50 Statistics About the U.S. Economy That are Almost too Crazy to Believe

[Tristan]

Hey, all. I came across this article on another forum I frequent: http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-9060-0-13-13--.html

They link their sources (no, I haven't verified them) in there, but I'll post the 50 stats below. It's pretty interesting, scary, and angering.

#50) In 2010 the U.S. government is projected to issue almost as much new debt as the rest of the governments of the world combined.

#49) It is being projected that the U.S. government will have a budget deficit of approximately 1.6 trillion dollars in 2010.

#48) If you went out and spent one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars.

#47) In fact, if you spent one million dollars every single day since the birth of Christ, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now.

#46) Total U.S. government debt is now up to 90 percent of gross domestic product.

#45) Total credit market debt in the United States, including government, corporate and personal debt, has reached 360 percent of GDP.

#44) U.S. corporate income tax receipts were down 55% (to $138 billion) for the year ending September 30th, 2009.

#43) There are now 8 counties in the state of California that have unemployment rates of over 20 percent.

#42) In the area around Sacramento, California there is one closed business for every six that are still open.

#41) In February, there were 5.5 unemployed Americans for every job opening.

#40) According to a Pew Research Center study, approximately 37% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 have either been unemployed or underemployed at some point during the recession.

#39) More than 40% of those employed in the United States are now working in low-wage service jobs.

#38) According to one new survey, 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.

#37) Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005.

#36) Mortgage purchase applications in the United States are down nearly 40 percent from a month ago to their lowest level since April of 1997.

#35) RealtyTrac has announced that foreclosure filings in the U.S. established an all time record for the second consecutive year in 2009.

#34) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in March 2010, an increase of nearly 19 percent from February, an increase of nearly 8 percent from March 2009 and the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report in January 2005.

#33) In Pinellas and Pasco counties, which include St. Petersburg, Florida and the suburbs to the north, there are 34,000 open foreclosure cases. Ten years ago, there were only about 4,000.

#32) In California's Central Valley, 1 out of every 16 homes is in some phase of foreclosure.

#31) The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that more than 10 percent of all U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment during the January to March time period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago.

#30) U.S. banks repossessed nearly 258,000 homes nationwide in the first quarter of 2010, a 35 percent jump from the first quarter of 2009.

#29) For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.

#28) More than 24% of all homes with mortgages in the United States were underwater as of the end of 2009.

#27) U.S. commercial property values are down approximately 40 percent since 2007 and currently 18 percent of all office space in the United States is sitting vacant.

#26) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. That was almost twice the level of a year earlier.

#25) In 2009, U.S. banks posted their sharpest decline in private lending since 1942.

#24) New York state has delayed paying bills totalling $2.5 billion as a short-term way of staying solvent but officials are warning that its cash crunch could soon get even worse.

#23) To make up for a projected 2010 budget shortfall of $280 million, Detroit issued $250 million of 20-year municipal notes in March. The bond issuance followed on the heels of a warning from Detroit officials that if its financial state didn't improve, it could be forced to declare bankruptcy.

#22) The National League of Cities says that municipal governments will probably come up between $56 billion and $83 billion short between now and 2012.

#21) Half a dozen cash-poor U.S. states have announced that they are delaying their tax refund checks.

#20) Two university professors recently calculated that the combined unfunded pension liability for all 50 U.S. states is 3.2 trillion dollars.

#19) According to EconomicPolicyJournal.com, 32 U.S. states have already run out of funds to make unemployment benefit payments and so the federal government has been supplying these states with funds so that they can make their payments to the unemployed.

#18) This most recession has erased 8 million private sector jobs in the United States.

#17) Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of 2010.

#16) U.S. government-provided benefits (including Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs) rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

#15) 39.68 million Americans are now on food stamps, which represents a new all-time record. But things look like they are going to get even worse. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011.

#14) Phoenix, Arizona features an astounding annual car theft rate of 57,000 vehicles and has become the new "Car Theft Capital of the World".

#13) U.S. law enforcement authorities claim that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs inside the country. These 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the crimes committed in the United States each year.

#12) The U.S. health care system was already facing a shortage of approximately 150,000 doctors in the next decade or so, but thanks to the health care "reform" bill passed by Congress, that number could swell by several hundred thousand more.

#11) According to an analysis by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation the health care "reform" bill will generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes on the American people by 2019.

#10) The Dow Jones Industrial Average just experienced the worst May it has seen since 1940.

#9) In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

#8) Approximately 40% of all retail spending currently comes from the 20% of American households that have the highest incomes.

#7) According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two-thirds of income increases in the U.S. between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1% of all Americans.

#6) The bottom 40 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.

#5) If you only make the minimum payment each and every time, a $6,000 credit card bill can end up costing you over $30,000 (depending on the interest rate).

#4) According to a new report based on U.S. Census Bureau data, only 26 percent of American teens between the ages of 16 and 19 had jobs in late 2009 which represents a record low since statistics began to be kept back in 1948.

#3) According to a National Foundation for Credit Counseling survey, only 58% of those in "Generation Y" pay their monthly bills on time.

#2) During the first quarter of 2010, the total number of loans that are at least three months past due in the United States increased for the 16th consecutive quarter.

#1) According to the Tax Foundation’s Microsimulation Model, to erase the 2010 U.S. budget deficit, the U.S. Congress would have to multiply each tax rate by 2.4. Thus, the 10 percent rate would be 24 percent, the 15 percent rate would be 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate would have to be 85 percent.

[garyatk]

This makes me want to run right out this November and vote for the same two political parties that have been behaving this way for a century! NOT!!!!!!!

[Tristan]

I hear ya, Gary. Check out www.goooh.com. It's pronounced "Go", but it stands for Get Out Of Our House.

[tim_v]

In my opinion the main problem is that most people don't vote for politicians that make the tough choices. They vote against ones that raise taxes or cut spending. So it's not surprising that most politicians aren't going to be very supportive of doing things that will keep them from being elected.

[garyatk]

tim v,

You are correct! The two major parties have turned "Our House" into a circus! It was intended by our founders that people would go "SERVE" for a term, and go back home to thier job, farm, or business. Much like jury duty. Instead we have our representatives giving themselves benefits that we meer citizens could only dream of, and therefore NEVER want to leave. So they have to do watever they can to keep thier good deal, instead of serving US!

Our founding fathers set up constitutionally limited republic government. The two major parties have given us democracy. There is a HUGE difference. The electoral college has a purpose, and there is a reason why our founders set it up so that the popular vote didn't seat the president and your US senator.

It is time that we FIRE the Democrats and Republicans and get back to a constitutional form of government intended by our founding fathers!

[Tristan]

Amen, Gary. I couldn't have said it better.

On a side note, I'm not sure if I should move this to the political discussion forum or not.

[4jacks]

You Libertarians types crack me up.

[garyatk]

It sounds like somebody actually supports the Washington DC circus....

[tim_v]

tim v,

You are correct! The two major parties have turned "Our House" into a circus! It was intended by our founders that people would go "SERVE" for a term, and go back home to thier job, farm, or business. Much like jury duty. Instead we have our representatives giving themselves benefits that we meer citizens could only dream of, and therefore NEVER want to leave. So they have to do watever they can to keep thier good deal, instead of serving US!

Our founding fathers set up constitutionally limited republic government. The two major parties have given us democracy. There is a HUGE difference. The electoral college has a purpose, and there is a reason why our founders set it up so that the popular vote didn't seat the president and your US senator.

It is time that we FIRE the Democrats and Republicans and get back to a constitutional form of government intended by our founding fathers!

The point I intended to make was that gov't is supposed to represent the people and the people in general have supported small gov't taxes and big gov't spending. Until people recognize that they can't have both the politicians will continue to have both. So while I don't think the politicians are doing a great job I don't see the point in blaming them for doing what the voters desire. Maybe the problems in Greece will wake people up but I think people find it to easier to blame politicians rather than accept that they will have to sacrifice to cut the deficit.

[garyatk]

tim v,

I stand by what I said. We were never intended to be a Democracy! The two major parties have given us that over the last 150 years. As a "constitutionally limited republic" (which is what the founders gave us) your representative is supposed to do what is right first! Besides, the vast majority of the debt we have was spent on things that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do anyway!

It truely is a circus in DC, it is time to clean up the manure. It is time to get rid of the donkey and elephant crap in DC!!!!

[tim_v]

tim v,

I stand by what I said. We were never intended to be a Democracy! The two major parties have given us that over the last 150 years. As a "constitutionally limited republic" (which is what the founders gave us) your representative is supposed to do what is right first! Besides, the vast majority of the debt we have was spent on things that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do anyway!

It truely is a circus in DC, it is time to clean up the manure. It is time to get rid of the donkey and elephant crap in DC!!!!

I don't understand what you think is the difference between a democracy and a 'constitutionally limited republic'.

Are you saying the difference is that both elect the representatives the same way but in a republic the representatives vote for what they think is right rather than what the people want?

My understanding of the difference is that in a democracy the citizen vote directly on the laws being passed rather than for politicians that vote on laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're willing to slash federal spending then voting for that is fine except that the result of that attitude was a heavily Democratic gov't that passed a healthcare program that significantly increased the deficit.

My frustration is that most people I see complain about the gov't spending too much but when it comes to cutting the parts that they want they get upset.

How many people do you know that want to eliminate social security & medicare? And how many of them are over 60? That's the biggest part of the budget (~40%).

[garyatk]

A constitutionally limited republic (which we had until the two major parties took control) is a government limited by the constitution. The constitution (as it was before the two major parties) didn't allow for the vast majority of the spending we have today including Social inSecurity and Medi-who-cares. Let alone the healthcare bill recently passed. Our constitution allows the federal government the power of the defence (not offence) of the union, a court system to settle disputes between the states, and the control of a common currency. The rest was left up to individual states. The president was seated by the elctoral college, and your US senator was seated by your state legislature and the governor. The highest office that was elected by a popular vote was your US congress person. In fact, because of the limited powers of the federal government, it was much more inportant who held your state and local offices than who was in the US congress. It was deemed by our founders that it was best to keep your government local where it could be managed and over seen by us easily.

It is time for us to return to the type of government our founders intended, and get rid of the two parties that have destroyed our constitution, and this country! Or of couse we can just become another mediocre country full of debt and corruption like the rest of the world. Our founders didn't like mediocraty, that is why they fought and died for FREEDOM!

[tim_v]

A constitutionally limited republic (which we had until the two major parties took control) is a government limited by the constitution. The constitution (as it was before the two major parties) didn't allow for the vast majority of the spending we have today including Social inSecurity and Medi-who-cares. Let alone the healthcare bill recently passed. Our constitution allows the federal government the power of the defence (not offence) of the union, a court system to settle disputes between the states, and the control of a common currency. The rest was left up to individual states. The president was seated by the elctoral college, and your US senator was seated by your state legislature and the governor. The highest office that was elected by a popular vote was your US congress person. In fact, because of the limited powers of the federal government, it was much more inportant who held your state and local offices than who was in the US congress. It was deemed by our founders that it was best to keep your government local where it could be managed and over seen by us easily.

It is time for us to return to the type of government our founders intended, and get rid of the two parties that have destroyed our constitution, and this country! Or of couse we can just become another mediocre country full of debt and corruption like the rest of the world. Our founders didn't like mediocraty, that is why they fought and died for FREEDOM!

The two party system started before Washington even left office so many of the founders played a part in that. And Jefferson (another founder) purchased Louisiana despite the constitution not specifically giving him that power. Also, the constitution provided a means to be amended (or are you in opposed to women voting and the abolition of slavery too?). It also allowed Congress to pass laws and levy taxes and I would say if it gets to levy taxes it's reasonable to think that it should get decide how to spend them.

Since it was more important who held state and local offices how were they elected? If they were directly elected by the voters why is that ok for state offices but not for federal offices?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't think the health care bill would have passed if the people that were opposed to it had voted for viable politicians that would oppose it rather than using their votes on people that wanted to eliminate Social Security that had essentially zero chance of getting elected.

[garyatk]

I agree with you that there have been people who have pushed the limits of our constitution since day one. That is why Jefferson said that we would need a bloody revolution every 20 years to keep our freedom. It has been a long time hasn't it? I don't have a problem with the two party system. I have a HUGE problem with these two parties that are doing an AWEFUL job!!!!!!!

Yes I agree that things do need to be able to change as times change. I agree with a womans right to vote, but slavery was already dying an economic death, and it didn't need to be abolished. Just like today, it was the crisis that was used as the power grab by Lincoln to bring unconstitutional power to the federal government.

As far as the "viable" politician goes... I guess it depends what your definition of the word "viable" is.... Tell me, which was the "viable" choice... Obama, or McCain????? Bush or Gore???? Bush Sr. or Clinton?????

I believe that I have voted for the candidate that was the most "viable" when you compare the candidate to what this country is SUPPOSED to be! Why turn America into Europe when you can just move there????

[tim_v]

I agree with you that there have been people who have pushed the limits of our constitution since day one. That is why Jefferson said that we would need a bloody revolution every 20 years to keep our freedom. It has been a long time hasn't it? I don't have a problem with the two party system. I have a HUGE problem with these two parties that are doing an AWEFUL job!!!!!!!

Well, since Jefferson was one of those pushing the limits I'm not too excited about having a bloody revolution just to put someone like him in power.

Yes I agree that things do need to be able to change as times change. I agree with a womans right to vote, but slavery was already dying an economic death, and it didn't need to be abolished. Just like today, it was the crisis that was used as the power grab by Lincoln to bring unconstitutional power to the federal government.

As far as the "viable" politician goes... I guess it depends what your definition of the word "viable" is.... Tell me, which was the "viable" choice... Obama, or McCain????? Bush or Gore???? Bush Sr. or Clinton?????

Viable to means someone whose positions are not opposed by 90% of the population. It's easy to propose getting rid of the Social Security and 90% of the gov't when you know it's never going to happen so you won't have to deal with all the problems that would occur. And that's my frustration with the voters, they aren't asking politicians to make tough choices and when politicians do make the tough choices they don't get elected. And then the voters complain about the politicians.

I believe that I have voted for the candidate that was the most "viable" when you compare the candidate to what this country is SUPPOSED to be! Why turn America into Europe when you can just move there????

But what is this country SUPPOSED to be? You refer back to the first days of the constitution then say that giving women the right to vote was good but abolishing slavery wasn't. Why do you think we should have changed the constituion to give women the right to vote but not blacks? How are you picking which changes are good? Is it reasonable for me to disagree about some of those changes?

[garyatk]

Since this thread was reopened, I can now defend myself from being accused of being a "racist" (even though the comments were removed), and from others artfully twisting my words to look that way...

tim v,

1) If you believe that Jefferson "pushed the limits" of the constitution, why don't you show the evidence, and support it.

2) Politicians take an oath to "uphold and defend" the constitution. If they don't do that (and they don't) they should be fired. The constituion gave certain powers to the federal government. Social Security isn't one of them. The founders created a way for you to have a government pension. It falls under "and all other powers are given to the states".

3) Where did I say that I didn't support blacks the right to vote???? That wasn't even an issue in my posts! Stop putting words in other peoples mouths, and confusing the meaning and the intent of thier posts just because you are ignorant of the topic, and too lazy to check it out for yourself!

Yes, the founders made a way for our constitution to be amended. As time went on, it was only right to give all men and women the right to vote. It was also a wonderful thing when slavery went away, but it didn't require a war and the largest unconstitutional power grab in the history of this nation to do it. Economics was doing that anyway! How is that "racist" 4jacks????

They also hoped that any changes to the constitution would be done with the wisdom, and the intent of the founders in mind. It wasn't! The changes were made with the power and the influence of the political parties in mind, and NOT what was in the best interest of "We the people"! The constitution was given to US to limit them! Not to them to limit US!

It is obvious from your (tim v and 4jacks) posts on this subject that you have never taken the time to educate yourself on how and why America was created. If you had, you would understand that your state government was given the power to take care of you from cradle to grave if the people so chose, and the federal government wasn't. You don't have to look very far or to deep to see the corruption and theft that has happened to America by the 2 major parties, and you, and the rest of the 90% are OK with it. That is insanity!

The founders and I believe that that this country was given to us by our creator (God), and just as we are to be good stewards of His resources, we should also be good stewards of the gift that He gave us with this country, and our constitution. We are failing MISERABLY! I am trying to do my part, and you are choosing to try make me look like an ignorant racist, instead of doing yours. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

It is this kind of ignorance that has brought us a socialist (actually facist, but that sounds to bad to say) country. I may be forced to participate in it, but I don't have to voluntarily deal with this kind of ignorance and in justice in a forum like this!

Good Day!!!

[tim_v]

1) I didn't say the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional but just that the right to purchase land is not specifically listed in the constitution. As best I can tell by your and Jefferson's viewpoint that means it's unconstitutional.

From wikipedia -

States' rights

Jefferson's very strong defense of States' rights, especially in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, set the tone for hostility to expansion of federal powers. However, some of his foreign policies did strengthen the government. Most important was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, when he used the implied powers to annex a huge foreign territory and all its French and Indian inhabitants. The population was estimated to be 97,000 as of the 1810 census.[64] His enforcement of the Embargo Act of 1807, while it failed in terms of foreign policy, demonstrated that the federal government could intervene with great force at the local level in controlling trade that might lead to war.
------
My overall point is that even that someone that believed strongly in states' rights like Jefferson appeared to find that when he was actually responsible for running the federal gov't that he 'needed' to do things that weren't specifically listed in the constitution.


2) Of course I believe politicians should 'uphold and defend ' the constitution but I understand that not everyone agrees with my view of what is constitutional. So who do you think should decide what is and isn't constitutional?


3) I asked a relatively simple question about slavery which I took for granted that you would agree that it was appropriate to abolish it. From there I was hoping to discuss how you justify overruling the states right on that issue but not others. But you answered "I agree with a womans right to vote, but slavery was already dying an economic death, and it didn't need to be abolished." The 13th-15th amendments abolished slavery and gave all men the right to vote regardless of race. So I thought I was being generous by comparing the rights of women and blacks to vote when you appear to favor the rights of states to maintain slavery over the rights of blacks to be free.

Regarding the idea that economics was getting rid of slavery; that's a nice argument in hindsight but that process had been going on for some 60-100 years and the right to expand slavery into new states was a key issue in why the southern states seceded. They weren't interested in letting it die out, they wanted to expand it. Also, while the 15th amendment was supposed to give blacks the right to vote many of the southern states kept blacks from voting for almost 100 years until the Voting Rights Act. I don't see anything in the Constitution that specifically gives the federal gov't that authority so do you think that law is unconstitutional?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what politician do you support? I thought I disagreed with you before but if you've actually been voting for someone that thinks abolishing slavery was a bad idea I'm very glad they aren't winning.

[garyatk]

Tim v,

Condratulations! You actually went and did some research instead of just believing you are right. The problem is that you are still coming back to references that you made, and using them to make me look bad instead of sticking to the issue here.

If you remember, my first comment was about how our government has over stepped it's constitutional limits, and how the 2 major parties need to be thrown out in my opinion. What got out of hand here was you (and 4jacks) are not able to except a point of view that you don't understand. So instead of looking into it, you twist words and take things out of context until someone (me) is accused of being a racist, and the thread gets closed by a participant moderator (4jacks) after he deletes his post, and I don't have the opportunity defend or correct was was done.

My entire basis for my political views (other than my constituion) is a that "I would rather have the inconvenience of too much liberty, than the inconvenience of not enough" That is a quote from Thomas Jefferson when he took the oath of office when he became president. We see in the news everyday the inconvenience of not enough liberty! I say enough is enough! But you guys would rather make me look like a racists, than actually educate yourselves on the basis and intent for this nation by our founders, and the stewardship of the gift of freedom given to us by God.

So to close this once and for all, my only comment about slavery was that it was dying an economic death, and we didn't need to throw our constitution out the window and give the federal government unconstitution authority that we still are burdened with today to get rid of it! YES slavery was and still is an aweful act that continues to this day! NO there is not a politician or political party that supports slavery! The only difference in our opinions here is what sould have been done at the time to get rid of it. You are ok with an unconstitutional federal government, I AM NOT!!!! Unfortunately, I am in the minority, but I still have a voice! I just can't stand Christians that defend voting for the lesser of two evils! It is still evil! And if you can't see the corruption and evil in your federal government, you have you head somplace it shouldn't be!

All I ask from you is to put your head where it should be, and educate yourself on the founding and intent for this country. Do it with the understanding that this country was a gift from God and we are charged with the duties of being a steward of ALL gifts given to us from Him. I doubt very seriously that you will not have your same views or vote the same way you do now or have done in the past.

The people who should be changing this government are we Christians! God doesn't support corruption, and niether should we. Sure, we are to "give unto Ceasar", but in this country we can FIRE Ceasar too! Thank you God for giving Americans the right to do that! I just hope we use that right before we lose it!!!!!

[Tristan]

I just can't stand Christians that defend voting for the lesser of two evils! It is still evil! And if you can't see the corruption and evil in your federal government, you have you head somplace it shouldn't be!

I'm so with you on that. I've discussed that issue quite a few times with a handful of my family members/friends, yet they still vote for the "lesser of two evils." Honestly, it truly saddens me.

Here are a couple of great quotes that really speak to me:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

BTW: I moved this post to the Political section because I thought it was a little more appropriate.

[tim_v]

...
If you remember, my first comment was about how our government has over stepped it's constitutional limits, and how the 2 major parties need to be thrown out in my opinion. What got out of hand here was you (and 4jacks) are not able to except a point of view that you don't understand. So instead of looking into it, you twist words and take things out of context until someone (me) is accused of being a racist, and the thread gets closed by a participant moderator (4jacks) after he deletes his post, and I don't have the opportunity defend or correct was was done.

The point of the slavery issue that politicians from the North and the South disagreed on what was Constitutional and you seem to agree with the Southern view and I agree with the Northern view.


People have been disagreeing on that is Constitutional since the very beginning. When the founders disagreed on what was Constitutional was one of them promoting evil? If I disagree with you on what is Constitutional am I promoting evil? Who do you think should decide what is Constitutional?

Regarding the Civil War not being about slavery but simply States Rights: Can you tell me what right other than slavery caused South Carolina to secede? You can find their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp). The only issue I see is slavery.

[garyatk]

tim v,

I have already addressed your questions and concerns in my previous posts. When will you learn to stop trying to confuse and discredit other posters in the forums?

If you won't at the very least try to read all of a persons post, then just let it go!

Just how much of my last post did you actually read?????? It doesn't appear as you read much of it!

[4jacks]

If you remember, my first comment was about how our government has over stepped it's constitutional limits, and how the 2 major parties need to be thrown out in my opinion. What got out of hand here was you (and 4jacks) are not able to except a point of view that you don't understand. So instead of looking into it, you twist words and take things out of context until someone (me) is accused of being a racist, and the thread gets closed by a participant moderator (4jacks) after he deletes his post, and I don't have the opportunity defend or correct was was done.

The thread was closed so people could cool off, let's try to keep things cooled off. And for the record I did not delete my post.

[garyatk]

4jacks,

Things were cool until you accused me of being a "racist", and then closed the thread so that I couldn't defend myself of your accusation. It was you that was HOT! The sad thing is that all you had to do is read what was written, and not make unwarranted assumptions as to what you think I was saying and you wouldn't have been that way.

See, I am a fair and balanced person. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you deleted your own errant posting. But I am glad to see that somebody else had the wisdom to do it for you. But the fact that you didn't do it yourself shows me that you aren't worthy of being a moderator. You aren't capable of looking at things objectively enough to moderate a fair and balanced forum. I hope you are principled enough to voluntarity step down.

[4jacks]

Gary, you need to calm down before this goes back to where it was.

[garyatk]

4jacks,

There you go again accusing me of something I am not! Don't confuse the truth with not being calm. Maybe we need to open up a thread as to what one should you do when you offend someone from the Biblical perspective. I can tell you that closing a thread and hiding isn't the answer! But you are a moderator and you are in control here. I hope you make the right choice this time. But I won't be surprized if you just ban me altogether!

[tim_v]

tim v,

I have already addressed your questions and concerns in my previous posts. When will you learn to stop trying to confuse and discredit other posters in the forums?

I haven't seen you address how you decide what is Constitutional and what isn't or why your view of what is Constitutional is right and everyone else's is evil. Why don't you answer those types of questions (which I've asked several times in several ways)?

If you won't at the very least try to read all of a persons post, then just let it go!

Just how much of my last post did you actually read?????? It doesn't appear as you read much of it!

I read it all. I'm just not going to try to defend this current gov't compared against some imaginary 'non-evil' gov't. I don't think the gov't of Abraham Lincoln is worse than that of Jefferson Davis. I think this choice of slavery dying out without being abolished is an extremely unrealistic third choice (in my opinion somewhat like the suggestion of just voting against the two major parties without showing how that vote is actually better).

[garyatk]

tim v,

I decide what is constitutional by actually reading it, and also by reading things like the Federalist Papers, and books about our founders and thier intent when framing our constitution.

I would also caution you again about twisting my words. The word "evil" was used to describe the two major parties and the corruption that runs rampant in them. The word "evil" was never used to describe your views, or anyone elses as far as the constitution is concerned. The term "the lesser or two evils" was not created by me, and is used every election season. It is also accurate.

Your second comment shows that your head is still someplace other than God intended. Slavery could have been abolished without the federal government getting involved just like the founders intended. Your federal government uses a crisis to steal your constitutional rights and freedoms all the time, and Lincoln did it too!

The difference between your ideals and mine is that I can see that this nation is broken, and broke (financially). I see that America is NOT what it was intended to be by our founders and by God. I can see that where this nation is heading is NOT sustainable, ethical, and is being done without OUR constitution in mind. I can also see that it is being done by two political parties that have thier own best interest in mind and NOT ours. I would like to try what hasn't been done in several generations in this country and go back to what worked when we began and see if it is better. Because where we are heading has already proven to NOT work.

If you could place your head where it belongs, you could to. But don't worry, you are not alone. There is peace in the flock! You have a shepherd and if you are lucky he will keep you safe. He will do his best to keep wild animals (people who know how to think) away from you. He will remove your coat once a year (April 15th) and you will think it is to keep you cool, but in reality he makes a lot of money from your labor, and just siezes it! He tells you that he is protecting you from the wolves, and then when he takes you to the slaughter house you realize that the wolf was your shepherd.

Think about it! Large centralized governments around the world, and all through history have a real bad track record of doing what they say, not abusing thier power, and taking care of the people. We had the opportunity to have a different kind of government here, but the two major parties want to give you a large central government instead and say trust us... we won't do what that other guy did. We are now embracing facism and socialism in this country! I hope that you and the rest of the flock wake up before your shepherd takes all of us to the slaughter house!

BAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One last point and hopefully this thread will end:

I vote only for third party candidates. Mostly Libertarian candidates, but also some from the Contitution Party, and the US Tax Payers Party. My intent by voting for these candidates is not that I believe they will win the seat, but rather changing what the two major parties are doing, and bringing them back closer to the constitution that they swear to uphold and defend.

I too used to vote for the "lesser of two evils". I was a republican. I saw how Reagan's economy was MUCH better than Carter's. But during George Bush Sr., I started seeing the effects of NAFTA and GATT as plants started to close, and in 1991 so did mine. Then came Ross Perot, and his campaign against "the giant sucking sound". I thought he was a kook and voted for Bush again, but instead of blaming the Kook for giving us Clinton (who was just as good if not better than George Bush Jr.) I started looking into what he was saying, and I found out the kook was right! I also saw the response from the democrats and republicans. The republicans gave us the "Contract With America" that they never enacted and broke the first chance they got. And the democrats said that they no longer supported NAFTA and GATT. Both of which we still have today, and now the Obama administration is trying to gain enough support to allow Mexican trucking companies to operate in the US, and put our trucking industry out of work too. They have already paid off the unions (at least the union bosses) and the members don't have a clue, but they will be told to vote for the democrats next time too.

My point is that 19% of the popular vote changes the debate in DC. More gets done by the effort of 19% of the vote than all the other votes combined. I will put my vote where it has the opportunity to actually do something the way it was intended by our founders and God in the first place. I will vote against "EVIL" all the time!

You, because all you see is that other sheeps butt in front of you will continue to vote the way you do and it will lead you, your kids, and grand kids to slaughter. Unfortunatley, you will take me and mine with you.

I left the flock. I see the truth. It is out there if you will only take the time to find it, and read it. But you won't! You will also continue to ignore the stewardship of the freedom God gave this nation. That is the worst thing of all!

Hey... Enjoy worshipping God in church today!!!!!!

[tim_v]

...
And if you can't see the corruption and evil in your federal government, you have you head somplace it shouldn't be!
...
Or of couse we can just become another mediocre country full of debt and corruption like the rest of the world.
...
If you could place your head where it belongs, you could to. But don't worry, you are not alone.

Why can't you just answer basic question without insulting me?

Why are you the one the understands what the Constitution means and not me?

How should slavery have been abolished? Did you bother reading South Carolina's declaration? Does it sound like they are interested in ending slavery?

It's wonderfully easy to criticize others when you don't actually have to come up with any solutions.

[garyatk]

tim v,

I have been wondering why you can't stop twisting my words, the intent of my words, and just trying to make me look like an idiot. If the truth hurts, I can't help it!

I understand what the constitution says because I have studied it. I have also studied the founders, thier writings, and the intent for the founding of this nation. You obviously haven't!

I have read S. C.'s declaration. I also understand that they had the constitutional right to leave the union. Lincoln didn't have the constitutional right to do what he did, but he could have used Article 4 of the constitution if he wanted to.

The constitution is, and always has been the answer. I have been trying to tell you that if you were listening! I don't need to criticize you! You have been doing a good enough job all on your own!!!!


BBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tim_v]

I have been wondering why you can't stop twisting my words, the intent of my words, and just trying to make me look like an idiot. If the truth hurts, I can't help it!

I understand what the constitution says because I have studied it. I have also studied the founders, thier writings, and the intent for the founding of this nation. You obviously haven't!

I think I've read enough to know the founders didn't agree on everything. I seemed to be more aware of Jefferson's views on the Constitution than you were so I question how much of the founders' writings you've read.

I have read S. C.'s declaration. I also understand that they had the constitutional right to leave the union. Lincoln didn't have the constitutional right to do what he did, but he could have used Article 4 of the constitution if he wanted to.

How should slavery have been abolished? Does it sound like South Carolina is interested in ending slavery?
How could Lincoln have used Article 4? Are you seriously suggesting that he should have enforced Section 2 Clause 3?

The constitution is, and always has been the answer. I have been trying to tell you that if you were listening! I don't need to criticize you! You have been doing a good enough job all on your own!!!!


BBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I keep telling you that their are plenty of people that disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. Who do you think should decide what is Constitutional?

[garyatk]

tim v,

OK! This going nowhere!

I mentioned Article 4 because it gives reciprocity powers between the states. This is why abortion is legal today, and soon if your party has it's way, same sex marriage will be the law of the land too. Reciprocity can be used for good, and Lincoln could have used it if he wished. But instead he tossed our constitution out the window and took away the rights of the states.

I am hoping that we can close this by finding a common thread that we can agree on. How about this:


As Christians (and I hope you are), can we agree that God gave us this country and a freedom from government that was unheard of previously?

That this freedom as a gift from God needs to be taken care of, and WE as stewards of Gods gifts, have to care for his gifts in a way that would honor Him?

Can we also agree that the people that we elect as stewards are not doing a good job at all, and in fact, most of our elected stewards don't care about God in the first place?

Can we also agree that if our stewards are not managing God's gifts in a way that would honor Him, then they need to be replaced?

Can we also agree that the two major parties that control OUR government have thier own interests placed higher than the stewardship of God's gift?


I hope you can at least agree with me on the above, and we can look forward to holding our (you and me) heads high as we vote to elect people to office who will be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us!

A simple YES, or NO will do. Or no answer at all will work also.

THE END!!!!!!!

[tim_v]

tim v,

OK! This going nowhere!

I mentioned Article 4 because it gives reciprocity powers between the states. This is why abortion is legal today, and soon if your party has it's way, same sex marriage will be the law of the land too. Reciprocity can be used for good, and Lincoln could have used it if he wished. But instead he tossed our constitution out the window and took away the rights of the states.

In my opinion you are completely misunderstanding why abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has decided that the woman's control over her body takes precedence over the State government's right to protect unborn children (they call the the implied Constitution right to privacy). It would seem we would both agree that this was an unfortunate decision. But the President of the U.S. has very little to say about it. Furthermore it would have been ridiculous for the Supreme Court to attempt to declare that slavery was illegal (since it is clearly mentioned in the Constitution) and all the states rights supporters would have been understandably enraged. And the point is irrelevant since South Carolina specifically seceded because Lincoln merely proposed stopping the expansion of slavery not abolishing it.

I am hoping that we can close this by finding a common thread that we can agree on. How about this:


As Christians (and I hope you are), can we agree that God gave us this country and a freedom from government that was unheard of previously?

That this freedom as a gift from God needs to be taken care of, and WE as stewards of Gods gifts, have to care for his gifts in a way that would honor Him?

Can we also agree that the people that we elect as stewards are not doing a good job at all, and in fact, most of our elected stewards don't care about God in the first place?

Can we also agree that if our stewards are not managing God's gifts in a way that would honor Him, then they need to be replaced?

Can we also agree that the two major parties that control OUR government have thier own interests placed higher than the stewardship of God's gift?


I hope you can at least agree with me on the above, and we can look forward to holding our (you and me) heads high as we vote to elect people to office who will be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us!

A simple YES, or NO will do. Or no answer at all will work also.

THE END!!!!!!!

Yes except I would restate the 5th point to say that most of politicians in any party or level of government place their own interests higher than the stewardship of God's gift.

You know this doesn't have to be all argument. I think for the most part I have simply been asking questions to understand what you think about specific issues. Of course, the questions bring out areas where we are likely to disagree but I disagree with lots of people on this board and learn from them. The conversations would be boring if we were all agreeing on everything or always saw things the same way.

[garyatk]

Welcome to the third party movement Tim!!!!!!!

[Sean]

This is crazy. Who's moderating this stuff? One, I don't think we as Americans are the chosen people. Nowhere is even a hint of that in the Bible. God has been around since the beginning of time and has seen the rise and fall of tons of civilizations or empires or whatever. So God will be there if America lasts or not. For our sake, let's hope we last. This kind of nonsense talk does not help though. The beauty of our country is that our government is us, meaning it represents us. And just like the people in our country, our elected officials are not perfect. A lot of them do great noble work on behalf of the public. A lot of them take shortcuts that border the edge of right or wrong. And a lot of them are just plain corrupt, and don't care about doing their job. In every profession in the world, the same dynamic exists. So you can take American politics and try to demonize politicians as the same no matter who...or you can take electricians and do the same thing to them. But doing either would be just a complete unproductive waste of time.

[parado22]

I think quite place comments.

[backlinkcu1]

ilk mesajım tüm foruma hayırlı olsun

[AdrianaLima]

I am a nice site, many thanks for the new Shares will, but I wonder what is the reason I connect very difficult with mozilla

[takvimcim]

thanx share good work.

[Jonathan K]

This post was great stuff. I laughed a lot. Very entertaining. Are either of these guys (Gay & Tim) still around? The last few posts seem to be spam...