William Thien

Posts Tagged ‘taxation

Whereas the individual tax payer has been made a tax surrogate and has been indentured by the tax code on behalf of unrelated others:

If the (a) government is going to tax an individual taxpayer at a rate or using a method that is different from others simply because the others own property or have a family with dependents, if the government is going to tax an individual taxpayer so that they must pay proportionately more in tax or so that they see less of a return for their efforts after taxes when compensated than others who own property or have a family, that is blatantly unfair to the individual tax payer.

The fact that someone has a family or the fact that someone is making mortgage payments on property are the result of life choices made by that particular person or family. They should not receive a lower tax rate or be taxed using a method that is different from an individual who has not made those same choices, particularly when the there is a greater likelihood that more government services are used by the family or the property owner.

These are the facts. The fact that it is difficult and expensive to raise a family or the fact that making mortgage payments is financially burdensome are invalid reasons to tax someone unrelated to those activities to compensate for the cost of those activities.



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.

Recently there have been a large number of stories in the local media about people suffering exorbitant bills due to health care they have received and it seems to me that The Affordable Care Act may not be living up to its stated objectives. I don’t fault anyone for that, though I was pointing out the fact that the ACA isn’t socialized medicine when most conservatives had missed that point during initial debate on the legislation and were in fact calling it socialized medicine, when in fact it is merely a private health insurance gimme with a sensible tweak to it such as the “No exclusion of pre-existing conditions” clause.

And so I thought I would revisit one of my earlier observations on the state of health care in The US with a global perspective on socialized medicine. Here it is:

I participated in a healthy debate on an email list about socialized medicine versus privatized medicine in 2004 and 2005. A fellow conservative had remarked that Canada’s health system required long waits for substandard care and concluded that all socialized health care programs produced the same results.

At the time I was paying for my own health insurance to the tune of about $6,000 per year. But when I went in to have some blemishes removed from my skin where my backpack straps (I like to hike) rubbed them, which was painful, the health insurer said it was a “pre-existing condition” and refused to pay for the doctor’s visit. Upon discovering the greed of the health insurer I stopped paying the monthly premium and was in fact better off by about $6,000 the next year. But people need health care.

The online debate I had caused me to use my own situation as an example and to examine what indeed the realities of socialized medicine were in other countries and then make a comparison to our own.

The first thing I learned was at the time people in Canada lived longer than people in The United States. So, in order to begin a somewhat scientific study of whether or not socialized medicine is better or worse than the system we have here in The United States, I had to have a control, a reference point, something to anchor the discussion so that I could use it as an example as the discussion proceeded. I decided to use “longevity,” or how long people lived.

It was astonishing to me to hear all of the negative things about Canada’s socialized medicine and then find out that in fact Canadians live longer. How can that be, I asked myself? How can it be that a system which is supposedly less efficient, and less expensive than our own as you will see later, how can it be that such an inefficient system would help their population to live longer? I mean, you would think that something that doesn’t work as well would produce less effective results. People living longer indicates efficiency when it comes to health care I believed, better results. So, I chose from the get go to use “longevity” as the reference point to determine a system’s efficiency.

Then, I went to several web sites that list statistics about the various countries on the planet, and perused The CIA Fact Book as well, a book which compiles information about every country to include the size of the country, its population, etceteras.

What I discovered is that in many countries with socialized medical programs, the people live longer, not just in Canada. I was flabbergasted. I’d been hearing all of this negative political rhetoric about how socialized medicine is a failure, yet here it was that many countries with socialized medical systems had populations that lived longer, in some cases, close to a decade longer. A decade! That’s significant in terms of statistical observation. Remember, I’m trying to be a little scientific.

Then, I tried to gather as much information as I could about the cost to each person of the socialized medical programs in each country. This was more difficult, but I was able to determine that the costs ranged anywhere from $3,500 to $6,000. Again, complete surprise. I had the impression after hearing all of the debates at the time that socialized medicine would cost the individual $20,000 or more, much like it costs the elderly here in The United States. No such luck. It happens that socialized medicine is actually much less expensive to administer than our own system of medicine.

What!? You say WHAT?!

That’s right. Socialized medicine is much less expensive to administer than our own system of medicine where, by the way, many don’t even have health insurance in the first place.

How can that be, you ask? How can socialized medicine be less expensive? It involves the government. The government always costs more. True. But as you will see, in this case, there is somewhat of an exception due to the complex nature of our own system of medicine.

For one thing, we are actually paying for several types of systems at the same time here in The United States. In a socialized system, you are only paying for one system.

The bureaucratic mess involved in administering the variety of medical systems in The United States means that many more dollars actually go into the administration of the system instead of the administration of the medical care and medicine. In other words, you are paying bureaucrats instead of doctors.

Well, what do you mean we are paying for several types of systems here in The United States?

For example, let me use myself as an example, again. Today, my employer sends me a statement of benefits at the end of the year whereas before I paid for my own health insurance. Last year my employer paid $11,000 for my health insurance (quite a bit more than the $6,000 I paid several years ago, which means the costs are skyrocketing). But not only did my employer pay $11,000, I paid in to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as well. Social Security also has a medical component to it. So, not only does my employer pay for my health insurance, I pay for three socialized medical programs myself. And this is just at the federal level. My state has three socialized health care programs. Some say the cost to administer that bureaucratic mess is immeasurable. Needless to say, it’s huge! Gigantic. But more importantly, it’s inefficient, much more inefficient than say just having one system, or socialized medicine countrywide.

When I total up all of the input costs to my health care, the $11,000 my employer paid for my health care last year and what I paid into Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the cost is approaching $15,000. Today, socialized medicine in countries that have it, where they often live longer, is about $4500 to $7000, or about a third to one half of what it costs in The United States. And I’m just summing up the federal dollars that I pay and adding it to what my employer pays to the private health care insurer, and not adding what I pay to the state. That may approach $16,000 to $17,000, or two and a half times what people in countries with socialized medicine pay. Wow! That’s a lot of money.

Does this mean that we should move to a socialized health care system? Not exactly.

One of the things that I noticed in my somewhat scientific investigation is that there is a big fat guy in there that, were he properly regulated, medicine in The United States would be just fine, much less expensive, much more efficient. That big fat guy is The Health Insurance Company. Here we have a big fat middle man between America and its health care, a middle man that often tells the individual who pays dearly for the insurance that they are not covered due to a “pre-existing” condition, or that procedure is not covered because it is new, or that the prognosis is that you will only live three more months so they have decided not to approve the surgery.

In countries that have socialized medicine they have discovered something about efficiency in providing health care. Get rid of health care insurers. If you have a business, everything you do to structure that business is designed to make that business more efficient. You don’t have a special division of your business that doesn’t do anything related to that business. In this case, that would be the health care insurers. One thing health care insurers don’t do is provide health care services. They don’t treat patients, they don’t administer medicine, yet they are enormously costly. Countries with socialized medicine have recognized that fact and removed health care insurers from the health care equation. And guess what happened? The costs dropped dramatically. You can still purchase your own health insurance policy. But it’s not a law that you have to do so.

Since we live in a free market economy, that is really not an option. Or is it?

One of the major problems with health care in The United States is that big fat guy, health insurers, is not properly regulated and his weight is unhealthy for America. What we could really use is proper regulation of health care. After examining the issue on both sides, I’m convinced that is the answer, along with a couple of other minor tweaks that you will discover later.

Health care is not like other things. If you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything, the saying goes. Perhaps that is true of a country and its health care. And maybe like the historical relationship of the church and science, maybe health care and profit don’t make for a healthy marriage. Maybe there is something diabolical about profiteering so thoroughly as health insurers do from someone’s sickness, maybe not. But it sure is big business, in fact, one of if not the biggest in this country. In the last decade pharmaceutical companies have often been the most profitable businesses. Guess what else is in the top ten? Health care insurers. Nothing wrong with making a profit, unless it is making everyone sick. And I’m convinced that is what is happening with health care insurers.

So, from my perspective, the one measure to come out of the current administration’s health care legislation, the result of that big all-consuming discussion we all had at the beginning of the current administration, the one element that is of any value is that health care insurance companies can no longer say something is a” pre-existing” condition. This is an excellent example of the proper regulation of an industry that has been acting like a anti-societal monstrosity.

Yet, from my perspective also, I don’t see any benefit to making it a law to have to purchase health care in the first place, which was also an element of the current administration’s health care law, especially now that doctors are starting to offer lower rates if you don’t use health insurance. See how the health insurers have wheedled their way into the health care equation for good. Now, by law we are going to have to buy health insurance. Clever bunch those health care insurers. Pulled the wool right over everyone’s eyes in Washington.

I am not certain when the term “pre-existing” condition came into being, if it was an invention of some clever business school graduate brought on at one of the health care insurers, but that one term has increased the profits at health care insurers dramatically, I am sure, while it has simultaneously brought down the quality of health care in The United States, brought it down to that of a third world country in many instances. At one point I heard that close to forty percent of the population did not have health insurance. Well, why not just scrap it altogether, then? Something obviously isn’t working. Quite the opposite.

Outlawing the “pre-existing condition” status was in my opinion the one thing to come out of the current legislation on health care in this country to be of any measure. And it is an example of proper regulation. When the law says a corporation “must” do everything in its power to increase its profits and satisfy its shareholders, you will get things like the term “pre-existing condition.” Therefor, you must properly regulate against such behavior, and in this case, you must properly regulate health care insurers in general if you want costs in The United States to come down.

Furthermore, in reference to tweaking the system that I mentioned previously, it used to be that health care providers could not advertise their services as they can today. Advertising is not cheap, it’s expensive. All of those costs are incorporated into what you pay for health care. Do you think providers just throw that money out the door? No, the health care industry transfers those costs to you. So that brings health care costs up incredibly. In a “one system” form of health care, privatized or socialized, you make the choice, you would likely remove that part of the cost equation as well.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is much less expensive to administer one health care program in comparison to administering three or four programs at the federal level and then several again at the state level. One program for everyone and you will see the costs plummet. People will have more money for everything. The economy would likely flourish. Even major auto manufacturers and other industrial giants have said that health care costs are putting them out of business.

And, as a conservative I have to ask the question: Is having a government-run health care system comprised of multiple and perhaps likely redundant systems of care at both the federal and state levels actually better than having just one government-run system? The obvious answer is no. Having one system would be the better choice.

That is if a conservative can even accept having socialized or government-run health care in the first place? If in fact having one such system is much less expensive and more efficient than the multiple government and private systems we have today at such great cost, then of course the answer is a clear and definite yes, regardless of whether or not the system is totally government-run or private. It would be by default the most conservative system.

There are of course the questions which remain as to whether or not such a system could work in The United States. But we ought not to let the media front men decide that question for us.

In my opinion, if we want to lower health care costs in The United States we need to switch to one system and only one, whether it be private or public, into which everyone pays, and properly regulate that system. In that way, we will simplify and therefore decrease the administrative costs and insurance costs and everyone will likely live longer, as they won’t be sweating the cost of going to the doctor in the first place.

Copyright © William Thien 2011, 2105

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 give your email address to anyone.

And don’t forget to add your comments!

It occurs to me that if I’m paying for others to fornicate and copulate and all other manner of sexual interaction and I’m paying for the brooding, education, medication, and frequently the incarceration of the related progeny, paying for all of that sex through the tax code, paying for others to claim dependent deductions on tax returns and through not having eligibility for withholding on my own paycheck since I have no children or dependents of my own, I am subject to a form of economic genocide. Because that’s exactly what economic genocide is. It’s just that in this case, the genocide is facilitated through America’s socialist tax code.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

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

As tax time approaches once again I wanted you to read one of my most popular essays, America’s Unfair Tax Code and The Brown Headed Cowbird. I have debated often about socialism and communism in The United States and how socialism and communism are implemented through the tax code and in that way their effects are less obvious, though still pernicious. I will be talking a lot about America’s tax code in the next couple of months. To my friends and colleagues who utilize the tax breaks I speak of, I say, use them. Don’t feel guilty for my meager commentary on what is unfair about them. Were I in your shoes, I would do the same. But know they must change. The tax code must be made fair. It was in fact the unfair tax code during colonial times that led to the formation of this country and I don’t see that things should ever change in that regard.

America’s Unfair Tax Code and The Brown Headed Cowbird

An associate of mine was telling me that he had received a substantial tax refund this year and when comparing it to mine I was rather surprised as it was many thousands of dollars more. During the time that we have worked together, he has received close to a year’s salary in total tax refunds more than I. That’s substantial and a bit of an insult to me since we have the same position and are paid exactly the same. We are not businessmen so we do not have a large number of operating costs we can write off. We both make the same amount of money. He is married, I am not, but that was only a minor difference. The major difference between his tax return and mine was that he has five children.

On his tax return each of his children represented a large deduction to his earnings and as a result, he received a substantially larger tax refund than I did. At first I thought, OK, raising children is expensive these days, why shouldn’t he get some help from the government (that’s us the taxpayers, by the way)? But then the thought occurred to me (I didn’t tell him and I hope he doesn’t read my blog) that his children are going to public schools and at times he has used public services for medical support of his family. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. It is good that we offer the best public education in the world and can provide medical support to families in need.

But to give him a tax break substantially larger than mine when in fact he uses more public services than I do, uses more services in a substantially greater amount than I do, seems like foolish and definitely unfair tax policy. What is essentially happening is that I am paying for his children to attend school and to obtain free health care. The tax break, the deduction that he receives is possible because I do not receive the tax break. In essence I am paying to raise his children. That’s how they offer him a tax break. They take it from me in some way or another and give it to him in the form of a deduction.

In the region of the country where I live there is a bird that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds and then lets the other birds rear their young. The name of the bird is The Brown Headed Cowbird. It sneaks up to another bird’s nest when the other bird is away foraging and deposits its egg in the other bird’s nest. When the bird that is out foraging returns to the nest, more often than not they simply begin incubating the Brown Headed Cowbird’s egg along with their own and then they rear the fledgling as if it was their own. Sometimes the host bird can’t raise its own and is only able to raise the fledgling of the Brown Headed Cowbird due to diminished resources in that vicinity and the voracity of the Cowbird fledgling.

It occurs to me that much like the unwitting bird who is rearing the Brown Headed Cowbird’s egg, the invader’s egg, a parasite as defined by ornithologists, I am paying to raise the children of others. If you ask me, that is unfair tax policy. Some might say, well that’s just the way it is, and I myself, I’m not certain I have a problem with that really.

But perhaps many of the problems we have with balancing governmental budgets, many of the problems we have with massive abuses of the huge system of entitlements we have in this country stems from the perception that people have originating from the tax code. Can we afford to have another child? Heck yea! It’s a tax break! And as families have more and more children using more and more government services, we as a country are at a loss for how to pay for those services used because we in fact give people a tax break for using them. In a sense, that is what is happening. And similar tax policies apply to corporations as well for conducting certain types of business or using certain types of resources, natural resources even.

No business in their right mind pays people 100 percent of the cost of their products to purchase their products. You will not find one truly successful business that says, “we will give you five dollars for every hamburger you buy from us.” Instead of you paying us, we will pay you. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? Until of course it comes time to pay all those people behind the counter, the servers, the ones cooking the food, the maintenance people. Where is the money? Well, boss, we gave it to the customers. Well, where are they? Get the money back! They are at the restaurant across the street eating with the money we gave them. Well whose harebrained idea was it to give them the money in the first place?

It seems to me that if we want to balance the country’s budget and the budgets of all of the states and municipalities we need realistic tax codes and policies that address budget disparities, tax policies that somehow seek payment for services used and not payment to the users, particularly the Brown Headed Cowbirds of America.

It’s only fair.

Or, how about this? Do you have a Brown Headed Cowbird living in your back yard? Check this box for your standard Brown Headed Cowbird deduction, and if you are a corporation, double the deduction.

Copyright © William Thien 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

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

A friend recently lamented that he hadn’t seen a decent movie in years and he goes to movies all the time. Sure movies were good enough to win awards, but he felt that they were neither entertaining or satisfying in any emotional sense.

We talked about it and I brought up the fact that I had seen a number of movies lately that had clear socialist undertones such as Divergent and Transcendence, both incredibly dull films that were in my opinion directed at impressionable adolescents.

Our conversation meandered a bit until I felt it was time to raise the question of the late Senator McCarthy and his penchant for attempting to track down communists in the government and even in the film industry. He was eventually ousted for any number of reasons but it seems to me he was on to something.

At the time Senator McCarthy was in office, there were only a few social programs at the national level and spending on “social development” was a small fraction of what it is today when now there are close to 100 “nutrition assistance” programs just at the national level and using government funds to pay for social development is commonplace. Socialism seems almost like a misnomer for the condition that governs the redistribution of funds in America and the only real major difference is that in The United States, our central planning committee (you know) doesn’t have the same authority as say The Soviet Union’s did. The major difference in my opinion is that fact and that we still use currency (which is crucial) and have the ability to make choices with it as a result. That has an enormously stimulative economic affect. Otherwise, we are not that removed from a Soviet form of government in many respects, emails are copied and stored, all phones are tapped, elderly ladies and babies are searched at the airport (isn’t that worse than the other in many respects?).

We have a media that largely does almost exactly the same as the Soviet propaganda machine yet while our media hides behind the constitution, frequently on behalf of corporations who benefit directly from the socialist money trough, the Soviet media was an arm of the communist party. The differences are only structural as well as the goals of our media but the net effect is frequently the same.

I have digressed.

I have in fact seen quite a few movies coming out of Hollywood that have political undertones which are clearly socialist. I still watch movies for entertainment purposes and merely to have something to do other than what I must. But the big government (we’re here to help) thread is there in much of what is coming out of Hollywood and I rather wish to have seen Sen. McCarthy carry on with his quest to discover the extent of communism in the government.

I really don’t know how it might be accomplished that we pull the country out of its almost completely socialist condition. I don’t know. No, I don’t.

My only parallel is to compare what might be required to facilitate a transformation to a less socialist condition and that is to compare such a goal as that of the initial stages of a war. I am not advocating any course of action here, merely explaining what would be required at the outset. When The United States invaded Iraq, Baghdad in particular for example, the first thing, that action which took place before all others, was to physically take control of the media outlets and the ministry of information (propaganda centers).

In my opinion, that would be required for Americans to regain control of the country if in fact Americans feel they no longer have control of their country. If Americans are going to regain control of their country, they will first need to take control of a fear mongering, disingenuous media.

Maybe things are not all that bad. No, maybe they aren’t. Maybe they aren’t getting worse. Maybe everything is tip top. Are things worse than at other times in American history? Maybe yes, maybe no.

But America will not regain control of the country if Americans don’t take control of the media. That is one thing for which I am certain. The media is the facilitator of the country’s condition, make no mistake. The media is what makes it possible for the country to be in the state that it is in, regardless of who is giving instructions to the media.

Taking control of the media would be the first order of action.

But things aren’t really that bad, are they? You know they aren’t that bad because someone is constantly telling you everything is fine. Your fear is manufactured, or is it? You don’t really know, do you? It’s hard to tell, isn’t it? What measure of reliability do you have that the information you are getting is valid, completely valid? Are elections thrown for example?

Try changing the channel if you watch a lot of television. Change the channel. Everything is fine. Change the channel, Ebola. Change the channel, everything is fine. Change the channel, fear. Change the channel, ISIS. Change the channel, everything is fine. Change the channel, fear. Change the channel, massive deficit. Change the channel, everything is fine. Change the channel…turn the station…change the channel, how can it be that most are all playing the same fearful tune? (I don’t have a television, by the way)

Now do you see what I am talking about? I guess at this point you just have to ask yourself how far it has progressed?

If you feel the government is worthless, for example, then you should know that it is the media that facilitates that. The media is the propaganda machine which facilitates the current state of the country, make no mistake.

We should talk some more about it some time.

William Thien

P.S. I say “the media is” and not “the media are” because the media seem to move almost in an orchestrated fashion, no matter what they claim. You’ve noticed it, too, haven’t you.

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.

One thing socialists and communists don’t want the public to know about socialism and communism is that the social programs they derive make things more expensive for those who are taxed to pay for the programs.

Let’s take rent assistance, for example. If you skim tax dollars off of the middle class (that’s where the money comes from) to redistribute it to pay for single women having children out-of-wedlock (nearly half of all babies born last year were born to single mothers), single mothers who need to stay home and take care of their babies, what is effectively happening is that an increase in the demand for rental housing is taking place and there is a corresponding supply of money, rent assistance dollars, to satisfy that demand. The socialists are using your money, tax dollars, to pay for that rent assistance. You are thinking, “Awe, isn’t that nice, I’m helping someone keep a roof over their heads.” But that’s only a small portion of it really, the good part.

The social programs put more money into the rental economy and thereby enable landowners to increase their rents. If all people don’t have enough money to pay the rent, landlords have to lower the rents. When demand is high, when money is available as in the form of rent assistance, prices are kept high, artificially high. The key word is “artificially” high. When demand is low, prices go down.

Now there is nothing wrong with landowners getting paid for renting their property, but social programs such as rent assistance are a double whammy to you and your dollar in that they totally undermine your very own housing dollar by working against it, driving the price of housing up for you and also taxing you for the dollars to do it! That’s what the socialists and communists don’t want you to know! They are forcing you to screw yourself right out of your very own place!

The same holds true for most major social programs and entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it. If you examine the cost of health care since the implementation of those two programs, what has happened? Recognize a pattern, yet?

Shhhhhh! Don’t tell anyone. They don’t want you to know, either. I’m not supposed to say anything, or else!, they say.

The media doesn’t tell you, do they? No, they want people sitting at home in front of the television or making more babies on the rug in front of it. If people are working, they can’t watch TV. Only those who ascribe to the socialist system can stay at home and watch TV all the time because they get the check, the assistance, and the food stamps. And many do. One in six Americans now receives food stamps, almost fifteen percent of the population. How many of them are working?

Corporate media actually likes the socialist system because it creates a large audience of viewers that they can market their products to in order to get the money from the food stamps and assistance checks. Is it big business? No, ladies and gentlemen, it’s huge!

How about food stamps? We’ve been talking about that lately. As I’ve described, when you throw a bunch of money in to any market, prices go up. It’s basic economic theory. If the supply remains constant and demand increases, prices go up. When you put $74 billion dollars into the market economy demand increases and so prices go up. And prices have gone up, haven’t they?

There were some questions sent to me asking about how such assistance programs drive up the prices of things and as you can see, not only do social programs drive up the price of things you buy, they use your money to do it. That’s what the socialists and communists in the government don’t want you to know.

Well, what’s in it for the socialists and communists in the government, you ask? A job, a job helping you screw yourself it appears, and judging from the size and scope of social programs in the US in comparison to the 1950’s, apparently they take great pleasure in seeing to it. Maybe Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin was right. Yes, I suppose he was.

Shhh! I shouldn’t be telling you all of this, any of it.

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.

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

Find by month

Find by date

June 2019
« May    
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: