–What caused an entire nation to go insane, and can that happen here?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

As I have read about, and listened to, the Tea/Republicans, I wondered to myself, “Would it be possible for our entire nation to go insane?”

During bad economic times, people seek the comfort of “law and order” and they look for someone to blame for their troubles. The Tea/Republican Party, understanding the dementia that comes with human dissatisfaction, has done everything possible to prevent the U.S. from coming out of the recession (remember “the party of ‘No’?”).

It has blocked every initiative that would have helped end the recession and the widening gap between the 1% and the 99% (advocating low taxes for the rich, while demanding cuts in Social Securty, Medicare and Medicaid).

It has claimed stimuli “didn’t work,” based on the reality that though the stimuli helped greatly (without them we would have slipped into depression), the Tea/Republicans made sure the stimuli were not large enough for a cure.

The Tea/Republicans fielded a group of candidates unparalleled for incompetence and pure craziness (Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann) all of whom expressed extreme “solutions” the voters, in desparation, grabbed for.

And finally, the Tea/Republicans settled on Mitt Romney, a candidate having no beliefs whatsoever.

With millions of people prepared to vote Tea/Republican (Indiana just did), it seems clear an entire political party – even our whole nation – can go completely insane. It has happened before.

In the late 1930’s Germany went insane, under much the same circumstances as we have here. See these excerpts from Wikipedia and elsewhere:

During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler’s oratorical skills, partly through the SA’s (brownshirts) appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany’s economic problems deepened and the weakness of the Weimar regime became apparent.

The Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures.

Today in America, we have a backlash against socialism (aka “big government”), unemployment, widespread business failures and the seeming weakness of the Obama regime.

The inability of the democratic parties to form a united front and the continued decline of the economy, all played into Hitler’s hands. Some major business figures such as Fritz Thyssen were Nazi supporters and gave generously.

In the U.S. we have the inability of the two major parties to work together, and major business figures such as Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Harold Simmons and the Koch brothers giving generously to right wing causes.

During 1931 and into 1932, Germany’s political crisis deepened. By now the nazi brown shirts had 400,000 members, and its running street battles with the other party paramilitaries (who also fought each other) reduced some German cities to combat zones.

Paradoxically, although the Nazis were among the main instigators of this disorder, part of Hitler’s appeal to a frightened and demoralized middle class was his promise to restore law and order.

The America street battles have just begun. The various protest groups, many loosely united under the “Occupy” banner, plan for bigger demonstrations. Chicago’s NATO summit is a target for even greater demonstrations. If (when?) these demonstrations become violent, our frightened and demoralized middle class will demand a stronger police response, to restore law and order.

Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means).

The Tea/Republicans never have specified how they would revive the economy. Certainly, their plans to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid would hurt the economy.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler abolished labor unions and political parties, and imprisoned their political opponents, first at improvised camps, then in concentration camps. Nazism had been established.

American right wing attempts to hamstring, then abolish labor unions, already have begun. See:

Scott Walker Told Billionaire That He’d ‘Divide And Conquer’ Unions

A new video has surfaced in which Governor Scott Walker promises a wealthy Koch brothers ally that he will use a “divide and conquer” strategy to turn Wisconsin into a “right to work” state. The video, which was filmed by Brad Lichtenstein on January 18, 2011, directly contradicts Walker’s repeated claims that he has no interest in pushing anti-Union legislation.

In the video, Diane Hendricks — a billionaire roofing-supply magnate who has close ties to the Koch brothers — asks Walker whether he could “work on these unions” and make Wisconsin a “right-to-work state.”

“Oh yeah,” Walker responds. “We’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.”

Governor Walker was handsomely rewarded for his promise; since the video was filmed, Hendricks has given Walker’s campaign $510,000. According to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, this makes her Walker’s biggest supporter, and the largest known donor to any candidate in Wisconsin history.

