William Thien

Posts Tagged ‘corporate America

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.

Now that I’ve published a multitude of anti-socialist essays and observations, many of them focusing on what I call the “sex-for-money social welfare system,” I’ve attracted the ire and attention of any number of publicly avowed socialists, many of them women since it would seem, they claim, that many of my essays against socialism seem to focus on programs that women tend to utilize, such as government programs that support single mothers (why of course, why not?, forty plus percent of children are born to single mothers annually today).

But other publicly avowed socialists have joined their ranks and have begun slinking around my perimeter, making themselves a nuisance realizing that now, after reading my positions on socialism that they haven’t a leg to stand on. Modern American Socialism is a scam on the people, a people afraid to address the matter, a people blighted by the constant draining of their income from a myriad of social welfare and entitlement programs that are incessant and pernicious upon the individual and which the individual often pays in to but is not eligible from which to draw. Socialism is selective and discriminatory.

Some of the socialists that I know directly have demonstrated to me in so many ways and in a rather revealing manner that they like to keep tabs on me, though they claim that is not what they are doing. They try to determine where I am at various times throughout the day and night and they often accuse me of all sorts of anti-social behaviors (what are really in these circumstances anti-socialist behaviors) without any basis in fact, knowing that even though there is no factual foundation to their accusations merely waging such accusations or positing such innuendo is a taxing effort to deal with.

I liken what they are doing to an inquisition. Their methods are no different. You see it in the character assassinations going on in the pandering media. You see it in the hatred of men and the male sex. It is everywhere, the constant drive to make you surrender what you have for someone else, to give up the product of your toils to pay for the product of someone else’s pleasures. It’s everywhere today.

And though I am not an overly religious person, I would not hesitate to say that is has now reached biblical proportions. But you don’t even hear the church saying anything about it. That’s how powerful the socialist giant has become. Even the church, the self-avowed arbiter of right and wrong is afraid to tread in the shadow of the socialist monster.

Questions, questions, questions. Where are you? What are you doing? Why are you doing that? Why don’t you believe you should have to pay for me and people like me having sex on your dollar? Why shouldn’t you be required to pay to raise my child, to feed all of my family even though I never married and I have three or more children, we are all in the same country? There must be something wrong with you for wanting to keep your own money and not pay for this outrageously expensive bastard nation I am making. You must be evil. You must hate. You are a hater because you don’t want to pay for me to fornicate all day while you work. That list goes on and on. And they always have an excuse for their constant inquiries. And where I live they usually outnumber me by several factors to one.

Politicians are afraid of addressing the problem because the media profits from the circumstances and the politician is afraid of the character assassination which will arrive from the media meant to snuff their political career. Corporations are too sensitive (could be read as cowardly by some) to deal with the matter because they are afraid of being seen in a negative light and many more profit from the circumstances, a ready and accessible source of income in the many social welfare and entitlement programs created that overtax the middle class. Everyone knows there is a problem but nobody except people such as me are doing or saying anything about it. With the power of the media behind it and a substantial portion of the population, the socialist giant is just such a behemoth that to be within the realm of its scrutiny can have a crushing, marginalizing effect.

Yet others hear us and identify with our message against the socialist giant, you can be sure. There are still many among us who are not afraid of the socialist inquisition.

Though it may not be entirely organized, it is a socialist front that I and others are dealing with, there can be no question. It is the result of decades of media indoctrination and socialist education that makes it impossible for the socialist to even distinguish that their behavior is the real anti-social behavior to begin with.

As I said, I liken their behavior to an inquisition, complete with an incessant list of questions, accusations for which there are no defenses, and innuendo originating often from the cavernous mouths of publicly avowed socialists.

I can answer all of your questions with one answer.

F&#* your socialist inquisition.

Copyright © William Thien 2014

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Recently I blogged that I supported the bailout of General Motors and in fact lobbied to see to it that a bailout was provided. The result was US Government ownership of a large stake of General Motors, a company which has made a dramatic turnaround but has also acquired the moniker, “Government Motors.”

With the US Government approaching a fiscal cliff, something we haven’t heard much about since almost all of the news lately has been about the habits of shoppers on Black Friday, but with the government approaching a fiscal cliff and desperately in need of money, why doesn’t the US Government divest itself of General Motors for starters?

Do what most Americans do when they need cash quickly, sell something. The US Government should auction General Motors off to the highest bidder. I am certain there is someone, some organization that would be interested in maintaining a controlling interest. Don’t wait for General Motors to obtain the highest price on the stock market and then flood the market with shares, that won’t do anyone any good and it might not happen for years. Simply sell General Motors all off, perhaps as a controlling interest. That would more likely create the most interest.

As I’ve said before, I lobbied for a bailout of General Motors. Though my intent was not for the country to buy General Motors itself, that apparently was the only option at the time. Now that it is time to address the approaching fiscal cliff, maybe it is time for the government to divest itself of GM to pay down some of that debt.

Otherwise the nickname “Government Motors” will stick for good. And then GM stock won’t be worth a penny.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

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.

In an observation on eliminating tax deductions I brought up the subject of “tax surrogacy” in The United States. My position is that childless taxpayers are merely “tax surrogates” for a parasitic tax code that allows taxpayers with children to obtain a child tax credit or deduction for each child they are raising and the funds for such deductions are available because childless taxpayers are not eligible. In other words, childless taxpayers are paying to raise the children of those with children because the childless taxpayer does not receive the deduction. I elaborate further on that perspective in America’s Unfair Tax Code and The Brown Headed Cowbird.

But the more I consider the concept of “tax surrogacy” the more I see it applies to a wider breadth of the country’s population. Not only are childless taxpayers tax surrogates for those with children, the middle class taxpayer is a tax surrogate for both the poor and the very wealthy. That relationship is enabled through clever manipulation of the public’s perception of the poor and of wealthy taxpayers, to which within the scope of the definition of “wealthy taxpayers” I will include corporations, because ultimately what I am writing about here is welfare by favorable taxation, and corporations benefit quite obviously the most from the tax code.

In fact certain corporations support that party which offers multiple layers of welfare to the poor because those corporations then benefit from that relationship. Either the poor are at home watching television and buying products advertised by those corporations on television or congress is lobbied to provide favorable taxation to those corporations simply because a corporation is defined as “a person” in the eyes of the law and in legislative terms and so it is argued, lobbied, that since certain citizens are eligible for various types of what is essentially welfare, so then should corporations be eligible as well, corporations which again are viewed as people by the law, something Romney attempted to elaborate on earlier in the year and everyone who hasn’t a clue about such law squawked about it! Oh yes, this is how tax law is created that governs corporations. Corporations are seen as “people” by the law. Hence, tax code is created to govern corporate profits as if they were indeed personal income. Clever, isn’t it.

This is one reason why I do not favor all sorts of social programs designed to help the poor. Nothing wrong with helping the poor. But due to the parasitic tax code in this country there are other beneficiaries, corporations for example, of the tax code who may not need those benefits. Now I believe favorable taxes must be in place for corporations, lower taxes even, but the problem with the current tax code is that the money for the tax welfare has to come from somewhere. And in the way the current tax code is structured, it comes from the middle classes. All welfare, whether it be food stamps, a social program, a medical program for the poor, or corporate welfare, is paid for in The United States by the middle classes. The poor do not contribute and the wealthy escape participation through the tax code. The middle classes are effectively “tax surrogates” paying at both ends, to the poor and the wealthy. And if you are a single taxpayer with no children, you pay even more. That is of course totally unfair tax policy. I myself am single with no children. When all is said and done I take home about two-thirds of my pay yet am ineligible for any social or medical programs because I have no children. If I had children, I would be eligible for free medical care in the state I reside (children make you eligible for social programs and welfare and basically change the government structure for you to a communist government structure and this is why many poor have children, because they know it will then make them eligible for welfare which they would not receive otherwise).

I receive a tax refund but it is a paltry sum when I compare it to a co-worker’s who has children he declares on his taxes. I am a “tax surrogate” in the purist, strictest sense of the term.

America’s tax code is unfair. Tax surrogacy is nothing more than a crime really, perpetrated on the taxpayer, in particular the middle class taxpayer. It may not be a crime as defined by the law, but it is a sort of “social” or implied crime. The middle classes are not flush with cash and able to give it to everyone. Many are instead at the edge of their income bracket, now more than ever.

I don’t know if at this point in the country’s history we can change the law. But I felt before we could change the law I had to give the condition from which the middle class taxpayer suffers a name. I call it “tax surrogacy.” Someone may have already thought of it. That’s great.

Let this then simply be my explanation of what is happening in this country with regard to taxes and why I believe something needs to be done about it.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

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

I don’t like to say things like this because I like to watch the news and very much enjoy reading the newspaper. Though, lately I am of the belief that the media may need to be removed from the election process and that their behavior must be regulated regarding elections in America.

Multiple attempts have been made to control campaign financing and various forms of political input, McCain-Feingold the most notable of them, with the intent to clean up the election process, but the media always seems to undermine any attempt by the elected and the public to successfully clean up the various processes of democracy. The problem persists and in fact many believe was worse during the last major election as I describe in the essay titled Campaign Finance Reform: A Plague of Democracy https://williamthien.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/campaign-finance-reform-a-plague-of-democracy/

This is most likely due to the fact that campaign season is one of the most lucrative ad revenue seasons for all types of the media, and the media lobby Congress and the courts to insure campaign finance dollars keep flowing their way, all along knowing the process is questionable. You know this as political pundits gather at all hours on the television during campaign season rubbing their hands together, a gleaming, maniacal look in their eyes, gesturing as if they can smell blood. Unfortunately, history indicates it is probably the blood of The American People.

Furthermore, the media have been known to begin accumulating files on people they believe may run for office years in advance of any such public indications. One media outlet in my television market even advertises a featured reporter attaching GPS tracking devices to people’s cars. The media are not the government, they are more often than not private corporations with a profit motive as their primary incentive. Not that the government should even be involved in such behavior, but such behavior is not free speech, it is militaristic, predatory behavior and it undermines the tranquility of the country.

And it raises the question, is the accumulation of information using such methods really free speech at all? Or is it something else entirely?

The behavior of the media lately has also become so tabloidian that you have to wonder what is going on. Is it really ratings they seek or are they on some sort of mission? And who is behind the mission? What are their names? What do they look like? Do they prescribe to a particular religious persuasion? Who polices the media? The media police the media. Sounds like a good position to be in.

The end result is we often do not find the most suitable candidates available during the voting process as the media has already filtered them out, probably due to an agenda the media have or have been paid to have, filtered them out through a thorough process of reporting often close to liable and more often than not some form of character assassination. It is illegal to shoot a man in America. But there are no laws preventing the assassination of his character. Many of the candidates, being human, have perhaps committed some minor indiscretion or been involved in some sort of difficult circumstance, yet they may be the best choice for the public at the voting booth. But the media for some reason has harped about them for months or been at their campaign trail cloaked in the Constitutional “right to free speech” when we all know more often than not the media are simply influence peddlers, with many media outlets lacking any real integrity.

The important thing though is that by the time it comes to vote, it is as if many of the most favorable candidates have been “knocked off” through a series of elaborate character assassinations committed by what could be called “media hitmen” with particular focus upon what are often the most decent men and women to run for office. We know this because all too often what candidate wins the election represents nothing the electorate could hope for or need. Since that happens over and over again, it indicates there is actually something structurally unfair about the election process. But what is it? Is the media the beast under the bed in American Politics? Is it as if the media were deliberately undermining the election process in The United States to perpetuate a state of discord and uncertainty in order to increase their ratings, as people then look by default to the media for answers concerning the declining state of the country? This indicates strictly a profit motive and not one of free speech, which further indicates to me that the media must needs be removed to a certain extent from the election process.

The problem is that such action is a slippery slope. Once you start controlling speech for one organization or individual in America will there be encroachment upon the rights of other, less damaging speech? And when it starts, when will it stop?

One thing is certain, you can not say anything you want everywhere in America. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater or “bomb” on an airplane. But perhaps the media needs to be removed from the voting booth.

Leave a comment if you dare.

Copyright © William Thien 2011

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. It’s easy. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address.

In order to achieve the most satisfactory solution to the problem of “Big Government,” we must first ask ourselves the question about the nature of “Big Government,” and that is, is “Big Government,” our own country’s “Big Government” a seemingly sinister entity looking to perpetuate its existence at the expense of our own, or is it a giant, overprotective, clumsy oaf pacing back and forth along our perimeter, trampling our liberty with each heavy, scraping footfall?

In either case, it is clear something must be done.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Let Us Know What You Think. Post a Comment.

Workers in The United States and other established industrial countries tend to earn higher wages than in third world countries or the far east. It’s a fact. We all hear stories about large corporations moving their production lines to the far east and Central America and the low wages those workers are paid. We may have seen stories on the news about the appalling working conditions and long hours those workers endure. But is that really why American companies are moving production overseas? I believe there are other more subtle forces at work that unless we examine them over a period of time, we will not recognize them.

What is significant to us is that products can frequently be made overseas for much less than in America. This of course creates a price gap between goods made here in The U.S. and those made overseas. Some countries can even buy the raw materials from us and ship them overseas, fabricate a quality product, and then ship it back to us for less than we can produce it here because the wages they pay their workers are so much lower. Labor is often the largest part of the production cost equation. But as you shall see, there is something more subtle at work as well and it has nothing to do with American workers being paid a living wage.

What is the result of all of these forces, those obvious and the invisible? Industry, particularly small industry and business, that which employs the greatest number of Americans has suffered in The U.S. for the last thirty or forty years. What does small business have to do with what I describe? Small business and industry manufacture consumer goods, small ticket items. It may not seem like it, but small business and industry are the bread and butter of the economy and it is this market into which foreign manufacturers have made particularly substantial forays into our economy. One could view what is happening to small business and industry in The United States as a form of warfare, economic warfare, because it undermines our economy in such a strategically effective way that somehow it could not be by accident. But as you shall see, we have a saboteur in our midst which is of no foreign origin whatsoever, someone in an entirely deceptive set of threads for which we pay and supply, as you shall see — for which we pay and supply dearly.

When a consumer goes to the store, they are most often spending what is called “discretionary income.” They are on a budget and very “cost conscious.” They have particular needs and only so much money to spend. But they spend that money more often, weekly perhaps, and it is that flow of money into the economy that brings necessary economic sustenance to the entire country. Without it, a country such as ours which is based on industrial and agricultural production will eventually suffer hard times, some believe much worse than current conditions. Bread, as the saying goes, is the staff of life. So too then is small business, that which manufactures consumer goods, the staff of life to our economy.

As I’ve stated, low wages paid to overseas workers and appalling work environments overseas in juxtaposition to working conditions here and higher wages are not the only factors that have contributed to the deconstruction of industry in the United States. I believe our government has had a direct hand in it as well. Please read on.

When a consumer goes to the store with a number of purchases in mind, retailers like to have several items available at differing prices, or price points, to allow the consumer to make a purchasing decision. It’s part of the psychology of retail. The consumer doesn’t feel like they are getting something shoved down their throat because there is only one choice, and the retailer or store owner can offer a variety of items from inexpensive to expensive items with the hopes of taking in more income by selling what is more expensive. For the sake of this discussion you could call the difference in prices from low to high on the same type of product as a price spread or gap in price.

Prior to going to the store the consumer has to earn some money, though.

Enter the income tax. When income taxes increase as they have for the last sixty years (In 1952 a family of four paid less than 2% of their income in taxes) consumers are able to buy fewer products made here in The United States because, as I mentioned previously, products made in other countries can often be made for less, much less. U.S. income taxes then shrink or decrease the spread or the gap, the choices based on price of available products an American consumer can purchase.

Income taxes don’t just decrease purchasing power in The United States, income taxes hack at the consumer’s purchasing power as with the lopping stroke of a rusty axe. Today, some of us pay over twenty percent in income taxes. That is an eighteen percent decrease in purchasing power in comparison to the family in 1952 that paid only 2 percent of their income in taxes to the federal government. And when you add all of the social programs we pay into that are not classified as taxes but are deductions to your pay nevertheless, what is withdrawn from your pay can easily exceed forty percent for some before your paycheck is even in your hands. That forty percent is more often than not the difference in price between the products made in The. U.S. and those made overseas. In fact, that very fact is incorporated into the price structure of products made overseas. Products are priced at an amount equivalent to the average income tax rate less than those made in The United States. Products manufactured overseas are priced at a level which brings them in line with your real wages, that which is left after taxes and other deductions. Clever, isn’t it.

Taxpayers have been struck with such excessive taxation in The U.S. since the 1950’s on an increasing, sliding scale. Why? There were great excesses after World War II and nobody thought about the future. There was a melding of political ideals across the globe with some of them heavily socialist/communist which frequently remain today and are enormously expensive to maintain even though they have proven false in communist countries. And finally, people became busier with the woman leaving the house to go to work and they didn’t see it coming.

Now, strapped with high income taxes, on a heavy sliding scale for some, coupled with sales taxes that creep up every few years, real wages, or the net people take home for working the same amount of time and producing the same and frequently more, has been halved in many places. People are working into the middle of the week before they begin earning. Less and less is there any difference between what a person makes in wages in The U.S. in comparison to what a worker makes in the countries where there are such appalling work conditions. But it is not the industrialist or the small business person that is to blame, not the employee whether they be union or not.

It is our own government who frequently seems to pit the employee against the employer to redirect the focus away from the government’s desire to tax more and more. Our own government is working to break up industrial productivity simply to perpetuate its own existence. They understand the economics at work here. Yet, they let the employer and the employee work at each other as if they were enemies. Income taxes also create discord in our industrial economy. Income taxes are divisive. High income taxes are treacherous. A point could be made that high income taxes are treasonous because they undermine a country’s ability to perpetuate itself through its own industrial production and economic self-reliance.

So, the effect of such heavy taxation is to drive the American consumer down to the lower priced products since they have effectively less to spend. And where are the lower priced products often made? All too often it is overseas. Income and sales taxes actually force the consumer to purchase products that are manufactured overseas by hacking away at the choices they can afford. Therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies the saboteur, income taxes, the hacking, slashing serial killer of the blood spattered American Dream. With each week, with each paycheck comes another fall of the axe. “Kill! Kill! Kill!” The shadowy face growls.

If we want to make it possible for industry to flourish here, even just to function here in The U.S., we need to attack income and sales taxes with the goal of making it possible for Americans to buy American made.

Because our taxes are literally cutting us right out of the market.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe

First Printed in 2010 and it explains why we have such substantial inflation. The FED Chairman is a political appointment. As such, politicians determine monetary policy. They are doing now what was done after the 2009 real estate market crash to generate sales and other related taxes. It just that this time it is being done because of The Covid-19 Pandemic.

One of the problems Germany had prior to World War II is the desire to print money to solve its economic problems. The measure was counterintuitive to the belief that it would help the economy at the time. More money?! Well, we should be able to buy more things and pay more bills. Eventually, a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks was required to buy a loaf of bread. The effect was a devaluing of the currency to mere worthlessness. Fuel for the furnace. Of course if you have had a World History course you know that the method was horribly unsuccessful.

Recently The United States Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would make more money available for lenders to stimulate the economy. They are essentially printing money much like Germany did. They don’t really have any more money. But through manipulations of the value of the dollar and some other tricks, more money is made available. It is not like there is a big pile of money in the basement at the Fed and somebody says, “Get the shovel!”

The “stated” hope (I say “stated” to mark the notion for reference later on in this post) is that the measure will hopefully lower interest rates and make it possible for automakers and real estate brokers to sell more. In general, the method is to be ‘stimulative.’

I hope this will be the net effect. Because we recently saw the same method used by Alan Greenspan during the Clinton and Bush administrations and it resulted in the real estate bubble and a substantial stock market correction, what some are now calling a crash in slow motion because it didn’t happen all in one month. Homes that were mere shacks suddenly were priced like the proverbial mansion because it was so easy to come by a home loan. But the result was that a working stiff could no longer afford to buy a decent home, nor maintain it for that matter because even though loans were more available, wages have not increased for decades, some believe average wages haven’t increased for fifty years. Demand increases price though on homes.

Everyone knows that wages and salaries do not and have never really kept pace with inflation. And generally, for some reason the government’s forecasts and readings of inflation don’t seem to coincide with the truths of the free market. When the government talks about things, they always seem to come out a bit rosier than the dandelions which populate the lawn.

So, if the government (The Fed) wants to make more money available for loans, which is great really (unless you know it will drive inflation up), and the same method used within the last decade no less caused the worst recession in The United States since The Great Depression, then why are we doing it again so soon? What really is behind the repeat performance?

I think I may have at least a partial answer. Taxes.

If interest rates are lowered, people can afford to buy more house and more people, theoretically, can afford to buy their first home. The problem is that the artificial demand created by a Fed manipulated market drives up the prices of the homes. Greater demand increases price. Basic economics.

So why do it? Why drive up the prices of products? Why not let the market work itself out? Is not that what the government is supposed to do in The United States? Protect the free market? Not manipulate it? If they could manipulate it for everyone’s benefit (and let us hope this latest measure will do so) that would be great. But many believe they rarely do so. Yet, again, within the last decade, the constant tinkering with interest rates by Alan Greenspan and the Fed brought about a current economic downturn that even the Fed thinks will take years from which to crawl out of.

So what is going on? A surreptitious increase in taxes. But why? The economy is bad. Sales are down. Fewer sales, less taxes. Sounds devious beyond the scope of the government, right? Why not let the market correct itself? Why not let the price of cars come more in line with what the American public can afford? It is after all a free market, is it not? Let’s find out. Read on.

If you drive up the price of a home, the sales and other taxes are concurrently driven up as well. If you make a car more expensive, you increase your tax levy on that car automatically. In effect, you raise taxes without legislating an increase in taxes, something nobody will go for today. It’s tricky. Real tricky.

The stock market does well also when interest rates are lowered. The problem is when things return to normal, the market corrects itself. I would say that would be fine, but the problem is that so many organizations, both government and private have all of their pension funds wrapped up in the market that when the market corrects itself, people who have been working for five or six decades suddenly find themselves unable to retire because all of their pension funds have mysteriously vanished. That is tricky as well. Perhaps even trickier than the loose monetary policies themselves that bring about the problems in the first place. The problem with driving up the value of the stock market by lowering interest rates and making more money available is that not everybody has the time or the ability for that matter to watch the market and to be prepared when it does correct itself. Since most government pensions are the result of taxation, I think it is incumbent upon our elected officials to install some form of regulation upon the market to address such corrections on behalf of the pensioners, or to ensure that the Federal Reserve is not so liberal with its monetary policies, whether they be to stimulate the economy or to increase taxes as I’ve described, indirectly.

In this anti-big government environment we are currently in nobody wants to say “I’m going to increase taxes.” I have not seen a single political ad (and we are swimming in them right now) that is endorsed by any politician, even the most left-wing, that has said “Elect me. I’ll raise your taxes.” If you are going to say that, you may as well commit political suicide because as they say, “you ain’t gettin’ my vote.”

I believe in fact that the reason Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates so much was exactly that. To raise sales taxes. It’s much easier than legislating higher taxes, making them law, and most people do not really know what is going on when it is done in such a slick manner.

I think it’s great that The Fed is making more money available to lenders to make loans more available to the market.

But let’s not make the same mistake again, so soon, particularly since we are not out of the hole they dug for the country like, what, was it yesterday?

And what repeats itself, again?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is behind the latest measures at the Fed. The government is looking out for its bottom line. Which, by the way, is right about at your neck level. And from what I can tell, you have had it up to here!

By the way, the best time to shop for cars is on Sunday morning.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe!

Men and women are not equal.

I believe there is a natural order amongst the sexes and I believe that if society strays too far from the path of that natural order the consequences for society can be negative, substantially negative.

I’m not talking about which sex is better, men or women, who is the faster runner or who can lift the most weight, I’m talking about a distribution of responsibilities within the family or at work for example to mature, rational adults who want to be productive members of society and not social burdens.

I believe much like a factory, when certain employees complete certain tasks while other employees complete other tasks, the tasks at hand can be completed far more efficiently and with much less cost and effort, leaving more time to produce more products, work on improvements to the way things are done, or simply take a break.

You might say, who views their family as a factory? What kind of analogy is that? OK. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps viewing the members of a family as employees in a factory is a bit withdrawn emotionally from the matter. Factories are not living things, you might say, and nothing like a home.

OK. OK. Calm down. Let’s try this. The other night I was watching some of those beautifully filmed nature shows that air on Sunday night. The narrator was talking about a variety of animals and their courtship rituals. Some were very elaborate, some rather blunt. In one scene, the narrator talked about a land development that had changed the path of a waterway slightly, causing the male of a species of amphibian to have to change route of travel. This in turn increased the deaths in the males of the amphibian as they were now run over crossing the street which resulted in fewer couples of the species, which resulted in fewer offspring and consequently caused a crash in the population of the animal in that area. In other areas, the animal was doing fine but under observation. Later the narrator discussed a completely different problem of the same nature causing the female of the species to change its habits thereby making it impossible to rear its young. Population crash. I believe these last two examples of nature offer much better analogies rather than the factory because they incorporate a viewpoint of the struggle of living mechanisms rather than the analogy of the family as a factory. Though it can be stated that in their sexual roles, men and women have completely different responsibilities and also illustrate completely different behaviors to achieve a common goal, evidence again that there is indeed a natural order. There is in fact more obvious evidence that there is a natural order in the sexual roles of men and women than there is of any biblical explanation of human sexual behavior.

But even more significantly to come out of these observations of nature is the belief that many naturalists hold. In fact, it is the foundational belief of environmentalism today. It is quite elegant in its simplicity and even more importantly, it holds true under scientific observation. Here it is essentially in its simplest form. “If you mess with the nature, there will be negative consequences.” We have all heard that statement in some context or another. The consequences of messing with nature can be observed in such things as polluted drinking water, polluted air, problems with food containing poisons drawn up from the soil, all of them the result of lack of understanding of and the manipulation of our environment.

And I believe an analogy can be made to things such as polluted drinking water and air to a natural order amongst the sexes and such things as crime committed by juveniles who don’t have both parents at home or an increase in taxes. In fact since the sexual revolution in the 1960’s when the roles of men and women in The USA were redefined both by law and the media crime has increased in some areas thousands of percentiles as more women raise their children on their own or have children out-of-wedlock. The tax burden to simply police these areas is enormous much less to provide the partial families with social services. I don’t need to enumerate all the costs. Anyone that is reading this knows the costs unless they have been living on another planet.

Some of you may be old enough to remember the female football players that entered into The NFL for a couple of years during the height of the sexual revolution. “Don’t stay in the house” the feminists chanted, go play football, work construction. That didn’t last long, of course. Why? Because they were not designed for it by “nature.” Not by men. The fact that women are not as good at football as men has nothing to do with any societal restriction by men on the activities of women. No. And don’t even try to suggest that (this was one of the techniques of the feminist movement, to suggest that women in The USA were repressed by men as a whole). The fact that women are not as good at football has nothing to do with men. Women are not as good at football as men due to their “nature” and physical build. Men have nothing to do with that. It has to do with a “natural order.” And to the contrary, men are no good at bearing children. In fact, I’ve not heard of one case of a man bearing a child. Why? There is that natural order thing again, and again it has nothing to do with men.

I remember watching a news show during the height of the feminist movement in the 1960’s. The newscaster was interviewing a doctor who (and I’m glad I don’t have this guy as a doctor) suggested that men and women are identical, except for a few very minor differences. He had a chart with diagrams of the male and female bodies and some charts about similarities. In the time of about one minute the newscaster, a woman, and the good doctor, concluded that aside from a few very minor differences in body composition, body fat content for example, that men and women were equal, exactly equal. “Well, there you have it,” the female newscaster concluded. “Men and women are exactly alike in every way.” This was the viewpoint taken by all media networks from that point on and the federal government as well in the course of dealing with cases of discrimination on the job. Men and women from about that point on were considered equal on the job, both physically and mentally. And in most cases they are. But in many, as in the female NFL player or the man giving birth, we see they are not. The good doctor was lying to the female newscaster. Or he was an imbecile. Or he was no doctor at all. Or maybe the media has a vested interest in erasing the differences between the sexes as I’ve demonstrated in my previous posting titled “Who is Really behind the Sexual Revolution? What it is…”

Some of you may be laughing at my choice of examples, but I’ve chosen them for a reason. They are the most extreme examples, women playing football and men bearing children, and indicate what society seems to be trying to do today with “equality,” and that is to disregard nature, a natural order. And that is OK. Because we are men. We are not animals. We can rationalize our way through life. But the word “rational” means acting with “reason.”

And when I look at my wallet, I see it’s not working, we are not acting with reason as a society because I keep paying for so many things, women having children out-of-wedlock for example, in the form of taxes to which I do not benefit. Because my taxes are going up and up. And much if not most of it has to do with addressing “irrational” or violent human nature, the result of tinkering with a “natural order,” to which of course I believe I have clearly demonstrated there is a natural order. And if someone is not happy with their nature, I don’t think I should have to pay for it.

It’s one thing to work for equality. It’s an entirely different thing to disregard the truth entirely, that men and women are completely different and society works best when both bring their differences together to achieve a common goal.

Men and women are not equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s the best thing about it. Once we realize that again as a society, things will get better…and much less expensive, for everyone, men and women both.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Sign up to receive updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Recently I witnessed newsreels of presidential campaign speeches, many from the backs of trains going from town to town, from the early 1900’s. Crowds gathered in the train stations hoping to hear something new, something promising. The campaign rhetoric sounded remarkably like that you might hear today.”Government is just too big! I will keep the size of government under control!”, and “Your taxes are too high. I am the only candidate that can do anything about that. The other ‘guy’ will just raise your taxes.”

It raises the question, if candidates and their electorate have been complaining for over one hundred years about government being too big, and government still gets bigger and bigger and our taxes still go up and up, what if anything can we do about it? This isn’t just a losing battle in a wider war on taxes anymore, this is something else, entirely something else.

To provide some perspective on the matter of taxes, Peter McWilliams cites William R. Mattox Jr. in his book Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do. William R. Mattox Jr. states that “In 1950, the average family of four paid 2% of its earnings to federal taxes. Today it pays 24%.” That is a thirty percent increase in taxes, just federal taxes, per year.

In 2008 one of my elected officials sent me a July 4th Newsletter. It talked about all the wonderful things “America” had become since we had fought off The British in The Revolutionary War, how Americans had fought bravely, and there was a lot of flag waving in the newsletter, something I felt was a bit too much for someone who claims to be a conservative. I wrote him a reply saying I thought he was out of touch, in so many words. I explained that I thought he was out of touch because the colonists who decided to take on the British did so because they were upset for the most part about a few pence tax on tea and not being protected in the outer reaches of the colonies from incursion. Hence, one of the reasons that the “Taxation without Representation” slogan came to be.

I added that I thought were our founding fathers alive today, it is likely that if they are of the same spirit as during revolutionary times, they would probably be attacking every US Government office they could at every chance they could get. That was their nature. They were not fighting The British, they were fighting what the British stood for, what the British took from them, particularly in the form of taxes, mainly in the form of taxes. It wasn’t, we don’t like you guys because you are British. It was, hey, get your grubby hands out of my pockets.

Of course the founding fathers as they are called are not alive themselves, but I’m sure, I added in my response to my elected official, they are turning in their graves right now. Why? Because there is no comparison between taxation then and now. Why? Because the argument that the America of today even compares to the very most pale shade of that of the America founded over two hundred years ago is approaching a dangerously false statement. The only clear similarity between that country and the one in which we reside today are a few remnants of The Constitution and the geographical boundaries within which said country was founded.

Then, the colonists thrived on independence. Raise your own food. Minimize government. Tame the land.

Today: What government program can I apply for to get some money? Who needs a husband, I can get pregnant and someone else can pay for it. Let’s give huge amounts of money in foreign aid to other countries when we can not even keep our roads above the quality of those in a third world country.

Yet, while all of this goes on, guess what? Our taxes still keep going up. UP and up and up!

And it raises the question, is it even possible to lower our taxes anymore? If one hundred years ago politicians were campaigning on the very slogan that government is too big and taxes are too high and things have only gotten worse since, well it makes you wonder who is behind it?

Where is all my money going? Yet, comparatively speaking, the colonists thought of the country as a sort of magical place, even with the hardships, there was an incredible sense of hope. Why? Because they were not overburdened with massive, expensive government.

Taxes are the result of laws. Once those laws are on the books, things are sort of written in stone. I don’t know of any major tax repeal in the history of The United States at any level whether it be municipal, state, or federal, that has significantly impacted, lowered the amount of taxes people pay and that counter balances taxes taken in simultaneously for some other reason.

So if taxes cannot be repealed in general, if taxes will continue to go up while our country moves towards a third world country in terms of quality of life, what can be done about it? Obviously there does not seem to be a legislative solution.

You hear talk from time to time about the choices. There are grumblings. Living communities are created by charismatic men and women that are frequently raided by the government, big government. So if you can’t organize in any major way to adopt a new way of life or to bring about change, change of any kind, that really only leaves one choice.

Yes, that only leaves one choice. Timothy McVeigh was an example some might say of that choice.  Perhaps Timothy McVeigh would have been made a general in The Revolutionary Army. I don’t mean to idolize or deify Timothy McVeigh, but let’s face the facts. War has changed. And in what some call “The War on Taxes” that seems to be the path some are taking to win the war. And I must admit, I don’t see many other paths if in fact we have been fighting the war for well over 100 years. Name another path. Name another choice than some sort of revolt to reverse the course of taxation in this country and to relieve ourselves of an oppressive government. Democracy doesn’t seem to offer a solution.

I have one.

What if a law were written to supersede all laws that limits the total amount of taxes that everyone, each individual, will have to pay and legislates the advent and demise of government programs that result in more taxation. In other words, if a given tax goes beyond a certain level, it is no longer a lawful tax and must be repealed automatically and immediately, or some form of action must be taken. That is all. An absolute law that deals with taxes absolutely.

Because otherwise there is only that one choice. Unless the government collapses completely and is rebuilt anew and completely differently. But at this rate of taxation, that is unlikely.

So, there really is only that one choice. Nothing else seems to work. Sooner or later we will have to face that choice. In fact, it would seem that it is not really even a choice anymore. There seems to be no fork in the road any longer. Taxes are just too high. Government is too intrusive.

Perhaps that is not even an option anymore because had they been alive one hundred years ago and heard the campaign speeches then our founding fathers would probably have said, “let’s get to work.”

And what new country would come from their efforts this time around? And more importantly, when will the time come to find out?

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Sign up to receive updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.


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

Find by month

Find by date

May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

Follow William Thien on WordPress.com