Thread
:
Winning elections is not good enough
View Single Post
#
162
posted to rec.boats
HarryK[_8_]
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/20/2011 11:46 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:40:46 -0800,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:54:39 -0500,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500,
wrote:
Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.
DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.
Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.
No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.
According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...
Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus
bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that
runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups?
What groups?
There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several
others were combined. For some reason you think that represents
terrible bloat.
Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to
live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the
collection of methane from cow farts?
So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your
argument?
They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was
a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time)
Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared.
You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in
ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these
boondoggles.
Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some
agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military?
"Under some agency"? You are obviously shooting from the hip.
You are making one of those false equivalencies you are so famous for
Jessica De Plume.
Reply With Quote
HarryK[_8_]
View Public Profile
Find all posts by HarryK[_8_]