• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Speech

portlandatheist

Illuminator
portlandatheist
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
3,725
For those watching the speech (it is starting as I type) I thought I'd start a thread. Since he hasn't said anything quite yet...I have no commentary.
 
Obama mentions the launch of a new webiste:
http://www.recovery.gov/
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be carried out with full transparency and accountability -- and Recovery.gov is the centerpiece of that effort. In a short video, President Obama describes the site and talks about how you'll be able to track the Recovery Act's progress every step of the way.
Click to expand...
 
Obama is an inspiring speaker, and that is actually very important, because keeping America willing to work on the problems is a big part of the battle.

But like most politicians, he is big on ideas, short on details. Health care "Will come now" he says. Ask Hillary how easy that promise is to fullfill. I see a lot of fluff and little meat in this speech.
 
It wasn't bad, but I became distracted trying to spot people texting during the speech and watching Pelosi jumping the gun to applaud.

The "upcoming" picture of Jindal's home looked downright evil - dark, red sky.
 
Decent speech, and I think he is doing the right thing to try to fix the structural problems in our economy like health care and energy, but I worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.
 
Obviously, Obama's not going to be able to give detailed info about his plans. I personally disliked the obvious emotional manipulation in things like bringing the girl who wrote a letter asking for help for her school.

However, Obama's gonna' have to enact policies that are not gonna' be popular, particularly funding cuts to some areas and channeled towards more vital sectors. And he knows its gonna' take years to make significant positive change.

So his goal was to not only brace the American people for these new policies, but to enlist their support. He did something that I think very few political leaders do these days...he gave a long-term vision, and sought to get people to buy into that vision. It wasn't a message of "this is what the government is going to do", it was a message of "this is what Americans are going to do".

And overall, I think he was successful.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well his policies actually work. But personally, I appreciate the change from a President who used fear to support his policies, to a President who uses hope to support his policies.
 
gdnp said:
Decent speech, and I think he is doing the right thing to try to fix the structural problems in our economy like health care and energy, but I worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.
Click to expand...
His ambition is admirable, but whether he can deliver is yet to be seen.
Fore example, Cutting the deficit in half is something I just can't fathom happening although I would sure love to see it.
 
In 1990, would you have thought that the country could eliminate the deficit entirely by the end of the decade?
 
I liked that he made the focus on health care and education along with the economy. There were details lacking in parts, but I guess that will have to wait. At least he has set goals for himself and is not letting one issue cloud all the other changes that need to be done.

The contrast with Jindal was hilarious. He made a head bob with every point he made and he was talking like a tour guide at first.
 
Obama's speech was good as usual, but Jindal's response was what really interested me. From his "Hi, I'm Troy McClure!" introduction to his Kenneth-from-30-Rock delivery, it was fascinating to watch even apart from the content (which, to be fair, was nearly as sucky). People like him and Palin are supposed to be the future of the GOP? :confused:
 
Jindal reminded me of the Lieutenant from "Good Morning Vietnam" trying to convince his boss that there's a "silent majority" of people who liked polka music.

Now I know "rebuttal" speeches are written well before anyone actually hears the Presidents address, but I thought the disconnect between the two speeches really made Jindal look like he was watching some alternate reality.
 
toddjh said:
Obama's speech was good as usual, but Jindal's response was what really interested me. From his "Hi, I'm Troy McClure!" introduction to his Kenneth-from-30-Rock delivery, it was fascinating to watch even apart from the content (which, to be fair, was nearly as sucky). People like him and Palin are supposed to be the future of the GOP? :confused:
Click to expand...

Same reaction here.
 
From the speech:
But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.
Click to expand...
A couple of comments:

1) No mention of nuclear power, a technology which does not need "fifteen billion dollars a year to develop." Why not, for FSM's sake? We should be building nuclear power plants now, in every county that is more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault, instead of nonsense like biofuels; has he already forgotten what a boondoggle the ethanol mandate has turned out to be?

2) Carbon cap-and-trade: Here's how it's working in Europe:

Instead, it's bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.

Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst's diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage.

"I don't know why industrials would miss this opportunity," said one trader last week. "They are using it to compensate for the tightening of credit and the slowdown, to pay for redundancies."

A lot of the blame lies with governments that signed up to carbon trading as a neat idea, but then indulged polluters with luxurious quantities of permits. The excuse was that growth would soon see them bumping against the ceiling.

Instead, exchanges are in meltdown: a tonne of carbon has dropped to about €8, down from last year's summer peak of €31 and far below the €30-€45 range at which renewables can compete with fossil fuels.

The lesson of the carbon slump, like the credit crunch, is that markets can be a conduit, but not a substitute, for political will. They only work when properly primed and regulated. Europe hoped that the mere creation of a carbon market would drive everyone away from fossil fuels. It forgot that demand had to outstrip supply, and that if growth stops, demand drops too.

There is not much time to rescue the system. Carbon trading remains at the heart of the international response to climate change. Obama backs what Americans call cap and trade. Australia wants to try the same thing. It should be at the heart of a deal at the Copenhagen summit this winter. But both are hesitating, given Europe's mess.

The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that.
Click to expand...
Obama sees cap-and-trade as a source of revenue for Uncle Sam, much as indulgences were once revenue for the Roman Catholic church. Maybe he should check with Europe's finance ministers to see how that's working out for them.

ETA: OBTW, did you notice it's not "global warming" any more, but "the ravages of climate change?" Covering the bases in case we need to sound the alarm for global cooling in a few years - just as we did in the 1970s. Earth's temperature is at the Goldilocks point right this minute - not too hot and not too cold, but just right - and any change in either direction is a "ravage."
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
From the speech:
A couple of comments:

1) No mention of nuclear power, a technology which does not need "fifteen billion dollars a year to develop." Why not, for FSM's sake? We should be building nuclear power plants now, in every county that is more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault, instead of nonsense like biofuels; has he already forgotten what a boondoggle the ethanol mandate has turned out to be?
Click to expand...

It doesn't cost $15 billion a year to develop, no. It costs much, much, much more.

To give you an idea:

The two reactors Georgia Power is building are estimated to cost $6.4 billion, $2 billion of which Georgia Power is raising through a lovely rate increase we'll get to see next year.

$6.4 billion, and that's just to expand one existing plant. The original cost to build the plant was about $9 billion--and that was 20 years ago. FSM only knows what the cost to build a plant from scratch would be today.

Again...We're only talking about one plant.

So yeah...That's why not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom