Have Senate Republicans reached a new low?

I'm all for the spirit of this thing....no one should be discriminated against for a disability....

But what's the point of this "non-binding" treaty? Why?

 

SO that other countries will be as progressive as the US has been in things like ADA access etc - not signing on to it because Rick Santorum is afraid of black helicopters is profoundly stupid.

 

Yeah, not at all suggesting that the arguments against not signing are good ones....

so the idea is to use the treaty as kind of a showcase for the ADA model around the world? Makes sense.

 

Is there a country in the world that is ahead of the US in rights for the disabled (outside the scope of nationalized healthcare)? It would seem to me that it'd put a lot of demands on third world countries to improve things, and not ask much from the Americans. But, a lot of other countries are already on board anyway, so I don't know if it matters much if we join.

 

I don't know what this is about, I'm not democrat or republican.

All I came here to dispute is this one line "despite assurances it wouldn’t affect U.S. sovereignty"

WTF is that? How are they going to assure anything? Anytime I see any kind of politician or political argument with the word assurances I smell lies and bullsh/t

In case you didn't know, when the government wanted to start up this thing called 'social security' there was a huge argument about it because too many people were afraid their money would get squandered away. But they 'assured' everyone that the above scenario wouldn't and couldn't happen because they would throw allll that money in a vault that couldn't be used to make sure it wouldn't happened. So now we have this social security thing, however as the next generation of politics began the argument was raised 'Look we have all this money laying in a vault that we can use to invest.. we can make money off all this money! Lets do it'

Well damn that assurance didn't last too long- long story short they took the money- put it in bad investments and here we are having to pay for everyones social security with our taxes

TL;DR? summary - Raise your eyebrows and and facepalm yourself- than ask questions towards anyone that throws out the word 'assurance' in politics

Rules are always about change- usually a little at a time until an agenda is fulfilled

 

Umm, by making it non-binding and thus having zero effect on US law.

You need to re-learn your history of Social Security and how it works.

Better TL;DR: You're completely misinformed.

 

That's not what happened with Social Security.

 

I'm sure they will get lower.

 

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYH7_GzP4Tg?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYH7_GzP4Tg?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

As far as social security- that money was definitely supposed to be set in a secure place and not be used to gamble with. That was an issue of worry.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JYVqzRvVapY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"I've not yet begun to defile myself"

Doc Rep Holiday

Rocket River

 

And it was. The only place SS money has been put is into US Treasury securities, providing a stable return to the SS fund.

 

Thank you for stating a publicly known and plainly obvious but frustratingly misunderstood fact.

 

I'm not a fan of the ADA. Giving incentives for compliance I can kind of agree with, but not punishing them if they don't.

 

OK, I completely agree with you that most words that come out of politicians' mouths is complete, utter BS.

Well, a lot of what you have above isn't accurate at all.

Far from "squandering" American's money, SS has been the single most successful social program in this country's history. The program ran surpluses every year for decades until very recently and the trust fund is one of the components of the national debt, drawing interest.

The problem was all of the other things we did which spent that money. Tax cuts for the wealthy (from both Reagan and Bush), tax burdens shifting from wealthy to middle class taxpayers (as happened under Reagan), huge spending sprees including Star Wars (which, to Reagan's credit, was the straw that broke the USSR's back), Medicare Part D, and two highly expensive wars. All of this is in addition to the growing debt service, which is a HUGE component of government spending that simply wasn't there before Reagan.

They put it in bad investments all right, look at that list above.

Sorry, this treaty will not reduce America's sovereignty a bit. It has nothing to do with "assurances," it has to do with the way the UN and America work.

 

It wasn't "gambled," it was spent. I gave you a pretty good list of the big ticket items.

 

From working in architecture where one my jobs is ADA compliance I can tell you without punishments very few would comply.

 

It's so unfortunate that consideration of others is near non-existent in this world without incentive.