Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Government: Under No Obligation

The Public: Forced to obligate itself to minimal options

http://cenocracy.org



This image is a link to more flag information:

Cenocracy home Page Flag Counter

Note: Flag counter T-shirts are here: Flag Counter T-shirts




This Image represents the dire state of the U.S. government and overall political situation the people are being subjected to:


A portrait of American Government and politics

While some readers may think that the above picture represents freedom, liberty and choice, many of us realize it is a facade concealing a reality in which the selfish interests of a few are being served to fill their coffers at the financial and health expense of the public. In other words, only a very few companies own all the options which are packaged in a myriad of ways to sell the same underlying nonsense which cause so much harm. The U.S. Congress and State Legislators, not to mention businesses, religions and various specialized groups have taken on their own like-minded variety of ways to dispense their nonsense, and let the public be damned if it doesn't like the ability to choose one of the same options advertised and packaged in whatever mode or manner convinces the public they are somehow in control of their own lives... though the reality is far different.


Because of the way the U.S. Constitution is written, and perhaps all Constitutions or pseudo-social "contracts" between the people and (supposedly) their government (or for that matter their religion); the word Obligation is absent, and therefore provides a legal means by which governments do not have to do anything for the people... or listen to them if the people protest... and yet the people are forced to obligate them to such a pathetic system.


Without a legally defined obligation, what the people are left with is a revolving, single-minded myopic mentality succinctly described by the following three separate questions presented in three separate MSN polls, and has exposed the existence of a racketeering mindset perpetrated on the public as illustrated in the article:


GOP being sued for fraud and racketeering

Yet the article does not go on to explicate the same level of fraud and racketeering carried out by the Democratic political institution in America, whereby a comment in the GOP article is better written as:


"Both the Republican and Democratic parties never intend
to implement the Agendas needed most by the public—
or fulfill the promises of their campaign Platforms".

American politics

Both the Republicans and Democrats engage in various duplicities, confidence scams, and fairytale make-believe scenarios (like the "Impeach Trump!" comments by a few in Congress while the majority are more interested in wanting to manipulate Trump to fulfill personal goals then get rid of someone they view as a potential asset to their greed) so that a few can take advantage of the many. Because there is no Constitutionally mandated obligation for Congress to effect necessary and needed policies on behalf of the public, it can continue to pursue the practiced forms of soap opera drama on the Congressional stage where the Collective needs of the public are little more than rumors which reverberate through the many chambers of journalism to deafen the public into a mind-numbing nonsense so that they can develop laws which will serve individual corporate and other business interests that may later employ a handful of specialists... with the larger public's employment and overall livelihood as a far distant tertiary concern; though most often negligibly considered unless the public is to be used as a source of income for the coffers of a few.


Here are three examples of a myopic orientation circulating amongst politicians and Journalists being reproduced by pollsters such as those at MSN, because they do not know how to ask the write questions nor frame them in an honest way in order to indicate the growing currency of thought that wants a New Government and are focused on the adoption of a violent overthrow if we don't get what we want... A Cenocracy!


  1. The first illustrates an inclination to lump individuals into the same political category (even though three alternatives are provided) in order to give the impression that they both represent a singular political spectrum... which they don't.

  2. The second represents the ongoing pathetic Health care duplicity that isn't being resolved... and because it isn't, some people want to move on to other issues that likewise will not be adequately resolved; leaving the public with yet another wasted 4-years of the public's time and money because the present formula of government is too antiquated to meet the needs of the nation, much less the human species in a global framework.
  3. The third clearly introduces the presence of a world-view within a bubble since it provides a status-quo number of options which express a closed mentality of appreciating the grasp of needing a larger reality that does not exist in the perspectives of too many who are enabled to have a public speaking voice to air their limitations of thought processing. When there are so many of us who do not identify with, and do not want to be identified with the two traditions of politics which have caused so many problems for so long, trying to force the public to submit to such an identification is like giving them the option of shooting themselves, slitting their own throat, taking poison, blowing oneself up, jumping off a bridge, playing Russian roulette, etc...

Because the U.S. government is in a rut, like so many other nations, in order to present itself to the world as some formidable character of virtue that everyone should pay homage to, it will either instigate a conflict or make up a rationale of some purported threat looming on the social horizon, so as to distract the public and world away from its incompetence, by indulging in some conflict to be militarized.


Which of these terms best describes you on social issues like gay marriage and abortion rights?

  • Liberal
  • Moderate
  • Conservative

What should Congress do now on (the) health care bill?

  • Leave Obamacare alone
  • Fix current system, involve Democrats
  • Repeal and replace with a GOP solution
  • Just repeal Obamacare

Which party do you most ID with?

  • Strong Democrat
  • Lean Democrat
  • Somewhere in the middle
  • Lean Republican
  • Strong Republican

YOU DISGUSTING FILTHY POLLSTERS don't provide for any other option than the pathetically ridiculous question and answer orientations circumnavigating a Congress that is out of touch with the public. For example, it is vehemently hypocritical to provide the selection "Repeal and replace with a GOP solution" when such an alternative is like regurgitating the same ideas being vomited over and over again because those in Congress don't want to produce anything that won't have to be revised for the next 300 years, and whittles away at the public's already sagging confidence in the phony democracy being practiced (under the guise of some ludicrous "Representative" notion)... yet is an on-going "do-little, do-nothing, or doo-doo-on-the-public" strategy by which a few can acquire more wealth at the expense of the many. We The People are reaching the limit of how much of this nonsense we are going to put up with. This is not about White, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, etc., supremacy, but a supremacy of the people over those who are making our lives so miserable by continuing policies which are out of step with the needs of the nation for progress defined by the whole of the nation!


Pollsters routinely show themselves to be naive about the fact that the public fully understands:


BOTH OBAMACARE AND TRUMPCARE ARE DESPERATELY WORTHLESS IN ADDRESSING A PARTIAL... MUCH LESS THE COMPLETE MEDICAL NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC

...This includes the outrageous costs and various medical manipulations the people are subjected to by those medical professionals who create various health care dependencies in order to sustain the public as a luxurious meal ticket— and are little more than a small portion of the many excuses and demented rationalizations which serve the greed of various industries, organizations and groups:


  • Insurance companies
  • The American Medical/Dental/Optometrist/Physical Therapist and Mental Health Associations (to name but a few)
  • The Pharmaceutical Industry
  • World Health Organization/Centers for Disease Control (without disease these two are needed much less)
  • Medical suppliers and Instrumentation Manufacturers
  • Medical training/education facilities
  • Transportation services (planes, trains, trucking, automobiles)
  • Construction services
  • Charities
  • Wall Street
  • Private Investment Interests
  • Real estate holdings
  • Banking interests
  • etc...

... All because these organizations care more about making the excess buck first before giving a damn about the people... and is a view that should be violently reciprocated by the people against those who use health concerns as a profitable business just as others do when thinking about military conflicts. Both military conflicts and health issues make for a lucrative business opportunity, despite all the suffering that the many billions have to experience at one time or another. Again and again and again pollsters contribute to recycling the same neurotic mindset of a political system that is too antiquated to deal with the actual realities of today; by creating limitations in options to choose from, to think about and discuss... as if they were they only viable options, but are little more than exercises in rigging the system to take advantage of the public. Pollsters are just another breed of politician trying to manipulate the public to think in a limited way about limited options which serve specialized interests that seek to have an unlimited resource base, and let the people be damned if they don't like it. POLLSTERS ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE PUBLIC because they refuse to frame questions and provide options which reflect the reality of the public's consciousness... as if to describe they are being bought and paid for by those who have a monetary stake in the game of how best to manipulate the pubic to ensure the designs of their personal interests.


Just because you vote someone into office and expect them to fulfill your wants and wishes because they campaigned on a platform of accomplishing a given task, doesn't mean they are legally obligated to do so. There is no written law that guarantees elected officials do anything than participate in a process that has been created by a history of politicians to ensure the survival of one or another official. Voting someone into office is not the same as having hired them for a job to do a particular task; and if they don't do the task as asked, you can immediately fire them and get someone better. The political system is not set up to assist the public as if they were an employer. What often happens is the selected person turns around and expects the employer (the citizens) to do their bidding and accept their excuses for not accomplishing a given task as expected.


The law making portion of the government is set up to provide excuses for those who are elected when they do not do as expected... and afford them protections from being fired. While the people may give them a Right to Work in a given position, they are not likewise obligated to work for the rights of the people. They are under no legal obligation to do anything... and the system of government being practiced enables them to make up excuses. And if some excuse is not readily available, they can create one through various instigations... such as war, social impoverishment, etc...


Congress is set up to ensure the survival of a "base" representation of those wanting to execute managerial activities as their life-work, even if their assigned duties and expectations do not accomplish anything of lasting value for the citizenry. If one's assigned task is generally stated as "able to make laws", there is little more than an implied requirement without any legal backing for the people. This "implication" of expectation is the same type of illusory imagery practiced by the overall government and is part of the larger illusion concerning democracy itself. In other words, the American "brand" of democracy is an exercise in imagination and is a 'brand name' that has been deteriorating for years; to the extent a growing segment of its own populace readily sees the many hypocrisies they are being subjected to and want to do something decisive about them.


The U.S. Congress is under no legal, Constitutionally established obligation to provide for a comprehensive National Health Care program for the people... or do anything else. In order to quell protests, they might well provide some relative response, but it often reflects the most minimalist effort supported by a rationale that provides evidence to be used as an excused relabeled as a reason. When so many elected officials are well-aware they may not be able to perform in accordance with their stated election platform... particularly if the platform is stated with explicitly outlined goals, they may view their elected position as a temporary job in which to acquire as many resources... prior to a departure, in order to use the previous position as a stepping stone to a more lucrative and lasting position... regardless of what little assistance they actually gave to the public.


While the U.S. Constitution enables Congress and the other two Branches of government to effect the production of necessary changes to enhance the lives of the public, there is no legal obligation for them to use such abilities. Without an explicit Constitutional mandate that obligates the Three Branches of government to effect the collective Will of the public, they can continue to either play musical chairs and accomplish nothing... or create the most idiotic compromises and publicly label them as some sort of bi-partisan ingenuity... in order to bolster their self-oriented dispositions for concealing the fact that they are most likely incapable of being productively instructive on behalf of the public— even if there existed a "mandate of obligation".


Such a Constitutional Mandate of Obligation would thus have to include additional mandates to clean up the refuse in the overall political system such as to ensure term limits, addressing the problems of gerrymandering, the Electoral College fiasco, the public's concerns for the environment, loss of jobs, costs of education, abortion, child care, animal rights, business manipulations, a mandated National Referendum need, infrastructure, abuse of government contracts, egregious costs of military operations, immigration, effects of a deteriorating environment, over population, plateaued yields of viable plant foods, National goals, goals for all humanity, etc...


Unless the people get a Constitutional Amendment that legally obligates the government to the people without their being any loop holes to remove themselves from the mandate of obligation (without a voted on National approval that explicitly states the need for a change that is likewise to be mandated), the public has no legal means of forcing the government to do its bidding. Just because the government is legally empowered to help the citizenry, doesn't mean the people are likewise legally empowered to enforce the government to utilize the empowerment, much less use it in any effective way.


Though some might suggest that the government is "supposed" to help the people, there is no Constitutionally mandated provision that it must do so. The government does not have to effect a "good Samaritan" intervention on behalf of a public asking for help, and there is no legal obligation which forces it to, thus enabling it to provide a rationalized excuse using such words as costs, complexity, etc..., or a rationalized reason based on instigated conflicts or turmoil due to deliberate engineering by government agents or their confederates... if an act of Nature does not provide a visible means of deflecting the public's attention.


Without a Constitutional Mandate of Obligation, the public is left with no legal recourse to effect desired changes on its behalf, and is forced to protest in more visibly assertive ways... that may necessarily escalate to the use of destruction and death, if faced with a situation in which they are confronted either by obstinacy, increased confrontation, and/or a realization that those in a government position do not have the necessary knowledge, talent, skill, dexterity or other requirement— to accomplish the task at hand... even if it represents a condition outlining the mood of the public having little or no confidence in anything that may be created by one or another government official or their assigned agent.


All those protesting for some desirably progressive change, regardless of which issue is near and dear to their hearts, must fully realize that the government is under no Constitutional Mandate of Obligation to adhere to the views of the public. Though one might speak of a moral or humanitarian obligation that could cost someone their position in a given office, this is a digression from the fact that the government is not obligated to do anything. Empowerment is not the same as being obligated. It may have the power to effect desired changes, but this power does not have to be exercised, and there is nothing the public can do about it with any legal certainty... because it is a situation which provides those in government with multiple loop holes... such as someone being permitted to leave their position with a pension or lofty severance and not have to admit wrong doing, though it is implied by the final result anyway. It is a type of "diplomatic immunity" they can use as a type of get-out-of-jail free card, which provides for them to be absent any empathy for the public... and have no legal consequences if they don't do anything of lasting importance for the public.




In pointing out that the Constitution is like an old warranty and deed that does not stand up to scrutiny with respect today's needs for legal guarantees and commitments, some readers may come to appreciate a different type of mentality being espoused and applied to the political arena of needed concerns and deliverable actions for the Nation and Humanity the whole. In some respects, it is providing an insight into how the Cenocratic (New Government) model of thinking is taking shape, if it various authors are not particularly aware of the word "Cenocracy" and its attributive corollaries. As a Cenocratic model takes greater shape and formulization from the bits and pieces of commentary proposed by various thinkers in different venues, it is of pressing need to illustrate such thinking. Let us provide two instances which, if you are in agreement with, is a tell-tale sign you have begun to adopt a Cenocratic perspective into becoming a formidable force. While not every person agrees with every view being espoused at this site, just as many of its members do not agree with all that has been presented, all of us none-the-less agree that we need a new form of government because the present "American Brand" of democracy is a worn-out trade name that has come to represent corruption, lies, deception, greed, imperialism, and now... because of Trump's mental pathology infecting more and more in the government and elsewhere... along with the government's inability to be self-corrective when confronted with a disastrous circumstance in its midst... American Democracy is seen as a classic case of dementia coupled with old-age induced Alzheimer's. America's trade name brand of democracy needs to be put out to pasture and committed to a retirement home because it is too dangerous to be left on its own without professional and routine care that current officials are not capable of providing since many of them have succumbed to the disease themselves.


Again, let it be clear that the following two authors may not even be aware of the word "Cenocracy" nor view themselves as exhibiting a Cenocratic model of thinking, and might even disagree with having one... should they find offense with one of the older perspectives placed into archive in the contents section. However, previous considerations that are kept in the archive do not necessarily represent the current collective mentality but nonetheless express that a growth and maturity taking place... sometimes slow and sometimes painfully slow, but increased education and experience do affect the overall philosophy being developed. It is a philosophy that recognizes that simply providing "new blood" to any present political party is little more than attempting to rejuvenate a dying patient by giving them blood from a young body... when it is the old body that needs to be replaced in order for a new perspective to be developed with a brain that lives in the present reality and what it means for the future, and not the reality of an illusory democracy developed by antiquated traditions born from adapting to and old reality that is being forced on the citizenry to accept as truth rather than the rationalization which it is. The American Brand of democracy, just like the British and so many others, are out of step with the present reality which is taking a much longer and future view of the human species involving variables that the past developers of these former brand names could not have even imagined. Trying to revive a dying elephant and mule along with their dung collecting followers, is of little value when all of them are brain dead and attempting to present reflexive twitchings as if they were indications of an animate and viable life born anew.


The First Selection with the earlier date of public declaration:


The Senate bill does nothing to fix America's biggest health care problem


Sarah Kliff, CNBC
Friday, 30 Jun 2017 | 11:22 AM ET

The biggest problem in American health care is one that the Republican health care plans won't really try to solve. To be fair, it's one that Obamacare didn't touch, either.


The biggest problem facing American health care is our prices.


In the United States, we pay outlandishly high prices for our trips to the doctor, hospital visits, and prescription drugs. In the United States, an MRI costs, on average, $1,119. In Australia the scan costs $215, and in Switzerland $503. It is the exact. Same. Scan.


About a year ago, I wrote a story about a family that went to the emergency room, had a Band-Aid put on their 1-year-old daughter's finger, and then were billed $629 for the encounter. Since then, I've gotten countless letters describing other outlandish medical bills. These include:

  • A $2,237 bill for liquid stitches and a bandage. This emergency room visit lasted from about 11:30 pm until 1 am, so the hospital billed for two days spent there.
  • A $900 bill for four stitches in the emergency room.
  • A $1,000 bill for a pneumonia vaccination delivered in a health care clinic.

The list goes on and on. These sky-high prices are what make health care policy a vexing exercise for legislators on both sides of the aisle. Because our prices are so high and the federal government has a limited budget, the architects of the Affordable Care Act settled on expanding access to largely high-deductible health plans. The Republican plans would drive those deductibles even higher, leaving consumers on the hook to cover the pricey services.


If we don't tackle high prices, it makes it nearly impossible to imagine ever transitioning to a national health care system to cover all Americans.


High prices have a strong lobby here in Washington. Each dollar spent on medical care goes toward a hospital, a doctor, a medical device maker, or a pharmaceutical company. But until legislators decide this is an issue worth tackling, they will find themselves hard-pressed to deliver a reform bill that Americans actually like. Americans pay way more whenever we go to the doctor.


The reason Americans spend so much money isn't because we go to the doctor a lot. On average, Americans actually see the doctor slightly less than people in other developed countries.


Americans go to the doctor, on average, four times each year, according to data from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. Compare that to Canada, where citizens average 7.7 doctor visits per year, and France, which averages 6.4. The United States averages 125 hospital discharges per 1,000 people annually, which is higher than Canada (83) but lower than France (166) and the United Kingdom (129).

The reason American health care is expensive is because when we go to the doctor, it costs more than when someone in Canada or England or France or any other developed nation goes to the doctor.

A day in the hospital here costs $5,220, versus $4,781 in Switzerland and $765 in Australia. There is a biannual report from the International Federation Health Plan that compares medical prices across countries. It's hard to find any category where the United States is not the priciest.


MRI Data

Other developed countries use price controls in medicine. The government negotiates with drug companies, device makers, and doctors to set lower prices. The government is buying in bulk, and has the power to win those negotiations. These countries regulate medical prices akin to how they regulate the price of electricity or water: a service that everyone needs at a reasonable price but would face significant difficulty bargaining for on their own.


The United States does set medical prices for the 50 million elderly Americans who rely on Medicare. The government-run insurer has a fee schedule that says exactly what doctors can bill for every visit or checkup — and usually ends up with lower prices as a result.


But for the 155 million Americans who get coverage through their employers — and 22 million in the individual market — that task is left to the insurers and customers. We are not very good at it.


I recently spoke with Todd Anderson, a father in the Philadelphia area, who told me about one of those medical bills I mentioned earlier. His son went to the ER late last year after cutting his finger with a kitchen knife.


Todd's son is a college sophomore; his son's roommate, a biology major, said that he'd recently used the knife to cut raw meat, and drove him to the emergency room.


The physician assistant at the emergency room examined the son's finger and treated him with liquid stitches and a bandage. A few months later, Anderson received two separate bills totaling $2,237 — one for $1,032 from the hospital, another for $1,438 from the doctor — for the Band-Aid and its application. The doctor group charged the Andersons for two days in the emergency room, because the late-night visit began around 11:30 pm and ended around 1 am.


"I feel like I'm being told to pay the hospital and the doctor for the exact same service, and no one has been able to explain to me why it can possibly cost this much," Anderson says.


These types of bills just don't happen in other countries, where the government negotiates with providers to set a reasonable fee for what a Band-Aid delivered in an emergency room can cost.


"The issue of prices needs to be put on the table," says Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "A lot of the effort right now is aimed at reducing volume of care, not price of care. But what people are more concerned about is their out-of-pocket costs." Health care prices aren't part of the American health care debate. But they need to be.


The Affordable Care Act did not aim to regulate health care prices in the United States. Instead, it emphasized reducing the volume of health care in the United States. It tried to get rid of the financial incentives of a "fee for service" system that pays doctors for every test or procedure, regardless of whether it's actually necessary.


Obamacare had dozens of experiments that aimed to move the health care system to a "pay for value" system, where doctors would be rewarded for making patients healthier — not just providing medical services.


Some of these experiments have been successful. Unnecessary readmissions to hospitals, which the health care law began penalizing in 2013, have plummeted. There is some evidence that these programs have led to slower health care cost growth too.


None of these changes put the United States on the path to having health care costs more in the neighborhood of Canada or France or other developed nations. That's just really hard when an MRI costs twice as much here as in Switzerland — or four times as much as in Australia. We can only get so far cutting down on the number of MRI scans. At some point, to really lower health spending, we have to cut the price of the scan itself.


Regulating health care prices was never a serious part of the Affordable Care Act debate. The Obama administration made a conscious decision, at the start of its health care effort, to get all major industry groups to stand behind the law — or at least not work against it. Regulating health care prices would have meant that hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies would all earn less. The idea was a nonstarter.


But America's high health care prices are at the core of what Obamacare enrollees dislike about the program. High prices mean high premiums and big bills when customers remain in their deductibles, the two parts of the law that get the lowest favorability ratings from those who rely on the marketplaces for coverage.


Donald Trump initially showed some interest in regulating health care prices, particularly in allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but so far has not followed through.


In any case, any serious effort to constrain health care prices would likely need to go far beyond pharmaceuticals, which make up 10 percent of American drug spending annually. To prevent $629 bills for Band-Aids, you've have to tackle the rest of the health care system — and that is not something either political party has proposed.


"It's the cost issue that will continue to drive us crazy," says Bill Hoagland, a vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center who previously worked as budget director for Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), said at an event I attended late last year. "I don't know how Republicans put together a package that reduces the deficit that doesn't focus on price. Doctor costs, hospital costs — that's where we have to focus our attention."


The Republican plans put the burden of high prices more squarely on patients

Republicans put together a package that reduces the deficit but not by controlling prices. Instead, their bill would leave medical prices roughly the same and shift more out-of-pocket spending to consumers.


Both Republican bills are estimated to reduce premiums in the individual market, but make no mistake, that does not translate to lower prices or happier enrollees. For one, the Republican bills lower premiums in part by making coverage prohibitively expensive for older Americans, who would be expected to drop out of the marketplace and leave behind a younger, healthier population. Those older enrollees do not, obviously, disappear, nor do their health care needs magically resolve. Instead, they'd be expected to join the ranks of the uninsured.


Second, the Senate bill in particular would lower the generosity of individual market plans. It would peg federal subsidies to health plans that cover an average of 58 percent of consumers. Obamacare tethered its subsidies to plans covering 70 percent of costs.


This means that enrollees would be more exposed to the actual costs of their care. And with nothing in the bill to control prices, they can expect those costs to be awfully, frustratingly high.




Evolutionary Dead Ends
Lineage Image source: Scientopia

The Second Selection with the later date of public declaration:


Democrats roll out another feeble economic plan


Rick Newman
Columnist, Yahoo Finance
July 24, 2017

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton’s economic plan consisted of dozens of rational policy ideas lacking a unifying message or any hint of passion. Donald Trump’s plan rested on incoherent ideas that didn’t bother supporters fired up by his fervent rhetoric and simple, revivalist message—"make America great again." We know which prevailed.


After humiliating losses in 2016, Democrats realize they have an existential problem, and now think they’ve found a solution—a program they’ve labeled "a better deal for American workers." To some extent, it’s a move from the Republican playbook, which launched Newt Gingrich’s "Contract with America" in 1994, followed 22 years later by Trump’s "Contract with the American Voter." The Dems’ "better deal" is also a semi-clever play on Trump’s famous book, "The Art of the Deal" (ha), and a paean to the most revered deal ever among liberals, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.


But the Democrats need a better idea than the "better deal." The introductory version, outlined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the New York Times, reads like a mashup of Bernie Sanders’ campaign platform and President Barack Obama’s go-nowhere budget proposals. The platform includes a $15 minimum wage (politically impossible and economically inadvisable), a $1 trillion infrastructure plan (isn’t that Trump’s idea?), new trade laws more beneficial to American workers (ditto), and tax credits for job retraining (rewarmed Obama). The idea seems to be that if you scoop up a bunch of leftover ideas and brand them as something new, voters will buy it.


They won’t. The reason Trump won is that voters no longer believe Washington policy-making can solve the real-world problems affecting them. They’re right, and it’s not that one party is any worse or better at this. They’re both awful. Democrats helped some people by passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, but they hurt others who didn’t qualify for subsidies under the new law and had to deal with skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. Instead of fixing that problem, Republicans who control Congress now want to make it even worse by passing a plan that would boot more than 20 million people off insurance. Ds and Rs no longer collaborate to come up with practical solutions to real problems. They battle each other on the ideological margins to score points that will keep them in good stead with extremists on each end whose support is essential to winning primary elections. Both parties suffer the tyranny of "the base."


Democrats need new blood
New Blood in an Old body
Out For New Blood

So what good are rational policy ideas when it’s impossible in Washington to pass rational policies? And what good is a "new" plan when it’s delivered by the old blood, like Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, that led the party into the blind alley it’s now stuck in? Trump, for all his stumbles, remains popular among his own base because his blow-everything-up approach to Washington seems like the least bad thing to do.


Dems undoubtedly would love to capture the appeal of Bernie Sanders in a more mainstream candidate, which probably explains their focus on key Sanders issues such as a $15 minimum wage, new efforts to break up big companies, and legal limits on prescription drug prices. But Sanders’ appeal wasn’t about his policies, which were extreme, bordering on loopy in some instances. It was about his personality, his passion and even his sense of humor. Sanders supporters believed in their candidate. Clinton supporters merely tolerated theirs.


The lesson of the 2016 is a cliché by now: Authentic candidates win. Inauthentic candidates lose. Voters can’t stand phonies. Policies matter less than the relatability of the politicians espousing them.


The Democrats’ "better deal" includes some sensible and even important ideas, such as incentives for job retraining. But it won’t matter if the people talking about them seem like out-of-touch blowhards. If there are any real people in the Democratic Party, Schumer and Pelosi should roll them out and spend more of their own time behind the scenes. What the Democrats really need isn’t a better deal, it’s better politicians.


The Third Selection regarding the Stock Market which many people have long considered years before the following article appeared:


Opinion: Why Dow 22,000 is not good news for most Americans


Rex Nutting
Columnist, Market Watch
Published: Aug 2, 2017 5:11 p.m. ET

Stock Market index

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is expensive, so why is that good news?


The U.S. stock market hit another record Wednesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average surpassing 22,000 for the first time.


The media acted like Dow 22,000 is a good thing. The cheerleaders in the anchor desks are wearing goofy hats and high-fiving each other like their team just won the Super Bowl.


But record-high stock prices are not inherently a good thing. Whether it’s good for you individually depends on whether you own lots of shares or not. Most people do not own very many shares at all, so most of us aren’t benefiting much from high stock prices.


The media don’t crow every time the price of milk goes up, so why should it cheer higher prices in a different market? It’s great only if you own the cow.


Who owns the stock market? About half of all equity is owned by the richest 1 million or so families, and another 41% is owned by the rest of the top 10%. The bottom 90% of families own about 9% of outstanding shares.


In the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances (the most recent data), the Federal Reserve found that only 48.8% of families owned any stock, either directly or indirectly. For the bottom 50% of families by income, only about a quarter had any equities. The typical middle-class family that had some shares owned less than $10,000 worth.


Also read: How the stock market destroyed the middle class


High prices are good for the people who are selling, and not good for the people who are buying. If you are trying to save for your retirement, high prices are terrible. Your dreams just got further away.


High stock prices are particularly bad for young people. I bought my first shares for my retirement account back in the 1970s, so I’ve benefited from the incredible gains since then. But my children are buying high, not low.


With stock markets at record levels in nominal terms, and with price-to-earnings ratios through the roof, there’s not much upside left. Returns over the next decade or two or four probably won’t match the 11% compounded annual returns I’ve received since 1977.


High stock prices might have a benefit if it meant that more capital would be invested in America’s corporations.


That’s the myth of the stock market, anyway. In reality, the stock market doesn’t funnel any additional capital into corporations at all. Nonfinancial corporations have been net buyers - not sellers - of equities for the past 23 years in a row.


The stock market is actually a process for extracting wealth from corporations and passing it along to the wealthy people who owns shares.


So spare me your celebrations of another milestone on Wall Street. It’s great news for the wealthy, because what they own just got more valuable. But for those of us trying to build some wealth, it’s not such great news.


Market Watch: Why Dow 22,000 is not good news for most Americans

(Or for that matter, the stock markets of the world are not good news for most people who do not enjoy the benefits of a system configured to advance the desires of a few at the expense of the majority. All business, political and religious systems are rigged... like a gauntlet that most people are permitted to participate in, so long as they are not part of the select few who are enabled to wield the implements of blows that others must endure or be ravaged by.)


There is a Growing Cenocratic (Resistance!) Constituency that is being forced to obligate itself to the very real potential of using extremely violent forms of protest in order to effect progressively responsible changes for the Nation and the whole of humanity because Congress is not obligated to, and has become all the more problematic with public-disparaging self-absorptions supported by over-indulged conceits of personal importance instead of the needed humility that can best serve the public. The Social Contract is null and void because it does not contain any Constitutionally mandated provision of obligating the Government to use their enabled powers to effect social improvements that do not rely on double or triple-standards. If the people are forced to abide by a policy, rule or law, then every person in the government, corporations and religions must also comply without creating legalized loopholes which permit them to circumvent ("get over on") that which they think they deserve to be treated above and beyond what everyone else is supposed to accept... or be physically, emotionally or financially punished for refusing to comply.


Let us then speak of a developing stark realization that there is no realistic legal or moral alternative (other than a violent overthrow of the existing government) in order to make corrective political alterations in a government that has become increasingly at odds with the needs and issues of the public, coupled with a suite of news media representations which have become transitionally indecisive or scatter-brained in too many venues— leaving but a few Journalists with the needed logic and sensibility, but who can do little to sway the tide of a public consciousness having been calloused from the truth by enduring decades of political deceit in collusion with Corporate America and the Stock Market whose individualized corruptions and lies which have not abated under the guise of Capitalistic and patriotic traditions that amount to a heritage of superstition and fear of developmental progression— by attempting to curtail and diminish basic freedoms of individuals who must seek justice on their own behalf so that it is a manifest destiny protected by the public themselves, because the government has failed miserably at the job. Needless to say, we need a New Government that is not a replicated phony democracy as is practiced in some many places of Earth... We need A Cenocracy!!!




Date of Origination: Monday, 24-July-2017... 5:54 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Monday, 24-July-2017... 7:10 AM
Updated Posting: Tuesday, 15-August-2017... 3:18 PM