The best lame-duck session EVAH!

[waterj2]

@Magiver

No idea.

According to Fred Kaplan, we have plans calling for “a few dozen”:

There is nothing in the treaty that places any limits on the U.S. missile-defense program. (And several generals, many with a vested interest in the program, have so testified before the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees.)
Yes, the treaty’s preamble notes that there is a relationship between strategic defense and strategic offense. This is Arms Control 101. If both sides drastically reduce their offensive nuclear weapons, while one side greatly builds up its defensive weapons, then that side could (theoretically) launch a disarming first strike and, moments later, shoot down what’s left of the other side’s missiles as they’re launched in retaliation. The essence of nuclear deterrence—and strategic stability—is to maintain the ability to retaliate in kind to a first strike. Very small offensive forces, combined with very large defensive forces, erode deterrence and create a “destabilizing” situation.
However, we are far from this state of affairs. New START leaves each side with 1,550 nuclear warheads; the Pentagon’s missile-defense program envisions a few dozen anti-missile interceptors.

Not that it matters, as Secretary Gates put it in his testimony:

“The Russians have hated missile defense ever since the strategic arms talks began, in 1969….because we can afford it and they can’t. And we’re going to be able to build a good one…and they probably aren’t. And they don’t want to devote the resources to it, so they try and stop us from doing it… This treaty doesn’t accomplish that for them. There are no limits on us.”

[elucidator]

So America has an impenetrable shield, and a couple thousand thermonukes we can drop on anybody who pisses us off, and they can’t hit back? How is that be a problem to anybody? Whatsamatta, they don’t trust us?

[godix]

@Marley23

There was no ‘we won, STFU’ attitude.

"Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

. . .

With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4.

. . .

Still, other Democrats echoed the sentiment. As he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was asked about Republican complaints that Democrats aren’t listening to what their GOP colleagues have to say. “We’re responding to the American people,” he said. “The American people didn’t listen to them too well during the election.”

source

[godix]

Note that this was a just few days after Obama took office. The health care debate hadn’t started, nor threatening fillibusters, blocking nominations, or any of that stuff. One of Obama’s first acts in office was to tell the Republican party to STFU because he won and didn’t need their input. Republicans did EXACTLY what Obama wanted them to, they didn’t take part in his policies, and two years later Democrats are now whining that they got what they wanted.

[Marley23]

@godix

"Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

Unfortunately this falls apart once you add context. It’s the stuff you deleted for the second ellipsis.

The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.

Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”

So here’s my expanded version of the exchange, back in the original order:

Kyl: We want more more tax cuts in the bill. Like Senator McCain, we think your plan is welfare.
Obama: And I won the election. That tells you what the voters thought of his argument.

So that’s not a “STFU” attitude. It’s a response to an individual issue, and it’s Obama pointing out that voters did not accept the Republicans’ argument about the amount of tax cuts in the stimulus package. It’s not “I won so you have to do what we say.”

[godix]

@Marley23

Unfortunately this falls apart once you add context. It’s the stuff you deleted for the second ellipsis.
So here’s my expanded version of the exchange, back in the original order:

Kyl: We want more more tax cuts in the bill. Like Senator McCain, we think your plan is welfare.
Obama: And I won the election. That tells you what the voters thought of his argument.

So that’s not a “STFU” attitude. It’s a response to an individual issue, and it’s Obama pointing out that voters did not accept the Republicans’ argument about the amount of tax cuts in the stimulus package. It’s not “I won so you have to do what we say.”

In context, the basic gist goes

Republicans - We’re concerned about the balance between spending and tax cuts. We’re talking to you to see if there’s room for negotiation.

Obama - I won. I don’t need to pay any attention to you. And other Democrat leaders will say the same thing.

Two years later:

Democrats - WAH! Those mean old Republicans won’t work with us…

Voters - Whatever. We don’t like the stimulus Democrats passed. We do like tax cuts Obama told Republicans to STFU about. We’re gonna go vote now…

The really astounding thing is that Obama and Democrats did this despite that type of attitude is exactly why they won in 06 and 08. Republicans were unbelievably arrogant, and got whooped for it. In response, Democrats decided to be unbelievably arrogant, and got whooped for it.

[elucidator]

And if the Democrats hadn’t forced the Pubbies to filibuster by trying to pass homosexual atheist legislation, they wouldn’t have broken all records for it.

[Marley23]

@godix

Republicans - We’re concerned about the balance between spending and tax cuts. We’re talking to you to see if there’s room for negotiation.

Obama - I won. I don’t need to pay any attention to you.

If Obama and the Democrats didn’t pay any attention, why did the law include $288 billion in tax incentives? Why were billions in tax incentives added to the bill during debate. And of course, the bills receive almost no Republican support despite the changes. How does that reconcile with your purported “we won, STFU?”