I would like to start a discussion about economics in the UK, US and the Eurozone

[mcichocki]

Yes, yes it does....or should I say...Yes, yes, it can...as we've seen?

No, no you won't. It somehow ended with a generation that followed mine (most likely, EOMRAT and his kind )

I often frown upon our government but in reality we do have a democracy (for now). In a democracy the mob of majority gets the government they want/deserve. The government really is a reflection of our own personal greed and corruption, otherwise the turds wouldn't be voted in nor kept in. We continue to allow their acts of treason in hopes they'll sprinkle some of their take on us, in one way or another.

Keep in mind when I say "we" I'm speaking of the nation collectively, not you or I personally. I've don't ever remember feeling the nation this divided in my years, it's seriously insane out there. Now people are willing to offer up others gun rights & indefinite detention because they want a false sense of security? We all should know the $hit's about to hit the fan here!

I could go on and on...but didn't OP want to talk about economics at some point? As for economics, the government comes into play because of the global crony capitalism at hand. The prior GDP chart was spot on, not just individuals but many NATIONS are committed to a debt burden greater than what they can produce. And interest on top is an exponential function that simply cannot be overcome in the long run. Many cultures consider interest on loans an act of treason, interest (especially on fractional reserve fiat) makes inflation mandatory. It's impossible to separate the government who is trying to control the business cycle from talks about the economy.

What do you think the end game is...just curious?

[Flounderbout]

ITT OP asks whether it is possible to have a discussion on a sensible topic without political ideology getting in the way, and then the responses give a resounding NO...

[Flounderbout]

Actually, back then you pretty much had to be rich to pay 90% income tax. So basically, they weren't people who earned wages.

Whether your earnings are calculated by the hour (and so can be described by your definition as wages), or earn a "salary", has precisely nothing to do with how much you earn, and whether or not you are rich. If you want some expensive clarification of this point, ask a lawyer who gets paid by the hour.

Might wanna read what I posted again
The top bracket was $325,000 right? My understanding is that most ppl who made that much in a year were not *wage* earners....they're on salary or commission or whatevs. They weren't earning $156 per hour in wages(that's what $325k per year would be on an hourly basis, assuming 40 hours per week).

Here you suggest that rich people don't get paid by the hour. I suggest you go and speak to that lawyer again (although you may struggle to find one that only works 40 hours a week).

Huh? I don't think wages make your living an honest one. It's independent of that. You could earn wages honestly or dishonestly, and the same goes for other types of income.
My point is that a salary is not a wage. A wage is hourly pay, a salary is a set amount per year.

See your quotes above. You were expressly suggesting that high rates of income tax were OK because they only targeted people with salaries, not people who earned wages. Unless there is some distinction between wage earners (good), and salary earners (bad), then that suggestion was completely devoid of any sensible meaning. I would tentatively suggest that this fine distinction might be lost on the guy with a $10,000 pa salary looking at the $5,000,000 a year lawyer earning by the hour.

What about the rich people who started out by earning honest wages and then excelled, then hired people to earn honest wages? Does that make them douches?
I hate it when people make such blanket statements with no thought behind them.

Phattso - Sorry - I had hoped the sarcasm would be apparent! I was trying to point out (probably ineptly), the points above. Thanks eomrat!

[drudixon]

A wage is hourly pay. A salary isn't a wage. That was my point. Top income earners did NOT earn wages....
Who the hell earns $150 per hour? Maybe if they were paid wages plus commissions or something.

edit - I followed your advice to google "wage"....and google seems to agree with me, not you. Just sayin...


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage





As a libertarian, I gotta be dorky with this.

A Libertarian with a capital "L" means you're associated with the Libertarian party. A "small L" libertarian means you are libertarian according to the principles of libertarianism(someone who fundamentally believes in live-and-let-live and applies it to politics, and favors both economics and social freedom).

The point isn't what time period a wage is paid over, its that for taxes the government doesn't care. The term wage earner connotes an individual who earns money. The percentages are of income regardless of how it's earned.

[Phattso]

Phattso, Flounder was making fun of Stealth_Swimmer.

Thank you for the clarification. If that is the case, I retract my comment.

