"Isn’t it funny how we have already accepted to such a degree the fact that W Bush is ignorant that nobody even blames him for it anymore? "
This “I’m stupid so you’ll have to forgive my mistakes” act is starting to wear a bit thin. The “I’ll say anything for the sake of expediency, and then do what I damn well please” hypothesis begins to look better and better.
How I long for the bygone days of the Clinton energy policy.
Whatever it was.
[sub]I vaguely recall something about $2.20 per gallon gasoline, rolling blackouts in our most populous state, no domestic energy development program and being impotent against OPEC.[/sub]
Really? In 1998, I more-than-vaguely recall buying gas for as low as 93 cents a gallon. Blame your state.
Far larger than that, too, if you factor in an AMT adjustment.
I’m fairly certain that it was. The tax cut is based off a ten year prediction made by the OMB, and two-thirds of it is to come in the latter five years. Funny thing, though - the OMB admits that budget forecasts for more than five years in the future are rather shaky and unreliable. And then, considering that these projections were made on the assumption that the economy wouldn’t slow down and that government growth would stay steady, instead of increasing like it has over the past twenty years, the projection becomes even less reliable.
Methinks Bush was just so thrilled that he would get to stump on that good ol’ GOP standby, the Holy Tax Cut, that he and his advisors never even bothered to truly analyze the situation until last week, when they announced that half-assed trigger idea. I don’t think it was malicious lies, but rather poor planning on his part.
BTW, first post here. I think this board is just great. Yay for real, rigorous debate!
And where, Miss Beth, did I say anything even remotely like that?
Perhaps ye shouldn’t be a-jumpin’ to such rash conclusions, lass.
The OP is implying that Bush is a liar. So far, there has been no evidence to support that he lied. Made a mistake? Perhaps. Change his mind? He’s said as such. Lied? Nope.
You ever make a mistake? You ever made a decision based on less-than-accurate information? If not, then let the stones fly, babe.
(For the record, my mentioning of Gore is because there was a thread a while back that was almost identical to this, except it mentioned Gore instead of Bush. I don’t know if that was intentional of the OP or not - frankly, I don’t care - but in either case, it’s a terrible and painfully inaccurate comparison.)
100 years from now? Oh, please!:rolleyes: First you people insist the Earth evolved after millions and billions of years, then you insist we puny humans can destroy it in one measly century. If you don’t believe in evolution, Stoid, forgive me, but if you do, tell me what 100 years from now on Earth is going to be like? How are we going to destroy eons of “evolution” in 100 short years? I saw a repeat of a 1971 program that said by 1980 none of us would be able to go outside because of global warming (it was called something else, I don’t recall what the exact term was) What bunk. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Sigh!:rolleyes:
pk, I know you’re joking, so I’m not going to try to prove that evolution has already been shown to be unable to keep up with pollution, nor shall I mention that such things can’t be proven to those who refuse to believe.
Instead, I’ll merely mention that you won’t have a chance to see what the world will be like in a hundred years, because your health care system will prevent you from living that long. Unless, of course, you’re filthy rich.
(runs away)
You don’t know much.
I’m tired though, of all the “The sky is falling” nonsense about global warming and the enviroment.
I simply don’t buy any of it. Global Warming is still a debated theory. Not all of us buy into this or worship the Earth. As far as I’m concerned the world can end 2 seconds after I die. Why? Because I’ll be done with it. Isn’t that why it’s here, for me?
But while I’m here, I want cheap power (no matter how many coal or nuclear plants they have to build) and cheap gasoline no matter who in the mid-east has to be turned into a smoldering smoke-hole, or what Alaskan wilderness has to be dug up. I am a typical American consumer. Don’t bore me with talk of the future. Just give me what I want, when I want it, and at a good price. Why do some of you hate that so much? You hate the American way, don’t you.
I look at Bush changing his stance this way: If I promise to kick you in the head next week, and next week comes and I tell you I changed my mind, do you get mad? Bush’s original promise was wrong, a kick in the head as far as I’m concerned. I’m glad he wised up.
I wasn’t a huge G.W. fan in the begining (voted for him as the lesser of 2 evils)But I think he’s doing a great job.
Well done, Mr. President.
Actually we should be fearing a ice age, not global warming. When solar power becomes rampant it will asorb all the energy and ice will cover the earth!
pkbites has me by the balls
Heck, come to think of it, I don’t have any kids, either, I’m not planning to have any, and I just love big-ass explosions, although that doesn’t have anything to do with this debate.
Shit, I’m with you, man. A driving mower in every quarter-acre lot and an unmuffled helicopter on top of every garage, I say. 'Cept you can’t run ‘em after ten at night, or you’ll piss off the folks with all the money. Hell, let’s turn the kids’ soccer fields into mortar ranges, too, since we all know kids hate soccer anyway–or at least they should. We’ll funnel more money into education to make sure of that. And I’m giddy about the thought of a vintage 4.2 inch chem to shoot off on the Fourth. You know, if we had enough power, we could all be commuting to work on our jet packs? S’long as we had breathing masks and stuff, it’s well within our technology. Hell, they were flying those things back in Super Bowl I and The Six Million Dollar Man. Not to say that I’d blow six million on anyone, unless he was a sitting Democratic president.
You know what? I think I’m a Republican. I’m joining up with you guys. Anyone know how to fish for snail darters?
(Hmmm. Perhaps I should return to this thread when I’m a little more sober.)
Speaking as a California resident, I should point out that the proper blame for our electricity woes should go to former (Republican) governor Pete Wilson and the (Republican-controlled) Legislature, who were the big proponents for a deregulated free market. Clinton had nothing to do with it, and I pity poor Grey Davis, left holding the bag o’ fecal matter that Pete Wilson crapped into…
Speaking as a Pennsylvania resident, I should point out that our electricity de-regulation (which went into effect at roughly the same time as California’s) went over without a hitch. Indeed, electricity is roughly the same price as it was 5 years ago. To blame California’s energy problems on Clinton is folly.
Too bad we can’t sell some of our extra electricity to California. We have plenty to spare. Pennsylvania, the land of plenty, where the roads are paved with electricity.
There are two possible tacks one can take on this:
Now, obviously, there is no way to spin this that makes him look good. However, we should be a little fairer:
Minty Green is being a little disingenious. While the EPA may not list CO2 as a “criteria pollutant”, the Kyoto treaty and the Energy Department consider it to be a pollutant (source - today’s wall street journal, politics and policy. Sorry, you need a subscription to view it) . It is unclear that Bush ever called it a “criteria pollutant”.
The EPA claims that it has the authority to regulate CO2 under the clean air act, but has not done so, prefering a debate on the subject. This leads credence to the idea that CO2 can be considered a pollutant.
So, maybe he lied.
Of course, it appears that the real opposition comes from republicans (well, “conservatives” ) in congress, quite possibly at the, err, suggestion of lobbists. Good news, Stoid - you can hate all republicans now, not just Bush.
It further appears that the cost came as a shock - the Energy department says that the cost of compliance would drive the cost of energy produced by coal by a factor of 4. LateComer - where does Pennsylvania’s power come from? Cold fusion? Oh, wait, that’s in the WSJ, too - you’re the 3rd largest emitter of CO2, at 58.9 million pounds per year. I’d tell you what CA puts out, but we’re not in the top 12.
It looks like Bush made a compromise. He hadn’t crunched the numbers (bad), he may have misidentified a pollutant (arguable), and he is trying to keep the rest of the nation from following CA’s well publisized failure to produce enough energy (good). He sold out the head of the EPA to do it (bad). He is still trying to limit the other pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury) (good) (source - WSJ, March 12, 2001).
Sorry. It is bad, but I don’t think it is as bad as his detractors make it out to be.
Like I said before, this, to me, is obviously a “mistake” because the original promise was so far out of keeping with the guy’s philosophy, such as it is, that it seems perfectly logical to me that he would reverse his position once it was spelled out to him exactly what he promised. I do not believe it was a “mistake” that our President was uninformed.
I expect to see a lot of this. Particularly, I think you will see equally “stunning” reversals on other environmental issues, including Armed Forces maneuvers on government-held land, waste and spill cleanup as a result of the same, harbor and river cleanups, and numerous other issues where it can be argued that time will heal environmental wounds almost as well as money will, albeit not as quickly. Other justifications will be used as they become opportune.
Closer to home for me, nobody I work with expects that the bullshit lip-service that Bush belatedly paid to American Indian self-determination will actually result in the return of oil and mineral rights to tribes on their own reservation land, although that is the basic premise of self-determination. Many of those leases–some of them very long-term leases–are just about up, but we know they’ll be renewed. We’ve known the guy was full of shit for two years now, when he spoke off the cuff and revealed his complete ignorance of the special relationship that tribes hold with the federal government.
Bush’s positions were carefully constructed to be heirarchial, with profit at the top and everything else to be subservient when it conflicts. Emissions are important, but not at the expense of energy costs. Ecology is important, but not at the expense of training our military. Indians are important, but not at the expense of the windfall profits that oil and mineral corporations are reaping off of their land. The list will go on and on, and it’s all ironclad. “Conflicts” and “mistakes,” not “lies.”
Do you see now why the guy was so thin on the details during the campaign? It’s not just that he’s uninformed. He didn’t want to be informed.
We might as well get used to it. We’ll be seeing this again, and soon.
Disingenuous my winterfresh ass, bashere.
The “criteria” pollutants, which are regulated under section 108 of the Clean Air Act, are sulfur dioxide, “particulates,” carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, nitrogen dioxide, and lead (added in 1978 thanks to National Resources Defense Council v. Train). The EPA has the authority to add other pollutants under section 108, but has not done so. And I distinctly recall hearing on ABC News the other night that this broken promise (a.k.a. “bald-faced lie”) was regarding the criteria pollutants. I can’t find anything specific at the moment, but here’s a quote from abcnews.com:
Those are pretty damn close to the “criteria pollutants” I have listed in my Environmental Law outline, so they smell like criteria pollutants to me.
Yes, the EPA has authority to regulate other pollutants, known as the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” See section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. But EPA authority over NESHAP’s is rather less than what it has for the criteria pollutants, which is why it was such a big deal that Bush would push the addition of CO[sub]2[/sub] to the list of criteria pollutants.
But then again, Dick Cheney can afford to sell the planet down the cosmic river when the warranty on his heart is about to expire.
“Why is his decision bad?”
“Because he’s bad!”
“But why is he bad?”
“Because his decision is bad!”
“But why is his decision bad?”
“Because he’s bad!”
(Repeat ad nauseum…)
Man… how can you argue against an iron-clad line of reasoning like that?
This may be the cynic in me, but…are ANY politicians capable of telling the truth?