Mirage Escorts
Toronto Escorts

Will John Bolton Be Confirmed?

Will John Bolton be Confirmed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • No

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Who is John Bolton

    Votes: 6 21.4%

  • Total voters
    28

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Will Bolton be confirmed?

Interesting news article from today:

By BARRY SCHWEID

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - John R. Bolton, a blunt diplomat whose nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is opposed by most Democrats and some in the foreign policy establishment, pledged Monday to help strengthen an institution that has occasionally "gone off track."

The Bush administration is committed to the success of the U.N., Bolton, the undersecretary of state, said on the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He told lawmakers that "we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy."

President Bush's selection of Bolton last month has stirred controversy because of his expressions of disdain for the United Nations and the blunt criticism he has leveled at North Korea and other countries and arms control treaties.

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, expressed his "grave concern" about Bolton's nomination, citing doubts about his "diplomatic temperament," his statements about the U.N. and international laws and treaties, and his leadership on weapons threats in places like North Korea and Iran.

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
"In my judgment," Biden said, "your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful."

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., however, called Bolton "the absolute perfect person for the job."

Bolton, 56, has served in the past three Republican administrations and been one of his party's strongest conservative voices on foreign affairs issues. He is now the administration's arms control chief.

Bolton was asked about the impact on American standing overseas of the flawed U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - displayed with much fanfare at the U.N. by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Unquestionably the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has led some people to question our goodwill and credibility," Bolton responded.

He noted that the U.N. has both strengths and weaknesses and said that if confirmed he would try to help forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, "which depends critically on American leadership." He said he aimed not just to promote American interests at the world body.

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
Bolton also took a critical tack, saying the U.N. General Assembly needs to focus more on human rights violators and international terrorism.

"We must work to galvanize the General Assembly to focus its attention on issues of true importance," he said.

"Sadly, there have been times when the General Assembly has gone off track," he added, citing the "abominable" resolution that equated Zionism with racism. It was repealed in 1991, with Bolton playing a leading role as a State Department official.

Sen. Richard Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, talked at length about the controversy over Bolton, saying opponents have criticized him as "abrasive, confrontational and insensitive."

"In the diplomatic world, neither bluntness nor rhetorical sensitivity is a virtue in itself," the Indiana Republican said. "There are times when blunt talk serves a policy purpose; other times it does not."

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had serious questions about Bolton's "commitment to the U.N."

"It is critical we have someone with respect for diplomacy, who believes in the United Nations despite its flaws," he said.

"I'm surprised the nominee wants the job he's been nominated for, given the many negative things he's had to say about the U.N.," Biden said.

Added Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who aired excerpts from a 1994 Bolton speech to demonstrate what she said is his disdain for the U.N.: "You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line."

Three protesters briefly interrupted the proceedings, standing up in succession with pink T-shirts and banners, one reading: "Diplomat for hire. No bully please."

Critics of Bolton cite his comment from that 1994 speech that it would not matter if the top 10 stories of the 39-floor U.N. headquarters building in New York were lost.


cont...

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Cont....
"There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner," responded Bolton.

Committee Democrats also have circulated a portion of a 2-year-old Senate Intelligence Committee report questioning whether Bolton pressured a State Department intelligence analyst who tried to tone down language in a Bolton speech about Cuba's biological weapons capabilities.

According to committee aides who spoke on condition of anonymity, among critics being contacted by committee Democrats is Christian P. Westermann, a department intelligence officer who has clashed with Bolton.

Committee Democrats questioned whether Bolton tried to have Westermann's job portfolio changed as a result. Bolton said he had "lost trust in him and thought he should work on other accounts."

"There is nothing there, there, and I would put it all out on the public record - all of it," Bolton said.

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also defended Bolton, saying he is a good negotiator and would be great in the U.N. environment despite perhaps lacking subtlety.

Republicans control the Foreign Relations Committee by 10-8, and Lugar hopes for a vote on the nomination Thursday. Most, if not all, panel Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination. Bolton's nomination is also opposed by scores of retired American diplomats, who signed a letter to Lugar urging it be rejected.

The outcome could depend on moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said the senator was leaning toward supporting Bolton "unless something surprising shows up" at the hearing.

"You said all the rights things in your opening statement," Chafee told Bolton during the session.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Peeping Tom said:
If Kerry is opposed then Bolton is an excellent choice.

BTW, there is a better article posted today at NRO.
I don't see it, please link, I looked there first and was hoping that Goldberg would write one.....

OTB
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
Here you are:

linky

BTW, what do you think about the mag's new online format? I don't like it so much, especially that they haven't gotten around to hosting text versions for the back issues. Fortunately, I figured out how to get the old versions and saved them to disk - it's all still there.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Peeping Tom said:
Here you are:

linky

BTW, what do you think about the mag's new online format? I don't like it so much, especially that they haven't gotten around to hosting text versions for the back issues. Fortunately, I figured out how to get the old versions and saved them to disk - it's all still there.

slaps palm to forehead

Indeed a better article.

I'm not thrilled with the format either.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I think the real genius of this nomination is that no one is better prepared to cut a deal with the UN and silence conservative misgivings than Bolton. The analogy is that no one could cut a deal with the USSR like Reagan could because he'd called them the evil empire, same with Bolton.

It's getting easy to find the Democrats on any issue, three steps behind the POTUS.....

LOL

OTB
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
That is correct: there is no better choice and even Annan admits the need for reform. Bolton has considerable experience in the field and in the UN. The critic utter their usual hullaballooh, that much can be expected, yet they offer no better alternatives (not that it is their choice in the first place). Having a conservative help the reform would greatly help the institution's tarnished image in the perception of its staunchest critics.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
onthebottom said:
I think the real genius of this nomination is that no one is better prepared to cut a deal with the UN and silence conservative misgivings than Bolton. The analogy is that no one could cut a deal with the USSR like Reagan could because he'd called them the evil empire, same with Bolton.

It's getting easy to find the Democrats on any issue, three steps behind the POTUS.....

LOL

OTB
I might add...only Nixon could go to China..
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Can't you find another board where your inane posts will be appreciated.

Oh by the way, the US just registered it's largest trade deficit in our history
last month.

We're moving toward moral, economic and social bankruptcy and you're
worried about the UN. I suggest we get our own house in order before
we start preaching to the rest of the world.

It takes decades to build credibility but only months to trash our good name.


Don
DQ, you sound a little cranky today... :D

Question(not just to you)?

For those that whine and cry about the trade deficit? What is the solution to it?
Import taxes? stop the flow of foreign goods? Bully the rest of the world in to providing US labor standards and pay? Buy American only?
Or? (Fill in the blank)
I mean this in a serious way. I am struggling with this issue. On hand we have been pushing for a "global economy" on the other hand we want to protect our own market.
HELP
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
langeweile said:
DQ, you sound a little cranky today... :D

Question(not just to you)?

For those that whine and cry about the trade deficit? What is the solution to it?
Import taxes? stop the flow of foreign goods? Bully the rest of the world in to providing US labor standards and pay? Buy American only?
Or? (Fill in the blank)
I mean this in a serious way. I am struggling with this issue. On hand we have been pushing for a "global economy" on the other hand we want to protect our own market.
HELP
I already gave my answer in another thread
“When the government has a budget deficit and private savings are low, national income accounting tells you that the country will run a trade deficit. Thus, if the Americans here are worried about their country`s trade deficit, they should be encouraging their government to (1) increase taxes, (2) reduce expenditures and (3) encourage private savings.”

Given that my answer resulted in a flame work with BBK and papasmerf calling me an “egomaniac”. I will just refer anyone interested for my justification to that post rather than getting involved in another long argument. https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=78959&page=12&pp=9
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
I think it's going to be a facts and circumstances issue.

Example: Clothing made in Mexaco is really assembled in Mexaco.
The fabric is made in the US. Clothing made in China is both made
and assembled in China.

Telemarketing in India vs. telemarketing in the US.
There are vast regions in this country that have high unemployment rates.
Especially in the rural areas. It is estimated the service in India
costs [as a ratio] $1.00. The same cost in the underemployed regions
in the US will cost $1.11. Is the savings significant since the money
received stays in the US and is circulated among small business owners.
What about customer service. Many people have told me they get irritated
when dealing with Indian service reps. What is the value of good customer
service to the US countries. Is it worth the savings?

It's these kinds of considerations that should discussed.

I'm not cranky - I'm tired of the same old, drab, irrational postings by OTB.
As long as we don't let the goverment mandate where to put those jobs it seems to make sense. Market forces ,will sometimes painfuli n the short term, should determine the flow of capital.In the long run we will be all better off.



Someone,

I am not sure how more savings and higher taxes will reduce the trade deficit. I am no economist, but common sense will tell me that higher taxes will have the opposite effect.
Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?
Higher taxes means companies will have to pay more to do business here, which means their product becomes less competitive. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

What am I missing here?
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Langeweile, you lived in a Soviet style country far too long and see the government as
the only evil.

The government has a roll, a huge role, in capitalist countries. It's not by mandate but
by policies influenced by lobbyists. You never addressed the specifics of my proposal.
The government influences business decisions by tax policies, purchasing power and
all kinds of other legislation from the lowest township and city all the way up to foreign
investments. When the government favors one segment of a society over another there
will be a bias in favor of the most influential. Question to you: true or false.

As an example, multinationals were given a huge gift when they were only taxed on
income from foreign operations when the $$$ was repatriated. This policy was found
to be in violation of agreed to regulations by the World Trade Organization, which the US
supported and was a major force in forming. The US now had to eliminate this business
support. But the multinationals weren't required to repatriate the dollars. So they lobbied
for a tax break to bring the funds back to the US. You'll love the deal they got. They
only have to pay 5.25% tax on the repatriated funds. The domestic corporation
pays 35% tax. That's right, only 5.25% tax on billions and billions of dollars. Tell me
the government is restricting business. Tell me with a strait face. Corporations rent the
lobbyists who charge a substantial fee for their services that the Corps are willing to pay
for incredible benefits.

You and I, langeweile, don't have that clout. So, we pay the full amount of the taxes
while Corps can cut their tax rate from 35% to 5.25%.

So, what's your issue about government mandating business practices? Give me an
example. Also, understand one thing loud and clear: THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS SUPPORTING THE CORPORATIONS, NOT PROTECT THE CITIZENS. It is biased
in favor of corporations and against the individuals Is that loud enough or should I put it in bold with large sized print.

Jeesh. He just doesn't get it. :rolleyes:
You and I don't create jobs.(wel I do create a few)
We can go ahead and charge higher taxes to corporations. What do you think is the net result of it? If the comapny can't compete and can't make any profits, they set up shop somehere else. What did we gain? A short term higher tax? vs. a long term loss of buisness? Doesn't sound to good to me.

Why do you think Mercedes bought Chrysler? Why does Toyota build their cars in the USA? Why does VW build there cars in Mexico?

Lower labor costs plus lower taxes.
Do we really want to follow Japan and Europe, by taxing corporations and people to death?
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Taxing too little is as bad as taxing too much.
It's a matter of balance.

I'm off this thread.
It keeps spinning around and around.
You want the most powerful military in the world
but don't want to pay for it. You want the best
schools in the world but don't want to pay for it.

Taxes are the cost of a civil society.
But the taxes can't be either too high or too low.

Enough. This is getting too rhetorical for me. :mad:
I don't disagree with most of what you say in this post.
Unfortunately power and money corrupt. I am not willing to give my leaders a "carte blanche" when it comes to raising and spending taxes.

You are correct that a goverment needs to raise taxes in orde to function. Even Thomas Jefferson came to see that.
The question is, where should goverment spend money on? Where should goverment be involved? Where do, we the people, draw the line? When is it up to you as an individual to take care of yourself?

I have no issue with supporting and helping the ones in need. As long we just "not hand out the fish, but teach them how to fish"..

Below is an interesting link on govermetn waste and pork programs. Control the pork and control the waste, if you still don't have enough money, maybe then there is time to raise taxes.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

Enjoy....yours truly..
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
langeweile said:
Someone,

I am not sure how more savings and higher taxes will reduce the trade deficit. I am no economist, but common sense will tell me that higher taxes will have the opposite effect.
Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?
Higher taxes means companies will have to pay more to do business here, which means their product becomes less competitive. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

What am I missing here?
It seems that like many others, you did not find the reasons I gave before convincing. Thus, I will try another approach.
When a government runs a deficit they have to borrow the difference between what they are spending and what they are collecting in taxes. Agreed? One source of borrowing is from its own residents. However, the savings of its residents also finance investments by private sector firms (e.g. when you forgo consumption to invest in new equipment for your business, you can’t lend the funds to government at the same time). When the savings rate is too low to finance both investments by domestic firms and the government deficit, either the government or private firms (in reality both) have to borrow from foreigners. Does that make sense? If you either increase taxes, savings or reduce government expenditures, this will reduce the need to borrow from foreigners.

Now how does this relate to the trade deficit. A trade deficit basically says that a country is consuming more than it is producing. The difference takes the form of the trade deficit. Are we agreed so far? For foreigners to be willing to supply goods that they are not receiving other goods in exchange for, they are effectively recieving IOUs from the country in question either in the from of buying a country's debt (e.g. bonds) or equity, (as a small business owner, I’m sure you know that on a firm’s books equity is a liability).

These two forces must balance out (it is called the Balance of Payments). If Americans increase their borrowing from the rest of the world, it places upward pressure on interest rates and the U.S. dollar (foreigners need U.S. dollars to buy the bonds and equity needed to finance the U.S debt). The higher U.S. dollar makes U.S. exports more expensive and imports cheaper. Thus, American exports go down and imports go up. Thus the trade deficit increases.

I honestly think that my algebraic explanation in the other thread was much easier to follow but clearly no one else agrees. :cool:

As far as your statement:

“Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?”

You are correct, higher taxes do reduce disposable income which reduce saving. However, it is not one for one. If your disposable income goes down by $1, you will typically reduce both your income and your savings. The total of the two reductions have to add up to $1. Thus, part of that $1 will take the form of reduced savings which as you say result in increasing the trade deficit. Part will result in reduced consumption that will result in reducing the trade deficit (don’t forget, a trade deficit says a country is consuming more than it produces so reducing consumption reduces the trade deficit). Moreover, the fact that the budget deficit has gone down by $1 means that the country has $1 less that they need to borrow from foreigners.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
DonQuixote said:
A breath of fresh air. Going beyond the rhetorical and simplistic
is a rare event on this board. We need more thoughtful considerations.
You're analysis and observations are much appreciated - by at least me. :)
Thanks
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
someone

It all seems to make sense in what you say.
Except that a trade deficit is not only a result of more consumption than production.
Part of it is that we (the USA) chose not to produce certain goods at home anymore or, in case of oil ,can't.
I hope that makes sense.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
A breath of fresh air. Going beyond the rhetorical and simplistic
is a rare event on this board. We need more thoughtful considerations.
You're analysis and observations are much appreciated - by at least me. :)
Simplistic, eh? OUCH! Thanks man! Not everybody has the luxury of a college degree.

Aside from that, most things are a lot simpler than you think.IMHO.We just tend to complicate them...
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
langeweile said:
someone

It all seems to make sense in what you say.
Except that a trade deficit is not only a result of more consumption than production.
Part of it is that we (the USA) chose not to produce certain goods at home anymore or, in case of oil ,can't.
I hope that makes sense.
Unless things have changed in the last few years (I have not check the numbers in some time), the U.S. is actually the biggest producer of oil in the world. However, they also consume more than anyone else. Thus, you might want to use a different example. :D

EDIT: I just checked and it seems that the U.S. is now only the second largest producer but it is a close second. http://www.theodora.com/wfb2003/rankings/oil_production_0.html
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
I thought I would come back and give you a better response to you post.
langeweile said:
someone

It all seems to make sense in what you say.
Except that a trade deficit is not only a result of more consumption than production.
Defining consumption broadly (i.e. goods consumed by Government, firms and consumers), I think it the trade balance has to be the difference between what a country produces and what it consumes. Production is going to be consumed by somebody (whether it is people within a country or foreigners in the form of exports). Otherwise, what would be the incentive to produce the stuff in the first place. Moreover, why would you buy imports if you were not going to consume them?

langeweile said:
Part of it is that we (the USA) chose not to produce certain goods at home anymore or, in case of oil ,can't.
I hope that makes sense.
But not running a trade deficit does not mean that you have to produce everything. As far as I know, Canada does not produce any oranges. We buy them from countries like the U.S. Despite that, we still run a trade surplus with the U.S. We pay for our oranges (and other imports) by selling Americans other products like oil.
 
Toronto Escorts