How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 ..And in the Eighth Year.....   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

..And in the Eighth Year.....

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 10-26-2008 04:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
You have to go allllll the way back to Lincoln to find a more inexperienced candidate.


Lincoln - what a loser, if that’s what we’ve got to look forward to we’re in real trouble.

We need someone with experience - someone like Nixon - now there’s a fine upstanding fella. McCain should use that in the campaign:

VOTE FOR OBAMA GET LINCOLN - VOTE FOR McCAIN GET NIXON



Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


26 posted 10-26-2008 05:23 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

          All right, here are some links specifically about tax cuts and the theoretical foundation for them, The Laffer Curve.  I have tried to keep the sources middle of the road or to the right of it for the most part.  I don’t want this to be a jousting of ideologies, left versus right.    Although we probably have that disagreement, I think our disagreement here has more to do with fact than ideology.  I’m trying to treat it that way here.

     The first article give the most references from conservative sources with more available directions for exploration, should you be interested.  Apparently, at the very highest levels — say 100% — the Laffer curve is pretty much absolutely trustworthy, as it is at the bottom — o%.  But there appears to be an optimal level for it.  I won’t go further, since the material I’d be talking about isn’t covered in these references, and I don’t want to be having to set out and prove an alternative to you here.  I’m simply agreeing with our current President’s father when he called this sort of policy at one point when he was campaigning against Reagan “Voodoo Economics.”

     Then he found himself stuck with them, and apparently he didn’t know how to get out from under.  While they won him the election in ‘88, I think they cost him dearly in ‘92.  Though I may be misreading the past a bit.  It simply seems that way to me now.

http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/4065
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html


     Anyway, have a look at the above and tell me what you think.  

All my best,     Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 10-26-2008 05:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

grinch, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "We need...". Which "we" are you referring to. Certainly not England and, since you profess not to be a favorite of either American party I'm curious who you are representing with that comment.

Possibly McCain will use Nixon the day after Obama uses Carter. This type of finger-pointing is useless.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


28 posted 10-26-2008 06:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
grinch, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "We need...". Which "we" are you referring to. Certainly not England and, since you profess not to be a favorite of either American party I'm curious who you are representing with that comment.

I think the whole world has a stake in American politics, Mike, and therefore a right to an opinion.

It wasn't just Iraqis, after all, who offered their views on Saddam Hussain and what "we" needed over there?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


29 posted 10-26-2008 06:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike,

I agree, it’s pointless to judge a candidate based on past experience, the exceptions prove that particular rule.

The “we” is sort of an all encompassing one. What happens in the US has repercussions beyond the borders of your country and we, you, me and the plumbers of Iraq and China need the best person possible leading your country.

No pressure of course, just don’t bugger it up for us - please.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


30 posted 10-26-2008 07:11 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Thanks, Bob for the links.  Am reviewing them, deeper, but most of that I already knew thru research on tax rates.

Here is something I wish to throw out:

Tax cuts stimulate the economy
but they can also reduce the revenue that the IRS can collect.

Which is more important right now:  stimulating the economy
or worrying about tax revenues?

Why not just ask people 25,000 to kick in 10% of their income to taxes?  33-40% of the US tax paying population DOESNT pay any taxes!  How did that happen?  If middle income people like me pay 33%, why should people 15K less pay at least 10%?  Aren't they getting the same benefits, and more, than me?  

On a grander scale, who is to say that the rich should pay over 50% of their income to taxes?

Think about what this means:  that the government is more important than the individual, so suck it up rich guys.  No person should have more than 40% of their money go to taxes.  None, zero zip.

and the moderately poor SHOULD pay something into the system, especially since they disproportionately draw on it more often.  7-10% of their income should be do-able.  But here is the reason:  Dem's claim, gosh you are penalizing the poor and rewarding the rich!  Not true, BOTH would paying taxes, but the rich will be paying over 40% of their income to taxes.  Prior to JFK, the tax rate for the rich was a ridiculous 90% of their income!!!
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


31 posted 10-26-2008 07:13 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Oh, wow Grinch!!

I've already heard Obama being called the political Messiah

now you're calling him: Lincoln

Let's let him earn those stripes before
we annoint him in the same class as Lincoln, Ok?
Obama IS what he is, nothing more, nothing less,... for the moment

[This message has been edited by threadbear (10-26-2008 08:32 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 10-26-2008 07:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I see....If that's what we've got to look forward to and We're in real trouble didn't sound like a " concerned citizen of the world" comment to me. Thanks for the clarification....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


33 posted 10-26-2008 07:36 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


No problem Mike.

Threadbear

quote:
now you're calling him: Lincoln!!


No, I was calling him Obama, you brought Lincoln into the conversation, remember.

quote:
You have to go allllll the way back to Lincoln to find a more inexperienced candidate.


I think you were trying to suggest that Obama was unsuitable for the office of President because he was inexperienced and then promptly shot yourself in the foot by pointing out that Lincoln was more inexperienced.

I merely added a further bullet by pointing out that Nixon was very experienced but, I think you’ll agree, he wasn’t the best President you’ve ever had.


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


34 posted 10-26-2008 08:35 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Grinch: you brought up a great point:

too much experience can lead a politician to be corrupt, jaded or just plain not-caring.  Fortunately, McCain is none of those.  I don't think Obama is any of those either.  We are lucky this election to have two pretty squeaky clean politicans (as politicians go anyway).  Their friends and associations are suspect, but for the most part, both seem to be straight-shooters.   McClain had the respect of almost all opposing Democrats before running, so it's pretty hard to paint him as a villain.

You may have just put your finger on WHY people are ga-ga for Obama.  They want someone who IS inexperienced in order to combat the Old-Boy's club.  Fresh voice, and all that.  I'm just not sold on Obama's credentials other than his speaking prowess.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 10-26-2008 09:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Could that possibly be because he has none, Tbear?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


36 posted 10-27-2008 12:49 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Threadbear,

          What proportion of those under poverty level would you like to have people pay income tax, Threadbear?  Families under $15,000 for four were under poverty level for years, and I'm pretty sure that the cut off is higher than that now. For a family of four it's  $21,200.  Here are the guidelines in general, if you're curious.

http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/poverty_guidelines_federal.htm


     The thing is, many of us think that poverty is a reason not to charge people when it's not absolutely necessary.  Whereas, having extra disposable income may make it inconvenient, but won't cause starvation.  Remember those kids you were getting all weepy about before they were born?  Some of us think they're worth bothering about after they're born as well.

     About the people below the povery line:  These are people who frequently have competition between rent and food for their kids.  I don't know about you, but as a guy who's both rented and owned, I know that it's a much better deal to own.  You get help from Uncle when you own.  There are lots of things that Uncle is helpful about when you can afford an accountant, too.

     That's another thing about the Laffer curve that the right doesn't talk about (in addition to the stuff I referenced in the articles I cited a few postings back).   That is that the Laffer curve talks a lot about how much rich folks tend to fudge things on the taxes as the tax rates go up.  That's a fancy way of saying that the closer you get to the high end of things, the more likely you are not to pay what you really owe, so the government shouldn't really count on it.

     Your solution, to pick on the people at the poverty line or below it, the people who are starving or close to it, to pick up the difference is too cold for my blood.  To say they don't pay taxes means they don't pay income taxes, Threadbear, not that they don't pay withholding or social security or the rest of the tax and fee business like everybody else and hope they get back what they put in for at the end of the year.  They pay the same regressive sales taxes as everybody else, and because they pay rent, their relative housing rates tend to be higher on a percentage basis than their more wealthy cousins.  Food costs them relatively more because they frequently can't afford economies of scale.  Their health tends to be worse because they can't afford preventative care and because the care they get is usually emergency care without sufficient follow-up and long term care to resolve the issues.  Their medication may or may not be covered.

     You and I can usually get insurance, with a bit of luck.
But all this is another discussion.  One about health care, which I believe is another Republican disaster that's only grown worse over the past eight years.  If the VA can buy its medication quite successfully by competitive bid, why has the Bush eldercare medication program found it necessary to let the pharmaceutical companies set the price for their own products, rather than having prices set by competitive bids?

     Suddenly the market isn't good enough for big business.
Wow!

     I guess the only thing we can do is soak the taxpayers, and wreck a potentially workable program so the guys who are sabotaging it from the start get to say I told You So.  I get whiplash just thinking about it.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 10-27-2008 01:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

another Republican disaster that's only grown worse over the past eight years.

Well, I'll say one thing for you, Bob. You're consistent. I see the "past eight years" mantra is alive and well.

Ah, yes the health care, that republican disaster. Er, hold on a second. Seems I recall that the health care issue was such a problem during the Clinton administration also that Bill put his top person, Hillary, in charge of it to straighten it out...which she failed miserably at doing. I'll double-check but I don't think that happened during the past eight years.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


38 posted 10-27-2008 07:46 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

threadbear,

here's something I always found astounding about poverty level.

Our military, teachers, police officers, fireman, and certain very important medical personnel are all paid starting wages that are well below poverty level.

