View Full Version : Is Bush a Socialist?

05-17-2001, 10:02 AM
Bush just announced one the biggest federal programs in recent memory. From federal power grids to massive federal regs, and subsidies. State regs are to be subjugated to federal wishes. Since congress is about even in the Senate, it is going to get real interesting. In attempt to be all things to all people the green light is out for almost anything. We could have all that Jimmie Carter couldn't get.

Chief Henry
05-17-2001, 10:16 AM
Bush is taking on the libeberals head on with every item.
Bush is NOT a spinless jellyfish. He's hardly a socialist.

05-17-2001, 10:42 AM
:) A CNBC analyst called his program the biggest federal program since Medicare. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme court handles some of the state vs federal issues involved. Can a local clean air reg be invalidated by a federal reg without a bill and supreme court test. Many issues.
After his speech, it will difficult for Bush to veto anything congress can dream up and this program will be yearly a thing to add admendments to.
If he tries to back off, you will see this speech over and over. In every campaign.

05-17-2001, 11:28 AM
I wouldn't call him a socialist. I'd call him a whore. He's a whore for "Big Oil".

05-17-2001, 11:28 AM
If Bush's policies protect entrenched energy corporations from new startup energy providers, I would consider it more corporate welfare socialism designed to protect large corporate bureaucracies from a free market. If Bush's policies provide an advantage in the energy market for any energy source or technology, that would represent socialist central planning instead of a free market in energy sources or technology. If Bush's policies use a socialist tax scheme to funnel money from people who have earned it to socialist corporate bureaucracies and socialist government bureaucracies, I would consider them socialist policies. If Bush's policies continue the corporate welfare socialism policy of giving large corporate energy users prefential rates on the energy they buy from government owned and controlled energy providers, then I would consider Bush's policies to be socialist policies.

IMO, if Bush's policies force entrenched corporate energy bureaucracies to compete in a free market with new startup energy providers, forces large corporate energy users to pay the same for their energy as everyone else or invest in energy conservation and co-generation technology, and reduces the power and budget of government energy bureaucracies, they should be considered free market policies.

IMO, if Bush's policies protect corporate energy bureaucracies from competition from new startup energy providers, continues to give large corporate energy users preferential treatment, and increases the power and budget of government energy bureaucracies, they should be considered socialist policies.

If large corporate energy bureaucracies, large corporate energy users and government energy bureaucracies are squeeling like stuck pigs, then I would not question whether Bush's policies are free market policies.

If large corporate energy bureaucracies, large corporate energy users, and government energy bureaucracies support Bush's policies, then I would have to raise questions about them being socialist policies.

05-17-2001, 11:46 AM
He's a corporate-controlled knucklehead.

05-17-2001, 12:01 PM
State and local governments aren't allowed to pass laws or ordinances that protect residents or businesses in their jurisdiction from federal bureaucrats and politicians. We've tried for years but the federal courts ruthlessly protect the power of federal politicians and bureaucrats to destroy the individual rights, property rights, the economy, and environment of the locality and state I live in. Hopefully the Supreme Court would reverse that policy so we won't always have to live in fear of our individual rights, property rights, local economy and environment being destroyed by the one party socialist government of the United States but I doubt the Supreme Court, with so many of it's current members committed to protecting the power of our one party socialist government, would do anything to curb the one party socialist government of the United States.

05-17-2001, 01:09 PM
I agree with you Yosif. I think this will become the great grab bag of all time. Energy is so basic that almost anything can be a reason, plus the factoring in of legitimate enviromentalists plus the wackos gives us a heck of a mix. I think, with this speech, all groups will have their own list. I must close down due to thunderstorms. I am still laughing at the speech. Cheney has had no comment.

05-17-2001, 03:32 PM
Hmm... I don't think you could call him Socialistic. He is pandering to big business and spending considerable amounts of our tax revenue to help his buddies in the energy companies.. but that is more corporate than Socialistic.


05-18-2001, 09:00 AM
What's the difference between government policies that protect large corporate bureaucracies and government policies that protect large government bureaucracies? Large one party socialist government protected bureaucracies, either corporate or government, make everything we buy cost more. Large one party socialist government protected bureaucracies, either corporate or government, make it harder for American manufacturing workers to compete with foreign manufacturing workers. As long as we have one party socialist government, bureaucrats, both corporate and government, have great job security while American manufacturing workers have little or no job security.

An economy based on bureaucrats, corporate and government, shuffling papers back and forth is a false economy doomed to fail. A real economy is reliant on real working people making real products or providing real services not bureaucrats shuffling paper.

Do Bush's policies limit the power of large government energy bureaucracies to protect entrenched large corporate energy bureaucracies and entrenched energy technologies? Do Bush's policies create a level playing field for new energy providers and new energy technologies to compete with entrenched corporate energy bureaucracies and entrenched energy technologies? How do Bush's policies affect the long term competetiveness of American manufacturing workers not involved in the production of energy? Since the corporate owned and controlled socialist press is totally devoted to protecting bureaucrats and bureaucracies, both corporate and government, and screwing American manufacturing workers for the benefit of foreign manufacturing workers, it's unlikely anyone in the press would question the long term effect Bush's policies will have on American manufacturing workers or large bureaucracies.

05-18-2001, 09:12 AM
What the fine governor from California wanted was Price controls, that reeks of something other the something that should be in a democracy. He said, “Bush was not the cause of the problem but he needed to be the solution to the problem.” Isn’t that what is great about the US, the 50 states are totally sovereign states and can screw there citizens without causing problems with the other 49. It is a shame, but I really don’t feel sorry for them. What in the heck were they thinking of placing price controls on electricity. That is just stupid.

05-18-2001, 11:05 AM
The FERC agency has jurisdiction over price gouging which it is belatedly beginning to have hearings on the CA situation. Monday the judge said it looks as if CA may have a case. This is not price controls, but a remedy for past illegal action.
The Gov't also has the right to intervene on a hardship basis.

The deregulation of CA was by a Repub gov and at the urging of the power companies.

The CA investigations have shown price gouging both in the electrical and natural gas markets.

25% of the new jobs in the USA the last ten years have been in CA. So your're idea of letting them sink may reach to your state as well.

CA has 15 plants coming on line but does need about 18 months of help. If you believe that natural gas at $4.00 at the border is worth $14 a few feet across the border, the $200 electricity being sold to CA for $1900 is normal pricing, well.

05-18-2001, 11:09 AM
The FERC agency has jurisdiction over price gouging which it is belatedly beginning to have hearings on the CA situation. Monday the judge said it looks as if CA may have a case. This is not price controls, but a remedy for past illegal action.
The Gov't also has the right to intervene on a hardship basis.

I wasn't talking about that, didn't the law setting up what they called deregulation a price limit on what the cost of a kilowatt would be.

05-18-2001, 11:52 AM
Sorry, common error on threads, going off on misunderstanding.

As far as I know there were three glaring errors in the plan.

#1. The creation of holding companies long ago outlawed, so that you could never get to the money when they broke the law. But these were allowed.

#2. They outlawed public building of facilities which was being contemplated. So no competitive threat. Since they would benefit from low prices elsewhere.

In return they agreed to a set price. This set price was very profitable until outside prices rose, and there was no new building for the holding company deal was not conducive to market forces.

And as it turned out, they could just declare bankruptcy, for the parent holding company did not have any liability if things went wrong.

This is not what is normally called deregulation in my book!

Once prices went over the set price there was no way to cap prices from outside sources. There is an investigation of some outside sources and their relationship to the parent holding company. Ie the Parent made money while the subsidiary went under on the profits made by the parent. If you get my drift.

So the set price acted as a price control in one sense and as profit cow in another with no response in either direction to market forces.

05-18-2001, 11:53 AM
The current situation was cause entirely by the California legislature. They placed artificial caps on energy prices. The public loved it.

Pressure on energy prices built, just like a pressure cooker. Now, the pressure has built up to the point that the foolish cap cannot contain it. This "crisis" is the fault of the California government, not the energy industry.

Wonders what the heck people expected to happen.

KS Smitty
05-18-2001, 12:03 PM
Gaz can you see this happenin here in KS? Didn't the state legislature do the same thing with electricity last year or the year before? It makes me shudder to think we could be in the same mess eventually.

Chief Henry
05-18-2001, 12:09 PM
;) Gaz,

I don't think these die hard LIBS can handle such simple
problems!!!! Price caps sounded good, it feels good,
but is it ever kicking them in the *** NOW. They need
to quit making decisions based on how it feels and start making decisions based on sound-well put togeather plans.

Libs own agenda " It it feels good, do it"

Now they won't be able to feel good in Air Conditioning.

How many old people will die in the heat this summer because of the failed policies of the LIBS?

05-18-2001, 12:13 PM
Kinda like how the proposal that Bush made didn't do anything for the short term resolution, but would prevent the problem in the future. What a concept, don't put a band-aide on it, sew it up.

05-18-2001, 12:14 PM
The Ca deal was an energy company idea, SoCal Edison according to ExGov Wilson. P&GE got excited when the set price was formulated because it garanteed profits and no risk to the parent. Again according to Gov. Wilson.

05-18-2001, 12:25 PM
To those that think the Repubs are winning in CA, a few facts. Gov Graves is 15 to 22 points ahead in the polls vesus any possble candidate. Republican congressman are one by one backing his assault on FERC. divorcing themselves from Bush. And Bush is mentioning my friends in CA every other hour.

05-18-2001, 12:30 PM
Who is the world thinks that a republican has a chance of winning in CA?? The only way that would happen is if the big one took place and LA and SD fell into the ocean.
The entire deregulation should have been thought out a lot better. I do think deregulation will work, but the constraints of some type must be in place. But not price controls.

