Posts Tagged ‘welfare state’

By Removing State Tax Deductions, Trump Is Forcing States To Take Responsibility For Bloated Budgets

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

All of life comes down to the choice of whether you choose a human order or an order based in nature, God or gods, and logic. If you choose the human order, you will forever be playing into the victimhood-scapegoat spectrum, where you have to blame others for the consequences of your own bad decisions.

Donald Trump just struck back at centuries of American prole-bloat by proposing to deny federal deductions for state taxes. This is a classic conservative move which supports localism by localizing responsibility.

If you are in California, and paying 6% of your income in tax to the state, you no longer have Uncle Sap to absorb the cost of that. Instead, you see it as what it actually is: a cost that California is passing on to the rest of the nation. After that happens, you will be more wary when you turn on the television and see the politicians have a new program for “free” benefits. Nope, not free anymore.

Voters in New York could approve whatever insane edicts came from their political class and shrug it off because they were not paying for it. They paid taxes, sure, but then deducted those, so the end result was that no more money came out of their pockets. If they cannot take that deduction, they will see their tax load as it truly is, which is an insane amount of money, most of it going to parasites.

Now, instead, the burden is shifted back to those with the power of the vote to change it. When California comes up with another set of free benefits, the voters have to realize that they are paying for this as well. When New York’s chattering classes decide they want another ideological crusade, the voters know they are going to feel the pain for it.

Even better would be if states and federal government adopted a flat tax. No one votes who does not have some skin in the game. But in the long term, pretty much anyone with a pulse recognizes that 60% of our taxes go toward Leftist wealth redistribution programs and that if we cut those, we could pay almost nothing in taxes.

Many have even snapped to the awareness that their high property taxes are mostly going to fund schools that are more expensive than those in any other advanced nation, mainly because our diversity load is so high and we refuse to send anyone home for total ineptitude or bad behavior.

For many years now, Americans have viewed the wealth of their fellow voters as an infinite cornucopia upon which they had a blank check to draw for any programs that increased “equality,” including civil rights. These costs were then hidden away as debt, assigned to long-term funds which were never fully paid, and otherwise concealed from the robotic, mindless voters.

Naturally, humans tend to be generous when voting with Other People’s Money (OPM) and so the proliferation of social programs was massive. If you are paying relatively little in taxes, and know that you can squeeze it out of people in other states or income brackets, why not vote to spend a little more, if you anticipate receiving more?

A vast shift has happened in the West. For over two centuries, we were drugged with the promise of Leftism, and then realized that even in its mild forms, it crushes our economies and changes us into hopeless people, much as it did in the Soviet Union. Trump’s counter-attack on taxes is part of the reversal of this Leftist wave and the return of accountability, sanity, duty and responsibility.

Your Modern Economy Is Based On Socialist Debt

Sunday, February 26th, 2017

An informative post on Reddit conveys the basics:

Below are workings for my claim that most GDP growth since 1980 has been the result of increased financial engineering and credit expansion.

Over the last 30+ years, we’ve taken on 51,893 billions in new credit expansion. On top of that, we’ve increased the money supply from about 2,000 billions to 10,000 billons (in 2006, when the Fed stopped tracking this number), adding an additional 8,000 billions of money to the economy, for a total of about 60,000 billions in new credit or real money created since 1980.

That’s a total of 361,377 billions. If we had of had no growth, the 1980 rate carried forward would be 105,912 billions. That indicates we have increased the product of the country, not annualized, a total of 255,465 billions since 1980.

Of course, that’s almost five times the amount of the expansion of credit since 1980, so I’m obviously wrong, right? Almost. The 1980 GDP of 2862.5 billions in 2016 money is.. 8293.48 billions, and increase of almost three times.

So, I’m still wrong, right? Almost. The other form of “debt” the US has incurred is unfunded Federal and State liabilities, which don’t count as debt, but are future promised spending. If you ran a business and promised to spend money in the future on something, and that promise was binding, that would be listed a liability on your GAAP balance sheet. However, for the US government, that’s not the case.

The Treasury estimates the Federal government has unfunded liabilities in the amount of 55000 billions, due over the next 30 years. It’s impossible to say which of those were “incurred’ during which years from 1980 to 2016, excepting that in 1980 that number was zero, since the primary drivers of this huge unbooked debt – social security, Medicaid, Medicare were all fully funded at that time.

So, between private, public, corporate and consumer debt and unfunded unrealized Federal liabilities which are really debt, the data clearly indicates to me that we have increased our GDP only through the use of increase leverage.

This is borne out by the empirical data which in a wide variety of metrics shows that the average US worker hasn’t made really any gains in quality of life or living standards in that time period, and for many workers, that standard of living has gone down dramatically. Living standard are hard to hide, and the standard of living in the US has improved largely because of technology, not because of increased earnings, buying power, or financial stability.

As noted before, modern government formed itself from mating socialism and capitalism into a circular Ponzi scheme that works by taxing its population, dumping the money on an underclass, and then using their spending to justify a demand-side economic model in which “fast money” bases its value on the sale of debt and loans.

With schemes of this nature, all costs rise because money is skimmed at every level and redirected into the perpetual “pump priming” Keynesian welfare state, and this then subsidizes itself by selling debt and increasing the face value of the money by encouraging borrowing. This results in higher costs and lower quality, but salaries stay stagnant because money is peeled off before it trickles down to the end user, in this case the middle class salary earner and consumer.

When Leftists rage on about the failure of “capitalism,” they are trying to conceal the fact that it is Leftist programs that have engineered this failure, driven by the tendency of democracies to spend Other People’s Money (OPM) until it runs out, then extinguishing themselves in a default or collapse.

Those Who Fail The Lessons of History Don’t Exactly Dominate Algebra II/Trig Either

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

Take the consequences away, and make the world into a pink and puffy safe space, and the morons get to moron.

Boy #PresidentTrump is an ignoramus. He doesn’t know anything about what goes on in the world today. His remarks regarding Sweden were horrible. Just wrong. How could he possibly assume Sweden was experiencing violence? According to our former ambassador to Sweden, it’s all just the same prejudice we saw in Shakespeare’s Othello The Moor.

Gosh people who doubted the positive aspects of Socialism in Venezuela should eat some crow. The average Venezuelan has lost nineteen pounds in just one year! The calories are not just burned — they’re Holodomored! Exciting details of the weight loss magic follow below.

Prime Source: ¿El resultado? Una dieta insuficiente que no alcanza las 2.000 calorías diarias que cada venezolano debería consumir. Por esta razón, de acuerdo con la Encuesta Condiciones de Vida 2016 (Encovi), 74,3% de la población ha perdido al menos 8,7 kilos de peso de forma no controlada en el último año. Los pobres extremos afirman que han bajado más de 9 kilos.

English:In a new sign that Venezuela’s financial crisis is morphing dangerously into a humanitarian one, a new nationwide survey shows that in the past year nearly 75 percent of the population lost an average of 19 pounds for lack of food. The extreme poor said they dropped even more weight than that.

And then there was A Day Without Immigrants (following up on the equally unsuccessful A Day Without A Mexican). It was supposed to bring down the Iron Cuck on all who dared to support the idea that a sovereign nation should control its borders. The idea that Freedom of Association also has a negative component fries the circuitry of religious believers in equality above all other values. They therefore decided to take back their labor.

Diners in cities nationwide were greeted by locked doors at many of their favorite restaurants on Thursday, along with signs in the window expressing solidarity with striking workers participating in a #daywithoutimmigrants protest. Immigrants stayed away from work to show their impact on the economy, and some restaurants showed solidarity by shutting down their kitchens, or even their entire business.

Apparantly, these idiot Marxists didn’t even take the time to read thier own Marxism. St. Karl The Collectivist makes clear why Leftists really like lower status immigrants. You bring in the Reserve Army of The Unemployed so that you can ditch any individual soldier who pops off with a ‘tude in the middle of formation. Thus, a funny thing happened when these particular vendors failed to show up at the forum.

The 18 employees at Bradley Coatings, Incorporated in Nolensville, Tennessee told their supervisors on Wednesday they’d be taking part in the nationwide movement. Then, on Thursday, they were told they no longer had jobs. “We are the team leaders directly under the supervisors and they informed us last night that we could not go back to work and the boss said we were fired,” one employee said.

Now none of these similarly unrelated events seem connected, but they each are the result of a certain logic. They are a result of Progressive Logic – a logic that requires you to see the world as the world is not. Progressives remind me of the Pentecostal, snake-handling congregation that pass around Water Moccasins and Timber Rattlers and then wonder why Jethro had to leave the service on a stretcher and get filled full of anti-venom shots. Just because you want to reenact St. Paul’s night of being shipwrecked on Malta, doesn’t mean that God will give you a similar immunity to reptilian venom. An old proverb readeth: “He who playeth the games of the stupid shall winneth to him likewise unintelligent prizes.”

But the ignorant Progressive seems to think that consequences don’t matter if it feels right. That’s why they feel good telling people in Sweden to hold up the Rapefugees Welcome signs. That’s why they still tell us that Communism and its associated Kim Jung Il dietary proscriptions are humane and decent ideas. They can’t understand that when an employer sends you notification that you are expected to work tomorrow if you want to stay employed, you might just want to show up. Nope, the Proggie takes the day off to protest then can’t believe that some mean, old capitalist would fire them.

I personally blame Evil Amerikan Emperor Lyndon Baines Johnson for such continued stupid. In a consequentialist world, morons like these would get murder-raped, fired or go very, very hungry. Take the consequences away, and make the world into a pink and puffy safe space, and the morons get to moron. So what then is the issue?

The issue is that this is like putting life on the plastic. At some point the waiter shows up with the stupid tab and somebody’s wallet can no longer underwrite their fundamental dysfunction. This is where evil cascades from short-sighted pleasure-seeking to civilization failure. The raped Swedish women are stuck with a neurosis and a pregnancy resulting from being raped by at least five different guys who are now nowhere to be found, much less DNA tested. Someone else gets stuck with the stupid tab. The protesting workers get canned, the US Treasury sells more debt to put them on Gubbermint Life Support. The poor Third Worlders starve too much, the UN gets sad. Thousands of perfectly good, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines get turned into hamburger meat or potted vegetables to save them from a government that the Wogs themselves helped put into power.

It happens so often that people are acting in stupid and self-destructive manners with the implicit assumption that they will always get bailed out. At some point, I question whether these people have figured out a reality hack. That would make them evil rather than stupid. Thus, if I find the situations I described above to be stupid, then it may not be me that is standing next to stupid.

Who has the agency to allow this history to repeat itself in iterative fashion? Again and again. We seem doomed to eternally repeat this self-defeating history. That probably implies that we aren’t going to kick ass in Algebra II/Trig either. I’m not so sure the true weapon of the Cloward-Piven Strategy was the weight of the poor. It may just be the weight of the hidebound and the stupid. The relentless pressure to give more and more to bail out failure will be the end of us all unless we sober up and rebel.

How To End Diversity

Saturday, January 7th, 2017

We know that diversity is over, meaning that the policy of diversity has failed. This does not reflect badly on any race or races, but on the idea of diversity — different ethnic, cultural and religious groups co-existing in the same civilization — as a realistic principle. We have seen what it brings, and done our best to salvage it, but it still self-destructed, so now we know it is just an unstable policy.

The question then becomes how to end diversity, and ideally how to do so in a realistic but not unkind manner. We have seen enough of the horrors of Leftist government, with its mass executions and secret police, to shy away from anything like those solutions. We also on the Right know we are on notice regarding the crimes of the Nazis: repeat anything like those, and your popular support will evaporate.

Let us visualize how our civilization could get rid of diversity entirely in a few easy steps.

  1. Ditch the benefits. People come here for the same reason trick-or-treaters arrive at your house on Halloween: you are handing out free stuff. We give out free healthcare, welfare, education, food, cell phones, retirement benefits, legal advice, jobs, entertainment, clothing and housing to people who arrive in the West. Even better, the less they have, the more they get. To stop the flood from arriving, we need to lose all these social programs and make people pay for this stuff instead, which will be reducing externalized/socialized cost in turn make it cheaper.
  2. End the one-sided protections. Under our anti-discrimination laws including Affirmative Action, if someone from a minority group shows up to a job interview and does not get the job, they can sue and will likely win. For that reason, they will get hired every time instead of a white person. The same applies to renting, purchasing housing and getting service in public. If those protections were removed, and people were able to freely associate in business and private life, another attractor goes away.
  3. Shift culture toward identity. Without laying a hand on anyone, we can make our culture clearly ours again in the images we show in public and the behaviors we expect. If people go around saying “Merry Christmas!” and advertisements show smiling white families, the attractiveness of this society to the Other will diminish. If all they see is our culture and we make it clear that our direction involves our identity and no other, the place becomes outright hostile.
  4. Offer reparations with repatriation. A good businessperson knows that when a deal works out badly, the right way to end is to do so decisively: offer a fair amount of money to the other party in exchange for their time and trouble, and from that, extract a contractual obligation to end the deal. That is: we tell minorities that diversity did not work after all, and so we are ending it, and they can receive a reasonable amount of money but only if they surrender their passports, their citizenship is revoked, and they are shipped to their continent of origin (Asias to Asia, Africans to Africa, Australids to India).
  5. Build up ethnic identity for all. For us to have strong nationalism, every other group will need strong nationalism as well, so that they can take pride in their identity and believe a positive future is coming their way. With this change in outlook, they will want to be with their people in lands they exclusively control, as opposed to being part of the multicultural morass. Strong ethnic identity allows them to see the empowerment in ethnic separation.
  6. Emphasize self-interest. When we participate in the universalist delusion, which is a kind of pacifism that pretends that all humans are looking out for each other, diversity seems to make sense as a way of eliminating ethnic strife. When we advance the contrary and factual notion that every person, group and nation acts in its own self-interest, it becomes clear that those self-interests will clash with immigration and diversity.
  7. Let ethnic communities police themselves. Currently, white police and firefighters sacrifice themselves to protect communities of other ethnic groups. If we end this, those communities will need to have their own governments, and will take on the burden of doing so, which will make them see the true cost of living here as opposed to back home where culture not government enforces standards. If shouldering the costs of their own governments, courts, fire, police, medical and social services, these groups will find living in the West far less hospitable than being back home.

Right now Western people are addicted to our welfare states. The reason for this is that we have become addicted to self-pity and the corresponding low self-esteem it creates, which makes us inclined to view work and society as obligations which compete with us for our time. This gives us a sense of entitlement as expressed in “muh freedom” and “muh social security.”

In our view, we suffer for our society — this part is true — and therefore we deserve benefits, which is psychologically appealing because others are paying those benefits to us. This is like hazing; we did our time, now they do their time, and we get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. This applies to anything free the government hands out, even while we are working, because we visualize this process as similar to the process in our jobs where employees take turns doing particularly disliked tasks.

However, these benefits are not just attractors to others, but have ruined us. Our low self-esteem comes from the fact of our dependence on government and society — we can never be free from it. Our self-pity comes from miserable nature of interacting with a society that is basically a bureaucracy where being at work is the highest ideal, and the ideological obligation to all people. Remember, our Leftist government is like all Leftist entities a “worker’s party,” which means that the only people with rights and respect are workers.

These conditions have created a sick feedback loop. To be good Communists patriots, we work all the time. That makes us miserable, so we take revenge on others by soaking up whatever benefits, luxuries, indulgences and vices we can. That further sabotages us because for all of our angsty behavior, we are still enslaved to the system, and the anger at that knowledge drives us to further parasitism.

Escaping this modern lifestyle provides the basis for ending diversity: when we stop working all the time and demanding “free” benefits to match, those who are free riders on our wealth will then begin to disappear, which makes it easy to implement the rest of this list and gradually shrink our excess population without sabotaging our economy. Diversity is over; all that remains is for us to formalize this.

Whites Secede

Monday, May 9th, 2016


What obligation do I have to my fellow man?

That’s a loaded question. It assumes that all of my fellow men are the same.

I might ask, Which fellow man? Some are good, some are bad, most are in the middle.

That of course prompts an angry backlash: “Love all of us or you are an elitist meany jerk!”

I find great inspiration in Plato’s formulation of morality — “good to the good, and bad to the bad” — and the ancient Greek idea of hubris as the archetype of human error and sin alike.

We tend to be pretentious little monkeys who overstate our own importance and when the world (correspondingly) smacks us down, we rationalize that what we did was right or good and the world is bad therefore it must be denied.

Plato says we should treat the good, or those who do not indulge in this cycle of insanity, better than those who have no such self-discipline. Darwin agrees: whatever we tolerate, we get more of, so we should tolerate only what we want more of.

The usual monkey response is to flap the arms and squawk, “Well who decides? How do we know what’s good and what’s bad?”

This confusion can be overcome by sorting our actions by whether or not they were effective. The thing about an ineffective action is it obscures its intent. When someone claims he wants to end poverty, dumps money on the ghetto and ends up with bad results, it becomes unclear what he was actually trying to achieve. But when an action is effective, we know what was intended.

So first, cut out all ineffective activity. Any action where the stated intent does not match the results gets tossed.

Next, look at the intent behind those successful actions. Is that something that enhances civilization and individual health alike? The answer is that most people cannot tell, mostly because they are afraid of the question and will shy away from answering it, and will lie (like rugs) if forced to answer it. No one wants to be accountable to a higher standard than “Whatever I want, right now.” And yet all good things come from waiting to understand a situation so that we can separate wants from needs. Needs are those wants which create positive results.

The grim truth about humanity is that very few people can handle this question directly, despite it being simple and requiring no intellectual superpower except honesty. Most will think in too short of a time scale; the correct one is probably ten thousand years, but most people will pick two weeks, and even some of our smartest tend to come up with “five-year plans” and other nonsense. Almost all will think in terms of individuals alone, neglecting shared enterprises like civilization, nature and culture/values.

The point of this lengthy diversion is that responsibility to our fellow men rarely involves what our fellow men say is our responsibility to them. The sanest approach would be to filter them as above, removing incompetents and then the bad, and being good to those who have done well, and benevolently indifferent to the rest. Darwin, Plato, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and every other person or mind to rise above the average throughout history have seen the truth of this. And yet most of humanity denies it.

There is another dimension to this question as well. Who — independent of good and bad — can we legitimately have responsibility toward? Some would say only our immediate families, but that precludes civilization, so can be rejected for outright stupidity. Others would say our ethnic groups, and most of history seems to support this. It is this topic that divides us the most, because if we fall into ethnic groups, the entire idea of a nation based on politics alone falls apart. The modern notion of the nation-state, a French Revolutionary invention, collapses entirely.

But at some point, we have to declare the failure of political notions when the results they promise diverge from the consequences they deliver.


Let us look at America. Wracked by race riots in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1990s, it adopted successively more extreme plans for diversity: integration (1950s), affirmative action (1980s), and the subsidy state (1930s-1990s). Finally it elected a minority president. In theory, the problem was solved, and the horrors seen in the LA race riots of 1992 was resolved by the election of 2008. In reality, the problems intensified, because no matter how much white people pandered to minority interests, the same essential fact remained: someone else other than the ethnic group itself was in charge.

If you are an African-American on the streets of America, who do you want to see when pulled over by the cops, coming to the front of the line at the tax office, or entering an office looking for a job? Probably an African-American face, but you see instead white, Hispanic and Asian faces. Even with Barack Obama in office, most of the people you see in high-ranking positions are not of your race, and most of the people who voted for him are not of your race. So despite being pandered to, you remain a subject of someone else’s self-interest and self-determination, not your own.

This situation can never be fixed. It is the same for Hispanics, Asians and whites. In the multi-cultural society, no ethnic group is in control, which means that no ethnic group is represented. No ethnic group can declare its standards as law, which means that instead we get permissive standards for the convenience of government, not maintenance of morality and culture. Each group will always be subject to another group, even if that group is of mixed-race, until all racial groups are destroyed and replaced with that mixed-race group.

Seventy years ago, life for whites was pretty good. But as they took on more responsibility for other ethnic groups, things have fallen apart. This is not the fault of those other groups, nor are they “bad” in some absolute sense; rather, two ethnic groups cannot occupy the same space without coming into conflict, and the white response has been essentially to bribe these groups will a welfare state that now takes up most of our budgets. As a result, federal, state and local taxes combined are devastating the white population while our ethnic conflicts continue.

The idea of white secession — and by whites I mean the Nativist founding group of America — has been floated in the past as geographically-based, but never as a pure ethnic basis. Whites secede when they regain enough control of themselves to vote out the welfare state, affirmative action, anti-discrimination law, HUD and the thousands of regulations about civil rights. This allows white communities to exist, beholden to no one but themselves.

Being “our brother’s keeper” means doing what is best for our fellow humans. This does not always mean writing them checks. Sometimes, it means accepting seemingly harsh realities and terminating policies made on the basis of feelings and not observable reality. That way, after a brief period of chaos, results are better for everyone. Ethnic groups will not feel comfortable until they have their own communities and self-determination. To start that process, Whites Secede!

How First World Governments Have Bribed Their Citizens Into Compliance

Thursday, May 5th, 2016


Over at The Conversation, important research reveals the reason that modern citizens seem to grumble all the time but never take any action to substantially change their situation: they have been bribed into silence. This is how government, evolving like a tapeworm, has solved the problem of recessions, flagging loyalty and keeping itself in power.

The researchers make an important point. Thanks to government benefits raising the lower and high taxes lowering the higher, people without wealth can afford to live like wealthy people. Here’s the most relevant part of the research in graphical form:


This graph shows how people in the lowest 80% of the population have their spending boosted by social welfare benefits, and how the highest lose about a third of their spending power thanks to taxation. I imagine the graph is similar in Europe because similar methods are applied there.

The authors write:

[S]pending inequality – what we should really care about – is far smaller than wealth inequality…The fact that spending inequality is dramatically smaller than wealth inequality results from our highly progressive fiscal system, as well as the fact that labor income is distributed more equally than wealth.

The top 1 percent of 40-49-year-olds face a net tax, on average, of 45 percent. This means that the present value of their spending is reduced by the fiscal system to 55 percent of the present value of their resources…For the bottom 20 percent, the average net tax rate is negative 34.2 percent. In other words, they get to spend 34.2 percent more than they have thanks to government policy…

Governments guarantee permanent stability (of government) through this model. The people most likely to revolt, namely the lower 80%, are bought off with the wealth of the higher 20%, who are not taxed so much that they cannot still enjoy a good life. This means that any attempt to remove the current system from order will meet with squeals of protest from the lower who fear their benefits going away, and the higher who see that their customer base will fall if the spending powers of the lower are curtailed.

Benefits (“bennies”) have always been bribes in disguise, presumably to keep the proles from rioting. Now they are a way the population is held hostage. It can keep a good life, so long as it keeps voting for the usual gang of incompetents, because while they’ll screw everything up, they’ll keep the bennies coming.

We also see how multiculturalism is made to work on paper in the West. The third world people who are imported are poorer, so they are given government benefits, which generally pacifies them so they mostly limit their violent crimes to the ghettos in which they are stored. The bennies allow them to have a good life, but in return, they buy the products — iPhones and Louis Vuitton and health insurance — that the higher earners produce. This inflates the value of the economy and the take-home of the higher earners, despite it being essential as circular ponzi scheme that is using permanent Keynesianism to suggest the economy is healthier than it actually is.

This shows us the origin of the ugliest form of consumerism: it is how governments pay for the increased taxes that make the bribes to citizens possible. The upper fifth is not buying much of the fast food, gadgets and entertainment as they have better things to do and different priorities. The subsidized people are, which increases demand for money, allowing government to claim positive economic effects from what ultimately will be a deleterious practice.

Recommended Reading