Night Reverie-a poem

Thoughts and sounds and sights sublime
That mingle and merge,impressions that rhyme;
A corona that unknowingly deceives
And a tempered cacophony that receives
And provides a paradox of highs and lows
That  make me grow and believe-
All that and more to much avail
While simply leaning on a rail!

Worthy or Not

If hard work deserves the highest pay,would it go to wall street executives?Watch some dirty jobs shows.Is intelligence the determining factor?Even presidents have IQs barely above average.What does and should determine wealth?It's definitely not readily apparent in the U.S.Is morality a factor?Perhaps someone would warrant decent pay to examine the factors-desired and actual.Should we aspire to achieve the desired?

Tax cuts

All of the conversations about the Bush tax cuts baffle me.Isn't the primary concern about personal income taxes?If only the upper rates are allowed to expire(35% to39%),why is this made so complicated?Personal income taxes don't affect business,do they?Even sub S corps end up at personal.Why the concern over increased business taxes?From what I've read ,business taxes are not affected.The accounts mention estate taxes,capital gains,and dividends(all with little consequence).It appears to me that we are talking about personal income taxes on individuals making $250,000 or more?How does that affect business taxes or jobs?It doesn't,but why do even the proponents of expiration allow statements to that effect go unchallenged?Are they not sincere?

We get the same bullcrap with social security and medicare;Lies go unchallenged.Why?

What amazes me,is that tax decrease advocates say that we won't gain by allowing increases,but we'll lose a lot if we do.I don't think that it works that way!

Voter I D

Is voter ID passage inevitable?Probably.Is voter ID necessary?Probably not.The electorate is pretty honest relative to elections.The real problem is getting them to vote at all.It's much easier to deter them.Most dishonesty originates with the politicians and that's where voter the ID question originates.Everyone knows that the object is to deter voters.

The Pioneer Press claimed that 1000 felons voted in a previous election.They can in many states.Can you envision a felon jeopardizing his status simply to vote?That claim is pretty ridiculous and obviously a deceptive argument.It would be more reasonable to question why a felon can't vote.

The potential voters with no ID or precinct or district issues will probably vote for IDs;consequently,it will probably pass.After passage,anyone that must inconvenience themselves,in any way,will simply not vote.This deterrence will continue to work until a constituent really wants to vote.I don't see that happening until we have real campaign reform.When money doesn't control politics and anyone can run for office,if that ever happens,perhaps more constituents may want to vote.If they could have a real representative to vote for,that could inspire a desire to vote.Then voter ID could be more than a deterrent.Until then,even more power to money.Wouldn't it be nice to be governed by leaders and representatives that actually reflected the constituency?

Supreme Court-Affordable Care Act

It's pretty obvious(at least to me)that the American public is being duped and has been for a long time.If we limit this to an assessment of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Health Care Act,it is really obvious.The Supreme Court money reps wanted the bill to remain,primarily for the insurance industry,but didn't want to give the executive branch any potential power in the commerce area ;so,they had to do it surreptitiously and found a way in the tax and spend area.

I really think that(even with the dissent opinions) all of the money justices were in accorrd with the Robert's method.The precedent was set in Massachusetts and also would make the democrats look devious in their passage of the law.It also could give them impetus for the future.I also  think that the decision was made in advance and in collusion.

After the citizen's united vote, it was apparent that this court was completely subservient to the money interests;was completely biased and unabashedly so.Even the money controlled media had to finally  acquiesce and reveal that bent.Consequently,the court had to temper the burgeoning attack on it's reputation.Conjecture is that Roberts bolted on his own.I don't believe that he did,but that he had to make it appear that way.

Government Lobbying

How can public entities decry lobbying and then allow government departments to pay for lobbying and lobbyists.Something is wrong here.Mn. cities,countys,school districts and others spent 8.3 million in 2011,$55,000(.7 % )more than last year on lobbying;why and for what?The city of Mpls.spent $467,139,The coalition of Mn. cities-$822,239,The league of Mn. cities-$608,961,Mn School Boards Association -$606,961,Association of Metro School Districts-$280,981,etc.It sounds like they even pay their own employees extra to lobby,Can that be true?I hope not.That should be part of their jobs.Should government entities be spending money to get money?Can they logically justify doing that?

Bully?

Is Romney a bully?He obviously was as a youth.Has he changed?He became a corporate raider(now euphemistically called a private equity firm),and a corporate raider is really a bully.They act and look like a bully.They take over a company,sell the profitable  parts,lay off as many workers as they can,and leave the core without their profitable parts to sink or swim.That sounds like an act of a bully.I think he's still a bully.What do you think?

Corporate Greed

Ref:Newspaper article 3/01/12(Pioneer Press)
Is greed rampant in corporations?Wall Street figures are revelatory.Total corporate profits in 2010 were 27.6 billion;bonuses were22.9 billion(80%).In 2011 profits were 13.5 billion;bonuses-19.7 billion(146%).I other words,all of corporate profits go to upper employee bonuses.Does that indicate greed?And some want to let that same sector take care of social needs.In the "olden" days,part of company profits went to employees for heathcare and pensions.Today they charge employees for healthcare and provide 401K's in place of pensions and invest in areas that they can milk for profit until it suddenly becomes worthless(derivatives) and the employees are left with no pensions.In the end the corporations have much more profit for bonuses and the employees?Well,the private sector will keep caring for them as they have since greed began to dominate.

Austerity

Austere and austerity are interesting words to use and apply in an economic context.Austere means stern,cold,somber,grave,giving little or no scope for pleasure,ascetic.Austerity means enforced or extreme economy,ascetic practice.There is nothing wrong with practicing austerity,but enforced austerity should not be selective and should be enforced equally,don't you think?Austerity for the rich:no pensions,no health insurance,no corporate welfare.That would be different and extremely unlikely.

Revolt

Is it happening?Maybe it's happening:France,Greece,austerity rejection.Austerity is a euphemism for stealing from the poor and middle class and giving  to the rich,all the wealth to the wealthy.The peons pay for everything.But perhaps it's changing.Perhaps the revolt is beginning.Perhaps we can learn from Europe.In France and Greece,most of the money is concentrated in the hands of the few,too much to allow a life for everyone.It's happening here,has been for a long time,and getting progressively worse.Everyone can learn from Greece.

The rich are going to have to quit taking and give up some of their money,or it will have to be taken from them.It would be nice if we could do it through the political process.It can be done They have shown us how.That's how democracy is supposed to work.But we must do it.

Healthcare &contraception

I think that it would be wise for catholic employers to at least pay for contraceptives for priests and other leaders.There is a definite need for safe molestation.

Campaigns

Watching the Republican debates,though entertaining,immediately triggers alarm.It quickly becomes pretty obvious that our campaign system must be drastically changed.These candidates have nothing in common with the majority of citizens.They are all rich compared to the average.Why?Because the campaign system is designed that way.The entire system must be scrapped.How can we do that?It will be very difficult because the avenue of change has to bypass the governors.They don't want change.

Any discussion must also start from scratch.We,the general public,cannot be governed by only the rich.Rich people don't want you to become rich.They want you to keep them rich and richer.Could you even have a conversation with them?a normal conversation?What do you have in common?They simply don't have the same problems or interests as you do.

Watching the rich is like watching a movie about the rich.At some point you wonder about the basics.Don't these people work?How do they have the time?Where do they get their money?Don't they get sick?Don't they have the day to day problems thatconsume most of our time?Are their worries all abstract?

How can a campaigner simply go from place to place talking to people?Could you?Think about it.Work to them is getting money from you so that they don't have to work.How can they relate to you?How can someone that doesn't have to worry about survival tell you how to survive.

If you have the time to be a member of a group,organization,other than your own family-if even that is intact-how does that function?Include your family.Narrow it down to groups of friends,associates,strangers.How do they function?Do we have rich people with nothing in common organizing our activities,telling us how to do it.Of course not.Why should it be so difficult in government?Rich people will relate to rich people and rich people's problems...and they aren't the same as ours.

Representatives should be representative.Anyone should be able to run for public office.Anyone should be able to run for president.So we must not limit that possibility to only the rich.The general campaign fund originated to allow that appearance,but that didn't last long,did it?Well,lets go back to that premiss,but limit the candidates to that amount.Any candidate will have the same amount of money and be limited to that amount.That would be a start.

Length of campaigns is another issue.The campaign length must also be limited.That can be arbitrated,but it definitely shouldn't be longer than six months.We shouldn't stop rich people from campaigning on their own,but the actual campaign would be limited to amount and length:no outside campaign funds,pacs,tax deductible contributions,etc.-an equal playing field for all.But it must be equal!

This constant,continuous campaign must be corrected and it has to start with inflexible limits.The rest of the issues can be addressed later.Money and time have become the primary issues.

How can this be done?