http://www.ijreview.com/201...en-worse-in-america/

quote Most Americans know that things used to be much better in the United States, but they don’t have the facts and the figures to back that belief up. Well, after reading the shocking statistics in this article nobody should be left with any doubt that things have gotten worse in America. There are less jobs, incomes are down, home values have plummeted, poverty is up, consumer debt is way up, dependence of the government has skyrocketed and government debt is totally out of control. Sadly, it hasn’t really mattered which political party has had control over the White House. Things have gotten worse under Obama, they got worse under Bush, and they got worse under Clinton. We are in the midst of a horrific long-term economic decline and the American people desperately need to wake up. The following are 35 shocking statistics that prove that things have gotten worse in America…. #1 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation. #2 There are 5.6 million less jobs than there were when the last recession began back in late 2007. #3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011. During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by only 1.7 million. #4 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent. #5 In 2007, 73.2 percent of all young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 that were not enrolled in school had jobs. Today, that number has declined to 65 percent. #6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job. This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job. #7 When Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million. #8 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000. #9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs. #10 According to the Obama administration, about 20 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs back in the year 2000. Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs. #11 Sadly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001. #12 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs. #13 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 28 times larger than it was back in 1990. #14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today. #15 Home prices in the 4th quarter of 2011 were four percent lower than they were during the 4th quarter of 2010. Overall, U.S. home prices are 34 percent lower than they were back at the peak of the housing bubble. #16 The total value of household real estate in America has declined from $22.7 trillion in 2006 to $16.2 trillion today. #17 At the end of 2011, 22.8 percent of all homes in the United States with a mortgage were in negative equity. That would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. #18 Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago. #19 Total consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971. #20 Since the beginning of 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by more than90 percent. #21 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007. #22 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty. #23 In November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, 46.5 million Americans are on food stamps. #24 The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percent of its value since 1900. You can thank the Federal Reserve system for that. #25 In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita. Today, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita. #26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government. #27 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income. #28 Federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010. #29 Medicare spending increased by 138 percent between 1999 and 2010. #30 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America. Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly. #31 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. #32 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent. #33 In 2004, the U.S. government had a budget deficit of a little over 412 billion dollars. This year, the U.S. government will run a budget deficit of over 1.3 trillion dollars. #34 In 2001, the U.S. national debt was less than 6 trillion dollars. Today, it is over 15 trillion dollars and it is increasing by about 150 million dollars every single hour. #35 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president. Unfortunately, these shocking statistics just don’t fully capture the horrible pain that many American families are having to endure in this economy. A recent USA Today article told the sad story of one unemployed American named Jerome Greene…. Greene, about to turn 50, worked for 16 years as an Oracle software developer, most recently at a Pennsylvania company that made electronic components for cars. When he was laid off in June 2008, the recession was just taking hold, and he still had job interviews. By fall, with the economy in free fall, his phone stopped ringing. Greene hoped the downturn would be brief and he’d weather it with unemployment benefits. But the jobless rate hovered above 9% and Greene’s 99 weeks of unemployment expired. He had trouble sleeping. Depression set in. Without health insurance, he took precautions — carrying hand sanitizer and his own pen when doing errands to avoid getting sick and having to pay $65 for a doctor’s visit. “There’s no room for error,” he says “There’s no extra money.” Can you imagine going through all that? Tonight there are millions upon millions of Americans that will struggle to get to sleep as they wrestle with their financial problems. It is easy to feel as though you have failed when you can’t get a job and can’t provide for your children. After years of fighting to turn things around, it is hard not to fall into a state of depression. Unfortunately, our leaders are not fixing any of the long-term problems that are systematically destroying the U.S. economy. So things are going to get even worse in the years ahead. Buckle up.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: #19 Total consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971.

When you look at the definition of Consumer Debt, this is an ugly statistic.

Definition of Consumer Debt:

Debts that are owed as a result of purchasing goods that are consumable and/or do not appreciate.

quote Originally posted by FrugalFiero: When you look at the definition of Consumer Debt, this is an ugly statistic. Definition of Consumer Debt: Debts that are owed as a result of purchasing goods that are consumable and/or do not appreciate.

"That ain't much--I got it--I'll just stick it on the card"
SWIPE!

"Honey, the credit card bill is in--I left it lying on the table for ya--and don't forget to write the check for the mortgage and life insurance"
"Ok.--I'll look at it right now"
"HUH?!? wtf did I spend $2000 on last month????"

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-11-2012).]

Not really "surprising". Anyone who has been conscious for the past 6 years knows things have only gone in one direction for America's economy, Employment, Justice System, and Health Care system, to name just a few metrics. Hmmm, what changed in 2006?

Heck, I didn't need to look anywhere else but on my paycheck and my bills..... one was going up and it wasn't my paycheck

Interesting how they had to bounce all over the calender to make sure the staistics were "shocking" enough.

All the way back to 1950! Really?

Pick any ONE year at lesat five years ago and compare it to now, and it will look like a Golden Age. Except maybe 1929 through 1936 or thereabouts. How does 1932 compare to 2012?

quote Originally posted by FrugalFiero: When you look at the definition of Consumer Debt, this is an ugly statistic. Definition of Consumer Debt: Debts that are owed as a result of purchasing goods that are consumable and/or do not appreciate.

thats because everything is consumer debt, nothing appreciates anymore as everything is built to be disposable. short of housing which shouldnt go up or down because the next year has rolled around theres really nothing that isnt related to supply and demand that is appreciable.

the real problem is inflation. the Fed likes to have a 2-3% inflation rate but what they dont understand is that as money inflates the percentage needs to go down as to not over inflate in a short amount of time.

if you had a 3% inflation rate every year for 10 years on 100$ in a decade your money would be worth 34% less than it is now. assuming you dont have it invested in anything that yeilds more than 3% annually but most interest baring accounts rarely have more than 1%. this is a good reason to spend your money while you make it because its not getting any more valuble, of course always having some for a raining day is wise. anyone wanting to use this info to justify to the wife why you need to spend that money on another fiero feel free

103 - 1st year
106.09 - 2nd year
109.2727 - 3rd year
112.550881 - 4th year
115.92740743 - 5th year
119.4052296529 - 6th year
122.987386542487 - 7th year
126.6770081387616 - 8th year
130.4773183829244 - 9th year
134.3916379344121 - 10th year


notice how when the simulated inflation started it was 3% IE it was a 3$ increase in the cost of goods, as the years went by and ended a decade later the inflation on the same amount was at 4.39% because it was compounding on the prior years inflation. unless im totally missing a part of the financial inflation system i think ive laid it out fairly well.

[This message has been edited by Niterrorz (edited 04-11-2012).]

If you send enough jobs overseas to fatten corporate bottom lines and shareholders' pockets, of course the above is a forgone conclusion. No surprise there.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: http://www.ijreview.com/201...en-worse-in-america/

While these statistics are certainly awful, I do believe that we will come back from this. We just have to make sure we're on the right path.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: While these statistics are certainly awful, I do believe that we will come back from this. We just have to make sure we're on the right path.

Heh, I'm the exact opposite. I think we are too far gone, and the crash is coming just as it did to the USSR, and for many of the same reasons.

At this point we are so far off "track" that it would take a miracle to get back to positive. It would also require the majority of the country working together to accomplish a similar goal.

The last time that really happened Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Brad

We're gonna' be just fine.
It's a new world.
There was a time when you couldn't GIVE gasoline away.
Times change.

What many Americans fail to consider when looking our economy's downward trend is why we, as a country, had such a high standard of living from the 1950's through the 1990's.

After World War Two, the world was in shambles, Europe's manufacturing capabilities had been destroyed, their cities ravaged, the same for Japan, and even the Soviet Union's manufacturing capability had been severely compromised by the Nazi push early in the war.

Only North America remained unscathed, and had actually expanded it's technology and manufacturing capabilities for the War effort.

After the War, America (and Canada) rebuilt the world. Our industries ran constantly, there was no shortage of demand from the rest of the world for our products, our citizens worked good jobs and long hours.

As the world rebuilt, the Iron Curtain came down, China was opened to trade, soon other countries followed the model of America and started producing for themselves, and due to their lower costs (mainly labor) they were able to export their products to other countries.

In short, we were very fortunate to have lived in the time and place that we have.

Is it sustainable? Will we be able to regain that position as the supplier of the world?

That's the 16 trillion dollar question isn't it?

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: What many Americans fail to consider when looking our economy's downward trend is why we, as a country, had such a high standard of living from the 1950's through the 1990's. After World War Two, the world was in shambles, Europe's manufacturing capabilities had been destroyed, their cities ravaged, the same for Japan, and even the Soviet Union's manufacturing capability had been severely compromised by the Nazi push early in the war. Only North America remained unscathed, and had actually expanded it's technology and manufacturing capabilities for the War effort. After the War, America (and Canada) rebuilt the world. Our industries ran constantly, there was no shortage of demand from the rest of the world for our products, our citizens worked good jobs and long hours. As the world rebuilt, the Iron Curtain came down, China was opened to trade, soon other countries followed the model of America and started producing for themselves, and due to their lower costs (mainly labor) they were able to export their products to other countries. In short, we were very fortunate to have lived in the time and place that we have. Is it sustainable? Will we be able to regain that position as the supplier of the world? That's the 16 trillion dollar question isn't it?

Well said.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: We're gonna' be just fine. It's a new world. There was a time when you couldn't GIVE gasoline away. Times change.

There was a time when cotton was king. When men got stupid rich selling lint balls and millions were enslaved to help them pick it.

Thanks, Boonie.

Too bad Al Gore already used the title "An Inconvenient Truth"...........

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 04-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Not really "surprising". Anyone who has been conscious for the past 6 years knows things have only gone in one direction for America's economy, Employment, Justice System, and Health Care system, to name just a few metrics. Hmmm, what changed in 2006?

nut con mismanagement began to blowup
de-reg no-reg and markets know best
showed they donot work
just like voodoo and trickle down
failed
plus a house price bubble stoked by used house salesmen like yourself
popped
in fact the whole nut-con dogma popped

what part of went there tryed that it FAILED don't you get ?????????

Exactly, plus with 5% of the worlds population it is getting harder to get our hands on 25% of the worlds resources. "The times, they are a changing".

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: What many Americans fail to consider when looking our economy's downward trend is why we, as a country, had such a high standard of living from the 1950's through the 1990's. After World War Two, the world was in shambles, Europe's manufacturing capabilities had been destroyed, their cities ravaged, the same for Japan, and even the Soviet Union's manufacturing capability had been severely compromised by the Nazi push early in the war. Only North America remained unscathed, and had actually expanded it's technology and manufacturing capabilities for the War effort. After the War, America (and Canada) rebuilt the world. Our industries ran constantly, there was no shortage of demand from the rest of the world for our products, our citizens worked good jobs and long hours. As the world rebuilt, the Iron Curtain came down, China was opened to trade, soon other countries followed the model of America and started producing for themselves, and due to their lower costs (mainly labor) they were able to export their products to other countries. In short, we were very fortunate to have lived in the time and place that we have. Is it sustainable? Will we be able to regain that position as the supplier of the world? That's the 16 trillion dollar question isn't it?

quote Originally posted by ray b: nut con mismanagement began to blowup de-reg no-reg and markets know best showed they donot work just like voodoo and trickle down failed plus a house price bubble stoked by used house salesmen like yourself popped in fact the whole nut-con dogma popped what part of went there tryed that it FAILED don't you get ?????????

Stop drinking the Kool-aid.

Instant proof of the economy is right in the home. Used to be parents moved in with their kids when they were elderly. Now the kids move back / stay in the parents home till their 30-40 yo or married. Even some married kids still move back in with mom and dad and bring the family they 'support' with them.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Not really "surprising". Anyone who has been conscious for the past 6 years knows things have only gone in one direction for America's economy, Employment, Justice System, and Health Care system, to name just a few metrics. Hmmm, what changed in 2006?

Although I'm not an Obama fan, I don't support going back to the republican plan. We were in a lot better shape after Clinton.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Although I'm not an Obama fan, I don't support going back to the republican plan. We were in a lot better shape after Clinton.

psssst: Clinton was with a Republican controlled House and Senate...

quote Originally posted by ray b: nut con mismanagement began to blowup de-reg no-reg and markets know best showed they donot work just like voodoo and trickle down failed plus a house price bubble stoked by used house salesmen like yourself popped in fact the whole nut-con dogma popped what part of went there tryed that it FAILED don't you get ?????????

This part:

Employment under GOP grew consistently except for the post 9/11 period but rebounded in 2 years. Under the Dems it has gone down every single year:




GDP under GOP grew every year, under the DEMS, first negative numbers since the Great Depression:

http://www.indexmundi.com/u...eal_growth_rate.html


Dems obstructed all attempts to regulate Freddie and Fannie, propped up the CRA refurbishment of 1994



Jim Johnson, adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae (Government jobs are getting more lucrative). Under Johnson, Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank's partner).


Then of course there is Obama's spending spree with my children's money, increased taxes on all Americans (ALL AMERICANS), Growing unemployment, yada yada yada

What part of THE DEMS HAVE HAD 6 YEARS...WHEN DOES IT STOP FALLING OFF A CLIFF AND GET BETTER IN THIS COUNTRY don't you understand?

Well I'll be damned! The republicans are going to save us. What was I thinking?

quote Originally posted by dratts: Well I'll be damned! The republicans are going to save us. What was I thinking?

ROTFLMAO... This really did make me chuckle, not because it is funny, but because so many people believe it.

Well I was going for funny. But rolling on the floor ain't bad. Thanks, I think. OK, it wasn't really all that funny!

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 04-12-2012).]

lets try the QUESTION AGAIN

you know the QUESTION TOAD WILL NOT ANSWER
TOAD HOW MANY OF YOUR USED HOME SALES WENT TITS UP

WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Hes got it so screwed up now, even God would need 20 years to fix it. At least the republicans cant make it any worse. In fact I cant see anyone being worse for the country.

Here is how things can really get bad.
Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging
'2nd term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect'
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/...onstitution-surging/

quote There always have been those few who have launched diatribes over the dictatorial actions of any given U.S. presidential administration, over civil rights, foreign affairs, the economy, the draft or a dozen other topics – even though the Constitution was written specifically to prevent the collection of too much power by one branch of government. Now, again, there are words like “egocentric megalomaniac” being ascribed to the White House, and warnings about detention camps and government surveillance of its citizens. But where previous generations of warnings emanated from lone wolves with their fax machines in dusty spare rooms, the current alarms are being issued by the likes of Investors Business Daily, First Amendment authority Nat Hentoff, New York Times best-selling author Robert Ringer and their equals. “A second term free of electoral restraints [for Obama] may be a frightening prospect,” IBD wrote in a commentary in the last week. “This is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s ‘unprecedented’ review of Obamacare.” The publication pointed out that the Obama administration already is in contempt of court – in a court dispute over its ban on oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. When U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled that the Obama Interior Department unconstitutionally imposed an offshore drilling moratorium, the agency “simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.” “Judge Feldman was not amused. ‘Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,’ Feldman said in his ruling. ‘Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium …. provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt,’” the editorial said. The issue recently was brought into the headlines by comments from Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst who said, “I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation. Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. “That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing,” Napolitano said. His comments came after statements from Obama that the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t take the “unprecedented” action of actually overturning the Obamacare law, even though that is exactly what courts do when justices determine the legislation is unconstitutional. “I think he [Obama] has some problems with understanding the Constitution, or accepting limitations on his power,” said Napolitano. “Look, they’re equal branches of government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.” What’s really happening here? Read about your country in “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” His comments came recently on Neil Cavuto’s program, when the discussion turned to the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and Obama’s verbal attack on the court shortly after the oral arguments. Here are Napolitano’s comments:

quote “No president in modern times has questioned [the Supreme Court's] authority. They have questioned the way the authority has been exercised,” he said. “Not their right to make the decision. “This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson was in the White House,” he said. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the state of New Jersey. He tried more than 150 jury trials during his time on the bench from 1987 to 1995, including criminal, civil, equity and family cases. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year. Other warnings that have been issued: •Erik Rush, a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare, including “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” wrote about the New Black Panthers, and how their “advancing Marxist agenda is being not-so-subtly choreographed from Barack Obama’s White House.” “Civil unrest is an Obama administration objective, since it will facilitate crises sufficient for the president to justify suspensions of civil rights. Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s recent National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, as well as others, have certainly paved the way for such action. “The question of a fair election in November is also something that deserves our attention. We can take it as given that voter fraud will abound at the hands of ACORN and other like-minded fringe organizations … All of this illustrates the paramount importance of continuing to beat the drum of Obama’s communism in unequivocal terms, regardless of the mincing ridicule we will draw from liberals…” •Ringer wrote,“I began warning about Barack Obama’s dictatorial ambitions before he even won the 2008 presidential election … Obama’s recent contention that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for the Supreme Court to overrule congressional legislation had dictatorship written all over it. “I will say yet again what I have been saying for more than three years: If polls indicate that Obama is going to win the upcoming election, no problem. He’ll keep flashing that fake Barry Obama grin until Nov. 7, then move swiftly to begin unleashing a dictatorial full monty – consisting of more regulations, higher taxes and less freedom – that will shock all but his staunchest Marxist allies. “Nothing will be off limits – a national police force, instant citizenship for all Third World people … forced equalization of income (except for Obama’s wealthy supporters), widespread use of tax audits to carry out vendettas against enemies … suspension of habeas corpus … and much, much more. “On the other hand, two or three months before the election, if the polls clearly show that Obama is going to go down in defeat, I believe there’s better than a 50-50 chance of a major ‘emergency’ coincidentally making its appearance, convincingly manufactured in such a way as to cause the average entitlement junkie to agree that we must rally around the president and ‘postpone’ the November elections.” •Craige McMillan, longtime WND commentary author, said, “Why do you think Big Sis needs 20,000 drones patrolling the skies over America and NSA needs a new listening post to read and listen to every personal communication between every American citizen and archive it forever? … Step out of line and the police don’t even need a warrant to download your location data and buddy lists from your cell phone. Then they can go around and talk to your pals about your terrorist tendencies.” •Nat Henthoff, nationally known authority on the First Amendment,wrote about plans to begin, starting in 2013, for the government to being monitoring and databasing “any form of communication.” He described the new National Security Agency’s new Utah center – “more than five times larger than the U.S. Capitol” where “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cellphone calls and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails – parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases…” will be archived. “We are not yet a police state. The First Amendment is still functioning … But with the NSA burrowing ceaselessly into our once very private lives, where are the reminders of the Declaration of Independence and its indictments of King George III?” •Mychal Massie, the chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, also is on record.”Many say Barack Obama is the most divisive, egocentric megalomaniac ever to hold his office. Others say he is the most ruthless and defiantly determined Marxist-Leninist ever to become president. I say he is, by definition and actions, both. •Vox Day, WND columnist, wrote, “It is becoming increasingly clear that the federal government is completely and utterly out of control, spewing nonsense, issuing irrational threats and stumbling around the world stage like a belligerent drunk with an empty wallet … Americans no longer enjoy the limited government of their forefathers. They suffer from limitless government. TSA is an apt acronym. But it does not stand for the Transportation Security Administration; it stands for the Totalitarian State of America. As a presidential candidate Obama called for a “national civilian security force” that would be as big and as well-funded as the half-trillion dollar U.S. military. And a study a short time later confirmed that there are several ways to create the suggested “Stability Police Force” so that it legally could operate inside the U.S. borders. One of the top recommendations in the report from the Rand Corp. was that the capacity and management operations of the U.S. Marshals Service be beefed up and handed the assignment. The study was released in 2009, only months after Obama made his presidential campaign call for a civilian force as big and as costly as the U.S. military. In a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set. We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” WND reported when a copy of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama’s specific references to the new force. A video of his statements is posted here:

quote The opening of the Rand Corp. report was focused on providing “Stability Police Force” services outside of the U.S. borders. A company spokesman told WND that the report focused exclusively on the idea of a structure that could move into war-torn or riot-damaged cities or nations overseas and restore order. However, a reading of the text of the report makes it clear that similar concerns about the behavior of U.S. residents were being evaluated, too. It noted that the plans for the $1 billion a year effort would have to be structured carefully so as not to infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act ban on U.S. military operations inside the U.S. “The discussions … made clear that the MP option would likely not be available for domestic policing. This makes this option [fulltime and reserve, as the hybrid option would not be viable due to the fact that military personnel could not be embedded in civilian domestic law enforcement agencies…] much more expensive.” The report discussed the possibility of creating a new agency inside the Department of Defense but noted, “It is unlikely that a military agency would be permitted to perform domestic policing functions … Because of this, the new agency would likely perform SPF functions better than the MP option due to a better ability to create a policing culture, but worse than the Marshals Service option due to the fact that it could not do policing tasks day-to-day.” The report said the U.S. Secret Service also could be an option: “Much like the Marshals Service, the Secret Service focuses on law enforcement missions within the United States. When not deployed abroad, an SPF housed in the Secret Service could perform a wide range of domestic functions without running into legal barriers.” A company official was unable to explain the study’s references to policing in the United States. The Colorado Springs event wasn’t the only time Obama preached of his requirement for a “civilian security” force. Radio talk show Mark Levin discussed it in a broadcast:

quote He cited Obama’s statement at a dedication ceremony for a facility at the National Defense University. There, Obama said, “American must also balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We cannot continue to push the burden onto our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability. That’s why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and to developing our civilian national security capabilities.” What? Levin said. “What does that mean? … Is he crazy? … He needs a civilian national security force … just as powerful … as our military?” “The military has tanks, advanced weapons. What does he mean? … I know what his ideology is. That’s why I’m getting nervous…. Will the shirts be brown? Will they be clicking their heels as they walk?” The Rand report also cited the Special Operations Group, which is headquartered at Camp Beauregard, La. “It consists of about 100 deputies who respond to emergencies such as natural disasters, civil disturbances, and terrorist incidents and restores order during riots and mob violence. The SOG conducts missions in fugitive apprehension, high-profile prisoner movements, witness security operations, national emergencies and civil disorders. SOG deputies receive specialized tactical training, including crowd control and quelling civil disorder.” The report continued, “During the 2000 World Trade Organization protests in the nation’s capitol, SOG teams played a key role in crowd control. They also took responsibility for protecting dignitaries going to and from the conference.” Further, during protests in Puerto Rico, “The SOG was asked by the Navy on six separate occasions to quell disturbances. In calling upon the Marshals Service, the Navy was able to avoid concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act that might have arisen had it undertaken an armed mission in Puerto Rico.” The report said specifically that should such a force be created under the military police division, “relief from the Posse Comitatus Act would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions.” As the presidential campaign advanced in 2008, another video appeared online that for many crystallized their concerns over such a “corps.” It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama:

quote Rand officials said the study looked at the need for “a U.S. Stability Police Force, the major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed.” The federally funded research was done specifically for the U.S. Army. The study also said, “Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission.” WND also has reported that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.” His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.” Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.” “It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specified. It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps. “Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote. Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civilian service … as the president may prescribe.” WND also reported when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars. Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people. That bill included a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.” Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions. “If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate [at the time] is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? “Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by KidO: ROTFLMAO... This really did make me chuckle, not because it is funny, but because so many people believe it.

I am not one who beleives the GOP is going to save us. But they sure as hell are not going to destroy us and that is good enough for me! Obama and the Democrats are socialiusts bent on taking us back in time to 1917. Can you not see that? All I hear from the youth is "OH yeah, scoialism didn't work for them but WE'LL GET IT RIGHT!" how many times do you have to see socialism fail before you understand that it can never work because it disincentivizes production. If you can not produce you can not support the social structure. What is so difficult to grasp about this very elemental concept? Or are you lazy and want to be taken care of? Seriously which is it?

Todd, don't use big words (disincentivizes) - it will just confuse them.