22 Dec 10
7 edits
Originally posted by sh76It seems that anything Obama wants he gets. You could argue that it was a capitulation for him to allow the "rich" to have two more years of tax bliss, but I would not call that a capitulation on his part because its only for two years, rather, I would call that a capitulation on the part of Republicans who had just won an historic election. There was no need to negotiate with Obama because the American people had just rejected him, however, since they have, we have adopted thousands of ear mark spending programs along with it as well as ballooning the deficit and a better economy for his re-election in 2012.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear
As Obama continues to rack up victory after victory in the waning days of 2010.
Who knew all it would take is a thumping at the polls and a capitulation on tax policy?
In short, those Republicans who colluded with the President should be sent packing in 2012!!
Edit: I will say one thing, Obama is far more intelligent that his Republican counterparts in Congress, but then, so is this chair I'm sitting on.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Lindsey Graham (of all people) kind of blew up at all this "capitulation" by the GOP yesterday and said this ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear
As Obama continues to rack up victory after victory in the waning days of 2010.
Who knew all it would take is a thumping at the polls and a capitulation on tax policy?
"When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," Graham said on Fox News radio. "This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn't have passed in the new Congress."
and this ...
"I can understand the Democrats being afraid of the new Republicans; I can't understand Republicans being afraid of the new Republicans."
That part in bold is interesting. Is all this capitulation because the Senate GOP wants to compromise with the Dems, but fears it won't be as easy once DeMint's reinforcements arrive?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134719-graham-gop-to-blame-for-capitulationof-dramatic-proportions-in-lame-duck
22 Dec 10
Why is it a capitulation to approve a deal that has wide bipartisan support by numerous former presidents, secretaries of state and other people with vast experience with foreign policy from both parties?
Should the republicans have blocked this just because they wanted to give the president and the democrats a loss?
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThere are substantial problems with it that Jon Kyl and others have been talking about. I don't have time to list them all out. Here's a couple of links from the Heritage Foundation.
Why is it a capitulation to approve a deal that has wide bipartisan support by numerous former presidents, secretaries of state and other people with vast experience with foreign policy from both parties?
Should the republicans have blocked this just because they wanted to give the president and the democrats a loss?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix
and
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/21/the-illusory-linkage-between-nuclear-modernization-and-new-start/
Plus there's something annoying about having something so critical decided by a group of people we've just fired. You fire someone in a company and someone from Personnel watches them collect their belongings and then escorts them to the door. In the US govt, they get to make a few laws before they leave.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyIts just mind blowing all the things the current Congress is ramming through before they have to leave. Personally, I think when you get the ax you should leave.
There are substantial problems with it that Jon Kyl and others have been talking about. I don't have time to list them all out. Here's a couple of links from the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix
and
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/21/the-illusory-linkag ...[text shortened]... en escorts them to the door. In the US govt, they get to make a few laws before they leave.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyI've heard some of the things that Kyl has mentioned and I'm not altogether convinced by them. Then again, I tend to be skeptical of anything Kyl mentions since he doesn't have a great track record as far as I'm concerned.
There are substantial problems with it that Jon Kyl and others have been talking about. I don't have time to list them all out. Here's a couple of links from the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix
and
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/21/the-illusory-linkag ...[text shortened]... en escorts them to the door. In the US govt, they get to make a few laws before they leave.
I don't have time to go too far into them, but from the first two listed on your link I don't think they are all too serious as to prevent the treaty from being passed.
In fact, from looking a bit further #5 doesn't seem to be an issue with the treaty itself - it just questions Obama's motives surrounding the treaty. Obama's motives are not in themselves a reason to not ratify.
Is George H.W. Bush somehow ignorant of these reasons? Are the other former secretaries of state also ignorant of these supposed flaws? Why don't they see them as a reason to not ratify it?
I can understand the question of people passing legislation after they have been ousted via an election, but that is a separate issue than whether the treaty itself is worthwhile or not.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Yes...he does seem more capable than many had given him credit for. No President is going to make everyone happy, but Obama seems to be doing a decent job, and if he keeps it up reelection is a real possibility.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear
As Obama continues to rack up victory after victory in the waning days of 2010.
Who knew all it would take is a thumping at the polls and a capitulation on tax policy?
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnBut since a treaty of this nature is critical, and there remain many substantial issues with it, and many of the people making the decision have just been fired by the American people, can you understand how having it rammed through during a lame duck session is objectionable without it having to do with just handing Obama a defeat?
I can understand the question of people passing legislation after they have been ousted via an election, but that is a separate issue than whether the treaty itself is worthwhile or not.
22 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI don't necessarily agree that the issues are substantial enough to delay ratification no matter who is in the congress. I am in favor of congress passing any bill that benefits the country whenever they can.
But since a treaty of this nature is critical, and there remain many substantial issues with it, and many of the people making the decision have just been fired by the American people, can you understand how having it rammed through during a lame duck session is objectionable without it having to do with just handing Obama a defeat?
I just don't think there is reason to delay it just because it's a lame duck session. The republicans have had no problem in killing bills before for procedural reasons or reasons that don't have much to do with the content of the bill at all. I'm not sure why they have such a problem in killing this one when they only really have to delay it until the end of the year.
Why can't they get their ideological purity in this case when they have so many supposedly good reasons to block it?
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWell, that is the question isn't it? Thus the word "capitulation", which is what you asked about in the first place.
Why can't they get their ideological purity in this case when they have so many supposedly good reasons to block it?
I quoted Lindsey Graham above in my attempt to answer it.
I'm listening to Jeff Sessions lay out his case against the treaty right now. He's saying it's a weak treaty, with a country we can't trust, drive by naivete. That's my paraphrase, anyway.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyI pretty much saw just whining in the quotes from Graham that you posted, not really reasons why it's actually a capitulation.
Well, that is the question isn't it? Thus the word "capitulation", which is what you asked about in the first place.
I quoted Lindsey Graham above in my attempt to answer it.
I'm listening to Jeff Sessions lay out his case against the treaty right now. He's saying it's a weak treaty, with a country we can't trust, drive by naivete. That's my paraphrase, anyway.
You could call anything a "capitulation" when you have members of your party actually voting for a bill proposed by the other party. You could also call it "bipartisanship".
You could also say that the republican senators who did vote for it recognized that the criticisms weren't all that serious or at least not serious enough to vote against ratification.
You definitely can't claim that the democrats "Rammed this through" since they had no power to - they didn't have the ability to ram it through.
22 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt seems that anything Obama wants he gets.
It seems that anything Obama wants he gets. You could argue that it was a capitulation for him to allow the "rich" to have two more years of tax bliss, but I would not call that a capitulation on his part because its only for two years, rather, I would call that a capitulation on the part of Republicans who had just won an historic election. There was no ne ...[text shortened]... gent that his Republican counterparts in Congress, but then, so is this chair I'm sitting on.
this is worthy of a flaming tomato award for "overstatement of the year".
You could argue that it was a capitulation for him to allow the "rich" to have two more years of tax bliss, but I would not call that a capitulation on his part because its only for two years, rather, I would call that a capitulation on the part of Republicans who had just won an historic election
These events are too recent for your revisionism to even make ther slightest sense whodey. The tax cuts were about to expire, there was no question of "allowing two more years of tax bliss" until the republicans, undoubtedly driven by the money in their pockets and their ideological imflexibility, pressed for it. They got their way despite firm opposition by the democrats and it being a position incoherent in relation to their calls for a more fiscally sane government, there is simply no way this could be described as a capitulation on their part.
In short, those Republicans who colluded with the President should be sent packing in 2012!!
are they no longer pure teabaggers?
😵
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyAs John Kerry pointed out, this vote was delayed numerous times because of Republicans. It should have been taken long ago. Nowhere in the Constitution is it required that the outgoing Congress do nothing.
There are substantial problems with it that Jon Kyl and others have been talking about. I don't have time to list them all out. Here's a couple of links from the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix
and
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/21/the-illusory-linkag ...[text shortened]... en escorts them to the door. In the US govt, they get to make a few laws before they leave.
22 Dec 10
Originally posted by generalissimoIn my opinion, the Tea Party should target them and fight them. Otherwise, they are just a partisan "yes" vote and the movement is dead.
.
In short, those Republicans who colluded with the President should be sent packing in 2012!!
are they no longer pure teabaggers?
😵[/b]