Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: w0z who wrote (46925)	5/17/2001 3:07:26 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

While I don't want this to become a political forum, I have to respond thusly: Baloney! As your own post points out, many of these problems extend all the way back to the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. Clinton's efforts to make improvements were met at every turn by obstruction in the Republican Congress. Do you suppose the farmers who grow your food irrigate with bottled water at $0.69/gallon? JMHO (and perhaps that of the more than half of the populace who voted for Gore). Charles Tutt (TM)

To: w0z who wrote (46925)	5/17/2001 3:24:35 PM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Energy >>AMEN to that! After 8 years of Clinton pandering to the environmentalists, we are now enjoying the fruits of short-term thinking. You don't shut down all new California power projects for 10 years (or is it more?) and fix power prices without expecting demand to outstrip supply eventually. << I'm a little confused here.... I thought California's deregulation was a state law, passed under Pete Wilson's (Republican) administration, and strongly supported by the power companies themselves. What did Clinton have to do with it? Katherine

To: w0z who wrote (46925)	5/17/2001 3:29:53 PM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

*OT* Energy Policy * Rationalizations**???? Bush deserves a lot of praise for addressing the energy needs of our country. we have ignored the problem for so long. Not by a long shot..... When Clinton was in office we didn't have an energy policy and gasoline was $1.10 to $1.40 a gallon. With the Republican Bush in office we now have an energy policy and gasoline is $1.75 to $2.25 a gallon.Why did this country need an energy policy when gasoline was cheaper than some brands of bottled water? The major Oil Companies are laughing all the way to the bank, while sending more political contributions to Bush and Cheney. The next step is a declared oil crisis, which will automatically mean $3.00 a gallon gasoline. I wonder if Haliburton is still sending Cheney his royalty checks, for creating this problem which never existed. Regards, Jerome

To: w0z who wrote (46925)	5/18/2001 1:09:04 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Bill, OT *** CA energy If you go back to 1997 and read some of the PG&E news releases they are almost giddy with delight at the opportunities opened up to them with energy deregulation. excerpt from a 1997 PG&E press release >Skinner said, "Our strategic view is firmly focused on the future. On a new beginning. On positioning PG&E Corporation to succeed in highly competitive energy markets in California, North America, Australia and -- selectively -- in other parts of the world." PG&E Corporation is making "significant progress" with that strategy, particularly in the company's gas transmission, marketing, and trading businesses. To this end, the corporation is building one of the largest gas marketing operations in the nation and during the past 12 months acquired two Texas companies, TECO Pipeline Company and Energy Source Inc., and has announced its intention to acquire a third, Valero Natural Gas Company, the gas services arm of Valero Energy Corporation, of San Antonio. Skinner said PG&E Corporation also has moved into the promising Australian energy market, with the acquisition last year of the Queensland state gas pipeline. "We continue to identify and evaluate additional energy opportunities in Australia and elsewhere around the globe," he said.< pgecorp.com No complaints at all here. Maybe they should have concentrated on CA where they started out. Also I think it is way premature to praise Bush for the energy policy. Let's see how well it has worked out in 2 - 3 years. When deregulation started in CA in 1996 we heard about the advantages of it and the savings to consumers to come. And don't forget that a federal agency encouraged it all. Today PG&E welcomes the Bush plan and states >``However, in terms of providing immediate assistance in getting electricity prices down to just and reasonable levels, we continue to believe that FERC must stabilize the Western market this summer through circuit breakers, price caps, or cost-based rates, such as proposed in the bipartisan bill by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Smith (R-OR). We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration on this, and many other elements of the energy crisis.''< biz.yahoo.com This whole energy issue is far more complex than just Republicans vs Democrats. Gottfried