"Yes, that deregulation of the power companies from washington was under the (Clinton administration) And remember when your state said "no nukes" and refused to build power plants. Well, we built power plants here and sold it to you. Connect the dots!!! Best regards from, plum-dittohead-southern inbred-no nuthin-dumb as a box o rocks-time to watch the Derby- lazy Ps. give us some of your suggestions on better ways to spur the economy. I'm listening. Also you have yet to answer my other questions. Derby time now bb later. btw- really enjoying this discussion or debate or whatever it is." Evidence has provided proof that utility companies conspired and manipulated the energy markets to gouge consumers. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/cal-j09.shtml http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/16/california.energy.ap/ http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20021117/55649.html
"Ps. give us some of your suggestions on better ways to spur the economy. I'm listening. Also you have yet to answer my other questions. Derby time now bb later. btw- really enjoying this discussion or debate or whatever it is." Since we are a consumer based economy, and since the refinancing boom is near completion, we need consumer spending to increase. Give people tax credits for purchases of energy efficient appliances. Give people tax credits for purchases of energy efficient automobiles. Give people tax credits for energy efficient home improvements. Give tax credits to businesses that use energy saving equipment and energy saving methods. Give tax credits to businesses that are developing alternative energy sources. The list goes on and on. If we had taken steps during the oil embargo in the 70's to rid ourselves of foreign oil, we would not have the problems we have 30 years later. What exactly have we done about our oil dependency and development of alternative sources in the last 30 years? Connect the dots.
I'm just posting to subscribe. Optional777 -- it is a pleasure to read such a finely articulated argument. Stunningly fine posting, my friend. Peace, -b PS -- those energy types are not good guys. Look at Cha-Cha-Cha-Cheney.
Could have been avoided: Hey let's deregulate the power companies so we will have competetion among them and we will have cheaper rates resulting from same. But it backfired didn't it. Why, because people on the west coast said, *no nukes* - *no nukes* - we protest the building of power plants !!!! Then deregulation hits the fan (Clinton/Gore) and Ca. is caught holding the bag. But hell no we will not take any responsibility/or blame for our own actions......let's blame it on Bush for not rescuing us with Federal taxpayers' dollars. Well it was a free-market, why, because it was deregulated. Who wanted that deregulation? Yea let's blame Bush admistration for that too. Him and his oil company friends. Yes, that's the ticket. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!! and the questions remain: Would it not be the same people making the profits, no matter who was president? Do you really believe that all of these events that led to higher oil prices are from a Bush administration master scheme? Well, do you ??? Furthermore, Harrytrader, Would you care to clearly define your agenda in written word for all to see......or is it just cut and paste - cut and paste......how many threads have you started on the psychology forum.....with cut and paste articles.....that all seem to have some sort of similar agenda.....now here you are over here on this thread with another cut and paste job of like flavor....would you care to clearly define and state your agenda. plum-not a crybaby-lazy
FUNNY CIDE wins the derby - too bad he's a gelding. Believe it or not my wife picked him to win as they were going into the starting gate.
Did California make mistakes in deregulating before they had adequate power sources? Yes. Does that justify gouging? No. I do blame bush for not stepping in to see what was actually going on. He has been quite quiet on the entire matter, and it has been very clear that he has no love for California....a state that did not, and will not likely vote for him in any election sometime soon. The President has a responsibility to do what is right, not what is convenient or petty agenda based.
Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!! We are the victims....waaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!! Does it justify gouging, No it doesn't. Were the energy companies free to gouge, thanks to the Bill and Al show....damn well better believe it. You blame bush for not stepping in *to see what was actually going on*.....heck man, Bush already knew what was going on, he could see it coming from miles away. Could it be that Bush figured something like, "Oh well, they made their bed....they can carry it for a little while" (no nukes- no nukes - no power plants to be built here) Chances are.... Well, hey it has been pretty clear for quite some time that Ca. hasn't had much love for Bush either. A state that carried Clinton for two terms. I'm quite sure that he is not looking for Cal's vote ever. If he were to get it (highly doubtful), then fine, if not, then I'm sure it's not expected. The president has a responsibility to do what is right, not what is convenient or petty agenda based. Do you expect the president to run the state of Ca.....might want to consider the shafting that your Gov. Davis has been giving you. So are you saying that what Bush has been doing is "petty agenda based?" Well let me tell you that we didn't have a power problem on the east coast and the price of fuel is much cheaper here because of the lower taxes. I suggest that you look in your own backyard on some of this. Ask Gov. Davis, why that is. Or let's take the easy way out and blame it on Bush and Bushes oil buddies.... because that's what this thread Really Is !!! All About Isn't It. 3 times you haven't answered my 2 simple questions. good trading, plumlazy PS. Harrytrader - I have a real good idea what your agenda is too - come on be a man - admit it.
Does it justify gouging, no it doesn't. We agree on that. Bush already knew what was going on? He knew of the illegal and immoral gouging practices? Well, he and Kenny Lay were buddies, so that wouldn't surprise me. I never complained about the price of electricity beyond gouging, did I? You assume a lot of facts not in evidence, and it weakens your argument as a result, and demonstrates your personal bias. Naturally I expect our fuel and energy prices to be higher, if there are higher costs in manufacturing them and transporting them. Who is against the electricity companies making a profit, a normal profit relative to other parts of the country? Electricity is not a whim for people---it is a necessity. Imagine your 77 year old mother, on a fixed income, having to pay these extreme energy bills, all as a result of a mistake or blunder by local politicians. Does the federal government just look the other way, and say, "well, so what if she and other fixed income types suffer, it is not our problem, it is the bed they made, let them sleep in it." I have had this discussion with an east coaster before, who is a consultant in the electric energy business. I suspect he knows a bit more about the energy business that most people, as it is his field of expertise. With his help, I understand what is going on in California, and why our costs should be higher to the tune of 15 to 20% in many cases. Fine, accepted as the price we pay to live in paradise during the winter where the rest of the country lives in the cold and snow, and in the summer lives in the sweltering heat and humidity. We had a discount for a long time, and now there is a period of normalization, which initially is a shock---but gouging was and is my point of the crime against citizens of the United States of America---not merely people who live in California. If the gougers were in Texas, it was an interstate commerce issue, and the responsibility of the Feds and Washington. Oh, my friend who is the electric energy consultant, a staunch conservative, initially didn't believe California was being gouged.....until he saw the facts. If what happened in California with the gouging was happening in Iraq right now, Bush would step in and stop it. He would call it war profiteering, and say that "We Americans don't tolerate such type of behavior." p.s. I don't recall the questions you refer to, if important, or valid to the nature of this thread repeat them and I will answer them. If they were surrounded by "waaahaaaa" comments, I didn't bother reading them. Intelligent debate, fine. Flaming juvenile stuff, no.
If you do some research, you will understand that the increase in the price of gasoline has an impact on the cost of many other items we need to purchase, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, etc. That is why they consider a decline in the cost of fuel very similar to a tax cut, and a spike in the price in fuel so meaningful and painful to many. You are too young to have lived through the 70's and oil embargo times, rampant inflation. You don't live in California, where we experienced a jump in the cost of goods and services when energy costs had their spike, as business owners who were paying higher energy costs had to pass the cost on to consumers. Think outside the box of a single 20 something living at home.....will you try that sometime before you present a myopic perspective on the issues at hand? Think living on a fixed income or budget, supporting a family on that budget, with both parents working more than 40 hours a week just to make ends meet.