Would you like free healthcare for life? Don't accept the Big Lie Thursday, Nov 28 2019 

This is a message for all Americans: Free healthcare for life truly can be yours, unless you accept the Big Lie.Image result for big lie

Unfortunately, you are treated to the Big Lie almost everywhere. Case in point: Here are excerpts from a typical, Big Lie article that appeared in the 11/25/2019 issue of Reason.com.

More Americans Want Bigger Government—If It’s Free
A more active government wins growing approval, but only so long as it doesn’t raise taxes, require tradeoffs, or interfere with private enterprise.
J.D. Tuccille | 11.25.2019 7:30 AM

Good news for control freaks and nanny-staters across the U.S.: Americans’ support for a bigger, more active government is edging up, potentially creating an opening for politicians and activists who want their countrymen to snuggle in the warm bosom of a nurturing state that provides an ever-greater variety of goods, services, and rules for people’s lives.

There’s just one catch: Americans don’t want to pay for it.

Support for a big, muscular government falls off a cliff if it comes with a price tag.

Consider that the article was published by the “any-government-is-too-much-government” Reason.com, don’t be surprised at the sarcasm delivered by such phrasing as “control-freaks,” “nanny-staters,” “warm bosom of a nurturing state,” and “ever variety of . . . rules for people’s lives.”

If one is blessed with the notion that good people need or want no help, and that only the lazy and indolent ask for it, one can sneer smugly, as J.D. Tuccille does, at those less fortunate.

And when one also is blessed with the abject ignorance of the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty, one can declare, “Americans don’t want to pay for it” without disclosing that Americans do not pay for any federal spending.

That is why net federal deficits now total more than $20 trillion, and neither the government, nor the economy, nor the federal taxpayers have suffered any ill effects.

On the contrary, the economy has been booming since 2008 because the federal government has pumped trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets (aka “running trillions of dollars in deficits”).

The article continues:

“Since 2010, the percentage of Americans saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems has increased 11 percentage points, to 47%, and the percentage wanting government to take active steps to improve people’s lives is up eight points, to 42%,” Gallup reported last week.

Forty-nine percent think the government is doing too much, and 29 percent prefer a government that provides just basic services.

It gets back to the question, “What is the purpose of our government?”

The answer is:

“The purpose of our government is to protect us and to improve our lives.”

Why else would we, and people all over the world, create governments?

Yes, bad government can be burdensome, but bad anything is burdensome: Bad police, bad roads, bad banks,  and bad phones, etc. But we don’t suggest doing without police, roads, banks, and phones. Similarly, it is foolish to suggest doing without government.

Can there be “too much” government? Yes, if the government interferes with the economy, negatively. But even then, it’s not a matter of “too much,” but rather “bad.”

A tiny government can be bad and a huge government can be good. Or vice versa. It’s not quantity; it’s quality that matters.

Here’s the opportunity politicians—especially Democrats—have been looking for as they promise “Medicare for All,” student loan forgiveness, universal basic income, government-supported housing, subsidized child care, and more.

And what is wrong with that? Are we to believe that Americans must suffer in order to be “good”? Must life be difficult so that we may “earn” a decent life?

If so, why then do the rich seem to avoid the miseries we foist upon ourselves?

Why do we allow ourselves to accept the myth that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and so we must sweat and hurt, and strain, while the rich glide through life blissfully?

Though the rich do not want you to know this, our government really does have the ability to provide a “free lunch.” You simply need to understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.

The Reason.com article continues:

Progressive standard-bearers Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made particular waves with their plans for government largesse, but Pete Buttigieg and others have their own schemes for turning the federal government into Santa Claus with a bottomless bag of gifts.

To continue the sarcastic analogy, I don’t hear anyone asking Santa for fewer gifts. The author doesn’t believe the government should provide anything that benefits the poor and middle classes.

Apparently, he believes Medicare should be ended, and students should be burdened with loans. And as for the poor, why give them any help, because it’s their own fault. Right?

But tax cuts for big business and for the very rich are just fine. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuccile?

But a government that provides everything to everybody is going to run up some bills.

Oh, you can cut some existing programs and transfer the funds to other programs, but that’s hardly going to satisfy the demands of “Americans saying government should do more.”

Or, you simply can provide programs without cutting anything. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is perfectly capable of doing that.

More programs and spending will require more resources that have to come from somewhere.

And since bake sales usually fall a bit short when you’re talking about funding government takeovers of large segments of the economy and extensive new programs, that’s going to mean turning tax collectors into busy beavers.

Whoops.

VA Hospital: Socialist

“Whoops,” indeed. Clearly, J.D. Tuccille, the author, is ignorant of the difference between state/local governments’ finances, vs. the federal government’s finances.

If he had even a modicum of understanding about federal finances, he would know that not only does the government not need bake sales, it doesn’t need tax collectors.

And as a further demonstration of his economic ignorance, Medicare for All does not involve a government “takeover of a large segment of the economy,” or a takeover of any segment of the economy.

Like the current Medicare, which Tuccille clearly hates, Medicare for All simply would pay for medical care, not take it over.

“A more active government would almost certainly result in higher taxes,” Gallup adds.

“However, relatively few Americans favor that approach… In the latest poll, 25% would opt for increased taxes and services, 32% want no change and 42% prefer smaller government.”

Support for higher taxes to pay for expanded government is up a bit in the survey from years past, but it remains a distinctly minority taste.

Private hospital: Not socialist

And here is the crux of the problem: The very rich, who control the government, want you to believe that the only way you can have the same benefits the rich and the politicians have (paid-for healthcare, no need for college loans, plenty of money for retirement, etc.) is for you to pay more taxes — and that idea is a gigantic, smelly pile of bull poop.

Keeping you down is the easiest way for the rich to lift themselves up (See: Gap Psychology), and the easiest way to keep you down is to indoctrinate you with the false belief that your taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

That means Americans are growing increasingly enthusiastic about placing orders for health care, higher education, housing, and more from the government—for free.

But when they see prices on the menu, they balk, big time.

And balk they should, for the “prices on the menu” are a lie. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Period.

You, as a federal taxpayer, do not pay for anything. Not only are your tax dollars not used by the federal government, but they are destroyed upon receipt.

Once your tax dollars are received by the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exists in any money supply measure. To pay it’ s bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars. That is how the federal government can continue to deficit spend without ever running short of money.

Medicare for All gains overwhelming support—as high as 71 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey—from Americans so long as they think it’s entirely cost-free and devoid of tradeoffs.

But throw in some real-world qualifiers, and that support erodes.

Unfortunately, those “real-world qualifiers” are as “real-world” as the bogey man meets the tooth fairy.

But this does demonstrate the strong desire for free medical availability. It’s want Americans want, and it is what Americans should receive from an infinitely wealthy government.

“Net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” the Kaiser survey adds.

The notion that there would be “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments” is based on one truth and one fiction.

The truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatment, which is a wonderful thing. Every year, literally millions of poor and middle-income Americans stay sick too long and die too early for lack of funds.

“Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).”

Those so-called “real-world qualifiers” are about as “real-world” as the bogey-man meets the tooth fairy.

The argument about “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” is based on one implied truth and one implied fiction.

The implied truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatments, which is a wonderful thing.

Today, millions of Americans stay sick too long and die too early because they can’t afford medical tests and treatments. Apparently, some (i.e. rich) Americans think this is a good idea, so that doctors and hospitals will be freed up to treat the rich.

So yes, when medical tests and treatments are free, more Americans would use them and live better, longer lives. Isn’t this what we should want?

The implied fiction is that there is a fixed number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to go around, so if the poor start to make use of them, that will cause a shortage, and there won’t be enough for wealthier patients.

Utter nonsense. The creation of today’s Medicare made it possible for millions of the elderly, who formerly could not afford medical care, now to enjoy it. That has not caused a shortage of medical tests and treatment.

On the contrary, the additional money that Medicare has pumped into the medical field has caused a massive expansion of medical resources.

And the expansion would be even greater if Medicare stopped cutting doctors’ fees so much, didn’t require deductibles, and fully funded pharmaceuticals.

Availability follows money. The more money, the more availability. Medicare for all, properly done, would increase the availability of medical tests and treatment.

Costs for these plans are unavoidable.

Warren’s spending schemes would run to at least $26 trillion in new taxes, although she likes to pretend that her scheme would be paid for by a wealth tax that would simultaneously extract funds from successful people while punishing them for their success.

Sanders himself concedes that his plan for government-run health care would cost between $30-$40 trillion over ten years. He honestly admits that it would be the middle class that constitutes the majority of the population—not just some rich people somewhere—who would foot the bill.

Tens of trillions of dollars in new taxes are likely to prove a bit of a hurdle for Americans who want lots of new goodies from the government only if they’re entirely free.

Anyone who understands Monetary Sovereignty knows the above is “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

It should be obvious, even to the ill-informed, that the federal government continually deficits spends and never seems to have any trouble paying its bills.

You can’t do that. Your state, county, and city can’t do that. Your business can’t do that. But the federal government uniquely can.

Why? It is Monetarily Sovereign. It created the very first dollars simply by creating laws from thin air. And those laws allowed the federal government to continue creating dollars from thin air.

The federal government simply cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.

It has no need for tax dollars. It has no need to borrow. Even if all federal taxes and all issuance of Treasury Certificates totaled $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Despite Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous and ironic statements that Medicare for All would require an increase in federal taxes, it simply is not true.

The U.S. government easily could provide a no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for All, that covered 100% of all hospital, doctor, drug, and equipment costs, along with long-term care, without collecting a single penny in taxes.

If you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans about the widely reported growing enthusiasm for socialism.

Capitalism—the free market—remains the preferred choice of 60 percent of respondents, with 39 percent having a positive view of socialism, according to Gallup.

As with everything in this country, the division is increasingly partisan: Positive views of socialism have risen to 65 percent among Democrats and declined to 9 percent among Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism vs. 78 percent of Republicans.

No, if you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans, “What is socialism?”

Contrary to popular wisdom,  Medicare is not socialism. Neither is Social Security. Neither are food stamps and other poverty aids.

The word “socialism” is the handy pejorative the rich like to use whenever federal spending for benefits are discussed. So if anything helps the middle or the poor, the rich shout “socialism.” (Of course, benefits to the rich, like special tax breaks, never are called “socialism.”)

Socialism is government ownership and administration of production and distribution.

The Veterans Administration hospitals, which are owned and administered by the federal government, are socialist. The military is socialist. The federal highway system is socialist. In many communities, the water system is socialist. Most dams are socialist. NASA, the U.S. Treasury, and the Lincoln Memorial are socialist. Your street probably is socialist.

But Medicare is not. Medicare does not own anything. It merely pays for things. The same with Social Security and food stamps and other poverty aids. Paying for things is what all governments do, socialist or not.

Why does the article’s author introduce the word, “socialism”? Either he truly is ignorant of what “socialism” means, which seems impossible considering that he is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor. Or, knowing that the word “socialism” has negative connotations to most Americans, he is trying to con you into believing Medicare for All is a bad idea, and that only the rich deserve the best possible medical care.

Don’t fall for the con. Don’t fall for the Big Lie. Medicare for All could be a free blessing upon you and this nation if you understand the truth: The federal government has unlimited control over its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. That means it can control both the supply and the value of the dollar.

It never can run short of dollars; it can pay for anything, even without collecting taxes; it can prevent and cure inflation.

If you don’t believe me, believe them:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

Yes, America, free healthcare for life can be yours . . .  unless you accept the Big Lie.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Every month, millions of people are told the earth is flat Wednesday, Sep 25 2019 

The Balance, according to their website:

“The Balance makes personal finance easy to understand. It is home to experts who provide clear, practical advice on managing your money.

“With more than 24 million monthly visitors, The Balance is among the top-10 largest finance properties. Our more than 50 expert writers have extensive qualifications and expertise in their topics, including MBAs, PhDs, CFPs, other advanced degrees and professional certifications.

“The Balance family of sites have been honored by multiple awards in the last year, including The Telly Awards, The Communicator Awards, and Eppy Awards.”

That is truly impressive — 24 million people every month, 50 expert writers, multiple awards, college degrees. They are a major source of information for the public.

Specifically, let us consider their U.S. economy expert, Kimberly Amadeo:

KIMBERLY AMADEO
US Economy Expert
Kimberly is the author of The Obamacare Handbook and Beyond the Great Recession, and has been quoted as an economic expert by Fox Business, US News and World Report, and The Huffington Post.

She has authored hundreds of articles on economic topics ranging from health care reform to monetary policy to global trade. Kimberly has been the U.S. Economy Expert for The Balance, and prior to that, About.com, since 2006.

In addition, Kimberly has more than 20 years of senior-level corporate experience in economic analysis and business strategy, and received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T.

With that introduction, let us see what Ms. Amadeo has to say. Here are a few excerpts from one of this year’s articles:

US Federal Government Tax Revenue
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam’s Bills?
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO Updated May 18, 2019
The U.S. government’s total revenue is estimated to be $3.643 trillion for Fiscal Year 2020.

That’s the most recent budget forecast from the Office of Management and Budget for October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020.

We pause to remind you that the federal government, which uniquely being Monetarily Sovereign and having the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars, neither needs nor uses your tax dollars.

The federal government, unlike state and local governments, never unintentionally can run short of dollars.Related image

Taking more than $3.6 trillion from the economy every year represents a giant economic loss.

Visualize the effect of dumping more than $3.6 trillion down the toilet, every year.  That is what your federal taxes accomplish.

Continuing with excerpts from Ms. Amadeo’s article, I’ll comment directly to her:

So where does the federal government’s revenue come from? Individual taxpayers like you provide most of it. Income taxes contribute $1.822 trillion, over half of the total. Another third, $1.295 trillion, comes from your payroll taxes.

Corporate taxes add $256 billion, only 7%. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act cut taxes for corporations much more than it did for individuals. In 2015, corporations paid 11% and income taxpayers paid 47%.

The best way to reduce the individual tax burden is to reduce government spending, not shift the burden to corporations.

No, Ms. Amadeo, the best way to reduce the federal individual tax burden is to reduce federal individual taxes. 

Recessions (vertical gray bars) begin with declines in federal deficit growth (red line) and are cured by increases in federal deficit spending. 

Federal spending benefits Americans. Reducing federal spending would reduce those benefits, and lead to recessions and depressions.

The government’s annual income only pays for 77% of spending. It creates a $1.1 trillion billion budget deficit.

The $1.1 trillion budget deficit inserts $1.1 trillion growth dollars into the economy. It more properly should be called an economic surplus.

And, Ms. Amadeo, the federal government’s annual income pays for nothing. The government creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor.

When the federal government pays a creditor, it sends instructions to the creditor’s bank, instruction the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

The instant the bank does as instructed, new dollars are created and added to the nation’s money supply. Deficit spending is the federal government’s primary method for creating economic growth dollars.

Shouldn’t Congress only spend what it earns, just like you and me?

Here, Ms. Amadeo, you had the perfect opportunity to explain the difference between a Monetarily Sovereign federal government’s finances,  and a monetarily non-sovereign individual’s finances.

While a Monetarily Sovereign entity never can run short of its own sovereign currency, I have no sovereign currency. So my income is less than my spending, I can run out of money. The federal government can’t.

Since the federal government neither needs nor uses income, and can create unlimited amounts of money, there is absolutely no reason for Congress to spend what it earns.

Pants on fire.png

Pants on fire

By failing to explain this difference, Ms. Amadeo, you help perpetuate the Big Lie of federal –  personal finance equivalence. Unfortunately, you expound upon the Big Lie, and write the single, most wrong-headed, completely false paragraphs in the entire article:

It depends on where the economy is in the business cycle. Congress should use deficit spending to boost economic growth in a recession. It uses stimulus spending to create jobs.

Once the recession is over, the government should live within its means and spend less. It should raise taxes, if needed, to reduce the deficit and the debt. That will keep the economy from overheating and forming dangerous bubbles. Congress should switch from expansionary to contractionary fiscal policy.

Think about it, Ms. Amadeo. Why would Congress want to “boost economic growth” only “in a recession”? It makes no sense at all. And later in your article, you contradict yourself on this point.

Today, as I write this comment, we are not in a recession. Why would I not want to “boost economic growth, today?

And stimulus spending creates jobs by growing the economy and by providing the goods and services the populace desires. Why is this a bad thing?

After missing the opportunity to educate, Ms. Amadeo, you execute a confused turnaround and write:

The revenue collected equals 16.3% of gross domestic product. That’s the nation’s measurement of economic output.

If that much production is going to the federal government, then you want to make sure it’s reinvested into the economy to support future growth.

Let’s examine that last phrase. “It” (federal tax revenue”) is not reinvested in anything. It is destroyed upon receipt.

Then, Ms. Amadeo, you admit that federal investment “into the economy to supports future growth,” but you previously opposed federal investment into the economy, unless there is a recession.

Revenues would be much higher without the Trump tax plan. It was also lowered by the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts. They were meant to fight the 2001 recession and the 2008 recession.

They were supposed to spur the consumer spending that drives almost 70% of economic growth.

But most people didn’t even realize this happened since the tax cut showed up as reduced withholding instead of a check.

Instead of spending the cuts, people used some of it to pay off debt. The recession scared people into saving more and using credit cards less. So, the budget didn’t expand enough to spur economic growth.

The above is mystifying. Do you, Ms. Amadeo, not realize that the deficit spending you decry — the deficit spending that began in 2008 — caused the recovery and 11-year massive growth that continues even today?

Now that the recession is over, those tax cuts should be reversed. Taxes should be increased, not cut.

An economic expansion is the time to pay off the debt, not add to it.

Uh, Ms. Amadeo, news flash: The recession has been “over” for 11 years. It ended because of federal deficit spending. Now you want to create another deficit by taking more dollars out of the economy?

And exactly why do you want to pay off the federal debt?

First, the federal government never can run short of dollars, so why does the “debt” trouble you?

Second, the so-called “debt” isn’t really debt in the classic sense. The federal debt is the total of deposits into Treasury Security (T-bill, T-note, T-bond) accounts, which are paid off every day, simply by returning the dollars in those accounts.

Thus, the so-called federal “debt” (unlike state and local government debts) is not a burden on the federal government, nor is it a burden on taxpayers.

What is a burden on taxpayers? Taxes.

IN SUMMARY
Kimberly Amadeo and THE BALANCE claim to reach more than 24 million readers each month. This platform would give them an excellent opportunity to educate the populace and to dismiss pernicious and damaging myths about the American economy.

Instead, out of ignorance or intent, they have chosen to perpetuate the Big Lie that federal finances are like personal finances, and that stimulative federal deficit spending should be reduced and limited to times of recession.

The Big Lie has led to many trillions of dollars unnecessarily being taken from the economy, a depletion that has resulted in repeated recessions and even depressions through the years.

Millions of people every month, rather than being enlightened, are told the world is flat.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

More scare nonsense from the CRFB. Monday, Dec 31 2018 

The nation’s leading supplier of federal debt lies, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, has released its latest salvo of utter nonsense:

Here are a few of their baseless claims:

1. The Deficit Could Hit $1 Trillion This Year and $2 Trillion Within a Decade
Although deficits decreased from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015, they’ve been rising ever since.

We now expect deficits to return to nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year (2019) and stay above that level indefinitely.

In fact, if lawmakers extend the costly tax cuts and spending increases indefinitely, deficits will be more than $2 trillion by 2028.

Although the above claims themselves are not baseless, the implication that somehow increases in the federal deficit are bad — that is baseless.

An increasing deficit merely means that the federal government pumps more dollars into the economy that it removes. That is a good thing. It is what grows the economy.

In fact, the opposite of deficits — i.e. surpluses — have been the cause of every depression in U.S. history.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Austerity (i.e. reduced deficit spending) invariably leads to recessions and depressions.

2. The Long-Term Debt Outlook is Terrifying
This fall, CRFB released its own 75-year budget outlook, which projected an unsustainable fiscal outlook.

Under current law, debt will rise from 78 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2018 to 160 percent by 2050 and nearly 360 percent by 2093. Under the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, debt will exceed 600 percent of GDP by 2093.

Why is the high debt/GDP ratio “unsustainable”? It isn’t. 

There is no relationship between federal debt and GDP. The debt is not serviced by GDP, nor is it serviced with taxes, exports, or any other form of income.

The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to service any amount of debt. It never can run short of dollars.

Japan, for example, carries a debt/GDP ratio exceeding 250%, and no one claims this debt is “unsustainable.” See graph, below.

Japan General Government Gross Debt to GDP

3. “Debt-Financed Laws” Offered a Temporary Stimulus
While the economy has grown by about 3 percent over the past year, our analysis Can America Sustain the Recent Economic Boost? showed that the growth rate would likely return to 2 percent per year.

As we illustrated, near-term growth was largely driven by one-time stimulus and other effects from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act, and other deficit-financed legislation.

Unfortunately, the economic boost from these laws will be temporary – but the debt will be permanent.

The CRFB admits that economic growth is driven by deficit stimuli. 

They also admit that continuing economic growth requires continuing deficit stimuli, which our Monetarily Sovereign government has the infinite ability to provide.

The U.S. government never unintentionally can run short of U.S. dollars. Never. Even if the federal government collected zero taxes, it could continue spending, forever.

So, exactly what is the problem? The CRFB never says.

4. Rapid Economic Growth is Unlikely to Last
In the analysis of America’s recent economic boost, we showed that nearly all forecasters agree that current rapid rates of economic growth are unlikely to last.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the economy will grow by 3 percent in 2018 and 2.8 percent in 2019, but then grow by between 1.6 and 1.9 percent per year for the remainder of the decade.

A primary factor in predicting economic growth is federal debt growth. Debt growth creates the dollars that stimulate economic growth.

Economic growth (red) parallels federal debt growth (green).

5. Deficits Shouldn’t Rise When the Economy is This Strong
Typically, a strong economy is paired with low deficits (or even surpluses) – both because strong economic performance produces more revenue and because it creates the economic space for deficit reduction.

Yet despite the economy performing at or even above its potential, deficits are widening.

In a recent analysis of deficits and the economy, we showed that the deficit has never been this high when the economy was this strong. 2018 and 2019 are extremely abnormal in that we are running high and rising deficits despite low unemployment, no significant output gap, no recession, and strong economic growth.

The above is a lie of Trumpian proportions. Rising deficits make the economy strong by adding dollars to the economy.

Reduced deficit growth leads to recessions, which are cured by increased deficit growth:

Reduced federal deficit growth leads to recessions (vertical bars) which are cured by increased deficit growth.

And as you have seen, federal surpluses do not create strong economies. Quite the opposite. Federal surpluses create depressions.

It is true that economic growth brings in higher taxes, but that does not create “economic space for deficit reduction.”

The term “economic space for deficit reduction” is gobbledegook. As long as there are deficits, they always can be reduced, so long as one wishes to experience recessions and depressions.

6. Policymakers are Responsible for More than Half of This Year’s Deficit
This year, the deficit will approach $1 trillion – and policymakers have no one to blame but themselves.

We estimate that 55 percent of this year’s projected deficit is the result of deficit-financed legislation enacted since 2015.

Recent spending hikes and tax cuts will cost $540 billion this year. Had these laws been offset or not enacted, the deficit would be $440 billion rather than $981 billion, as CBO projects.

Said more accurately, “Policymakers are Responsible for More than Half of This Year’s Economic Growth, simply because deficits create the dollars necessary for economic growth.”

7. Recent Tax and Spending Bills Both Cost Trillions, If Extended
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 both added tremendously to the national debt.

And while the tax cuts will cost significantly more ($1.9 trillion versus $435 billion) over ten years, that is largely an artifact of the most of the tax cuts enacted for eight years, while the spending boost was a two-year deal.

We found that if lawmakers extend both laws indefinitely, the tax cuts will cost about $2.7 trillion over a decade while the spending bill will cost $2.4 trillion. That’s $5 trillion of additional debt that this country simply cannot afford.

The CRFT prays that you not understand Monetary Sovereignty, otherwise you would know that:

8. Revenue Has Dropped, Not Risen
While some have claimed that revenue grew over the past year  . . . we estimated that actual revenue fell by 3.6 percent between tax year 2017 and tax year 2018. Revenue fell by 5.4 percent after inflation, and by 8.1 percent relative to GDP.

Said more accurately,  . . . “we estimated that 3.6 fewer dollars were taken from the economy between tax year 2017 and tax year 2018.”

Taking fewer dollars out of the economy helps the economy grow, and the government has no need for those dollars.

And now we come to the real reason why the CRFB exists, why it devotes all its resources to promulgating the “Big Lie”: The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is paid by the rich to convince you that your federal benefits should be reduced.

The single, biggest economic problem facing the U.S. and the world is widening Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

9. Entitlements and Interest Explain Long-Term Debt Growth
While near-term deficits are largely self-imposed, medium- and long-term debt growth are driven primarily by growing costs of Social Security, federal health spending, and interest on the debt. Indeed, these three categories of spending are responsible for over four-fifths of all nominal spending growth over the next decade alone.

Yes, nothing irritates the rich more than you receiving money. This irritation is “Gap Psychology,”   the human desire to widen the Gap below you on any economic or social measure, and to narrow the Gap above you.

Gap Psychology drives the appeal of expensive jewelry, cars, homes, and designer clothing. Gap Psychology drives the resentment some have for anti-poverty aids like food stamps and college preferences, as well as immigration.

10. Social Security is Hurdling Toward Insolvency
Social Security costs continue to grow faster than dedicated revenue, and its trust fund is running out.

CBO projected that just 13 years from now – when today’s 54-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 75 – the Social Security trust fund will be depleted.

The Trustees project insolvency in 16 years, when today’s 51-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 78. At that point, the law calls for a deep automatic across-the-board cut in benefits.

It is a perfect example of the “Big Lie.”

The federal government cannot run short of dollars, and because the federal government cannot run short of dollars, no agency of the federal government can run short of dollars unless that is what the federal government wants.

The rich run the federal government. The rich want you to believe Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and every other government program that benefits the not-rich must cut spending. 

Image result for bernanke and greenspan

It’s our little secret. Don’t tell the people we don’t use their tax dollars.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

There is no “Social Security trust fund.” It is a bookkeeping fiction. The federal government could, if the rich wished, supply unlimited funds to support Social Security and Medicare for every man, woman, and child, of all ages, forever.

11. Rising Health Costs Are Driving Up the Debt
Health care spending is rising even faster than Social Security spending – both as a result of population aging and rising per-person health care costs.

In our analysis of health spending and the federal budget, we found that If health spending were held constant at today’s level, debt would stabilize around 90 percent of GDP; if it had been held constant in 2010, debt would peak in about a decade and return to today’s level by 2040.

Said more accurately, “If only you people would spend more out of your own pockets on health care, and take less from the government, the federal debt would be lower, the economy would decline and the Gap between you and the rich would widen.”

12. Tax Expenditures Remain Costly
While Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the fastest growing federal programs, tax breaks remain costly.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, income tax expenditures will cost about $1.5 trillion per year in lost revenue.

While one goal of tax reform was to dramatically shrink the size and number of these tax breaks, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act actually only eliminated one significant tax expenditure, and it did little to reduce the overall cost of tax preferences.

In the misleading world of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the words “Tax Expenditures” are not expenditures at all. They are economic savings.

Those are the dollars not taken from your pockets. Those are the growth dollars that remain in the economy.

Then after telling us that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other benefits to you should be cut, the CRFB suddenly expresses false concern for your future generations:

13. Policymakers are Prioritizing the Past Over the Future
Instead of leaving future generations better off, we’re leaving them with a stack of large bills.

Interest payments on the debt are expected to exceed federal spending on children by 2020 and all federal support for children (including tax expenditures and spending) by 2021.

That means we’ll soon be spending more financing the consumption of past generations than investing in our future.

All lies. Future generations will not pay for future federal deficit and debt, any more than current generations pay for current deficits and debt.

Who pays? The government pays for its deficits by creating dollars from thin air, just as it has done ever since it created the very first dollar, way back in the 1780s.

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. All tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt, and brand-new dollars are created, ad hoc, each time the government pays a creditor.

If interest payments exceed federal support for children, the government could solve that “problem” simply by spending more on children.

Meanwhile, federal interest payments add growth dollars to the economy.

And finally, we come to the biggest whopper of them all:

14. Reducing Debt Would Increase the Size of the Economy
One consequence of a rising national debt is that it crowds out productive investment, which in turn slows income growth.

The corollary is that lower debt can actually boost income growth.

CBO estimates that if debt were reduced to its historic average of about 41 percent of GDP by 2048, per-capita GNP (a rough parallel for average income) would be about $6,000 (6.5 percent) higher than under current law.

Simply holding debt at current levels would boost income per person by $4,000 per year in 2048.

This is so laughably wrong, that one wonders how anyone with an IQ above 50 could possibly believe it.

Federal debt, by law and not by necessity, results from federal deficits. Federal deficits are economic surpluses. When the government runs a deficit, the economy runs a surplus — more money enters the economy than leaves it.

It takes a peculiar sort of illogic to claim that adding dollars to the economy “crowds out productive investment, which slows income growth.”

In short, the CRFB and its rich patrons want you to believe that cutting your federal benefits and/or increasing your federal taxes actually increases your income. 

If the people who wrote this nonsense actually believe it, they are woefully ignorant of basic economics, and if they don’t believe it, they are shameless liars.

Take your pick.

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

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

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

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Yet another article that relies on you being ignorant about federal finances and Social Security Sunday, Mar 11 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
.

The ignorance of the oppressed
and the treachery of their leaders.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Let us begin with three, very simple, related facts:

  1. It is 100% impossible for the U.S. federal government to run short of dollars unless the President and Congress want it to.
  2. Thus, it is 100% impossible for any federal agency to run short of dollars unless the President and Congress want it to.
  3. Social Security is a federal agency.

Therefore:

Social Security cannot run short of dollars unless the President and Congress want it to.

Image result for crocodile tearsIgnore all the crocodile tears about the Social Security “trust fund” running short of money.

Or, there not being enough FICA dollars to pay for future retirees.

Or, the “need” to cut benefits to certain groups, or to tax benefits to other groups.

They are all lies, there is no better way to say it — lies — designed to make you accept fewer benefit dollars, while the rich continue to grab more.

What set me off is the following Motley Fool article, that simply is loaded with the above-mentioned lies.

Will This New Social Security Proposal Gain Traction in Congress?
With Social Security facing a $12.5 trillion cash shortfall, this proposal aims to generate more revenue and reward those disadvantaged by the program.
By: Sean Williams  Mar 10, 2018

Social Security, arguably the most important program in the country as more than 42 million retired workers receive a monthly payout, is in trouble.

Yes, Social Security indeed is in trouble, but not because of any shortfall in cash. Rather trouble lurks because the President and Congress want to screw you, on behalf of the rich, who run this country.

According to the 2017 report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, Social Security is expected to begin paying out more in benefits than it’s generating in revenue by 2022.

Just 12 years later, in 2034, the roughly $3 trillion in excess cash held by the program is forecast to be completely gone.

Based on the current payout trajectory, there’ll be an estimated $12.5 trillion budget shortfall between 2034 and 2091.

All of the above nonsense would be true if Social Security were a private enterprise, owned and operated by a private company — a monetarily non-sovereign company.

But it is absurd nonsense when describing an agency owned an operated by the United States government — a uniquely Monetarily Sovereign entity.

The federal government created from thin air, the laws that in turn created the very first dollars, also out of thin air. Today, it continues to own the laws that allow it to create dollars at will, simply by paying bills.

For that reason, the federal government needs no “revenue.” It always pays its bills by creating new dollars.

Think about this for a moment:

Federal spending has risen 37,500% (from $40 billion to $15 trillion) since 1940. Where did the $14, 960,000,000 additional dollars come from?

They can’t have come from federal borrowing. Where would those borrowed dollars have come from?

And the new dollars can’t have come from taxes. Tax dollars already exist.

Dollars are created in two ways and destroyed in two ways:

Created: Lenders create new dollars when they lend, and the federal government creates new dollars when it spends.

Destroyed: Dollars are destroyed when loans are paid down, and when the federal government collects taxes.

When the federal government pays an invoice, it sends instructions (in the form of a check or wire) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

The instant the creditor’s bank does as instructed, new dollars are added to the nation’s money supply. Thus, because the federal government creates dollars by spending, it never can run short of dollars.

This shortfall has a lot of people, including working Americans, pre-retirees, retired workers, people with disabilities, and survivors, very concerned.

Americans are concerned because writers like Sean Williams tell them to be concerned. The people seldom are told the facts, so in the absence of facts, the people believe the lies.

There’s good reason for that, as 62% of today’s retirees lean on Social Security for at least half of their monthly income, and a majority of future retirees are expected to rely on the program in some capacity to make ends meet.

Yet, the trustees’ report suggests that benefits could be cut across the board by up to 23% in order to preserve the solvency of the program through 2091.

How sweet. The people desperately need Social Security, while the lying politicians prepare excuses for cutting this already insufficient lifeline.

What sort of cruel minds would find this acceptable?

The silver lining is that Social Security can’t go bankrupt as a result of the payroll tax, which provides the bulk of its funding; but that doesn’t mean the current payout schedule is sustainable.

A lie. Social Security payouts are infinitely sustainable. The pols and the rich don’t want you to know that the federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency — the currency it originally created by writing laws.

The only option for current and future retirees to avoid having their Social Security benefits slashed is through congressional action.

Yes, Congress and the President can set Social Security benefits and FICA taxes at any levels they choose. The first step should be to eliminate the FICA tax altogether, while increasing benefits.

Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., certainly aren’t denying that a problem exists. Unfortunately, they’ve been unable to come to an amicable solution.

However, a new Social Security proposal, laid out last week by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), is aiming to change that.

They are “unable” to come up with an “amicable” solution (i.e. a solution that would be approved by rich donors), simply because they don’t want a real solution.

They only want a “solution” that will further widen the Gap between the rich and the rest, exactly what their rich donors tell them to do.

Known as the Stronger Safety Net (SSN) Act, Murray’s proposal aims to modernize the 83-year-old program for women, children, people with disabilities, and survivors, while at the same time having those who can afford to pay more cover the long-term funding gap in the program.

“Modernize” is one of those deceptive words, like “reform” that implies improvement but actually means nothing.

Making anyone pay more does absolutely nothing to “cover the long-term funding gap.” It takes dollars from the private sector (aka, the economy), which is recessive.

The SSN Act has four key proposals.

1. Divorced people over 62 who were married for at least five years would qualify, with a 10% step-down for each year below 10. A divorced person who was married for seven years would have a maximum spousal benefit of 70%, whereas someone who was married for nine years could max out at 90%.

Women often take care of children or loved ones who are sick. This means they take time out of the labor force, which can reduce their lifetime earnings and retirement benefit.

All this cockamamie rejiggering is “necessary” because of the myth that FICA pays for benefits and dollars are limited. The entire problem could be solved by simply giving every recipient the same, more-generous benefit. (See: Ten Steps to Prosperity: Step 3: Monthly bonuses for all)

2. Establish an alternative benefit for the surviving spouse where both husband and wife are retired workers.

The surviving spouse would be entitled to 75% of the sum of the survivor’s own work benefit and the primary insurance amount of the deceased spouse. This alternative benefit would be paid if it’s higher than what survivors would receive under the current law, and would begin in 2019.

More cockamamie rejiggering. Who could understand such nonsense, much less justify it? 

The process resembles trying to feed a hundred people from one potato, by cutting the potato into a thousand pieces.

3. Under the current system, minor children have to be under the age of 18, or high school students under the age of 19, to qualify for benefits. But beginning in 2019, full-time students up to the age of 23 of retired, disabled, or deceased workers would be eligible to receive benefits.

Why age 18? 19? 23? Murray has no idea. It’s a complexity no one understands and no one needs.

Which leads us to this:

4. The SSN Act seeks to generate additional revenue for the Social Security Trust by imposing a 2% payroll tax on earned income in excess of $400,000. The current payroll tax of 12.4% does not apply to any income above $128,400.

The mythical Social Security “Trust Fund” doesn’t need additional revenue, especially since it is an accounting deception.

A Monetarily Sovereign nation can add to or subtract from any so-called “trust fund” at will. It’s all hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, to make you believe the government can’t afford your benefits.

That said, taxing the rich to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest is a good idea, even though those tax dollars disappear from the money supply.

The single most important problem in our economy and the world’s economies is the large and growing Gap between the rich and the rest.

I know what you’re probably thinking: “The rich aren’t reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust.”

However, the $128,400 figure in 2018 — exists because there’s also a maximum monthly payout at full retirement age. It’s not “fair” to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won’t see an extra cent in Social Security benefits.

That’s not what I’m thinking. I’m thinking:

  1. The mythical “Trust Fund” doesn’t need “shoring up.” It needs to be eliminated as an excuse for not paying benefits.
  2. The government should increase benefits
  3. The benefits should be paid to every man, woman, and child in America.
  4. Taxing the rich more would narrow the Gap and benefit America (See: Ten Steps to Prosperity: Step 8: Tax the very rich more (dictatorship warning)

It’s unlikely that Republicans would go along with such a measure, and their votes will be needed in the Senate to pass the SSN Act.

I may be wrong, but I do not remember the Republican Party (the party of the rich) passing any legislation that was not designed to widen the Gap.

Undoubtedly, you have been told that Social Security (or Medicare, for that matter) will soon run short of money, and the “trust fund” will be empty.

And undoubtedly, you have been told your taxes must be increased and/or your benefits must be decreased.

And you will hear it from reliable sources with impeccable credentials:

The politicians, who have been bribed with campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment when they leave office.

And the economists who have been bribed with university contributions and lucrative jobs with think tanks.

And the media, who are owned by the rich and have been bribed with advertising dollars.

It all is a lie, the biggest lie in economics. It is The Big Lie. So, next time you hear it, contact the liars and tell them you know: It’s a damnable lie paid for by the rich to widen the Gap between the rich and you.

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

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

The 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business 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

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: