Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’
- In: 2023 Presidential Election | 2023 Republican Debate | Bailouts | Bank Bailout | Banking | Big Government | Conservative Thought | Economics | Essays and Social and Political Commentary | False Narrative | Fiscal Cliff | Fiscal Cliff | Flat Tax | Income Taxes | IRS Scandals | Political Observations | Politics | Tax Revolt | Taxes | William Thien
- Leave a Comment
Hmmn. Anyone else think the stock market is rigged?
That’s been happening quite a bit lately as they try to justify all of the banking activity and now they are talking about an autumn correction. More like an autumn theft of the population’s savings, if you ask me. Too many people have their life savings and retirement locked up in various accounts that the government penalizes them for withdrawing prior to retirement, and if you ask me that makes the government complicit in the major corrections the last couple of decades.
You can’t take your money out because there won’t be anything left due to early withdrawal penalties. The fixers know that the public is up against it and can’t do anything about it so they reap the profits in a downturn, force the downturns in fact. Just look at 2008-2009. It was widely thought it was a planned event and movies were written about it. You won’t hear anything like this in the mainstream media, though. They are either on the take or spend too much time on makeup and fashion to really know what is going on.
Time to remove early withdrawal penalties from the various retirement accounts. The government isn’t supposed to facilitate that type of activity and that’s exactly what they are doing.
Even if the public knows about such financial events they can’t do anything about it because the government has tied their hands behind their backs with unconstitutional tax law.
Time to remove early withdrawal penalties.
Copyright © William Thien 2023
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Socialism is just a way for incompetent politicians and inept political parties to get themselves elected.
Instead of offering working political solutions to social problems, socialists just offer to redistribute the country’s wealth as a means of solving social issues.
“Vote for me and I will give you the other guy’s money,” is not a political solution, it is a crutch propping up a political system that cannot stand on its own. That is why you see totalitarianism in response to political upheaval in countries that are completely socialist. The government is philosophically on its last legs in a political sense. Socialism is a governmental admission that it has no real solutions to offer.
Socialism and the offers of “social programs” are just an indication that the government is populated by the politically incompetent, unable to offer solutions to political crises without throwing the other guy’s money at the situation.
Ultimately, due to the various frailties of human nature, particularly those associated with the false sense of independence created by feminist socialism and reproduction, for example, socialism tends to amplify the problems it was meant to solve in the first place as more and more women have more and more children out-of-wedlock.
Copyright © William Thien 2023
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
An observation on cross party infiltration
Posted by: William Thien on: July 26, 2023
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve listened to a candidate and said to myself, ‘geez, he or she sounds just like a candidate from the other major party.’
It is the reason you often hear pundits comment that the two parties are not all that much different, “ideologically.”
Were I approaching the matter from an analytical perspective, perhaps say working for our The State Department and examining candidates in an election overseas, in order to understand how to approach a regime for example, I would conclude that one party has installed fake candidates in the other party to throw the election in their favor.
I think that is happening today and to support my position, I bring up the political career of Ronald Reagan. Prior to joining The Republican Party, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. “Whaaaaat,” you ask? “No,” you say.
Yep.
Reagan was also head of the largest union in Hollywood, The Screen Actors Guild, and he was considered a devout liberal. Now, I don’t confuse the work of unions with socialism. They are not the same. Though many socialists find refuge in union ideology, unions are not by definition “socialist.” Socialism involves a redistribution of wealth at the state level using tax payer dollars. Unions are aggregates of employees with common interests. There is a significant structural difference in the two. Though conservatives often say they are one and the same. They are not.
So I ask, how is it that a Democrat can completely change his political composition, his philosophical presence and shape so easily, and win the presidency after migrating from one party to another?
In Reagan’s day such political maneuvers were pretty much done on the up and up. Today, I wonder.
The key will be to determine the origin of their belief system, aside from the size of their donor base and campaign spend. Money is huge in politics. Without it, there is only one other option to win an election.
Copyright © William Thien 2023
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
An observation on a meeting with some Third Party Conservasocialists
Posted by: William Thien on: August 6, 2021
Not finding refuge from excessive taxes or restrictive laws that clearly penalize the single tax payer making him or her a “tax surrogate,” I attended a gathering of members of a third party political organization the other night at a local eatery. It was a small group, though it was only I and another person who spoke almost the entire time.
What I discovered is that even these members of a third party are rather ignorant of the very things of which they seek refuge and when I explained that my circumstances were far worse with regard to taxation, they became defensive of the benefits they receive from what is clearly an unfair tax code.
To me this indicated the lack of empathy of at least some of them and this to me also indicated that no refuge from the tax code could be found by falling in with the political party of which I speak of here.
Furthermore, there is some cross-party ideological pollination which contaminates their very political platform.
Case in point: when I brought up the fact that someone with a number of children clearly benefits more from the tax code in comparison to a single “tax surrogate” such as me, one person in particular became very defensive of the large stimulus check they received.
When I said if any stimulus is provided, it should merely be based on one payment per tax payer and children and those not paying taxes should not receive any stimulus, the response was “well maybe you don’t know what it is like to “feel the pinch” of having to pay for a family”, or something quite nearly that.
I thought this was funny for reasons beyond your immediate interest in the matter, but what was clear to me is that this person, who claimed to be a “conservative,” and who has in fact run in an election posing as one in the Republican Party, suddenly was defending socialism, the hefty stimulus check he received, and was willing to even suggest I was being callous about the system of taxation that from which he benefits rather thoroughly as a father and a family man and I do not as a single tax payer with no children. The implication was that fatherhood, or motherhood for that matter, should be taxed at a different rate than individuality.
I will not reveal the name of the third party to you but in the two times I have met with them I am disappointed at the true element that runs within them and to me it seems they are merely shills for The Republican Party with such evidence being that one of the attendees of the gathering was in fact a Republican in the recent past (2020) and began a campaign as one and had no idea what even the most obvious characteristics of socialism are, with socialism supposedly a political system that all Republicans abhor. Yet, here we see direct evidence to the contrary.
Driving home I concluded that this is the case in most circumstances. Such definitions as that of socialism are not discussed in schools with any thoroughness because in many schools today socialism is the method of operation. Furthermore, parents receive tax breaks for their children and each cost the tax payer $15,000 or more to educate, and feed, yet those with no children receive no tax break and use no such expensive services. Single tax payers are “tax surrogates.”
When I brought up the subject of a “flat tax,” that subject too was frightening to the so-called conservatives as in such a tax there is no refuge from the common burden of taxation. The so-called conservatives not only thought it was right and proper to receive the stimulus checks but also thought they should escape all taxation. I began to wonder if I was chatting with political charlatans (politicians of a rather common type) or merely ignoramuses who were unable to understand the true nature of their actions. For their benefit I shall conclude it was the latter so as not to charge them with something for which the only available evidence is their inability to make the distinction between conservatism and socialism, an intellectual distinction I doubt many in this country could even make.
Secretly I gave some of them who spoke that night a name: Conservasocialists.
I left disappointed and determined to continue my search.
Copyright © William Thien 2021
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Mass Shootings and The Surveillance State
Posted by: William Thien on: July 27, 2016
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.
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
The Two-Party Conspiracy to Enlarge The Social Welfare State
Posted by: William Thien on: December 12, 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.
Food Stamp Usage Reduction Efforts May Actually Grow The Numbers on Social Programs
Posted by: William Thien on: December 1, 2015
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.
The Fed, America’s Bubble Machine
Posted by: William Thien on: August 23, 2015
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.
William Thien 
A very brief observation about the country’s very long and arduous path to socialism
Posted by: William Thien on: December 21, 2023
I thought all of the social programs and all of the additional taxation to pay for them was supposed to end the epidemic of homelessness, the tent cities, and the hunger in America that we are seeing in the news today, particularly in the larger cities all across the country. Instead, all of the socialism and extra taxation to pay for the social programs seems only to have amplified the human condition it was meant to solve.
With the way our government continues to tax us, though, I am sure we will continue to do things over and over the same way while expecting a different result.
Copyright © 2023 William Thien
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Share this: