Peter Schiff: "Congress should be abolishing the Dept. of Energy

[Knightskye]

http://www.europac.net/Schiff-Fox-8-6-08_lg.asp

10:06

And then the guy after him, Gary K., said, "Look, he's right."

Good stuff.

 

[LibertyCola]

Why would you do that? Everyone knows that beauraucrats are better at meeting the demands of consumers than market forces.

 

[AJ Antimony]

WTF?!? If we don't have a Department of Energy, then we won't have any energy!

 

[mport1]

wtf?!? If we don't have a department of energy, then we won't have any energy!

qft

 

[Ninja Homer]

I'm really surprised... I thought there'd be more sarcasm in this thread.

 

[Bruehound]

Sarcasm is the literary technique that is absolutely the least likely to result in misunderstandings in text based communications.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

And stop being overly redundant.

 

[MusoSpuso]

qft

You guys are being uber tongue-in-cheek right?

right?

 

[powerofreason]

fancy shmancy free market mumbo jumbo

 

[Jeremy]

Jimmy Carter started this and the Department of Education.. everybody hates Jimmy Carter. So why isn't it done? <.<

 

[Knightskye]

Jimmy Carter started this and the Department of Education.. everybody hates Jimmy Carter. So why isn't it done? <.<

Because the majority of people believe the following:

bureaucrats are better at meeting the demands of consumers than market forces.

or this:

If we don't have a Department of Energy, then we won't have any energy!

They really need some help.

 

[muh_roads]

Jimmy Carter started this and the Department of Education.. everybody hates Jimmy Carter. So why isn't it done? <.<

Carter started the Dept of Energy with plans to give tax breaks on solar panels for anyone who wanted to take advantage of the subsidies. I don't think Carter intended for the Dept of Energy to become the "foreign oil favoring" nightmare it has become. Carter even had solar panels put on the roof of the white house. Reagan came in and tore them all down. Sure he shouldn't be using tax payers money to put them up...but why spend even more money tearin them down if they were already up there?

I'm not nuts for Carter, but I can't help but wonder if we'd all be running more electric cars and powering our homes with more solar today had Reagan not won way back then. He really did have an interesting energy plan the more I read about him.

 

[Standing Like A Rock]

but congress does not have that authority. the department is in the president's cabinet and can be only removed by the word of the president himself...congress has no authority over who the president uses in his cabinet...

dont get me wrong, i want it to go, but that is not the congress's decision..

 

[Malakai]

Sarcasm is the literary technique that is absolutely the least likely to result in misunderstandings in text based communications.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

And stop being overly redundant.

redundantly redundant!

good vid btw as always

 

[acptulsa]

Carter started the Dept of Energy with plans to give tax breaks on solar panels for anyone who wanted to take advantage of the subsidies. I don't think Carter intended for the Dept of Energy to become the "foreign oil favoring" nightmare it has become. Carter even had solar panels put on the roof of the white house. Reagan came in and tore them all down. Sure he shouldn't be using tax payers money to put them up...but why spend even more money tearin them down if they were already up there?

I'm not nuts for Carter, but I can't help but wonder if we'd all be running more electric cars and powering our homes with more solar today had Reagan not won way back then. He really did have an interesting energy plan the more I read about him.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. I also think it's one of the best arguments for libertarianism and lean government I've seen around these boards in some time.

Murphy's Law corollary number 478: If not enough things are going wrong, apply for government assistance.

 

[Knightskye]

but congress does not have that authority. the department is in the president's cabinet and can be only removed by the word of the president himself...congress has no authority over who the president uses in his cabinet...

dont get me wrong, i want it to go, but that is not the congress's decision..

But they could just cut the funding for the DOE from the budget.

Also, I don't see anything in the Constitution giving the president authority over departments.