Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You really think we'll look back on this in 20 years as anything other than an intermediary step in nuclear arms reduction?

I'd call it going through the motions to make it look like something was accomplished while operating under the phony assumption that it's the 1980s and the Cold War is alive and well. It's 2010, and the US and Russia aren't likely to attack each other, so what exactly is there to be proud of regarding this treaty?

Disarming countries that aren't likely to use their weapons is pointless. If we are truly serious about security issues, the focus must be on the countries that are likely to use them or sell them to those who will: Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. However, dealing with this problem is far more difficult and complicated than signing a pointless treaty with Russia, so it's easy to see why we did what we did and hailed it as something more than it is.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'd call it going through the motions to make it look like something was accomplished while operating under the phony assumption that it's the 1980s and the Cold War is alive and well. It's 2010, and the US and Russia aren't likely to attack each other, so what exactly is there to be proud of regarding this treaty?

Disarming countries that aren't likely to use their weapons is pointless. If we are truly serious about security issues, the focus must be on the countries that are likely to use them or sell them to those who will: Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. However, dealing with this problem is far more difficult and complicated than signing a pointless treaty with Russia, so it's easy to see why we did what we did and hailed it as something more than it is.

Glad youre a supporter. Indeed its always good to do what we advocate to the rest of the world...minimize nukes...and that makes it easier to pressure other countries.

Frankly there's nothing but positives in reducing the two stockpiles that make up the overwhelming majority of warheads worldwide.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'd call it going through the motions to make it look like something was accomplished while operating under the phony assumption that it's the 1980s and the Cold War is alive and well. It's 2010, and the US and Russia aren't likely to attack each other, so what exactly is there to be proud of regarding this treaty?

Jesus H. Christ, since when is reducing nuclear stockpiles a bad thing? Once again, we can still reduce the world to rubble, we just can only do so twice instead of thre times over (or whatever). In the meantime, we get lowered maintenance costs on our end and fewer russian nukes that can fall into rogue hands.

I'm not saying this is some momentus occasion, but that's why it's all the more idotic to oppose what is otherwise a simple decision that should've walked its way through the Senate months ago with nary a comment.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Jesus H. Christ, since when is reducing nuclear stockpiles a bad thing? Once again, we can still reduce the world to rubble, we just can only do so twice instead of thre times over (or whatever). In the meantime, we get lowered maintenance costs on our end and fewer russian nukes that can fall into rogue hands.

I'm not saying this is some momentus occasion, but that's why it's all the more idotic to oppose what is otherwise a simple decision that should've walked its way through the Senate months ago with nary a comment.

Yep. My only question is why we bothered to have a treaty. We should have been taking all the steps outlined in the treaty unilaterally anyway...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yep. My only question is why we bothered to have a treaty. We should have been taking all the steps outlined in the treaty unilaterally anyway...

Cause the GOP doesn't let it happen without the Russians.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It's going to be an interesting song and dance the next few weeks. This Congress was supposedly the most productive since the Great Society. However, lots of people also seem ready to trot out the old trope of "hyperpartisanship" and how it prevents things from getting done. You can't have it both ways, can you?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Jesus H. Christ, since when is reducing nuclear stockpiles a bad thing?

False choice. Did I say it was bad (or good)? No. I said it was pointless in terms of global security. The world is unlikely to be any safer as a result of this treaty than it was before ratification. North Korea isn't any less likely to sell its technology to the highest bidder. Pakistan isn't any less likely to have its nuclear arsenal fall under the control of Muslim extremists. Iran isn't any less likely to stop pursuing a nuclear program. But go ahead and embrace a generally meaningless treaty that accomplishes little if it allows you to sleep better at night.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It's going to be an interesting song and dance the next few weeks. This Congress was supposedly the most productive since the Great Society. However, lots of people also seem ready to trot out the old trope of "hyperpartisanship" and how it prevents things from getting done. You can't have it both ways, can you?

Perhaps the point is that inspite of partisanship...alot got done. Evidently, they did have it both ways.

Will it continue? Probabaly not.