They usually do receive good medical and retirement benefits, if they make it to retirement.

We'd better take care of those in those positions, or what will it matter who's politic-ing what if there's no one qualified to protect or treat or teach us.

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


39 posted 10-27-2008 08:38 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

About certain taxation that affects the wealthy and the well hard-earned:

I vehemently disagree with federal estate taxation and piggybacking inheritance taxes by states, such as Tennessee.

If a person has already paid taxes on assets and monies while living, why should any part of those same assets and monies be taxed again (twice in our state) before the benefactor receives an inheritance? I feel it's double(triple)dipping. And it also allows the government to seize an estate if the benefactor/s can't come up with the new taxes due on the property which may have been in the family for generations. Many heritages have been muscled out of the hands of families due to the daunting inflation rate of property taxes and values.

I've seen many mourn twice, for the loss of their loved ones and then the loss of what those loved one worked so hard for, gone, to the highest bidder at auction.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 10-27-2008 01:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Hilary's solution was voted down by a concerted campaign of special interest groups and Republicans.  I think she was too idealistic at the time.  I think failure to take up her plan or something like it has put our health care system into a very dangerous state.

     Perhaps there are other folks who've worked in the health care system who have some generous things to say about it.  Or about the way it's been handled over the time that Senator Clinton's proposals were voted down.

     The way that insurance drives the system presently has not been for the good of the patients, certainly, though people have tried making lemonade as best they can, and some treatment reforms have been helpful.  Briefer hospital stays, for example, have been useful overall, though not in all cases.  Closing of many state psychiatric hospitals has been to my mind, a disaster for the patients who mad depended on them.  It's not clear how  we will ever tabulate the fatalities directly or indirectly attributable to that one.  Inpatient treatment of Depression, at one point, was only covered for ten days for medication stabilization at a time when a two week trial was necessary to see if the medication was useful, and it wasn't uncommon to try a patient on two or three medications before finding one that worked.

     I could go on.

     While I'm at it, I'm interested how people are managing to blame Barney Frank and the Democrats for the banking crisis.  The legislation in question was during 2002, if I remember correctly or 2003, when the Republican had and used a large majority in both the senate and House.  Nothing passed without Republican sanction, and the notion that the democrats could have gotten through a bill without the support of the Republican majority is hysterically funny.  The Democrats couldn't even get measures scheduled without getting them past the Republican speaker of the house.

     After the bill in question was passed, as I recall, the president in his weekly radio address took credit for extending home ownership to the needy.  Perhaps some of my Republican friends would help me by checking out the appropriate transcripts.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


41 posted 10-27-2008 03:32 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Bob,

not entirely correct.  Barney Frank was chairman of the finance Committee, and the proposal was tabled in his committee, never came up for a vote because he convinced his Dem compatriots to just 'let it die' because "Freddie and Fannie Mae aren't in any trouble at all."

At that time, Dem's had veto power in several committees and the best way to kill a Republican proposal was to never let it come up for a vote.  The proposal never got thru the committee for a vote.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


42 posted 10-27-2008 07:54 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

           And since then?  And the President's Weekly Radio address?  Are you saying that with the Republican majority, the issue never came up again?  Given the number of times Republicans  (or Democrats too, for that matter; in this I believe they are alike)bring up issues that they believe are vital politically, such as tax cuts  or measures attacking Roe V. Wade there should be a broad trail of loud and frequent discussions about this through both houses of the congress, even though money matters must come from the House.  

     I suspect that the Republicans wanted to register some disapproval, and then be able to say via President Bush, that they were against the Practice of Redlining, which created large dead zones in the middle of cities, amongst other problems.  Sub-prime loans were not the right way out.  I think both major parties did nasty things to the pooch on this one, frankly.  

     I think we need some new economic thinking in general.  I tend toward Keynesian economics myself, but I'd like to see some well thought out economic theory that would both describe the events on record without any funny fixes or distortions, and which might provide a good future model.  The Republican model currently in use is more a political than an economic model if I understand correctly, and that's pretty dangerous.

     I thought the references to conservative economists' critiques of current Republican economic theory that I provided yesterday was interesting, though not, of course decisive.  It was certainly worth a lot of thinking, though, more than a fast response.

     Thank you as well for your courteous response to my confusion about the details of House Finance committee actions, by the way.  It's nice to get well thought out responses from which I can learn.  Not that I don't at other times. but this feels more of a collaborative effort at coming to some sort of understanding of the truth rather than a debate.

All my best, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (10-27-2008 08:25 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 10-27-2008 08:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

actually, Bob, that's not correct. Hillary had no solution. She never made a serious peoposal at all. It's easy to blame the evil Republicans in congress for her inabilities but that dog doesn't hunt. It's no crime to say she blew it but apparently it's too hard for those words to come out of democratic lips.

Additionally, if you check, I think you will find that Bill Clinton, in both campaigns, used health care as a major issue that was in trouble and needed to be resolved. That did not occur during the past eight years, either.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


44 posted 10-28-2008 01:04 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Bob, you are a scholar and a gentleman.  Good on yer, mate!

Nothing would be more boring than an economic strategy discussion, either here or in the campaign!  Bob the problem has to be that all models for economic growth are smashed.  Globalization has vastly complicated things thru reinvestment, loss thru exchange rates, bad loans, risky speculation.   The old econ models were more 'demand or supply' sided: tangibles were considered to drive the market more than the transaction itself.  Boy, that's such a subtle difference, but it's a killer one.    Transactions and profits from trading loan and equity futures has replaced commodity selling as the fastest way to make profits.  It was indeed a bubble that was just waiting to be popped, both Internationally and here in the States.  It's just begun, however.  Housing demand will drop, housing prices will drop; retail sales will be the lowest in years for Christmas, gas prices will tumble (because people can't afford hi-gas); demand for products will wane- people will be laid off, pensions will default and health benefits will be cut by employers.   When those begin to happen, you will know whether just a couple of toes are in Recession, or the whole leg.

-------------------------
Once that happens, you know who benefits during a Recession don't you?  Derivitive speculators:  the 2000 version of Carpetbaggers.  That's how we partially got into this mess in the first place.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 10-28-2008 11:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

  
     Hillary did have a 1993 Health plan.  It was real.  The Republicans were more interested in destroying it than in getting something that would work.  

     Personally, I believe this to be a tactic and not a strategy, a stopgap and not a solution.

     I have offered three links about the 1993 plan.  All of them are very clear that Senator Clinton’s plan was real.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210001


Sincerely,     Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2008 12:20 PM).]

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


46 posted 10-28-2008 01:17 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Hillary may have had a health plan in 1993, Bob, but she wasn't a senator until 2000. As Bill Clinton's wife, what leverage did she truly have to do anything with her plan, other than encourage others to do what she wanted? Isn't that being a bit presumptuous?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


47 posted 10-28-2008 02:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course it is and it's just another example of liberals claiming that, when Congress is republican, it's congress's fault and when congress is democrat, it's the president's fault. So what's new???
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


48 posted 10-28-2008 09:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Sunshine,

          I was responding to Balladeer's postings #37 and 43, I believe.  In speaking of a Senator, the correct for of address is "Senator."  If she was First Lady at the time, I would still call her Senator because she is now a Senator unless I wanted to venture into a usage such as "the then First Lady" Hillary Clinton.  This seems a bit awkward.  In speaking of Senator McCain's war captivity, I speak of him with his current title, Senator, and not by his then Military ranks.

     If you are curious about what she could do to get the plan passed, you might have a look at some of the links I referenced.  Clearly it was not sufficient, but I think that she had some pretty powerful opposition arrayed against her and she fought hard.

     I believe that anybody in this country who fights for what they believe in in a legal fashion is not being presumptuous.  The word has a suggestion of being above one's self, and in America more than any other country, I think the word being used about somebody's efforts in our political system suggests that there is a class system in operation that there shouldn't be.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


49 posted 10-28-2008 09:37 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Dear BobK

Semantics are just that. We need to be clear on what a person was at the time they were in a position of one or another title. At the time Ms. Clinton made her proposed Health Plan, she was an attorney, a wife, and a mother. Now, she is a senator, yes, but at the time of her proposals which I remember her being quite vehement about, and which she could not get her husband to get passed, she was neither a Senator nor a President in the making with the exception of being so in her own mind. And I can give her kudos for her political aspirations.

So, we have to take into configuration of when we talk about certain people in politics, so that we do not confuse others who do not have time to research such nuances. Simply, "prior to the time of becoming Senator, Hillary Clinton worked on ... " etc.

Not that I would correct you, Bob, but it made ME scratch my head and I wondered which time warp I had walked into back in 1993.

Thanks for your patience. I know that I am not as verbose as most of you in the political arena, and I wasn't meaning to say she didn't do what she certainly did do, but I had to make sure that we all knew that she was not in a position as a wife of a president to mandate such authority other than to change the China pattern at the time of her proposal.




 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> ..And in the Eighth Year.....   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors