’s Medicare Supplement insurance is based on the myth that the federal government can’t afford to pay the entire bill.

A true Medicare for All program would provide free, comprehensive, no-deductible health care insurance for every man, woman, and child in America.

There is not a single financial reason why the federal government cannot provide such a program.

Sadly, Bernie Sanders has been afraid to say it. He proposed a so-called Medicare for All program that is financially limited.

Considering the potential for switching over to single-payer in The Atlantic, Olga Khazan predicts “Hospitals would shut down, and waits for major procedures would extend from a few weeks to several months.”

This is the classic scare tactic funded by the private insurance companies.  Even today, 60% of hospital patients are funded by Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs:

  • Medicare: 40.9 percent
  • Medicaid: 17.2 percent
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield, other private insurance: 16.5 percent
  • HMO or PPO: 14 percent
  • Self-pay: 4.9 percent
  • Worker’s compensation and other government programs: 2 percent

And even with the unnecessarily stingy payments, most hospitals in America are thriving. (The ones having financial problems generally are the rural, smaller hospitals, and they simply are not receiving enough insurance money.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are getting ready to unveil a Medicare-for-all scheme.

Expect that issue to feature prominently in the 2018 midterm election as Democrats try to win back control of Congress.

Expect it to be based on the Big Lie that federal deficit spending should be reduced.

Yet despite the Big Lie, that has caused ACA (Obamacare) to be an unnecessarily complex, convoluted Rube Goldbergian plan, still the program covers millions of people the private insurance industry did not cover.

Republicans have botched their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare so badly that the threat of single-payer is real, and growing.

The “threat” of single payer? Does the use of the word “threat” leave any doubt that this article was written at the behest of the private insurance industry.

Yes, the private insurance companies regard single payer as a “threat,” and with good reason. Their high rates, high deductibles, plan limits, and their refusal to cover sick people and specialized medicines and expensive treatments has made them vulnerable to a plan that offers total, endless coverage for every person, and at zero cost.

That July Kaiser survey suggests that Americans aren’t actually ready to jump on the single-payer train. (The Sanders/Warren “Medicare-for-all” plan would not be a true national single-payer system, but would amount to putting more Americans into government-run health plans. Kaiser’s poll used both “single-payer” and “Medicare-for-all” interchangeably.)

So long as the right-wing debt hawks support the insurance industry rather than the public, and so long as they provide scare (false) information to the public — and so long as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don’t have the courage to tell the public the truth —  we will see such poll results.

The public is being misled by the insurance companies and the debt hawks, and as we repeatedly have said (in previous posts):

Image result for breaking chainsIt takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

While 55 percent of Americans say they want a single-payer/Medicaid-for-all plan, those in favor tend to change their minds when they hear that it means giving the government more control over health care, or that Americans would have to pay more in taxes.

Right. People change their minds when they are told, falsely, that the government would control health care and taxes would go up.  Neither is true.

Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would continue to provide health care, and there is absolutely no reason why taxes would go up.

In fact, FICA could be completely eliminated, and the federal government still could provide Medicare to every man, woman, and child in America.

That tracks with other polling on the issue. A May poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found support for single-payer state healthcare at 65 percent statewide, but that number dropped to 42 percent when respondents were told at least $50 billion in new taxes would be required to pay for it.

That’s a pretty optimistic view of the taxes that would be required to pay for single-payer in California; the actual cost would be well over $100 billion annually.

No, that is the Big Lie. Neither $50 billion nor $100 billion would be necessary to pay for it. No tax dollars at all are necessary.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

Are you sure you want government-run health care? Many Americans don’t seem to understand the question. But once they do, the answer is “no.”

Sure, once Americans intentionally are given the wrong information, they answer, “No.”

To repeat: It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

In this case, knowledge is easily obtained. Ignorance is a choice.

What choice will the public make?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A concern about “Medicare for All” Friday, Sep 8 2017 

Image result for breaking chains

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In the previous post, “How our friends hurt us more than our enemies can,” we explained that contrary to popular opinion, there is no shortage of money to support federal funding of Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America.

Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government never can run out of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. Indeed, the federal government’s method for creating dollars is to spend dollars.

The government sends instructions to creditors’ banks, instructing the banks to increase the balances in the creditors’ checking accounts. When the banks obey those instructions, brand new dollars are created.

