Has Obama done more than the Clinton administration? The article you linked to is based on statistics provided by the Census Bureau. Control of the Census Bureau was moved to the White House as soon as Obama was inaugurated. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. You sound like a govt. employee. Are you suggesting that the sole reason for the increase in the rate of decrease is attributable to the retirement of Baby Boomers? What impact has Fed quantitative easing policy had on the middle class during the Obama administration? What impact has America's production of oil and gas, and cheap energy, through fracking had on the middle class status during the Obama administration? What has been the impact in California of Obama administration policies on the size of the state's middle class?
I would have to say yes, as the decline hovered around 2% during the Clinton administration, while four of Obama's first five years were well below that. Since the Census Bureau has always been controlled by the President, with a Director appointed by the President ever since it became a permanent position in 1902, would your statement above be a "lie" or a "damn lie"? Nothing is ever the "sole reason" in a complex system such as our economy, but it seems too coincidental that labor participation rate increased just as baby boomers started turning 20 and then declined as soon as they started turning 55. When looking at all of the data back to 1948, can you suggest anything else that explains both?
What impact has the Fed's policy of Quantitative Easing had on the success Obama has allegedly had in your opinion? What impact has cheap energy had on the US economy during the Obama years? What impact has Obama's policies had on the middle class in California? Appointment of the Director of the Census Bureau doesn't provide direct control over, and access to, all aspects of the data collection performed on a confidential basis by the agency. Moving the Census Bureau into the White House chain of command provides direct control, and access to, confidential data used for the allocation of power and funding in deeply divided country. By moving the Census Bureau into the White House chain of command the Census Bureau becomes subordinate to the White House administrative apparatus. What other reason would Obama have to move the Census Bureau operation into the White House chain of command? Thank you for the admission. What is the size of the Millennial Generation and when did they enter the labor force? What is the labor force participation rate of the Millennial Generation? - - - Updated - - - Is Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran akin to a Potemkin Village?
Who knows? Forget what you may have heard on Fox News, the Director of the Census Bureau has always reported to the president thru the Secretary of Commerce, and Obama did nothing to change that. Yes, Obama had white house staff working with the Director, just as other presidents have in previous census years. What does that matter when birth rates for the Millennial Generation were no different than for Generation X before them, while birth rates for the Baby Boomers were nearly 2/3rds higher. Labor force participation is simply returning to the 60% we saw during the two decades following WWII.
I take it you're not an analyst. I don't have a TV. Beware of stereotypes. Why did Obama move the Census Bureau into the direct chain of White House command instead of leaving it outside of the that chain of command? Media Matters is no more legitimate than Fox News. It's a special interest lobby group funded by George Soros the convicted felon. I simply asked you a question that you apparently can't answer. If you are able to answer the question I would welcome you doing so now. I'm going to ask you another question. What do you think of Obama's temporary understanding with Iran announced today? I'm referring to the understanding which Iran claims Obama is misinterpreting?
Why is that relevant? Are you an analyst? But you do have the Internet. Fox News is the only source that hasn't given up on this lie. You keep making this claim but you don't back it up. The White House stated clearly that the Director of the Census Bureau reports to the Commerce secretary. White House involvement was no different than it had been in previous censuses. Can't dispute the message so you attack the messenger? Are you calling former census directors Kenneth Prewitt, Vincent Barabba, and Barbara Bryant liars? If you want labor force participate rates for the Millennial Generation, or any other generation for that matter, you can look it up yourself here: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm Now, maybe you can explain how this matters. I'll address that when I've had time to read about it.
Since uranium must be >90% enriched to be considered weapons grade, I think any deal limiting them to only 3.67% uranium enrichment and barring heavy water reactors gives them the power plants they claim to desire while preventing them from making any bombs. You'll need to be more specific. What statement by Obama does Iran dispute?
Why is the agreement temporary? Why does the Agreement permits Iran to retain about ten tons of enriched unranium on Iranaian soil? Why does the agreement permit Iran to develop ICBMs? The Agreement is an arms control treaty which must be approved by at least 67 votes of Senators. It seems that the agreement abandons Obama's stated objective of terminating Iranian nuclear enrichment, and changes the break out period from about 3 months to 12 months for a temporary period of ten years. At the end of ten years Iran will become a nuclear weapons state without further fear of sanctions.