[mcichocki]

I consider any increase to an individuals means which will enable them to invest or consume more than before "income". So that said, for a minute let's focus on 2 terms other than wage and salary. Let's turn our attention to PASSIVE income and ACTIVE income. ACTIVE income implies you traded your time for income. PASSIVE income implies you turned money (or risk) into more money, which is still income. Considering time is without debate non renewable and the most finite of our resources/commodities I find it a$$ backwards, that ACTIVE income is taxed aggressively while PASSIVE income enjoys preferential tax treatment. Much of the world seems to entice inflation while shunning growth, those GDP statistics below reflect this reality.

[Phattso]

Phattso - Sorry - I had hoped the sarcasm would be apparent! I was trying to point out (probably ineptly), the points above. Thanks eomrat!

Sarcasm is usually apparent to me, but in my haste of skimming, I missed it. Good sarcasm

[JOHN GARGANI]

You left out one variable that should matter...and one that people should vote by; morality. This is where our country is failing...and at a rapid rate of derailing.

spot on, Baby, but you are the lone voice crying out in the wilderness.....self sacrifice....doing what you think is for the greater good....

these type of attributes makes one a better person in EVERYTHING, not just politics....

[drudixon]

I consider any increase to an individuals means which will enable them to invest or consume more than before "income". So that said, for a minute let's focus on 2 terms other than wage and salary. Let's turn our attention to PASSIVE income and ACTIVE income. ACTIVE income implies you traded your time for income. PASSIVE income implies you turned money (or risk) into more money, which is still income. Considering time is without debate non renewable and the most finite of our resources/commodities I find it a$$ backwards, that ACTIVE income is taxed aggressively while PASSIVE income enjoys preferential tax treatment. Much of the world seems to entice inflation while shunning growth, those GDP statistics below reflect this reality.

Therein lies one of the fundamental flaws of our current system. The system assumes, and rewards perpetual growth. The stock market thrives on this fact. There is a critical mass where growth percentages drop due to overall revenue and share being too high.

Take into consideration AURs. Average Unit Revenue. When looking at something, like technology per se', If sell x units at y price in a given year, it results in a gross income z. Because y price drops, to equal the prior year z, x must increase. Furthermore, because the expected z output is in finite dollars, not percents, with x being lower, the dollars available as a percent to contribute to a dollar total z are less, so I have to sell disproportionately more than the year prior for a zero sum gain in dollars z. Add Wall Street expectations with a 20% gross income quota increase, year after year, I may have to sell as much as 50% more systems - x - to meet my new year z targets. There is a point when there simply isn't enough market to support ever increasing "x". The globalization of markets has allowed for market growth demands to be temporarily "sated". Early 2000s saw the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) explosion in revenue and growth potential. Already we're beginning to see market saturation and a slowing of growth. So, ever more the search for new markets continues.

This begs to question, what happens to Apple when 100% of the world owns an iPad? What happens when 100% of the world owns 100% of what Apple sells? Growth stops. While an absurd example, it illustrates that there is a glass ceiling for growth. There comes a point when growth caps, and everything is simply "share shifting" with no net new value creation. There are of course other means of demonstrating growth. For example, new products, improving efficiencies. Dell for example led the world in efficiency of assembly. Like perpetual unit sales, there is a limit to how efficient a process can be. Dell showed us that they passed this limit and began producing sub-par products with sub-par service, hence the conundrum they find themselves in today. They lacked new markets, they lacked new products, so their share had declined. Due to their lack of innovation, their share and relative growth will continue to erode until there is in fact no more Dell.

So what on earth does all of this have to do with economics at the global level. Back to our units x example. The notion is that new markets as well as general population growth will satisfy overall growth targets of said companies akin to the illustration above. The issue is Money Supply. Whether we're looking at M1, M2, even M3 money supply indices as presented by US Federal Reserve, how does money supply balance with population increases? If I had 100 people wanting 100 dollars 10 years ago, today I have 200 people after the same 100 dollars. The only way to keep all things equal at constant currency is to double my money supply. The subsequent issue is that with supply and demand, I have a greater demand, hence higher prices. So, a good or service will increase in price equal to the rise in demand. This is simple economics 101, so no new information here.

