Well Barry HOPES to verify. Besides, he needs a win in foreign policy. So far he's been batting zero.

Lets keep this pile of crap off the law books. The last thing we need is Russia telling us what to do.

A man can describe his penis without breaking down into tears, Rick. You're not a man.

Countering those arguments – though unlikely to appease some Republicans – Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at the White House on Thursday that the treaty "in no way limits anything we want or have in mind on missile defense."

Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Gates' assertion, saying the New START treaty has "no prohibitions" to America's ability to move forward on missile defense.

"We need START and we need it badly," Cartwright said.

and

Former President George H.W. Bush came out Wednesday in support of the arms-control treaty with Russia known as New START, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under former President George W. Bush, backed the pact on Tuesday.

and

"Previous nuclear arms control treaties were approved by massive bipartisan margins: 93-6 in 1992 for the START I treaty signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush; 87-4 in 1996 for START II, also signed by George H.W. Bush; and 95-0 in 2003 for the Moscow Treaty signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

But now we live in the age of Senate Republican Stupid Time.

Even though a CNN poll shows that 73% of Americans want New START to be ratified, Senator Jon Kyl and other equally idiotic G.O.P. colleages are willing to put our national security at risk in an attempt to score political points.

The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl. After months of negotiations with the White House, he has decided to try to block the lame-duck Senate from ratifying the New Start arms control treaty.

The treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

The Republicans like to claim that they are the party of national security. We can only hope that other senators in the party will decide that the nation’s security interests must trump political maneuvering.

The treaty, the first with Russia in a decade, calls for both sides to reduce their deployed warheads modestly to 1,550 from 2,200. More important, it would restore “verification,” inspections and other exchanges of information about the American and Russian arsenals.

If the treaty founders, it would also do huge damage to American credibility just as Mr. Obama is making progress rallying many countries — including Russia — to press Iran to curb its illicit nuclear program.

Hmmmm. I thought the Republican party line after the midterm elections was "jobs, jobs, jobs." I don't think voters expected to get "nuclear proliferation, nuclear proliferation, nuclear proliferation.""

Gambling with America's security in order to help Rush Limbaugh's quest to make Obama fail.

And then you have the balls to invoke Ronald Reagan. lol - you clowns are amusing in your stupidity.

Someone took another galoob in aisle three.

True enough. Obama's easily twice the president Ronnie Raygun ever was.

One thing you can say for Reagan - he was a trendsetter:

Reagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure.

Of course, if you are black and a Democrat increasing the national debt is a bad thing. If you're a white anglo-saxon Protestant - you're a god.

Hey!!!! Who let Lee Ward back in?

This treaty is a pile of hot steaming crap. It effectively shuts down the missile defense systems and other items the Russians did not like. We all know how much the commies in this country hated the idea that Ronald Reagan decided to ask for this and got it.

"Of course, if you are black and a Democrat increasing the national debt is a bad thing. If you're a white anglo-saxon Protestant - you're a god."

^Witness the life of a race baiting America hating liberal if you must.^

He's no Reagan, nor is he a President.

Woop,

Reagan's tax policies lead to a tripling of government revenues.

The deficit increase was due to out of control spending lead by the Dem controlled congress.

And BTW, obama thought he was a god before he borrowed the nation into poverty for the next generation or two.

Reagan's tax policies did not result in a tripling of government revenues. That's just more Fox News Republican propaganda.

First, while overall revenues were up, the biggest part of that came from increased Social Security taxes. These were raised, not lowered, during Reagan's term in response to the Greenspan Commission's recommendations to fix Social Security for baby boom retirements. About $190 billion of the nearly $300 billion increase in overall annual revenues came from this tax increase on wage and salary income. (All dollar figures are adjusted to 2010 price levels.)

Secondly, while corporate income tax revenues did increase 24
percent, that was skewed by two factors: In 1981, the country was in a recession that stemmed from the Volcker Fed's harsh clamp-down on the money supply to end inflation. And 1989 was a particularly high year compared to the three years before it or the three years after it.

The 1989 revenues were still 8 percent below the levels hit in 1977-1979. Those highs were not reached again until 1994. In the meantime, below-trend corporate tax revenues helped contribute to the doubling of the national debt in eight years.

Individual income taxes make a more plausible story. These revenues increased 14 percent over eight years and were not skewed by high or low years as much as corporate taxes. The problem with using income tax revenues as evidence of self-funding tax cuts is that revenues rise over every decade or presidential term regardless of tax rates.

Revenues rose 21 percent in four years under Carter, 59 percent during Clinton's eight years and 53 percent for the Kennedy-Johnson years, when the top marginal rate was 70 percent. They even grew 8 percent during the Eisenhower administration with a 90 percent top rate.

Such revenue increases even when taxes were high, as in the 1950s and 1960s, or following tax increases as in the 1990s, belie the argument that high tax rates reduce revenues and low tax rates increase them.

Look at the experience of the last 10 years of the Bush tax cuts. We fell into the deepest recession in a century.

And Glenn Beck is a god, at least in his mind. So is Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich -- in their minds. Comes with the territory, I guess. GW Bush was a conduit for God or so he thought.

You cannot examine Reagan's tax cuts in isolation from the rest of his economic policy.

The fact is that real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carteryears and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after hispresidency.

In fact the only presidency post Truman that had better real economic growth was Kennedy and he cut taxes too.

Reagan's term started out with a severe recession (and the S&L crisis), so of course the recovery from that recession resulted in substantial growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

Reagan worshipers want you to believe it was Reagan's magic that did it. 4 years later it was G Bush Sr who coined to term "voodoo economics" because both sides, Republican and Democrat, knew Reagan's magic was a myth.

The recession was nearly a year old before President Ronald Reagan stated on October 18, 1981, that the economy was in a "slight recession".[21]

The "Reagan recession,"[22][23][24] coupled with budget cuts (which were enacted in 1981 but began to take effect in 1982), led many voters to believe that Reagan was insensitive to the needs of average citizens.[25][26][27] In January 1983, Reagan's popularity rating fell to 35%—approaching levels experienced by Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter at their most unpopular.[28][29][30] Although his approval rating did not fall as low as Nixon's during the Watergate scandal, Reagan's reelection seemed unlikely.[31][32][33][34][35]

Pressured to counteract the increased deficit caused by the recession, Reagan agreed to a corporate tax increase in 1982. However, he refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 instituted a three-year, $100 billion tax hike—the largest tax increase since World War II.[36]

The 1982 mid-term Congressional elections were largely viewed as a referendum on Reagan and his economic policies. The election results proved to be a setback for Reagan and the Republicans. The Democrats gained 26 House seats, which at the time was the most for the party in any election since the "Watergate year" of 1974.[37][38][39][40][41][42] However, the net balance of power in the Senate was unchanged.

See that? Reagan's popularity rating reached levels much lower that Obama's has. And there was a mid-term election, just like the one we just had, where the opposition party scored huge gains.

Fox News doesn't give you bozos this historical context in which to judge Obama fairly.

Of course, Obama isn't a white anglo-saxon protestant either. Everyone knows he's a Muslim born in Kenya, right?

This is why the majority of Americans see Tea Partiers as racist bigots. History constant repeats itself, and the only thing different now as compared ot 2 years in on Reagan's term is Obama's skin color --- and just look at what his skin color does to people's view of the man.

Why does Wizbang tolerate the pathological lying and imploding spewing of the content of the black holes of hatred that do them for souls of such self-and-own-culture-loathing obscenities as "Woop dere it is?"

Surely no-one with his finger on the Wizbang Button believes there is other than exposure to a manifestation of envy and of evil to be had from such as "Woop dere it is's" bigoted and racist serial projectile vomitings?

Poor baby. Somebody change Brian's diaper. In his rage to prove right wingnuts aren't haters he's soiled himself.

The topic is Ronald Reagan and Brack Obama. Why don't you go back to Free Republic where you're free to hate Muslims, Gays, Liberals, anyone non-white, etc....