In response, reader “Bgray” wrote:

“As the MS/MMT community knows, the real question about single payer universal health care is not how much it costs, as that is irrelevant, but rather are there sufficient resources, namely doctors, nurses, technicians, clinics, and hospitals, to handle the large influx of new patients.

“Let’s be honest, the real issue has more to do with the underlying fear with respect to the reallocation of medical resources away from the rich towards the poor, and how quickly the health care system can adjust to the increased demand.”

I agree and disagree.

Yes, Bgray is correct that the cost of universal health care is effectively irrelevant, as the dollars would be supplied from a limitless source.

But, though some of the rich (the .1%) may fear losing medical resources to the poor, that is unlikely to happen. Resources always follow the money. One cannot imagine wealthy people being unable to obtain services from the very best doctors, nurses, technicians, clinics, and hospitals.

But, I agree with “Bgray” about potential shortages of resources for the 99%.

Every major change leads to shortages. The invention of the automobile required vast changes in the supply of steel, oil, rubber, etc. All-electric cars have led to a shortage of batteries, which is why Tesla is building a giant battery factory.

Federal support of the military has created massive needs for weaponry, leading at times, to shortages of vital materials.

The invention of the smart phone caused shortages of rare earths. Medicine’s increase in human lifespan has created a shortage in elder care facilities.

As for the presumed shortage of doctors, nurses, technicians, clinics, and hospitals to service the 99%, this could be alleviated by:

  1.  Encouraging entry into the medical service professions by paying medical service personnel more. Because “Medicare for All” would not lack for money, there would be no need to skimp on pay.
  2. Paying students to attend school, and helping to reduce the dropout rate of potential future doctors, nurses,  and technicians. (See Steps #4 and #5, below)
  3. Increasing drug and medical procedure R&D, leading to faster recoveries and more home recoveries. We already have begun that. Most hospital stays today are much shorter than they were 20 years ago.
  4. Increasing R&D on computer-aided diagnoses and treatment to reduce the number of doctors needed per patient, and lead to fewer hospital admissions, and also to shorter stays.
  5. Developing better equipment to make doctors, nurses, and technicians more effective and able to service more patients per year
  6. Reducing personnel-dense intensive care and emergency room usage by making regular doctor and hospital stays affordable and medical services more effective.  This would make hospitals able to service more patients per year.

In summary, government funding of goods or services can lead to imbalances — shortages (and excesses) of related goods and services. These imbalances then are addressed by private and public efforts, which cause further imbalances.

There is no doubt that increased federal investment in health care will lead to shortages, but we cannot allow that to become a bar to life improvements.

The road of progress can be bumpy, but the destination has proven to be rewarding.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

How our friends hurt us more than our enemies can Thursday, Sep 7 2017 

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

When a right-wing, debt hawk warns about the deficit and debt being “unsustainable,” we can write it off as typical misdirection from a right-wing political group looking to justify cutting social programs, while raising taxes on the 99% (and, as always, lowering taxes on the 1%).

Image result for misdirection

Misdirection

But when a left-winger does the same thing, all we can do is ask, “Are there any progressives at all, in our government”?

Here are writer Noah Rothman’s comments about Democrat, California, Senator Kamala Harris’s comments:

“I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill because it’s just the right thing to do. Taxpayers are paying huge amounts of money” for emergency-room care.

A Medicare-for-all system would generate “a return on investment for taxpayers.” This is, to be gentle, nonsense.

Rothman is correct. It is nonsense, but not for the reasons he thinks.

Yes, a Medicare-for-all system would not “generate a return on investment for taxpayers.” But the reason is that federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending and do not profit from federal savings.

Unlike state and local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, and do use taxpayer dollars, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign and has no use for taxpayer dollars.

The federal government uniquely creates brand new dollars — its sovereign currency —  the dollar, every time it pays a bill. No other government can do that.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute pegged the cost of a Medicare-for-all system in America at $32 trillion over ten years, requiring an average tax hike on all Americans of $24,000 annually (to say nothing of the billions in lost economic activity as Americans tighten their belts).

This is a monstrous lie, aka the “Big Lie.

Whether the cost is $32 trillion or $320 trillion, federal taxes would not fund it. Even with $0 tax collections, the federal government creates, ad hoc, all dollars necessary to pay all its bills.

And rather than causing ‘lost economic activity,’ and American belt tightening, that $32 trillion addition to our economy would add to GDP growth. No belt tightening needed, quite the opposite.

Remember this formula:  Gross Domestic Product = FEDERAL SPENDING + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.

In short, the more the federal government deficit spends, the more GDP increases.

(Conversely, when federal deficit spending is eliminated, we have depressions):

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Moreover, Federal Spending also increases Non-federal Spending by adding dollars to the private economy.  If the government pays you and businesses more, you will have more to spend and businesses will have more to spend.

When Democrats pitched the public on the ACA, the “cost” estimated to taxpayers was supposedly just $848 billion over ten years after implementation, but the Congressional Budget Office insisted that the actual figure was just over $2 trillion.

That’s an incredible strain on the nation’s budget, but it pales in comparison to the galactic numbers Senator Harris and her ilk heave about recklessly.

She is playing to the cheap seats, but it’s telling that her instinct is to pitch a single-payer plan by insisting it is an attack on, not an endorsement of, profligacy.

To say the above paragraphs are 100% bullsh*t is to do a disservice to bullsh*t, which at least fertilizes growth.

  1. Federal spending does not cost taxpayers one dime. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government does not spend taxes. The tax dollars you send to the government cease to be a part of any money-supply measure, as soon as they are received. Said another way, federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt.
  2. Whether or not federal spending exceeds the budget does not “strain” anything. The government pays all its bills by sending instructions to creditors’ banks, instructing the banks to increase the numbers in the creditors’ bank accounts. This creates dollars.
  3. Growing the economy is not “profligacy.” Increased federal deficit spending is necessary to grow the economy, and decreases in deficit spending shrink the economy.

Even in Harris’s home state, the Democratic Party’s infatuation with the idea of socialized health care was crushed against the immovable object of fiscal realities.

A peek under the hood revealed that, under all the gauzy rhetoric about access to taxpayer-funded health-care coverage representing a human right, there is no feasible way to make that a reality.

The bill could not address the hurdles associated with cost control, delivery of care, and how to finance the thing. The Assembly bill was estimated to cost the state approximately $400 billion every year, more than double California’s total annual budget.

Here, Rothman demonstrates either abject ignorance regarding the difference between Monetary Sovereignty (the federal government) vs. monetary non-sovereignty (California’s government), or he is lying.

State and local governments, being monetarily non-sovereign, do not have the unlimited ability to create their sovereign currency for the simple reason: They do not have a sovereign currency. They use the dollar, the federal government’s sovereign currency.

So state and local governments can and do run short of dollars. The federal government cannot and does not run short of dollars. Not knowing the difference is a sure sign of economic ignorance.

Is Barack Obama’s health-care reform law a triumph of progressive public policy? Or is it, as Republicans have long insisted, a poorly-conceived measure with more adverse than positive effects?

First, if we are going to be honest, it’s not Obama’s health-care reform law; it’s Republican Mitt Romney’s.

Second, it really is a poorly-conceived measure, because it makes the tacit and false assumption that it’s taxpayer funded. And because of that tacit and false assumption, ACA was developed as a Rube Goldbergian program designed to minimize the nonexistent, Federal taxpayer funding.

A very simple, federally funded, comprehensive, Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, would cost taxpayers nothing and protect everyone. No FICA needed.

Republicans may soon have to defend a suboptimal status quo from an unpopular liberal campaign to nationalize the health-care system.

“Nationalize” is the right-wing’s code word for “socialize,” and it is wrong. The health-care system would not be “nationalized” or “socialized” by Medicare for All.

The only change would be for the federal government to take the place of health care insurance companies.

The system still would use privately run hospitals, private doctors, private nurses, privately owned drug stores, and privately owned pharmaceutical manufacturers. Everything about the system would remain private except for the insurance companies. They would disappear.

And is that a bad thing? Remember, insurance companies need to make a profit, which means charging premiums and minimizing payments to the public. It’s one of the reasons why insurance companies resist paying for expensive medications and treatments.

There are lawyers who make their living suing insurance companies to obtain health care treatments for their clients.

But the federal government does not need profits, does not need premiums and does not need to minimize payments to the public. In fact, every federal payment to the public adds to GDP.

Democrats have convinced themselves that the rising popularity of Medicare-for-all among Democrats amounts to a national wellspring of new faith in progressivism and, by extension, themselves.

They’re welcome to test that proposition at the ballot box. But, first, Democrats may want to rethink their messenger.

No, first the Democrats must have the courage to explain to the voters that:

  1. The federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.
  2. Federal spending does not cost taxpayers or their grandchildren, anything.
  3. The voters can have unlimited health care, provided by a privately-run health-care system.
  4. And by the way, it all can be done without causing inflation.

Now, what are the “good” reasons not to have comprehensive, federally funded Medicare for All?

There are none.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

The American disgrace: The sabotage of health care. Sunday, Jul 30 2017 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Democrats and the Republicans each have sabotaged American health care, though in different ways.

Before we discuss the sabotage, here is a bit of background:

In one sense, health care for Americans is a fairly simple concept. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, other health care workers, and pharmaceutical companies do the actual work.

No one has suggested that be changed. The entire battle in Congress concerns just one question:  Who pays for it?

Image result for putting coins in a hand

The real question: “Who pays?”

No one is opting for “socialized medicine.”

Though that is an epithet deceptively used by those who despise all forms of federal spending, socialized medicine would involve government ownership of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, with doctors and nurses being government employees.

Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) are not socialized medicine.  The closest we have to socialism in America are such functions as our public schools, police, fire departments, public parks, the military, and the Veterans’ Administration, wherein all parts of the program are government owned and directed, and the employees are government workers.

Socialism is not government paying for things. Socialism is government ownership.

All of the current controversy regarding the “repeal and replace” of Obamacare has to do with one, simple little question: Who pays?

There are three methods of paying: Some American people can pay the doctors, hospitals, etc. directly.  But for the vast majority of us, the cost of treatment for serious illnesses would be unaffordable.

Even the most basic healthcare — annual checkups — can be beyond many people’s budgets.

So, we created a second system: We and/or our employers pay indirectly. We pay insurance companies, which in turn pay the health care providers.

But there are three problems with that indirect system:

Image result for money middleman
Health care insurance companies are middlemen, providing no health care services
  1. The insurance companies are nothing more than middlemen. They do not provide health care. They simply accept money from the public, remove their profits, and pay what’s left to the health care providers. This system adds extra middleman costs beyond the health care costs.
  2. People who already are sick, cannot buy insurance at an affordable rate.
  3. Poorer people cannot afford insurance at all.

The first two systems — American’s paying directly, or insurance companies paying as middlemen, both ultimately require the people to pay.

The result has been that too many Americans either have been doing without health care, so they sicken and lead lives of misery, or die early. Or they are left financially destitute.

Not only is this inhumane, especially in the wealthiest nation on earth, but allowing people to sicken puts a drag on the economy and so, negatively affects us all.

There is a third system: The federal government pays. This is known as “single-payer,” which is as opposed to the current multiple-payer system.

Fortunately, we live in a Monetarily Sovereign nation, in which the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars. 

Image result for uncle sam is rich

The federal government never can run short of its sovereign dollars.

The federal government is not like state and local governments. It uniquely creates dollars by spending dollars.

The federal government does not spend tax dollars. Taxpayers do not pay for federal spending. The federal government actually creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

When you are paid by the federal government, it sends instructions (not dollars) to your bank, in the form of a check or a wire. These instructions tell your bank to increase the balance in your checking account.

Image result for federal check

The federal government doesn’t send dollars. It sends instructions.

The instructions to your banks are: “Pay to the order of [your name]. That tells your bank to increase your checking account balance by the amount indicated on the check.

At the moment your bank does as the federal government instructs, brand new dollars are created and added to the nation’s money supply.

The federal government’s instructions always clear because they are approved by the Federal Reserve Bank, which is owned by the government. Thus, the federal government can create endless dollars because it approves its own checks. That is why no federal check ever has bounced or ever will bounce. The government writes the rules and approves what it does.

No tax dollars are not involved in the instructions. Unlike the monetarily non-sovereign state and local governments, which do use tax dollars, the federal government neither needs nor uses any form of income.

Even if the federal government didn’t collect a single dollar in taxes, it could continue paying its bills, forever.

The federal government has the power to completely eliminate the FICA tax and still fund Social Security and Medicare into perpetuity.

Image result for cut out the middleman

The federal government can cut out the middleman

So, the federal government, having this unlimited ability to pay bills, can eliminate the middle men (the insurance companies) and pay all the doctors, nurses, hospitals, other health care workers, and pharmaceutical companies, and do it without collecting a dime in taxes.

The federal government has the power to fund a comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare plan for every man, woman, and child in America, and even include long-term care — all at no cost to the American public.

It has the power to do this without collecting a penny in taxes, because it creates new dollars every time it pays a bill.

With that as a background, here is the sabotage:

The Democrats’ Sabotage of the health care system:

The Democrats commit their sabotage of the health care system by pretending that the federal government needs and spends tax dollars (aka “The Big Lie.)

While state and local governments do need and spend tax dollars, the federal government does not. But the average citizen doesn’t understand the difference.

So the Democrats designed a plan (Romneycare, Obamacare, ACA) that feigns the need for taxpayer dollars. It unnecessarily copies private insurance by forcing healthy people to pay in advance for coverage later.

That is known as the “Individual Mandate,” wherein you either must pay for private health care insurance or pay a fine which supposedly would be used to fund Obamacare.

For a Monetarily Sovereign nation’s plan, the individual mandate not only is wholly unnecessary, but it provides a false basis for objecting to Obamacare. The supposed need for the individual mandate sabotages American health care.

Related image

The Big Lie makes Obamacare unnecessarily complex

Because of The Big Lie, that federal taxes are needed to pay for federal spending, Obamacare was created as a complex, convoluted Rube Goldbergian mess, almost incomprehensible to all but the most astute policy wonks.

By contrast, a simple program providing comprehensive Medicare to everyone would require much less labor and far less misunderstanding by the public and by health care providers.

The Republicans’ Sabotage of the health care system

In addition to duplicating the Democrats’ Big Lie that taxpayers fund federal spending, the Republicans go much further.

The Trump administration has actively sabotaged Obamacare at many levels. The Secretary of The Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, has converted his department from an agency that helps people acquire health care into a powerful, ACA-sabotaging force.

The Department’s function now has transitioned into a Department for Denial of Medical aid to the Poor.

Tom Price Open To Waiving Obamacare’s Individual Mandate 
The move by the Health and Human Services secretary would hobble the Obamacare exchanges. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price would not rule out Sunday the possibility of using his regulatory authority to waive the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate that requires all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a tax.

The mandate may result in higher individual costs for Americans who previously went without health insurance, but it also functions as a check on overall costs for people who get their coverage on Obamacare’s individual insurance exchanges by bringing healthy people into the risk pool.

Eliminating the mandate unilaterally is liable to create chaos in the individual exchanges as insurers scramble to offset the departure of healthy enrollees.

By pretending that the federal government cannot afford to pay for health care, the Democrats created the individual mandate. Then the Republicans, continuing to mouth the Big Lie, wish to eliminate the individual mandate, but not replace it with federal funding.

For seven years, the Republicans tried to kill Obamacare and the many millions who depend on it, by voting it out of existence. While that has not worked, they currently try to destroy the program by starving it of funds.

Price has already taken action to effectively discourage enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges. Under his leadership, HHS has used funds earmarked for promoting the Affordable Care Act to blast it on social media and downplay the law’s benefits on the federal agency’s website

Price declined to comment on the possibility that HHS would withhold cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers that subsidize exchange plans for Americans with incomes under 250 percent of the federal poverty level.

Trump implied that he would hold the payments hostage to a successful Obamacare repeal bill. Previous threats not to proceed with the payments sent tremors through the insurance markets.

Ending them would prompt insurers to increase premiums for typical plans by 19 percent, on average, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and create major disorder in the exchanges.

President Trump has stated he would “allow” Obamacare to implode, but he has gone well beyond “allow.” This is outright sabotage, intentional and intense.

The billionaire President actively is trying to destroy the only health care plan for the poor. His followers say people should be “self-sufficient.” Translation: The federal government should pay for nothing.

As individuals, we are expected not only are to pay for our own health care but our own roads, our own Research & Development, our own Military, our own atomic energy, our own clean water, our own forest management.

In “conservative-world,” we all must be self-sufficient;  the government should spend nothing — especially nothing to help the poor.

The Democrats have sabotaged health care for the poor, out of a combination of ignorance and cowardice. Those Dems who understand Monetary Sovereignty simply are afraid to explain it to the populous, lest they falsely are accused of being “socialists.”.

In contrast, the Republicans sabotage health care out of animus. As the “Party of the Rich,” the GOP will do everything possible to widen the Gap between the rich and the poor.

Watch for Trump/GOP sabotage of the poor to get worse and worse, until health care for the poor disappears in America.

This is the American disgrace.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: