cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

Barry's Bridge To No-Where.

9 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: Barry's Bridge To No-Where.

I don't know what the bandwidth of the cartoons is you are posting, but only 1/2 to 2/3rds of the cartoon is shown on your post. Maybe you should try downsizing the cartoon before posting?

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry's Bridge To No-Where.


@4wd wrote:

I don't know what the bandwidth of the cartoons is you are posting, but only 1/2 to 2/3rds of the cartoon is shown on your post. Maybe you should try downsizing the cartoon before posting?


Hmmm, It works on my browser just fine.  I think that your hardware/software has issues with the Meredith equipment.  I will put the link to the picture from now on and will put it here as well, so that you can go right to the source to see it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=555126

Senior Contributor

Re: Barry's Bridge To No-Where.

Thanks Milly, Got it now. My old computer uses ie, but has trouble freezing up with this new site. There is just too much info being exchanged for it to follow i guess.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry's Bridge To No-Where.

Tell me once again why it was ok for reagan, bush 1, clinton (probably not in your mind), and bush 2 to have this treaty but it is a boon-doggle for President Obama.

Senior Contributor

Re: Barry's Bridge To No-Where.

He can't, bart. It's all in the little plan to distroy the President. It's just politics as usual for a bunch of ignorant, cowards.

Veteran Advisor

Re: START Treaty Is Irrelevant From The Start .


@schnurrbart wrote:

Tell me once again why it was ok for reagan, bush 1, clinton (probably not in your mind), and bush 2 to have this treaty but it is a boon-doggle for President Obama.


It's a lame-duck session. Time is running out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak and, with five weeks to go, no one knows what tax they'll be paying on everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates expire Jan. 1.

And what is the president demanding that Congress pass as "a top priority"? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio address?

Ratification of his New START treaty.

Good grief. Even among national security concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with general uselessness being the norm.

The reason is obvious. The problem is never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the weapon. That's why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes, while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.

In Soviet days, arms control at least could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and therapeutic effect in the age of "the balance of terror."

But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable.

What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.

President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret.

We just found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment facility.

An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them — against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.

Moreover, Obama's idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S. arsenal?

Obama's New START treaty, like the rest, is 90% useless and 10% problematic. One difficulty is that it restricts the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

But because some of these are dual-use, our ability to deliver long-range conventional weapons, a major U.S. strategic advantage, is constrained.

The second problem is the recurrence of language in the treaty preamble linking offensive to defensive nuclear weaponry. We have a huge lead over the rest of the world in anti-missile defenses. Ever since the Reagan days, the Russians have been determined to undo this advantage.

The New START treaty affirms the "interrelationship" between offense and defense. And Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has insisted that "the unchangeability of circumstances" — translation: no major advances in U.S. anti-missile deployment — is a condition of the entire treaty.

The worst thing about this treaty, however, is that it is simply a distraction. It gives the illusion of doing something about nuclear danger by addressing a non-problem, Russia, while doing nothing about the real problem — Iran and North Korea.

The utter irrelevance of New START to nuclear safety was dramatically underscored by the recent revelation of that North Korean uranium enrichment plant, built with such sophistication that it left the former head of Los Alamos National Laboratory "stunned." It could become the ultimate proliferation factory.

Pyongyang is already a serial proliferator. It has nothing else to sell. Iran, Syria and al-Qaida have the money to buy.

Iran's Islamic Republic lives to bring down the Great Satan. North Korea, nuclear-armed and in a succession crisis, has just shelled South Korean territory for the first time since the Korean armistice. Obama peddling New START is the guy looking for his wallet under the lamppost because that's where the light is good — even though he lost the wallet on the other side of town.

 

Senior Advisor

Re: START Treaty Is Irrelevant From The Start .

Krauthammer is an idiot. In the first place the tax laws were written with an expiration date which would indicate to any thinking person that the rates will revert back to the previous rates once the temporary rates expire.

 

If they meant for them to be permanent, they should have passed them as permanent and signed them into law. Even then the tax code can be changed through legislation. However, there is no way that anyone should assume that the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 should be anything but a temporary arrangement.

 

Having said that, any investor or businessman should know of this policy and  tax rates will revert to rates of the final Clinton years.  That will be the tax rate and everyone should expect that and plan accordingly. If Obama and the demxs are able to push a new measure in that will address the tax code going forward, then that may be a plus. But until the congress and the president agree on some alternative tax code, then it will revert back to Clinton Era tax rates. Any idiot knows that or should. Why oh why shouldn't any businessman know what tax policy will be and plan accordingly? If it turns out any dofferent, it will be a gift.

 

BTW do you know anyone that will not work or invest if tax rates revert back to the Clinton rates? Didn't Clinton have a lot of invesment and employment during his era?  It's simply horse crap spread by people that have the no new taxes philosophy.

 

It's not the time to raise taxes. Not now or not during an era of prosperity. It will never be the right time for these folks. So don't let them feed you the garbage that it just isn't right ,NOW. They believe in borrow and spend and if anyone suffers any cuts, it aint gonna be them.

 

The way to exhibit fiscal responsibility is for congress to cut their own pay and benefits first. That will indicate they are serious. Until them it is simply bull crap.

Senior Contributor

Re: START Treaty Is Irrelevant From The Start .

"The way to exhibit fiscal responsibility is for congress to cut their own pay and benefits first. That will indicate they are serious. Until them it is simply bull crap." Don said this, there may be hope for him yet. I would join you in your crusade to make congress cut their pay.

Veteran Advisor

Re: START Treaty Is Irrelevant From The Start .

  There must be an emphasis on the benefits, and even lengthening the requirements for their pension too. There are quite a few that constantly deride the health care insurance(benefits) and government pensions, but they love to cash those checks. The last time that I had looked into this I found info that there were 306 or 308 millionaires in the House and Senate. The link below breaks down their "earnings" including income and assets.

 

Congressional Members' Personal Wealth Expands Despite Sour National Economy

By Communications on November 17, 2010 11:00 AM
| More

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dave Levinthal, 202-354-0111

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress are enjoying their own financial stimulus.

Despite a stubbornly sour national economy congressional members’ personal wealth collectively increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics of federal financial disclosures released earlier this year.

And while some members’ financial portfolios lost value, no need to bemoan most lawmakers’ financial lot: Nearly half of them -- 261 -- are millionaires, a slight increase from the previous year, the Center’s study finds. That compares to about 1 percent of Americans who lay claim to the same lofty fiscal status.

And of these congressional millionaires, 55 have an average calculated wealth in 2009 of $10 million or more, with eight in the $100 million-plus range.

“Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial ills -- unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings -- that have befallen millions of Americans,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics’ executive director. “Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents.”

In 2009, the median wealth of a U.S. House member stood at $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. The median wealth of a U.S. senator was nearly $2.38 million, up from $2.27 million in 2008.

For all members of Congress regardless of chamber, median wealth in 2009 reached $911,510, up from $785,515 in 2008.  This spike in personal wealth represents a notable rebound from the period between 2007 and 2008, when overall congressional wealth slipped by more than 5 percent. Federal lawmakers’ personal wealth climaxed in 2007 -- the pinnacle of nearly a decade’s worth of steady asset value expansion.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/congressional-members-personal-weal.html