William Thien

Posts Tagged ‘conservatism

One of the reasons the media try so desperately to label mass shooters as “psychologically unstable” following a mass shooting is that in doing so the system itself to which the media represent, the government and the corporations which advertise using the media, avoid being labeled as well, avoid being labeled as perhaps repressive, oppressive, inefficient, bloated, parasitic, socialist, communist, what have you.

No one would dispute that there has been a recent increase in mass shootings. At least on the face of things it would seem that the number of shootings has increased. Does this mean that there is a direct correlation with an increase in government oppression or repression or any other such indication? Because the weapons used to commit those mass shootings have been around for some time and available to the public all the while. The weapons have been around much longer than the recent increase in mass shootings to be sure.

With the implementation of such legislation as The Patriot Act and the steady increases in the numbers of law enforcement (nothing wrong with law enforcement, just making a point), the historical expansion of the surveillance state, the cameras everywhere you go, the monitoring of internet activity both by the government and corporations who shove tailored sales pitches at you while on the internet and then chase you up and down the road with advertisements, I think that it is quite possible there is a generalized public reaction to these changes, to the expansion of the surveillance and media state, to the “by definition” increase in government AND corporate oppression as defined by the increased, smothering government presence in many communities and in the increases in taxes to cover the costs of such expanded government behavior. Are we seeing the beginnings of a mass public attempt to shake it all off? To a certain extent, I think we are.

In other words, smothered by this new surveillance state it is hard to catch a breath of the fresh air of freedom in this so-called land of the free!

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

One of the problems with terrorism on US soil is that the media suffers from some form of cognitive disability and fixates almost entirely on that subject and avoids serious issues on the domestic front, which may be the reason terrorists have been successful in the first place.

The focus of the entire debate on terrorism was a great disservice to the viewer. There are significant issues other than terrorism that need to be covered.

Questions only focusing on terrorism lead to hawkish political bluster and discussions centering on the encroachment of the civil rights of Americans. What we saw was the FEAR FRONT, a component of the media business plan to “keep them inside watching the television.”

The way to combat that is simply to turn the television off and leave it off and tell your friends and family to do the same.

Perhaps there should be legislation that such debates cannot focus entirely on one issue and must cover at least three subjects of significance to the public.

I was disappointed in the outcome of the debate and I probably won’t watch another debate, Republican or Democrat, if the media panel demonstrates such methods once again.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

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.

One of the economic side effects of this age of ultra-low interest rates we have seen for the last decade or more is that due to the cost of money being so low, inflation has been artificially stimulated for an extended period of time. As a result, the price of homes for example has been dramatically elevated way beyond their true value where were we in a normal economy subject to normal market forces, the median price of a home would not be so elevated.

This creates a dilemma for the regular homeowner making just the normal monthly payment on their home. As soon as the FED begins raising interest rates, even the slightest amount, unless a home owner has been making extra payments on their house, chances are most Americans making only the monthly mortgage payment and nothing more will almost immediately be upside down when it comes to the value of their house in relation to the cost of their mortgage. In other words, their house will be worth less, in many cases much less than what they owe on their mortgage.

The FED is making things worse by stimulating inflation for extended periods of time, way beyond what is necessary and in doing so potentially creating another bubble. This happened before with Alan Greenspan which lead to the 2008 bubble and it now appears to be a cyclical behavior on the part of the FED.

Which raises the question, “Has the FED become a financial ‘bubble machine?'”

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.

I was surprised to hear that once again the FED did not raise interest rates yesterday. The reasoning given was the same as it has been for the last seven years, that the FED is waiting for more indications the economy is on the mend.

I should think that unemployment being lower than prior to the real estate bubble bursting and in many places lower than five percent for some time now and that the stock markets are seeing record performance for some time should be all they need to raise rates but they keep putting it off. I think the fear is that Janet Yellen, the FED Chairman, does not want to be the bad guy who says the party is over by raising interest rates. I truly believe that is the primary motive for not raising rates. I can’t say I blame her. Who’d want that job? Yet, with interest rates as low as they have been for this long, there is a certain economic party going on in this country and not everyone is invited. Economic performance has been stellar since the age of low interest rates.

You might ask, “Why raise rates if low rates have led to such incredible economic performance?” And I might agree. But there are a number of reasons to raise rates which have nothing to do with greed.

For one, low interest rates, as low as they are today and have been for some time, such low rates dramatically stimulate inflation, particularly inflation in such areas as the housing market where what once just a few years ago would buy you a nice little house in a quiet neighborhood merely gets you a ramshackle shed by the railroad tracks with cellophane on the windows today.

When once you could purchase a new compact car for a few grand now requires twenty or more. The price of many items purchased by families has now doubled or tripled just since 2008 yet median incomes for families have been trending downward. Like I said, there is a party going on in The United States and not everyone is invited.

Now if you are seeing a corresponding increase in pay such as a commensurate cost of living increase, one that ACTUALLY CORRESPONDS with inflation, things may not seem so bad. But for the majority of Americans that is not happening and if you are on a fixed income or are not seeing a pay increase (very common), such as the elderly or military personnel for example, constant increases in inflation put a sizable dent in your way of life. You find you are using credit cards more or going without, which for some might even mean going without decent food. Have you seen the price of hamburger lately? And eggs? Supposedly there is a shortage of eggs but when I visit the market the shelves look crammed pretty well with eggs. It’s just that the price has tripled because, well, there is a shortage of those eggs crammed onto the shelves at the market.

I have written previously that another reason interest rates are being kept so low is that we reside in a political climate that forbids talk of tax increases, and rightfully so. The country has become almost entirely socialized and taxes are being blown for example on women having sex out-of-wedlock and getting pregnant to the tune of 50 plus percent. That’s right, last year more than fifty percent of babies were born to single mothers. Fifty percent! All of those women can’t raise children without the aid of the government. The country has almost been entirely socialized and women having children out-of-wedlock are a large source of the problem. I hate to to say it, but women in American are the primary drivers of socialism. All of that talk about feminine independence to come from the sixties and seventies is a bunch of hormonal malarkey. After all, women are going to have to police their own behavior. Men are not allowed to say anything about feminist collectivism. If they do, they are branded as sexist. Feminism has become a collective ball and chain clamped upon the ankle of the American taxpayer.

I call that portion of the economy the “fuck and suck economy” (you can read my entire blog by scrolling down on the right side and that particular observation will become visible). The f and S economy is huge with single women sloughing around fornicating in front of the television and buying the products proffered to them to get their government benefit payment monies. Politicians are afraid to go after that portion of the economy because the television will crucify them. Such political encroachment on one of the largest and most lucrative media markets, the daytime f and s market will kill a large portion of television revenues. It’s funny that the television media are some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America yet they always appear to be socialist when such issues arise. It’s funny strange, not funny ha-ha.

That being said, one way to increase tax revenues is to raise the price of things. When you raise the price of things, which is what happens when you stimulate inflation through low-interest rates, you get more in sales tax revenues and in the case of real estate, more property tax revenues. So, it may not be just that Janet Yellen does not want to be the bad guy and say the party is over by raising rates; stimulating inflation in this political climate may be the only way to achieve certain levels of sales tax revenue.

Nevertheless, stimulating inflation so that large, responsible segments of your own population suffer is poor policy while others reap benefits for having sex out-of-wedlock for example, particularly when such taxing maneuvers directly affect those who serve the country and those who have paid taxes through and until retirement and have controlled their sexual conduct.

I am thinking it is time to raise interest rates or provide corresponding, real cost of living increases across the board. Interest rates don’t have to go up five percent or ten percent. Have you noticed how everyone waits with bated breath for the FED to announce an increase in interest rates, even just a quarter of a percent? OMG! A quarter of a percent! Then, when the FED announces no interest rate hikes, there is a “collective” (yes, I think much of Wall Street and corporate America has become socialist lining up at the government trough and that is how I use that word “collective”) sigh of relief. Bring interest rates up a percent or two or three at the most and you may see a significant change in the price structure of most things in this country. For those on fixed incomes, it could be just what they need.

The question arises, “Which is easier, raise interest rates a bit or give everyone a cost of living increase?” I think you know the answer to that question.

I don’t mean to crash anyone’s party. Hold it, am I crashing the party? Or, who is crashing whose party? I think you know the answer to that question as well.

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.

In the past I have written that there is one very effective way to make a decision about a candidate if you are having trouble picking one at the ballot box and that is to consider the candidate’s wife beforehand. Politics, they say, makes for strange bedfellows. Naturally then a candidate’s spouse can have a direct influence on the decisions an elected official makes, if they share the same bed that is.

But we have entered into a new age of politics in America where we can expect during the next presidential election to see multiple lady candidates, from both parties no less, and that means instead of considering the candidate’s wife, you might want to look into the candidate’s husband this time if you are having trouble picking a candidate at the ballot box.

I know I’ve been saying we need to talk about someone else as conservatives, but what does that mean for Hillary Clinton?

AND

That means we’d have two presidents sleeping in the same bed at the same time. In that case politics really does make for strange bedfellows, you could say.

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! 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.


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

Find by month

Find by date

April 2018
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: