Why do some societies, like some couples, fall apart under pressure, while others band together?
Today, Portland. Who’s next?
If a crisis brings them together, will that make them stronger in the future?
And if they come apart, is that a sign that they should never have been together in the first place?
This week’s exemplar for “banding together” is the European Union (EU), whose leaders agreed to extraordinary new measures to promote a broad economic recovery in the wake of the novel coronavirus.
The agreement represents an about-face from the stance the EU took in the wake of the financial crisis of the last decade, which emphasized austerity rather than stimulus.
More importantly it broke two key structural taboos: the European Commission will, for the first time, be authorized to borrow significant sums of money; and a large portion of that sum will be disbursed to member governments in the form of grants.
The EU bears a cursory similarity to the United States of America. Both groups are composed of individual state governments.
Both the U.S. and the EU themselves are Monetarily Sovereign. They each own sovereign currencies, which they have the unlimited power to create.
The U.S. cannot run short of dollars; the EU cannot run short of euros.
For the EU, most of those governments are monetarily non-sovereign, meaning they don’t have their own sovereign currency. For the U.S., all the constituent state governments are monetarily non-sovereign.
Pepper spray everyone.
You and I also are monetarily non-sovereign entities. So are counties, cities, and businesses. None of us owns a sovereign currency.
To survive long-term we monetarily non-sovereign entities must have a net inflow of money.
Even “break-even,” i.e. a balanced budget, is not sufficient because, with even the most modest amount of inflation, a balanced budget would cause us monetarily sovereign entities to lose real wealth.
For the monetarily non-sovereign states of the U.S. and the EU, this net inflow must come from net exports or grants from their Monetarily Sovereign U.S. or EU governments.
But within any group, it is mathematically impossible for all members to be net exporters, and it is unlikely they all will be net exporters to the rest of the world.
So there are periods when the states of the U.S. and the states of the EU run short of money.
Typically then, these states must borrow money, and when borrowing has reached its limit, they must levy increased taxes on their citizens.
But, because the citizens are monetarily non-sovereign, they too can run short of money. Increased taxes impoverish the citizens, who subsequently are unable to pay further taxes.
This is known as “austerity,” which always leads to an endless, downward helix of impoverishment, which only can be solved when the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. or EU creates new money and distributes it as grants, not loans, to the needy states.
The U.S. federal government impoverishes its states by unnecessarily taxing the states’ citizens — “unnecessarily” because the U.S. government, having the unlimited ability to create dollars, has no need for taxes.
It is federal deficit spending that enriches the populace, grows the economy, and makes state, county, and city survival possible.
Contrary to popular wisdom, it is the insufficiency of federal deficit spending that invariably leads to recessions and depressions.
Sadly, many state citizens pay more money to the federal government than their state receives from the federal government, which causes an erosion of those states’ finances.
Over time, these states must receive money from the federal government or they will become insolvent, and be unable to service their debts.
This bit of simple arithmetic is not well understood in America.
The U.S. federal government levies taxes it neither needs nor even uses.
Indebted states struggle to provide basic benefits to their citizens.
A similar situation exists in the EU.
Of the 28 EU states, 12 do not have a positive balance of payments vs. the EU.
But of those 12, three are Monetarily Sovereign — UK, Sweden, and Denmark.
Those three cannot run short of their own sovereign currencies, and so long as those currencies have widespread acceptance, those countries always will be able to pay their bills.
But Mr. Millman’s phrase, ” . . . a large portion of that sum will be disbursed to member governments in the form of grants.” seems to indicate that the EU just possibly may finally have discovered its own Monetary Sovereignty.
If so, the heretofore lagging EU will rocket ahead of the U.S. in growth and prosperity for its members and its people.
One hopes that the U.S. federal government’s current, proven ability to create trillions of stimulus dollars, with none of the bad effects predicted by deficit and debt critics, may awaken the realization that yes, the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, and so has the unlimited power to support the states and the residents of America.
Which brings me to the union that seems to be coming apart: (America).
The primary characteristic of the American response to the coronavirus has been the lack of any national policyto speak of.
Individual states have been responsible for setting up their own testing infrastructure and contact-tracing apparatus, setting their own policies with regard to non-pharmaceutical interventions from lockdowns to mandatory masking, and even placed in competition with one another for personal protective equipment.
The federal government (has been) derelict in either building essential common infrastructure or promoting an agreed upon set of best practices.
It (has refused) to provide necessary funding to facilitate the opening of schools, and then threatening districts that don’t open with financial ruin.
President Trump has evinced a complete lack of interest in achieving meaningful collective goals, even those he ostensibly favors (like building a wall with Mexico).
Trump is interested in using power for pure assertion of prerogative, as he has demonstrated through his abuse of the pardon power and, most recently, by sending federal agents to Portland in response to ongoing protests and damage to federal property.
The purpose of his intervention is precisely to create the very chaos that he claims to want to quell, on the theory that public disorder ultimately helps the candidate promising a strong hand.
But it is also intended to demonstrate a willingness to use force against those who, in the view of his core supporters, deserve such treatment.
We frequently have noted Trump’s dictatorial, even Hitlerian bent ( here, and here, and here) which, along with his proven psychopathy, has been an ever-growing disaster for America.
A “calming” influence?
Rather than merely protecting federal property, Trump’s storm troopers are dragging innocent protestors, even onlookers, off the streets, in clear violation of the Constitution’s guarantees of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
In the eyes of Trump, Trump’s supporters, and all dictators throughout history, merely assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances are adequate reasons for harsh retaliatory measures.
The consequences to national cohesion of this approach to federal governance — neglect coupled with brutality — are likely to be felt long after this administration has ended.
A progressive prosecutor in Pennsylvania is already on record as saying he will order the arrest of federal agents if they break the law in his jurisdiction, as they did in Oregon.
Even if he never has to make good on that threat, a line has been drawn, and the prospect of direct confrontation between state and federal authorities in some future contingency is real.
Meanwhile, states (such as in the northeast) that banded together to combat the coronavirus, and that are now requiring visitors from the rest of the country to quarantine upon entry, will undoubtedly find new ways to work together without waiting for the federal government.
The nation has not been so divided since the civil war, and it is no coincidence that one of the innumerable points of contention involves rebel flags and names.
One part of the nation still considers those who fought against America to be heroes, and rather than feeling freed of the onerous yoke of slavery, they feel subjugated and resentful for having lost their freedom– their freedom to enslave.
For his own purposes, Trump has picked at this lingering wound and made if fester more than it has in over 15 decades.
Rather than “Make America Great, Again,” Trump has Made America Hate, Again.”
Trump has finally united the center of the country against him, and a decisive repudiation will restore Americans’ faith in the possibility of collective action.
The first part may prove true in November, but I wonder about the second, and not only because I remember how quickly the overwhelming Democratic majority of a dozen years ago curdled into endless partisan trench warfare.
Perhaps it behooves all of us who are appalled by the Trump years, and by what has happened to the party he purports to lead, to devote at least some of our energy to thinking outside the box.
How much do we actually want our states and cities to depend on the federal government, versus how much freedom do we want to chart our own course?
Do we want the battle against climate change to depend on which party controls the EPA — or do we want California to be able to use its economic clout to muscle the rest of the country along?
The rest of Mr. Millman’s article is devoted to his “outside the box” suggestion that we should consider the various states seceding from the union, just to scare people into thinking seriously about coming together.
But, our current divisions are not simply geographical. Trump also has made our nation’s divisions moral, theological, ethical, and national.
Thinking outside the box, seems to me, to begin with an acknowledgement of:
The benefits of Monetary Sovereignty, and the federal government’s unlimited ability to give virtually everyone virtually everything they want.
The dangers inherent in Gap Psychology, the desire to advance by making others fall behind.
Life is not a zero-sum game.
If the evil Trump has wrought doesn’t scare Americans sufficiently, then nothing will, and there is no hope for our future as one nation. We forever will be divided and weak.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Current law, as determined by the latest Supreme Court, holds that the first 13 words are meaningless and should be ignored.
That leaves us with the common interpretation: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What is the purpose of that Amendment?
Seemingly, there can be only four purposes:
Hunting.
In the event America is invaded by a foreign power, there will already be armed citizens ready to repel the invasion.
For self-defense.
In the event a dictator takes over our government, armed citizens will be able to resist.
I. Hunting: The 2nd Amendment does not address hunting. The fact that guns can be used for hunting is not a right protected by the Constitution. The protected right has to do with “the security of a free state.”
II. Foreign invasion: Here in the year 2020, purpose #2 is ridiculous on its face. By law, Americans can be armed with nothing more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle or pistol.
No bombs, no machine guns, no hand grenades, no land mines, no tanks, no naval ships, no military planes, no cannons, no flame-throwers, no poison gas — none of the war weapons an invader could possess.
Additionally, the citizens are not under the control of military leaders. They would be no more than a rag-tag bunch, fighting trained, militarily-armed cadre. A bunch of citizens, carrying rifles, would have no effect on an invading army.
III. Self-defense: This would be a legitimate purpose, but for one sad truth. Excluding police and similarly authorized personnel, guns more often are used by untrained Americans in the commission of crimes and for suicides than for self-defense.
IV. Defense against the government: You may find it surprising, but that is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Today, an armed citizenry might as well use waterguns against a trained military.
According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), the Supreme Court held: The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing armyor a select militia to rule.
The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Keep that in mind:
The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the federal government.
In this vein, “James Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army… would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” (Wikipedia)
This was a real concern in the earliest days of our nation, when the states were more jealous of their rights and more concerned about federal power.
In more recent years, the rights of states vs. the federal government have diminished, mostly because that’s where the money is. The federal government has the ultimate power of the purse, and that translates into other forms of power.
And now we come to the Trump administration and its dictatorial bent.
Trump Deploys Lawlessness Against Lawlessness The president’s heavy-handed response to protests against police brutality belies his promise of “law and order.“ Jacob Sullum, 7.22.2020
Notwithstanding Trump’s pose as “your president of law and order,” his heavy-handed reaction to the protests triggered by George Floyd’s death represents neither.
In response to largely peaceful demonstrations against police brutality that have been punctuated by criminal behavior, he has deployed his own brand of lawlessness, including arbitrary arrests and the disproportionate, indiscriminate use of force.
Billy Williams, the U.S. attorney for Oregon noted that the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating a July 11 incident in which a protester was severely injured by “less-lethal munitions” that the Marshals Service allegedly fired at his head.
Last week Williams asked the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general to investigate allegations that “federal law enforcement detained two protestors without probable cause.”
Williams was referring to reports that camouflage-clad federal officers, identified by nothing more than generic “police” patches, have been driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked rental cars, grabbing protesters for no apparent reason and detaining them without charge.
Although that sounds like the sort of thing that happens in tinpot dictatorships, some of the incidents were caught on video.
“We cannot give up liberty for security,” Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned. “Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.”
In a federal lawsuit filed on Friday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, citing the accounts of protesters who said they had been subjected to such treatment, argues that the Marshals Service and several Homeland Security agencies thereby violated their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.
“Every American should be repulsed when they see this happening,” she said. “If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.”
Trump is in fact threatening to deploy federal agents, who are ostensibly in Portland to protect federal property, in Chicago and other cities “run by very liberal Democrats,” whom he equates with “the radical left.”
Like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who describes the Trump administration’s tactics in his city as “abhorrent,” local officials elsewhere do not want his “help.”
Notice the line, “run by very liberal Democrats.” To Trump, this is a political issue, to be used for political purposes, not for security purposes.
Trump is using the military to attack cities run by Democrats, under the guise of protecting them. It is, in fact, a military takeover of these cities, from the elected mayors.
But the single most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment was supposed to be to help citizens protect themselves from just such a takeover by the federal government.
Clearly, the 2nd Amendment does no such thing. That may have been its original purpose, but its current functionis just to give gun lovers the right to carry guns.
The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment has disappeared. Today, it is a lie.
Today, Trump is engaging in the first step of an American Kristallnacht. Trump is sending in his version of the Nazi brownshirts to cause chaos, pretending that the protesters are enemies of America.
Read the short article, What next? Kristallnacht? to learn what happens when a dictator sends in the troops to put down “enemies.”
Trump has followed Hitler’s playbook to the letter, with our salvation to date being that Trump is not as clever as Hitler.
Those who understand how an entire nation can be taken over by a ruthless dictator will justifiably be concerned about Donald Trump. The next half-year will determine the future of America, and all your guns and semi-automatic rifles will be of little use.
Only the ballot box can save you — if you are smart enough to want to be saved.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
The Trump/GOP solution all problems: Beat down the poor victims into submission.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Does that unemployment spike on the right demonstrate unwillingness to work?
The COVID-19 still raging, and unemployment still is at monstrous levels. The Trump/GOP, federal government has the power to solve the financial problems, but prefers to punish the victims.
A closely watched gauge of layoffs across the U.S. held steady at a historically high level last week, pushing the total during the coronavirus-induced economic crisis to a mind-boggling 51.3 million.
About 1.3 million Americans filed applications for unemployment insurance for the first time, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg estimated that 1.25 million people filed initial claims.
That could reflect the spike in coronavirus cases across much of the country, particularly the South and West, and decisions by more than 20 states to pause or reverse the reopening of restaurants, bars, gyms, movie theaters and other outlets.
The rollbacks may spark a new wave of layoffs, especially in hard-hit states like Texas, Florida, Arizona and California, and possibly even push the claims totals higher.
Another factor that may be triggering layoffs is that many businesses are exhausting the forgivable federal loans they received as long as they retained or rehired staffers, says Rubeela Farooqi, chief U.S. economist of High Frequency Economics.
Some that are struggling could let workers go.
“Conditions in the labor market remain weak and the risk of mounting permanent job losses is high, especially if activity continues to be disrupted by repeated virus-related shutdowns,” Farooqi wrote in a note to clients.
Unemployment is incredibly high because businesses are laying off people. The number of available jobs has decreased to depression-era levels.
If jobs are in short supply, because companies and individuals are running short of money, what is the political solution?
Not what the Trump/GOP is doing.
(Unemployment) could be staying high in part because the federal government has been providing a $600 weekly supplement to state benefits, prompting some Americans to stay on unemployment rather than take a new job.
But that bonus is set to expire at the end of the month unless Congress renews it, possibly at a reduced level.
What??
Businesses have disappeared and continue to disappear; jobs are disappearing and may be lost forever; and the geniuses in right-wing Washington think people are out of work because they receive $600 per month??
And the “solution” is to take away that $600 to encourage people to go back to work at non-existent jobs?
Perfect.
In the right-wing mind, the solution to all problems is to punish the victim.
When job loss is a problem, they punish the unemployed by taking away their unemployment compensation.
When poverty is a problem, they punish the poor by taking away food stamps and other anti-poverty benefits.
When street crime is a problem, they punish the people protesting by sending in the Gestapo to gas, beat, and drag them off in unmarked cars.
See if you can follow this unemployment compensation logic:
People have lost their jobs because businesses have run out of money.
There are not enough jobs available, so millions of people now collect unemployment compensation.
Sometime compensation surpasses the amount people were earning before they lost their jobs.
This outrages the Trump/GOP, who claim people are dissuaded from looking for non-existant jobs, because they receive too much unemployment compensation.
If businesses had income, they wouldn’t run short of money and wouldn’t have to fire people.
Paying unemployment compensation puts money into the hands of consumers, whose spending gives income to businesses.
But the right wing wants to cut unemployment to force people to look for jobs that do not exist. The effect is to reduce the spendable income of consumers, which further exacerbates the lack of business income,
And that adds to unemployment, in a downward helix of lost business income —> lost jobs —> more lost business income —> more lost jobs.
Job seekers
The Trump/GOP repeatedly engages in the self-replicating exercise of punishment for failing to do the impossible, followed by more punishment and inevitable failure.
The problem is not that people refuse to work. There is no shortage of willing workers.
The problem is we have far more willing workers than jobs.
Punishing people for not going to work, will not address this problem.
Too many businesses and too many consumers do not have enough money to survive.
The solution is to give businesses enough money to survive long enough to outlast the virus, and to give consumers enough money to survive long enough to become consumers, again.
But for the right wing, the temptation to punish the poor is too delicious to resist. It just feels so good to keep blaming the victims while widening the Gap in an endless, immoral, and disgusting game of Gap Psychology.
That should give you and other intelligent and compassionate people something of a clue about how to prevent street crime. Unfortunately, the Trump/GOP lacks those kinds of people.
The politicians, especially the right wing, are nothing if not consistent in their brutal approach to the poor.
Answer this? Why does street crime occur more often in poor neighborhoods than in rich neighborhoods?
Is it because poor people simply are born criminals?
Among the victims of street crime are the criminals themselves.
No one is born a criminal. People become street criminals because they lack the money that provides for a stable family life.
They lack the money to purchase good housing, good food, good clothing, a good education, and maybe even a few of the luxuries of life.
Impoverished young people, who are forced to do without, see other young people flaunting luxuries because they rob and they deal drugs.
The Trump/GOP view about the way to stop street crime is to beat the poor into submission.
Street crime correlates with lack of money, so the real cure for street crime is to provide the poor with enough money to allow them to live, not just a bare existence, but a rewarding life.
The Trump/GOP solution to the poverty that always leads to street crime is to increase the poverty by punishing the poor.
Cut food stamps. Cut school lunches. Cut other poverty aids. Cut Obamacare and other health care programs. Cut aid to inner city education. Cut rent subsidies. Force student loan debt on those who cannot afford college, then make the debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
To the Trump/GOP, it must be ever-so-satisfying to complain about how “they” (the poor) are lazy, shiftless people always looking for a handout, getting drugged up, and shooting each other in frustration at their poverty.
And oh yes, a tiny handful do manage to escape the ghetto and the bigotry that presses them down. Those are the few who become successful.
To the Trump/GOP this “proves” it can be done, if only “they” (the poor) would try harder to climb up from the hole, while the government tromps down on their fingers.
PROTESTS
The rich protest with attorneys. The poor protest in the street.
The blatantly unfair treatment of blacks and browns by law enforcement cannot be overlooked or excused.
Yes, the police have a difficult job, but sowing hatred of police brutality victims — black or not — surely will not make policing easier.
Elderly white protester. Cracked skull. Hospitalized a month. Still recovering. Trump claimed he was faking.
The Black Lives Matter protesters have a legitimate claim, and the fact that criminals and false-flag white supremacists have taken advantage of the BLM protests does not make their claim any less valid.
The Trump/GOP hates protesters.
To the right wing, protesters are troublemakers, disturbing the peace with their loud, messy and inconvenient actions.
Worst of all, they sometimes destroy the idol of the rich: Valuable property.
If there is one thing the Trump/GOP values above life itself, it’s valuable property. That is why there is so little concern about children catching COVID in schools, but fierce anger about burning buildings.
So long as the slumlords are able to squeeze profits out of decaying, disease-ridden apartments in the ghetto, the Trump/GOP is unconcerned.
But let some protesters burn down any valuable piece of property, especially the moneymaking ones, and the rich are outraged. How dare those people destroy things that are worth money.
So, President Trump sent his unnamed, masked stormtroopers, in unmarked cars and camouflage (Who needs camouflage in the middle of a city?), to gas and nab people off the streets of Portland, even those people who were not committing any kind of crime.
Trump envisioned an ostentatious, camera-ready show of force.
He wanted to go after what he saw as violent gang leaders, flush them out of hiding in ways that would have them “shaking in their boots” like they never had before, and have alleged perpetrators marched out in front of the news cameras.
The president said he wanted something similar to what his administration has done in Portland, an ongoing melee between protesters and rioters and unmarked federal authorities.
Brave Donald Trump of bonespurs fame, wanted to hear clubs crash against skulls and to see blood run in the streets — from a safe distance, of course.
In America, when people protest, they usually have good reason. No one risks life, limb and pain to protest for nothing.
The solution to protests is to listen to what the people say about their problems, and then help them solve the problems. That is the fundamental reason why people form governements.
Despite chirping sarcasm from the Trump/GOP, the urgent need for a “Black Lives Matter” protest is to remind us about sad truth of American history.
From slavery to lynching, to ongoing police brutality, the Trump/GOP has pretended that black lives really don’t matter.
Rather than us being outraged at the protests, we all should admire the many decades-long patience with the bigoted mistreatment blacks have suffered.
Only in a dictatorship, which Trump admires (being “in love with” Kim and Putin), does the government solve protests by sending in the goons to beat the people down so they will be terrified to protest in the future.
Sometimes, protests involve something else the Trump/GOP hates: Whistleblowers.
In the Trump/GOP world, a good person is one who says nothing when seeing evil, or one who even participates in the crime.
Honest heroes like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are punished for being a whistleblower.
The Trump/GOP was so outraged by this honesty, they not only punished Vindman, but also punished his brother, who was not even involved.
By contrast, convicted criminals like Roger Stone are rewarded.
In summary, the Trump/GOP invariably addresses the social problems of the poor and middle-income people with anger, humiliation and violence.
A Monetarily Sovereign nation like the U.S., having unlimited financial and political power, also has the unlimited ability to solve most social problems without force against the very people who are being abused. (See the Ten Steps to Prosperity, below.)
Only a proven psychopath and his psychopathic political party would devote their efforts toward punishing poor victims and rewarding the victimizers.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
He was, and still is, wrong about his bigotry, his treatment of undocumented immigrants, both before and after they cross the border.
He has been wrong, at every step of the way, about his non-responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
He has been wrong in his personal life, with his cheating on all three wives.
He was wrong about his relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and his adolescents. He was wrong to wish Epstein’s rape assistant “well.”
He is wrong about not addressing Putin’s bounty on U.S. soldiers. He is wrong about his subservient relationship with Putin.
He was wrong to offer bribes to foreign countries if they would interfere with U.S. elections.
He was wrong about:
–climate change
–coal and oil pollution
–bribing someone to take his SATs
–draft-dodging with fake bone-spurs
–cheating the workers who built his casinos
–managing the casinos into bankruptcy
–cheating his creditors
–Roger Stone’s commutation
–his many criminal associates
–Trump Airline
–Trump Vodka
–Trump University
–Trump Foundation
–his flagrant nepotism
–Trying to get the British Open for his Turnberry Resort
–other violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution
–20,000 lies to cover it all up.
He was wrong about all the incompetent boot-lickers he hired and fired to run the government.
Donald Trump has been wrong about almost everything he has touched.
Republican officials and the White House reportedly can’t agree on “policy goals, budget parameters, or even deadlines,” when it comes to planning the next wave of COVID-19 relief, the Post writes.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reportedly argued voters wouldn’t notice the payroll tax cut in the massive bill, giving it no real electoral value.
And when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) pushed to spend money on what would win votes this fall, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grew “incensed” at the idea of expanding the bill’s price tag, the Post continues — “What in the hell are we doing?” he reportedly asked.
Democrats have even more directly opposed a payroll tax cut, with Sen. Kamala Harris(D-Calif.) pointing out that it “doesn’t help those who aren’t on a payroll.”
That’s more than 17 million Americans as of the end of June — and they might also lose the extra $600 per week they’ve been getting on their unemployment benefits if Congress doesn’t renew the boost that expires at the end of July.
When asked if the end of the month deadline was within reach on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only laughed out a “no.”
The cynics among us will say that politicians only vote for things that will benefit themselves, so when GOP Sen Chuck Grassley argued that “voters wouldn’t notice the payroll tax cut in the massive bill, giving it no real electoral value,” that may have seemed like business-as-usual.
It wasn’t.
Believe it or not, there actually have been moments in American history when politicians voted for what’s right, despite populist headwinds. It’s that sort of breach from the politically expedient that separates a Lincoln or a Johnson, from a Bush II or a Trump.
That said, Grassley is wrong on the face of it.
The employed voters, who outnumber the unemployed voters, surely would notice.
The business owners, who pay half the payroll tax, would notice.
It’s a talking point the GOP could use partially to offset the accurate perception that they are pro-rich and anti-poor.
And most importantly, from both a political and a real standpoint, a cut in FICA — or better yet the total elimination of FICA — would help prevent a recession or depression that would doom the GOP in November.
Kamila Harris, who used to be smart, doesn’t know what she was talking about when she said a cut to FICA, “doesn’t help those who aren’t on a payroll.”
It absolutely does. It would help everyone in America, rich, poor, citizen, non-citizen, old, young, employed, unemployed — everyone. It helped in 2011 and 2012 when Obama cut the worker’s part of FICA from 6.2% to 4.2%.
It was called a tax “holiday,” as though taxing was normal and tax cuts were only a “holiday” from the normal. We never should have gone back off that “holiday.”
FICA is the most regressive tax in America. It punishes the poor and the middle-income people, but is not directly paid by the wealthy.
FICA supposedly funds Social Security and Medicare — which it does not.
Federal taxes, unlike state and local taxes, do not fund anything. They are destroyed upon receipt.
Even without anyone paying the FICA tax, Medicare and Social Security could go on indefinitely. In fact, no one even pretends Medicare Part B is funded by FICA.
The Federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. It creates new dollars to pay for all its spending.
Even if the federal government didn’t collect a single penny in taxes, it still could continue spending, forever.
The most common measure of economic growth is Gross Domestic product, the formula for which is: GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.
Federal Spending adds dollars to the economy. Increased Non-federal Spending requires an increased dollar supply. And Net Exports add dollars to the economy.
Thus all elements of GDP involve money supply; increasing GDP involves increased money supply.
A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. An economy cannot grow when the money supply shrinks. Thus, to grow the economy and to prevent recessions and depressions, the money supply must increase.
But every dollar paid into FICA is a dollar lost by the economy. So cutting FICA would help grow the economy and so, stave off recession or depression.
Surely, the GOP understands that a recession or depression will hurt the entire party’s chances in November. Even Donald Trump understands that.
It’s a miracle that the GOP leaders are unable to connect the dots and understand that cutting FICA will help them gain votes.
Ever since the incredibly brainless “Tea Party” managed to infect the Republicans, the GOP has been the party of the mean-spirited, the pro-rich, and the stupid.
So it is striking that the least intelligent Republican of all can see the truth standing in front of him, while the rest of the party csnnot.
Republicans are so paralyzed by the Tea Party’s hatred of the non-rich and deficit spending, that they all will cover their ears and essentially scream “La, la, la. I can’t hear you.”
By backing Trump during his well-deserved impeachment and during the numerous times he has been wrong, and then not backing him the one time he is right, the GOP will commit electoral suicide.
For the party that “can’t agree on policy goals, budget parameters, or even deadlines,” that too will be well-deserved.
There is a penalty for ignorance, and the GOP is well into the process of paying that penalty.
Politically, if not patriotically, the Democrats should follow Napoleon’s advice: “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Federal taxes, unlike state and local taxes, do not fund anything. They are 
Even if the federal government didn’t collect a single penny in taxes, it still could continue spending, forever.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 