Small Town - Big Addiction, "I Fell... Again"

 

In the world of addiction, the stories are often both tragic and complex, revealing the depths to which people will go to sustain their dependency. In this interview, we sit down with Jan, a recovering addict, who candidly shares the extreme measures she took to manipulate doctors into prescribing pain medications. Her journey exposes the underbelly of addiction, where deceit becomes a daily tool for survival.

Interviewer: Jan, thank you for agreeing to talk with me today. Can you start by telling us a little about how your addiction began?

Jan: It started the way it does for a lot of people. I was prescribed pain medication after an injury — I’d hurt my back, lifting something heavy. At first, the pills were just for the pain. But then, over time, I started noticing that the pills didn’t just take the pain away; they made everything else disappear, too. The stress, the anxiety — all of it. And soon enough, I wasn’t just taking them for the pain.

Interviewer: When did you realize you were dependent on them?

Jan: Probably when the prescriptions stopped. I would run out early, and the doctors started cutting me off. That’s when I knew I was hooked. The physical withdrawal was unbearable. It felt like I couldn’t function without them. So, I started looking for ways to get more.

Interviewer: Can you explain what you did to keep getting the medication once the doctors stopped prescribing it?

Jan: Sure. I got desperate. After a while, doctors in my state flagged me as a potential drug seeker. They wouldn’t write me prescriptions anymore. That’s when I came up with this plan, which I guess you could call it. I started having my boyfriend hit me. Not just anywhere — I’d tell him where to hit so it would look like I’d had a real accident. Mostly in places that doctors couldn’t easily question — like my arms, legs, or ribs. Then, I’d tell the doctors I fell down the stairs or slipped in the shower.

Interviewer: How often would you do this?

Jan: It became a regular thing. Whenever I needed a refill and couldn’t get one, I’d set it up. I’d plan it out: how I’d “fall,” where I’d land, and how long I’d wait before going to the ER. I had it down to a science. My boyfriend wasn’t a bad guy — he didn’t want to hurt me — but he knew I needed it, or I’d lose it. He’d just do what I asked. The bruises and fractures made it easy to convince the doctors.

Interviewer: Did you ever get caught by the doctors?

Jan: Not at first. I got good at it. I made sure to switch doctors every time. But after a while, even the ERs in my state started to catch on. They’d see my name, and I’d notice the way they’d look at me. You could tell they were suspicious. They’d start asking questions, and I knew it was only a matter of time before I was flagged everywhere.

Interviewer: What did you do when that happened?

Jan: That’s when I crossed state lines. I live near the border, so driving to another state wasn’t too hard. I’d just start the whole process over again. New doctors, new hospitals, new stories. They didn’t know me in a different state, so it worked for a while. But you can only run long before people start figuring things out.

Interviewer: Did you ever feel guilty about deceiving the doctors?

Jan: (Pauses) At the time, no. I didn’t care about anything except getting the pills. The withdrawal made me feel like I was dying, so I would do whatever I had to. I justified it by telling myself that the doctors didn’t care about me anyway, that they were just part of the system. But looking back now, I feel terrible. Those doctors were trying to help people in pain, and I took advantage of that. I wasn’t thinking about the long-term damage I was doing to myself or how I was hurting the people around me.

Interviewer: What finally made you stop?

Jan: I ended up in a car accident, a real one this time. I was high on pain pills and nodded off while driving. I could’ve killed someone, and that was the wake-up call I needed. After that, I went to rehab, and I’ve been clean ever since. It’s been a long road, but I’m doing better now.

Interviewer: What advice would you give someone in a similar situation?

Jan: Get help before it’s too late. The pills might feel like they’re helping, but they’re not. They just numb the pain for a little while, and then the cycle starts all over again. And don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re not hurting anyone else — because you are. Eventually, the lies catch up with you. It’s only a matter of time before it all falls apart.

Interviewer: Thank you, Jan, for sharing your story. I know it’s not easy to talk about something like this.

Jan: It’s important. I just hope my story can help someone else avoid the path I went down.

Jan’s story is a stark reminder of the lengths to which addiction can drive someone. The deception, the manipulation, and the constant need for more highlight the darker side of pain pill addiction. For Jan, her story is one of survival — not just from the pain she sought to numb but from the addiction that nearly destroyed her life.

Tax Breaks and Hobby Businesses

 

The proposal to offer a $50,000 tax break to all new small businesses is an enticing incentive to foster entrepreneurship and stimulate economic growth. However, the potential for significant complications arises if the IRS later determines that a business needs to meet the criteria for a legitimate enterprise. This issue isn't new; under both Presidents Clinton and Obama, companies and individuals faced retroactive tax payments, forcing them to repay benefits initially granted by the government. A similar scenario unfolded during the COVID-19 pandemic, where numerous businesses, particularly LLCs, were required to return relief funds after being deemed ineligible following IRS reviews. The IRS determines whether a business is legitimate or simply a hobby using specific criteria, such as whether the business has a genuine intent to make a profit, the time and resources dedicated to the enterprise, and whether it operates with the regularity and professionalism expected of a viable business.

The potential for retroactive repayment creates a significant financial burden for small businesses, which may have already reinvested their tax break into growth. If required to pay back the $50,000, considering most companies don't make a profit until their fifth year in business, it could cripple a fledgling company, leading to layoffs, closures, and a ripple effect of economic hardship. On a larger scale, forcing many businesses into retroactive repayments can dampen entrepreneurial activity, creating uncertainty and discouraging new ventures. Entrepreneurs may become wary of taking advantage of government incentives, fearing that a later IRS review could render them financially liable.

Additionally, stringent IRS oversight and inconsistent or unclear guidelines on what qualifies as a legitimate business can create widespread confusion and mistrust. This can lead to administrative gridlock, where the IRS and businesses expend excessive time and resources resolving disputes. In the long run, this stifles innovation and investment, undermining the original purpose of the tax break. Retroactive tax collection from businesses struggling to survive could also result in a contraction in local economies, particularly in regions heavily reliant on small businesses for job creation and economic activity. The combination of uncertain IRS oversight, unclear definitions of legitimate businesses, and retroactive repayments could transform an initiative to stimulate growth into a source of economic instability. To mitigate these risks, the government must establish clear, transparent criteria from the outset and provide better support for small business owners navigating the tax break process.

BLS Job Creation Misreporting

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a federal agency measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and economic price changes. It plays a critical role in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions by providing data on job creation, unemployment rates, and wage growth. However, like any large organization, the BLS is not immune to errors, oversights, or miscalculations. One glaring example is the recent controversy surrounding the BLS's misreporting of 834 million jobs that were purportedly "created" but, in fact, did not exist. This error underscores broader issues within the agency, raising questions about the reliability of its data and the consequences of its miscalculations on public policy.

The misreporting of 834 million jobs is not just a statistical blunder—it reflects a systemic issue within the BLS. While the agency is tasked with providing accurate data, it often relies on outdated models and assumptions that do not fully capture the complexities of the modern economy. Like many government institutions, the BLS is frequently slow to adapt to economic behavior, technological advancements, and shifting labor market dynamics. As a result, its reports can be misleading, causing policymakers to make decisions based on flawed data. This particular instance of misreporting reveals a deeper problem: the over-reliance on bureaucratic processes detached from working Americans' real-world experiences. When the BLS overstates job creation or underestimates unemployment, it creates a false sense of security in the economy. People are led to believe that the labor market is more substantial than it is, which can mask underlying problems such as wage stagnation, declining job quality, and increased economic inequality.

The BLS's errors are not just academic; they have real-world consequences. When government agencies like the BLS fail to provide accurate data, they pave the way for policies that expand government control over the economy. One example is the push toward more centralized economic planning, often through socialism or government-mandated controls. When the government believes the economy is doing well based on faulty data, it may feel justified in expanding its role in managing resources, setting wages, and determining how businesses operate. This creeping control can lead to a loss of individual freedom and economic liberty. Productive people—the entrepreneurs, small business owners, and workers who drive innovation and growth—may become disillusioned with a system that seems increasingly hostile to their efforts. As more and more regulations, taxes, and mandates are imposed, these individuals may decide that the rewards of participating in the formal economy are no longer worth the costs. They may quit or withdraw from the economy, leading to labor shortages, reduced productivity, and a lower standard of living for everyone.

One of the most dangerous aspects of government agencies like the BLS making such errors is that the government rarely admits when it is wrong. The narrative often remains that these institutions are infallible, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This creates a feedback loop where government mistakes are not corrected but perpetuated through policy decisions that exacerbate the problems they should solve. When productive people leave the economy, society as a whole suffers. Shortages of goods and services become more common, and the quality of life deteriorates. Yet, those who support more government control often need to see the link between flawed data, bad policy, and these adverse outcomes. Instead, they double down on the belief that more government intervention is the solution, further expanding socialism and control.

The BLS's misreporting of 834 million jobs is not just a mistake—it is a symptom of a more significant problem within government agencies that fail to provide accurate, reliable data. This issue has far-reaching consequences for public policy, individual freedom, and the economy's overall health. As productive people withdraw from a system that punishes success and rewards inefficiency, society will experience the consequences of shortages, lower quality of life, and increased government control. It is essential to demand accountability from the BLS and other government agencies. Accurate data is critical for making informed government and private decisions. Without it, we risk moving further down the path of socialism and control, where individual liberty and economic prosperity are sacrificed in the name of centralized planning and government intervention. Voting for policies that promote freedom, economic opportunity, and limited government is one way to push back against this trend and ensure that future generations can enjoy the benefits of a thriving, dynamic economy.

When Politicians say they haven't changed their values--- Isn't values relative to begin with?

 

The shift from virtue to values in the West represents a profound transformation in the moral and philosophical framework that has long shaped Western civilization. Historically, Western moral philosophy was deeply rooted in Christian virtues drawn from classical philosophy, notably Aristotle and Christian teachings. These virtues, such as courage, temperance, justice, and faith, were regarded as objective truths grounded in a divine order, universally applicable regardless of personal circumstances. However, with the advent of the modern era, particularly during the Enlightenment and the rise of secularism, there was a gradual move away from these objective virtues toward what is now known as "values." Unlike virtues, values are often perceived as subjective, personal preferences that can vary from individual to individual. This shift has allowed for a more pluralistic approach to morality, where individuals or cultures can hold different, sometimes conflicting, values considered equally valid.

Friedrich Nietzsche played a central role in this philosophical shift. Nietzsche famously declared that "God is dead," a statement he used to signify the decline of absolute, objective moral values that were once rooted in Christian teachings. He argued that with the death of God, Western civilization lost its foundation for objective truth, including moral truth. Nietzsche criticized traditional Christian morality as life-denying, believing it suppressed the individual's true potential. In place of Christian virtues, Nietzsche introduced the concept of the "Übermensch" (Overman or Superman), who creates his own values by exercising the will to power. This revolutionary idea suggested that morality was not something to be discovered or adhered to but rather something to be created by the individual. Nietzsche's concept laid the groundwork for moral relativism, where ethical principles are seen as relative to the individual or culture rather than universally binding.

The embrace of values over virtues has opened the door to relative morality, where moral judgments become matters of personal or cultural preference rather than objective truth. This shift has led to a fragmentation of moral consensus in the West, undermining the idea of a shared moral framework and leading to social and cultural disintegration. With a common set of virtues or objective moral standards, it becomes increasingly easier to maintain social cohesion, as different groups or individuals follow their own subjective values, often in conflict. This moral relativism has contributed to the erosion of Western institutions and traditions once grounded in a shared understanding of virtue. The loss of a common moral foundation has weakened social bonds, increased polarization, and diminished the sense of community and purpose that once characterized Western societies.

The shift from virtue to values, heavily influenced by Nietzsche's philosophy, marks a significant turn from objective, universal moral standards rooted in Christian tradition toward a more individualistic, subjective morality. This transformation has led to the rise of relative morality, contributing to the West's moral and social fragmentation. It ultimately weakens Western civilization's cultural and social fabric and leads to a decline in its coherence and vitality.

Economic Impact of Homebuyer Grants

 

The proposal to give $25,000 to every new home purchaser could have profound implications for the U.S. economy, particularly regarding inflation and the national deficit. With the U.S. government already running a significant deficit, such a policy would substantially increase government spending, widening the deficit even further. The government would likely need to borrow additional funds to finance this initiative, which could elevate the national debt. As debt levels rise, competition for borrowing might push interest rates higher, affecting government and private sector financing.

The influx of $25,000 to homebuyers would likely spur increased demand for housing, which could drive up home prices significantly if the supply is constrained. This demand-pull inflation might extend beyond housing, influencing prices in related industries such as construction, home furnishings, and appliances. Additionally, if the surge in demand leads to higher costs for materials and labor, it could trigger cost-push inflation, where rising production costs cause a broader price increase across the economy.

In a worst-case scenario, the U.S. could face hyperinflation if government spending continues to outpace revenue without sufficient controls or if the money supply is expanded significantly to support such a program. This would drastically reduce the value of money, causing prices for goods and services to skyrocket, eroding savings, and diminishing purchasing power. Furthermore, the policy could create a housing bubble by inflating home prices to unsustainable levels. If this bubble bursts, it could lead to a sharp decline in home values, resulting in negative equity for homeowners and potentially triggering a financial crisis reminiscent of the 2008 housing collapse.

The Federal Reserve might respond to rising inflation by increasing interest rates, raising borrowing costs, and slowing economic growth. Higher mortgage rates could also counteract the initial benefits of the $25,000 grant. In a more severe scenario, the economy could experience stagflation. In this situation, high inflation coincides with stagnant growth and rising unemployment, creating a challenging environment for consumers and policymakers.

Inflation also poses a significant threat to savings and retirement. As prices rise, the real value of savings, particularly for those on fixed incomes like retirees, would diminish unless interest rates on savings accounts keep pace with inflation. Public retirement systems could come under strain as they may need to pay higher benefits to match the rising cost of living. At the same time, their investments could underperform due to inflationary pressures.

 While giving $25,000 to every new home purchaser might stimulate the housing market in the short term, it could lead to far-reaching consequences, including increased inflation, a higher national deficit, potential housing bubbles, and significant savings and retirement system challenges. In a worst-case scenario, these effects could culminate in hyperinflation, a financial crisis, or stagflation, leading to profound economic instability.

Impact of Taxing Gains

 

Taxing unrealized capital gains, particularly at a rate of 25%, could have several negative impacts, especially on retirement systems, including those for local government and state employees. Retirement systems often invest in stocks and other assets that appreciate over time. If unrealized gains—those that haven't been sold yet—are taxed, the total value of these investments will be reduced, potentially leading to lower returns for the funds that manage these systems. This reduction in returns could decrease the overall retirement benefits available to employees. Moreover, the taxation of unrealized gains might force these funds to sell assets prematurely to cover tax liabilities, increasing market volatility, reducing asset values, and making retirement systems more vulnerable to downturns. Retirement systems typically plan their cash flows based on expected contributions and withdrawals. If they are required to pay taxes on unrealized gains, this could disrupt their cash flow management, potentially forcing them to sell assets in a down market or take on debt to meet obligations. The complexity of tracking and reporting unrealized gains, particularly for large, diversified portfolios, would also increase administrative costs. These costs would ultimately be borne by the beneficiaries of the retirement systems, either through higher fees or reduced benefits.

Hillary Clinton’s idea of taxing 1% on all retirement systems to pay for healthcare is similar in that both proposals involve imposing a tax on the accumulated wealth of retirement systems. However, taxing unrealized gains is more complex because it involves taxing theoretical gains that may never be realized if the market fluctuates. Suppose an individual or entity pays taxes on unrealized gains and later experiences a loss. In that case, it raises the question of whether the government would reimburse the taxes paid on gains that never materialized. While current tax systems sometimes allow losses to be carried forward to offset future gains, this does not directly compensate for taxes already paid. The idea of being "paid back" by the government for losses after paying taxes on unrealized gains would pose significant administrative challenges and could lead to further complications. Critics of taxing unrealized gains argue that it is akin to confiscation of wealth. Since unrealized gains are not liquid and exist only "on paper," taxing them could force individuals and institutions to sell assets they would otherwise hold, potentially damaging long-term investment strategies, including those employed by retirement systems. In essence, taxing unrealized gains is seen by many as a significant overreach by the government, potentially harming both individual investors and large-scale retirement systems, which rely on stable, long-term investment returns to meet their obligations.

US Debt Crisis Controls

 

As the United States grapples with a mounting debt crisis, discussions around implementing capital controls are gaining traction among policymakers. These controls, which could include restricting the flow of capital in and out of the country, are being considered to stabilize the economy and prevent further financial deterioration. The idea is not without controversy; capital controls are often seen as a last resort, typically used by emerging economies rather than advanced ones like the U.S. However, the unprecedented nature of the current debt levels, exacerbated by years of fiscal imbalance and the economic disruptions caused by global events, has brought even extreme measures into the realm of possibility.

Capital controls could protect the U.S. dollar from speculative attacks, prevent capital flight, and ensure domestic financial resources are used to address internal challenges rather than being siphoned off to other markets. This would buy the government time to implement more structural reforms to reduce the deficit and restore economic confidence. On the other hand, critics warn that such measures could backfire, leading to a loss of investor confidence, increased borrowing costs, and potential retaliation from different nations. They argue that imposing capital controls could undermine the U.S.’s standing as a global financial leader and hurt its long-term economic prospects.

The debate over capital controls reflects U.S. policymakers' broader dilemma: managing an unsustainable debt trajectory without triggering a financial crisis. As the discussions continue, it is clear that the coming months will be critical in determining whether the U.S. will adopt these measures and how they will shape the future of the nation’s economy.