Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So you are arguing that they care about future generations, yet knowingly spend their childrens' and grandchildrens' money today? That doesn't jive at all. I don't get what you are saying at all.

You said they couldn't be blind. Oh, but they are. They're ENTITLED.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You said they couldn't be blind. Oh, but they are. They're ENTITLED.

I said they couldn't all be blind, which is true, though I'm sure some are. I know they aren't all blind, because I know seniors who understand what's going on, but just shrug their shoulders and say that it's just the system and they can't change it.

You can't tell me that AARP isn't smart enough to know what is going on, but is just too self-interest bound to care about the broader long term national well-being.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

... and yet if anyone dares to suggest even minor changes (capping/recalculating benefit increases, gradually raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, expanding social security taxes on benefits), the senior citizens' lobby spouts off its alarmist rhetoric about how the government wants the poor to starve to death or die (despite the fact the elderly have the highest net worth of any demographic and are being funded by payroll taxes from people who are generally worse off than they are).

which is hilarious because the same elder lobby threw them under the bus for ObamaCare... the real thing is the elder lobbyists just want income redistrubtion and a vulnerable people to wave around.

---

Interesting to see Pigford pass the senate... giving money to non-existant black farmers to pay for a variety of "sins" done by the government... congratulations to the administration... paying off cronies and democratic operatives nationwide and republicans not being able to vote it down in order to avoid being called racist.

Culture of corruption moves on.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You can't tell me that AARP isn't smart enough to know what is going on, but is just too self-interest bound to care about the broader long term national well-being.

The AARP is like any other special interest group: they are bound to their issues to the detriment of everyone outside the group. If there are budget cuts or tax hikes coming, they want them to hit everyone BUT senior citizens. It doesn't matter how much wealth they have relative to everyone else; they would rather slap a higher payroll tax on the workers in this country than endure benefit reductions or caps on the COLAs.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So a little help here.

Why doesn't START sail through congress? It takes an dangerous arsenel of nukes out of Russian hands, it improves relations with many other countries (ie helps international US companies)...and it cuts down government maintanance costs (which coming up on November we heard about at nausem).

I would also bring up 370,000 of our military stationed overseas...including about 60,000 stationed on Germany (one of the world's safest places)...but that's the kind of spending cut that seem to fall on deaf ears.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Two things:

1. Your faith in Russia actually complying if that's passed is so misguided it physically pains me to read that.

2. Rammstein is quite possibly the largest base outside of the US. It's used as a launching pad for pretty much anything east of the Atlantic. Yep, let's shut that down because obviously it isn't needed.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Why should it "sail" through Congress?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So a little help here.

Why doesn't START sail through congress? It takes an dangerous arsenel of nukes out of Russian hands, it improves relations with many other countries (ie helps international US companies)...and it cuts down government maintanance costs (which coming up on November we heard about at nausem).

I would also bring up 370,000 of our military stationed overseas...including about 60,000 stationed on Germany (one of the world's safest places)...but that's the kind of spending cut that seem to fall on deaf ears.

If this treaty was so great, why did Congress and the President allow it to expire back in December?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

1. Your faith in Russia actually complying if that's passed is so misguided it physically pains me to read that.

The same Russia that will now cooperate with the NATO missile defense system? It isn't Putin's Russian any longer.

That said I disagree with getting it through congress.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

If this treaty was so great, why did Congress and the President allow it to expire back in December?

Um... Because this isn't the same treaty?

Same purpose, mind you - but it's a different treaty.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The same Russia that will now cooperate with the NATO missile defense system? It isn't Putin's Russian any longer.

That said I disagree with getting it through congress.

You honestly believe that Russia will comply with any nuclear agreement?

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So a little help here.

Why doesn't START sail through congress?

inept congress? congress working as intended? political points?
18 hearings is not enough, how many hearings have we had on financial crisis? 10 20 50?


http://www.npr.org/2010/11/17/131393364/key-republicans-oppose-new-start-treaty?ft=1&f=1003

Obama had hoped that after holding 18 hearings, the Senate would be more than ready to ratify New START during its last-gasp lame-duck session.
To assuage Republican concerns about funds to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the White House added another $4 billion this week to the $80 billion it had already budgeted for the next decade.

"This is a very complicated process," Kyl said. "It cannot be done overnight. And I really do appreciate the sort of last-minute efforts of the administration to brief us on what their current thinking is. But we don't even have a plan in writing yet

START I: Signed 1991; active 1994 to 2009. Limited U.S. and USSR (later Russia) to 6,000 deployed nuclear warheads and a total of 1,600 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Established inspection and verification regimes that were the foundation for subsequent arms-reduction agreements.

START II: Signed 1993; active 1996 to present. Banned MIRVs (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles), which allow each ballistic missile to carry many warheads.

START III: Never signed; would have limited U.S. and Russia to 2,000-2,500 warheads (Moscow proposed deeper reduction, to as few as 1,000 warheads). U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 effectively killed these negotiations.

New START: Signed in April; must be ratified by U.S. Senate and Russia's Duma. Limits both sides to 1,550 warheads and a total of 800 ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers, such as the U.S. B-52 and Russia's Tu-22 "Backfire."

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Um... Because this isn't the same treaty?

Same purpose, mind you - but it's a different treaty.

It's strictly a technicality. There will be changes between the two. But if we're to believe the president that having a treaty in place is such an emergency now, that it must be ratified immediately for reasons of national defense, where was this urgency when the last treaty expired 10.5 months - 324 days - ago? Why is it such an urgent matter now that we're in the lame duck session? What's in the treaty that he doesn't want the House to vote on it with Republicans holding majority, or in the Senate where a filibuster stands a much better chance of holding out for weeks on end?

There's something fishy in this recently applied urgency.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You honestly believe that Russia will comply with any nuclear agreement?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/08/new-start-treaty-and-protocol#section1

Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.

The purpose of START with Russia isn't to reduce Russia's posture as a potential threat to the US, it's to reduce Russia's stockpile of weapons and ensure those that remain are secure and will not fall into the hands of terrorists or other non-state actors.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. If they don't comply, we'll know about it. If they don't sign (or we don't), then they won't comply either. How is that a reason to not sign?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I'm not sure what your objection is here. If they don't comply, we'll know about it. If they don't sign (or we don't), then they won't comply either. How is that a reason to not sign?

Because it's still the cold war for some people and anything to do with Russia = bad.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/08/new-start-treaty-and-protocol#section1



The purpose of START with Russia isn't to reduce Russia's posture as a potential threat to the US, it's to reduce Russia's stockpile of weapons and ensure those that remain are secure and will not fall into the hands of terrorists or other non-state actors.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. If they don't comply, we'll know about it. If they don't sign (or we don't), then they won't comply either. How is that a reason to not sign?

What happens if Russia doesn't comply? Level of difficulty: No platitudes.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

There's something fishy in this recently applied urgency.

Usually it means "don't read" and "don't question"... the reason... who knows... could be legit... and it might not be.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

What happens if Russia doesn't comply? Level of difficulty: No platitudes.

Then their nuclear stockpile remains large and relatively insecure. How is that a good thing?

There is only one reason to oppose this treaty - the Republicans do not want to give Obama any kind of success.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/08/new-start-treaty-and-protocol#section1

The purpose of START with Russia isn't to reduce Russia's posture as a potential threat to the US, it's to reduce Russia's stockpile of weapons and ensure those that remain are secure and will not fall into the hands of terrorists or other non-state actors.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. If they don't comply, we'll know about it. If they don't sign (or we don't), then they won't comply either. How is that a reason to not sign?

Point to one post where I said I disagreed with it.

Also, the underlined part is one of the silliest things I have ever read.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Then their nuclear stockpile remains large and relatively insecure. How is that a good thing?

There is only one reason to oppose this treaty - the Republicans do not want to give Obama any kind of success.

Yeah... that's exactly it.

Lets try this again...

What happens if Russia doesn't comply? Level of difficulty: No platitudes.

edit: what happens with this treaty... Obama gets something he wouldn't get with a standard law and Russia gets to look like it plays nice... so that, yes, Obama gets a "victory"... as false as it may be.

Again.

What happens if Russia doesn't comply?