William Thien

Archive for the ‘Social Safety Net’ Category

You know that socialism has become a burden upon society when simply questioning its extent or referencing its cost to the tax payer becomes suspect behavior or is forbidden by the establishment.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Advertisements

I have written about and we hear more and more now about how extensive socialism is in The United States yet we supposedly live in a free-market economy.

But in reality we don’t completely realize how extensively socialized the country really is.

Well, how extensively socialist is The US, Bill?

Without socialism our supposedly “free-market” economy would collapse overnight.

What? What the heeall is you talking about, Bill?

Well, take rent assistance for example, a socialist program which at first seems designed to keep people off of the streets and with a roof over their heads. But in reality what rent assistance does is prop up apartment rental prices. Rent assistance favors the land owner more than it favors the renter by elevating the value of property and keeping it occupied.

How about food stamps then, Bill? That’s socialism!

Well, food stamps do the same for the price of food that you purchase in the marketplace or at restaurants. Funny thing is, many places that accept food stamps or nutrition assistance funds also employ large numbers of people on food stamps. Take Wal-Mart, for example. A recent Forbes article attributes $6.2 Billion in food stamps and other public assistance to Walmart employees. McDonald’s (something I just discovered when reading the article this morning) and other large restaurant chains account for nearly $7 Billion during the same period. That’s right. If you patronize those establishments, you support the same system which enlarges the socialist state.

But it doesn’t stop there. There are hundreds of food stamp programs in the US. There are just as many other social programs, a large number of them designed to support women having children out-of-wedlock which likely accounts for the largest outlay in dollars for socialist programs.

This is my own observation but without all of these programs the so-called “free market” economy in the U.S. would collapse as prices would fall dramatically and profit margins would vanish. What are considered social programs here in The U.S. have the exact same effect as “price controls,” just on the upside as in a stimulus this time, in a completely socialized country.

Is there a way around or out of this economic condition? Yes, as I was the first to suggest, instead of simply canceling all of the social welfare programs, gradually reduce the outlay over a five or ten-year period by a certain percentage every year, thereby the shock to the beneficiaries of the socialist system by canceling funds immediately.

If in a particular urban area, for example, you cancel rent assistance programs, property values would plummet overnight.

The same is true for food prices if you cancel food stamps.

I’m not saying either is a bad thing, but it explains a lot.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

 

 

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#64ae47d97cd8

 

I scored the debate this way: Bush and Rubio-1st place; Carson, Cristie, Cruz, Kasich, Trump-2nd Place.

There was a lot less energy in this debate. The candidates seem burned out a bit, except for Bush and Rubio, who came on fairly strong.

Why did I move Bush and Rubio in to first place?

The moderators began the debate with a statement that they were going to focus the debate questions on “what the American people” want to hear about, which of course was a presumption designed to control the debate and lead the candidates away from the reality of that truth. They were the same questions as during the last debate really, nothing new there, a waste of time in that regard.

The moderators said debate was to be about ISIS, race relations, and so forth. What the moderators really should have said is that these subjects are “sensational” and so we are going to focus the debate on them even though there are more pressing concerns such as the massive class of people now benefiting from the socialist system but not ever contributing to the socialist system (but of course that class of people are sitting home watching television all of the time and so the moderators are not going to go there with questions because it would mean a threat to one of their largest audiences, daytime television).

Bush attempted to bring that very subject up and the moderator quickly changed the subject back to terrorism. (Bush received 25 points for that attempt). It shows he has some intestinal fortitude (guts). That moved him in to first place right away. This is knock down, knockout stuff on my score card, ladies and gentlemen. It’s the stuff the candidates are all afraid to talk about because they know the media is protective of the big fat double udder cash cow called socialism to which many of their sponsors and advertisers (drug companies, fast food, you name it) tap into.

Rubio commented several times that the current administration “knows what they are doing” to the replies of several on stage that said the current administration is clueless. I side with Rubio on that matter. The current administration is quite efficient at achieving the outcomes it desires. We can see this in the advent of landmark legislation such as The Affordable Care Act and other such changes to national law. Rubio did not say “the current administration is doing the wrong thing,” what he suggested is that the current administration knows what they are doing when it comes to getting what they want. To me this suggests Rubio has the ability to analyze and explain the political behaviors of his competition and those who disagree with him on that point may not or may in fact be covering for the competition as politicians often do because, well, they are politicians and many are professional party straddlers. 25 points goes to Rubio as well. 1st place at that point and tied with Bush.

Carson, Christie, Cruz, and Kasich seemed to be playing a secondary role, attempting to focus their energy on another candidate on the stage, either in a support or attack role, and so I could not give them any major points for that reason.

Trump, the front-runner in New Hampshire polling, seemed distracted and wasn’t his usual abrasive self. He seemed to have lost a bit of his edge, something he himself would need because that is what the voter will be expecting of him and it may be a character attribute the country needs, a facet of his business acumen. Out of character and off message, he seemed distracted.

That’s how I scored it, ladies and gentlemen.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

My books are also available as Nook Books at Barnes and Noble.

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

As a conservative I often look for opportunities to vote for conservative candidates when it comes time to enter the ballot box. The problem is that true conservatives are often few and far between at election time.

That party of the two larger which claims to base its platform on conservative principles I’ve found often to be either in complete ignorance of true conservative principles or worse, deliberately disingenuous in its message and political activity.

Recently I blogged that a new law where I reside requires people with no children to demonstrate that they are looking for work and to enroll in a work related training program or they would be removed from eligibility to obtain food stamps. Since the program’s inception, a benefits reduction effort to get people off of social programs, participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program has dropped by 15,000 participants, 15,000 people with no children that is, and that’s great!

Hold that thought.

Going back to my original point, that true conservatives are often few and far between when it comes to election time, I want to draw your attention to two other wedge issues which that one party of the two larger continually seeks to restrict, abortion and birth control.

It is a fact that crime skyrockets when abortions are illegal or difficult to obtain. More crime necessitates more law enforcement to combat the crime. More law enforcement signifies larger government by definition. Not that I am anti-law enforcement but using pure circular logic, outlawing abortion increases the size of government by increasing the need for law enforcement, not to mention that few if any women can afford to raise a child alone from term to the age of 18 without the aid of some form of government program, which also signifies larger government.

Women that find themselves pregnant out-of-wedlock will likely require some form of government subsidy and over the last several years frequently as many as fifty percent of the babies born in America were born to single mothers. I hope you understand where I am going with this because what is happening there also signifies larger government.

Now, outlaw birth control AND abortion and you have a large social welfare problem burdening the middle classes (the very poor pay few taxes and the very wealthy know how to hide their money) which if I’m not mistaken seems to be by design, if you consider the points I’ve made previously, and that is exactly what is happening today. Sound kind of twisted? Are these sentences overly complex and lengthy? That’s because they closely parallel the structure of the social welfare programs and how they are administered.

Finally, if you require only those without children to look for work and to enroll in job training in order to maintain eligibility for such social programs, you know what that means don’t you? That will increase the numbers of those without children and who had no plans to have any children to now have children so they can be eligible for the benefits I describe. It is human nature. Human nature almost always acts to the contrary of what the government wants to see happen, almost always. Why else would close to fifty-percent of children in The U.S. be born to single mothers? Do you think all those single women suddenly said, “hey, you know what, I think I’ll just go out and get pregnant tonight for the heck of it. Why the hell not!?” Yeah, that’s what’s happening alright.

All of these actions, all of these government programs and behaviors, the drive to outlaw abortion and birth control, the requirement that only those without children look for work and take training, all of them are generally coming from that one party of the two larger which claims to be conservative and all of the programs and actions are increasing the size of government, by definition and in complete, diametric opposition to the principles of true conservatism as a result.

Kind of makes you want to look for a conservative in a different place than where they claim to be coming from, doesn’t it?

The one party to which I refer throughout this observation always seems to blame the other of the two larger parties for the dearth of social programs burdening the middle classes yet much of their legislative behavior and political rhetoric seems in complete concert.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that we shouldn’t be so quick to take what is said at face value when it comes to who is bolstering participation and the size of social programs because the one party who appears often to be blamed has in the chamber an accomplice and that accomplice sits right across the aisle.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Today I made it through the screener during a local radio talk show and found myself talking with the host on the air about food stamps, who should get them, who should not.

The host was commenting on a change to the law where I reside which requires people with no children that are receiving supplemental nutrition benefits (food stamps, SNAP, whatever) to look for work and to take job related training in order to keep receiving the benefits. He labeled the change to the program as a “model” because since its inception 15,000 people have gone off the program. Which is great!

On the air I said I agreed with his take on the program with the exception that the requirement that only people with no children comply or lose benefits was the wrong way to go about things.

The problem with only requiring people with no children to comply is that structuring the program that way only increases the number of what are traditionally called “welfare mommas,” a somewhat derogatory term I do not like to use but that describes the circumstances in the vernacular for those who might wonder what I am talking about.

Once single women who don’t want to work, or can’t find a job for that matter because during this economy that has been a problem for a lot of people, once they realize they are going to lose benefits if they don’t have any children and don’t comply, the first thing many are going to do is get pregnant. It’s human nature.

We know this is true because this isn’t the first social safety net program to have such requirements and the net effect has been to see an increase in single women having children out-of-wedlock, not just here but nationally. One does not need to initiate a scientific study of the circumstances as the devout socialists and communists would say in order to slow the benefits reduction process down in some bureaucratic diversion, the answer is right there in the sheer number of single women having children out-of-wedlock. Fifty percent! No study needed. The numbers are themselves self-evident.

The ultimate statistic that should be used to measure the effectiveness of such programs is that very fact, in this case that in the last several years close to 50 percent and some times higher than that, close to fifty percent of the babies born in The United States are born to single mothers. HALF OF ALL BABIES ARE NOW BORN TO SINGLE MOTHERS? WHY?!

Because of how these programs are structured, protecting single women with children, in fact stimulating such sex out-of-wedlock by directing benefits at them specifically and the sum total of benefits they can receive. Often the sum total of those benefits is more than what a woman who graduates from college can earn in a year. No wonder so many babies are born to single mothers.

Get rid of the distinction I have described and make all comply and the numbers of people receiving the benefits will likely go down and stay down, which is ultimately what the goal of such corrective programs is, to get the numbers on such social programs down and keep the numbers on the programs down.

I’m not just saying what others are afraid to say publicly though they agree, I’m doing the math, too and explaining what it really all means when the constabulary wants to tell us it means something else entirely. This was a conservative talk show I called in to and the corrective measures to social programs I speak of are often authored by conservative legislators. They look good to conservatives on the level, but when you take a look at the numbers, due primarily to human nature, the numbers don’t always add up.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

As I write about some of the larger robber barons and consider the plight of the middle classes, something occurs to me about those profiteers who derive most of their revenue and profit through their alignment with funds coming from government social programs, medical programs, rent support (I’m not talking about the guy who owns a few rental properties and makes a decent living, I’m talking about the massive real estate concerns), government subsidy, appropriations and seemingly on ad infinitum. It is not that there isn’t a need for such business-government relationships, but to make profound changes to the tax code and the structure of social programs, enlarging them for the very reason of increasing profit, well that raises some significant questions.

There is a distinction between those profiteers and those of us who believe in the derivation of revenue from sales and service to the public primarily. Those who derive the predominance of their revenue through alignment with funding from social programs are difficult to distinguish from authoritarian or elite socialists and in the case of those multi-billionaires and the like who profit primarily from taxes derived for government programs, that would then make them “Super-Socialists” in a sense and ultimately no different from those who profited thoroughly from any advantageous position during the time of the Soviet Union, for example. Then, it was called corruption in The Soviet Union. Today, here and in the rest of the western world, it has been mislabeled “good business practice.”

And if we are to consider the tax code and how it directly affects the middle classes unfavorably, we must not forget that there is a reason for it and people behind the tax code’s structure, people, many to which I have just enumerated by definition who lobby for this condition and align with the elected. They are what I call the “Super-Socialists.”

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

When you realize that over forty percent of children were born to single mothers over the last ten years, each and every year with the most recent topping fifty percent, you begin to wonder what is going on in our cities? You know that the larger portion of the single mothers can’t afford to bear to term and raise those children without taxpayer support. I applaud the man who stays with his family and the woman who knows enough to take birth control if she can’t afford to raise a child on her own. Given today’s tax burdens and the condition of the country’s cities, the man who stays with his family is truly a hero in a way. So is the mother. The pressures on the family to break up are tremendous today.

So what’s going on, going on primarily in our cities?

Well, this may not be what is going on, but I must admit that the first thing that comes to MY mind is a government sponsored sex party. Your money is being used to pay for women having sex out-of-wedlock and the product of that sex, the result, the raising of the children, hundreds of thousands at the very least, perhaps millions, millions born each year to single mothers on public assistance.

With numbers like forty percent of children being born out-of-wedlock, forty percent!, what is happening in our country’s cities is nothing more than a slimy, writhing, government sponsored sex orgy. And your tax dollars are paying for it.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

And buy my books. Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this! You can buy my books at Amazon.com


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

June 2019
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: