U.S. has arms control treaty with Russia - Another Success for the Right to Ridicule

I'm sure the Right wingers will waste no time in finding the dark side of this latest Obama Administration success. Well isn't that special?

U.S. announces arms control treaty with Russia
By the CNN Wire Staff

Washington (CNN) -- The United States and Russia have reached "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," President Obama said Friday.
The agreement cuts by about one-third "the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy," the president said. "It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign the agreement April 8 in Prague, Czech Republic, the president said.
The new treaty will consist of three tiers, the White House said.
"Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force," the White House said in a news release. "Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty."
"The Treaty's duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement," the news release added.
State Department spokesman Mike Toner said Wednesday that talks for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expired in December, were "almost at the finish line."
A Russian official, who has knowledge of the negotiations but was not authorized to speak on the record, described the agreement as significant for both sides. "The strategic part of our relationship is very important," he said, "and it affects the general way we interact with each other."
Negotiators have been working since April 2009 to wrap up the "follow-on" to the 1991 agreement. Talks were difficult, with disagreements over verification, including on-site inspection of missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

Cont’ed… http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/start.treaty/index.html?hpt=T1

 

The president said? Proof enough for me that it is nothing more than another one of BO's lies...just like free & open debate of healthcare, unemployment not rising above 8.5%, no lobbyist's in the WH, no pork in his bills, all bills will be posted on the internet for 5 days before being voted on, no tax increases on people earning under $250k and on and on and on....

 

Ahhh yes. Very similar to "uranium from Africa sought by Iraq". The instant recoil reaction to lies. I understand the feeling.
March on Fox boy. Go get your boss a donut. (smooch...smooch).

 

Good on him. Now if we could just dismantle some other cold war relics...troops and bases all over Europe. NATO. Etc.

 

Is there a single thing in my post that doesn't accurately reflect a lie BO has told?

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't know because I instantly consider anything you say to be, how do we say, nonsense? You know, the same feeling you said you get when you read..."the President said". I'd say the only thing you accurately reflect is an Obama hater. High checking account balances have been known to cause this problem with your kind.

 

Nice dodge. You know, tomc, you are exactly the type of person BO feasts on. You are so eaten up with jealousy, you hate your own life so much that you are easy pickings for BO to exploit. He can do or say anything he wants and as long as you believe you will be getting something for nothing or taking from someone who is better off than you. You will look past reality, look past his ever-growing list of lies as long as, in the end, you believe you will benefit.

 

Ok yeah, in an attempt to back up his out of control spending spree BO "created" jobs in Congressional districts that didn't exist. In plain English that even tomc can understand- HE MADE IT UP, HE LIED. He does this stuff knowing people like tomc would never question it or hold him accountible when the truth is exposed, but moen? What about you? Do you take issue with these lies BO is spreading?

 

So David you are saying that The President has lied and that this agreement with Russia has not happend? now if all he has said is as you put it lies then when he said he would bail out the auto industry that was a lie and didnt happen, nor did any other part of the stimulus bill happen (After all he said it did) his troop increase in Afghanistan etc etc etc? so if they did not happen whats your problem after all he will in reality have done exactly what you want
I suppose the Russians lied in support of his lies as well? a big conspiracy of lies in fact LOL (And you complain about Tom LOL)

 

Right wingers like you have no business talking about spending. The Republicans spent like drunken sailors and hid their spending off the books borrowed from China while the economy wasn't all that bad. Then the adults took over and made sure everything was on the books during the most severe economic downturn in a century and the total deficit skyrocketed. Now the Republicans want to rein in spending. Sorry, but the Republicans don’t get to have two Christmas’ while the rest of us get a lump of coal in our stockings.

 

My comments aren't so much about spending as they are about lying!

 

Fair enough. Name the last president that told the truth 100% of the time. Or perhaps you can tell me the acceptable percent of lying you are willing to live with and who was the last president that met that percentage?

 

David this is the third time now that I am asking you to tell me were you got your info about President Obama Promising that unemployment woudnt go over 8.5% I am begining to think that you are trying to avoid the question!! All I want is a link to the speach it was contained in, is that too much to ask??

 

Look at the bold text here. A certain member here likes to tell so many people how they have been duped and blindly follow then comes up with these words of wisdom with absolutely NO backing.

To me this is just the same. "He spoke therefore he lied". Who duped you into that mindset David - or did you form it on your own as you always claim?

 

Davey???Avoid???? Say it ain't so!

 

You know, you're exactly right. The mere fact that you would run to his defense when I mention the countless number of lies he has been caught in illustrates the "mindset" perfectly. Calling a liar a liar when he is exposed? No need to have anyone else dupe me into that, do I?

 

C'mon moen, you can do better than that...you sound a bit like tomc when you try to dodge the question and shift the discussion elsewhere. Ever heard "2 wrongs don't make a right"?
We're talking about this president & his lies.

 

You didn't ask a question but YOU DID dodge mine. Just face it, you have nothing. I've heard lots of cliches but they don't answer a direct question. Stop play dodgeball and tell us all, "Name the last president that told the truth 100% of the time. Or perhaps you can tell me the acceptable percent of lying you are willing to live with and who was the last president that met that percentage?" You have been dodging Steve's questions for who knows how long and everytime you are called on something you dodge answering it. If you're going to make statements you can't defend, don't make them in the first place or maybe think about the nonsense you're spewing for a change.

 

David, why are you avoiding my question?? Is it that he never actualy said what you are saying he said?? and after you pontificating about lying!! I have to say I am shocked!! Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong and link me to the quote, now is that realy too much to ask???

Did the President say he promised that Unemployment woudnt rise above 8.5% or did he not??

 

Because again, he can't! That is the problem with talking points that you don't understand. You can't actually defend what you are saying when someone calls you on what you are spewing...

Cantor and other Republicans say Obama promised stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent

With unemployment rates continuing to rise nearly five months after the economic stimulus plan was passed, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said the Obama-backed plan is a bust.

"Clearly the stimulus or so-called stimulus plan that spent almost $800 billion dollars has not worked," Cantor said in a PBS interview on July 8, 2009. "We were promised, the president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent. We're now over 9.5 percent, on our way to 10 percent."

The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.

We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise."

They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.

In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

Here's what Romer herself said in a July 2 interview on Fox: "None of us had a crystal ball back in December and January. I think almost every private forecaster realized that there were other things going on in the economy. It was worse than we anticipated. What the private forecasters are saying now is that they do anticipate that the economy will start growing again in the second half of the year, and that usually, then, employment and unemployment start to respond shortly after that. So I think that is a realistic expectation."

Biden also acknowledged the discrepancies in a July 5 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," Biden said. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. ... And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't — I'm not laying — it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in."

Stephanopoulos correctly noted that projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at the time were slightly less optimistic than the administration's. In January, the CBO projected the unemployment rate would climb to 8.3 percent in 2009 and peak at 9 percent in 2010. By February, the prediction was even higher — 9 percent in 2009 without the stimulus, and 7.7 to 8.5 percent with a stimulus.

In a White House news conference on June 8, 2009, Bernstein, the co-author of the February projections, said they were off because the fourth-quarter economic numbers weren't available at the time. When they were released a short time later, they revealed the economy was in more dire shape than economists realized.

Bernstein maintained in that June news conference that the stimulus is working, and that without it, the unemployment rate would be even worse.

The debate about the numbers comes from the inherent uncertainty in economic forecasting. How can you ever prove that if the unemployment rate gets to X percent, it would or would not have gotten a point or two higher if not for the stimulus? The same holds true for Republicans who say the rising unemployment rates prove the stimulus isn't working. Again, it's difficult to empirically prove whether they're right or wrong.

We're certainly not going to try here. What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.