What do you think is the optimal duration for such an agreement? Because low enriched uranium is needed to run nuclear power plants. Since it will all be less than 3.67% enriched, it is not weapons grade. Because the agreement is about nuclear weapons, not their delivery systems. US sanctions related to ballistic missiles remain in place. It's only a treaty if we want it to be legally binding. Without a Senate vote, it is still an executive agreement and violating it would free Iran to continue enriching uranium. The agreement allows inspectors access to Iran for the next 25 years, a lifetime in politics, and we're free to negotiate a new agreement after that. The US and EU are free to re-impose sanctions any time Iran restarts its nuclear weapons program.
it's easy to see why: Imagine if Bush could have been elected to a third term = we would have had Armageddon!
You mean because Bush would have also pulled an Obama and illegally used his pen and his phone to bypass the Legislative Branch? Yeah . . . that is a very bad thing to do.
Best case: Iran acquires nuclear weapons in ten years. Worst case: Iran acquires nuclear weapons in one year.
Best case: Iran abides by the agreement and in ten years we negotiate a new agreement. Worst case: We bomb Iran and the Middle East ends up looking like 1940's Europe.
Hope and blind faith are not a substitute for policy. You are making a straw man type of argument which ignores reality. America isn't going to attack Iran under any set of circumstances. Americans are tired of war. A better alternative would be to maintain sanctions and continue to negotiate.
That's why we need an agreement supported by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Right, because former UN Ambassador John Bolton isn't a foreign policy adviser to many Republican presidential candidates.
China, Russia, France, the UK, and Germany do not share America's national interest. Each has its own national interest. Of the participants each sees economic gain through trade with Iran after the removal of sanctions. America isn't going to be trading with Iran even after the removal of sanctions. US companies that attempt to do so will face boycotts. More importantly, only the US is the target of Iran's ICBM program which will be unaffected by the proposed treaty. The proposed treaty allows Iran's ICBM program to advance without restraint. Why does Iran need to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? America isn't going to war against anyone. America's wars always end in an American defeat. It doesn't make sense for America to fight anyone. It's best to leave the sanctions in place and to continue negotiations. The proposed treaty is not in America's national interest. It is only designed to serve Obama's desire to claim a legacy in foreign policy. But no legacy based on hope and blind faith survives the test of geopolitical reality. Human nature is a very limited universe, and has not changed since the inception of the Obama presidency. Iran forced Obama to drop his stated objective of stopping Iranian enrichment of uranium. Once that was accomplished the Iranians saw that Obama wanted a treaty more than they did, so they milked him like a cow.
The agreement does nothing to remove existing sanctions on Iran over the development of ballistic missiles. Iran is prevented from enriching uranium beyond 3.67%, far from the 90% needed for weapons. It also removes all of the newer centrifuges that can produce 90% enrichment. In other words, Obama got what he wanted, stopping their nuclear weapons program.
Iran has successfully developed ICBMs despite the existing sanctions. America is the only possible target. Obama's negotiations with Iran over the proposed treaty were his last effective opportunity to extract a concession from Iran to abandon it's ability to hold targets in the Western Hemisphere at risk. Since Obama failed to take that opportunity to make the lives of American citizens safer Iran's ICBMs will become more sophisticated at the same time Obama has abandoned his anti-ballistic missile program through a series of poor decisions. Obama's objective was to end the Iranian nuclear enrichment program completely. He failed to achieve this objective. Obama's proposed treaty allows Iran to continue enriching uranium as you admit. And Iran will have the right to develop more advanced centrifuges without restraint. Moreover, Iran has about ten tons of enriched uranium stockpiled that will not be leaving the country. This stockpile can be processed into weapons grade unranium and produce several nuclear bombs. The proposed treaty places a very greatly internationally weakened Obama as gaurantor of Iranian trustworthyness.
Iran may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They know that any attack on the US or its allies would result in the wholesale destruction of their country. The Soviet Union was far more capable of attacking us than Iran ever will be, and yet they never did. Obama's primary objective was to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb, and on that he succeeded. They can only enrich uranium to 3.67% for the next 15 years. Iran cannot develop any new enrichment facilities for the next 15 years. Iran will be limited to about half a ton of low enriched uranium, 97% of their current stockpile, for the next 15 years. This stockpile would take them a year to process into weapons grade material versus the 2 to 3 months today. Obama is not the only person enforcing this treaty, or have you forgotten about China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany? The proposed treaty puts IAEA inspectors in Iran for the next 20 to 25 years, long enough to impose new sanctions if Iran restarts its nuclear program after the existing agreement ends. Before you make any more claims about what Iran can do under the proposed treaty, you might want to do a little more research.
Power in Iran is shared by a number of factions. Unfortunately, each of these factions subscribes to the idea that the Shiite Messiah, the Mahdi, will return through an apocalypse in order to usher in a reign of justice before the Day of Judgment. The only difference among these factions is that of timing. A nuclear attack on the US would trigger the Apocalypse and appearance of the Mahdi. The Soviet paradise could only be achieved in the Historical Dialectical Process which would happen in the affairs of humanity. The dialectic did not depend on god, it was a matter of flesh and blood in a kingdom of this earth. The historic dialectic would be destroyed by a nuclear second strike. Thus, the apocalypse was to be avoided at all costs. This fact distinguishes nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviets and in the hands of the Shiites. Besides, the Soviets and Americans placed inspection teams on each others military bases. There is no commitment from Iran to allow inspectors on their military bases. Obama has created circumstances which legitimate Iran's ascension as a nuclear weapons state after a brief hiatus. In doing so Obama's proposed treaty will trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. The theocrats have a stockpile of uranium enriched to the 20% level now. This can easily be converted to weapons grade uranium. You assume we know about all of their facilities. Unfortunately, the IAEA has stated that Iran has failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under prior commitments. You also assume Iran won't cheat. You also assume that Iran's military installations will be subject to inspection and verification under Obama's proposed arms control treaty. Moreover, Iran will continue research and development of new advanced centrifuges much more efficient than the older models we hope they will take out of operation. Best case scenario from your standpoint is that Iran's nuclear breakout is delayed by nine months. If Iran breaks out there will be no reimposition of sanctions. The world will be struck with Iran as a nuclear weapons state, and Iran's neighbors will seek the same status. Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany are not threatened by Iran. Have you forgotten Iran has a "Death to America Day" each year? Iran's ICBMs have only one target...the USA. Besides, each of the other powers have different interests from the USA. Russia is Iran's defender at the UN, and wants to sell weapons and other goods to the Iranians. China and Iran are friends because China want's Iran's oil and gas. That's why China is building a new pipeline across Central Asia. China also wants the Straits of Hormuz to remain open. Britain, France and Germany each want a piece of the lucrative Iranian market. Their primary interests are commercial. Inspection and verification are only useful if there is full cooperation. The IAEA has stated that Iran is not complying with its inspection and verification obligations previously assumed. Once removed, international or even EU sanctions will never be reimposed. American influence on the world is waning. We can see that in the failure of the US to persuade its European allies from joining China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank despite Obama's pleas that they not do so. America stands alone. Oh please, don't get petty with me. We've been having such a nice conversation until this point. Don't spoil it.
While a preemptive strike on Iran would inflame anti-US sentiment in the region, a nuclear attack on the US would justify a retaliatory strike destroying Iran while the rest of the Middle East stands silent. Remember what happened in Afghanistan? It would be hard for the Mahdi to arise from a country that doesn't exist anymore. The proposed agreement would give IAEA inspectors authority to investigate suspicious sites or alleged facilities anywhere in the country, not just at their military bases. The agreement gives Iran the opportunity to demonstrate within next 15 years that peaceful nuclear power is their only objective. Any steps beyond that toward the production of weapons grade uranium, now or any time in the future, would trigger new sanctions. Which they would give up with this agreement. Until now there has been no carrot to go with the stick of sanctions imposed on Iran. If these assumptions prove wrong, then by violating the agreement Iran will have given us the justification we need for a military strike. And if we are no longer the biggest kid on the block, acting unilaterally is not in our best interest. Then be more careful about what you claim the proposed treaty does or does not do. The parameters of the proposed agreement are very specific about what it will or will not allow.
America isn't going to attack Iran because either Iran will not preemptively attack the US, or if it does Iran will do so in a way which prevents the US from being able to directly attribute the attack to Iran. Past as prologue: "...All of the measures described above apply only to Irans declared nuclear activities, undertaken as part of its regular nuclear energy program. Tehrans negotiating partners, the IAEA, and the world are also concerned about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program. The evidence, they argue, suggests that Iran has carried out weaponization-related activities, some of which, the IAEA believes, may be ongoing. Trying to settle the question, the IAEA requested that it be permitted to visit the military site Parchin, not normally subject to the Agencys authority. Tehran granted access to inspectors in 2005. But the visit didn't satisfy the IAEA, which has been requesting a visit to areas of Parchin that its inspectors didnt see before. Iran argues that the IAEA is not entitled to access the facility, given that its a conventional military complex where sensitive yet non-nuclear-related activities are carried out...." ...http://thebulletin.org/how-much-monitoring-iranian-nuclear-facilities-enough7923 Iran has the opportunity to become a nuclear weapons state within one year in violation of the proposed treaty according to Obama. Under no circumstances will China or Russia permit imposition of new sanctions. China and Russia are now openly hostile to the United States. They will not accommodate America by reimposing sanctions on their Iranian friends. America is less powerful and influential now than it was prior to 2009. That's not true. The enriched uranium will remain on Iranian soil in Iranian possession. America won't act militarily under any set of circumstances. America is defeated every time it acts militarily. America is a loser militarily. Why seek another military defeat? You have just admitted a lack of civility. Shame on you. If you want to continue our discussion it is necessary for you to act with total courtesy and civility because our viewpoints are anathema to each other. The hostility between our views makes it all too easy to slip into discourtesy which would have the effect of terminating our discourse.
I'm sure Afghanistan and Iraq would be glad to know that. And if Iran doesn't satisfy the IAEA this time, they won't get relief from sanctions, will they? Here's a news flash for you. We weren't that influential with Russia and China before 2009 either. They've been hindering sanctions against Iran for years, but we don't exactly need their permission to impose our own sanctions, just as we did in 1979 and 1995. The framework states that Iran will reduce its stockpile of uranium to 300 kg of 3.67% LEU. If it remains on Iranian soil in Iranian possession, then they haven't reduced their stockpile, have they? Again, recent history disproves your argument. America may seem divided and powerless, like siblings that never seem to get along, but look what happens when it is attacked. Civility is good, but proper debate requires intellectual honesty first. If you want total courtesy and civility from me, then all I ask is that you refrain from misrepresenting what the agreement clearly states.
Afghanistan and Iraq represent two wars in which America was defeated. Money can't buy heart and willpower. The entire world knows America has a glass jaw. The Iranian position is that all of the nuclear oriented sanctions end immediately upon execution of a final agreement by June 30, 2015. That is the bottom line. America will have to give up all of its leverage up front before Iran is required to perform under the proposed treaty. If Obama won't agree to that condition there will be no treaty. Relations with Russia were better before Obama's Russian Reset. Since then relations have clearly deteriorated. Today Russian strategic bombers approach the coast of California, and circle Guam. They didn't do that between 1989 and 2009. Relations with China have deteriorated since Obama announced his Pivot to Asia. The only thing he accomplished was to make the Chinese more belligerent. The Chinese are essentially seizing control of the South China Sea and the East China Sea. And they will continue to run interference with for Iran by preventing reimposition of international sanctions through the United Nations. Similarly the EU won't reimpose sanctions because there's too much money to be made trading with Iran. American sanctions alone are insufficient to pressure the Iranians because the US and Iran aren't doing business and won't be doing business in any appreciable degree. One of Iran's conditions for signing the proposed treaty is that it's stockpile remain on Iranian soil. The US will have to agree to that as part of a final treaty. After 9/11 the US began two wars and lost them both. What you're saying is that civility and courtesy are conditional. I don't agree. Harsh disagreement requires civility and personal courtesy. Otherwise rancor will intrude to preclude further discussion. Rancor terminates discourse.
