2/11/2011

CONUNDRUM ECONOMICS

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:04 am

While mopping up the tavern one day – and sweeping it another…

Alighting riddles swarmed as a relevant aftertaste, and disolved away leaving just some thoughts.

What do you have to say for yourselves - today?

Was it "foreign"?  Was it "domestic"?

It seemed like it could "add up" yet wasn’t apparently adding up?

Hmmm, are Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi really of the same parish of Saint Peter’s? 

There’s a conundrum.

Here’s a conundrum:  A church cannot stand on tything alone if it forgot/forgets or avoided/avoids prudence and effort to protect profiting and proceeds of those in its faith/community?

A "sweepin’ economics" cannot stand on tything "contributions"/"investments" if the sum to be "tythed" is zero, right?

A "moppin’ up" for a more copacetic - to a regular re-socialization sufficient as a weekly and/or necessary as a daily, and to a better set/reset of faith with re-socialization a calling to sing and listen weekly/daily with strangers and friends, and loudly?

So how does all this of a "conundrum economics" realight to lessons of Governor Lowell Weicker, and then his Connecticut?

Surely a lesson for our times and yet a riddle for many that a "tythe" system/economics still collects zero if zero proceeds what they sold?

Re: Governor Lowell Weicker: Connecticut conundrum of old:  It is not the "taxing" but the type of taxing and the times of such taxation?

A "tythe" of zero is zero, right? 

Ah, but there is a riddle – If a politician pushes altruism and a free giving how hard is it for them to think that a encouragement to a "free working" will effect more proceeds from others on the motivation spirited about the supposedly few "working for free" as a "good example"?

Is Islam a better religion for a basic and copacetic "poverty" not a "poverty" to them?  How hasn’t "news" years been about Egypt and its "poor" of its "poor" and for so long?  "Poor" but not "untouchables"?

Yes, Governor Lowell Weicker was a thorn in many Washington sides, and once another "maverick" – Yes, but these days of our "sweepin’ up" style has us again wondering near: If not the taxing - then maybe just the method of taxation?

A system based on taxation or "tything" cannot be about a failure to encourage and protect individual proceeds and profits?

It is wrong to sell a "capitalist" as an "altruist" and short sighted?

Not the "man" - Governor Weicker - but the times for Connecticut?

Yes teh "man" - Governor Weicker - for he alone had best chance to change the method of taxation and with a new call to state about state’s fair duties and responsibilities?

Mop Mop - Sweep Sweep - we have been here before - yes we have been here before.

How do we afford a sanctuary for weekly and/or daily "re-socializing" with song and readings for strangers and friends alike?

How do we get about a better funding to a "re-socializing" anew and such that it can be self-supporting and supporting of capitalist selves?

A tythe of zero is zero, right?  And, a morality to taxation cannot stand on a system busy much to ‘disincentive’ and incomes of nothing and especially while then so of to incomes of nothing for much "mopping" and "sweeping" with a conundrum thought reasonable that a taking from such of intellectual property is supposedly about helping enough make enough to cover the needed taxation?

How long can a system stand where "capitalism" and "for profit" motivation usurped and sold by others as "altruistic" example to be followed by others, and "not" recognized or compensated as "capitalism"?

It is not a conundrum to some but should be that "a tythe of zero is zero."

Hmmm?  Governor Lowell Weicker of a "conundrum economic"?

Hmmm?  Governors all now of a time and a conudrum such that their economics need a new type of taxation not "higher taxes"? 

Governors all now of a time and a reasonable duty such to consider a remaking of state taxation systems and now maybe to a more county specific revenue basis?  Your cities are not alone?  Your towns have rights too?  So much isn’t even your "state’s" business let alone the business of others across the United States of America and their Washington representatives?

Hmmm?  Are there some whom Democrats have been of a telling of their story the wrong way and now such that too many had their "capitalism" sold as "altruism" or just not credited or acknowledged?

A taxation of zero come from zero - A tythe of zero is zero.

Hmmm?  Morality to a "re-socialization" anew weekly/daily with loud singing and stomping and readings and such for strangers and friends alike?  How much needed for such community "sanctuarys"?  Can it be self sustaining or more nearly "within" just its community?  Is Islam better at such - can we afford not to ask?

Re: Egypt: It is un-Diplomatic for us to be of a saying even nearly ‘that those many in Egypt living on or near 2-6 dollars a day’ are not living well and as well we shouldn’t say they are not living ‘holy’ lives, right?

Re: Clintons:  It is wrong, and now more an obvious conundrum of the Clintons and Democrats, that they are still "popular" for so much that now many see or nearly see couldn’t really have been of their own doing or thinking/creating.  It is wrong and hindering to our current economics that so many are still encouraged to look at Clintons as "the answer" again and now still as there "reset" failed to effect even similar results with them to similar efforts.

Hmmm?  A tythe of zero is zero - and taxation ‘wrong for our times’ may be now less about ’higher taxes’ than the type and place of taxation.  If the Clintons have shown it couldn’t have been them - then whom might it have been?  Why haven’t you heard of them - even now maybe so?

Our federal taxation system can stand a while longer and should - yet so in such a time that our states all may be best to a new method of taxation and an avoidance of a pursuit just to "higher taxation"?

Hmmm?  Can Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Pelosi really be two peas of the same "re-socializing" parish of Saint Peter’s?

There’s a conundrum.

Here’s a conundrum?