Why Some Libnerals Deserve Contempt

[Gimpy]

Not that I don't share some of your disdain for a "few" of the "demos" in Calf. as well for their part in helping create the budget "deficit" by supporting the energy deregulation bill in 1996 that caused the energy crisis. Which BTW is the REAL reason for your states "deficit" now. But, if your REALLY trying to "blame" someone (or political party) for the mess you guys are in----you HAVE to start with then Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and the republicans in the State legislature that pushed so hard to have this bill signed into law back then.

"Conservative" estimates place the costs to taxpayers for this Kenneth Lay & Enron led debacle that screwed California somewhere near $40 billion!

Anyway, that don't have much to do with the "history lesson" I was attempting to "enlighten" my friend Super with---But, it does have to do with some bone-head decisions started by a few of the republican politicians out your way, dosen't it?

have a nice day,

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy, you managed to equate the Nazi Germany of 1933-45 with the USA of 2003...Congratulations.... I guess....

However, the survivors of Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald et al... might have a different take on your "comparisons"...I do suspect....


Larry

[Gimpy]

I certainly HOPE the survivors of those "camps" you've mentioned would have difficulty drawing "comparisons" to the things I mentioned and their experiences. For God's sake man---I don't think we're even CLOSE to what the "Nazi's" did to those folks. My "intent" was to offer the "simlarities" of circumstances and political ideologys, assertions, theories and facts regarding the aims that constitute a "comparison" of the sociopolitical programs for each of these countrys political leadership during the times indicated. Like it or not----those ARE the facts! To the extent that OUR Constitution is still intact---the choice is again OURS to make SURE those survivors you mentioned don't get to make that comparison you spoke about !!

[Keith_Hixson]

Gimpy,

You are a liberal in the old fashion sense. But these new liberals are something else. They need another name, those anti-american thinkers. I may not agree with a lot of liberalism but I can respected it if they are truly American in their loyalities. Which I know you are.

Keith

[SuperScout]

As long as others' comments are going to change the original subject matter, try some sniffs of reality of math: with Gov. Grey-out Davis, the state of California started out with an $11 billion surplus, and at the end of his last term, had a deficit of $35 billion. Now, not even a fool, er... maybe some fools, will try to lay off this entire amount on some alleged if not real price gouging; so far, there has not been any convictions for this practice, only accusations.

Keith, as I mentioned early on, these so-called liberals have tainted if not thoroughly poisoned the once proud Democratic party, and should start their own party; maybe they'll call themselves by a more honest term, like Let's Blame America for all the Wrongs of Mankind Party. The backlash of the voters for these insane comparisons of Bush and Hitler, for the economic boycott of grossly uninformed entertainers will be the evidence of people doing the correct thing, as 1ID VET as posted.

[Gimpy]

Now, let's see if I've got this NEW republican math figured out now Supermathmatician.

Democrat Gray Davis goes INTO office with $11 billion surplus in the states treasury and now has a large "deficit" instead, and you and some others of those "foolish" folks say it's ALL his and the demos "fault, huh??

But, "your boy" Gee-Dubya--a republican--goes into office with the LARGEST budget SURPLUS in the history of the U.S. of A. and in LESS time than it took the Davis administration in California, the Bush administration has "racked up" (and it's gettin BIGGER as we speak) a national "deficit" that is FAR more serious to the country than California's deficit----BUT--(NOW comes the REALLY "foolish part")--according to your wondeful NEW MATH formula----Bush and the repugnants (whoops there I go again, that damn little finger just will NOT behave, sorry), I mean republicans ARE NOT TO BLAME----HUH????

Sounds like a good, sound, well thought out republican response to me awright. Open MOUTH and insert your cowboy BOOT again my deah SuperSleuth. Your attempt at "logic" once again has shown the true "nature" of the "right-minded" folks in control of "your" party now. Subvert, deceive, deny culpability in any wrongs, and continue to "hammer" the other side (liberal OR moderates---it makes no difference, they'll ALL be a "threat" to this NEW math you so proudly speak of)

Speaking of "accusations" and "allegations"---check this out.

Maybe you'll learn a little more "history"--seems you didn't care to comment on the "facts" of your last "history lesson" to much, huh?? Probably because you can't "refute" the factual comparisons mentioned???

**************************

Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, April 3, 2003
Gov. Gray Davis felt vindicated but not rewarded.
Federal regulators agreed with just about every allegation Davis made about the California energy crisis -- that electricity sellers had systematically abused the state's energy market to drive up prices.



Although acknowledging rampant "price manipulation" and "abuses of market power," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission indicated last week that it would order sellers to refund about $3.3 billion, or much less than the amount demanded by California. FERC's final decision is still pending.

"My message to FERC is, 'Thanks for the comforting words, but show me the money,' " Davis said in a conference call with reporters.

Why is FERC planning to limit the refund to $3.3 billion? Because as it goes over the wholesale electricity prices charged in 2000-01, FERC seems to be looking at a relatively narrow window of time, California officials complain.

Essentially, the $3.3 billion covers the period between Oct. 2, 2000, when FERC put energy companies on notice that it might order refunds, and Jan. 17, 2001, when the state of California began buying power on behalf of its struggling utility companies, said Erik Saltmarsh, executive director of the California Electricity Oversight Board.

Power sellers said they did nothing wrong, will try to whittle down the $3.3 billion figure and will fight any California effort to increase the refunds.

State officials said they're likely to go to court if FERC doesn't raise the refund total.

"The governor's still committed to going after the full amount," said Richard Katz, a senior adviser to Davis. "He believes California was seriously ripped off."

Although FERC hasn't made a final decision, the agency has indicated it could broaden its timeline for refunds and look at prices charged before October 2000, Saltmarsh said. That would add to the refund total, he said.

But any refunds it orders for that pre-October period would be limited, and specific to individual companies found to have engaged in market misconduct, he said. FERC won't order sweeping refunds affecting all the energy sellers, as it has done for the post-October period, he said.

An explanation: Refunds are being ordered on a kind of "no-fault" basis for the post-October period. Companies whose prices exceeded a cost formula established by FERC will have to make refunds, whether they did anything wrong or simply took advantage of prevailing prices.

For the pre-October period, any refunds would be required only of companies that actually manipulated the market to cause sky-high prices. Other companies, able to reap high prices by following the market leader, won't be punished.

FERC spokesman Kevin Cadden said his agency can't go after every company for the pre-October trades. October was when FERC notified market participants of the possibility of refunds, and it would violate federal law to go after all the energy companies for high prices, Cadden said. FERC would be permitted to seek refunds only from the actual wrongdoers, he said.

That's unfair, California officials say. It's like going after a jewel thief but not the thief's friends, who got some of the jewels, said Vickie Whitney, a deputy California attorney general.

"Everybody benefited from the manipulation," she said. "You shouldn't penalize some, and let everybody (else) keep the jewels."

As for the period after Jan. 17, 2001, when the state government jumped into the electricity-buying business on a daily basis, Cadden said FERC will scrutinize those purchases for possible refunds.

But Saltmarsh said it appears FERC actually will ignore the vast majority of the state's spot-market transactions.

Instead, he said, FERC will focus only on a tiny slice of the state's deals -- those made at the very last minute through the auspices of the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's transmission grid. The state's direct spot-market purchases aren't eligible for refunds, Saltmarsh said.

"It just seems they're really disinclined to give a refund to the government of the state of California, even though they know the consumers would benefit," Saltmarsh said.

California's disastrous deregulation scheme called for the state's big utilities to sell most of their power plants to outside companies and then buy the electricity on a daily basis.

With Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric bled dry financially by soaring wholesale costs, the state Department of Water Resources started buying power for them in January 2001 at the direction of the Legislature. The power cost the state treasury billions of dollars, which the three utilities' ratepayers are paying back over time.

FERC stymied California on one more point last week: The federal agency indicated it won't cancel the billions in long-term power supply contracts the state signed with energy suppliers in spring 2001.

The state argued that those contracts were overpriced because the state was forced to negotiate them at a time when spot-market prices were raging out of control. Because those spot prices were the result of market manipulation, the contracts should be set aside, the state said.

FERC made no final decision but two of the three commissioners, including Chairman Patrick Wood, said they were leaning toward keeping the contracts in place.

Nevertheless, Wood said, FERC was firmly in the consumers' corner.

"This commission is acting to ensure that customers pay just and reasonable prices," he said after FERC acted last week.

In an accompanying report, FERC's staff said it found scores of examples of market manipulation by energy sellers. The staff said generators dragged their feet in resuming operations following shutdowns for repairs. It said marketers large and small "gamed" the system through trading schemes inspired by, and sometimes executed in cooperation with, once-powerful Enron Corp.

For their part, generators and marketers say they're blameless -- and insisted they're prepared to fight if California tries to extract more refunds.

************************
Yea, their "blameless" allright----they must be using that NEW republican math your proposing, huh Super??

Still waiting on some comments about that little "history lesson"----whatzamatta, having difficulty seeing the "truth" put before you so blatantly obvious that it's kinda frightful, huh? Yea, ME TOO---I know what you mean !!!

Have a nice day,

[Gimpy]

Thanks for your positive comments---I really appreciate them considering some of the other "responses" I've seen lately.

PS---Don't believe all that "pony-crap" ol SuperShouter is puttin out. He's gettin as bad as some of his ULTRA-right-wing zealots on the radio with all that "insane" nonsense he's spoutin about. He'd have you believe that ALL so-called "liberals" are supposedly "tainted" in their beliefs and actions. There are just as many "tainted" right-wing lunatics in the republican party as there are "tainted" folks in the democratic party. He just dosen't want to admit it.

Anyway---you haven't seen him try and "refute" any of the "facts" I've posted so far have you. Nope--cause it would be ridiculous to try and say these "comparisons" of past and current history aren't TRUE!

[SuperScout]

Your tired, repetitive and totally unoriginal blather is typical of a closed mind, not that I expected anything different. You didn't refute the facts that Davis started with $11 billion surplus and ended with a $35 billion deficit, nor can you lay this off, no pun intended, on price manipulation. All you can do is trot out the fact that the current administration has incurred a deficit, while conveniently forgetting the fact that an enormous amount was spent in NY, DC and PA for the 11 Sep attack, that a successful regime change was effected in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and that yes, the Republican controlled Congress added much too much pork to the appropriations bills.

If there was malfeasance in the California power case, let the indictments begin. You might also examine the totally idiotic way that Davis and his administration bought power, in ways that still defy logic and good business sense.

And getting back to the original subject, it is still a deafening silence from the leftist or even the centrists, if there are any, of the Democratic party for the cretin calling for more American casualties. Like the MF at Columbia who called for a million Mogadishus, if they step in front of my car, I just might have a sudden Vietnam flashback, and a simultaneous and catastrophic brake failure.

[Gimpy]

However "unoriginal" my "blather" may appear to another "closed mind (yours for example)"---AND, speaking of "deafening silence"-->One, if you'll RE-read the article I posted it's apparently OBVIOUS where the majority of that state budget deficit came from, the deregulation of energy prices led by then Republican governor Pete Davis and the republican led state house! The ensueing debacle of greedy, price gouging on energy prices is the (root cause"!

As for that fellow in your article---I can ONLY assume that his ridiculous comments were so absurd that most (if not all) decent, honest Lberals and moderates in the democratic party party find them so disgusting and unlike any opinions shared by them, that they don't WARRANT any "comment" or further discussion! The guys a jerk---and I agree with your "anaolgy" of "brakes not working" if I happen to observe him in the crosswalk.

Now, how about YOUR "deafening silence" regarding the "political" similarities" aformentioned in my little "history lesson"!!

[Seascamp]

Inevitably people will vote with their feet and wallets and this transcends political orientation. Currently the SF bay area is experiencing a significant negative population growth and the exit of employers. San Francisco proper is facing devastating loss of property taxes because office space and up-scale residential space is going empty and thus the landlords are rebelling against the taxation level. Other California counties and some western States are the beneficiaries of this exodus and our rural county picked up some compatable light industries and associated employment. So one area?s bust is another?s boom. The reasons for the exodus are many and more or less find their core in the prevailing taxation and expense levels. And to some extent, the overall anti-business ambiance via the politicos is a motivation as well. In my opinion, to have golden eggs there has to be geese and if the local political attitude is in the screw the geese mode, the inevitable occurs. The Bay Area is far too nice and class area to stay on the backside of this situation forever, but no doubt some lessons will be learned and books will be written on what it means to try to be all things to all people.

Scamp