55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:21 pm
@georgeob1,
okie wrote:
Another point is obvious here, when I said liberals desire equal outcomes, anyone with common sense knows that this is a general policy of "more equal outcomes" rather than a perfectly equal mathematical outcome of wealth down to exact dollars and cents.


georgeob1 wrote:
I'm not making any mistake at all. You are projecting your own interpretations on very large numbers of people whose views are different from both your own and your distorted interpretation of theirs.


You are making a mistake though georgeob1. I wasn't putting words in okie's mouth at all.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

You are making a mistake though georgeob1. I wasn't putting words in okie's mouth at all.


Nonsense. Read the posts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:31 pm
@parados,
georgeob has foot in mouth disease; he loves to support his conservative friend, okie, but if he knew okie never (or rarely) provides proof for his assertions, he would shy away from a liar like okie.

Here's an example of Obama's appointment of an American communist who is responsible for the START treaty (or WMDs). They (the GOP) wants to derail the START treaty, so they attack the messenger.


Quote:
debate
November 19, 2010 - 4:36pm
By DESMOND BUTLER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - In their showdown over an arms-control treaty with Russia, Democrats and Republicans are charging each other with undermining national security.

Who's right?

The Obama administration is pushing for a vote this year on the treaty, known as New START; Republicans want a delay until a new Congress convenes in January.

A closer look at the claims in the debate:

___

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at assertions by government officials and how well they adhere to the facts.

___

THE CLAIM: Opponents say it will limit U.S. options for future missile defense. "New START could hamper our ability to improve our missile-defense system _ leaving us unable to destroy more than a handful of missiles at a time and vulnerable to attacks from around the globe," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., wrote in the National Review in July.

THE FACTS: The treaty doesn't place any practical constraints on missile defense. The document's preamble, which is not legally binding, acknowledges a link between nuclear weapons and missile defense. It's an assertion that was accepted by George W. Bush's administration: The point of missile defense is to counteract nuclear-tipped missiles.

Opponents also point to Russia's assertion in a signing statement that it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if the United States significantly boosts its missile defenses. In fact, both sides have the right to withdraw from the treaty for any reason they believe is in their national interest.

The Soviet Union made a similar assertion when leaders signed the original 1991 START treaty, warning the country might withdraw if the United States did not respect the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But when President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2001, Russia did not pull out of START. The START treaty held for the same reason it was signed: It was in each country's national interest.

The treaty does prohibit the conversion of offensive missile launchers to missile defense launchers and vice versa. But Military officials say this does not pose any substantive restriction because it would be cheaper to build new missile defense launchers than convert existing offensive ones.

___

THE CLAIM: Opponents have alleged Russia is likely to cheat and that its compliance will be hard to verify. "I think the treaty is weak on verification, especially compared to previous treaties," Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a radio program last month. "We will have much greater trouble determining if Russia is cheating and given Russia's track record, that's a real problem."

THE FACTS: Bond has said that a classified report raises concerns about Russian cheating. That's impossible to evaluate without seeing the document. But without the treaty, it would be even harder for the U.S. to make sure Russia is not covertly expanding or improving its nuclear or ballistic missile capabilities. The U.S. has not had inspectors in Russia checking its nuclear assets since the 1991 START treaty expired in December. The only quick way of getting them back is to bring a new treaty into force.

It's debatable whether U.S. treaty negotiators got the best terms on how they can conduct inspections, but the treaty followed hard-fought talks. The Soviet Union for years resisted allowing inspections at all. Without inspectors, the U.S. would have to rely on espionage and satellite monitoring, which are much less effective and more expensive than onsite inspection.

___

THE CLAIM: The treaty's backers say getting inspectors back on the ground in Russia is so urgent that the U.S. cannot afford to wait until next year. "This is not about politics," President Barack Obama said Thursday. "It's about national security. This is not a matter than can be delayed."

THE FACTS: The urgency is political. Next year the Republican ranks in the Senate will expand by six and it will be much more difficult to ratify the treaty. Even the administration concedes that the security risk is not immediate. "I am not particularly worried, near term," Obama's top adviser on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, said Thursday. "But over time, as the Russians are modernizing their systems and starting to deploy new systems, the lack of inspections will create much more uncertainty."

Intelligence officials have expressed concerns that have sounded less than urgent.

"I think the earlier, the sooner, the better. You know, my thing is: From an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We're better off with it," the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said recently.

___

THE CLAIM: Republicans, led by Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, say they won't consider the treaty until the administration budgets adequate money for the nation's nuclear arsenal and the laboratories that oversee them. The treaty would reduce the limits on U.S. and Russian warheads, and Kyl says he needs assurances that the remaining nuclear arsenal is modernized and effective.

THE FACTS: The administration has pledged $85 billion to maintain the nuclear arsenal over the next 10 years, including a $4.1 billion boost recently, in an attempt to address Kyl's concerns.

The president can't guarantee Congress, which controls spending, will go along with those figures. Kyl hasn't said whether he thinks the pledge is enough. But it would lift average spending over the five years beginning 2012 nearly 30 percent over 2010 levels. Even before the administration's new pledge, Linton Brooks, who oversaw the nuclear laboratories as director of the National Nuclear Safety Administration during the Bush administration, told an audience at a Washington think tank that he "would have killed for" the amount in this year's budget.

___

THE CLAIM: The treaty favors Russia because it doesn't deal with Russia's much larger arsenal of smaller tactical nuclear warheads intended for use on the battlefield in a conventional war. "New START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1," former Massachusetts GOP governor and 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wrote last summer in The Washington Post.

THE FACTS: New START is intended to replace the 1991 START treaty, which also did not deal with tactical nuclear weapons. Russian and U.S. officials have both said that issue would be addressed in subsequent negotiations, along with the large number of U.S. warheads now in storage. Those U.S. warheads also weren't addressed by New START. Russia has maintained a large number of such weapons to address weaknesses in its conventional forces. But military analysts are dismissive of the military usefulness of these weapons, given the small chance that the U.S. and Russia would face off in a conventional war of tanks and combat forces. Talks on tactical nuclear weapons are unlikely to occur unless New START is approved.[\quote]




okie wouldn't know how to tell the truth if his life depended on it. He is not capable of thinking for himself to seek the truth on anything. He relies solely on FOX News.


parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:33 pm
@georgeob1,
I have read the posts.

Okie said he was not for "equal outcomes".
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am genuinely curious, ci, what news sources do you regularly use for your information? Do you watch one TV news source, or more, and what are those? Or do you access news via the web, and if so, what sites?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:36 pm
@parados,
Maybe the word "more" equal outcomes changes the meaning. LOL
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I have read the posts.

Okie said he was not for "equal outcomes".
I do not recall my original quote that you are supposedly basing this on, but it doesn't matter, the point is that I recognize that realistically no two people will achieve equal outcomes, and so it is politically unwise and impractical for government to try to legislate equal outcomes, plus it would restrict the freedom and liberty guaranteed by our founding documents. It would be more accurate for you to say that I favor equal opportunity as well as freedom and liberty to pursue our own outcomes. If two people happen to end up being roughly equal, I am not against that, but I am against the government taking from one and giving to another to make them equal. I hope that clarifies it for you, parados, as you seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of freedom and liberty. Any more pertinent questions, or was your aim to simply niggle me about a very obvious and simple concept?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:44 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
and so it is politically unwise and impractical for government to try to legislate equal outcomes.


Show us any legislation that attempts to provide all the citizens of this country with equal outcomes? One will do.

As a matter of fact, show us any country - including communist countries - that legislate for equal outcomes for its citizens?

You do understand the word "equal" don't you?

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:47 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I recognize that realistically no two people will achieve equal outcomes, and so it is politically unwise and impractical for government to try to legislate equal outcomes,

And who is proposing this legislation? I certainly have never seen any such legislation. Maybe it is something that you fantasize about in your own mind because it certainly doesn't happen in the real world.

I have a better grasp of the concepts of freedom and liberty than you do okie. I also have a better grasp of reality.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 08:49 pm
@parados,
That's for dang sure!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:03 pm
@parados,
I think this argument stems from Democrats desire to institute more progressivity into the income tax system, and they constantly complain of tax breaks for the rich and that the rich are not paying their fair share. They do this despite the fact that the top 10% income people pay about 70% of the income taxes and the top 50% pay over 97% of the income taxes.

I think the obvious point here is that more progressivity in the income tax tables is in fact a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, and if taken to the extreme, it would move people toward more equal wealth situations. The same principle would apply to inheritance taxes, whereby liberals want to take the wealth already earned and taxed, higher portions from larger wealth, so that it becomes essentially a transfer of wealth from those that have it to those that do not have it. In most cases, this transfer is via the federal government, as it collects the taxes and then redistributes the wealth back to society to various lower income groups, etc.

It is important common sense to understand the obvious fact that achievement of perfect equality of wealth is not attainable, but that is hardly a valid argument to dispel the obvious fact that some policies do attempt to move society toward equality, either by intent or by coincidence. For example, equal outcomes is not advertised as a goal of progressivity in the income tax system, but that is one of the effects if taken to the extreme. Usually, the justification for progressivity is based upon ability to pay or some such other argument that the rich reap more benefit from government programs or expenditures, which is hardly a valid argument, but nevertheless it is one of their arguments.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:08 pm
@okie,
Quote:

I think the obvious point here is that more progressivity in the income tax tables is in fact a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, and if taken to the extreme, it would move people toward more equal wealth situations.

The only thing obvious is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
If the existing tax structure did what you said it does then why does the top 1% have a larger percentage of the wealth than they did 20 years ago?
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:11 pm
@parados,
If it would ever dawn on you, there are other factors besides the tax structure, parados, such as a failing education system, the list goes on.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:16 pm
@parados,
If the goal of the current tax system is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, then it isn't doing a very good job okie. The top 20% own 93% of all the financial assets in the US.

http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/financial-wealth-united-states.png
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:17 pm
@okie,
Oh look..

Okie is changing the subject because his argument isn't holding up.

So.. which tax system do you think is taking money from the rich faster than they can accumulate more?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:27 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

If the goal of the current tax system is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, then it isn't doing a very good job okie. The top 20% own 93% of all the financial assets in the US.
Actually, your data are only proving that socialism doesn't work, parados. I have never said equal outcomes were achievable. You cannot make the poor successful by taking from the rich and giving it to them. I have always pointed that out to you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:51 pm
@okie,
okie, What kind of logic determined your statement
Quote:
Actually, your data are only proving that socialism doesn't work, parados.


It hasn't even been tried; your conclusion misses the whole point of the discussion.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:59 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

parados wrote:

If the goal of the current tax system is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, then it isn't doing a very good job okie. The top 20% own 93% of all the financial assets in the US.
Actually, your data are only proving that socialism doesn't work, parados. I have never said equal outcomes were achievable. You cannot make the poor successful by taking from the rich and giving it to them. I have always pointed that out to you.

That doesn't even make sense in comparison to your earlier statements okie. Are you running away from your earlier statements?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 10:01 pm
@parados,
okie doesn't understand logic. His own sentences contradict themselves. This is the man georgeob supports, because okie makes sense. Only to conservatives who live by FOX News.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 10:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

That doesn't even make sense in comparison to your earlier statements okie. Are you running away from your earlier statements?
It makes perfect sense, and no, I have nothing to run away from.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 10:32:12