Do the Republicans really have to play politics with the security of this country and the world by wanting to slow walk the new Start treaty? The very sort document they were so clamoring for just a few short months ago? Now that president Obama has forged a new agreement with Russia that has the agreement of virtually all of Europe, the Republicans aren't so sure they want this treaty after all. Maybe the numbers of nuclear warheads and the lax security attached to many of them don't really threatened the world after all. At least from their point of view.
They keep saying the world is such a dangerous place. Wouldn't it make sense to get verification of nuclear arsenals as quickly as possible while there is momentum to do so? It seems to me that this is yet another example of how partisan ideology (even though it's not really ideology that's the issue here) put all of us at risk without regard for the consequences of refusing to seize such an opportunity. Senator John Kyle had better get with the program and start (pun intended) to consider the will and future health of his own people.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 95
What mandate was that? The one for the Presidency in 2000? The one in 2004? Perhaps the one in 2008? No wait, that was a mandate to change things away from what the Republicans had been doing before, wasn't it.
We intellectuals automatically discount public sentiment when an election doesn't go our way because we know how easily manipulated the general public is. Notice the advertising on Gather for example. We also have seen the statistics on how money and advertising affects the outcomes of elections.
Look how well the Republicans handled rejection in 2008. I seem to remember Rush saying that he hoped the President failed at a time when our economy was close to crashing. I remember the Republican Party opposing every step the President took to prevent disaster. This was the action of a spoiled brat lying on the floor of the toy store kicking his heels when refused a toy.
So when you get that beam out of your eye perhaps you can see well enough to help intellectuals get the motes out of their eyes.
You mean that all that anonymous corporate money was for the Democrats? Surprise, surprise.
There were no financing limits if you don't accept government money to run.
I can condemn the current system and I have done so repeatedly. But I also know that there are several sides to every issue. I try to get away from blaming individuals. Almost anyone in their place would be at least tempted to do the same. In this specific case I blame the nature of our money and strongly advocate changing our money so that it cannot be abused in just the ways you indicate.
All political parties have always abused money to gain advantage. The history of the U.S. documents that rather extensively.
Also, please note that it was your comment that brought up the issue of money on this thread. Not only that you did so only in connection with the Democrats. That is, you gave the impression that there was only one party doing it. Thus, you were "guilty" of the same sin you accuse me of committing.
Hmmmm.
:-)
Then we agree. Money has corrupted all parties.
There's a fix for that if you're interested at www.nopom.info which solves or makes better a host of problems. Of course it does require a change but, once made, things will be much better and we'll have a higher class of problems to deal with. And we will never have to worry about these problems again.
This is due to their biased reality and their selfishness instead of patriotism. Worse: they brandish the flag and keep insulting the President.
This of course shows, among other things alike the tortures, how the most famous democracy works nowadays.
The game has been becoming UNFAIR. It's a shame!
I also noticed that some people has been brainwashed with the very wrong idea that lower taxes imply a shrinking joblessness list.
I also noticed that some guys as O'Connell, Bachmann, etc. stated that their very first goal is to get rid of the President and this went on even before he could take any decision.
Countries alike Switzerland, Sweden are among the countries where corporations pay the higher taxes but Switzerland not only has a very low jobless list but as well is hosting a lot of corporations outsourced by America.
As in all European countries, how come US corporations are incoming into these countries with higher taxes, a health care which costs, to the corporations, about 7% in average on top of the wages, a climate often too hot or too cold?
Because, and this is the answer, productivity, education aere much higher than in America while the CONFIDENCE is already expanding.
Jobs are the consequence and the feedback of a confident market. And such confidence raises when ideas are discussed fairly, without lies or demagogy, as it happens here. Worse, GOP and TP are doing all they can in order to weak the President and finally act in such a way that it's anti-America, anti jobs.
Despite paying our taxes, we look to provide to the people incoming in our countries the guarantee that the kids will have the best possible education.
Republicons keep destroying the country as far as confidence is concerned, even if they got more votes than any body else, the real problem is the uncertainty instated by the former administration and its paranoia.
He didn't went to war with Iraq, he did mistakes as each one of us does, he inherited a huge debt but the TARP is already profitable to the taxpayer,.
Of course, restoring the confidence destroyed by Cheney and GWB will not be achieved within the next few years.......
I'll ask Mary to slam me on your behalf!
Seems to me that Obama is the most pragmatic president we've had recently. He's right wing on national defense and international relations, a moderate on social issues, and a trimmer on the economy.
Don't be stupid, please: the incidence of the quantity of people is on the insurance premiums: In Switzerland the BASIC coverage premium exceeds 450 dollars a month., covers everyone as everyone is compelled to subscribe at the least to the minimum coverage.
Your statement is pure demagogy and reality seems to be:
1. Let the poor dying people, dying faster.
2. Let jobless people accept to be enslaved or dye.
3. Avoid educating people about reality as tales are easier to understand than reality.
norman, instaed of repeating demagogy sentences, why don;t you make your own, INDEPENDENT, research. Then make a decision. Believe yourself not what any other tells you. Make comparisons and ask yourself: how come industrialists are outsourcing jobs to more expensive countries as far as taxes, premiums, communications, health care systems, investments, etc. are concerned?
Switzerland has some 10% (ten per cent) foreigners with no jobs, just waiting for final authorization to become residents. In the meantime they live on the taxpayer, got full healthcare, decent homes, etc. and we are starting complaining because these people can help if asked so and in return they will stay at the least 2 years with us before being, MAYBE, accepted as residents.
In the meantime the learn our ways of doing, speaking, work and be cooperative.
we do need to understand that freedom requires responsibility
It should be so obvious: If we don't want government interference in the marketplace, we need to be proactive and work out the problems in our communities that adversely affect our lives.
Politics is not about truth, but about persuasion. If the anti group can convince the people to make big noises, it matters not that it is merely noise. Those who dance to the tune of power through populism carry the day. No, of course, a majority in the House is not a license to repeal or even rule. That doesn't mean any of it is based on what is real in the world outside of hypeville.
There's always a trade-off. If we are informed, we can decide what we are willing to trade.
It is not only big government that can stimulate our economy. There are long religious and secular traditions of giving charity, providing within community, not to mention creative ideas such as contests in which small fees become a prize possibly based on developing clever ways to provide services or maybe starting small community-based enterprises through which people can earn money ad hoc or ...
There are easy ways to Win = Win in theory; but you get politics into it and all bets are off. In reality, the economy is not a problem at all. The #1 problem in this country right now is angry cross-talk which keeps everyone at arms' length bickering rather than coming together to reasonably work out how to live together successfully.
What no one seems to want to say is that there is no possible way of saving ourselves out of the deficit. The only way out is up: growing the economy. If we want to survive this insanity we need policies that will encourage growth, like much more realistic education and encouragement of small businesses.
Social Security and Medicare are paid for independently of the other budget items. If we got rid of the cut-off, we could all pay a much lower percentage of income and save money for employers right where the employees' pay is concerned.
Get rid of all these unwanted foreign adventures, wars and rumours of wars and pushing around sovereign nations, and all those unfortunate weapons that mostly don't deliver as promised. Get rid of corporate welfare. Do real due diligence on making sure government agencies are administrated efficiently, including getting rid of overlaps. Spend to prime the pump, to encourage true government/private partnership in upgrading skills, promoting useful projects and providing sound infrastructure.
The good old days generally referred to are the post WWII times when we were full of vim and victory and most of Europe along with Japan were in shambles. Those were days of high taxation on the highest incomes, if you will recall. Also, it was a time when community philanthropy was expected and respected. The culture now is more about isolation and bifurcation. How do we bring ourselves together for our common good?
Out of it no industrialist will start huge investments. No investments equals to no jobs hiring.
Oh, hey, maybe all those genrational welfare moms, the illegals and those still getting their 99 weeks of unemployment plan to invest... L O L
But, if this is want you intend to say, you have a much better way to suggest it: Why not reverting to Malthus theory and go on with it?
He already suggested a way to get rid of unmarried moms, sick or ill people, non welcomed people, jobless people, etc.
To the contrary, if you apply his method and theory, USA will end with no more people to take care of, just employees for the manufactures.
Of course, this will not impede government to tax the richest while applying Malthus methods but most voters will anyway not be in a position to refuse such a great way to achieve economy.
Of course, the remaining problem will be who is going to remain for procreating?
And still...that's your president you're talking about micky. The leader of your country, your commander and chief. (Am I enjoying this too much? Nah!)
This is a highly Republican state. Church members next door live this way, it is a way of life to them, more children, with no consideration for their children's future. Are they ashamed or what, always denying their dependence on the government but refuse others their rights.
Sleepy? Take a nap.
If we're out of money, why are the Republicans proposing borrowing 700 billion dollars to perpetuate a tax cut for the rich—one that was not paid for even when it was implemented 10 years ago? You should talk to somebody about that, Nora.
However, in every country where the Conservatives are, uemployement increase, trust in the government diminishes, riots increase, and our benefits are gong away.
I do not want the same kind of totalitarism as the former Eastern countries and it will never exist in the USA, but please try to be objective on the difference between the Rep and Dem! Sometimes I vote for the Dem, sometimes for the Rep... not everything is correct on both sides, but now you need a President like B. Obama who thinks differently and is more "SOCIAL" (and not socialist) than his predecessors. Did anyone read his books? He was a social worker and I believe he knows what means poverty (despite he has now a quite nice fortune [spent on his elections!?]).