Tag: monetary non-sovereignty

–Does this song sound familiar? The history of gay . . . oops, sorry . . . interracial marriage

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

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

The “religious” right tries to turn gay rights into an anti-Christian, religious oppression issue.

America has heard this song before. It was called “miscegenation,” aka “race mixing,” aka interracial marriage.

What follows is a brief outline of an excellent article that deserves a thorough reading:

Interracial Marriage Laws — A Short Timeline History
By Tom Head

1664: Maryland passes the first British colonial law banning marriage between whites and slaves — a law that, among other things, orders the enslavement of white women who have married black men.

1691: The Commonwealth of Virginia bans all interracial marriages, threatening to exile whites who marry people of color. In the 17th century, exile usually functioned as a death sentence.

1780: Pennsylvania, which had passed a law banning interracial marriage in 1725, repeals it as part of a series of reforms intended to gradually abolish slavery within the state and grant free blacks equal legal status.

1843: Massachusetts becomes the second state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law, further cementing the distinction between Northern and Southern states on slavery and civil rights.

1871: Rep. Andrew King (D-MO) proposes a U.S. constitutional amendment banning all marriage between whites and people of color in every state throughout the country.

1883: In Pace v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that state-level bans on interracial marriage do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling will hold for more than 80 years.

Despite what you may believe, Justice Antonin Scalia was not a member of the 1883 Court that legalized the ban on interracial marriage. He was back there only in mind and spirit.

1912: Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery (D-GA) makes a second attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in all 50 states.

1922: Congress passes the Cable Act, retroactively stripping the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who married “an alien ineligible for citizenship,” which – under the racial quota system of the time – primarily meant Asian Americans.

1928: Sen. Coleman Blease (D-SC), a Ku Klux Klan supporter who had previously served as South Carolina’s governor, makes a third and final serious attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in every state.

1964: In McLaughlin v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that laws banning interracial sex violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While the ruling did not directly address laws banning interracial marriage, it laid down the groundwork for a ruling that definitively did.

1967: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturns Pace v. Alabama (1883), ruling in Loving v. Virginia that state bans on interracial marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Substitute the words “sexual orientation” for the word “racial” and you have today’s discussion.

Compare the giant Earl Warren with today’s lilliputian Chief Justice John Roberts. Truly sad. The Christian right wing of the Supreme Court has learned neither from history nor from the “love all humanity” teachings of Christ.

2000: Following a November 7th ballot referendum, Alabama becomes the last state to officially legalize interracial marriage.

By November 2000, interracial marriage had been legal in every state for more than three decades thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967) – but the Alabama State Constitution still contained an unenforceable ban in Section 102:

“The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro.”

The Alabama State Legislature stubbornly clung to the old language as a symbolic statement of the state’s views on interracial marriage

You can be sure the “red” states will adopt the same posture regarding same-sex marriage. Mike Huckabee already has begun his “resist” campaign.

Interracial marriage remains controversial in the Deep South, where a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still support anti-miscegenation laws.

The Republicans will play to Southern bigotry, cynically portraying themselves as fighting for “religious freedom” (i.e. domination).

In the right wing world, “religious freedom” requires trampling minorities, while claiming that Christianity is the oppressed minority in America.

We all have heard this song, before — the high-minded claims of biblical support, the denials of bigotry, the attempts to revise the Constitution, the attempts to resist the law.

Unfortunately, we’ll have to hear it, again.

But despite the Scalias, the Alitos, the Roberts, the Thomases, the Huckabees and Santorums, Americans are fundamentally decent, and years from now, this bit of right wing bigotry will be but an historical oddity.

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.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

–Should SCOTUS be politically neutral or activist?

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

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

A vast chasm lies between “should” and “is,” and nowhere is this more apparent than with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Many people believe the Court should be politically neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, judging each case on legal merits alone.

Yet, cases do not exist in a vacuum. What may be legal in one setting, may be illegal in another.

A soldier legally can kill an enemy combatant, not because of what the enemy is doing, but rather because of who the enemy is.

A military pilot legally can drop a bomb that kills an entire village, or in the case of Nagasaki, an entire city. A civilian cannot legally do that. Context is important.

Further, each Supreme Court justice has a personal history, personal proclivities, unique DNA, all of which affect his/her attitudes.

On these bases, neutrality is impossible, yet perhaps a desirable goal.

Justices are granted life terms, to insulate them from political pressure. Both political parties claim to deplore judicial activism, though these claims refer to decisions with which each party disagrees.