Now back to Nazi Germany:

Initially, there was much indifference surrounding anti-Semitism. (But) a denunciation system was put in place, which relied on the people of Germany to turn in Jews and others who were not “suitable” for the German population.

This system offered a great deal of incentive for people – if they turned in others, they eliminated the possibility of being persecuted themselves. The officers who were in charge of monitoring the denunciations became so overwhelmed with the multitude of cases they faced on a daily basis, that they began to take people for their word without looking further into the cases.

Think of the anti-alien laws being passed in the American South, where it has become illegal knowingly to hire an undocumented alien. Citizens are encouraged (required?) to turn them in to the police. The police can detain people whom the police (with no evidence whatsoever) believe are illegal, so accusing someone of being illegal is sufficient for their arrest.

Thus, many people were denounced without just cause, and sent to concentration camps to die. For whatever personal reasons people rapidly began to take to this system, the important fact is that it worked. People liked being in control of who was in their neighborhood. Plus, they were offered financial incentives in many cases. A denunciation, reliable or not, could be worth a great deal of money. And at a time where money was scarce, people did anything they could to get their hands on cash.

So far, no reward system in America, but do not be surprised if that comes soon. (“Receive a reward for turning in an illegal alien.”)

Convinced that a plot was afoot to depose him, Hitler ordered the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Gestapo to assassinate his political enemies both in and outside the Nazi Party (the “Night of the Long Knives”) which resulted in up to 200 deaths. While some Germans were shocked by the killing, others admired Hitler’s decisive actions to restore order.

When a recession or depression makes people feel they have lost control over their lives, they seek to regain control through law and order, and by taking action against scapegoats.

Thus, has the Tea/Republican party taken advantage of the basest human instincts. We are no better than the Germans. They, like us, were good, honest, hard-working people, trapped in a depressed economy, and searching for some way out.

Partly, it was the “Anything-is-better-than-this syndrome. (Here, it’s “Anybody-is-better-than-Obama.”) And partly, Germans had an urgent need for a scapegoat. In their case it was the Jews; In America, it’s the illegal aliens, gays and the rich.

Those good, honest, hard-working Germans became so emotional, they even overlooked mass murder, in order to improve their lives. That is how crazed good people can become.

The Tea/Republicans have nothing logical to offer America. There is no mechanism by which cutting the deficit or deporting aliens can cure the recession or improve our lives. None. Yet our good, honest, hard-working (unemployed) people are willing to vote for anything, no matter how destructive and irrational, so long as it is different.

And that is the way any nation can become crazed. We are no exception. I see it creeping into Kansas, into Indiana and into the entire South, where those who claim to be most religious also are least tolerant, the most filled with hatred.

All we lack now is a great orator like Hitler was, to turn our entire nation insane. We are living on a razor’s edge.

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

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Paul Krugman may be starting to get it.

Perhaps a bit late to the party, but welcome anyway, economics Nobel winner Paul Krugman shows signs of understanding the economy.

Paul Krugman: The Problem With Deficit-Mania
May 9th, 2012 12:01 am
National Memo

The following is an excerpt from End This Depression Now!, the recently published book by Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

By the fall of 2009 it was already obvious that those who had warned that the original stimulus plan was much too small had been right.

I was one of those, and I didn’t wait until fall of 2009. Here’s what I said in an April 9, 2008 Email to the Chicago Tribune.”

“Every U.S. depression, and the vast majority of recessions,, have coincided with reduced growth in the money supply. Today again, the U.S. economy is starved for money, which no amount of interest rate reductions can cure. To a small degree, interest rate reductions actually reduce the amount of money in the economy, because the federal government is required to pay less interest on its debts.

“There is one cure, and one cure only, for a recession, or depression: Increase the money supply. How? By federal deficit spending.

“The federal government creates money when it pumps more money into the economy than it removes by taxation. The $150 billion stimulus package is an example, albiet too little and too late.

“To prevent a serious meltdown of our economy, the federal government must pump $500 billion – $1 trillion into the economy. The government should reduce or eliminate certain taxes and/or increase spending on certain projects.

“Example: The federal government estimates its 2008 collection of the FICA tax at $821 billion. Were FICA eliminated, workers and business (each of which pays half) would benefit immediately. The recession, would end; a depression would be prevented.

“Contrary to common wisdom, this $821 billion addition to the federal debt would not cause inflation. The Reagan/Bush $6 trillion addition to the debt did not cause inflation, which easily was prevented with interest rate control.

“In summary, this recession, was preventable and now is curable, simply by pumping money into the economy. Cutting interest rates has not, and will not, accomplish anything. Americans should be outraged at the ineptness demonstrated by Congress, the President and the Fed. There is no reason for this disaster, when the prevention and cure so easily could be implemented.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell”

So there it was, way back in April 2008, not fall of 2009, it was clear to me, that the proposed stimuli were “too little, too late.”

Now continuing with Krugman’s comments:

This was exactly the kind of situation in which White House aides had originally envisaged going back to Congress for more stimulus. But that didn’t happen. Why not?

One reason was that they had misjudged the politics: just as some had feared when the original plan came out, the inadequacy of the first stimulus had discredited the whole notion of stimulus in the minds of most Americans and had emboldened Republicans in their scorched-earth opposition.

There was, however, another reason: much of the discussion in Washington had shifted from a focus on unemployment to a focus on debt and deficits. Ominous warnings about the danger of excessive deficits became a staple of political posturing.

As the opening quotation makes clear, Obama himself got into this game; his first State of the Union address, in early 2010, proposed spending cuts rather than new stimulus. And by 2011 blood-curdling warnings of disaster unless we dealt with deficits immediately (as opposed to taking longer-term measures that wouldn’t depress the economy further) were heard across the land.

Right on target.

The strange thing is that there was and is no evidence to support the shift in focus away from jobs and toward deficits. Where the harm done by lack of jobs is real and terrible, the harm done by deficits to a nation like Americain its current situation is, for the most part, hypothetical. The quantifiable burden of debt is much smaller than you would imagine from the rhetoric, and warnings about some kind of debt crisis are based on nothing much at all.

In fact, the predictions of deficit hawks have been repeatedly falsified by events, while those who argued that deficits are not a problem in a depressed economy have been consistently right. Furthermore, those who made investment decisions based on the predictions of the deficit alarmists, like Morgan Stanley in 2010 or Pimco in 2011, ended up losing a lot of money.

Yes, you go boy! Absolutely correct. Debt-hawk predictions have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Yet exaggerated fear of deficits retains its hold on our political and policy discourse. I’ll try to explain why later in this chapter. First, however, let me talk about what deficit hawks have said, and what has really happened.

Back in the 1980s the business economist Ed Yardeni coined the term “bond vigilantes” for investors who dump a country’s bonds—driving up its borrowing costs—when they lose confidence in its monetary and/or fiscal policies. Fear of budget deficits is driven mainly by fear of an attack by the bond vigilantes. And advocates of fiscal austerity, of sharp cuts in government spending even in the face of mass unemployment, often argue that we must do what they demand to satisfy the bond market.

But the market itself doesn’t seem to agree; if anything, it’s saying that America should borrow more, since at the moment U.S.borrowing costs are very low. In fact, adjusted for inflation, they’re actually negative, so that investors are in effect paying the U.S.government a fee to keep their wealth safe. Oh, and these are long-term interest rates, so the market isn’t just saying that things are OK now; it’s saying that investors don’t see any major problems for years to come.

Never mind, say the deficit hawks, borrowing costs will shoot up soon if we don’t slash spending right now. This amounts to saying that the market is wrong—which is something you’re allowed to do. But it’s strange, to say the least, to base your demands on the claim that policy must be changed to satisfy the market, then dismiss the clear evidence that the market itself doesn’t share your concerns.

