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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (207417)	4/9/2011 9:08:15 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363299

- Budget deal keeps government open (for now), preserves EPA clean air authority, cuts cleantech Is Boehner using Tea Party to employ Nixon's 'Madman' strategy? April 9, 2011 In the end, Boehner agreed to a package of $38.5 billion in cuts, a significant victory for a man who said his goal was to extract as much as possible from the federal budget. He also won limited victories on a handful of policy riders attached to the bill. But Boehner was forced to abandon some major demands, including Planned Parenthood, restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency and efforts to restrict Obama’s health reform bill. The budget deal was a limited victory for Obama, who showed that he could insert himself in the process and craft a bipartisan deal that maintained the EPA’s clean air act authority. But strategically, Boehner would seem to have done better. He controls only “one-half of one-third of the government,” as he often says, but he “managed to make the most of that limited leverage — both in forcing President Obama and the Democrats to come more than halfway on his party’s demand for spending cuts, and in making the absolutists in his own ranks accept the principle that compromise is part of governing,” as the Washington Post put it in today’s front-page story. He may be making use of Nixon’s “Madman theory” of negotiations, exploiting the “craziness” of the Tea Party, which does give him some dealmaking leverage, at the expense of messaging clarity and public perception.... climateprogress.org == The first comment.. Tom Street says: April 9, 2011 at 10:10 am I get it that Obama did not have much choice but he framed it as if we were wining the future. He is trying desperately to ride the wave of what he thinks the center is. Well, that center will move even further to the right during the FY 2012 budget battle. We are losing the future. Communities, regions, and whole countries will suffer in the years ahead because climate change will make survival and civilization difficult if not impossible. We saw what he did with a Dem majority. He failed to focus on the existential issue of our time, global warming. Does he think he can make that all better with 4 more years? If the next 4 are like the current 4, why bother. The man lacks passion and conviction with respect to the most important substantive issues of our time. He enjoys the process which is great for a mediator. Which is great, if he were just a mediator for, say, a union/business negotiation somewhere. But we need more than a mediator; we need a leader. Having a great leader may not be sufficient given the forces against us, but it is absolutely necessary. The pragmatist in me says I will probably vote for him give the alternative. But the emotional side of me could take over as I become increasingly disgusted. As we head to hell in a hand basket, he seems to be enjoying the ride. In the worst of times, he strolls up to the podium to announce the apocalypse. Sort of like Bush’s strut.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (207417)	4/9/2011 9:08:21 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363299

The governance of children by Asher Miller The US government is on the verge of shutting down, as Congressional Republicans toy with the livelihoods of nearly two million federal government employees and President Obama tries to cast himself as “the Mediator in Chief.” The Republicans claim their motivation is fiscal sanity, but it’s really about telling women what to do with their you-know-whats and not telling polluters what to do with their you-know-whats. And Obama seems more concerned about shoring up his “centrist” re-election cred than remaining true to the values he espoused in his first campaign. It’s easy to become inured to the kind of political posturing and cynical horsetrading we see in the nation’s capitol, but why aren’t we mad? I mean, really mad? And why aren’t we mad at both parties? Hell, why aren’t we mad at ourselves? Republicans claim to be serious about getting our federal debt under control. But how serious can they be when they refuse to touch military spending, which is about 1/3 of total federal budget expenditures and half of estimated tax revenues? US military spending is 40% of the all global military expenditures, is nearly seven times as much as the Chinese spend, and is equal to the spending of the seventeen next biggest military budgets combined. No, of course, much better to go after the $350 million in federal funding of Planned Parenthood, a whopping half of 1% of military spending. Now Congressional Republicans aren’t the only ones playing games with numbers and our future. Last week, President Obama unveiled his Administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. In Obama’s announcement speech, and in the plan itself, much was made of the fact that the US produced more oil last year than since 2003. When President Obama took office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. Today, he pledged that by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third, and put forward a plan to secure America’s energy future by producing more oil at home and reducing our dependence on oil by leveraging cleaner, alternative fuels and greater efficiency. We’ve already made progress toward this goal – last year, America produced more oil than we had in the last seven years. And we’re taking steps to encourage more offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible. And, because we know we can’t just drill our way out of our energy challenge, we’re reducing our dependence on oil by increasing our production of natural gas and biofuels, and increasing our fuel efficiency. Last year, we announced ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that will save consumers thousands of dollars and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil. Again, it’s important to understand the numbers. US oil production last year may indeed been higher than any year since 2003, but it’s still 43% lower than our peak year of production in 1970. And to meet those production numbers, we increasingly have to drill tens of thousands of feet down in the ocean (Deepwater Horizon, anyone?). Keep in mind, too, how much oil we consume. Five and a half million barrels/day is enough oil produced in a year to get us from New Years Day to Tax Day… about 106 days’ worth. The “ground breaking fuel efficiency standards” the Obama Administration is touting is the equivalent of about 95 days of American oil consumption. And the goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2015 is 0.04% of the total number of passenger cars and trucks on the road. Obama’s blueprint for energy security mentions climate change exactly once, when global warming arguably presents the greatest threat to our security in human history. Unveiled in the midst of a nuclear crisis not seen since Chernobyl, the plan continues to promote coal, natural gas, and nuclear, all of which have significant environmental and human health consequences. Conservation on the other hand? Using less? Meh. Don’t get me wrong, there’s some good stuff in the Blueprint for Energy Security. Just like there are some good recommendations coming out of Republican circles to address the budget deficit. But the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle simply fails to meet reality. On an almost daily basis, the American public is presented with false solutions, rhetoric, and partisan bickering. The only conclusion I can come up with is that one or both of the following is true: Our elected officials think we’re too childish to speak to honestly about the complex issues and choices we face. Our elected officials are, themselves, too childish to govern. But here’s the thing… When it comes to facing these daunting economic, energy, and environmental crises, we’re all going to need to grow up. And fast. energybulletin.net