Presidents from each party, nominate judicial candidates whom they feel will be activist in the “correct” direction, and are disappointed when “their” judges do not vote “appropriately.”

American Constitution Society
WHAT TO MAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Date: September 17, 2013

In terms of “readiness to overturn legislation” the Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in late August.

Two leading constitutional law scholars, in Issues Briefs released today by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), buttress Ginsburg’s assertion with in-depth studies of high court opinions and voting behaviors that reveal the court’s conservatives are more often the most activist.

In “The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most,” University of Chicago law school Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, examining twenty high-profile Supreme Court cases on constitutional concerns, explains why the Roberts Court’s conservative justices are just as activist, if not more so, then it’s left-of-center justices.

Stone argues that the high court’s conservative justices, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, are hardly paragons of judicial restraint.

The Roberts court was criticized by legal scholars for being too activist — too far from neutral. Yet:

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. famously said, during his confirmation process, that being a judge is akin to a baseball umpire – you just call balls and strikes.

Whether Roberts meant what he said, at the time he said it, or merely was playing to his audience, never may be known. In either case, his court has been far more that an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Stone’s analysis of the outcomes in twenty cases covering an array of concerns, such as voting rights, Second Amendment, affirmative action, reproductive rights and equality, reveals how the narrative on judicial activism has been badly distorted.

“The traditional understanding – that liberals are judicial activists and conservatives are committed to judicial restraint – would lead one to expect that the moderately liberal justices in these cases would have been the most activist, the moderately conservative justices would have been in the middle, and the very conservative justices would been the most restrained.

“Not so,” Stone continues.

Stone concludes the “voting behavior of the very conservative justices cannot be explained by any commitment to the principle of judicial restraint.”

Which brings us to Justice Scalia’s infamous “originalism.”

(Stone said,) “Originalism asserts that those who crafted and ratified our Constitution intended the meaning and effect of their handiwork to be limited to the specific understandings of their time.

But this view erroneously attributes to the Framers a narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness that belies their true spirit.”

He continues, “The notion that any particular moment’s understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s broad and open-ended provisions should be locked into place and taken as constitutionally definitive would have seemed completely wrong-headed to the Framers, who held a much bolder and more confident understanding of their own achievements and aspirations.”

Instead, Stone sees a group of conservative justices who have let ideology and prejudices influence their work, not a commitment to a serious method of constitutional interpretation.

Clearly, Justice Scalia’s sarcastic, acerbic rants, in which he claims not only to know what the Framers wanted, but that their wants of 200 years ago are inviolate, and must be honored today — those rants are hubric wrongheadness at best and intentional political garbage in reality.

Despite ongoing Republican complaints about political activism, they howl like angry children denied a cookie, when the court is not activist enough.

Obamacare ruling puts Supreme Court on hot seat in presidential race

Infuriated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that kept President Barack Obama’s healthcare program intact, conservative ire was trained particularly on Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush.

What!!? A justice appointed by a Republican president, not toeing the Tea/Libertarian/Republican party line?

Outrageous that this man, whom we appointed, should now vote his conscience and legal beliefs, and against us!!

(Roberts) has voted with court conservatives on many landmark cases, including ones involving campaign-finance laws and voting rights. But he also enraged opponents of the Affordable Care Act three years ago when he cast a deciding vote in rejecting a different legal challenge to the law.

Translation: Roberts voted like our puppet, that money is speech (giving the rich more freedom of speech than the poor) and that voting should be made more difficult for the poor.

We thought we could rely on him to continue providing the same poor quality judging.

“He’s let down the [conservative] movement,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for conservative judicial nominees. “He may feel he has no obligation to the movement.”

Uh, well, in fact, Mr. Levey, as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts should have no obligation to any movement.

Amazingly, Levey seems to have no concept of the Supreme Court’s purpose (despite his being a part of the Committee for “Justice.”

Levey said that the pressure will now fall on Republican presidential hopefuls to spell out in detail their views on court appointments – and simple generalities about being faithful to the letter of the U.S. Constitution won’t cut it.

The last thing the right-wing Committee for “Justice” wants is a judge who is faithful to the U.S. Constitution.

They want a judge who is faithful only to the Republican party — another political hack, mouthing political rhetoric in unison.

And then, it really shifts into insanity mode:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, (who) warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to the “criminalization of Christianity,” (said we) “must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the decision “will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said “the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.”

Rick Santorum: “Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people’s opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said as president, he would “appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.”

Ted Cruz says the Constitution gives the Congress the power to strip the courts of jurisdiction. Furthermore, Cruz suggested that Supreme Court justices be subject to retention elections, so they could be voted out of office if they started abusing their power.

It’s all craziness, of course. “Criminalization of Christianity,” by the Christians on the Supreme Court?

“Resist and reject” Supreme Court decisions?

And Walker’s constitutional amendment to define marriage? Why is an amendment needed? No one is forcing Walker to marry a man.

Santorum bemoans “five unelected judges” making decisions. Apparently, he (and Cruz) feel there is not enough politics in the court, so justices should be elected, then thrown off the bench if they don’t vote “right.”

Ah, the madness in the air is palpable.

But I suspect it isn’t real madness. The Republican Presidential candidates have decided, rightly or wrongly, that their voting base is stupid, bigoted and irrational, so to appeal to primary election voters, they must say stupid, bigoted, irrational things.

How sad, for the Republican party, that the extremists exert so much influence. It wasn’t always thus. Years ago, when I voted Republican, the party actually was composed of people who cared about America.

Anyway, the answer to the title question, “Should SCOTUS be politically neutral or activist?” is this:

SCOTUS should be politically neutral and morally activist.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free 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. Federally funded, 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. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their 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)

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

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

-Who will drown in the “bleeding heart,” liberal tide of American decency?

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

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

We Americans fundamentally are decent human beings. We empathize with, and we feel compassion for, those less fortunate than us. It is built into our genes and expressed in our souls.

In uneven steps, some quick, some slow, some even receding, the tide of American history has moved us up from cold cruelty and indifference, toward what we have come to term “liberalism.”

Once, we had supported slavery. We were wrong. By any measure, and for any time, slavery is, was and always will be merciless and indecent. Slave owners lacked empathy and compassion and decency. Yes, even the venerated founders of our nation were guilty.

A Republican president with liberal leanings, abolished slavery. Yet, some of our conservative brothers still fly cruel banners, still yearn for those shameful days. They lack empathy and compassion. They row against a powerful tide, their pitiful philosophy of no avail.

Once, women had no vote. That was wrong. Today, women own their vote. A liberal tide lifted them.

Women and children, once trapped in rich men’s sweatshops, were freed by liberal thought.

One day, our women will achieve equality in pay. They already have in professional tennis, due in great measure to such Americans as Billie Jean King and (See:) Venus Williams, who fought against male conservatism.

One day, this equality will be found in all jobs and all workplaces. The glass ceiling will be shattered. The tide is relentless.

“Separate but equal,” that Southern bastard-child of slavery, was cruel and indecent. A liberal president abolished this shameful practice.

The devices and deceptions designed to deny the poor their right to vote, once were outlawed, now somewhat resurrected by a right-wing, Supreme Court. We receded, briefly. But the tide will return, mightier than ever.

Bigotry and hatred, in all their variations, are indecent. Conservative claims that the poor are lazy “takers,” who deserve their poverty, not only are factually wrong, but are indecent.

Denying unemployment compensation, denying food and shelter for the poor, cutting Social Security benefits for the elderly — they all deny American values; they flail against an irrepressible tide.

Conservatives claim that immigrants — men, women, even children — bring crime, disease and indolence, and so should be shut out and sent out of America. Those claims also are factually wrong. The claimants deny the tide of American decency.

Preventing full marriage rights to gay people was indecent. No harm is done to anyone when gays marry. The notion that gay marriage somehow diminishes the marriage rights of straight people, is false, cruel and indecent.

As even Justice Kennedy wrote:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.

Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Still, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court — Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito — in a cruel and shameful performance, devoid of compassion and humanity, denied the tide.

To paraphrase Franklin D. Roosevelt, their words will live in infamy. Their shame will outlast them.

Denial of health insurance for the poor is cruel and indecent. Three members of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing — Alito, Thomas and Scalia — worship the cold letter of the law above the human purpose of the law, which is to prevent moral tragedy.

They have forgotten, if ever they knew, why America exists.

(Ironically, these men who strut and preen as “originalists,” i.e. interpreters of the 200-year-old intent of our founders, now for political idealism, find themselves reluctant to interpret the intent of a recent Congress.

It was right-wing Scalia who denounced the Court’s departure from the plain meaning of four words, “established by the state,” [ACA] while he himself has ignored the plain meaning of four other words: “A well regulated Militia” [2nd Amendment]. Such is his hypocrisy.

And it was the right wing of the Court, who decided that money is a synonym for free speech in elections, disingenuously claiming the more “speech,” the better, while granting the rich far more “free speech” than the poor.

If history remembers them at all, it will remember the Supreme Court right-wing cabal as infamous men who lurked on the wrong side of history.

In the past, we freely raped our environment, killing what we touched and spreading poisons over the land. The rich still do this, but less now, for liberal thought has moved the tide inexorably toward protection of our earth, air, water and climate.

Sadly, deniers of climate change, deniers of fossil combustion poisons, and deniers of our dwindling species, value today’s dollar more than tomorrow’s children.

But that must and will change.

We tortured and killed people in the name of “law and order.” Now, less so. Soon perhaps, never.

One wonders what it is conservatives wish to conserve. Hatred and bigotry? Lack of empathy? Lack of compassion? Lack of human decency? Is this their desired legacy?

Today’s conservatives cannot long deny, deny, deny, as they drown in the “bleeding heart,” liberal tide of American decency.

Americans know, deep withing their hearts, that like the equally and wrongly denied Evolution, the “bleeding heart,” liberal tide is real and inevitable.

We the people, neither can, nor wish to, swim against it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free 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. Federally funded, 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. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their 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)

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

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

–What if the NRA was in charge of our international policies?

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

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

To the NRA, and gun lovers in general, the solution to gun violence is more guns:

NRA Board Member Blames Charleston Shooting Deaths on Victim
Brendan O’Connor

National Rifle Association board member Charles Cotton blamed Clementa Pinckney, a state senator and pastor at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, for his own death and for the death of his parishioners, Thinkprogress reports in Charleston this week.

“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre famously said, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

The problem is, who are the “good guys”?

Charles Cotton seems to believe that every single member of the congregation of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church not only is a “good guy,” but will remain a “good guy” in the future.

He wants them all to be armed.

In fact, the NRA believes everyone is a good guy, and always will remain a “good guy.” It strenuously fights against any gun control laws that might identify “bad” guys.

The NRA invariably claims all gun control laws are part of a government plot “to take our guns away.”

So what is a “good guy,” anyway?

Is a “good guy” someone who never will lose his temper, so never will use his gun in a sudden fit of anger?

Is a “good guy” someone who never will have road rage, someone who never will have a fight with his wife or his neighbor, someone who never will threaten anyone?

Is a “good guy” someone who never will become a criminal?

Is a “good guy” someone who never will get mean drunk? Someone who never will celebrate by shooting his gun? Someone who always will keep his loaded guns out of the hands of children or bad guys?

So the question remains: How do you identify the “good guys,” especially if you aren’t allowed to review the past, nor able to predict the future?

Perhaps the NRA has an undisclosed formula for this, and if so, they might be able to help us with international arms control, specifically nuclear control.

By the NRA formula for peace, the best way to maintain world safety is for every nation to have atomic bombs. Using NRA standards, we should not attempt to prevent, for instance, Iran from getting the Bomb. And letting Hamas and every tiny nation in Africa obtain an atomic bomb would be a good idea.

Nor should we enter into treaties with Russia to reduce the number of ballistic missiles. The more atomic bombs, and the more missiles to fire them, and the more nations that have atomic bombs, the safer we all are.

Who could doubt that? Certainly not the NRA.

We cannot know the future. There could be some small nations, that in the future, “elect” a crazy leader, who decides to bomb his neighbors or us.

It’s unpredictable — just as unpredictable as which of our friends, neighbors and strangers could decide to shoot us.

But, what does it matter how we get killed — by bomb or gun?

The only solution to a bad country with an atomic bomb is a good country with an atomic bomb — and since we can’t know the future, every nation should have atomic bombs and the intercontinental missiles to fire them. (What good are bullets without guns?)

Thank you NRA and gun lovers everywhere, for solving that problem.

PS: Here again are two proposed laws that might reduce gun violence somewhat, while not taking anyone’s gun away:

1. Any person who commits a felony while carrying a gun, shall be sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life, in addition to the term for the felony itself.

2. Any provider of a gun that is used in a felony shall have the same criminal and civil liability as the actual perpetrator of the felony.

Yes, #2 requires that any provider of a gun be able to identify “good guys” and to predict the future, but the NRA assures us they know how to do that.

All violence problems — domestic and international — solved by the NRA.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================================================
The Ten Steps to Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded free 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. Federally funded, 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. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all their 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)

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

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Long term view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Recent view:
Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY