In the early days of human evolution, after our ancestors came out of the trees and started walking upright on the ground, there was a discussion among the different parts of the body about who was going to be boss.
First, the brain spoke up and said, “I have all the knowledge, the foresight and all information from all the body parts come to me. I should be the boss.”
Second, the legs spoke and said, “I take us everywhere we go and without me, we couldn’t move around and get food and water. I should be the boss.”
Then the stomach spoke up and said, “I digest all the food that gives us energy to live, move around and do everything. I should be the boss.”
Next, the eyes spoke and said, “I can see everything that goes on and we would just be bumbling around in the dark if it weren’t for me. I should be the boss.”
Then the asshole spoke. “Without me, we would get all stopped up and our legs would wobble, the brain would have a headache, the eyes would be cloudy, and the stomach would be backed up, unable to eat. I should be the boss.”
All the other body parts laughed and joked about how stupid that would be.
So, the asshole decided to show them. It went on strike and didn’t let anything out. The other parts of the body broke down and nothing could get down, so they all got together and decided to make the asshole the boss.
It just goes to show you, that you don’t have to have brains to be the boss; Just be an asshole.
And that’s how just a few people, sometimes even just one person , can control an institution like the U.S. Congress and the House of Representatives.
Although Inflation was high in 2022, the average annual rate from 2009 through October 2022, was one of the lowest in the last 50 years.
In 2022, inflation in the U.S. has hit highs not seen in decades, but how bad is it really and what caused it?
If we look at total inflation in the last two decades, it tells a different story. Looking at the average rate of Inflation over this period, it has been at a normal healthy pace over the long run—and that includes the high rates in 2022. The problem is that there was very low inflation for more than 10 years previously, and then we get very high inflation all at once in 2022. When “normal” inflation is spread out over several years, people don’t feel it as much as when it builds up and hits everyone over a one-year period, like in 2022. But overall, prices in 2022 are about where they would be if we had steady inflation little by little over this period. Hard to believe, bur that’s what the facts show.
Inflation rates by decade, showing some of the lowest rates on record from 2000-2019. Although not shown, the average inflation rate from 2010 through October 2022 is 2.5%.
Because of two major events since 2008, inflation has set records of prolonged periods of very low inflation, then, starting in 2021, the country experienced mild inflation, building up to high inflation in 2022. We can show this as we look back, but first: Is inflation good for the economy, and if so, how much inflation is good and how much is bad?
Is Inflation Good or is it All Bad?
Economists generally agree that a little inflation is necessary for a growing and healthy economy, so the government plans for some inflation. The Federal Reserve bank, the nation’s central bank, has set an annual target of 2% inflation, allowing it to periodically go a bit higher—up to around 3%. When it goes above 3% for a month or two and then drops down, there is little concern, but when it keeps climbing, everyone is concerned.
In the first 10 months of 2022, inflation hit a high of 9.1% and a low of 7.5%, with an average of about 8.3%. But if we average the inflation rate over the previous 10 years, going back to 2013, the rate averages out at 2.5% a year. * This is within the parameters that the Federal Reserve considers comfortable for stable economic growth. Part of the problem is that “stable economic growth” rarely happens for long periods. Growth has always come with downturns and upturns. Adding in unrelated crises, like wars and pandemics, which happen periodically, makes for even less predictable outcomes.
If we go back even further, to 2009, the average inflation rate changes even more. At the end of 2008, there was a major economic collapse—often called “The Great Recession.” But its major effect began a few months later in early 2009. When there is a collapse of the economy, demand drops when people lose their jobs and cut back on their buying. Consequently, inflation is low. There was even deflation in 2009 with a -0.4% inflationary average over the entire year. Subsequently, as the economy recovered and demand increased, Inflation slowly went back up until 2020, when the pandemic hit, which had a major economic impact that no one was certain about. Inflation dropped back down to 1.2% and then, in 2021, as the nation recovered from the pandemic, the rate began to rise until it hit the highs in 2022. In other words, the country experienced very low inflation from 2008 through 2020.
The Great Recession, the Pandemic and the Inflation Rate
These two major events, the Great Recession and the pandemic, instigated significant economic changes that caused inflation to fall and then rise again. But the effects from each event were vastly different and we can learn a lot by comparing the two, especially the inflation rates.
The Great Recession was a deep, but normal, recession with unemployment going up, profits dropping and inflation slowing down below the normal healthy inflation rate levels of around 2%. In the first year, 2009, inflation hit a low of -0.4%. The following year (2010) inflation began to rise, but it was still low at 1.6%. In 2011, as the economy began to recover, it hit 3.2%, then in 2012 it was 2.1% as the recovery grew stronger. Then it hit low inflationary rates in the following years of 1.5% (2013), 1.6% (2014), 0.1% (2015), 1.3% (2016), 2.1% (2017), 2.4% (2018), 1.8% (2019). These are typical of previous recession recoveries. The average of the years 2009 through 2019 was very low at 1.6%—below the average of 2% that the central bank sees as healthy. You might call the recovery from the Great Recession a normal “healthy” recovery that was just like other recoveries, except it was from a deeper and more severe recession than any seen since the Depression in the 30s.
Inflation by month and by year for 2000-2022.
The second big event, the pandemic, hit starting in the second quarter of 2020. Average annual inflation that year was at a very low 1.2%. It had not dropped that low since 2015. The pandemic caused a recession, but it was like no recession that anyone had ever seen before, and its effects were unpredictable. There had not been a pandemic in the U.S. in more than 100 years—and never in a modern economy. It was uncharted territory. The economy had just gone through a recovery over the previous eight years and was in a very strong and healthy condition. The pandemic recession was not linked to the normal business cycle, though. Many lost their jobs—even though demand was there—and small and medium-sized businesses closed down, some permanently, some temporarily. Many started working from home, and many just quit working. Unemployment went up. But the government gave out money and extended unemployment benefits to help those in trouble. That put some money into the economy. But the future was still uncertain.
The Pandemic “Recession”
No one was sure what the economy would do or how the government should respond. The economy had never gone through anything like it. In fact, it was hard to call it a recession since people weren’t really being laid off like in a normal recession. Many people were being temporarily laid off “until the pandemic ended.” During the height of the pandemic, many took early retirement and early Social Security benefits. Many started working for themselves and many joined the cash economy, getting unreported income. Crime went up as society was disrupted, plus crime always goes up when people lose their jobs. The poor suffered most, which always happens during rising unemployment. But generally, people had less money and demand was low, which means inflation would be low.
One could say that the pandemic, with layoffs and businesses closing or cutting back, caused a recession. It was like a recession, but it did not have the usual causes. Plus, it had one other unique aspect: It was the fastest recession recovery in history. The pandemic hit the economy in early 2020, then it basically ended in late 2020, and everyone went back to work, and it was basically over by early 2021—all in one year.
As people went back to work, demand increased and inflation went up, hitting 4.7% in 2021. This happened not only in the U.S. but around the world. The pandemic and its associated “recession” caused factories to close or cut back around the world. Before the pandemic, the world’s economy had become more international than ever before. Products were manufactured overseas and then shipped to consumers around the world. When product demand came back, it was difficult for supply lines to come back quickly. The overseas factories and supply lines to bring goods to America, mainly in Asia, grew “organically” and very slowly over several decades going back to the 70s. When demand came back in America, it came back quickly, but these supply lines to overseas factories had to be restarted. It was like rebuilding a car that was taken apart and put in storage.
With those two events, the Great Recession and the pandemic, the U.S. had record inflationary lows for many years and then record highs in 2022. But the average from the beginning of 2009 through 2022 was still low at 2.25%, which is as good as it gets for a long-term low inflation rate. If we look at inflation by decade, 2.25% over 14 years is exceptionally low. In the attached graph, inflation in the 2000s was 2.54%, in the 1990s it was at 3.08%, and in the 1980s it was at 5.82%. It’s just that the high inflation mid 2021 through 2022 hit all at once and was not spread out over several years. In other words, the prices in 2022 are pretty much what they would have been if the average inflation rate had increased at a relatively low and steady pace over this period. It just hurts more when it comes all at once.
Low Unemployment and Inflation Rate Average
Inflation’s ups and downs from 2012-2021. Although 2022 inflation is not shown here, if we include the inflation rate through October 2022, this period is one of the lowest average annual inflation rates in the last 50 years. The Federal Reserve’s goal is around 2% inflation.
The state of the economy post pandemic from 2021-2022 was a surprise to most everyone, and the biggest surprise was very low unemployment with two jobs for every person looking for a job. Companies, large and small, were struggling to find enough workers. And demand was booming as the economy’s recovery from the pandemic “recession” went into overdrive.
Economists, who mainly did not predict this situation when the pandemic ended in 2020, started to talk about a recession in 2022, even some saying we were already in one. Then came predictions about a coming recession later in 2022. Then it became 2023, then it was mid-2023, and then it was late 2023. And many predict the worst recession of all time.
What is the main problem with a recession? It’s simple: People lose their jobs. For those who have been saying that we are already in a recession are missing this key ingredient: There’s never been a recession with unemployment this low. Economics is not an exact science and considering the failure of at least 90 percent of economists to predict the Great Recession, I wonder about their opinions today. Maybe they are all trying to make up for not seeing the 2008 crash. But then again, even though economics is not an exact science, these “respected economists” talk like it is. Or maybe they’ve learned their lesson from 2008 and are better economists (I hope so). It reminds me of the old saying: Get five economists together and you get six opinions on where the economy is going. Add an unknown factor like a pandemic and you would probably get 10 opinions.
The other big result of the pandemic “recession” recovery was increase demand, which always causes inflation, or at the least, fears of inflation. In 2021, inflation immediately began to rise in the second quarter of 2021, with an average annual rate of 4.7%. In 2022, inflation increased very quickly. Wages were rising, but not fast enough to keep consumers happy. The “recovery” was going too fast, and with the low inflation for the previous 14 years, inflation was catching up all at once—in one year.
So… what can be done about it?
Rising and Falling Interest Rates’ Effects on the Inflation Rate
The main tool that the government has in controlling inflation is the Federal Funds Rate, which sets the interest rate for borrowing. The Funds Rate is set by the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), and the one person who has the most power for setting the rate is the chairperson of the Federal Reserve. The theory on controlling inflation: In a strong economy, when demand is high, inflation goes up, therefore increase interest rates to slow down the economy and soften demand. In a weakening economy, when demand is low and inflation too low, lower interest rates to spur the economy and keep inflation rates at a healthy 2%. In a recovering economy, with low inflation, raise interest rates incrementally to stave off inflation. Interest rates that are too low for too long create a situation where there is too much easy money in the economy and inflation will go up. And in the long run, being able to borrow money at a very low cost is not a good thing, so bringing rates up to a “reasonable” level is a good thing.
Funds rates 2012 through October 2022. Although the rate was on a slow but stead gradual increase starting in 2015, the rate trend did not continue, but was lowered in 2019, although the economy was doing well as it recovered from the Great Recession.
By the time the Great Recession started in late 2008, the interest rate had dropped steadily from 5.25% in 2007 to around 2% in the third quarter of 2008. The economy started to show signs of weakness in 2007, so the Fed started a regular lowering of the Funds rate to encourage borrowing and investment. By August 2008, it was at 2%. By September, when the crash really came to a head, the rate was dropped to around 1% and by early December it was at .15%. It stayed in that range for the next seven years and the economy continued to recover and grow until the Fed, under Chairwoman Janet Yellen, started to raise the rate in December 2015 when the economy was doing fairly well. Then the rate was slowly but steadily raised over the next three years by Yellen and by the new Fed Chair, Jerome Powell who was appointed by President Trump in early 2018. It reached a low rate of 2.4% by the first quarter of 2019, when Powell indicated the Fed would continue to raise rates. Instead of raising them—and in response to pressure from President Trump—he made no rate change. And then he lowered the rate three times in the third and fourth quarter of 2019, again under pressure from President Trump, even though the economy was continuing to grow. Why the Fed agreed, or succumbed to Trump’s desire, to not only raise rates, but to lower them, was surprising to many, considering that the economy was still doing well. In fact, Fed Chairman Powell later admitted to making a mistake by lowering rates, stating that the economy was in better shape than expected. Lowering the rates was a big mistake, the effects of which would be felt much later.
In late 2019 and early 2020, inflation was below the 2% target. This was before the pandemic caused economic problems. Raising rates would have been the correct thing to do to keep the economy from overheating and causing rising inflation. Instead, only a few months later in the spring of 2020 when the effects of the pandemic took hold, demand fell, and inflation stayed very low the rest of the year. If, instead of lowering rates in 2019, the Fed had continued to raise them, or even just stabilize it, inflation would have been kept in check when the pandemic ended just months later in late 2020 and everyone went back to work. Instead, inflation started to rise in March 2021 and continued a steady increase until it started to increase very quickly in the second quarter of 2021 (going over 5%). This was another time to raise rates incrementally, but that didn’t happen. As it continued into 2022, the Fed woke up and finally started to raise rates monthly to stave off the extreme inflation through 2022. It was too late to ease the pain of low but steady inflation.
But the average annual inflation from 2009 through 2022 was, as noted above, only 2.25%—a very healthy rate over the long run. Rates should never have been lowered in 2019. The Fed should have continued to raise them instead, which is what they were doing in the years leading up to 2019. These were not big jumps, but incrementally small ones of only around .5% a year on average. The rates should have been left alone at around 1.5% in early 2020. Lowering the rate to less than 1% resulted in very low inflation in 2019-2020 and very high inflation in 2021 and 2022. The Fed didn’t follow its own historical guidelines of raising rates in good times to control future inflation.
Consequently, 2022 hit consumers all at once instead of slowly over the years. Again, at only 2.25% average per year, prices in late 2022 are about the same as they would have been anyway. But no one thinks of it like that. Why? Because Trump and Powell are to blame for lowering the rate in 2019, and Biden and Powell are to blame for not raising them in 2021, although that was too late to make a major impact right away. One thing about inflation: it takes time for changes in the Fed rate to affect a massive economy like the U.S., meaning many months to years. Politically speaking, everyone is looking for someone to blame, but no one wants to take the blame.
The Perfect Storm of Inflation
In conclusion, it was good that the economy had low borrowing rates during the pandemic, which was at its worst from the spring of 2020 until late that year. There was no reason to raise them; businesses weren’t borrowing during that time anyway. They were saving money, as were consumers, who experienced record savings rates, which was later money spent in 2021-2022, which helped fuel inflation. But it would have been best to not lower the rate in early 2020, when it was lowered substantially. It was down to 0.5% by April from 1.5% only 4 months earlier. Rates should probably not have been raised during that period but should have been in 2019. They should have at least stabilized the rates in 2020, not lowered them.
High inflation in 2022 was caused by the pandemic more than any single factor, and the pandemic was an event never experienced in over a century—and not at all in the modern world of an international economy. The country, and the world, will continue to feel the effects of the pandemic for years to come, so beware of those who are so certain in their predictions of total collapse in the coming year. Anything could happen, including total economic expansion and prosperity, short-term recession, long-term recession—or even another pandemic. After all, we are in uncharted territory. At the pace the world is changing—even without the pandemic—we will stay in uncharted territory for a very long time, perhaps forever, because it is the incredibly fast pace of technological improvements that is the main driving factor in the modern world—and the slow pace of human evolution that is trying to deal with it that will determine our future. That clash makes the future exceedingly difficult to predict, and a pandemic makes that even more difficult.
The pandemic might have been the most important single factor in the rise in inflation, but it wasn’t the only factor. There were three factors that created the perfect storm of inflation in 2021-2022: First was not continuing to raise rates in 2019, but instead lowering them and doing so again in early 2020. These decisions were not economic decisions, but political decisions. Second was the pandemic. And third was not incrementally raising them again starting in late 2020 and on into 2021, although it might have been too late, anyway. But it couldn’t have hurt the situation. Instead, the rates had to catch up with the economy all at once in 2022. The perfect storm. And no one saw it coming.
Inflation will slow down on its own, mainly because it has caught up with itself.
*******
* Many people don’t understand the monthly inflation reports. It’s important to know that when the inflation rate is 5% one month and then 6% the next month, that doesn’t mean that prices went up 5% the first month and then they rose 6% higher the next month. It means that in the first month, prices were 5% higher than the same month of the previous year, and the following month the prices were 6% higher than the same month the previous year. Over 12 months, the average is taken and that is the annual rate of how much inflation there was over the previous year.
Trump at a Rally. He loves to be the center of attention, surrounded by his Fifth-Avenue voters, who he called “his people”
—
Donald Trump has a following of die-hard, cult-like followers who will support him no matter what he says and does. He called them out in January 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa. when he stated:
“You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
The audience laughed, even though he had just insulted them by suggesting that they are blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what. They didn’t care—and they knew it was true, anyway. Essentially, Trump was right; His followers to this day have followed him—like blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what—the “fifth-avenue voters.”
There is no doubt that upon leaving the White House, former President Trump illegally took documents that were not his. These were government-owned documents, many of which were classified. He did not ask for permission because he knew it was not allowed (can you imagine Donald Trump asking for permission for anything?). He illegally took and mishandled classified documents that he had no right to have in his possession. Trump knew that classified documents were closely tracked as to who has them. Knowing this—and that it was illegal—why would he take them in the first place? Since the search of his residence, he has come up with so many excuses that it’s hard to keep track of them. But if you look at how he has handled the return of the documents, his motives become obvious why he took them and why he returned them little by little over 18 months.
Trump Took Classified Documents That are Tracked Closely
For over a year, the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) told Trump and his lawyers that he had more classified documents than he initially said he had. To some, it might appear as though the DOJ didn’t know what he had, but they probably had a good idea. Every classified document is catalogued. Records are kept noting what the document is about, where it is, who has it, where it’s going and when it was removed from a secure location that is the “home” where that document is normally kept. Also recorded is when the document was returned. Plus, everything must be signed for. National Archives oversees all classified documents, and there are several secure locations where they are regularly stored. To name a few: the Defense Department and the individual branches, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, various intelligence agencies, the White House…and certainly several more. *
The FBI laid out highly classified documents on the floor of Trump’s office to show what they found in his office when executing the search warrant. DOJ photo.
In an organized system, this would all have to be centrally controlled by a computer system run by one person, or, more than likely, a team. That is, of course, if it was organized correctly and run by responsible people. Consequently, the central “controller” of the classified documents that Trump has in his possession should be able to know exactly what he has (unless others who had access to them took the documents). Trump knew this, too. And if Trump, in keeping with his normal behavior, ran a disorganized administration (which is likely), then perhaps these classified documents were handled haphazardly in the White House, and no one really knew what was where. But it is likely that their origins can be all traced back to a starting point to find out who was responsible when each document was “checked out.” With enough investigation, The DOJ could figure out what he has.
Why Trump Took Government Documents
One thing we can say with absolute certainty: Trump took the government documents, both classified and not classified, to gain benefit in some way for himself. The opportunities to use the information are numerous. It could be that there is information in the documents that he can use in the future to learn about people he could be dealing with in his continued business dealings, or even in his future political battles in his lust for power. This could be either to have an advantage by knowing something other parties don’t think he knows, or personal information that he can use against people that would be embarrassing. Or it could be information that would give him an advantage to make a business deal with someone.
There could also be information that he is concerned about that he does not want to get out about himself—to either make him look bad in the public eye, or his personal life, or in a future business deal.
Why Trump Didn’t Want to Return them Right Away
By the time the warranted search of his residence took place, Trump might have already learned what he needed to learn from the classified documents. After all, he had them in his possession for over a year and a half. It is highly likely that they were reviewed, since many of the documents (classified or not) were found in his desk in his personal office, and many were found outside their folders. These are all indicators that he, or someone, had already gone through them. In fact, it is highly likely that he directed someone else, probably a lawyer (to protect his actions, in his mind, through attorney-client privilege), to go through them with instructions for what to look for. Knowing Trump’s penchant for not wanting to read daily briefings while he was President, it is even more than likely that he had someone else review them. But certainly, at the least, Trump oversaw the process. And it is more than likely, that someone took notes, maybe even made copies.
The idea that he has already reviewed the classified documents is even more likely if you look at the timeline of how they eventually were returned to the government. They were returned little by little over a year and a half. In May 2021, four months after he took the documents to Florida, the National Archives requested that Trump return all government-owned documents. That gave Trump four months to have already gone through them. But perhaps he wasn’t done reviewing them yet.
Trump Returns the First Bundle of Documents 11 Months After Taking Them
Trump took 18 months to return the classified documents from Mar-a-Lago
Seven months later, in December 2021, Trump and his team responded that they had 12 boxes, which Archives arranged to have returned to Washington. That was another seven months that Trump had to review them. He most likely had already gone through those 12 boxes in the 11 months since he took them, but especially during the seven months after the government asked for everything to be returned.
One month later, in January 2022, Archivists went to Mar-a-Lago and retrieved another 15 boxes. That gave Trump another month to review them. That probably means he was done reviewing those 15 boxes. It became increasingly obvious that he was returning them little by little.
All the boxes retrieved so far had classified documents in them, besides unclassified material that belongs to the government. Four months later, on May 11, 2022, the DOJ, knowing there were still missing documents in Trump’s possession, got a grand jury subpoena that gave Trump until May 24 to return all of them. Trump asked for an extension and got one for two more weeks—until June 7. But on June 2, Evan Corcoran, Trump’s lawyer, contacted the DOJ and told them to come to Mar-a-Lago and pick up the remaining documents asked for in the subpoena. On June 3, The FBI goes to Florida. Corcoran gives them a large envelope that he claims contains all the remaining classified documents. Trump was obviously done reviewing the documents in the envelope. Corcoran also states (and signs a document saying so) that no other classified documents exist at Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena limits what the FBI can search for, and they leave with the envelope. That gave Trump another five months to review them. He continued to return them little by little.
On Aug. 5, the DOJ, after reviewing the envelope’s contents, which included classified documents, and realizing that there are still more missing documents, got a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, and the search was conducted on Aug. 8. The FBI seized 33 items, 13 of which are boxes with classified documents in them. Many items were found in Trump’s desk intermixed with personal items. That gave Trump another two weeks to review them.
Why else would Trump return the documents little by little unless he wasn’t done with getting what he needed from them yet?
Is Trump Getting Away With It?
The problem for Trump, although minor at this point, was that he didn’t know they would get a warrant and search his residence for the final documents—and he didn’t know when a search would happen. His lawyers might have warned him that it could happen, and Trump could have sped up his review of the documents that he still had in hopes of finishing it all up. He also might have thought that they wouldn’t dare search his residence with a warrant, and if they did, he felt he could create enough of a furor over a warrant that he could still get away with it. And that’s exactly what happened. Besides, he probably already searched most of the documents over the last 18 months and got what he wanted out of them. He might even have believed that he could use a search of his residence to his advantage. He might have welcomed it. With or without the search, he was in legal jeopardy for having classified documents anyway, so who cares? It could easily have been part of his plan all along. He probably thinks he can get away with it all.
Is Trump Getting Away With Stealing Classified Documents?
There’s good reason to believe that he is getting away with it. After all, he took the documents, and slowly—over a period of a year and a half—returned them little by little, the last time being returned because of a search warrant. But he managed to continuously postpone returning them. Eighteen months is more than enough time to go over all the documents, except perhaps those taken by warrant (since the search was unexpected to some degree). Plus, the Republican party and many of its leaders criticized the DOJ and the FBI immediately after the search.
Trump successfully took the documents—certainly knowing that they were classified—reviewed them and got what he wanted. He will continue to make a big enough stink over the warranted search that he believes he will get away with it, even if it’s a minor punishment and/or fine.
The idea that he took them by mistake, or he thought they were his, or he didn’t review them—is laughable. He had a plan all along and he pulled it off. He weighed the risks, took the documents, reviewed them, and gave them back when he was done with them—at his pace. So far, so good.
How Taking the Documents Could Help Trump
Trump talks about running for President in 2024, but I doubt he will run. He will pretend he will, even if he announces his candidacy, but he will pull out at some point, because he won’t take the chance of being a loser again. He might even use an indictment and conviction for mishandling of classified documents as an excuse—claiming it is all a political witch hunt. That’s because the chances of him spending jail time is almost non-existent. He will then have not only gotten away with it but used it to his advantage to further his political power—outside of government, which is what his real goal is. After all, he has tens of millions of Fifth-Avenue supporters who will follow him wherever he wants to go. They will always believe that he won the election and that he is a victim of persecution.
Questions remain about who reviewed the classified documents: Did they take notes and make copies, and where are those notes? ** The most likely place is in a lawyer’s files. The DOJ needs look for them. The country needs find them.
******
* For more detailed information on how classified documents are handled, go to this link to download a PDF of the Classified Matter Protection and Control Handbook put out by the Dept. of Energy. Start on page 55 of the PDF (skipping the marking information).
For a shorter, and less informative, description of the handling of classified documents from the National Archives, go here.
** Update: In January 2023, more classified documents were found in Trump’s possession, including a laptop where notes had been made from the classified document. This article suggests that all the classified documents were reviewed and notes made. So far, investigator’s have only found this laptop. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of notes made, both digitally and on paper, that were a result of Trump and his team’s reviewing of all the documents.
Many gun control advocates want to ban semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15. I say don’t ban them, license them. Why? Because the Supreme Court has allowed gun control laws, but banning guns is another story. And licensing a weapon is more acceptable than banning one.
Semi-Automatic Weapons are Basically Automatic Weapons – Let’s classify Them as Such
The U.S. has dangerous fully automatic weapons that the citizenry can own: “Title II” firearms. A machine gun is one—a fully automatic rifle. To own a Type II firearm, though, you must be federally licensed, meaning you must prove you are responsible enough—and not “dangerous.” If we want to get dangerous semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 out of the hands of “dangerous” people, we can classify them as Title II firearms, which allows those who are not dangerous to own them. Like the machine gun, applicants to own one of these weapons must prove to the public that they aren’t dangerous. Considering how many innocent people have been killed by semi-automatics like the AR-15, I want good and thorough proof—the kind of proof that is required to own a machine gun. Licensing could solve the AR-15 problem.
The semi-automatic AR-15
To own a fully automatic weapon, like a machine gun, members of the general public must qualify (police departments, not being the general public, can purchase them*). Rules on ownership, licensing, and registration were first established 88 years ago with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 (other weapons and devices, besides the machine gun were included). Some of the rules for ownership vary by state, but there are certain Federal rules that apply everywhere, since you need be Federally licensed. There are several restrictions on who does qualify, plus it’s a lengthy process—it can take several months (or more)—and there is a transfer fee.* Qualifying is a high standard, but I rarely hear complaints from the NRA or anti-gun control people about not being able to easily get a machine gun. And I never hear the NRA complain that the 1934 law was the first step in taking their guns away (although I am sure, some did complain). The government did not ban fully automatic weapons, they licensed them.
Several other acts have since passed that amended the 1934 act and brought us to our current situation. These laws include the Gun Control Act in 1968, and the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), The latter was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and it stated that no new machine guns can be sold to the general public, but existing ones manufactured before that date can be—but still under licensing rules already established. Currently, machine guns (and other devices, like silencers and sawed-off shotguns) are labeled as Title II firearms and are under the control of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 2016, further changes were made to the National Firearms Act, but the requirements for ownership are basically still the same. In general, all applicants must prove they are a “responsible person.” An application must be submitted and fingerprints taken, along with other identifying information. Both seller and the buyer must get approval before the weapon changes hands.** (For the sake of simplicity, this discussion will only cover the fully automatic weapons, like the machine gun, and not the other Type II weapons.)
What is an Automatic Weapon?
A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon that continues to fire by just holding down the trigger. The difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon is that you must keep pulling the trigger on the semi-automatic for it to fire. Both types auto-load the next round when you fire a round, so both types reload automatically without any extra action on the part of the shooter. The AK-47—the weapon of choice for many—has a “fully automatic setting,” but that model is not allowed to be sold in the U.S. to the general public. Only the model with the semi-automatic capability can be sold to the public.
A fully automatic weapon can fire about 400 rounds per minute and a semi-automatic can fire 60-120 rounds per minute (1-2 per second). The Highland Park shooter on the 4th of July 2022 used an AR15-like rifle, a semi-automatic weapon. He fired 70 rounds. Anyone who listens to the tape of the shooting will quickly realize that the shots sound continuous—as fast as you can imagine what it sounds like with one shot immediately following another; it sounds like an “automatic” series of shots. In other words, from the point of view of people being shot in a crowd, there is no major difference. In other words, both are extremely dangerous. To say that one is dangerous and the other is not, is plain stupid; they are both extremely dangerous.
How many of these “used” machine guns are out there in the U.S.? According to the 2015 report by the ATF, there are 543,073. that’s about one machine gun for every 600 people. Estimates for the number of AR-15s is around 20 million (as of 2020). That’s about one for every 16 people.
The Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling in 2008
Protestors in front of the Supreme Court promote gun control
So, why doesn’t the NRA and the anti-gun control crowd complain that licensing of Type II firearms—like the AR-15—is infringing on their constitutional rights? This is partially because, in 2008, in the first major decision by the court on the 2nd Amendment in almost 70 years, Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority, wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In the decision the Court gave examples of what they considered lawful control:
Prohibiting dangerous people from possessing firearms
Prohibiting firearms in “sensitive” places, like government buildings and schools
Laws that impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
I imagine there were many diehard gun control opponents who broke down and cried like babies when they heard about the above acceptable legal controls on guns that the Supreme Court declared. (But then again, those who cried like babies, while owning these weapons, should not have guns of any type.)
Essentially, what that means is that the government has the right to control guns. How much control is allowed will be decided in future court decisions, but it currently allows gun control. In other words, we don’t have to ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, we can license them—or just reclassify them as Type II weapons.
“Dangerous” People and “Dangerous” Weapons
Prohibiting dangerous people means licensing people by means of checking to ensure gun buyers are not dangerous people. That is exactly what the laws that restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons do. And the fact that these laws exist for weapons like machine guns is testimonial to the fact that how dangerous a weapon is can be used to determine if someone can own one based on the weapon alone.
The Supreme Court has not ruled that the 1934 law that requires the licensing of machine guns is illegal. The mere fact that the law puts machine guns in the category of weapons not allowed to be easily acquired without extensive licensing verifies that how dangerous a weapon is can be the determining factor in limiting the ownership of certain firearms because they are dangerous. In other words, you could say that lawful gun control “prohibits dangerous people from possessing dangerous firearms.” It’s really the same as saying that the Supreme Court says that it is acceptable to control the ownership of dangerous firearms.
A dangerous weapon in the hands of a dangerous person; Empty chairs on main street after the Highland Park, Illinois, shooting on July 4th, 2022. Seven people were killed and 30 injured. The shooter was using an AR15-like rifle.
So, the big question becomes obvious: Is a semi-automatic weapon, like the AR-15, a dangerous weapon? The answer is a simple yes, although I guarantee you will find people who will say no, just so they can affirm that the AR-15, and all semi-automatic weapons, are not dangerous enough to fall in the same category as a machine gun, a fully automatic weapon, and therefore should not be classified as a Title II Firearm. Calling a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 not as dangerous as an automatic weapon like a machine gun is like saying an atomic bomb is not as dangerous as a hydrogen bomb (technically, the latter is more dangerous). In other words, they are both extremely dangerous. They are both nuclear weapons.
Semi-Automatic weapons are dangerous enough, and the fact that they have killed hundreds of innocent civilians in America in mass shootings easily proves this fact, and we should classify them as a Title II Firearm. When that happens, the country will have solved the current two problems of semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15: We stop them from getting into the wrong hands, and a citizen can still own one—after they prove they are responsible enough to have one.
Licensing and Registration
Controlling semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 is certainly more acceptable than banning them. But to change their classification to a Type II firearm will still be an uphill battle. There are a few big problems to overcome. Gun owners have been fighting gun registration for a long time, and licensing and registering these semi-automatic weapons will be difficult—but not impossible. Registration is already partially there for fully automatic weapons; there’s just a few more steps to make it happen for semi-automatics like the AR-15. Most likely, this will not be a major hurdle. This is because the public wants it. A minority doesn’t. Plus, the Supreme Court supports laws that control dangerous weapons.
The higher hurdle is registering existing weapons and making that universal for all guns is unrealistic. But our main goal here is about registering all dangerous weapons, like the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You cannot own or buy a machine gun that is not registered or manufactured before 1986. (Machine guns are not available for sale to the public if they are manufactured after 1986. An interesting note is that no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime since 1934). But we might be able to create some conditions that will overcome this current ownership problem.
For example, some ideas:
It’s not as simple as just gun control vs gun rights. Gun rights are not that everyone gets to have any gun they want whenever they want.
Make it easy to register, but not mandatory if certain requirements are met. For future purchase of semi-automatic weapons, the Federal Government should create a more expanded or new section of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—for registration of both existing weapons and new purchases—to manage applications, speeding up the ownership and registration process. Plus, the goal should also be to license every existing semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15. The goal should be to do so over a lengthy period, meaning years. This will be a tough sell, but rules could be set that give current owners sufficient time to be approved for ownership—or to not register at all. The big problem is that there’s about 20 million AR-15s and AR15-like weapons out there.
Laws can get creative to help protect gun owners and the public. The law could state that those who do not register their weapons will be punished if their unregistered weapon is stolen, they do not report it “immediately”—and if it is used in a crime. If used in a crime and its theft was not reported, they could be banned from owning any weapons for a period of time. And if their stolen, unregistered weapon is used to kill someone, they will be banned for life from owning any weapons. Of course, gun owners are still responsible for any negligent action. Existing, responsible gun owners would then not be forced to register their weapons. Rules would also have to be set that require registration and approval if the weapon is sold or inherited.
All of this would be a hard sell, but it’s far more palatable to license these dangerous semi-automatic weapons than to ban them. And perhaps a state should try classifying all semi-automatic weapons in their state as Type II firearms and see how far they get. It could be the beginning of a movement.
**************
*Private security companies can purchase new machine guns for certain situations. Most that do so can only use them outside of the U.S. An example would be a private security firm hired to protect embassies and embassy personnel in other countries. I have also heard that private security firms protecting nuclear power plants can also purchase them.
** Click here for a good description (by a private organization) of the licensing process . Click here for the government-written rules with all the details.
Trump does not really believe he won the election; he knows he legitimately lost. So why is he so fervently fighting the loss?
To put it in simple terms: He doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life known as a loser. To Trump, being a loser is the worst thing you could possibly be. Yet he lost the popular vote in 2016—and again in 2020. That’s a two-time loser, his worst nightmare. And both times, he said he was cheated. Even after the 2016 election, he said he received more votes than Clinton because millions of votes for Clinton were illegal votes.
We need a little background to understand his actions.
Trump planned for years what he was going to do if he lost the 2020 election. He made plans so that no matter what happens in the election, it will be looked upon by his followers—and himself— that he won. If he had won, he would have claimed that all his talk of illegal votes is what caused the election to be fair and legitimate. If he had lost, he would have claimed that the election was illegal, and he really won—which is exactly what he did.
Laying Out the Groundwork in Case He Loses the Election
Trump is a con man—and what all con men do is they always lay out the groundwork ahead of time for their con, so that they will be believed when the time comes. In other words, he created a “win-win” situation for himself. And Trump knows he has to portray himself as though he sincerely believes he won the election.
He laid out this groundwork for at least four years. You could say it started right after his election in 2016 when he claimed that he won the popular vote, which Clinton won by more than three million votes. Trump’s claim was that the voting was fraudulent and that millions illegally voted for Clinton—and that he actually won by several million. He never backed off this claim. He promoted this theme for the next four years, increasing his claims of illegal voting right up to the 2020 election. His main motivation? He didn’t want to live the rest of his life being labeled a loser.
The master con man at work. Trump’s followers believe he won the election.
Insurance So It Looks Like He Won the Election
The entire scheme was insurance. Insurance that if he lost, he could make the claim that he won, and his “True-Believer” followers—the 5th Avenue voters—would believe whatever he says without question. How better to ensure that your followers will continue to support you—and do so for the rest of your life? Plus, you can claim—for the rest of your life—that you actually won because your followers will believe there was cheating in the counting, that there were voting machines that were rigged and, on top of that, there were millions of illegal voters—all of which voted for Clinton.
Trump smiling as his followers cheer for him. They believe him when he says he won the election, even thought the only proof he offered is that he said it was so. That’s enough for his followers.
In other words, Trump was setting the stage that no matter what happened, he wins the election—regardless of whether he legally and formally no longer holds the office. Since the results came in from the 2020 election, he has been stalling, working behind the scenes to bolster up this claim that he really one. He’d been working on the plan for the last few years. All he had to do was continue to make his false claims.
Trump Insults His Followers — the Fifth-Avenue Voter
Trump doesn’t like to govern. He leaves that to others around him. As president, he did what he always does: he talks (and that includes “talking” on Twitter). He believes he can talk his way into or out of any situation. He seeks power and if he can’t have it the way he wants it—which he couldn’t get as President because of the limitations of the office—he’ll take it in another way: By having a following of die-hard, cult-like followers who will support him no matter what he says and does. He called them out in January 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa. Trump then stated, “You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.” The audience laughed, even though he had just insulted them by suggesting that they are blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what. They didn’t care—and they knew it was true, anyway. Essentially, he was right; His followers to this day have followed him—like blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what—the “fifth-avenue voters.”
Donald Trump claims he won the election, knowing that he lost. His people believe he won.
After the Election Trump fervently Continued the Claim That he Won the Election — Why?
Trump knew, if people were to believe his claim, that he must continue after the election to fight to the end that he actually won. Otherwise, his supporters would never believe he really believed it. If he were to just accept his loss and move on, it would be like admitting he was wrong all along. After all, if there really was cheating in the election to elect the President of the United States, and the person who lost actually won, that would be the crime of the century. The loser would have to fight to the end to prove his credibility. And that’s exactly what Trump did—and continues to do. He will make this claim as long as he is alive. Does anyone really believe that he will ever call himself a loser? And what has he got to lose by promoting this lie forever? He has his 5th-Avenue voters who believe whatever he says. And the thing is, his strategy has worked. People fell for the con. They all drank the Kool-Aid and will be his supporters—even if it kills them—until they day they die.
What Trump Really Likes
He likes to be at the head of a crowd that adores him and cheers him on as the greatest leader and solver of all problems; “only he can fix it.” He loves an adoring crowd more than anything—more than being President. I don’t believe he likes being President as much as he likes being able to draw a crowd that adores him. It’s really no work. Being President requires work. When he goes before a crowd, he never really says anything of substance. When he is on the stage, he just claps his hands for himself, talks about how popular he is and criticizes others. When he reads a teleprompter—the closest thing to him making a speech—it’s obvious it was written by someone else. If he runs for President again, it will not be serious, it will be a façade. He’ll do it to promote himself and his following. He’ll make it look like he is running, so that the crowd will get excited. He might use the excuse that it’s rigged, and that he won’t run under those conditions.*
He’ll hold rallies and make speeches, clapping for himself when he has nothing to say to his adoring followers. And Trump will continue to claim he won the 2020 election and that he is really the legitimate president. He’ll claim he won until his last breath. With such fervent dedication, Trump will continue to lead people to believe that he won the election.
One thing is for certain: He will not, under any circumstance, take the chance that he might lose another election, which means he will not really run. He’ll pretend he’s running.
And the fifth-avenue voters will continue to give him money to pay for it all—and enough to put lots of money in his pocket.
************************
* UPDATE (August 30, 2022): Facing a threat of an indictment—and possible conviction—for stealing classified documents that belong to the people (or at the least, conviction for obstruction of justice), Trump could find an opportunity to possibly blame a conviction on his inability to run for President in 2024, because if he is convicted, he will not be allowed to run. And I believe he will not run under any circumstance. He will pretend to run and then either never announce it officially or withdraw for some made-up reason. But he will not take the chance of being a loser for the third time—and his main goal is still the same: he does not want to spend the rest of his life known as a loser.
He could get a conviction without any jailtime, since others, General Petraeus being a good example, have taken classified documents, were convicted and never faced jail time. Petraeus was convicted of mishandling classified information and was just fined, along with two years probation—after pleading guilty. But Trump might have to plead guilty to stay out of jail, like Petraeus did—and Trump will have a real problem ever admitting guilt.
Trump doesn’t want to be President, he just wants the power he yields over people who follow him blindly. The possibility of him trying to run for President and not being able to because of a legal reason, ie, he’s been convicted, or even just indicted, gives him a great opportunity. It will be a perfect situation for him; he can claim for the rest of his life that he won and was not allowed to run for President because people knew he would win and it’s all a political persecution. If it happens, It’s almost as though he couldn’t have planned it out better.
The short answer to why we must end the two party system and grow a third party is to quit the extreme division which is down to a 50-50 split in the country. Our current situation is the inevitable outcome of the American political system, which ensures there will never be a strong third party—the existence of which would be a powerful incentive for compromise.
We need more political parties to promote compromise — and this is how we build them
Is having only two parties representative of what life is like? Are their only two groups of people who believe in only two different ways to run the world, or a country? No, there are many views on how a country is run, and none of them are perfect. That includes the two-party system, which creates the us-or-them mentality. Having only two parties is like having only two judges, when you need a third judge to make judgments decisive—and compromising. Do people want a third party, or a fourth or a fifth—or several? In recent years there has been a growing desire for a third party as more and more people register as independents. Three parties would be many times superior to two parties—more than three would be even better. If we don’t end the two-party system, America’s divisiveness will grow and nothing will stop that. All this talk about we need to just get along is a waste of energy, because that’s not how things change.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” — Buckminster Fuller
In simpler terms: If you change the environment, people change.
Why do Third Parties in America Never Succeed?
“There will never be a viable third party in America unless we have runoff elections.”
As long as we do not have runoff elections, we will never have a viable third party—or, for that matter, several parties. Right now, in almost every place in the United States—and certainly in the presidential election—the candidate who wins is the one who gets a plurality of the vote—which means whoever gets the most votes (even if it’s not the majority of votes). This means that if their are three candidates in three different parties and one gets 49%, another gets 48%, and another gets 3%, the one with 49% wins—which means the victor is elected by a minority! It would also hold true if one got 34%, another got 33% and another got 32%, the winner would be the candidate with 34%—a minority, and a small one at that. Rule by the minority is dictatorship* Rule by majority is democracy.
Even with a third party, without runoff elections, a small minority can win. In the above example where one party received 3% of the vote, if there was a runoff, there would be another election with just the two top candidates and both of the two main parties would be talking compromise with that third party in order to win the runoff. This gives the third party great power, but the real result is there was compromise. Of course without the runoff, the winning candidate would be elected with a minority of the votes.
We need more choices than just Democrat or Republican
A Nation Divided in Two
The current plurality system is a bad system—and that’s the reason there are only two parties in this country. Again, it’s us or them. It is the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s truly a nation divided in two. How many parties does a nation of 331 million people need? At least three, maybe a few more, but one thing is for certain: dividing us all into just two parties is wrong—and stupid. We must end the two party system.
In many elections, I voted for my candidate of choice for only one reason: He was the best of only two choices and I didn’t like the two choices very much. Or should I say, I voted for the candidate who I disliked the least. Yes, there are periodically a few small political parties with good candidates, but if I voted for one of them, because of the plurality system of electing, I would probably be taking a vote away from the candidate I liked most of the two big parties, and I would be helping to elect the candidate I liked least.
Under those conditions, a third party will never grow. Most people will wise up to this, but not all. Some people will think they are moving forward by voting for a third party because that’s what they believe in. Those people don’t believe in compromise, which is the cornerstone of democracy. But with runoff elections, a third party (or several) can grow—and quickly and easily. Probably in one cycle.
How Runoff Elections Will Grow More Parties
With runoff elections, where getting more than 50 percent of the vote decides the winner, a third party can force an election into a runoff and this gives power to the third party. Candidates from the two big parties will have to compromise with the third party to win—and compromise is the essence of a democratic republic. With a runoff election, a voter has real power by voting for a third party, because the people will realize that if enough vote for a third candidate (even if he is an independent and not a member of a political party), then the election will automatically go into a runoff. This gives each person who votes much greater power—and a great incentive to vote, increasing the number of people who will vote—as their vote will really matter.
The Electoral College — Time to End a Bad Idea
In the U.S., we have state and local elections, and a national election for the President (and Vice President). Because of the Electoral College, the national election system is broken. In the 2000 election and in the 2016 election, the President was elected by the Electoral College—without winning the popular vote. That should be proof enough for all those who believe in democracy to end the Electoral College. In both elections we had a President who was elected with a minority of the vote. One went to war, which cost trillions and tens of thousands of dead. The other President ruled in a dictatorial manner, often proclaiming his powers were unlimited, a true failure in democracy. Without getting rid of the Electoral College, we cannot have runoff elections for the Presidency—and these two examples are proof that we need a President elected by the will of the people.
How Would Three or More Parties Govern in Congress?
With only two parties, one on the “political right” and one on the “political left,” those who want to compromise on the passage of a law have no choice if they don’t agree with the majority of their party. This happens constantly in the current system with both parties. With a third more “centrist” party, many in both parties will join the third party and both of the major parties will have to compromise with a third party to get anything passed.
There could even be two centrist parties, but no matter what, the power structure that the two parties currently enjoy will be broken down and laws will pass on compromise. The era of two parties—”us or them”—will end. And the people will see that the centrist parties have power and they will be even more likely to grow. Even if we had a very small, more centrist, third party of just three congressional members, the two main parties would fight to compromise with it because a majority must be reached to pass a law. That will cause more growth of a third party—or even more parties. Members will start talking to other party members to gain their support. Candidates who don’t understand the value of compromise, will not be elected—unless they get voted in as members of extreme parties. But even in that situation, other parties will have to compromise with the extreme parties.
The End of “Across the Aisle”
Ending the two party system will also mean that the two chambers of congress will end the division in seating, from two groups—where currently the two parties talk about each other as those “across the aisle”—to at least three groups (if not more). How stupid is that? Members of different parties will then be sitting on the same side of the “aisle.” God forbid! But it’s either that, or redesign and rebuild the seating layout in both houses—maybe add more aisles. That would be a good thing.
As long as we have only two parties in the United States, the divisiveness will grow and kill the country. There is a lot of talk that everyone’s attitude needs to change. Well—duhhh! Many have been saying that for decades. But that will not happen by just hoping it happens, or even working at it. We must change the system. And the sooner the better. End the two party system before it’s too late.
*********
* Dictatorship is often thought of as one person being a dictator. But all dictators have the support of a large segment of the population when they come to power. All dictators come to power because of that support. Sometimes dictators come to power with a majority of the vote and that would be the dictatorship of the majority (which can also happen in a democracy), but constitutions are set up to protect the rights of the minority, the U.S. Constitution, being a prime example of one. But all political conflicts are about the rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. That’s where the political arena is.
Are the real job creators the top 1 Percent or the 99 percent? Turn on CNBC—the NBC business channel. You can be pretty sure that just about everyone you see who works for the channel makes an annual salary at least in the six figures (and that includes all the benefits). You can also be assured that the majority of those they interview are certainly making annual incomes in six figures and many in seven figures—and a few in eight figures (or more) The last item means $10-million and up. And how much of the wealth in the U.S. does the top 1 percent have? Don’t change the channel just yet. Watch it for a while. You will see that all they talk about is what company is succeeding, which is failing, who’s paying dividends, what the stock is doing, who’s making money, going broke—or whatever. It’s all about the rise and fall, and the failure and success of business.
As you watch all this, keep one thing in mind. All these people and all these businesses they are all talking about—they are all dependent on one central fact: Everything is dependent on whether the public will buy the products and services of these companies. And the public is the great majority of people out there. Some might call them the 99 percent. Others might call them the masses, and others might call them the majority. And if it’s just the majority, it’s far beyond 51 percent. If it’s not the 99 percent, it most certainly is the 90 percent.
That’s right, the success and failure of all these businesses is dependent on the consumer buying the products and services these companies provide. Without that consumer, the companies are nothing.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s call them the 99 percent, even though it is probably just the 90 percent (we are generalizing). Plus, 99 percent has a nice ring to it.
That leaves the one percent. Who needs who?
What Would Happen if the One Percent Disappeared?
Suppose that by some magic wave of a wand, the one percent just disappeared. What would happen? Certainly, a new one percent would arise out of the 99 percent. And life and business would go on. There would be many bumps and hardships, but life would go on.
Now suppose that the 99 percent disappeared by that wave of a wand. What would the one percent do? They would lose everything they have. Money would inflate to being worthless. Even gold and diamonds would be close to worthless, as their value is also based on demand. Everything would come to a temporary stop and those who own cars, airplanes, boats—everything requiring fuel would grind to a halt.
It doesn’t take much of an explanation for everyone to see that the world would come to a halt. And one thing is for sure: If the one percent disappears, a new one percent will arise from the 99 percent. But if the 99 percent disappear, there is no new 99 percent that will rise up out of the one percent. The one percent will be screwed.
So—who needs who?
The one percent—along with many of the 99 percent who have been fooled—believe they are invaluable and irreplaceable—that they are the engine of the world and they make things happen, and without them, the 99 percent would be in trouble. This group, this one percent, calls everyone else the employees who work for them. In their minds, the 99 percent are employees who would be nothing without these “captains of industry” who really make the world go around and drive the economic engine that keeps the 99 percent employed. And without the one percent, this 99 percent would be unemployed and starving—without homes, cars, TVs, computers—the whole deal. This one percent even tells everyone that they pay all the taxes and most of the 99 percent don’t pay a thing—that even the government is financed by the one percent and without them, the government would fail.
Who Really Pays the Taxes and Who are the Job Creators
But really, who pays the taxes, and where does the one percent get their money to pay the taxes? They get it the same way they get everything the one percent has; by selling products and services to the consumer—the 99 percent. Every single penny the one percent pays in taxes comes from the consumer goods and services they sell, which means that the consumer pays 99 percent of the taxes, even if they pay nothing in income tax directly themselves. For without the consumer, there would be no money to pay the government.
Why tax the rich? Because that’s where the money is.
Even the unemployed person on welfare or unemployment, who gets his money from the government, buys the products from the one percent business owner, who takes that money and puts some in his pocket and puts some into the taxes that pay for that unemployed person so he can buy products. Even in that case, the one percent profit from the government they give taxes to. But without that unemployed person, the one percenter would not be able to sell products and profit from it. The one percenter takes the money from the government in more ways the one—and always makes a profit from it.
So—who are the job creators? The one percent has many people who believe they are, but they forget one thing: The 99 percent are the consumers and the consumers are the real engine. Remember the CNBC show? It’s all about people discussing the businesses of the world who are all dependent on that one important fact: Will the public buy the products and services these businesses offer?
It’s obvious who the job creators are. The one percent are there only because the 99 percent put them there and kept them there and gave them wealth. Without the 99 percent, there is no wealth. All wealth comes from the masses of people. One person cannot become wealthy by himself. He needs to make money off others. If they all trade equally, then everyone will have equal wealth. Only when one person sells something to a LOT of people can he start to gain real wealth, but without large numbers of people, he cannot gain any wealth. He needs the masses of people and all wealth comes from the masses.
It’s the 99 percent who are the job creators, yet the one percent have them hornswoggled into believing that the 99 percent need them absolutely, while in reality, it’s the one percent who need the 99 percent absolutely.
Does the 99 percent need the one percent? Absolutely, but the one percent always emerges out of the 99 percent and there is always a continuous supply, making the one percent expendable. But without the consuming demand of the majority, the masses of people, there will be no wealth. Kill the consumption, the demand, and it all falls apart.
So, why doesn’t the one percent know this? Aren’t they smart enough to understand this reality? Of course, but after awhile, when they see themselves as having gained so much wealth, wielding power as employers, and controlling so many with the power of the purse, they begin to believe they really are superior, just like the royal ruling classes of the past—they start to believe that everyone else is there to serve them.
Who Really has the Power? The One Percent or the 99 Percent?
What’s most amazing of all is that, in a democracy, the 99 percent really have the power, yet they so often give it freely to the one percent and let them rule. A great number of the 99 percent go along with this belief that the one percent are superior and they are job creators. And very often, the majority of the 99 percent believe this, which means that the one percent get away with it. Essentially, the real reason the 99 percent allow the one percent to lead them around by the ring they have in their nose is because for thousands of years in human history, a small number of people have been telling the majority of the people that the small number are superior—and it’s hard to break old habits that have become traditions engrained deeply in human culture. Even democracy, which is where the masses have the power to rule, has not yet won it’s rightful place in humankind—not yet.
But a distinction of importance has arisen. The real question is: Who are the real job creators? Those are the ones who create jobs that enable them to consume most of the products and services that they produce themselves. And if they can’t, then they are not real jobs. The one percent are certainly job creators, but until the 99 percent demands it, they will not be real jobs. They will just be jobs—just basic employment.
This is what the United States had for a few decades after World War II, when the majority ran the country and the one percent at the top, who did not have such great concentration of wealth, had to live with what the majority wanted—until the world began to change and the one percent slowly gained a greater share of the wealth and started running the country.
What happened? The majority of the 99 percent became hornswoggled by the one percent, and the one percent realized they don’t need the 99 percent in America anymore. They can now hire and sell to the 99 percent of the rest of the world. There are more people out there to consume—and they are very cheap to hire. The 99 percent in America only need jobs, but real jobs aren’t necessary anymore.
To create real jobs is going to require that the majority of the 99 percent do their job and create them.
And if you don’t believe these facts, the next time you want to open a store—or build a bridge—go to a deserted island and see how far you get.
A 1 percent job creator on an island has no demand to open a store
The answer is very simple: Everyone in America pays income taxes. How can that be?
Everyone—except for those small children who have not yet grown tall enough to reach up to the counter and hand a clerk some money—pays income taxes in America. That’s because every penny of income tax paid by the president of a huge corporation all the way down to the income tax paid by the employees of that corporation—and even the sole proprietor in a small business—comes from the sale of goods and services that the business provides. If someone buys a pack of gum for 25 cents, a portion of that money will go to pay the income tax of the president of the corporation or business that produced it. The money doesn’t come from any other source, not one penny of it.
In the 2008 election campaign, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that “47 percent of Americans don’t pay income tax.” He failed to mention that all those who do pay income tax directly get the money to pay the income tax from the public, meaning the consumer, and that 47 percent help pay those taxes. (I guess we could say that people that steal everything they have don’t even contribute to paying those taxes, but let’s not be stupid.)
Romney’s comments brings the issue of who pays the taxes to the forefront, but they also intensify the debate about income inequality in America. I find it hard to believe that people hear how few people pay income taxes directly in this country and blame those who don’t, instead of seeing the problem as the canary in the coal mine. If so few people are paying income taxes, then shouldn’t we all wonder why there are so many people who are making such a small amount of money that they can’t afford to even make enough to qualify to pay income taxes, directly? That alone is a problem, but the truth behind what Romney says goes deeper than that and makes the situation even worse.
The Wealthy Think They Pay all The Income Taxes in America
What kind of country do we have when one of the two political parties in the country puts forth a candidate who talks about 47 percent of the people as though they are the commoners and the rest are the ruling class who take care of and support those commoners? (Romney speech 2012 campaign) And he did so in a speech to others who belong to this supposed ruling class and are paying $25,000 for a dinner to listen to this fellow member of that class? Isn’t that what existed before the revolution of 1776 when America revolted against the old European system of a ruling class of royalty? Does the Republican Party really believe that they represent the founding fathers whose number one goal was to end that type of society?
Although Romney’s comment that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes was entirely misleading, it also shows what Romney thinks—and what the people he was speaking to think. He didn’t just say those 47 percent don’t pay income taxes, he said they are dependent on the government, take government handouts, love government handouts and are a burden to the other 53 percent. He spoke as though the people who pay all the income taxes in the United States are the ones who contribute to the country and everyone else doesn’t contribute, but are a burden to them.
In other words, he believes that he and others are this country, finance this country and have rights to rule this country over that 47 percent—all he has to do is persuade a small percentage of people to bring him over the 50 percent mark to vote for him and he’ll be president. Even if he loses, he will continue to believe that 47 percent of the people are inferior and a burden to the rest.
In that 47 percent figure that Romney threw out, about 10 percent are older people who live only off Social Security and pay no income taxes. That’s besides the fact that these people worked all their lives and helped pay all taxes by being consumers. They also take that Social Security income and buy goods and services. That money trickles up to the top of the corporate world and goes to paying the income taxes who people Romney claim are the ones totally responsible for all the income tax paid in America. He speaks as though they got that income from some magical source that didn’t include the consumers. Who does he think he is?
Does America Have a Ruling Class of Wealthy People?
The problem with people who think like Romney is that they believe that all wealth and income comes from those with the most money and everyone else is there to serve them. They promote the idea of supply and demand and free enterprise, but say it is really a supply-side situation and that all money will trickle down from the top to those at the bottom—meaning those who supply the demand, meaning the consumers. But they won’t use the term trickle down because it sounds so bad, so they say supply-side economics is what makes the world go around perfectly. They are so blinded by this belief of superiority that they even have many of the consumers believing it, while in reality it is a supply anddemand system that drives free enterprise to thrive, where both trickle up and trickle down create a healthy and vibrant economy, not just trickle down.
Everyone pays income taxes in America. It’s just that some don’t do so directly, through the tax form. But everyone who does pay income taxes through a tax form gets every penny they make to pay those taxes from those who give them the money. And that includes all of the 47 percent, along with all of the 53 percent.
And the Democrats let the Republicans get away with this baseless claim.
Walking Naturally You Connect to the Ground with Two Points; With Poles It’s Four Points
The problem is that when a hiker with poles is ready to make a steep step down [a rocky trail], instead of using their body’s leg strength and natural balancing ability, they use the poles. When people walk without poles, they only have to find two points to connect to the ground: their two legs. With poles, they have to find four points, and two of those points are going to take some of the body’s weight, even most of it at times. This is one way that causes them [hikers with poles] to go slower.
All our lives, we learn to walk with two contact points to the ground. Then poles come along and make it four. You couldn’t design a more confusing way to screw up the walking and balancing habits that come from [a lifetime of] walking and from evolution. At some point, the body can’t go back to the normal way of walking; it’s too late.
With only two parties, one on the “political right” and one on the “political left,” those who want to compromise on the passage of a law have no choice if they don’t agree with the majority of their party. This happens constantly in the current system with both parties. With a third more “centrist” party, many in both parties will join the third party and both of the major parties will have to compromise with a third party to get anything passed.
It doesn’t take much of an explanation for everyone to see that the world would come to a halt. And one thing is for sure: If the one percent disappears, a new one percent will arise from the 99 percent. But if the 99 percent disappear, there is no new 99 percent that will rise up out of the one percent. The one percent will be screwed.
Everyone—except for those small children who have not yet grown tall enough to reach up to the counter and hand a clerk some money—pays income taxes in America. That’s because every penny of income tax paid by the president of a huge corporation all the way down to the income tax paid by the employees of that corporation—and even the sole proprietor in a small business—comes from the sale of goods and services that the business provides. If someone buys a pack of gum for 25 cents, a portion of that money will go to pay the income tax of the president of the corporation or business that produced it. The money doesn’t come from any other source, not one penny of it.
Although Romney’s comment that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes was entirely misleading, it also shows what Romney thinks—and what the people he was speaking to think. He didn’t just say those 47 percent don’t pay income taxes, he said they are dependent on the government, take government handouts, love government handouts and are a burden to the other 53 percent. He spoke as though the people who pay all the income taxes in the United States are the ones who contribute to the country and everyone else doesn’t contribute, but are a burden to them.