Tag: optimum employment

–How can a little, amateurish, two-bit film inflame 1.6 billion people?

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

You may wonder how a little, two-bit, amateurish film, created by one unknown person, can inflame an entire religion of 1.6 billion people — almost none of whom have actually seen the film — causing riots and deaths in 20 countries. The answer, ironically, can be found in the Constitution of the United States:

The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution: 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 ideas expressed in the 1st Amendment are a rarity in this world, and non-existent in theocracies. They are the basis of what we Americans call “freedom” — the basis of America itself.

Cultural Clash Fuels Muslims Angry at Online Video
Moises Saman for The New York Times

When the protests against an American-made online video mocking the Prophet Muhammad exploded in about 20 countries, the source of the rage was more than just religious sensitivity, political demagogy or resentment of Washington, protesters and their sympathizers here said.

It was also a demand that many of them described with the word “freedom,” although in a context very different from the term’s use in the individualistic West: the right of a community, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, to be free from grave insult to its identity and values.

All theocracies tend to behave in the same way. The religious leaders tell the flock they speak for God. As God’s messengers, they are perfect and cannot be criticized, questioned or mocked, just as God cannot be criticized, questioned or mocked.

Democracies do not flow easily from theocracies, because to vote against a perfect religious leader is to vote against a perfect God. Isreal, Turkey and Indonesia, despite a strong devotion to a single religion, have managed to adopt democratic principles. They are exceptions — for now.

Though Christianity and Islam are sister monotheistic religions, both having evolved from Judaism, they have been at war for 1,300 years. This explains, in part, why conservative Christians strongly support Israel, as that tiny nation is seen, correctly or not, as a bulwark against the spread of Islam.

In America, Christianity has edged away from theocracy, and it is only the extreme right wing that wishes to revert. Thus their repeated complaints that “God has been taken from the classroom” (as though anyone had the power to take God anywhere), their ongoing attempts to teach creationism, their belief that “America is a Christian country” and the installation of Christian symbols in public places.

The use of “In God we trust” on our dollars, and “one nation, under God,” in our pledge of allegiance, are remnants of theocratic leanings.

Said Ismail Mohamed, 42, a religious scholar who once was an imam in Germany, “We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights.”

Even during the protests, some stone throwers stressed that the clash was not Muslim against Christian. Instead, they suggested that the traditionalism of people of both faiths in the region conflicted with Western individualism and secularism.

Actually, it is Muslim against Christian, but it also is right vs. left, theocracy vs democracy. By definition, traditionalism resists change, while individualism seeks change, which explains the comparatively greater scientific advancement of the West.

In a context where insults to religion are crimes and the state has tightly controlled almost all media, many in Egypt, like other Arab countries, sometimes find it hard to understand that the American government feels limited by its free speech rules from silencing even the most noxious religious bigot.

The spiritual leader of the Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that “the West” had imposed laws against “those who deny or express dissident views on the Holocaust or question the number of Jews killed by Hitler, a topic which is purely historical, not a sacred doctrine. Certainly, such attacks against sanctities do not fall under the freedom of opinion or thought.”

For religious fundamentals, denying historical fact is acceptable, but denying anything related to religion is not. However, if a religious leader denies historical fact, his denial becomes a religious fact, and then, cannot itself be denied.

Denying the Holocaust is also protected as free speech in the United States, although it is prohibited in Germany and a few other European countries. But the belief that it is illegal in the United States is widespread in Egypt.

“This is not the first time that Muslim beliefs are being insulted or Muslims humiliated,” said Emad Shahin, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo.

Hypersensitivity to disagreeable words and ideas, and easy humiliation, is a trademark of religious extremism, and exposes something of an inferiority complex. The West’s far greater scientific accomplishments (in recent years) may add to that feeling.

In the West, many may express astonishment that the murder of Muslims in hate crimes does not provoke the same level of global outrage as the video did.

“When you hurt someone, you are just hurting one person,” said Ahmed Shobaky, 42, a jeweler. “But when you insult a faith like that, you are insulting a whole nation that feels the pain.”

Mr. Mohamed, the religious scholar, justified it this way: “Our prophet is more dear to us than our family and our nation.”

Consider the psychology of that sentence. A family must be cared for, but does not need to be treated deferentially. A God does not need to be cared for, but only needs to be treated deferentially. In loving God more than family, life becomes simpler. One is, at least in part, relieved of responsibility for action or inaction. Deference is easier than giving care.

While (Mr. Mohamed) stressed that no one should ever condone violence against diplomats or embassies because of even the most offensive film, Mr. Shahin said it was easy to see why the protesters focused on the United States government’s outposts. “There is a war going on here,” he said.

Yes, it is the war between Christianity and Islam, entwined with the war between totalitarian theocracy and democracy, mixed with the war between traditionalism and individualism. In the U.S., the war has tilted toward Christianity, democracy and individualism, but we are a young nation, and no one knows where the war will take us.

Islam is a relatively younger religion. No one knows where it is headed. I see a slow trend toward Westernization, though most Muslims currently believe that to become Westernized would weaken Islam.

Or, perhaps the ultra-right wing in America will win our own internal battle, and we will devolve to theocracy. In that event, another little, two-bit, amaturish film, created by one person, will cause us to riot, destroy and kill, as a testament to our love for God.

As in so many things, semantics underlies misunderstandings. Western “freedom” differs from Islamic “freedom.” What we consider trivial, Muslims consider vital. We expect President Obama’s attempts at even-handedness to produce gratitude and cooperation; Muslims see it as hypocrisy and condescension.

So what is the solution? Humans are hard wired for bigotry. Our team, our village, our religion, our race, our political party — we all favor what is ours.

A 1,300 year dispute cannot be solved overnight. It never may be solved. Racial bigotry in America was not solved by the Civil Rights Act. Perhaps, it was ameliorated. But for fundamentalists, tolerance is not tolerated.

The best course of action is to accept the reality of mutual distrust and antagonism and the occasional riot. As British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston reputedly said, “We have no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interests that are eternal and perpetual.

Realpolitik may be the only course of action.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Cause and Effect: Why the income gap will continue to widen

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The gap between the upper 1% income group and the lower 99% continues to widen. Here is the cause:

Washington Post
Influence Industry
Dan Eggen & T.W. Farnam
GOP plank in 2012 platform wants to leave campaign spending alone
By Bill Turque, Published: August 29

The Republican Party’s 2008 platform contained not a mention of campaign finance reform in its 68 pages. “We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals,” it declares on page 12.

The platform calls for repeal of what remains of McCain-Feingold — mainly the ban on “soft” money contributions to parties — and either raising or abolishing donation limits.

It also opposes passage of any law that would weaken the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which did away with prohibitions against corporate or union spending on elections.

The platform specifically mentioned the Democrat-supported DISCLOSE Act, which would require independent groups to list the names of those donating more than $10,000. The bill died in the Senate this year.

The plank also calls for no regulation of political speech on the Internet.

Republican National Committee member James Bopp Jr. said, “I’m just glad we can reflect what the grass-roots of the party believe. They support the First Amendment and they support no campaign finance restrictions.”

Actually, the average person sympathizes with the idea that wealthy people should not be able to buy votes. When Bopp says “grass roots” he’s talking about the wealthy supporters of the Tea/Republican party. For Bopp and the Tea/Republicans, grass is green and money is green, and the root of political money is the upper 1% income earners.

Like other portions of the platform, the campaign finance plank reflects the party’s steepening conservative tilt. In 1992, the GOP called for elimination of corporate and union political action committees. Four years later, it endorsed “full and immediate disclosure of all contributions” and a crackdown on soft money.

That was then, and this is now. Today’s Tea/Republicans are a completely different breed from the Republican party you may have favored ten years ago.

By 2004, the conservative trend emerged. The party firmly established campaign funding as a First Amendment issue with no government restrictions on individual political expression.

Though the Republicans and the right wing tell you money doesn’t buy elections, you know better. Anyway, you’ve seen the cause; now view the effect:

Census: Middle class shrinks to an all-time low
by Kristen Wyatt/AP – 9/12/12

Income inequality increased by 1.6 percent, the Census Bureau said in its annual report on poverty, income and health insurance. This was the biggest one-year increase in almost two decades.

Median household income declined $777, to $50,054 before taxes. But fewer Americans were without health insurance, largely because of a provision in the 2010 health-care law allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ policies.

The biggest gains went to the top 5 percent, who earn more than $186,000; their share of income jumped almost 5 percent in a single year.

“It explains the disconnect between the numbers saying there’s slow improvement and job growth, and the way people feel, because they haven’t recovered,” said Sarah Burd-Sharps, co-director of Measure of America at the Social Science Research Council. “It’s partly because the recovery has mostly been felt at the top.”

Tim Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said the working class, whose pay tops out about $62,000, are bearing the brunt of the income squeeze.

“Their pay rate has gone down, the number of hours that everyone in the house works has gone down, their homes have lost value,” he said. “These are the people really ravaged by the recession.”

The White House quickly offered a blog post urging Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts and pass the administration’s job-creation proposals. Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation scholar who specializes in poverty issues, faulted the White House for the falling income and high poverty rates.

“We still have a very high poverty rate, because Obama has been unable to generate jobs,” Rector said.

Aside from filibustering or threatening to filibuster every economic stimulus plan offered by the Democrats, it’s difficult to think of anything the Tea/Republicans (the infamous party of “Hell, no”) has done or even offered, that would have increased jobs.

“Said Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University’s School of Social Work who studies poverty and inequality, “What’s disconcerting is that inequality is going up post-recession, and it’s happening because the top is starting to pull away again,” she said.

The increase in income inequality reflects the recovery’s unevenness, said Richard Burkhauser, an economist at Cornell University. “It rose not so much because the top 10 percent saw a rise in income, but because virtually everyone below the 90th percentile is still falling.”

While the Democrats sometimes are servants to the 1%, the Tea/Republicans are abject slaves, whose sole political and financial ambition has been to unseat President Obama — and causing a bad economy is part of that plan.

The populace has been sold the Big Lie that the deficit and debt are too big. The only way to reduce a deficit is to cut federal spending or increase taxes. The Tea/Republicans are dead set against tax increases, so we are left with spending cuts.

The Tea/Republican’s spending-reduction platform demands cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending, which absolutely, positively will increase the gap between rich and the rest of us.

Additionally, Federal employment (which includes military personnel) already has been cut, and more cuts are in the wind, thus exacerbating unemployment.

In summary: The Big Lie, that the federal deficit and debt should be reduced, is the 1%’s method for widening the gap. As part of the plan, the 1% want to be allowed unlimited spending to disseminate the Big Lie. Thus, the right-wing Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

We’re in a downward helix. As the 1% and the right wing become more powerful, they grow more and more able to control the levers of power: Congress, the Supreme Court and the media, who then convince the populace to accept an ever widening gap.

Given the Presidency, there will be no limit to the power of the wealthy over America.

Who are you, and what’s your vote?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Joe Firestone’s excellent post regarding Moody’s stupid threats.

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Here are the introductory paragraphs to an excellent post that should be mandatory reading for every politician and everyone at Moody’s — and every voter.

Alan Grayson’s Right; But He Misses the Larger Point
Posted on September 14, 2012 by Devin Smith
By Joe Firestone

Alan Grayson’s e-mail on Moody’s warning that it might reduce the US’s AAA rating, suggested that Moody’s was either threatening a downgrade because it wants to get the Bush tax cuts for the rich extended, or, alternatively, that “Moody’s is living in what Aristophanes called “Cloud Cuckoo Land.””

He says this because Moody’s is upset about the possibility that the US may go over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” even though if it did, it would theoretically result in $560 Billion of deficit reduction annually, without further legislative changes, and it makes no sense on the surface for a ratings agency to think that the risk of US bond default is greater when the annual deficit is being reduced by $560 B per year, than by some lesser amount, which is likely to happen if Congress doesn’t take us over that “cliff.”

Grayson was right to call attention to this seeming contradiction and the possibility that Moody’s is just pressuring Congress to do more for rich people; but I think he should also have made the larger and more important point, that Moody’s warning, just like the one it delivered in January of 2010, is an empty threat without significant consequence, even if it were carried out. How do we know that? For a number of reasons.

I urge you to click to the full post. Well worth the few minutes.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Is it possible for the federal budget process to get crazier?

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Is it possible for the federal budget process to get crazier? Here is the latest on Congress’s attempt to make the easy impossible and widen the income gap.

Washington Post
Defense a big winner in spending talks
By Walter Pincus, Published: September 12, 2012

A first step to deal with the nation’s budgetary problems began Tuesday with the introduction of a bipartisan fiscal 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution, which would provide funds to continue running the government at least through March 27.

The CR (Continuing Resolution) for the most part continues spending at the fiscal 2012 level, but based on an agreement among the House, the Senate and the White House, it contains an across-the-board increase of 0.6 percent.

Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports. So, if nothing else changes, a 0.6% increase in federal spending would push GDP up only 0.6% next year — pretty close to recession. Of course, if Net Imports go up or Non-federal spending goes down, we will be in a full blown recession.

Can it get any crazier? Yes.

Overall discretionary spending is $26.6 billion less than this year. That’s primarily because of a $32 billion reduction in fiscal 2013 projected costs for Afghanistan and other overseas military-related operations.

The country, however, is far from out of the woods. Beyond the CR looms sequestration, the across-the-board reductions of some 10 percent a year in all discretionary spending if Congress — by the end of this year — does not come up with a plan for $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years. That could be done by program cuts or increased revenue, or a mixture of both. That’s the law approved by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Obama last year with the passage of the Budget Control Act (BCA).

And who created the sequestration that Congress and the President pretend they are so desperately trying to avoid? Congress and the President. Can it get any crazier? Yes.

How Congress handles sequestration depends on who wins the November presidential election. Take defense spending. Obama’s plans are laid out in the Pentagon budget delivered to Congress and in testimony before congressional committees.

Romney and congressional Republicans, meanwhile, accuse Obama of reducing defense spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Here’s the math for their claim: They add the congressionally approved $487 billion from the BCA with $500 billion more that would emerge if sequestration happens.

Translation: Romney, the leader of the Tea/Republican party, blames Obama for the sequestration that the Tea/Republican party insisted on. Can it get any crazier? Yes.

But forget reducing spending when it comes to the Romney plan for defense. Obama has called for reducing U.S. troop levels by 100,000 over five years as U.S. combat forces leave Afghanistan. But Romney wants to increase force levels by 100,000. That could cost an additional $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next 10 years.

Isn’t Romney the titular head of the “cut-spending” party? But it gets crazier:

He also has said that he wants to increase U.S. Navy shipbuilding, from nine vessels a year to 15. It costs roughly $18 billion for the current pace of nine ships a year. The Romney plan would add an additional $12 billion, or more than $120 billion to defense spending over the next 10 years.

And crazier:

On Saturday, he threw another costly item into his Pentagon shopping cart. During an interview with WAVY television in Virginia Beach, he raised the idea of reopening the F-22 Raptor fifth-generation stealth fighter production line.

Saying he opposes Obama’s “defense cuts in addition to the sequestration,” Romney said: “Rather than completing nine ships a year, I would complete 15. I would add more F-22s and add more than 100,000 active-duty personnel to our military team.”

And crazier:

He was not asked why he wanted more of what currently is the most expensive fighter ever built or what that would mean for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter now being flight tested.

And crazier:

Meanwhile, an $11.7 billion Air Force program is underway to upgrade the F-22, a cost that “more than doubled” since 2003, when the first estimates were made, according to a Government Accountability Office report. When that is concluded, the total cost for 188 F-22s would reach $80 billion.

Romney did not indicate how many more F-22s he might want. Like many of the former Massachusetts governor’s plans, serious details are missing.

One thing is certain: No matter who wins the election, the Defense Department budget will continue to grow — assuming sequestration is headed off. That growth would be less under Obama, but who knows how high it would go with Romney.

And then, when you think it can’t get any crazier, it gets crazier. Check this excerpt from another article in the Washington Post:

Fed announces new mortgage bond-buying plan, keeps interest rates low

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, alluded to the fiscal cliff in a statement Thursday: “Chairman Bernanke has repeatedly – and rightfully – warned Congress and the Administration that without action, growing deficits and debt will erode our prosperity and leave the next generation of Americans with less opportunity. To avoid this fate, we must tackle the necessary long-term reform of the spending programs that drive our debt.

So while Romney, the head of the Tea/Republican Party, tells the world he wants to spend, spend, spend, Republican Bachus says deficits and debt must be reduced.

Each time a politician opens his/her mouth, the craziness just grows and grows. But the ultimate craziness is the fact that all of this is unnecessary. The deficit and debt should not be reduced. For GDP to grow, federal deficits must be increased. The calculation of GDP demands it.

And because the U.S. is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it is sovereign over the dollar and can create all it needs, there are zero reasons to reduce the deficit.

Oh yes, there is one reason. If you want to establish a false rationale to fool the voters, so you can cut spending for social programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — this is the way to do it. Emphasize the need for more defense spending and to “pay for it” cut Obamacare and increase FICA.

Obamacare, Social Security and Medicaid benefit the lower 99% income group and FICA penalizes the same people. The upper 1% could not ask for a better outcome than increased defense spending and reduced social services, along with a tax that is aimed at the middle and lower classes. Perfect.

So, the politicians, are crazy like foxes. They have executed the ideal plan to increase the income gap, and the voters have fallen for it.

So who is crazy, now?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY