Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 1:50:43 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1582380

At least FLA's Greene seems somewhat normal although he sounds like a piece of work. With SC's Greene, they are questioning his mental competence. And the only reason they think SC's Greene won his primary was because his name came first on the ballot. How's that for democracy in action? Yeah that one is funny. If I had known it was this simple I would have run. Just be sure to change your last name to a name that starts with 'A'. Why take any chances? 'Aames' might be good.

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 1:51:54 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1582380

why do dems congressmen beat up people on the street, first Moran not this human piece of shit. breitbart.tv

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 2:55:24 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1582380

* He seemed a little reluctant to admit it, but Florida Senate hopeful Marco Rubio (R) told CNBC's Larry Kudlow that he still supports coastal oil drilling. Kudlow summed the segment up at the end: "Mr. Crist is going to run against offshore drilling, and you are going to run in favor of it, do I have that right?"

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 3:27:01 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1582380

A NEW HOPE FOR AFGHANISTAN?.... Reading the front-page story in the New York Times today, one can almost hear the theme song to "The Beverly Hillbillies" in the background. Instead of a poor mountaineer named Jed, we have a poor mountainous country named Afghanistan. Instead of bubbling crude in the ground that could bring vast wealth and change the fortunes of a struggling family, we're apparently finding untapped mineral deposits that could bring vast wealth and change the fortunes of a struggling country. The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials. The previously unknown deposits -- including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium -- are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys. Under the circumstances, the timing of a story like this can and should raise suspicions. The military conflict is progressing slowly, if at all, and U.S. and Afghan officials are losing confidence in one another. As a growing number of observers, here and around the world, raise questions anew about whether Afghanistan's future offers any hope at all, along comes a carefully leaked story about nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits, which could fundamentally improve the country's economy, stability, and long-term prospects. In fairness, these discoveries aren't exactly new. James Risen tells a rather remarkable tale about Soviet mining experts in the 1980s; Afghan geologists protecting geological data in their homes during a protracted civil war; promising United States Geological Survey data that went ignored in 2006 and 2007; and finally taken seriously last year by a Pentagon task force on business development. Regardless, the news offers at least a glimmer of hope, doesn't it? I'd like to think so, but given the larger landscape in Afghanistan, even good news may create a new set of problems. For example, given the economic opportunities associated with these mineral deposits -- the expected wealth dwarfs the entirety of Afghanistan's existing economy -- the Taliban will likely have renewed reasons to be even more aggressive in trying to seize control of the country. For that matter, even if the deposits generate wealth, we've seen far too many times what happens when a corrupt government leads a country tapped for its lucrative natural resources -- the larger populace rarely reaps the rewards. Moreover, even under the best conditions, Afghanistan doesn't have a mining industry or infrastructure, so it will be years before this potential opportunity starts generating actual wealth. I don't mean to sound too negative here. The truth is, Afghanistan has been hopeless for a very long time, and these mineral deposits at least could help turn the country around. I'm sure everyone hopes it does. But revelations like these should come with a "caveat emptor" warning.

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 4:52:05 PM
From: tejek	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1582380

Too close to another economic cliff By E.J. Dionne Jr. Monday, June 14, 2010 Will politics slow our economic recovery? Will world leaders who pulled us back from the brink of a new Great Depression throw in the towel before the global economy gets the unemployed back to work? These are the moment's central questions, and I posed them last week to Larry Summers, President Obama's top economic adviser. Summers is often cast as an economic conservative because he was a serious budget balancer in the Clinton years. In fact, he is a pragmatist who thinks economics involves the art of tailoring policies to conditions. And right now, the pragmatist thinks that the job of getting us out of the economic doldrums is not done. "Different economic circumstances require different approaches to economic policy," Summers said, using a bit of economist-speak. "Today, when interest rates are at nearly zero and the central challenge is a shortfall of demand, the policies of immediate fiscal consolidation that were appropriate to address the crowding-out problems of the 1990s would be harmful, not helpful, to economic growth. That's true at home and around the world." It would be nice if Congress and policymakers elsewhere who seem to be racing prematurely to fiscal austerity would give Summers a listen. The last thing we need is to undo much of the good done last year by governments that chose not to repeat the big mistake of the early 1930s. Instead of imposing austerity when the global economy needed a big boost, they opted for stimulus. And the world avoided catastrophe. Summers is nothing if not careful. In the interview and in a speech last month at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, he was clear that long-term deficits can also endanger growth and that the administration intends to contain them. He also emphasized that no single policy could be applied across Europe given the fiscal difficulties of the Mediterranean nations, starting with Greece. But he was plain about this: We will never deal effectively with our deficit problem until we get the economy moving. As Summers put it at Hopkins: "It is not possible to imagine sound budgets in the absence of economic growth and solid economic performance." If you don't think growth needs to come first, consider these numbers from Summers: We could cut the debt as a share of GDP by half a percent with $75 billion in either spending cuts or tax increases. But we would achieve exactly the same result with an extra three-quarters of a percent of GDP growth. "Spurring growth, if we can achieve it," Summers said at Hopkins, "is by far the best way to improve our fiscal position." That's why it is mystifying that a Democratic Congress is having so much trouble passing the most elementary forms of economic stimulus. Assisting the states with extra Medicaid money and helping them avoid massive teacher layoffs could save or add at least 300,000 jobs. It's Democratic reluctance that required Obama to write a letter to congressional leaders on Saturday urging Congress to act quickly to avoid the layoffs and support the still-fragile economic recovery. Do Democrats honestly think that nickel-and-diming on stimulus now will have a substantial impact on the long-term deficit or be of greater help to them in November than more robust growth? Make no mistake: Summers has not gone squishy on the deficit. In his careful and unapologetic rendition of the two-handed economist act, he is at pains to make clear that he thinks long-term fiscal profligacy would endanger growth, now and later. "Jobs are the top economic priority," he said in a follow-up e-mail to the interview, "which is why the president is pushing Congress on measures to strengthen small-business hiring, promote clean energy investments, prevent teacher and police layoffs, and support unemployed workers. It's also why we're working to double exports." Then he added: "But for a policy centered around economic growth to be credible in the short term we must show a commitment on returning to a fiscal sustainable path over the medium- and long-term. That's why the president has taken important steps to bring responsibility back to the federal budget through health care reform and in creating a bipartisan fiscal commission." Okay, those are not exactly ringing sound bites in a political environment that limits economic discussion to cries of "Big Spending!" and "Big Deficits!" And, yes, in the parlance of political consultants, it "muddles the message" to argue that we need to tilt toward growth now and fiscal discipline in the long run. But it happens to be the right policy. Does that matter anymore? washingtonpost.com

To: Road Walker who wrote (571554)	6/14/2010 7:56:36 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1582380

Damn. Does the US have bad karma or what? Ccyclone formation begins over African Atlantic A broad area of low pressure has formed off the coast of Africa that has characteristics for organizing into a possible storm. Cyclone development is rare this early in the season, however area climates are presently favorable to continue forming the storm. Presently the National Weather Service has this system in the medium category for hurricane formation, with a 30% chance of hurricane winds in the next 48 hours. nhc.noaa.gov