That said, remember, the fed reserve standards are calculated as a money supply available across a group of individuals. Since the Reagan tax reform in 82, the balance of this money supply has shifted, inordinately so. While in the early 1900s the top 1% was close to 20%, it is once again today. The 50s-70s saw the greatest amount of money supply spread across the majority (around 8% is total wealth of top 1%). The issue with these shifts in money supply is that as the larger the percent of the total money supply is held by few, the less total money to spread amongst the many. Current policy trends only illustrate that this trend is only going to increase. Looking at net wealth statistics, the bottom 20% of the population has seen their relative net worth cut over 75% since 1980. Largely this is due to having a large supply of people with little demand for them. With increasing economic mechanization and automation, the demand for the bottom 20% of persons will continue to drop. This automation is due to the demand for growth. Going back to the factors of growth, new markets, new products and services, and improved efficiencies, as efficiency is ever improved, requiring less and less low skilled / low value persons, the wealth divide will continue to expand exponentially.

A practical example is a fortune 20 technology blue chip. This company is "owned" by 8 shareholders (majority shares). The price and relative wealth of shares in this company are driven overall by growth. If these fund managers, and one singular very wealthy person, don't get commensurate expected wealth generation, they elect a new CEO, new board, whatever. In this company the CEO meets with these 8 shareholders to review expectations. Thus, CEOs are expected to do anything and everything to meet these short term goals and objectives to satisfy the demands of 8 people, further exacerbating low demand for the bottom 20% of the population.

From a political standpoint, the irony is that "revolutions" always occur at wealth distribution "set points", meaning, when the disparity between rich and poor hits a certain percent, the bottom rises up and over takes the top. While in many regards Conservative / Republican economic strategies are considered less socialistic, they're far more apt to foment communist style revolution than more liberal policies. So it begs to question whether in fact in the long run a more liberal monetary policy with balanced income distribution is better for society as a whole.


TLR unless major crap changes, we're all f'ed.

[mslman71]

Therein lies one of the fundamental flaws of our current system....
TLR unless major crap changes, we're all f'ed.

In other words, you pay off the lower end of society to shut them up, even if they don't produce, to guarantee your [the relatively wealthy] future position. If this doesn't work the poor will rise up and make everyone poor.

[Flounderbout]

Therein lies one of the fundamental flaws of our current system. The system assumes, and rewards perpetual growth. The stock market thrives on this fact. There is a critical mass where growth percentages drop due to overall revenue and share being too high.

Take into consideration AURs. Average Unit Revenue. When looking at something, like technology per se', If sell x units at y price in a given year, it results in a gross income z. Because y price drops, to equal the prior year z, x must increase. Furthermore, because the expected z output is in finite dollars, not percents, with x being lower, the dollars available as a percent to contribute to a dollar total z are less, so I have to sell disproportionately more than the year prior for a zero sum gain in dollars z. Add Wall Street expectations with a 20% gross income quota increase, year after year, I may have to sell as much as 50% more systems - x - to meet my new year z targets. There is a point when there simply isn't enough market to support ever increasing "x". The globalization of markets has allowed for market growth demands to be temporarily "sated". Early 2000s saw the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) explosion in revenue and growth potential. Already we're beginning to see market saturation and a slowing of growth. So, ever more the search for new markets continues.

This begs to question, what happens to Apple when 100% of the world owns an iPad? What happens when 100% of the world owns 100% of what Apple sells? Growth stops. While an absurd example, it illustrates that there is a glass ceiling for growth. There comes a point when growth caps, and everything is simply "share shifting" with no net new value creation. There are of course other means of demonstrating growth. For example, new products, improving efficiencies. Dell for example led the world in efficiency of assembly. Like perpetual unit sales, there is a limit to how efficient a process can be. Dell showed us that they passed this limit and began producing sub-par products with sub-par service, hence the conundrum they find themselves in today. They lacked new markets, they lacked new products, so their share had declined. Due to their lack of innovation, their share and relative growth will continue to erode until there is in fact no more Dell.

So what on earth does all of this have to do with economics at the global level. Back to our units x example. The notion is that new markets as well as general population growth will satisfy overall growth targets of said companies akin to the illustration above. The issue is Money Supply. Whether we're looking at M1, M2, even M3 money supply indices as presented by US Federal Reserve, how does money supply balance with population increases? If I had 100 people wanting 100 dollars 10 years ago, today I have 200 people after the same 100 dollars. The only way to keep all things equal at constant currency is to double my money supply. The subsequent issue is that with supply and demand, I have a greater demand, hence higher prices. So, a good or service will increase in price equal to the rise in demand. This is simple economics 101, so no new information here.

That said, remember, the fed reserve standards are calculated as a money supply available across a group of individuals. Since the Reagan tax reform in 82, the balance of this money supply has shifted, inordinately so. While in the early 1900s the top 1% was close to 20%, it is once again today. The 50s-70s saw the greatest amount of money supply spread across the majority (around 8% is total wealth of top 1%). The issue with these shifts in money supply is that as the larger the percent of the total money supply is held by few, the less total money to spread amongst the many. Current policy trends only illustrate that this trend is only going to increase. Looking at net wealth statistics, the bottom 20% of the population has seen their relative net worth cut over 75% since 1980. Largely this is due to having a large supply of people with little demand for them. With increasing economic mechanization and automation, the demand for the bottom 20% of persons will continue to drop. This automation is due to the demand for growth. Going back to the factors of growth, new markets, new products and services, and improved efficiencies, as efficiency is ever improved, requiring less and less low skilled / low value persons, the wealth divide will continue to expand exponentially.

A practical example is a fortune 20 technology blue chip. This company is "owned" by 8 shareholders (majority shares). The price and relative wealth of shares in this company are driven overall by growth. If these fund managers, and one singular very wealthy person, don't get commensurate expected wealth generation, they elect a new CEO, new board, whatever. In this company the CEO meets with these 8 shareholders to review expectations. Thus, CEOs are expected to do anything and everything to meet these short term goals and objectives to satisfy the demands of 8 people, further exacerbating low demand for the bottom 20% of the population.

From a political standpoint, the irony is that "revolutions" always occur at wealth distribution "set points", meaning, when the disparity between rich and poor hits a certain percent, the bottom rises up and over takes the top. While in many regards Conservative / Republican economic strategies are considered less socialistic, they're far more apt to foment communist style revolution than more liberal policies. So it begs to question whether in fact in the long run a more liberal monetary policy with balanced income distribution is better for society as a whole.


TLR unless major crap changes, we're all f'ed.

FFS how do you expect anyone to follow this? There are people around here who don't even understand how income tax works...

[drudixon]

In other words, you pay off the lower end of society to shut them up, even if they don't produce, to guarantee your [the relatively wealthy] future position. If this doesn't work the poor will rise up and make everyone poor.

sadly that's the way history seems to bear out.

Ref:China, USSR, Iran, many, many more.

Kinda hush money per se. ...

Ideal situation is to find something for them to do, the challenge is that the things to do these days are much higher up on the skill curve, so if we don't get our science/engineering skills up, this situation will just perpetuate.

[mslman71]

...
Ideal situation is to find something for them to do, the challenge is that the things to do these days are much higher up on the skill curve, so if we don't get our science/engineering skills up, this situation will just perpetuate.

Our science and engineering skills are quite good where it matters despite the drumbeat of the naysayers. Having a bunch of people who perform well on tests and can perfectly imitate all the work that's been done before them (eg, Chinese) isn't what makes for innovation. Having a fleet of the best educated taxi drivers in the world isn't useful (eg, Russians). IMO, the key to innovation is a willingness to fail and a system that fosters reward when there is one success in the long list of attempts. The Chinese suck at innovation for cultural and political reasons no matter how well they score on meaningless tests and their relative position in arbitrary ranking systems. For all those professional drones that operate below the innovators, like me, I think we're okay. While my motivation to be in the science and engineering field was based on my own curiosities independently of salary, there needs to be a reasonably healthy income disparity across occupations to make the effort of becoming and being an engineer or some other profesional financially worth it. That is, we can't all be astronauts.

[drudixon]

Our science and engineering skills are quite good where it matters despite the drumbeat of the naysayers. Having a bunch of people who perform well on tests and can perfectly imitate all the work that's been done before them (eg, Chinese) isn't what makes for innovation. Having a fleet of the best educated taxi drivers in the world isn't useful (eg, Russians). IMO, the key to innovation is a willingness to fail and a system that fosters reward when there is one success in the long list of attempts. The Chinese suck at innovation for cultural and political reasons no matter how well they score on meaningless tests and their relative position in arbitrary ranking systems. For all those professional drones that operate below the innovators, like me, I think we're okay. While my motivation to be in the science and engineering field was based on my own curiosities independently of salary, there needs to be a reasonably healthy income disparity across occupations to make the effort of becoming and being an engineer or some other profesional financially worth it. That is, we can't all be astronauts.

I largely agree, however the Chinese are beginning to show some promise. Reference their high speed rail into Tibet. The tracks can move as much as 3 meters a day (they're across moving glaciers). That's just one example. That said, they're the biggest Intellectual Property thieves anywhere.

A recent effort in Poland regarding engineering seems to paying off quite well, a lot of new jobs are going in there. I agree US universities are the best, it's just we're not the only game in town anymore.

[Flounderbout]

I agree US universities are the best

Pah. Harvard is OK, but only because it was founded by someone who went to my Cambridge college...

Engineers in the UK get paid peanuts. I would say about 80% of my engineering contemporaries left university and became management consultants and accountants. Which explains a great deal about why the UK economy is in the state it is in.

[dbx]

Our science and engineering skills are quite good where it matters despite the drumbeat of the naysayers.

While my motivation to be in the science and engineering field was based on my own curiosities independently of salary, there needs to be a reasonably healthy income disparity across occupations to make the effort of becoming and being an engineer or some other profesional financially worth it. That is, we can't all be astronauts.

Well said.

I largely agree, however the Chinese are beginning to show some promise. Reference their high speed rail into Tibet. The tracks can move as much as 3 meters a day (they're across moving glaciers). That's just one example. That said, they're the biggest Intellectual Property thieves anywhere.

Yes, they're truly turning from producing crap, to producing higher quality products. As far as being thieves of intellectual property.....we all are. This is another canard....drum beating...to put down a society that is rising up...as the U.S. retards itself. IOW, we've somewhat slowed down in outpacing the world in innovation. I'll never forget what a Chinese professor once told me; It takes 5 Chinese to come up with an idea that a single Japanese person can conjure. I was shocked to hear him "admit" this, but I admired him all the more for having the courage to say it. He was admitting that the Chinese didn't have..."superstars", as did Japan and the U.S., regarding innovation.

Don't lose hope. China has many bumps in the road...just up ahead, as they become more and more westernized. U.S. citizens think of them as being purely communist, but they are breaking wide open into a capitalist society (relative terms of time). You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and they're going to soon find themselves with a people's revolution on their hands that will stifle their current breakneck pace growth.

And let us not forget..........that many engineering feats that we see in other countries....are the result of many of those engineers being schooled in U.S. institutions.

[Wyomann]

My FW is a Mech engineer and I'm a software "engineer". We both graduated from the college of engineering and it has definitely been worth the time put in. I don't fear people overseas taking my job at a lower pay, because quite honestly they can't do what I can do as effectively. I've worked with them and have seen their work. Granted I'm generalizing, but another misconception is that you can easily just hire someone over seas and get the exact same work output.

[mslman71]

said, they're the biggest Intellectual Property thieves anywhere.

This makes their technological advancements self limiting (in terms of progress, not scope). They, in terms of technological prowess, will be no better than the best technology they can buy, borrow, or steal. Because their government is effectively the equivalent of our old oil tycoons their system from an economic perspective will self-limit when the people of the country begin to believe their own BS and life is no longer cheap. It make take a little more doing since the government is the oil tycoon(s) and carries with it the force of the military.

[dbx]

I often frown upon our government but in reality we do have a democracy (for now). In a democracy the mob of majority gets the government they want/deserve. The government really is a reflection of our own personal greed and corruption, otherwise the turds wouldn't be voted in nor kept in. We continue to allow their acts of treason in hopes they'll sprinkle some of their take on us, in one way or another.

Well said.

Keep in mind when I say "we" I'm speaking of the nation collectively, not you or I personally. I've don't ever remember feeling the nation this divided in my years, it's seriously insane out there. Now people are willing to offer up others gun rights & indefinite detention because they want a false sense of security? We all should know the $hit's about to hit the fan here!

This nation has been divided this badly for over 3 decades, but it's our current media that highlights it so much, and makes it seem much 20x worse than it was decades ago. It's really not as bad as it's portrayed, but is definitely worse than it used to be.

I could go on and on...but didn't OP want to talk about economics at some point? As for economics, the government comes into play because of the global crony capitalism at hand. The prior GDP chart was spot on, not just individuals but many NATIONS are committed to a debt burden greater than what they can produce. And interest on top is an exponential function that simply cannot be overcome in the long run. Many cultures consider interest on loans an act of treason, interest (especially on fractional reserve fiat) makes inflation mandatory. It's impossible to separate the government who is trying to control the business cycle from talks about the economy.

What do you think the end game is...just curious?

Not sure what you mean by "end game", regarding your last paragraph. However, I'll simply say that, while we've always gone forward as a people, despite govt. policies (regarding innovation, technology, etc...), our current govt. might just be the most stifling sitting group that could change the aforementioned comment. That is, if you stifle investment via bull$hit govt. obstacles, you cripple entrepreneurship.....and thus, job creation...GDP, etc...

[sy2502]

My FW is a Mech engineer and I'm a software "engineer". We both graduated from the college of engineering and it has definitely been worth the time put in. I don't fear people overseas taking my job at a lower pay, because quite honestly they can't do what I can do as effectively. I've worked with them and have seen their work. Granted I'm generalizing, but another misconception is that you can easily just hire someone over seas and get the exact same work output.

Looking at the state of my industry, I am starting to wonder if they even care about quality. Lately a certain company which shall go unnamed has laid off 500 Americans and has opened a branch in China. Most of the people laid off here were experienced, long term employees who were cut for the simple reason that you have to pay experienced people more. I would think it obvious that if you lay off the experienced people and you are left with the new grads, quality is going to go down, but I guess they don't care a whole lot?

[dbx]

My FW is a Mech engineer and I'm a software "engineer". We both graduated from the college of engineering and it has definitely been worth the time put in. I don't fear people overseas taking my job at a lower pay, because quite honestly they can't do what I can do as effectively. I've worked with them and have seen their work. Granted I'm generalizing, but another misconception is that you can easily just hire someone over seas and get the exact same work output.

My oldest son, a mere 24yrs of age, is currently the "point man" for a new laser measurement effort for his Japanese based company. He's a GT grad, who, majored in Biomolecular & Chemical Engineering....accepted a job with said company as an Analytical Engineer...and is now...a "Marketing Engineer", of sorts. He goes to Japan in two weeks to help spearhead their latest project. LOL, it's a crazy world. Beside bragging on the lad, I'm really pointing out that we still have the best engineering institutions in the world. His closest college pals were from various other countries.

[mslman71]

I often frown upon our government but in reality we do have a democracy (for now). In a democracy the mob of majority gets the government they want/deserve.

Actually, not really. We aren't a true democracy, thank god. The framers were well aware of the stupidity that arises from mob rule. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic. At one time we were in practice, now it seems we are moreso in appearance, since the SCOTUS is all but a rubber stamp for whatever hair brained ideas Congress and the POTUS sell to the American public as a whole.

The closer the level of government is to the people the more it resembles a true Democracy. For example, have you ever voted on a national referendum? How you voted on a local referendum? If the majority of the people wanted to outlaw Scientology and the law actually passed, would it hold up to scrutiny in the courts? Nope, at least I hope not.

Regardless, local & state laws are still subject to scrutiny at the constitutional [federal] level but at least when local politicians are accessible. This is why I fancy myself a states' rights advocate. Not every fart has to be regulated by the feds.

[Wyomann]

This nation has been divided this badly for over 3 decades, but it's our current media that highlights it so much, and makes it seem much 20x worse than it was decades ago. It's really not as bad as it's portrayed, but is definitely worse than it used to be.
.

I feel like it's more divided that it's every been. The media has a role, but I also feel like this President has laid more blame on the past president, republicans, and other who oppose his policies than any other president that has been in office in my lifetime. It makes me resent him for blaming others and basically lying through his teeth to cover up things. I hear the word racist more than I ever have. Every criticism comes off as racism some how and that makes me resentful as well.

[dbx]

Actually, not really. We aren't a true democracy, thank god. The framers were well aware of the stupidity that arises from mob rule. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic

True...and I just let it slide . I got the gist of what he was saying and left this distinction alone. But yes, people really need to remember this little fact, as they often confuse the differences.

[mslman71]

..Every criticism comes off as racism some how and that makes me resentful as well.

It's one of those tactics you can't even acknowledge. If you do you find yourself in the position of defending not being a racist rather than justifying your opposition to a particular policy. It also is convenient in that it absolves the accuser of being responsible for defending the policy. I refuse to ever get into the business of defending tangental accusations in a discussion/debate.

[dbx]

I feel like it's more divided that it's every been. The media has a role, but I also feel like this President has laid more blame on the past president, republicans, and other who oppose his policies than any other president that has been in office in my lifetime. It makes me resent him for blaming others and basically lying through his teeth to cover up things. I hear the word racist more than I ever have. Every criticism comes off as racism some how and that makes me resentful as well.

Keep in mind; politics has been a dirty endeavor since the beginning of time. Also, keep in mind, that depending on our age/era, we see things (perspective) through different lenses, so to speak.

Having said that, I agree with your assertions, though to a somewhat, lesser degree.

[mslman71]

True...and I just let it slide . I got the gist of what he was saying and left this distinction alone. But yes, people really need to remember this little fact, as they often confuse the differences.

It sometimes comes across as being pedantic but it's an enormously important point in the goings-on of government and our every day lives. As a mature adult I now thoroughly respect peoples' right to practice religion in whatever way they deem fit; in whatever way brings them joy and peace, but I personally am not religious. Growing up geographically next to the headquarters of the Southern Baptists I was very resentful of the influence the majority had over my life and how they tried to influence me. Being protected from the will of the majority in matters of constitutional freedoms as well as having access to local representatives and the legislative process was important to me early in life. Likewise, having daily aspects of my life and my children's lives dictated by the dingbats in CA simply because there are more of them is equally frustrating. I DGAF what dumb **** ideas CA comes up with for its people so long as they keep it there and what they do is constitutionally sound. I want the laws that influence me the most to be local laws where my vote is not diluted and those who make the laws are not geographically (and by virtue of armed protection) separated from me.

[dbx]

It sometimes comes across as being pedantic but it's an enormously important point in the goings-on of government and our every day lives. As a mature adult I now thoroughly respect peoples' right to practice religion in whatever way they deem fit; in whatever way brings them joy and peace, but I personally am not religious. Growing up geographically next to the headquarters of the Southern Baptists I was very resentful of the influence the majority had over my life and how they tried to influence me. Being protected from the will of the majority in matters of constitutional freedoms as well as having access to local representatives and the legislative process was important to me early in life. Likewise, having daily aspects of my life and my children's lives dictated by the dingbats in CA simply because there are more of them is equally frustrating. I DGAF what dumb **** ideas CA comes up with for its people so long as they keep it there and what they do is constitutionally sound. I want the laws that influence me the most to be local laws where my vote is not diluted and those who make the laws are not geographically (and by virtue of armed protection) separated from me.

Very similar feelings; I was raised as a catholic, but walked away from church at age 13. I too, was somewhat controlled/influenced by the totality of geographical area and family teachings.

But yes, when one separates themselves from both (and more), and starts a family....works every day to live and provide...a person starts thinking about what idealism should be. Even if we don't reach it, we should always be striving for it. Again, morality......it has left the building.

[mcichocki]

True...and I just let it slide . I got the gist of what he was saying and left this distinction alone. But yes, people really need to remember this little fact, as they often confuse the differences.

As long as the government continues to erode my constitutional rights I'll continue to use the term democracy gents. We may have been "framed" as a constitutional republic but it seems we've veered off course and into the ditch as far as the concept is concerned. Do you guys really feel our constitution is being upheld and is restricting government powers? NDAA and Patriot Act jump out at me personally.

I feel like it's more divided that it's every been. The media has a role, but I also feel like this President has laid more blame on the past president, republicans, and other who oppose his policies than any other president that has been in office in my lifetime. It makes me resent him for blaming others and basically lying through his teeth to cover up things. I hear the word racist more than I ever have. Every criticism comes off as racism some how and that makes me resentful as well.

Politicians gonna politic. Let's not forget how the dirtbags get elected, through slander and slam ads. Americans love voting for the less stinky of turds basically. 8/

[drudixon]

The reality is most people will never know the intricasies that govern their lives. Governmental policy is merely a series if band aids hoping to get it right for mist of the people. The question to ask ultimately is how things affect you directly.