05-18-2001, 12:39 PM

I saw a blurb on the local news that KPL and KG&E are asking for a rate increase. 10% for KG&E and 20% for KPL.

Counting on Midwest folks being smarter than the Left Coast idiots.

05-18-2001, 12:45 PM
The Ca deal was an energy company idea

So what? Does it matter who had the bad idea first? The Legislature passed a stupid phony restriction on energy prices. Californians got a free ride for a while and the legislature were heroes.

Now the butcher's bill is due.

The artificial cap put pressure on energy costs. An escape of steam was inevitable and it is happening now. This kind of short sighted thinking is exactly what must be avoided now. California ran up a debt with cheap energy and now they have to balance the books. Since the legislature in Kansas did not commit the same stupid error, I see no need for Kansans to pay for California's sins.

Sees no need to bail out California.

05-18-2001, 12:51 PM
Actually Southern California is the Republican concentration in CA. From Long Beach south. There are enough Repub congress people here that the Demos could win the House over the issue. So this is big thing in National politics, hence all the accusations back and forth. These races start in just about six months!

05-18-2001, 12:58 PM
KGE wants a 10% raise but I don't see that has having anything to do with CA.

05-18-2001, 02:49 PM
Big energy companies typically have regulated and unregulated sides. The unregulated side buys and sells energy, like stocks, with other energy companies.

Assuming that the supply of energy is static, my question is this: where does the traded energy come from? Is it produced by the holding company's regulated side? Is it possible that "regulated" energy gets traded for a markup to, say, California leaving the energy company's primary customers with less energy for their own consumption? Could this be the reason our local energy companies are going to the states and asking them to increase the price by 10-15%?

If so, the consumers are getting screwed in two holes. First, if you are in a market like California you have to pay the markup for energy purchased from other companies. Second, as primary customers of a company trading its energy away, we have to deal with the "increased cost of energy storage/transport" (the argument for increasing prices 10-15%) via the regulated side. That's a pretty ingenious plan for energy companies to get rich, IMO. That doesn't sound regulated at all...

Am I just paranoid? Or does anyone else know how this works?

KS Smitty
05-18-2001, 02:55 PM
What you said makes so much sense it's scary. Western Resources is being bought by a company from New Mexica. How concerned are they going to be about the energy needs of Kansas when they can sell it for more out of state?
Goin to get a windmill.

05-18-2001, 03:08 PM

Sorry to throw the world out of alignment there, buddy! :(

Let's just hope I'm way off base and I just have a vendetta against big corps. :D Hell, I hope I'm wrong!

Seriously folks, if anyone here has an answer, I'd love to hear it.

~Thinks the windmill might be an option as well

05-18-2001, 04:11 PM
What if you sell it, buy it back, then sell it again. That leaves a paper trail of bonafide purchases and sales but is actually manipulation for higher prices. If these entities are affiliates, like the El Paso natural gas case, this looks to me to be more than just manipulation.

I think we all are learning to take that what the utility/oil companies give as reasons for various actions with a grain of salt.

I am having a real problem when they talk of supply shortage when people are purposely holding product off market to get a higher price. A natural gas exec justified this today as normal bargaining to get the best possible price from a "willing" buyer.

05-19-2001, 08:32 AM
The California Dept. of Water Resources is now the principle purchaser of electrical power in California. Because they are a government agency and don't have to worry about going out of business or losing their jobs they have no incentive to shop carefully and wisely. So they are doing incredibly stupid and irresponsible things like agreeing to contracts which require them to pay 1900% of market value for electrical power on the spot market. Now, just like some communist dictator, the governor of California, Dark Davis, is threatening to seize the companies that agreed to the contracts offered by the California Dept. of Water Resources if these companies don't rip up these contracts. Isn't that the old Communist bait and switch tactic? Why should any California taxpayer feel obligated to give money to the government of California if the Socialist Dictator of California can seize any business that refuses to tear up a contract it has with the government of California?

How can you gouge a socialist government bureaucracy that is throwing money around like they have an endless supply? How can you blame smart businesses for taking advantage of socialist government bureaucracies throwing money around like they have an endless supply? If the people of California don't want stupid and irresponsible socialist government bureaucracies throwing their money around like there was an endless supply, they shouldn't vote overwhelmingly for socialist politicians.

Socialist policies will not solve California's energy problem any better than socialist policies solved the toilet paper problem in the Soviet Union. Scaling back or eliminating socialist policies like locking up ANWR or imposing endless red tape for businesses and communities striving to address our energy needs will do more to solve our energy problems than socialist policies like seizing power plants or bureaucrats throwing money around like there was an endless supply.

Mr. Kotter
05-19-2001, 06:01 PM
Hmmm...I'm pretty sure he is NOT a socialist.

Regulation and a mixed economy do NOT a socialist make. We've been doing THAT for a while now!

Socialistic perhaps, but not socialist.

Try again, Oleman. LOL