The failure of rates to rise didn’t reflect any early end to large deficits: over the course of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 the combination of low tax receipts and emergency spending—both the results of a depressed economy—forced the federal government to borrow more than $5 trillion.

And at every uptick in rates over that period, influential voices announced that the bond vigilantes had arrived, that America was about to find itself unable to keep on borrowing so much money. Yet each of those upticks was reversed, and at the beginning of 2012 U.S.borrowing costs were close to an all-time low.

But debt-hawks think the finances of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government are the same as monetarily non-sovereign personal finances, so they simply do not pay any attention to facts.

1. The Wall Street Journal runs an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The Disciplinarians of U.S. Policy Return,” predicting that interest rates will go way up unless deficits are reduced.

2. President Obama tells Fox News that we might have a double-dip recession if we keep adding to debt.

3. Morgan Stanley predicts that deficits will drive ten-year rates up to 5.5 percent by the end of 2010.

4. The Wall Street Journal—this time in the news section, not on the editorial page—runs a story titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up.” It presents no evidence showing that fear of debt, as opposed to hopes for recovery, were responsible for the modest rise in rates.

5. Bill Gross of the bond fund Pimco warns tha tU.S.interest rates are being held down only by Federal Reserve bond purchases, and predicts a spike in rates when the program of bond purchases ends in June 2011.

6. Standard & Poor’s downgrades the U.S.government, taking away its AAA rating.

And by late 2011 U.S.borrowing costs were lower than ever.

The important thing to realize is that this wasn’t just a question of bad forecasts, which everyone makes now and then. It was, instead, about how to think about deficits in a depressed economy.

To date, the right wing, Tea/Republican Party, with its anti-spending crusade, has done everything in its power to crush the U.S. economy. I believe this was not out of economic ignorance, but was a deliberate plan, the purpose of which was to create voter dissatisfaction with President Obama.

The plan worked, in part, because Obama himself fell for it. He and his advisers, being ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, began to parrot the “cut-the-federal-debt” mantra, and that ignorance very well could be his undoing.

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Kansas descends into the deep, dark hole of ultra right wing intolerance and hypocrisy

There was a time when the middle of the country really was the middle. We here in the Midwest were the moderates, who could sneer at Southern bigotry, Eastern elitism, Southwestern machismo and Western superficiality.

Sure, those were wild generalities, but any sneering certainly should be gone by now, for our center-of-the-nation neighbor Kansas seems determined to own the label for intolerance and hypocrisy:

House passes bills aimed at abortion, sharia

The (Kansas State) House passed a wide-ranging anti-abortion bill Monday, along with another bill meant to keep Kansas courts from making rulings based on foreign laws — which some supporters have said is necessary to protect the state from Muslims who would impose their legal code, also known as sharia.

As everyone knows, Kansas is overrun with Muslims and this great hoard of Muslims is determined to impose sharia. Everyone in Kansas knows this.

The abortion bill, which supporters dubbed “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” passed 88-31. It seeks to revamp the state’s tax code to remove all subsidies — direct and indirect — for medical costs related to the elective termination of pregnancy.

Note “indirect” and “related to.” They leave lots of room for government meddling into people’s lives. (Kansas is a favorite Tea Party state, which wants to get the government off peoples backs.)

Kansans for Liberty, a Tea Party sect, complains on its web site: “Well over 50% of Americans oppose the US Government’s takeover of our country’s Healthcare Industry.” Apparently that anti-government-takeover sentiment doesn’t include the Kansas government.

“We’re talking about not being able to deduct the cost of any health insurance that pays for coverage of abortions,” said Rep. John Rubin, R-Shawnee, one of the bill’s champions.

Not only can’t you deduct for abortion itself, but you can’t deduct for a health insurance plan that would pay anyone for for an abortion — even if you yourself don’t have an abortion. But remember, this rule is not a “government takeover” of healthcare.

The bill also prohibits including donations to institutions that provide abortions in a taxpayer’s charitable deductions.

So no charitable donations to a hospital that might help a beaten and raped child who will die in slow agony without an abortion. Is that similar to stoning a rape victim? Sharia law no. Kansas law, yes.

Keep in mind, Kansas has among the most liberal gun laws (i.e. virtually no gun laws), but by heaven, they are going to clamp down on those murdering girls and doctors.

Rep. Barbara Bollier, R-Mission Hills, a retired physician, offered an amendment Friday to tack on (information about) several specific medical risks of continuing a pregnancy, but it was defeated.

Even though abortion itself, paying for abortion and deduction for insurance that covers abortion all are illegal, we want to be triply sure no one even thinks about abortion. So our women and girls are not to learn whether there is a medical risk to continuing a pregnancy. They’re better off if we keep them ignorant. [But again, this is not government interference]

The bill also restricts the state from paying anyone who engages in abortion training, which has caused an ongoing debate about the medical accreditation of The University of Kansas’ obstetrics and gynecology program.

Who cares about training and accreditation? Clearly unnecessary — in Kansas.

The other bill passed by the House, dubbed the “Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts Act,” prohibits judges from making any ruling based on a foreign or religious law that is contrary to the state or federal Constitution.

This tells a judge he can’t break Kansas law. Well, DUH! But the inclusion of “foreign” and “religious” sends a special, not so subtle, bigoted message.

It doesn’t specifically mention sharia in order to distinguish itself from an Oklahoma law already declared unconstitutional.

These patriotic lovers of the constitution repeatedly try to worm around the clear meanings of the constitution.

But supporters, including Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, and Rep. Jan Pauls, D-Hutchinson, have called it a pre-emptive measure to prevent the spread of Islamic law.

If that were constitutionally legal, why not come out and say it. Why the subterfuge?

Several lawyers outside the Statehouse warned that the bill could sour international trade for Kansas companies, but Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, told the House that a conference committee amended it to exempt business-to-business transactions in which foreign laws are taken into account.

“We wanted to make sure nothing in this bill would prohibit that relatively common proceeding,” Kinzer said.

Whew! Sure, protecting our way of life is important, but now you’re talking money. Got to protect those meat packers. Let’s be honest, we’d let a meat packer do anything, even commit abortion, if the money were right.

The bill passed 120-0.

That says it all. I guess no Humanitarian Award for Kansas this year.

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–House GOP To Shift Defense Cuts To Poverty Programs. Does this echo your values?

Here is an excerpt from TPM. Does the Tea/Republican Party echo your personal values on this issue?

House GOP To Shift Defense Cuts To Poverty Programs
Sahil Kapur, MAY 7, 2012,
As Congress returns from recess this week, House Republicans are set to advance legislation to replace automatic defense spending cuts they agreed to last year with cuts to programs for the poor and working class. The controversial measure is expected to pass the House and die in the Senate, making it largely a political exercise that allows the two parties to contrast the values at the heart of the 2012 election: Should the burden for addressing the country’s long-running fiscal challenges fall to struggling people, or to the wealthiest people in the country?

The proposal — which is an outgrowth of the budget the House GOP overwhelmingly voted for late March — would cut some $261 billion from health care programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits and child tax credits, among others. It constitutes a violation of the GOP’s end of the debt-limit deal, which included painful sacrifices for both parties if the Congress failed to reach a bipartisan deficit-reduction agreement.

The issue is not whether we need defense spending (we do), nor whether the federal deficit should be cut (it should not). The issue is whether America will still be America, if we hack away at benefits for the poor and middle classes, especially when we have the unlimited ability to help the poor and middle classes.

The issue is not whether the poor and middle classes are lazy malingerers (the vast majority are not), nor whether the U.S. is “broke” as GOP Speaker John Boehner claimed (it is not). The issue is whether impoverishing the 99% is the American way.

The issue is not whether taxes on the rich should be increased (they should not), nor whether power-hungry traitors are destroying the American dream (they are). The issue is whether this reflects your values.

The issue is whether this is in America’s future:

Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: