Plenty of money for a wall; not enough for Social Security and Medicare

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

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

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

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

Republicans embrace building of Mexico border wall, despite cost

Republicans on Capitol Hill say they don’t need to wait for Mexico to make good on President-elect Donald Trump’s central campaign promise: building a southern border wall.

In fact, they are happy to underwrite the wall themselves, at a potential cost of many billions of dollars.

The GOP’s willingness to fund Trump’s border wall with taxpayer money could put the party’s deeply held desire to rein in government spending in conflict with its long-standing goal of cracking down on illegal immigration and toughening border security. Nonetheless, many Republicans do not see an inherent conflict.

“It would be a proposal that would cost billions of dollars* to get done, but if it’s an appropriate priority for our country, it’s worth spending that kind of money,” said Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.

*A study in July from Bernstein Research put the total cost at $15 billion to $25 billion.

The Republicans are telling you the truth — sort of. For a Monetarily Sovereign nation (See: The key to economics), money is not a problem.

Paying for the wall won’t be with taxpayer money. Unlike state and local governments, a Monetarily Sovereign government (See: “Free lunch”) does not spend taxpayer money.  It creates money, ad hoc, by paying invoices.

The U.S. federal government absolutely, positively never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. Never.

What the Republicans aren’t telling you is where that government money will go. Read on.

Trump to Order Mexican Border Wall and Curtail Immigration
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, DAVID E. SANGER and MAGGIE HABERMANJAN. 24, 2017
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday will order the construction of a Mexican border wall.

So, whether or not Trump will stick with his “alternative fact” that Mexico will pay for the wall, he will go ahead and build it, despite the cost.  Why not? The federal government, uniquely being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford anything.

But who will get the money needed to build the wall?

Trump’s Budget Nominee Still Thinks Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme
And he wants to raise the retirement age. 

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s choice to manage the federal government’s budget admitted Tuesday that Social Security is in fact constitutional, but he was still not willing to renounce his description of the program as a “Ponzi scheme.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, also refused to say at his confirmation hearing whether he’d push Trump to keep his campaign pledges to not cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

“I wouldn’t read too much into the description of it as a Ponzi scheme. It’s simply describing to people how the cash flows,” Mulvaney said.

He said his earlier remarks merely refer to the fact that fewer workers are now supporting each Social Security recipient than in the past, which he argues means that eventually some people will be left holding the bag.

And the alternative facts, aka the Big Lie (See: Big Lie) just keep on coming.

A Ponzi scheme is a scam in which money put in by later joiners is used to pay earlier joiners. Eventually, there are not enough later joiners to support the earlier joiners, and the scheme collapses.

Social Security, by contrast, does not use taxpayers’ money to pay benefit recipients.  Even if there were not a single individual in America paying FICA, Social Security could continue paying benefits forever.

And not just paying forever — SS and Medicare could pay larger benefits, and pay them to every man, woman, and child, forever. (See: “Medicare for all”)

So here is a summary of the Republicans (and to a lesser extent, the Democrats) position:

  1. Federal finances are the same as state and local finances. They all need to live within their means.
  2. We will build the wall, no matter what it costs. The government has plenty of money for that.
  3. We will cut Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid) because there isn’t enough money for them, and they are headed for insolvency.

Point #1 is absolutely false. The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. State and local governments are monetarily non-sovereign. The federal government has no “means” to live within.

The former cannot run short of dollars and does not use taxpayers’ dollars to pay its bills. The latter can run short of dollars and does use taxpayers’ dollars to pay bills.

Point #2 is true with regard to the federal government having plenty of money (unlimited money, in fact) to build a dozen walls, although the need for such a wall is doubtful.

However, the real purpose of the wall is to shovel billions of dollars into the pockets of construction company owners — the friends and peers of Donald Trump.Image result for money and poor people

Point #3 is absolutely false. FICA does not fund Social Security and Medicare. The federal government cannot become insolvent, nor can any of its agencies.FICA dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the government; they disappear from every measure of the money supply. Being no longer part of the money supply, they cannot pay for anything.

FICA dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the government; they disappear from every measure of the money supply. Being no longer part of the money supply, they no longer exist and cannot pay for anything.

So what’s the real story, politicians?

–Is there plenty of money or are we running short?

–Is buying a wall more important, or less important, than paying Social Security and Medicare benefits?

–Is the real purpose of the wall to keep out families who hope for a better life, or is it to enrich President Trump’s fellow construction company owners?

One final note: The Republicans can hardly wait to privatize some or all of Social Security and Medicare. “Privatize” is government-speak for providing a windfall to the wealthy owners of businesses at the expense of the public.  (See: The Great Privatization Scam“)

In short, rather than having the government pay for something, at no cost to you, privatization requires you to pay for it, usually more than even the government would have paid.

How will you know the privatization scam is underway? Look for the word “vouchers.”

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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate 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

Should America have a teenage President?

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

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

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

……………………………………………………………………………………

Would you vote for a 14-year-old to be President of the United States? No? Why not?

There are only three legal requirements for being President:

  1. Be a natural born U.S. citizen. There have been some discussions of the words “natural born,” but in any event, the purpose seemingly was to prevent a foreigner from running the nation.
  2. Has been a permanent resident of the United States at least 14 years. There also is a question about what the words “permanent resident,” mean, but presumably, the intent had to do with familiarity and loyalty.
  3. Be at least 35 years old.

The purpose of #3 is assumed to relate to experience and emotional maturity.

A U.S. Representative needs to be only 25+ years old, and a Senator needs to be 30+ years old. Thus, a person can be elected to the House of Representatives at age 25, serve for eight years, gather an enormous amount of governmental experience, and still not qualify to be elected President.

Why?

America has many minimum age laws. There are minimum ages to drink alcohol, to serve alcohol, to own a gun, to drive a car, to serve time in prison, to sign a contract, to join the military, to marry, to baby-sit, even a minimum age to own a Twitter account.

Why?

All minimum age laws have to do with emotional maturity, which is why the minimum age to be President is among the highest minimum age of all. Young people notoriously lack judgment and emotional maturity.

Because the President’s actions affect not just America, but the world, not just today, but for the future, judgment and maturity may be the single most important qualifications a President can have.

That said, what is maturity? Perhaps that question best can be answered by describing immaturity. Here are a few symptoms:

Signs of Emotional Immaturity

Emotional Volatility:
• temper tantrums
• getting upset extremely easily, having a low frustration level
• responses out of proportion, making a mountain out of a mole hill
• inability to take criticism, rather taking it too personally or taking yourself too seriously
• unwillingness to forgive,
• unpredictable fluctuation of moods

Constant Attention and Gratification Seeking: Emotionally immature people spend a lot of time and energy looking for attention and gratification from other people. This is characterized by:
• superficial values
• loyalty that lasts only as long as the person views the relationship as “useful”
• needing immediate gratification which may result in financial or personal problems
• thoughtless and impulsive behavior

Extreme self-centeredness: Self-centered people are often viewed as selfish. Usually, this suggests having low self-esteem, self-centred people can be extremely competitive, make unreasonable demands, are constantly preoccupied with themselves, seek out positive feedback or sympathy relentlessly, and don’t tend to accept responsibility for anything.

I would add to the above list, incessant lying and denial of fact, as if to create a different person from the one people see.

Image result for bratty teenage boys

All of the above symptoms of emotional immaturity are more common in the very young and in teenagers, than in people 35+, which again, is the prime reason why we have a minimum age requirement to be President.

Relationships with emotionally immature people
June 4, 2012 by heart spirit mind

Emotionally immature people can be extremely challenging to deal with, because their ability to interpret and react to the variety of life’s challenges is often impaired.

If you are married to someone who is emotionally immature you probably face great challenges in dealing with their moods and behaviors. They tend to try to control their world around them making it what they idealize rather than accept it for what it is and work toward positive change.

This belief is a strong indicator of self-centeredness or narcissism.

Self-centeredness and self importance are normally characteristics of children.

Children demand special treatment, make little real contributions themselves, and complain that life isn’t meeting their demands.

Over coming this mind set is a normal and an important part of growing-up. When those characteristics manifest chronically in a “grown-up,” they are indications that person is not in fact a mature, responsive adult, but rather still reacting out of their self centered child self rather than as a mature adult.

The person may look mature, and have many adult responsibilities, but emotionally, they are still a child.

Having a President who acts like a teenager, i.e. has temper tantrums, gets upset easily, lacks proportionality, cannot endure criticism, is unwilling to forgive, has unpredictable moods, superficial values, is extremely self-centered, and lies about everything, no matter how large or small   — having a President like that would be dangerous for American and the world.

Imagine a teenager so immature and obsessed with himself that he awakens each night to Twitter-attack those whom he believes have not shown him sufficient homage.

Imagine a President so immature, he even will lie with claims about the large number of people who attended his inauguration, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.

Imagine a President so teenage immature he repeatedly will lie to, and cheat on, a succession of wives and boast about his sexual conquests with other women.

Imagine a President, who like a rich, teenage shoplifter, will cheat poorer people out of their scant resources with, for instance, a fake “university” scheme.

Imagine a teenage bully, who attacks religions, women, gays, immigrants and the poor.

Thank heavens, the American public, being rational, wise, and mature, never would elect such a weak-spirited, 14-year-old to be President of the United States.

Thank heavens.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

ECONOMICS LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives 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 the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why we can’t afford wholesome food

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

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

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

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

Trump targets “the FDA Food Police,” calls for elimination of food-safety regulations in new tax plan   by SOPHIA TESFAYE

Trump plans dramatically scale back government regulations, including food safety and environmental measures, in order to save almost $1 trillion over the next decade.

“The FDA Food Police dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food,” Trump complained

“My plan will embrace the truth that people flourish under a minimum government burden,” Trump said

As we all have been told by Donald Trump and many others, the federal government is too big. It costs taxpayers too much and its rules stifle business.

As is so often the case, what we have been told is wrong. Contrary to popular wisdom, taxes do not pay for the federal government.

You may visualize the federal government accepting your tax dollars, putting them in a bank somewhere, and then spending them. That is the way state and local governments operate. That even is the way you and I operate.

But, the federal government is unique. It does not need income. It does not use taxes. It creates dollars ad hoc, every time it pays an invoice.

When the government pays for something, it sends instructions (not dollars) to its creditor’s bank, telling the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. The instructions can be in the form of a check or wire.

The instant the bank obeys those instructions, dollars are created and added to the money supply.

Thus, the federal government costs taxpayers nothing. Sad to say, those tax dollars you send to the federal government are destroyed — they disappear from the money supply — the instant they are received.

The technical term for this is “Monetary Sovereignty,” which means being sovereign over money, in this case, sovereign over the dollar.

You can search and search, and you never will find an article or a chart titled, “This is how much money the federal government has.” Why? Because it creates dollars as needed.

So O.K., let’s assume the government doesn’t cost taxpayers anything, but all those rules must stifle business.

And indeed they do, especially bad business.

The Growing Fight Against Food Fraud
Alice Park

When you’re shopping at the grocery store, you probably expect that the olive oil you see came from, well, olives. And that the organic vegetables were never exposed to toxic chemicals, the cod fillet is sliced from a member of the cod species and the spices are the pure ground form of whatever flavoring they represent.

Increasingly, however, there’s a chance you might be wrong.

In recent years, there has been an uptick in reports of so-called food fraud, or attempts by various entities–including storage workers, suppliers and distributors–to alter products and mislead customers and food companies alike for financial gain (though occasionally the companies are complicit).

The fraudsters are trying to make easy money–charging for a whole food or pricey ingredient, then cutting it with cheaper stuff on the sly. But the health consequences can be dire.

Fraudulent cumin, for example, poses a huge risk for people with peanut allergies. And in China, at least six babies died after drinking a milk formula that had been laced with melamine, a chemical used to create plastic, in order to up its protein content.

 In the U.S., the Pure Food and Drug Act has prevented the “manufacture, sale or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods” since 1906, and similar laws exist in other countries.

But most global food regulators, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, aren’t equipped to enforce them effectively.

For the most part, they focus on safety standards–ensuring that foods don’t contain bacteria or viruses–and rely on companies to police the integrity of their own ingredients.

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)–a trade group comprising officials from more than 300 food manufacturers–will this year start auditing its members’ supply chains, from field to table, to identify vulnerabilities.

Such efforts have been key for titans like Cargill, which instituted a new procedure for sealing tanks of sunflower oil after a routine inspection revealed that some workers had been diluting it with mineral oil to profit from selling the real stuff.

Meanwhile, dozens of other food-industry experts recently teamed up with academics from Michigan State University to launch the Food Fraud Initiative (FFI), a group that studies fraudsters–specifically, how they circumvent safeguards–and then advises food companies on how to ward them off.

See a pattern here? “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration isn’t equipped (i.e. funded) to enforce the integrity of ingredients effectively.”  So, we’ll rely on “a trade group comprising officials from more than 300 food manufacturers.”

Because we fear the government, which costs us nothing and has no profit motive for cheating, we will underfund the Food and Drug Administration. Instead, we will trust industry to police itself, an effort that not only can’t be trusted, but will cost consumers the money manufacturers will add to prices.

Rather than having free, impartial judges, we will pay the foxes to guard the hen house.

We already have accomplished some of this short-sighted cost cutting, which is based on the lie that taxes pay for government.

Trump Expected to Seek Deep Cuts in Business Regulations by By MICHAEL CORKERY

The unwinding of Dodd-Frank. The firing up of shuttered coal plants. The rollback of rules that increase overtime pay for low-wage workers.

Hours after Donald Trump won the race for the White House, scores of regulations that have reshaped corporate America in the last eight years suddenly seemed vulnerable.

Mr. Trump is likely to seek vast cuts in regulations across the banking, health care and energy industries.

Although Mr. Trump is a maverick politician, his anti-regulation stance is that of an old-school Republican. It is driven by a belief that the economy will grow faster if businesses are freed from the long arm of the federal government.

No, that isn’t the belief.  The belief is that the rich will rake in more bucks if they are not forced to run honest businesses. And clearly, the owner of the notorious Trump University is part of that group.

Every criminal business CEO on this planet yearns for fewer government regulations — just ask the banksters — and now we are about to cut regulations, just as the creators of the Great Recession want.

Image result for fox guarding the henhouse

Eat carefully, my friend. And if your child suffers the agony of food poisoning spasms, because not only was the food tainted, but the medicine was tainted, too, remember: We need to cut the free but onerous (to the rich) burden of supplying wholesome food and useful drugs.

Don’t worry about your family’s health. We need to minimize the burden on the rich.

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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate 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

Growing fascism and “alternative facts” in America

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

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

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Every time we post an article describing Trump as a potential Hitler (“Astounding similarities: Of whom does this remind you? It’s happening now.”), we are told this is an overreaction and an example of Godwin’s law.

So what does one say when Trump’s  actions really, really, really are Hitler-like?*

Republican Legislators Propose a Series of Bills That Would Criminalize Peaceful Protests by Krisandry Harridan

According to The Intercept, several proposals have been introduced by Republican legislators over the past few weeks specifically targeting protests that block or obstruct traffic—including a North Dakota bill that would allow motorists to hit and kill protesters obstructing the highway “as long as [the] driver does so accidentally.”

“Yes, your honor, it was an accident that I ran down and killed those “Moth*&*#*ing” Black Lives Matter protesters blocking my way.”

Another bill in Minnesota would make obstructing a highway a “gross misdemeanor” punishable by a hefty fine of $3,000 and up to a year in jail, while a separate piece of legislature would make “obstructing the legal process” punishable by an even heftier fine of up to $10,000 plus “imprisonment of not less than 12 months.”

Does walking in protest against an unjust law “obstruct the legal process”?  Should Trump decide? Should racist governors decide?

Image result for american police pepper spraying

Similar bills designed to criminalize and discourage protests have also been proposed in Washington, Iowa, and Michigan.

The problem is that when many thousands of people protest, there is nowhere to go but the streets and parks, and fascist governments present “good, logical reasons,” for not wanting streets and parks to be blocked, at the inconvenience of the public.

Of course, the real reason for these laws is not to protect the convenience of the public, but to shut down protests.

As The Intercept points out, this “trend” appears to be a not-so-subtle workaround to the First Amendment.

The first Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The American right is quite selective about which parts of the Constitution should be considered important.

They love the “religion” clause so long as the religion is Christianity. Freedom of religion means we need to ban Muslims, because they are “terrorists,” despite the fact that the vast majority of individual killers and mass murderers in America are Christian.

And of course, there is the ever-present, full-court-press to erect Christmas trees and the Ten Commandments on public land. And let’s not even get into the unConstitutionality of teaching bible-based anti-evolution in public schools.

The only part of the Constitution the right-wing loves better than their interpretation of the religion clause is the 2nd Amendment, which they claim means “Anyone can carry any kind of gun anywhere they wish.”

If only the framers of the Constitution had been smart enough to say it just that simply rather than including the well-regulated militia” clause, which as any conservative will tell you, is completely meaningless and should be ignored.

Furthermore, the bills seem to be in response to recent protests organized by Black Lives Matter and the activists fighting construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline—which is horrifying for a multitude of reasons, most notably the continued criminalization of black and brown people.

In the minds of conservatives, money seems to be more important than people, so they enact laws to protect money and to punish people. Then, anyone protesting is by definition, a criminal.  

This meets the fundamental definitions of fascism, Hitler-style, by in essence saying, “The government always is right, and anyone who disagrees is a criminal.”

The very specific targeting becomes even more concerning when combined with what Slate reports is a “bracing message implicitly directed to supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement” from the Trump administration.

As the source points out, amongst the “Top Issues” on President Trump’s new White House website is “Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community,” which in part appears to be addressed to protestors of police violence.

“The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration,” the website reads. “The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it…Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter.”

And here is the trick.  If a group of people is protesting peacefully, and the police get angry at the protest and decide to pepper spray, just to teach these people a lesson — and the people begin to run in all directions, across streets and lawns — who exactly is the rioter and violent disrupter?

The police have it in their power to turn any protest into a violent disruption, not only by pepper spraying but by herding, beating, barring, roughly arresting and any number of tactics.

What exactly is a “law and order administration”? Specifically, what does such an administration really do that “regular” administrations have failed to do?

And if shooting and beating unarmed Americans were to cause Trump’s mythical “anti-police atmosphere,” who would be to blame? The unarmed Americans or poorly trained, bigoted police and a policy of denial and buddy-protection?

As many pointed out in response to the low arrest numbers of the Women’s Marches, it’s not only a sign of a successful protest, but also proof of a wholly different method of policing—which is why, now more than ever, it’s so essential just as many people show up for the small, local protests as the big ones.

It’s also a sign that beating blacks and native Americans is acceptable, because those people are “disruptors” and “have it coming,” but beating up women still is frowned upon in America, even by conservatives.

*The Learning Site:

The Enabling Act of March 1933 had given Hitler enormous power over all Germans in Nazi Germany. It is no coincidence that in the same month the first concentration camp was created at Dachau.

Anyone considered to be a threat to Hitler was arrested and issued with a ‘D notice’. The law was ‘adjusted’ to allow the Nazis to effectively determine who was an opponent.

Once labeled as such, arrest was inevitable.

The development and expansion of various police units – both in uniform and un-uniformed – gave the internal security forces a massive level of power. The SD (intelligence agency), in particular, was effective in rounding up opponents, imaginary or not.

The SD cultivated a programm of informants with rewards for the best ones. It is almost certain that any community within Nazi Germany had its informants. His or her word could end with the arrest of someone. Children indoctrinated by a Nazi education programm were also encouraged to inform their teachers if their parents made disparaging comments about Hitler.

Speaking of being punished for disparaging remarks:

Donald Trump says he wants libel laws more like the UK’s by Tom Kludt

“Well in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong.Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

As is normal with Trump, the facts are different from what he claims. They are what Kellyanne Conway calls “Alternative facts”:

In fact, Trump was essentially describing the legal standard that already prevails in U.S. defamation law. If a media organization publishes or broadcasts something untrue about a public figure that harms that person’s reputation, and does so deliberately, they can be sued.

British law puts the onus on the defendant to prove that the statement at issue was true; in the U.S., the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Once Germany was a beautiful, proud, prosperous nation, a home to great scientists and artists — just like America.

Hitler changed Germany to a land of hatred, where people were despised for their religion or political leanings, and children even extended the hatred to their parents.

Under Trump, America too is being changed into a land of hatred. The Emails and comments I receive now are far more vicious and insane than any in the past.

Every demeaning comment Trump makes, every angry tweet, every anti-press complaint, every anti-progressive, anti-minority law he encourages represents one more chip off the face of the Statue of Liberty.

The Germans could not believe it could happen to them.  They sneered at the warnings . . . . until it was too late.

We object to Trump, not because he is a strongman, but because he is weak man.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THE LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives 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 the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY