I have a feeling I'm going to hear, "Yeah...well Hillary would have fucked that up even worse" a lot over the next four years.
I agree, I'd forgotten about this in the heat of Trump's campaign to fill the swamp with like minded millionaires. You're correct, it was and would have been a concern that Hillary would grant access and favors to foreign nationals that contributed to the Clinton Foundation. I think she addressed the concern adequately by stating they would no longer accept foreign donations. Also Bill and she would step down from any roles at the foundation. They still left Chelsea in charge. Furthermore, if we're to compare the Clinton Foundation with the Trump Foundation (remember the ugly portraits it paid for to hang in a Trump branded sports bar in Florida, gifts to the FL attorney general while Trump U was under investigation, losing its certification in NY state... WSJ link) we see that the Trump Foundation is of greater concern. In addition, the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit charity performing humanitarian work. Compare this to Trump's businesses that bear his name, and those businesses that he has licensed his name to. The Hot Wheels to NASCAR metaphor is apt. Do you not share some of this concern for Trump?
Trump nominates airhead to rocket-scientist position. Rick Perry, who couldn't even name the Department of Energy 4 years ago when he was listing the government agencies he would dismantle as president, gets to lead it. Everyone seems fixated on Perry shifting DOE away from renewable energy and toward oil and the other fossil fuels that he championed during his 14 years as Governor of Texas. But this is strange as DOE does not have a whole lot to do with energy, except in general scientific R&D and some loan guarantees. DOE has nothing to do with fossil fuels and never has. Most of what the Department of Energy does, and is budgeted to do, involves nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. Even nuclear energy is a relatively small part of DOE’s mission and budget. Renewable energy is even less. DOE does have control over LNG shipping overseas, but again, it’s a fairly small part of what they do. If DOE is eliminated, no one is sure what would happen to our nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, but that doesn’t seem to be of concern to those advocating scrapping it. What DOE does have is a National Laboratory system that has no rival in the world and that can perform scientific research and engineering development that industry and academic institutions cannot. DOE employs or contracts almost 100,000 scientists, engineers and support personnel. Losing this resource would cripple our scientific lead in the world, especially in nuclear and advanced physics. Link to Forbes article (requires ad-block turned off).
Did we have many problems dealing with our nuclear weapons and nuclear waste BEFORE 1977? (year DOE was created)?
Before that it was the Atomic Energy Commission which morphed into the Nuclear (pronounced new-kley-are) Regulatory Commission and then to the DOE. So no, we've not been without agency oversight. But as the article states, the DOE also runs major national labs (follow the link) that do much more than universities and private companies are able to.
Why not eliminate the DOE and just go back to that then? We have far fewer nuclear weapons to take care of now.
That's one of the agencies Rick Perry wanted to eliminate when he ran for President in 2012. In fact the one he famously couldn't remember during that primary debate. Now he's going to be the head of the agency that he wanted to get rid of.
I think it's obvious neither Trump nor Perry understand what the DOE does. They're just on a witch hunt because it has the word "energy" in its title.
I assume you know that the Energy department has been in the cross hairs of Republican presidents since the 1980 election. Which is as it should be. Like many cabinet departments it was created in response to perceived problems AT THAT TIME which have diminished greatly over time.
What is it you think they do, and what problems at what time do you think they were they created to address? The agency has been operating in different forms since WWII. Keeping track of the nation's nukes is only a small part of what they do. So is funding for alternative energy development (GOP's beef). The majority of their budget is for the national labs they run. It could be renamed, or its charter could be changed, or the labs could be spun off and privatized. Perry isn't the person to manage this. Ok maybe he could manage a name change to something even he can remember. Privatizing the labs would be wrong.
Mainly the oil crisis and related troubles with OPEC and other foreign producers in the aftermath of the 1973 Oil Embargo (and subsequent massive recession).
Well if she said so that must make it true, right? I do, I just find your concerns to be highly partisan in how you attempt to make this sound like something unique to Trump when it obviously isn't. When people say this has been the most absurd/worst election so far, this is part of why - both candidates were crooked and are horrible people in their own way. Yet you and the media both single out Trump as the worst thing evar, and Hillary dindoo nuffin.
So basically, you'd prefer to focus on who mentions the problem, rather than the problem itself. This is exactly the reason that nobody takes you seriously.
What are you talking about? The 1st oil crisis was 1973. The 70s recession was between 1973 and 1975. Ford was president president from 74 to 77. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 by Carter. The 2nd oil crisis in 1979 was triggered by the Iranian revolution. The early 80s recession was due to high inflation in the 70s and contractionary Federal Reserve policy. From wiki: The [1979] oil crisis had mixed effects in the United States, due to some parts of the country being oil-producing regions and other parts being oil-consuming regions. Richard Nixon had imposed price controls on domestic oil. Gasoline controls were repealed, but controls on domestic US oil remained. The Jimmy Carter administration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel (42 US gallons (160 L)). Starting with the Iranian revolution, the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel over the next 12 months (its all-time highest real price until March 3, 2008.)[8] Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed U.S. oil output to rise sharply from the large Prudhoe Bay fields, while oil imports fell sharply. And although not directly related, the near-disaster at Three Mile Island on March 28, 1979, also increased anxiety about energy policy and availability.[9] Due to memories of oil shortage in 1973, motorists soon began panic buying, and long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier during the 1973 oil crisis.[10] Would you clarify your position on the Department of Energy? Why are they in the GOP's crosshairs? Trump needs a new tweet and you could become his next advisor.
The U.S. doesn't simply create a new cabinet department immediately. The Department of Energy was created in Carters first year as president, 1977 when the oil crisis's just a few years earlier was still a fresh memory and major concern.
Let's forget about why and how it was created for the moment. Why should it not exist? That's what nobody seems able to articulate.
The Department of Energy had nothing to do with the 2nd Gas crisis. The Iranian Revolution had everything to do with it. What are you talking about?
How are they wasting your money? Do you think the work at Sandia Labs, Lawrence Livermore, Fermilab (to name a few) is money wasted? What does the Department of Energy do that would trigger another gas crisis?
