OpinionCenter.li   Random page
Update this page |
Sequestration
News

Is Obama telling truth about sequestration
Read President Barack Obama's state-by-state breakdown of the sequester and you get a dire message: The sky is going to fall on March 1. But a closer read of the detailed reports shows that some of the scariest stuff is going to happen in slow motion ...

Sequestration: Bring it on
All sorts of things will be cut under a sequester: border security, airport security, Head Start, public housing support, NASA, special education, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and national ...

How Sequestration's Automatic Budget Cuts Could Hurt on Local Level
Cities and towns across the country are battening down the hatches, preparing for austerity measures that the budget cuts in sequestration would require if it goes into effect Friday. The White House previewed what some of those effects might be at the ...

Science faces sequestration cuts
Cancer, Alzheimer's and many other diseases will face the prospect of fewer researchers working on cures as a result of the upcoming federal budget sequestration, National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins said Monday. Already in the news for ...

submit to reddit

Real-time

itssteveyall I'm befuddled about about the #sequestration. Sen Barasso said they've admitted found 115 Bil in overpayments. That was accidental.

SkipScipioni @SenShelbyPress stay the course. Sequestration must happen to curtail Obama out if control spending

Robert_E_Lehman Daily Press Editorial: Dear Mr. President Sequestration alarms are false attempts to justify a spendthrift government http://t.co/GSztovmDuX

ReidMilburn RT @johnmyers: 2011 no on #sequestration: Becerra Chu Farr Hahn Honda Hunter Lee Lofgren Matsui McClintock McNerney Miller-D Nunes Li-Sanchez Waters Waxman

amandamanganarc Reports from the White House on how Sequestration will impact Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia... http://t.co/CcsOhhGebM

hjp3 What is it costing us to have Barack HUSSAIN Obama fly around the country to talk sequestration when he should be in DC fixing the problem?

HeatherMMurphy RT @BretBaier: RT @jimgeraghty Obama to take $180K-per-hour Air Force One to Newport News & back to decry sequestration cuts http://t.co/18qL9tojVE

13013B The most recent surveys show sequestration is not on public's radar. They don't believe what they're hearing from DC. http://t.co/1XPlI1JfML

ReidMilburn RT @johnmyers: Looking back on 2011 #sequestration vote, 16 current CA House members (plus some now ex-members) voted against it. Ds & Rs.

Knightinkarma Boehner and the House negotiated FOR sequestration. He said "I got 98% of what I wanted.." http://t.co/3oEQ2sW0bk #MorningJoe

gorillaman45 Let #sequestration happen! There must begin a cut in our spending!!!!

StacyDmomof5 Great analysis by Heritage, as usual - http://t.co/vIIehfoIDs

SundevilSal What is there to lie about - the house already passed 2 bills to prevent #Sequestration so blame the senate/Obama @BishopJones51 @ezraklein

chaz1944 Is Obama telling the truth about sequestration? - David Nather - http://t.co/QpkRoyxLO3: http://t.co/nOXwXj5kA3 via @POLITICO

Discussions

How Cool is the trend of Obama hitting new highs and GOP "leadership" hitting new lows? by Chemist. Warrior. Trumpeter. Buddhist.Con fighter. Q: President Obama just got a boost as he heads into a showdown with Republicans over reducing the deficit to avoid $1.2 trillion in 10-year budget cuts due to begin hitting March 1. Bloomberg released a poll late Wednesday that gave Obama his highest job-approval rating in three years, with 55 percent of those surveyed giving him a thumbs up. At the same time, the poll put the popularity of Republicans at its lowest point since Bloomberg began measuring in September 2009, with just 35 percent saying they view the GOP favorably. The GOP's brand has slipped six percentage points in the last six months alone. Predictably, the news triggered a wave of gloating from Obama's supporters. "Americans just aren't buying what Republicans are selling," says Steve Benen at MSNBC. And Bloomberg's poll results aren't even the worst new numbers showing just how bad the GOP's predicament is. "That prize goes to a new USA Today/Pew Research Center poll," Benen says, in which nearly half of Americans blame the GOP for the looming budget fiasco — known as the sequester — while only a hair more than 30 percent blame Democrats. With a week to go before the sequestration deadline hits, GOP leaders are convinced they can win a public-relations fight with the White House because, conservatives believe, Americans will blame Obama for the dangerous sequester policy that Republicans championed. This poll suggests the GOP isn't just wrong, its understanding of public attitudes is the exact opposite of reality. The public is prepared to hold Republicans responsible for this self-inflicted wound that will undermine the economy, the military, and public needs. The one thing the GOP is counting on — avoiding blame at all costs — is already failing miserably.

A: without fox fake news spinning lies to their idiot audience, that trend would be even more long-running. but fox fake news convinced its mentally impaired audience to protest higher taxes two months after Obama lowered their taxes. ---- To the moron that thinks (R)'s won the House - in reality they got more than a million fewer votes. Extreme gerrymandering after the B.S. elections of 2010 allowed (R)'s to LOSE the election, but keep the house. ------ to the conservative idiot who thinks each budget is bigger than the last. WRONG, fool. why do none of you slow cons understand the concept of inflation?

If sequestration happens could it cost the Republicans their house majority? by CCMMUU99 Q: Just like the Government shutdown in the 1990s hurt the GOP, Could Sequestration hurt them and possibly cost them their majority in the House? Tell me what you think To you Right Wing Morons! The Sequester was put in place because the cuts would be so horrific that Congress and the President would be forced to come to a agreement. He has reached out the the House Republicans and offered cuts to Earned Benefit Programs angering his liberal base in order to get a deal done. So yeah I think we know who will be at fault if these horrible cuts happen regardless of who proposed them

Is President Obama's Strategy to enlist the American People in his fight against the intractable Repubs? by Trumpet Warrior Q: a good one???? WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is preparing to expand the fiscal cliff fight beyond the confines of Washington, travelling the country and leaning on Democratic activist groups to help apply political pressure. The goal, organizers said, is to keep engaged the activists and followers who have stood with Obama through two campaigns, and to begin applying external pressure to the president's negotiations with congressional Republicans. And so, top Obama operatives are gaming out ways to squeeze political capital out of the 2012 elections, aiming to affect the lame-duck session in Congress. Obama previewed the strategy in a conference call with activists after the election, saying that a second term that will include some barnstorming across the country. "One of my pledges for a second term is to get out of Washington more often," Obama said. On that same call, one of president's top campaign aides, Mitch Stewart, alerted listeners that they would be asked to help support the White House as it deals with the expiring Bush tax cuts and looming $1 trillion in sequestration-related cuts. Stewart added that some campaign operatives would remain in Chicago "going through what worked in 2012 and what didn't work in 2012 and trying to figure out how we as an organization can get better." He concluded by pointing the 30,000 call participants to a newly developed initiative called TheAction.org. The organization is a loose coalition of 26 progressive-leaning groups in various states (Innovation Ohio, Progress Texas, Better Georgia) as well as Washington (Small Business Majority and Protect Your Care.) The veterans of the 2012 campaign as well as the Obama White House will work to back the elimination of the Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of more than $250,000. The coalition is still in its nascent stages, as shown by the relatively calm Twitter account it operates. A "tool kit" being distributed by the group includes letterhead, Twitter backgrounds, and Facebook cover photos. One organizer said the coalition would spearhead rallies, encourage op-eds and letters to the editor and, if an infusion of cash comes around, launch media campaigns. More broadly, TheAction.org is designed to harness the post-election energy of Obama supporters into real grassroots pressure on Congress. "Coming out of the first election it felt like almost a celebration," said one group operative who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person wasn't authorized to speak on behalf of all the coalition members. "You didn't really have this budget fight that people were hanging onto. It feels very different right now. People know this budget fight is coming up and these Bush tax cuts are set to expire and that it's a huge deal to the middle class. Everyone knows what the issue is at hand now. And there are all these people asking what to do next. We happen to be the folks that put it together."

A: Didn't read it all - but yes - sounds good to me. I think we're all sick of the miserable, lying republicans and their FOX lies.

Will global warming extend the growing season? by Keenan L Q: I have always been an environmental proponent and give it much thought. Though the effects of global warming will be turbulent as well as catastrophic, won't the higher global temperatures lead to an extended growing season thus increasing natural carbon sequestration and canceling the rise in global temperatures? This doesn't change the fact that there would be extreme and irreparable environmental damage, nor does it dispute the FACT of global warming. Just a simple question.

A: Yes, the growing season may be extended, however, the cooling forcings on the planet as a result will not be anywhere near enough to counteract the amount of warming forcings resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the extreme weather events resulting from climate change are just as likely to destroy both the crops and the soil quality. On top of this, many crops are already demonstrating an incapacity to thrive in higher temperatures.

Is it more realistic to lower green house gas emissions or to sequester them out of the air? by mangledmatt s Q: I feel like it's not realistic to reduce our green house gas emissions. I'm probably being pessimistic, but I was wondering if maybe sequestration was the key to solving global warming. Please only answer this if you know what you're talking about :) Please don't respond with answers about global warming not being true or that green house gases are not there, I don't want your input whatsoever...If you're a "nonbeliever" as if there's something debate, just don't respond please

A: i'm really skeptical of sequestration. where? down unused oil or gas wells? deep in the ocean? several years ago, denver tried to dispose of it's sewage by pumping it underground. pretty soon they started to have earthquakes. when they stopped, so did the quakes. in the ocean is worse. there's considerable life there, that would likely not do well when subjected to the increased CO2 levels, and the acid that would form in response to the added CO2. it's just time to realize that "free" energy (maybe not politically correct this year) will not last forever, and get moving on it's replacement. then everybody wins. even those who deny that there's a problem.

What would be your ideal solution to the issues on the economic crisis we're facing? by pdooma Q: The big immediate issues we're facing: 1. Bush Tax Cuts expiring 2. Payroll Tax Cut expiring 3. Sequestration ($600 billion cut from military, $600 billion cut from domestic programs) 4. Debt Ceiling limit 5. $16 Trillion debt and climbing quickly 6. Social Security and Medicare funding

Is it not more important for America to have jobs than lower deficits and weaker defense.? by The Virginian Q: President wants economy to be taken care of first. What do Americans want. I think they want sequestration to disappear.

A: I say the first priority should be bringing every soldier home then take care of the economy

Okay so the FED has been stimulating for a while and promises to hold interest rates near zero until? by Q: unemployment hits 6.5%. The economy contracted a little bit last quarter, when will the stimulus end and what will the FED do after sequestration when we lose 1.5 million jobs?

A: The Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine has been ignoring the facts about the contraction of the economy. They won't admit they've been lying since the November election results. Last night they held a huge pep rally on the Big Three networks bragging about the booming housing market. I hope that report is true. Housing is the biggest industry in America and results in more jobs and more creation of wealth over a wider sector of business than any other industry. That would be great. Lets wait and see if this report is true for a change. If the economy surges, inflation can't be far behind.

Is it Possible and Practical to Take Carbon From Smoke? by baypointmike Q: Some favor coal powerplants for electricity because they are relatively cheap but, is it possible or are they pulling a fast one on all of us because sequestration, taking the Carbon out of the smoke and burying it, is impossible.

A: Carbon is being taken out of diesel exhaust now with special traps.

Bob Woodward reports Obama & Lew concocted the sequestration; how can you blame others? by julio_slsc Q: with the obama economic depression started last quarter and the obamacare forcing unemployment to increase this quarter while contracting supply, combine that with the obama tax increases and you should expect economic failure. who else would dream up this sequestration than an inexperienced community activist who is in over his head; sequestration is a typical obama sure to fail concoction. do you really think Woodward would mis-report? i'm not little red riding hood or the grandma and you think Woodward is lying.

A: I guess you don't remember the Super Committee or the Budget Control Act passed Congress. Now for some facts: Republicans in Congress also voted for the law that set up the possibility of sequestration . In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

If draconian austerity will facilitate economy recovery instead of destroy it? by Jesse Pinkman - You Overestimate Yourself Q: and by extension, if Keynesian theory is completely bunk, shouldn't sequestration be welcome with open arms? Homo - there are benefits to being single. This is one of them.

How large an effect is Brazil's clearing of rainforest for agriculture in the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere? by Brian L Q: All of the focus has been on the guilt of the United States, even though third world countries are clearing rainforests and using destructive agricultural practices, causing nitrogen rich runoff to suffocate the coral reefs. Rainforests and reefs are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth and perhaps we should spend more attention on restoring them. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, the concern is just a buildup in the atmosphere. Right? So we need to focus on sequestration. Counting the net loss of Brazil's Carbon sequestration against the gain of not using petroleum, did the World gain? It seems to me that we could address CO2 levels by improving the quality of life for people in the underdeveloped world through education of better forestry and farming practices. (and moving past fossil fuels too). I don't believe a corn crop has a comparable CO2 capacity to virgin rainforest, particularly when you count the vertical density of rainforest. Also, the Summer Winter cycle is not balanced, the Ratio of Carbon in to out is like 4:1. Also, cleared forest generates large volumes of CO2. If we were to not look at Brazil's impact on the Carbon issue based on the "you did it first" argument, you would have to then say you can't criticize the U.S. and Europe because they just happened to do it first. The argument is parochial and doesn't move us any closer to an answer.

A: Probably a difficult question to answer. By clearing rainforest and planting crops for grazing or harvest you are replacing one CO2 sink with another. A crop of corn is producing oxygen and using CO2 just like the rainforest is. Do you think it is right for the world to criticize Brazil for developing its resources the way the USA and Europe developed theirs?

Do Cons now think members of congress bare no responsibly for the bills they vote for and pass? by Mr. Wolf Q: Most Cons have absolved Republicans of all responsibility for sequestration, NDAA and the Wall Street. It looks like the answer is yes.

Can someone explain the fiscal cliff to me? by Emma Breaux Q: So i read online that this is what it means: The term “fiscal cliff” refers to the combination of two major events that will occur at the end of the year should Congress fail to act – the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the automatic across-the-board funding cuts to federal programs knows as sequestration, but i still don't really understand it and i need to because i'm doing a powerpoint on it.

A: It is a republican terrorist weapon. Or they'd like it to be. Right now they have a bargaining position of basically zilch. President has all the cards, and all the skill in a contrived confrontation wherein the GOP is trying to get the middle class to continue to pay for the sins of the dishonorable wealthy. If nothing is done, the 10 year old Bush tax cuts which have crippled the U.S. economy will end. To make up for the damage done during the Republican feeding frenzy, taxes on the wealthy will have to not only go back to their former level but be increased. All that wealth that has been shipped out of the country needs to be made up somehow. The Republican solution of slave labor is not acceptable. We may need some innovative tax solutions, like taxing capitol gains as income when above $1million, charging a 25% tax on all money sent to offshore banks. Nationalization of the corporations that have failed to serve the nation but rather mined wealth from it irresponsibly. What we really need is the Iceland solution.

How to reduce CO2 in the air? by Kenndy Q: Can someone teach me what are the methods to reduce air pollution (mostly CO2) in the air? I only heard of sequestration so far. I also heard that there is machinery that can do that. Can someone recall for me? I don't need the behavioral aspect, but more technical aspect. This is for my econ paper. Thanks!

A: population control is best way to control co2 in the air.

Is it inevitable we'll be going over the fiscal cliff and all the taxes will hit at once? by pdooma Q: The sequestration will go into effect, the Bush tax cuts will expire, and the payroll tax will expire. And we'll hit the debt ceiling.

A: No, it's not inevitable. But it's sure a handy way to scare people and increase TV news ratings now that the election is over, isn't it?

Did your baby had a surgery soon after birth? by Matahari Q: I just found out my baby will need a surgery after birth due to pulmonary sequestration. I am freaked out by the idea of tiny newborn having a surgery so I would like to hear some stories from the parent who went through that. Thanks!

A: My son, who was born with spina bifida, had surgery on his back when he was not quite a day old. I cried all day, as I had a c-section and they wouldn't let me see my son until after his surgery. Finally, after 36 hours, they let me see him, and I never let him stay away from me for that long ever again. It's scary, but babies are quite resilient. Hang in there, the anticipation is the worst part.

Is generation time of bacteria shorter than the time taken to replicate DNA? by AI Q: During practicals involving E.coli, it was transformed and incubated for 1 hour even though the generation time of E.coli is 30 minutes. If time taken for complete bacterial genome replication is longer than the generation time, does that mean bacterial genome replication was started before the previous cell division was completed? but don't bacteria have a process called sequestration which prevents cells from starting another replication while it's not yet divided? What are catastrophic cells?

A: > Is generation time of bacteria shorter than the time taken to replicate DNA? Yes. The bacterial chromosome is being replicated all the time, and as soon as the replication fork moves off the origin of replication, a new replication fork can get started. So a bacterium may have its chromosome, part of a daughter chromosome, parts of granddaughter chromosomes, parts of great-granddaughter chromosomes (etc.) at the same time. > does that mean bacterial genome replication was started before the previous cell division was completed? Yep

What's your response to Mitt Romney's claim that John Boehner and the entire Republican contingent of the? by The Contentious Otter Q: House of Representatives are failures for accepting Obama's sequestration deal and playing right into the hands of the President?

A: Mitt needs to produce his TAX RETURNS - or drop out of the race.

Does your average Tea Party member want America to go over the fiscal cliff? by Felonious Monkey Q: To avoid sequestration Democrats and Republicans will have to compromise - particularly the Senators and Representatives. Americans have made clear they want compromise. Democrats want compromise. Republican House Speaker John Boehner said he wants compromise. But the Tea Party still refuses to compromise on anything, ever, for any reason. If America goes over the fiscal cliff it will almost certainly cause another recession. Is this what the Tea Party wants?

A: As long as they can blame it on Obama and win a few elections.

President says Republicans cannot just keep going from one manufactured crisis to another? by The Virginian Q: This in reference to stagnation, sequestration and debt ceiling. He tells Republicans: cuts is not an economic plan, to great applause. Are Americans with him tonight?

A: He is killing them softly tonight. Hes so smart.

Will Republicans get away with blaming Obama for the military and defense cuts they forced into the sequester? by James E Lewis AKA choteau Q: H.R.3043 : To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reduce the discretionary spending limit for fiscal year 2013 and 2014 to the fiscal year 2012 level. Sponsor: Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] (introduced 9/23/2011) Cosponsors (19) Committees: House Budget Right now they are trying to say that Sequestration was President Obama's idea. Stop and think about this. The House Republicans have not gone along with any idea that originated with President Obama without drastic changes making them their own since he took office in 2009.

A: They certainly are trying -- by referring to it as "Obama's sequester" but it doesn't look like this will be a successful strategy. The Republican party seems to have finally reached the end of the rope with what is approaching zero credibility. A current poll shows that the Republicans in congress do not even have the approval of the Republican party and have a record low approval overall -- approaching Bush like numbers!

Why has the Democrat lead Senate not done anything about a plan to replace the arbitrary cuts? by Texas Patriot Q: ONce again Obama is blaming the Republicans for something that clearly falls into the laps of the Democrats. Jay Carney said that the contraction of the economy was attributable to the threat of sequestration, which would implement across-the-board spending cuts if a long-term deficit deal is not reached. He went on to say that "Our economy is facing a major headwinds, and that's Republicans in Congress," . One thing Carney forgot to point out is that the mandatory cuts were a creation and demand of Obama's in 2011 and that on TWO occasions the Republican lead House passed legislation which represented common sense cuts, however, the Democrat lead Senate never tried to pass the legislation or come up with a replacement. Why has the Democrat lead Senate not done anything about a plan to replace the arbitrary cuts?

A: Spending cuts and democrats is an oxymoron. No self righteous democrat will eve take responsibility for anything

How is it that the federal government is always in crisis? by wtinc Q: We had the physical cliff, now the sequestration We as a country have never been in this much crisis is someone manipulating the government and the American People into believing everything is a crisis?

A: There are Democrats. That is the complete and correct answer.

What happens if you light a sloth on fire? by Ricky Q: I'm writing a paper on carbon sequestration as it applies to sloths, and could not find an answer for this question ANYWHERE. Will it move faster?

A: No. It will release CO2

President Obama slams Republicans on their insistence on ignoring the economy and the American people? by The Virginian Q: Millions of Americans who must be rewarded with good jobs, do not yet have it because the fear of sequestration is eating us up all alive and destroying us. We must work together, said the President. Will Republicans listen?

A: One of my few complaints about this president is that he goes too far in trying to gain bipartisan support from a party that has shown consistently that it has no inclination for cooperation.

What is a good masters for a marketing undergrad? by W Q: I'm a recent graduate who has a B.S. in marketing from a state university and I'm considering heading back to school. I have a possible job that may or may not come through (due to sequestration) and I'm assessing my options. I was wondering what would be a good field of study (aside from an MBA, or M.S. in marketing) that would work for me considering my bachelors. I was thinking statistics...any other suggestions? For the record, I did well as an undergrad: graduated with honors and highest distinction. Totally screwed up my title, but you get what I was trying to say. Additionally, I was thinking of possibly doing rotc in grad school, if possible, and trying to get into the army as an officer (I'm also considering OCS...but it's all up in the air).

A: If you're interested in a job in the marketing field, of course an MBA with a focus in marketing is the most obvious pick, and it's a good choice according to research (see the link to MarketingHire.com , a job board that specializes in marketing and features articles with professional advice and trends). But marketing is undergoing a lot of change right now and big data is increasingly important as marketing professionals have more and more data input from things like internet marketing, interactive advertising, research, CRM, etc. Consequently, a masters that relates to data can be very valuable if you're pursuing a career in marketing, as would an MBA in strategy. The marketing roles with the greatest amount of new hiring for 2013 tend to be mobile marketing, social media and data related, and its certain that big data is going to play an increasingly important role for all marketers in the future. IDC had a great study and presentation on how big data is transforming marketing, which considering your question, I think you'll find worth reading. I've linked to it below.

How can I fart less so that I can reduce my carbon footprint? by franz lindstrom Q: I know that one of the gasses that farts are comprised of is carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming. How can I let fewer farts in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that I expell? Also, I know that there's a process called carbon sequestration, in which carbon dioxide is pumped deep into the ground. Do you think I could sequester my farts in such a way?

A: Not farting is unhealthy for you! But if you're really dedicated to expelling your gasses less think about your diet. Also, don't forget that whenever we breathe we exhale carbon dioxide, so if you're that concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide you release then invent an environmentally-safe way for us humans to breathe.

The president is talking about sequestration as a bad idea. Maybe you guy can help me understand? by Q: what the problem is. The president doesn't want to cut $80 billion from the $1 trillion deficit but he wants to cut less and get rid of more tax loopholes. So why did the president propose the sequestration in the first place if it is so harmful?

A: He's an idiot. That's why.

when will nuclear fusion power plants start to appear? by Q: I'm sick of fossil fuels being our primary source of energy, this new technology exists why isn't it being pursued further? and why is carbon sequestration not strongly enforced?

A: Who knows, could be 20 years could be never. The major problem with fusion is initiating it, you need incredibly high pressures and temperatures to produce a fusion reaction. At the moment fusion produces less energy than it takes to create the conditions required for it to occur, at least in a controlled fashion. Once (if) people work out how to actually get a significant net energy gain from it then we'll probably see power plants. Also, it is being pursued further, there is an experimental reactor (ITER) currently being built in France. Carbon sequestration is not strongly enforced because it's not proven on large scale. We still have very little idea how the carbon dioxide moves through the subsurface once it's injected and no reliable monitoring techniques for gas leaks from the storage sites. In addition, moving CO2 from the plant to the storage site is a pain as it needs to be maintained as a supercritical fluid in order to be efficiently transported. This isn't a particular problem over a short distance but most plants are a fair way away from the old gas wells where the CO2 would be stored. Despite what you hear about it, it's still very much an infant technology.

When people Say: "Carbon Capture", Are they Referring to Geologic Sequestration of CO2? by mdGreg C Q: What Are the Means of "Carbon Capture"? Is Geologic Sequestration of CO2 Realistic? Thanks archimedes, Could Geologic Sequestration Ever Be a Long-Term Solution?

A: Yes, usually. But it's still largely fantasy with the technology unproven and its potential "collateral damage" undefined and avoided. It seems funds and energy are available for anything that might support business as usual, but very little for different, sustainable, options that are already available - even when they require comparatively little change to the way we live (leaving aside the major changes that will obviously be required to deal with over population and climate change in reality). However there are currently experimental CO2 installations around the world - one of them in Victoria Australia pumping CO2 into naturally capped strata, far away from the CO2 source electricity generators. Sequestration proposals typically depend on CO2 compression, and transport by road - using fossil fuels, of course! It seems avoidance and insanity knows no bounds.

How does carbon sequestration have an effect on the environment? by Q: example: carbon sequestration/ carbon storage

A: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, which has been linked to global warming. Other carbon compounds in the atmosphere can be harmful to humans. It is believed that the increase in carbon dioxide gas produced by burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, so people have been looking for ways to sequester, or store the carbon after they have burned things, in order to cut down on the amount of greenhouse gasses that are present. For this reason, we've been pumping Carbon dioxide into old oil wells, and doing various other things to trap the carbon dioxide in places where it cannot gather the sun's heat into our environment.

Why Do Democrats and Obama followers feel that Republicans are the cause for Sequestration that is on its way.? by Q: Do you on the left know who the drafters and crafters of said sequestration are. 1. Barack Obama. 2, His choice for New Treasury Secy.3. Turbo Timmy. 4, Harry Reid. These 4 put this wheel into motion. And now that it can not be stopped, Guess who they are blaming. When are you people on the left ever going to wake up. Bash, I could not agree with you more. We had a bad product, and a worst message, And now we are going to pay for it dearly.

A: There is tape out there of Obama's insisting on the sequester and his insisting that it must happen. Here is a very short video from 2011 when he said that he would veto any attempt to evade the sequester: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kRHuTzl37g

How does carbon sequestration have an effect on the environment? by Q: example: carbon sequestration/ carbon storage.

A: Carbon sequestration does not have an effect on the environment. It serves only to create a bunch of BS jobs that end up costing the consumer 4-7X what they would normally pay for the same non-carbon sequestered commodity.

Why are Democrats trying to put the blame on Republicans if sequestration happens? by namsaev Q: Sequestration was originally an idea put forth by Obama. Boehner and and Reid got it passed through both Houses of Congress. If it was a really bad idea, Obama could have vetoed it. The House has passed not one but two budgets and sent them to the Senate. They still sit on Harry Reid's desk. Whether or not they are good budgets remains to be seen. However if passed either one would have avoided sequestration. But the Senate has not be allowed to vote on either. During the last four years no budget has been presented by the Democrat controlled Senate. The Presidents budget proposals have been allowed to be voted on. Now not a single Democrat voted for either proposal. If the House budget is that bad. Bring it to the floor and reject it. Bring both of them to the floor and reject them. But come on now. Democrats don't like the Presidents proposed budget. The Senate isn't even allowed to vote on the House budget. But it's all going to be Republicans fault if sequestration comes into effect? Look at the math. If sequestration goes into effect $80B gets cut from the budget(which we don't actually have). The budget is $3.8T. $80B is only going to be 2.1% of the budget. Now if Congress can't find a way to cut 2.1% of the budget let me do it. I'll bet I can find that much and a lot more. Or they could get a good CPA. Oh WAIT! They have the CBO let them do it. Don't want to take the heat for cuts? Give the CBO a free hand and pre-approve anything they cut. The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan. Let's find out if they really are? Hey Moon, if the House budget bill was that bad, why not just let it go to the floor of the Senate like Obama's budget was allowed to do. It gets rejected and it's over. You have to ask yourself why the President's was unanimously rejected so easily by the Senate? And why the House bill wasn't even allowed to be voted on? Was Harry Reid AFRAID? Afraid there would be just a few Senators who would cross over and vote for the House bill and that would be all it would take for it to be passed. Then it goes to the President's desk. If it's signed there are enough cuts in it to avoid sequester and Democrats can't beat Republicans over the head if it went into effect. If the President doesn't sign it he's got to take the hit for not signing a bill that had already passed both Houses of Congress that would have prevented sequester.

A: @Texasjoe,,,,, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/12/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-sequester-was-obamas-idea/ You might want to do a little research outside lying MSNBC. The President proposed it,,,,,,that's ONE,,,,the Senate voted for it,,,,,,that's TWO,,, and the House voted for it,,,,,that's ONE,,,,,,so the score is,,, 2 to 1 democrats. And, the asker is correct, the House has put out a budget, but the dems won't even discuss it, change it, work on it, or even vote on it. ONLY A PARTISAN IDIOT BLAMES THE MINORITY PARTY FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS.

Sequestration doesn't actually cut anything but make a dent in the rate of growth? by who WAS #1? Q: "Baseline budgeting" has everything pre-programmed to increase by about 8% average. Sequestration reduces that to, what, 6%? So while the fans of big government decry the "cuts", there are no actual cuts, spending will increase, but at a slightly lower pace. So why is all of Washington DC acting like this is some sort of major disaster?

A: Mainly because our President does not lead, but campaigns. Continuously. Sequestration, which was introduced initially by Obama, really had nothing to do with the budget, since as we know, Obama is not interested in budget matters, but everything to do with making the Republicans look bad. And when you have the media in your pocket, it's easy to do. And just in case no one has noticed, this is how many crisis situations that have faced this President? Just one more crisis to not let go to waste. One more in an ever increasing line of "The Sky is Falling" opportunities for the Democrats.

Viability of antimotility agents for nitrous oxide sequestration? by Rationality Personified Q: While much of the focus as to greenhouse gases is on carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Research is being done on possible carbon dioxide sequestration, so why not nitrous oxide sequestration? Since human fecal matter contains nitrogen compounds that can decompose to release nitrous oxide, shouldn't those who are concerned about global warming be prescribed large doses of antimotility agents to reduce their defecation, on the theory that, as long as global warming alarmists are full of excrement, the global warming problem is effectively solved?

A: Could just use a cork!

Why did 0bama claim in the last debate he would not allow sequestration to happen ? by I teabagged 0bama Q: Then two days later tell the Des Moines Register that his plan was to use sequestration and the massive tax increases due to ending the Bush tax cuts as his means to cut the deficit.

Which party does the budget sequestration benefit more? by Cooper Q: Back in August 2011, the President of the United States signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which has lead the way to a possible budget sequestration. Now that the country is about 1 week away from the effects of this budget sequestration, will one party benefit more than the other? Would it be better for the Democrats or Republicans if the sequestration is allowed to happen? Or does neither party want sequestration to occur?

Would encouraging more uses for paper increase carbon sequestration? by Aonghas Shrugged Q: After all, the total number of forested acres in the United States has increased as paper use has increased. More and more trees have been planted because of the demand for paper. Of course, the transport and manufacturing process releases carbon but each year of tree growth within the entire "crop" absorbs enormous amounts of carbon. So, what is the net carbon sequestration of the industry?

A: i think the sequestration time would be a bit short. even my dad chucks paperwork out after 50 years or so. Furniture, made to last generations, now that would be good. we could get back to the idea of pitying people who had to buy new furniture (having none to inherit). My good stuff is all between 50 and 100 years old, that's the way i like it.

Do you support or oppose budget sequestration for the United States? by Cooper Q: As part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, budget sequestration could happen on Fri. Mar. 1st. What do you think? Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the United States? State your view and support it.

A: I don't agree with all that is being cut but if we don't start cutting and stop ridiculous spending soon, we will be bankrupt. Obama has no intentions of cutting anything. He must be forced to stop his tax and spend agenda. Obamacare alone will drive us in to bankruptcy.

what is the leftover product of carbon sequestration? by Lori Q: what happens after the carbon is stored in carbon sequestration? does it stay as a gas or become a liquid or a solid?

A: What is Carbon Sequestration? Carbon Sequestration is capturing and securely storing carbon dioxide emitted from the global energy system. Hydrodynamic Trapping: Carbon dioxide can be trapped as a gas under low-permeability cap rock (much like natural gas is stored in gas reservoirs). Solubility Trapping: Carbon dioxide can be dissolved into a liquid, such as water or oil. Mineral Carbonation: Carbon dioxide can react with the minerals, fluids, and organic matter in a geologic formation to form stable compounds/minerals; largely calcium, iron, and magnesium carbonates. http://www.midcarb.org/sequestration.shtml

How can we get Government Grants to start a carbon sequestration business? by Tedd Q: Our state is perfect for carbon offset and carbon sequestration projects. I have a Senator who is on the Senate Energy committee. Do constituents simply call congressional staffers and go from there, or is there a step I should take before then? Global warming may or may not be real, but the business opportunities are precisely like oil was back before everyone staked their claim. I simply want to stake a fat claim and earn billions over the long haul, and ambitious capitalists would, too.

A: It is hard to find grants to start a business. One possible exception is for companies developing or exporting agricultural goods, including food and forest product. Another exception could be the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/sbir/index.html , which fund the research and development of technological innovation that meets specific government needs. If you can get your business to be approved for STTR or SBIR programs, then you might get a chance to get grants for this new business. Your best bet actually will be from the states if they offer grant programs for women (or any other special interest groups -- minorities, women, disabled, veterans, etc). Or check with non profit organizations, particularly women organizations if they offer grants. Examples include Iowa Women's Foundation http://www.iawf.org/ New Mexico Women's Foundation http://www.nmwf.org/guidelines.html Even SBA does NOT give out grants. From the SBA website http://www.sba.gov/mostrequesteditems/CON_FAQ2.html "The U.S. Small Business Administration does not offer grants to start or expand small businesses, although it does offer a wide variety of loan programs. (See http://www.sba.gov/financing for more information) While SBA does offer some grant programs, these are generally designed to expand and enhance organizations that provide small business management, technical, or financial assistance. These grants generally support non-profit organizations, intermediary lending institutions, and state and local governments." Nonetheless, you can go to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) http://www.cfda.gov and Grants.gov http://www.grants.gov - these are two sites created by the federal government to provide transparency and information on grants. Browse through the listings and see if you can find any grant that would support a for-profit venture. Here is a listing of federal grants for small businesses. See if there is any available for individuals for starting a business -- THERE'S NONE. http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.BROWSE_BENEF_RPT.show Most of the federal grants are given to specific target groups with specific requirements (e.g. minority business owners involved in transportation related contracts emanating from DOT - Grant#20.905 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Short Term Lending Program Grants are also often given to non profit groups or organizations involved in training or other similar activities (grant 59.043 Women's Business Ownership Assistance that are given to those who will create women's business center that will train women entrepreneurs

how does carbon sequestration make an application of the coase theorem? by sugarpet Q: Carbon sequestration is known as one of the best solutions to increasing atmospheric gasses, which is a social cost. Therefore, how is the coase theorem applied with regards to this solution?

A: Pardon me for pointing this out, but your question belongs in Higher Education and not in Special Education. I'm sorry I do not know the answer to your question. When I entered those words into yahoo's search engine, the following site popped up.

Can natural gas power plants use carbon sequestration? by Bruce Q: I've heard about people looking into carbon sequestration for coal plants. Is anyone looking at this for natural gas, which also produces CO2?

A: Sure. IMO, every new fossil-fuel plant should be capturing and sequestering their carbon. There are a number of techniques to do that; for example, if you pump CO2 more than 500 meters deep into the ocean, the pressure will liquify it, and being heavier than water it will sink to the bottom and stay there.

If conservatives want to shrink the government, why do they oppose sequestration? by The 'Bamster! Q: Sequestration refers to the automatic budget cuts that will go into effect January 1, 2013. Pentagon spending will be cut by about 10%, and social spending will be cut by about 8%. The cuts will total $1 trillion. But almost every Republican in Congress opposes sequestration. This seems strange since these same Republicans are the ones complaining that the government is too big. @ Bob - Great. Now all we have to do is figure out who defines "rational"

A: Even stranger is that they agreed to it and now they oppose it. It is a familiar tune.

Can anybody give me a very basic explanation for Carbon Sequestration? by flicka Q: does this mean that ... fossils produce carbon sequestration because the carbon dioxide is stored underneath the earth? how would you burn fossil fuels?

A: We burn fossil fuels everyday. Gasoline and diesel in our engines for transportation and coal in our boilers for power. Without fossil fuels our entire society would collapse. The whole idea with carbon sequestration is to prevent global warming by storing carbon dioxide underground instead of releasing it to the atmosphere. It is considered a clean coal technology and is being experimented heavily in the coal fired power plant industry. Scientists well know that excess CO2 in the atmosphere leads to trapping of solar radiation on earth (the greenhouse effect) so it was decided that storing underground could be beneficial. They have also discovered that they could use this method to extract even more oil (how convenient!). I hope this explains it.

How is Obama planning on stopping the Sequestration law he signed? by pdooma Q: Since he announced so definitively that sequestration wouldn't happen...Congress and the Pentagon seems unaware of that.

A: Nothing that obama "announces" carries a whole lot of weight.

How is Obama planning on stopping the Sequestration law he signed? by pdooma Q: Since he announced so definitively that sequestration wouldn't happen...Congress and the Pentagon seems unaware of that. So you think Congress will suddenly have a change of heart about working together? During the lame duck session? You're delusional.

A: LOL... I already explained this to you... CONGRESS DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN... just like the gov. shutdown... to avoid it they just have to agree to the amount of cuts in the bill... which they will do by fudging the numbers... as always... THIS WAS THE KEY NOTE LEGISLATION OF THE TEA PARTY HOUSE... do you think they want it to end up with huge military cuts? NOPE... and dems don't want that either... EDIT: politically speaking... it's highly unlikely it will happen... not impossible, just highly unlikely... much like the gov. shutdown was... EDIT2: lol... guh... after the election is over... THEY CAN FINALLY STOP POSING FOR THE VOTERS AND ACTUALLY GET SOME WORK DONE... are you saying that the con house is so stubborn that they will harm the troops to put mud on Obama's face even after the election? lol even... THEY are not that stubborn, if they WERE they would have shut down the gov. long before they even did this... any other questions? there's "compromise"... and then there's "compromise"... issues that impact voters DIRECTLY and issues that have very indirect and shady impacts over years... the ONLY possible problem I could imagine is if Romney was elected and the senate dems decide they want to watch the world burn on their way out... lol EDIT3: the answer to your question lies in this question: Why didn't the house shut down gov. over spending and why did they extend unemployment benefits for tax breaks? the answer is... some things even cons don't want to mess with... seniors on SS (thus they were afraid to shut down the gov., even if benefits would still be available, they didn't want to deal with the fear of it), tax cuts for the rich... and MILITARY CUTS... those are third rails even for the GOP house...

What do you think about the use of Sequestration as a tool to motivate congress to do their job? by Gadfly Q: If Sequestration is intend to motivate congress to finally address our fiscal crisis, shouldn't the programs effected directly and immediately impact congress and their constituents. If Congress pay and benefits were effected and their constituents would suddenly lose needed benefits and blame them for their inaction, wouldn't that provide more of an incentive to address the problem rather than "kicking the can down the road" once again? I'm not saying that voters should lose needed benefits, but my understanding of Sequestration is that it should be so unpleasant that politicians are motivated to act before it is imposed. From what I have seen, politicians are best motivated by the prospect of losing votes and therefore power. Nor an I implying that the proposed military cuts would not devastate our military and severely damage its ability to protect our interest. I just think a more immediate and direct consequences to the politicians themselves would be more effective if as they claim the Sequestration is intended to motivate them. @LTM I agree. Manufacturing or taking advantage of crisis's in order to justify the imposition of extraordinary measures is simply another means of overstepping the limits the Constitution and common sense puts on governmental authority. Still, there is something that sticks in my craw about the rational behind this Sequester game. It's worse than their standard "Kabuki Theater". We are facing economic disaster due to the actions of Congress, they hold the purse strings. Yet, they can not come to an agreement on any meaningful course of action, or for the most part even admit their responsibility for our situation. So what do they do? They come up with a plan of mutually assured destruction, a sword of Damocles to hang above the countries head with the supposed purpose of motivating themselves to action. Where does that leave us? Our country is treated like the baby in the fable of King Solomon when he suggested the baby be cut in half in order to find out whose motives were pure, except this time there is no wise arbitrator who will rule for the politician who values the child's life more than any agenda. Let them play chicken with their own prosperity, not that of future generations. I'm rambling. I'm not sure why I'm having such a hard time expressing myself on this issue. I think I'll go pull another shot of espresso, smoke a cigarette, and try to wrap my mind around this insanity.

A: "consequences to the politicians" .. How about term limits? Like someone said, A bad idea whose time has come. I don't care for the sequestration idea. How many bills have we had rammed down our throats lately because of artificial deadlines? "Obama-Care", NDAA, and NOW they're trying to rush Gun Control! I'd rather have no bills passed than the hurry up and hurry up bullchit we've witnessed lately. Edit: No actually you're making a lot of sense :) Good points. Especially Re: The baby and King Solomon I remember right after they passed sequestration, a writer on the left did a piece on the subject. His main point was basically 'Don't sweat it, neither side is serious and when the time comes they'll find a back door around any real cuts'. I agreed with that assessment at the time. And now that you got me thinking about it, I believe it more now. Why? Because Most in DC are thinking about jobs alright..THEIR JOBS. Notice how they're tripping over each other to pass "immigration reform". They may not be worried about covering Our asses but they're sure as hell gonna cover Theirs! Now I'm rambling lol. My point is, most of them are going to avoid making the hard choices.

Images
Videos
President Obama Speaks on the Sequester Sequestration Budget Cuts Will Deepen Recession - Both Parties Reject Stimulus The Truth about Sequestration Understanding the Sequester with David Sirota Weekly Address: Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction Sequestration Will Devastate Our Military Rand Paul: Sequester Doesn't Cut Anything, Just Slows Spending Increases Here's What Congress Means When They Talk About 'Sequestration' Sequestration: What You Need To Know Scott Peters on Sequestration Panic Time? Sequester Kicks in Soon Professor Gerald Lynch - What is sequestration Political Insiders Talk Sequestration, Coverups, and More! The REAL Reason The GOP Wants Sequestration Shields, Brooks on Gun Legislation, Sequester, and Medicaid Weekly Address: Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester The sequester: What's really at stake? Transparency for Taxpayers on Sequestration Cuts Sequestration Impact to Public Education Lahood Warns Sequestration Would Disrupt Air Travel Sequestration 101 Shields and Brooks on the Job Report, Sequestration Sequestration, Syria, North Korea Nuke Test and Rand Paul State of the Union Rebuttal, Job loss warnings ahead of sequester Sequestration: Bracing for Across-The-Board Cuts President Obama's About-Face On His Sequester The Obama Sequester: He Was For It, Before He Was Against It President Obama Speech on Sequestration GOP Can't Find Obama Sequester Plan; Google it Dummy Markets Brace for Sequestration Nerves Shields, Brooks on Gun Legislation, Sequester, and Medicaid MuniLand: Big cities to dodge sequestration cuts Stephen Forrest Commentary on Sequestration Collins, Shaheen Call for Immediate Action on Sequester World News: Sequester cuts and your life Sequestration is Stupid & Wrong! Planetary Society Hangout, Feb 21st, 2013 - Sequestration at NASA with Jon Morse Sequestration: What do the Automatic Spending Cuts Mean for the Poor, Unemployed and Children? Sequestration 101 Obama: Avoid sequestration, pass small cuts NAVAIR Industry Day - Sequestration Hoyer: The Sequester is Not a Rational Approach to Deficit Reduction Rogers Questions Impact of Sequestration on Anniston Army Depot Rep. Rob Bishop discusses sequestration on Fox News Obama: Sequester 'Meat Cleaver' Will Crush Economy Rep. Lankford Discusses Sequestration with Rick Santelli SECDEF Talks Sequestration Senator Ayotte Introduces Sequestration Alternative Thune Goes 'On the Record' on Sequestration Joint Chiefs: Sequestration 'Devastating' to Global Mission
© OpinionCenter.li - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help & Contact Last update : 2016-05-03 14:50:05