The U.S. State of the Union Address

I think Obama delivered a great speech, as a youth with some semblance of idealism left I was impressed and inspired. This is probably the first one I've really paid attention to.

I especially liked that he addressed his desire to increase investment in renewable energy and lessen subsidies to oil companies. I thought how George W. Bush was in the 'climate change is unproven so we will take no proactive preventative steps just in case' camp. Environmental management is my number one issue and he seems concerned about my key issues.

Also I'm listening to the Republican responses as I write this and I'm reminded that I fucking hate the current political atmosphere. Their conscious attempt to not acknowledge any of the President's successes makes them fools in my eyes.

loved the speech although i only listened to ~58% of it. He's clearly a gifted speaker and confirmed baller.

http://www.truth-out.org/files/image...on012511bt.jpg

I missed it :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I missed it :-\

---

State Of The Union 2011: Speech, Reaction & Commentary (LIVE UPDATES)

I wanna know whose skin is darker. Barry's or Boehner's

That's some heavy talk, Mr Obama. Are you prepared to put nine trillion dollars into infrastructure, education, and research like you did for the banks?

Eliminating oil subsidies in favor of greener initiatives (including clean coal and natural gas) seems like a promising promise.

Also, making a straight forward individual tax code would be awesome.

edit YouTube - Open for Questions: State of the Union 2011

Enjoy a quick shit bricks.

Isn't clean coal a joke? Can't we be adults and stop letting irrational fears block us from utilizing nuclear energy?

but ya, tax reform would be sweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Isn't clean coal a joke? Can't we be adults and stop letting irrational fears block us from utilizing nuclear energy?

but ya, tax reform would be sweet.

---

nuclear energy that produces radioactive waste is worse than more greenhouse gases, imo. we have no way of utilizing or neutralizing the byproducts and without those things happening the waste will remain with us for the rest of time, at least as far as humans are concerned. And we cannot guarantee secure storage of these hazardous materials for eternity, no matter where we bury it. this stuff will last for millions of years and is basically a burden we are leaving for future generations and whatever life forms come after us.

Yeah, clean coal is bs, and natural gas is destructive to harvest if that docu Gas Land is to be trusted. But we're the Saudi Arabia of coal (well, now we're the Venezuela of coal) and good hard working Americans are fracking the shit out of our gas lands.

Also, there's a TED talk or a google talk about Thorium reactors. They sound too good to be true until you hear why we decided to use uranium instead (only one yields the stuff of a-bombs.)

I can't really go googling around for them right now. But they're worth checking out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's some heavy talk, Mr Obama. Are you prepared to put nine trillion dollars into infrastructure, education, and research like you did for the banks?

---

If it were only up to him I'd say yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

nuclear energy that produces radioactive waste is worse than more greenhouse gases, imo. we have no way of utilizing or neutralizing the byproducts and without those things happening the waste will remain with us for the rest of time, at least as far as humans are concerned. And we cannot guarantee secure storage of these hazardous materials for eternity, no matter where we bury it. this stuff will last for millions of years and is basically a burden we are leaving for future generations and whatever life forms come after us.

---

OK maybe I do - YouTube - The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

YouTube - Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor

There are more but I have to get back to something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

There are more but I have to get back to something.

---

Hos before bros, amirite?

Oh rilla, you animal.

Clean coal is possible but extremely expensive and not viable on a mass scale. The "cleanness" is carbon capture and sequestration deep inside specific geological formations. Most plants could never do this, and those that could mostly never will due to cost

Nuclear technology is already to the point (or at least extremely close) of completely recyclable and biodegradable waste. But again, extremely expensive. It's why every time you see me talk about the future of global warming, it's always super bad. We have some great tech, but the cost is just too much. Because free markets will always gravitate towards low cost, we're not going to see green energy take over until oil, coal, and maybe gas become too expensive. Which is nowhere close to the near future

The real revolution in energy will come from solar biofuels IMO. We're still a ways out, but it could be as close as like 2020 that it could be cheaper than fossil oil


The two main things I liked best in that QnA are the college degree goals and tech hubs.

I wish I was passionate about energy. It's such a cool sector to go into.

One of my friend's dads has started a windfarm company. This is cool because of the following reasons:

1) He gets to steal energy out of the sky, which is awesome
2) He's doing something for future generations
3) He gets to make a shitload of money

Also, another one of my friends is in the midst of an apprenticeship with a large hydroelectric firm. Whereas me and other university students are living in small digs on £6k/yr, drinking cheap lager and cider, he's getting paid £17k + expenses + 7% matched pension to do his degree and is looking at a guaranteed £30k (moving up the scale to £80k through his career) and job for life the second he finishes his studies.

Seriously, energy ftmfw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Hos before bros, amirite?

Oh rilla, you animal.

---

Oh, I don't discriminate. My preference in everyone at once ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's some heavy talk, Mr Obama. Are you prepared to put nine trillion dollars into infrastructure, education, and research like you did for the banks?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

If it were only up to him I'd say yes.

---

Of course he would. One question, would be a good idea? I.E. how are we paying for it???????????

LESS SPENDING, SMALLER GOVT = BETTER ECONOMY, MORE FREEDOMS/LESS GOVT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfaess

Of course he would. One question, would be a good idea? I.E. how are we paying for it???????????

LESS SPENDING, SMALLER GOVT = BETTER ECONOMY, MORE FREEDOMS/LESS GOVT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES

---

Are you being serious or joking?

Thought it was a pretty unimpressive speech and the Republicans' response was equally useless. The Democrats want to focus on jobs, and the Republicans on the deficit, but neither of them gave a real plan to address their own priority, let alone the other party's, probably because neither party even has a plan. In particular, the idea that switching over to renewable energy will create a ton of "green jobs" is really mistaken; as wufwugy pointed out renewables are still much more expensive so switching over would actually hurt the economy. I still support it for environmental reasons but let's not pretend that it's some kind of solution to the economy.

YouTube - Open for Questions: The State of the Union and the Economy

Goolsbee is always cool

I think the administration has pretty good long term policy and not bad short term policy. Their theme is building industry over the long term, which is actually very important. Things like energy focus is a part of that. Obama is a lot like Prop Joe: thinking long instead of short

However, short term policy would be better if instead of just unemployment checks, the government paid for the long term unemployed to go to school. We need a massive and focused effort in this area, and without it the lower end of the middle class will still remain vulnerable in the future.

We don't have an employment problem inasmuch as we have an education problem. Education is being improved some, as well as many other aspects of business, but I think the administration's plan allows some people to still fall through the cracks in the short term. This isn't necessarily a problem though given that we don't live in a perfect world. If policy is to focus on education for future generations, and make sure that the current older and uneducated can at least keep unemployment insurance and find a mediocre job until they retire, things are good. Revamping education for all would be very tough and intrusive after all.

All in all, I think something new has come out over the last few days about the administrations approach to economics. They really are shooting for long haul investment stuff. While shit is hard for many on the short term, they want to make sure that US is on top in twenty years instead of forming various sorts of pseudo-bubbles in the short term by propping up the weak aspects of the economy

So in a way I'm actually pleased. I'm usually all over the board on these things since there is quite a rift between the liberal and establishment parts of the Democratic Party. IMO it's primarily one of communication though. Because the establishment doesn't communicate to its liberals well, we're often left to diagnose policy on our own without having much insight on the administration's interworkings


Also, word is that Obama is actually learning. And that his wife is pissed at him for his failure to communicate and pursue more liberal policies

Quote:

---

Also, word is that Obama is actually learning. And that his wife is pissed at him for his failure to communicate and pursue more liberal policies

---

Word from where?

It's good to hear that Obama is focusing on the long game, as it's my understanding that China has been playing the long game for the last 30 years.

Just something I heard. I do a ton of politics info, so I can't say where my source is unless I specifically remember. I think this one was from Richard Wolf's recent Commonwealth interview on Fora.tv

However many problems US has, China has about five times as many

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

..it's my understanding that China has been playing the long game for the last 30 years.

---

It's definitely easier to do that in a one party state

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

it's my understanding that China has been playing the wong game for the last 30 years.

---

FYP