False choice. Did I say it was bad (or good)? No. I said it was pointless in terms of global security. The world is unlikely to be any safer as a result of this treaty than it was before ratification. North Korea isn't any less likely to sell its technology to the highest bidder. Pakistan isn't any less likely to have its nuclear arsenal fall under the control of Muslim extremists. Iran isn't any less likely to stop pursuing a nuclear program. But go ahead and embrace a generally meaningless treaty that accomplishes little if it allows you to sleep better at night.

Many here don't understand how you don't see any value in eliminating over a quarter of worldwide nukes (US and Russia have about 80%).

Others of us wonder why you don't see value in cutting significant govt spending that ceased to provide benefit 20 years ago.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We've been at war against poverty for 50 years.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Perhaps the point is that inspite of partisanship...alot got done. Evidently, they did have it both ways.

...and it only added another trillion in national debt. Way to go, Congress.

Many here don't understand how you don't see any value in eliminating over a quarter of worldwide nukes (US and Russia have about 80%).

Way to inflate your numbers to "many" when I only see you and UNOfan taking issue with me on this.

The crux of my argument is simply this: cutting our arsenal isn't enhancing global security. The problem isn't the number of nukes we have; the problem is the number that unstable/hostile regimes have. We could cut our warhead total to 500 and it wouldn't matter because Pakistan still has ~50, North Korea has a handful, and Iran is trying to get one. So again, I ask: what does START accomplish with regard to these nations? The answer: nothing, zip, nada, zilch.

Others of us wonder why you don't see value in cutting significant govt spending that ceased to provide benefit 20 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
According to that, the nuclear weapons program will cost approximately $21 billion (look at "energy department, defense-related") in 2011. Given the fact that Congress and Obama just agreed to nearly $1 trillion in a stupid tax deal, I wouldn't call $21 billion significant at all. I'm amused at how lefties point to military cuts as a great idea for the fiscal side of things while ramping up spending elsewhere that more than offsets it. In the context of the federal budget, cutting nuclear-related spending is great - IF - we are consistent and are cutting spending elsewhere (which we clearly are not doing).

But yes, go ahead and crow about the few billion a year being saved by ratifying this treaty as our debt continues to skyrocket.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm amused at how lefties point to military cuts as a great idea for the fiscal side of things while ramping up spending elsewhere that more than offsets it. In the context of the federal budget, cutting nuclear-related spending is great - IF - we are consistent and are cutting spending elsewhere (which we clearly are not doing).

But yes, go ahead and crow about the few billion a year being saved by ratifying this treaty as our debt continues to skyrocket.

It's in the right direction... cutting spending. Although we just gave rich folks $44billion+ (IRS estate revenue in 2007 was $22billion) savings in estate tax with that $1trillion tax cuts over 2 years. And that was the rightie republican agenda.

I would rather cut spending that has the least effect on jobs like nuclear weapons and "raise" taxes with the least job losses like estate tax and capital gains tax since consumer spending runs our economy from the poor/middle classes.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It's in the right direction... cutting spending. Although we just gave rich folks $44billion+ (IRS estate revenue in 2007 was $22billion) savings in estate tax with that $1trillion tax cuts over 2 years. And that was the rightie republican agenda.

I didn't realize that it was the government's money to give. Apparently once someone dies their private property belongs to the gov't.

Regardless, this money has already been taxed. You may want to check and see who many of those "rich" people are. Many are farmers that only have average incomes, but have a lot of land. These people are forced to sell the land that has been in their family for generation just to pay the estate tax. The estate tax actually benefits large corporations.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The crux of my argument is simply this: cutting our arsenal isn't enhancing global security. The problem isn't the number of nukes we have; the problem is the number that unstable/hostile regimes have. We could cut our warhead total to 500 and it wouldn't matter because Pakistan still has ~50, North Korea has a handful, and Iran is trying to get one. So again, I ask: what does START accomplish with regard to these nations? The answer: nothing, zip, nada, zilch.

Thats why its perplexing to me that we'd agree not to build a missile defense. How does making us weaker help things?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Regardless, this money has already been taxed. You may want to check and see who many of those "rich" people are. Many are farmers that only have average incomes, but have a lot of land. These people are forced to sell the land that has been in their family for generation just to pay the estate tax. The estate tax actually benefits large corporations.

Way to trumpet the party line, there. Seriously, the next time you say something other than what Fox News tells you to say, it'd be the first.

At $5,000/acre, you'd need 1,000 acres to come close to the exemption cap. If a family farm is running 1000 acres or more, then it should have already incorporated itself and not become subjected to the estate tax anyway.

I agree with the whole "double taxation" argument in theory, but there are other issues in play.
I'm all for eliminating the estate tax, but then you probably need to stop providing a "stepped-up" basis upon death for capital gains purposes, too. Otherwise the family that bought the land for $10/acre during the depression but sells it 3 generations later for $5,000/acre is getting a nice tax-free windfall.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Way to trumpet the party line, there. Seriously, the next time you say something other than what Fox News tells you to say, it'd be the first.

At $5,000/acre, you'd need 1,000 acres to come close to the exemption cap. If a family farm is running 1000 acres or more, then it should have already incorporated itself and not become subjected to the estate tax anyway.

I agree with the whole "double taxation" argument in theory, but there are other issues in play.
I'm all for eliminating the estate tax, but then you probably need to stop providing a "stepped-up" basis upon death for capital gains purposes, too. Otherwise the family that bought the land for $10/acre during the depression but sells it 3 generations later for $5,000/acre is getting a nice tax-free windfall.

I really don't get much of my news from Fox, but I like how you try to manipulate things so that if you say something that someone on Foxnews said its invalid. Can I do the same thing to you when you repeat something that was said on MSNBC?

Perhaps we can agree on this. We should get rid of the estate tax and end farm subsidies as the trade-off. I think many farmers would go for that.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Perhaps we can agree on this. We should get rid of the estate tax and end farm subsidies as the trade-off. I think many farmers would go for that.

One has nothing to do with the other. Farm subsidies should be ended simply because they're the essence of pork barrel spending.

The tradeoff for the estate tax should be the elimination of the stepped-up basis for capital gains purposes. Both are tied to teh death of a person and affect farmers and non-farmers alike. That seems like a fair approach; cash on hand would've already been taxed when accumulated, while other non-cash assets would transfer tax free but still be subjected to taxation once any unrealized gains become realized (ie, the asset is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of). It'd also be easier to track paperwork wise. All you'd need for documentation is the receipt/bill of sale/deed/whatever when the asset was first purchased.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Thats why its perplexing to me that we'd agree not to build a missile defense. How does making us weaker help things?

Not judging the value of the missle shield...but if your wondering, there is this little thing called govt debt which makes us weaker and that some of us are concerned about. I just don't get why costs associated with these programs don't even enter into the conversation.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Thats why its perplexing to me that we'd agree not to build a missile defense. How does making us weaker help things?

How do you plan to fund it with all the taxes you want to cut? We can't afford what we spend now, yet people like you who trumpet less spending and lower deficits want to pump more money into military spending because of a bunch of boogeymen that will never attack. (and if they do it wont be by missile) Please tell me where the money is going to come from, and how this will be deficit neutral. What are you going to cut? Who loses so you can feel more safe without being more safe?

This reminds me of people I know around here that are biotching about the worthless plowing this season despite all the snow. Many of these people are the same people who whine every year that they want their taxes lowered and blah blah blah. Well guess what folks, when you lower taxes and you overspend this is what you get. There is no budget anymore for plowing, because there is no money. Politicians love to spend, citizens hate paying taxes, and because of that the roads are a mess.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Missile to missile kills on ICBM's just seem to be a very unlikely plan for a missile shield. You're trying to hit multiple somethings moving 15,000 mph. Frankly, I think they were closer with the whole SDI/Star Wars laser thing, even if they were probably a few decades early on having the technology capable of working.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Personally, I've been a big fan of this for quite a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAL-1