While the main post is being a bit of an exaggeration, he has been a fair/average president in his first term and a completely unimpressive president his second. His energy policies have been laughable, but I hate all politicians equally, since they are all crooked and tainted (it would be very naive to think they have our best interests first).
G.W. Bush's Resume'
- Thread starter Big P13
- Start date
Actually, I think he has sucked both terms, and worse than before I didn't vote for him too. He's spent more on entitlements and local representative pork than any President since Reagan.phoenix7 said:
As far as energy policy, every President has sucked since Eisenhower. Until Americans realize that until we attack the power grid itself, there is no such thing as electrical, fuel cell or other "cheap" energies. Any and every Electrical Engineer will tell you that, but no one other than EEs seem to listen to the IEEE. I mean, what professional organization knows more about open innovation and collaboration -- yet they are utterly ignored for their "inconvenient truth!" That's why most EEs, including myself, have no respect for the ignorant American majority when it comes to energy policy.
I really wish people would stop bitching and start coming up with solutions if they know better than us EEs! Because we could honestly use some help!
The only, viable way we can do that is by updating our nuclear power plants over the next 20 or so years, for use for the next 50-75 (until fusion or another alternative presents itself). Not only are our older plants too aged, but they will need replace soon -- let alone newer designs can reuse all of the waste that is already sitting at most of the locations already. The French have been doing it. The Japanese are moving that way. Even the British look like they will join the French.
The problem is political, not technical or environmental -- quite the opposite. The environmental policy of this country, including select states like California, actually cause most of our energy and environmental issues. Like not building newer, cleaner plants, petroleum refineries, etc... The older ones are aging, are not as environmentally friends as newer solutions, etc...
Preventing the building of new facilities does not solve the problem -- especially when there are no "viable solutions" that people like to label as "renewable resources." Heck, one of the better "renewable resources," wind power, is constantly lobbyied against because it is an "eye sore." You can build what doesn't exist or would be insanely cost and resource prohibitive for the output gained (e.g., solar panels).
I feel sorry for every President on this fact. Reagan only stalled the inevitable by forcing Middle Eastern nations to sell oil cheaper and tapping non-Middle East resources. Clinton was starting to feel the heat from South America near the end of his administration, things that have gotten far worse with W. Under W., China's consumption has led to their status as the preferred consumer of the Middle East, and they pay half as much as wel do. Lastly, we have virtually half of the refining resources we did under Clinton -- let alone a new additive just went into effect in the last few months that can't be pipelined (added a few nickles to the distribution cost per gallon).
If you're bitching about the gas prices, then bitch at the people who have prevented new refineries from being built the last 10 years. They are the ones who have caused them to skyrocket, along with oil profits. Simple supply'n demand economics people. If you increase refinery capacity, prices will come down a good chunk -- independent of the cost of a barrel of raw crude (it's not the only factor).
But at the same time, gas prices will never return to $1 with the issues in South America and the Chinese consumption -- at best, with the refinery issues addressed, maybe $1.50. Again, Reagan just post-poned the inevitable. The reality is that we should have all been driving electrical and hybrid vehicles by now -- if we had a power grid to support the electrical consumption. But we don't. And we don't even have the power grid to support using electrolysis to create the hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles either. It takes far too much power (mega-inefficient) to do such, let alone our current power grid still largely uses fossil fuel for creating that electricity for electrolysis.
Sorry, but until Americans "get it" -- the President can't do much. It will take a minimum of 20+ years to renovate the power grid. Anyone who lives in California should realize that what they decided on 20 years ago is affecting them now for the next 20 years. Same deal with our nation.
"totally ignore the state of the economy in Clinton's last year"
We pretty much have had a down turn in the U.S. economy every 10 years. Bush Sr., Carter and Clinton all faced this issue. There was no way the U.S. economy was going sustain the 90's tech boom forever. Not giving Clinton props but it quite hard getting things done as a lame duck. We will find this holds true in GW Bush's last year as well...
We pretty much have had a down turn in the U.S. economy every 10 years. Bush Sr., Carter and Clinton all faced this issue. There was no way the U.S. economy was going sustain the 90's tech boom forever. Not giving Clinton props but it quite hard getting things done as a lame duck. We will find this holds true in GW Bush's last year as well...
Similar threads
