Are the current economic problems REALLY Bush's fault?

Josher

He started a potentially unnecessary conflict in Iraq, but its not like he caused 9-11 during a brief few months in office.   The main problem wasn't Iraq obviously.  He didn't cause radical Muslims to hate us.  They've hated us for years;)  If we didn't go into Iraq when we did, its conceivable we would've had to go in later once it became a much bigger problem, much like Iran now.   Bring down a dictator when he's weak or bring him down when he can put up a fight?    As a country, can you just ignore someone punching you over and over again, hoping he'll just go away.   How many times do you get hit before you hit back?

Gas prices are high for many other reason than "the war".  Bush didn't cause China and India's fuel demand which is the biggest cause for the price hike now, right?   Bush doesn't control the speculators.  Our lack of drilling years ago, becoming more self sufficient, also has a lot to do with it. 

Did he cause the price of the dollar to plumet?  I know a lot of money has been printed lately, but is that Bush?

What did he have to do with the housing bubble crisis?   It was the banks and basic human stupidity and irrisponsible behavior, not Bush.

I was talking with some guys at work about it.  Wanted more info.   I don't like the guy, but I also don't think he's as bad as some people make him out to be.   How could 1 man cause all these problems?  Sounds like an easy scape goat rather than rational thought.  It just gets annoying blaming everything on him.

 

 

 

olddaddy

Bush is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the US government. He appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, who is answerable to Bush for fiscal policy.  He appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, who is answerable to Bush for financial policy. He appoints a Secretary of Energy, who is answerable to Bush on America's energy policy. He appoints a Secretary of Defense, who is answerable to Bush on military policy. He appoints a Secretary of Labor, who is answerable to Bush on employment policy.

When any of these appointees fail in his/her job, Bush is ultimately responsible for removing these individuals and replacing them with someone capable of performing the job better. That is the responsibility of the CEO of any large organization.

To say he is not responsible is to bury your head in the sand and take the approach that the CEO of any organization should not be held accountable for his organization's failure to perform. In corporate America such a CEO would be removed by the board of directors. In the government the investors, that is the taxpayers, are stuck with an underperforming, irresponsible CEO for 4 years.

"You're doing a good job, Brownie".

 

Cabe2323

Originally posted by olddaddy


Bush is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the US government. He appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, who is answerable to Bush for fiscal policy.  He appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, who is answerable to Bush for financial policy. He appoints a Secretary of Energy, who is answerable to Bush on America's energy policy. He appoints a Secretary of Defense, who is answerable to Bush on military policy. He appoints a Secretary of Labor, who is answerable to Bush on employment policy.
When any of these appointees fail in his/her job, Bush is ultimately responsible for removing these individuals and replacing them with someone capable of performing the job better. That is the responsibility of the CEO of any large organization.
To say he is not responsible is to bury your head in the sand and take the approach that the CEO of any organization should not be held accountable for his organization's failure to perform. In corporate America such a CEO would be removed by the board of directors. In the government the investors, that is the taxpayers, are stuck with an underperforming, irresponsible CEO for 4 years.
"You're doing a good job, Brownie".
 

While that is true it isn't entirely true.  Some major issues take years to see results and because of this they aren't within his control.

 

 

For Example. 

Gasoline Prices.  Even if Bush the day he entered office had implemented policy to abandon our reliance on foreign oil we would still today be about 2-7 years at least away from making that a reality. 

Our current Gasoline issue is the fault previous Presidents.  Primarily Clinton.  If he had put into effect the necessary policy to create nuclear power and domestic production while seriously creating alternative clean power we would be seeing those results today. 

The same thing goes for the Housing Market as well. 

About the only thing anyone can seriously blame Bush for is the mismanagement of the Wars.  The mismanagement of the Iraq War is entirely the fault of Bush.  He should of replaced Rumsfield early on and he should of listened to Powell a lot more. 

Our current financial problems are not the fault of this President.  We have a culture that is built on cheap personal travel. 

olddaddy

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Originally posted by olddaddy


Bush is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the US government. He appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, who is answerable to Bush for fiscal policy.  He appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, who is answerable to Bush for financial policy. He appoints a Secretary of Energy, who is answerable to Bush on America's energy policy. He appoints a Secretary of Defense, who is answerable to Bush on military policy. He appoints a Secretary of Labor, who is answerable to Bush on employment policy.
When any of these appointees fail in his/her job, Bush is ultimately responsible for removing these individuals and replacing them with someone capable of performing the job better. That is the responsibility of the CEO of any large organization.
To say he is not responsible is to bury your head in the sand and take the approach that the CEO of any organization should not be held accountable for his organization's failure to perform. In corporate America such a CEO would be removed by the board of directors. In the government the investors, that is the taxpayers, are stuck with an underperforming, irresponsible CEO for 4 years.
"You're doing a good job, Brownie".
 

While that is true it isn't entirely true.  Some major issues take years to see results and because of this they aren't within his control.  

For Example. 

Gasoline Prices.  Even if Bush the day he entered office had implemented policy to abandon our reliance on foreign oil we would still today be about 2-7 years at least away from making that a reality. 

Let us place more emphasis on the word "if". The fact of the matter is that Bush entered office with no energy policy. His first Secretary of Energy was a political loser by the name of Spense Abraham, who failed to show any intellect what so ever when representing Michigan in the US Senate. Spense Abraham was over his head in a parking lot puddle. That was 8 years ago, not the 2-7 you state in your response.

Our current Gasoline issue is the fault previous Presidents.  Primarily Clinton.  If he had put into effect the necessary policy to create nuclear power and domestic production while seriously creating alternative clean power we would be seeing those results today. 

Of course, everthing goes back to Clinton, and Clinton will be blamed for the next 100 years for every Republican President's failure to address any issue. After all, Bush has only had 8 years to address the problems Clinton failed to address, right?

The same thing goes for the Housing Market as well. 

The housing market crisis is actually a credit crisis, caused by loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.  Once again, the Bush administration has had 8 years to correct that monetary policy, but has been asleep at the switch. Unless you consider our present situation to have been timely identified and corrected with a "tax rebate" borrowed from the Central Asian banks? 

About the only thing anyone can seriously blame Bush for is the mismanagement of the Wars.  The mismanagement of the Iraq War is entirely the fault of Bush.  He should of replaced Rumsfield early on and he should of listened to Powell a lot more. 

Instead is was Powell that left, and Rumsfeld who's star rose. Similiarly, former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker blew the whistle on the economic future of this country. Note that he is now the former Comptoller. On the other hand, Brownie did on heckuva job with FEMA aid after Hurricane Katrina. Bush is a very poor judge of character.

Our current financial problems are not the fault of this President.  We have a culture that is built on cheap personal travel. 

Ah, yes, the neo conservative Republican defense that no one can be held accountable because it is society's fault. Unless, of course, it's Clinton.

 

Cabe2323

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Originally posted by olddaddy


Bush is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the US government. He appoints the Secretary of the Treasury, who is answerable to Bush for fiscal policy.  He appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, who is answerable to Bush for financial policy. He appoints a Secretary of Energy, who is answerable to Bush on America's energy policy. He appoints a Secretary of Defense, who is answerable to Bush on military policy. He appoints a Secretary of Labor, who is answerable to Bush on employment policy.
When any of these appointees fail in his/her job, Bush is ultimately responsible for removing these individuals and replacing them with someone capable of performing the job better. That is the responsibility of the CEO of any large organization.
To say he is not responsible is to bury your head in the sand and take the approach that the CEO of any organization should not be held accountable for his organization's failure to perform. In corporate America such a CEO would be removed by the board of directors. In the government the investors, that is the taxpayers, are stuck with an underperforming, irresponsible CEO for 4 years.
"You're doing a good job, Brownie".
 

While that is true it isn't entirely true.  Some major issues take years to see results and because of this they aren't within his control.  

For Example. 

Gasoline Prices.  Even if Bush the day he entered office had implemented policy to abandon our reliance on foreign oil we would still today be about 2-7 years at least away from making that a reality. 

Let us place more emphasis on the word "if". The fact of the matter is that Bush entered office with no energy policy. His first Secretary of Energy was a political loser by the name of Spense Abraham, who failed to show any intellect what so ever when representing Michigan in the US Senate. Spense Abraham was over his head in a parking lot puddle. That was 8 years ago, not the 2-7 you state in your response.

First of all it takes 10-15 years at the earliest to see any type of results from Energy change.  Our current Crisis is the fault of the prior President.  Just like the Crisis we will be in 2-7 years from now will be the fault of President Bush.  You can't switch overnight and none of our Prior Presidents have made the necessary switch.  I only go back as far as Clinton because while Reagan was in Office the current concerns were not as big of an issue.  China and India weren't huge purchasers of Oil.  Oil had dropped way down in price to combat our attempts to make synthetic oil, etc. 

Our current Gasoline issue is the fault previous Presidents.  Primarily Clinton.  If he had put into effect the necessary policy to create nuclear power and domestic production while seriously creating alternative clean power we would be seeing those results today. 

Of course, everthing goes back to Clinton, and Clinton will be blamed for the next 100 years for every Republican President's failure to address any issue. After all, Bush has only had 8 years to address the problems Clinton failed to address, right?

And when the same question comes up in 2010-2013 time frame the fault will be Bush's for not making the necessary changes.  Energy changes like Economic Policy Changes take a long time to actually have any effect.  About 10-15 years.

The same thing goes for the Housing Market as well. 

The housing market crisis is actually a credit crisis, caused by loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.  Once again, the Bush administration has had 8 years to correct that monetary policy, but has been asleep at the switch. Unless you consider our present situation to have been timely identified and corrected with a "tax rebate" borrowed from the Central Asian banks? 

This credit crisis has roots way before Bush came into office.  Once again Bush is not at fault for the current problems but will be at fault for the problems in 2-7 years from now. 

About the only thing anyone can seriously blame Bush for is the mismanagement of the Wars.  The mismanagement of the Iraq War is entirely the fault of Bush.  He should of replaced Rumsfield early on and he should of listened to Powell a lot more. 

Instead is was Powell that left, and Rumsfeld who's star rose. Similiarly, former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker blew the whistle on the economic future of this country. Note that he is now the former Comptoller. On the other hand, Brownie did on heckuva job with FEMA aid after Hurricane Katrina. Bush is a very poor judge of character.

Bush is a poor judge of character.  Rumsfield was the wrong person for the Job.  Brown was as well.  Cheney is a poor choice for VP. 

Our current financial problems are not the fault of this President.  We have a culture that is built on cheap personal travel. 

Ah, yes, the neo conservative Republican defense that no one can be held accountable because it is society's fault. Unless, of course, it's Clinton.

Are you honestly falling back on Name calling?  I obviously am not a NeoCon.  You have seen plenty of my posts I know that for a fact.  I am a Libertarian/old school republican.

 

 

olddaddy

Nope, not falling back on name calling at all. What I hear you saying is the same dribble that I hear come out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, while ignoring the fact that the Bush administration was asleep at the switch. I hear many unworkable plans from the libertarians that follow along with the ditto head logic. To me, you are not far politically from the neo conservatives.

By the way, it does not take that long to construct a nuclear power plant, however the politicians have lacked the will to do so. The problem was not, and still has not, been presented to the Americam people. We still continue to de-commission nuclear power plants, and build coal plants, all the while talking about saving the environment, and ignoring rolling brownouts on the east and west coasts. I live in a State that has plenty of water for cooling reactors, natural gas, and oil, however our politicians lack the political will to change direction and become net energy exporters, rather than consumers. The first State in the US that wakes up and developes an energy policy will be the next economic boom. Here, my politicians are too busy crying about yesterdays manufacturing jobs to consider tomorrows energy jobs. They, too, are asleep at the switch.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration has had 8 years to identify and addrees problems, and they have failed to do so. That makes them part of the problem, and responsible.

Enjoy the next election, we have our choice of two non-qualified people for CEO of the United States. One landed jet fighters on a postage stamp sized deck of an aircraft carrier bobbing up and down in the ocean, until he got shot down, and the other passed law school and managed not to chase ambulances during the primaries.

Neither one has a clue about economic policies, both get an "F". Oh, and by the way, the Libertarians get an "F" in economic policy too.

 

tvalentine

Originally posted by olddaddy


By the way, it does not take that long to construct a nuclear power plant

 

LOL you cant be serious. It takes years to make sure that all the fail safes, and all the electrical wires, and they have to make sure EVERYTHING is perfect. If it isnt, and something goes wrong it could end up as a disaster. It takes Alot longer to construct a Nuclear power plant then coal and gas power plants. And if you maybe you havent noticed but the U.S. has the most nuclear power plants then any other country in the world. 31 states in the U.S. has atleast 1 nuclear reactor. You think everything can be fixed in 1-2 years, that nuclear power plants can produce 80% of the countries power in 6 years, but we are far from that (nuclear power plants only produce 20% of U.S.'s power, even with the large number of reactors).

olddaddy

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by olddaddy


By the way, it does not take that long to construct a nuclear power plant

LOL you cant be serious. It takes years to make sure that all the fail safes, and all the electrical wires, and they have to make sure EVERYTHING is perfect. If it isnt, and something goes wrong it could end up as a disaster. It takes Alot longer to construct a Nuclear power plant then coal and gas power plants. And if you maybe you havent noticed but the U.S. has the most nuclear power plants then any other country in the world. 31 states in the U.S. has atleast 1 nuclear reactor. You think everything can be fixed in 1-2 years, that nuclear power plants can produce 80% of the countries power in 6 years, but we are far from that (nuclear power plants only produce 20% of U.S.'s power, even with the large number of reactors).

 

Exactly where in my post did you see me say 1-2 years? The poster I was replying to wants us to believe that a nuclear reactor cannot be constructed in less than 8 years, had the Bush administration the political will to address this countries energy needs upon taking office, rather than let Houston based political donor ENRON rape the people of California. Since the ENRON rape, nothing has been done to address energy needs, we still have rolling brownouts.  Unless, of course, you can provide specific examples of US nuclear power plants coming online in the foreseable future? How many are currently under construction, and how far along is that construction?

Where I live we had two nuclear power plants. One has been decommisioned and replaced with a coal plant, while our governor talks of saving the environment and satisfying the State's energy needs using wind power. Wind power will only provide 2% of our annual State energy needs, and is not enough to lower energy rates and attract jobs and investment into my State.

Same with bio fuel production, it is a license for Con Aggra to print money, raising our food prices while at the same time providing only about a 6 week annual energy supply. Of course, if we can starve enough people, we can always increase that statistic to reflect a successful energy policy.

When the east coast blackout occurred a couple of years ago it stretched from New York/New Jersey through Canada and into Michigan. If a power failure can spread that way, then electrical power can spread back, providing New York/New Jersey with electrical power.

Look to France for energy policy. The French supply most of continental Europe with electricity, generating income and jobs. Why limit nuclear power to 20% of our energy production, why not increase that?

Why be content with the olive, when you can have the whole olive tree? Why be content with the tree, when you could have the grove? When do we start working on acquiring the grove?

We didn't under Bush.

tvalentine

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by olddaddy


By the way, it does not take that long to construct a nuclear power plant

LOL you cant be serious. It takes years to make sure that all the fail safes, and all the electrical wires, and they have to make sure EVERYTHING is perfect. If it isnt, and something goes wrong it could end up as a disaster. It takes Alot longer to construct a Nuclear power plant then coal and gas power plants. And if you maybe you havent noticed but the U.S. has the most nuclear power plants then any other country in the world. 31 states in the U.S. has atleast 1 nuclear reactor. You think everything can be fixed in 1-2 years, that nuclear power plants can produce 80% of the countries power in 6 years, but we are far from that (nuclear power plants only produce 20% of U.S.'s power, even with the large number of reactors).

 

Exactly where in my post did you see me say 1-2 years? The poster I was replying to wants us to believe that a nuclear reactor cannot be constructed in less than 8 years, had the Bush administartion the political will to address this countries energy needs upon taking office, rather than let ENRON rape the people of California. Since the ENRON rape, nothing has been done to address energy needs, we still have rolling brownouts.

Where I live we had two nuclear power plants. One has been decommisioned and replaced with a coal plant, while our governor talks of saving the environment and satisfying the State's energy needs using wind power. Wind power will only provide 2% of our annual State energy needs, and is not enough to lower energy rates and attract jobs and investment into my State.

Same with bio fuel production, it is a license for Con Aggra to print money, raising our food prices while at the same time providing only about a 6 week annual energy need. Of course, if we can starve enough people, we can always increase that statistic to reflect a successful energy policy.

When the east coast blackout occurred a couple of years ago it stretched from New York/New Jersey through Canada and into Michigan. If a power failure can spread that way, then electrical power can spread back, providing New York/New Jersey with electrical power.

Look to France for energy policy. The French supply most of continental Europe with electricity, generating income and jobs. Why limit nuclear power to 20% of our energy production, why not increase that?

Why be content with the olive, when you can have the whole olive tree? Why be content with the tree, when you could have the grove? When do we start working on acquiring the grove?

 

 

because nuclear energy has only recently reached the spotlight so its hard for a new source of energy to supply 40% of a huge country like the U.S. which has been usuing natural gas and coal for so long. Also nuclear energy is not popular, thx to chernobyl and 3 mile island.

Where was the nuclear plant decommissioned?(the one you mentioned) Because its nearly impossible to decomission a nuclear power plant, unless they rebuild one elsewhere. Even if it has a bad safety rap, it wouldnt be shut down, the only thing that would happen, is that a new company would takeover and make some improvements.

And i agree, wind energy is really only to keep the environmentalists happy, it isnt a dependant source of energy.

And yes i think 8 years is around the amount of time it takes to build a nuclear reactor. (possibly less if they just build one, although alot of companies go with 2). And i find it hard to believe that France with around 20 reactors (im being generous) can supply most of europe with energy, unless the population in europe has decreased. I know they are fully (or almost) reliable on nuclear energy (france), i find it hard to believe they can supply other countries with THAT much energy as you say.

 

EDIT: actually the map i had is a bit old, i think france has a little more then 20 reactors.

HYPERI0N

Personally i think the debate of who is responsable for Americas Economic problems is irrelibvent compared to the Question of how do you fix things.

 

In the end its more important to fix the problem than to lay blame on those responsable for starting the problem in the first palce.

olddaddy

Originally posted by tvalentine  
because nuclear energy has only recently reached the spotlight so its hard for a new source of energy to supply 40% of a huge country like the U.S. which has been usuing natural gas and coal for so long. Also nuclear energy is not popular, thx to chernobyl and 3 mile island.
In Michigan Detroit Edison (DTE) operates a nuclear power plant (Fermi 2) in Monroe, Michigan. The plant brings Monroe high paying jobs, and, before the neo con Republicans messed up school finances, paid for some of the best schools in the State. The residents of Monroe were not concerned about a meltdown, they knew and trusted the friends and neighbors that worked at the plant. During Three Mile Island some asked whether it could happen here, and it was explained by their neighbors why it could not. You don't fly in "outside experts" to deal with the local residents concerns. Same as you don't fly in "outside experts" to raise the locals environmental concerns. You use the guy who's kids go to the same school as yours, who's wife is on the PTA, and who goes to the same church you do. They also were very well aware of emergency procedures. The problem we have now is that the University of Michigan is not graduating enough nuclear physicists to operate the plants. Alot of NFL players, just not nuclear physicists. You get my drift.
The only people scared of nuclear power plants are the people that are unfamiliar with them. One thing about Jimmy Carter, he was a nuclear physicist. He went to Three Mile Island personally to demonstrate to the public that there was no threat to the locality, and actively participated in discussions of how to deal with the problem. Three Mile Island was totally unlike Chernobyl. US nuclear plants are not generally unsafe.
Where was the nuclear plant decommissioned?(the one you mentioned) Because its nearly impossible to decomission a nuclear power plant, unless they rebuild one elsewhere. Even if it has a bad safety rap, it wouldnt be shut down, the only thing that would happen, is that a new company would takeover and make some improvements.
Consumer Power decommissioned a nuclear power plant in western Michigan. It was not replaced with a nuclear power plant, but was replaced with a coal burner. Michigan has the advantage of being surrounded by Great Lakes, fully capable of providing the water necessary to cool nuclear fuel rods. There is plenty of undeveloped shoreline, and even a few shut down military bases, that construction could occur at. However, it takes more than the will of the utility companies to build a plant, it takes the will of the politicians to advocate constuction with the public and the regulatory agencies.
The future of Michigan is in providing cheap, abundant, dependable energy to business that wishes to relocate here. We have the oil and natural gas deposits. We have the water sports, the winter sports, and the quality of life for relocating. We need to convince information age companies that they want to be here because we can meet their energy needs, while at the same time exporting energy to Chicago, Ontario, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey to pay for the expansion and upgrade of our power grid (another national problem, the power grid infrastructure). However, our politicians are too busy living in the 1960s to see things as they really are. That, and raping the taxpayers.
And i agree, wind energy is really only to keep the environmentalists happy, it isnt a dependant source of energy.
Thank goodness someone else understands this. Here in Michigan we could provide more energy from the hot air our politicians give off over this. That, and they love to talk solar, in a State that is known for cloud cover and rain. It's kind of like Seattle relying on solar power.
And yes i think 8 years is around the amount of time it takes to build a nuclear reactor. (possibly less if they just build one, although alot of companies go with 2). And i find it hard to believe that France with around 20 reactors (im being generous) can supply most of europe with energy, unless the population in europe has decreased. I know they are fully (or almost) reliable on nuclear energy (france), i find it hard to believe they can supply other countries with THAT much energy as you say.
Well, the French electrical power company is a conglomerate, and has used the proceeds from supplying Europe to get into all sorts of diverse business, even developing computer games. You would have to check their earnings reports.  
Anyway, my point is that the Bush administration came into office without an energy plan, other than allowing Houston political donor ENRON free reign to manipulate the California market, as well as the oil companies free reign. The question was whether Bush can be blamed for our current situation, my answer is yes. His administration failed to forecast and address the nation's energy needs just as much as every other administration. Not a difficult thing really, when you consider that the last nuclear plant was commissioned in the late 1970s, when we had a lower population, less electical appliances, and lower demand. Even a moron could see that our consumption was outpacing supply. Yet America sleeps on.
EDIT: actually the map i had is a bit old, i think france has a little more then 20 reactors.

 

Cabe2323

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by tvalentine  
because nuclear energy has only recently reached the spotlight so its hard for a new source of energy to supply 40% of a huge country like the U.S. which has been usuing natural gas and coal for so long. Also nuclear energy is not popular, thx to chernobyl and 3 mile island.
In Michigan Detroit Edison (DTE) operates a nuclear power plant (Fermi 2) in Monroe, Michigan. The plant brings Monroe high paying jobs, and, before the neo con Republicans messed up school finances, paid for some of the best schools in the State. The residents of Monroe were not concerned about a meltdown, they knew and trusted the friends and neighbors that worked at the plant. During Three Mile Island some asked whether it could happen here, and it was explained by their neighbors why it could not. You don't fly in "outside experts" to deal with the local residents concerns. Same as you don't fly in "outside experts" to raise the locals environmental concerns. You use the guy who'se kids go to the same school as yours, who'se wife is on the PTA, and who goes to the same church you do. They also were very well aware of emergency procedures. The problem we have now is that the University of Michigan is not graduating enough nuclear physicists to operate the plants. Alot of NFL players, just not nuclear physicists. You get my drift.
The only people scared of nuclear power plants are the people that are unfamiliar with them. One thing about Jimmy Carter, he was a nuclear physicist. He went to Three Mile Island personally to demonstrate to the public that there was no threat to the locality, and actively participated in discussions of how to deal with the problem. Three Mile Island was totally unlike Chernobyl. US nuclear plants are not generally unsafe.
Where was the nuclear plant decommissioned?(the one you mentioned) Because its nearly impossible to decomission a nuclear power plant, unless they rebuild one elsewhere. Even if it has a bad safety rap, it wouldnt be shut down, the only thing that would happen, is that a new company would takeover and make some improvements.
Consumer Power decommissioned a nuclear power plant in western Michigan. It was not replaced with a nuclear power plant, but was replaced with a coal burner. Michigan has the advantage of being surrounded by Great Lakes, fully capable of providing the water necessary to cool nuclear fuel rods. There is plenty of undeveloped shoreline, and even a few shut down military bases, that construction could occur at. However, it takes more than the will of the utility companies to build a plant, it takes the will of the politicians to advocate constuction with the public and the regulatory agencies.
The future of Michigan is in providing cheap, abundant, dependable energy to business that wishes to relocate here. We have the water sports, the winter sports, and the quality of life for relocating. We need to convince information age companies that they want to be here because we can meet their energy needs, while at the same time exporting energy to Chicago, Ontario, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey to pay for the expansion and upgrade of our power grid (another national problem, the power grid infrastructure). However, our politicians are too busy living in the 1960s to see things as they really are. That, and raping the taxpayers.
And i agree, wind energy is really only to keep the environmentalists happy, it isnt a dependant source of energy.
Thank goodness someone else understands this. Here in Michigan we could provide more energy from the hot air our politicians give off over this. That, and they love to talk solar, in a State that is known for cloud cover and rain. It's kind of like Seattle relying on solar power.
And yes i think 8 years is around the amount of time it takes to build a nuclear reactor. (possibly less if they just build one, although alot of companies go with 2). And i find it hard to believe that France with around 20 reactors (im being generous) can supply most of europe with energy, unless the population in europe has decreased. I know they are fully (or almost) reliable on nuclear energy (france), i find it hard to believe they can supply other countries with THAT much energy as you say.
Well, the French electrical power company is a conglomerate, and has used the proceeds from supplying Europe to get into all sorts of diverse business, even developing computer games. You would have to check their earnings reports.  
Anyway, my point is that the Bush administration came into office without an energy plan, other than allowing Houston political donor ENRON free reign to manipulate the California market, as well as the oil companies free reign. The question was whether Bush can be blamed for our current situation, my answer is yes. His administration failed to forecast and address the nation's energy needs just as much as every other administration. Not a difficult thing really, when you consider that the last nuclear plant was commissioned in the late 1970s, when we had a lower population, less electical appliances, and lower demand. Even a moron could see that our consumption was outpacing supply. Yet America sleeps on.
EDIT: actually the map i had is a bit old, i think france has a little more then 20 reactors.

 

I understand what you are saying Olddaddy and agree with you in many ways.  My point was that our Current Situation is the Fault of the prior administration.  Lets say that Bush did start legislation that takes at least a year or two just to come into affect and then the building of the plants can take as much as 5-6 years.  So sure right now we could just be feeling the affects but what about Clinton?  Why does he get a free pass and no one blames his administration for our current problems?  They are equally to blame for it.  That was my point.  Clinton for our current problems and Bush for not trying to fix it and prolonging our problems for years more.

olddaddy

Originally posted by Cabe2323
I understand what you are saying Olddaddy and agree with you in many ways.  My point was that our Current Situation is the Fault of the prior administration.  Lets say that Bush did start legislation that takes at least a year or two just to come into affect and then the building of the plants can take as much as 5-6 years.  So sure right now we could just be feeling the affects but what about Clinton?  Why does he get a free pass and no one blames his administration for our current problems?  They are equally to blame for it.  That was my point.  Clinton for our current problems and Bush for not trying to fix it and prolonging our problems for years more.

 

I don't give Clinton a free pass, nor do I give George Herbert Walker Bush, Reagan, or Carter a free pass. The question was whether Bush is responsible for the mess we are in. Yes he is. The US population has grown substantially since the last nuclear power plant was commissioned. In the 1970s air conditioning was not as prevelent in every American household. Nor were there VCRs, microwaves, mutiple televisions, dishwashers, clothes dryers, George Foreman grills, etc. Each and every one of these administrations should have been aware of the problems with America's infrastructure, but chose to ignore it. Each and every one of these administrations is responsible for the mess we are in. Inadequate water, sewer, roads, bridges, air traffic control, power grid, energy. etc. I could go on. The money to rebuild our infrastructure is now siting in the Central Asian Banks, and in Riyahd. And the politicians promise us tax cuts, rebates, and other pandering rather than level with us that we are up shit's creek without a paddle.

I grew up in the 1970s. My mother hung the washed clothes on the line to dry, we didn't have a dryer. We washed dishes in the sink, not the dish washer. We used fans, not air conditioning (my present house was built in 1968, it still does not have AC).  I could go on, but you get the drift.

Our population increased and our technology increased, increasing our energy demands. But our electrical grid and supply did not keep up with demand. This has been over 30 years of piss poor energy policy in this country.

Don't get me started on gasoline. I remember the arab oil embargo of the 1970s. My current car, a 2003 Dodge, gets 37 mpg, even better than a Honda. Chysler no longer makes it though, they replaced it with a car that gets 32 mpg. Way to go Chrysler, keep pumping out those Dodge Rams, Grand Caravans, and Jeep Grand Cherokees. Let me know how well that's working for you. Maybe we can get Chrysler a Darwin Award. Unless General Motors beats them to it.

and the beat goes on........

bluberryhaze

wow. OT.

oldDADDY.

ive been thinking this whole time your name was oldLady..

LOL, my apologies if you thought ive been mocking you.

oh, and beofre i forget

Bush Rules! (not really rules, just got kicked around too much)

Thrakk

the current economic problems go all the way back to Reagan and the path of destruction he set up.

 

lomiller

Originally posted by Thrakk


the current economic problems go all the way back to Reagan and the path of destruction he set up.
 

 

 

The faulty theory goes back to Reagan and the birth of the borrow-and-spend wing of the Republican Party. Bush I was actually pretty good, on that front but Republicans in Congress undermined him. Clinton was really outstanding on the economy. Look up some of the things Greenspan had to say about him.

 

As to the current problems, yes they are Bush’s fault. 

A)  Tax Cuts – these are great when you can afford them, but if they send you into deficit, as Bush’s did, they rack up enormous long term damage.  The debt they accumulated dove the dollar down and is a significant factor in the increase in oil prices.

 

 The war in Iraq – spend spend spend. Great for military contractors but bad for everyone else.

 

C) Tax Cuts #2 – Bush’s tax cuts were used to stimulate spending the soften the recession of 2001. This made for a paper recovery without really allowing the underlying fundamentals to correct. Consumer stimulus kept investors aggressive so internet bubble money flowed into the real-estate market setting the stage for last years collapse. 

 

D) Energy policy – Bush’s energy policy essentially amounted to encouraging more drilling, but the US simply doesn’t have the resources in the ground to make headway on the production front. He failed to push conservation or better practices, so US oil consumption went up when it should have been going down. Had the US takes steps to reduce oil usage over the last 7 years not only would the impact of high gas prices be lower but the trade deficit would be as well.

 

E) Trade with China – trade is good for an economy, but only with partners who allow you equal access to their own markets, China does not. It imports technology and know how and natural resources, nothing else. They are not a good trade partner by any means. 

Cabe2323

nevermind

Vemoi

Originally posted by lomiller

Originally posted by Thrakk


the current economic problems go all the way back to Reagan and the path of destruction he set up.
 

 

 

The faulty theory goes back to Reagan and the birth of the borrow-and-spend wing of the Republican Party. Bush I was actually pretty good, on that front but Republicans in Congress undermined him. Clinton was really outstanding on the economy. Look up some of the things Greenspan had to say about him.

 

As to the current problems, yes they are Bush’s fault. 

A)  Tax Cuts – these are great when you can afford them, but if they send you into deficit, as Bush’s did, they rack up enormous long term damage.  The debt they accumulated dove the dollar down and is a significant factor in the increase in oil prices.

 

 The war in Iraq – spend spend spend. Great for military contractors but bad for everyone else.

 

C) Tax Cuts #2 – Bush’s tax cuts were used to stimulate spending the soften the recession of 2001. This made for a paper recovery without really allowing the underlying fundamentals to correct. Consumer stimulus kept investors aggressive so internet bubble money flowed into the real-estate market setting the stage for last years collapse. 

 

D) Energy policy – Bush’s energy policy essentially amounted to encouraging more drilling, but the US simply doesn’t have the resources in the ground to make headway on the production front. He failed to push conservation or better practices, so US oil consumption went up when it should have been going down. Had the US takes steps to reduce oil usage over the last 7 years not only would the impact of high gas prices be lower but the trade deficit would be as well.

 

E) Trade with China – trade is good for an economy, but only with partners who allow you equal access to their own markets, China does not. It imports technology and know how and natural resources, nothing else. They are not a good trade partner by any means. 

 

Man, It is like you live in Canada and don't realize tax cuts raise revenues. We may see what raising tax does here in a few months.

Debt has been going up forever and yes it is a problem.....that is the American way. Everyone has debt...except me. To say that is Bush's fault is faulty thinking. I would like to see us clamp down and do nothing but pay off debt but, this argument has been going on as long as I can remember.

On the war...once the war is over the spending on the war stops! unlike social security, medicare, medicade, etc...

Don't tell Bush but about 200 wind turbines have sprung up in my backyard....I guess for NYC because I am not getting any benifit out of it.

lomiller

Originally posted by Vemoi
Debt has been going up forever and yes it is a problem.....that is the American way.

 

 

Outside of the Civil War, WWI and WWII no US president besides Reagan Bush and Bush has ever run a deficit over the course of their term.   In fact 3/4 of all US debt was incurred under those three Republicans.

 

Originally posted by Vemoi




 Man, It is like you live in Canada and don't realize tax cuts raise revenues.

I live in reality, and here in reality tax cuts do not increase revenues. 

Vemoi

Originally posted by lomiller

Originally posted by Vemoi
Debt has been going up forever and yes it is a problem.....that is the American way.

 

 

Outside of the Civil War, WWI and WWII no US president besides Reagan Bush and Bush has ever run a deficit over the course of their term.   In fact 3/4 of all US debt was incurred under those three Republicans.

 

Originally posted by Vemoi




 Man, It is like you live in Canada and don't realize tax cuts raise revenues.

I live in reality, and here in reality tax cuts do not increase revenues. 

I might be reading this wrong but looks like deb went up almost every year from 1950 to 1999 in this chart.

 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

lomiller

 

You are not reading it wrong, you are just looking at the wrong thing. Debt by itself isn’t very useful. A person making $100 000 a year will almost always owe more money then a person making $10 000. 

 

What does count is debt vs income, or in the case of a country, debt vs GDP.   

Cabe2323

Originally posted by lomiller


 
You are not reading it wrong, you are just looking at the wrong thing. Debt by itself isn’t very useful. A person making $100 000 a year will almost always owe more money then a person making $10 000. 
 
What does count is debt vs income, or in the case of a country, debt vs GDP.   

Yes and what you are purposely leaving out is that Reagan won the Cold War by bankrupting Russia.  Sure he raised the National Debt but it was with good reason. 

 

This is a good read

Some highlights:

According to a 1996 study from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagans years.

 

 

 

Vemoi

Originally posted by lomiller


 
You are not reading it wrong, you are just looking at the wrong thing. Debt by itself isn’t very useful. A person making $100 000 a year will almost always owe more money then a person making $10 000. 
 
What does count is debt vs income, or in the case of a country, debt vs GDP.   

And this chart proves tax cuts don't raise revenues?! It shows me democrat congress spend like crazy. Notice GOP congress during Clinton. Then when Bush was elected they thought they were dems so they were fired. Oh...a war happened too....and we are still at the level of Clinton with these crippling tax cuts.

edit: If you want to talk about revenue, show a chart about revenues.

 

lomiller

 

If Reagan “won” the cold war why did Gorbachev get the Nobel peace prize instead? I realize you were not even born back then but if you had been you would realize that end of the cold war came because Gorbachev decided to ignore Reagan’s militarism and act unilaterally. You would also realize the cold war wasn’t actually a war and it had been going on in every presidency on that graph. (What is it with Republicans, everything is a “war”. I think that could be why they handle real wars so badly, they don’t really understand what they are.) 

 

 

BTW, the cato institute is another right wing propaganda organization designed to convince people to turn over their money and liberty to big biasness. You may want to take anything they say with a  grain of salt, they do not have your best interest at heart. 

declaredemer

Yes.

 

...

 

Because

 

...

 

(1)  Iraq War

(2)  Growing the Government

(3)  Tax Policies

(4) Corporate Give-aways

(5)  Government Contractors

(6) Waste, Fraud, and "Lost" Money

(7)  Farm Policies

 

Has

 

...

 

Resulted in borrowing of money, which has reduced the value of money that has:

 

(1)  Increased Oil Prices

(2)  Increased Food Prices

 

That has ...

 

Lowered everyone's standard of living.

More Borrowing ... More Debt ... Weaker Dollar ... You Cannot Afford Gas. 

bluberryhaze

Originally posted by lomiller


 
If Reagan “won” the cold war why did Gorbachev get the Nobel peace prize instead? I realize you were not even born back then but if you had been you would realize that end of the cold war came because Gorbachev decided to ignore Reagan’s militarism and act unilaterally. You would also realize the cold war wasn’t actually a war and it had been going on in every presidency on that graph. (What is it with Republicans, everything is a “war”. I think that could be why they handle real wars so badly, they don’t really understand what they are.) 
 
 
BTW, the cato institute is another right wing propaganda organization designed to convince people to turn over their money and liberty to big biasness. You may want to take anything they say with a  grain of salt, they do not have your best interest at heart. 

 

you leftist enjoy rewriting history.

the cold war was 'fought' between the US and USSR.

who won the cold war? are you saying russia won?