% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cameco Corporation Message Board

  • hambonetreestomper hambonetreestomper Nov 3, 2010 1:00 AM Flag

    I thought Republicans like Nuclear...??

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I agree. The Chinese really put a lot of faith in a low inflation rate and the Federal reserve acting rationally as they accumulated our debt.. There is very little they can do about our dollar deflating plan and the bad deal they brokered with us. But could you imagine what would happen if Japan tried to pull this stunt? The Chinese have a very persuasive collection agency, The People's army and a few other historic scores to settle. We thankfully have the Pacific ocean and the world's best navy to protect us. As the two trillion dollars the Chinese hold begin to decline in value over the next couple of years, I would not want to be the central banker explaining to his communist bosses what went wrong.

    • Couldn't agree more brother.
      Carter, the engineer, saw a problem and set forth a solution. Obviously vested interests assured that the right thing would never be done and, ergo, pollution, growth of wealthy and powerful oil nations, some of which are sworn enemies of the US, and lagging development of alternative energy.
      As we fall behind other nations with more efficient future planning, we may recognize that Carter was one of our smartest presidents.

    • Exactly, there current economic theory is that govt should add demand when the private sector flags. It doesn't matter what govt does, just dig holes in the ground, that's fine. So if you are going to dig holes, might as well put it where it will do some political good, which is what the Dems in Congress did. Same thing Carter did with $20,000 solar out houses and $1 billion dollar coal gasification plant which was later sold for $1. Spend a lot of money on anything at all; it will get us out of economic trouble. Didn't work before, won't work now.

    • <<<<I doubt the Chinese are going to be amused when we try to settle with inflated dollars.>>>>

      --- They MUST "grin & bear it" for now, they have no other choice!


    • Nonsense. And if you still think Algore won, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. So continue to blame Bush for Obama's ineptitude. The nation and history know better.

      The collapse of US manufacturing is directly related to over-regulation. I have worked in the chemicals industry for decades, and can tell you that for a fact. Not entirely Obama's fault, but neither was it Bush's, Clinton's, etc. At this point regulation stems from a crushing bureaucracy that is unmanageable.

    • All prior recessions - except the 2002 recession- saw our manufacturing base pull us out of recession.. Our manufacturing base to date has had 15 consecutive quarters of growth --- but it`s to decimated now due to offshoring to have an effect on the millions unemployed.... Joblessness was and is a problem before Obama took office and will be a problem after he leaves unless we undue the trade agreements that we currently have.... and start putting tarriffs on countries like China, etc that have semi slave labor practices (Foxcon)and lack enviromental laws...

      And as far as the 2000 election --- by the very fact that the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped Florida from doing a recount (so much for states rights) ... Bush did not win fair and square... And the very things we are arguing about today --- wars, deficits, unregulated financial and energy sectors... the stuff that lead to the Sept 2008 economic collapse and subsequent bail outs ... All stem from the fact that the Supreme court with it`s conservative 5-4 decision step into the 2000 race...

    • Republican voters and TEa Party people might think they like nuclear power.... but that doesn`t mean that the GOP power brokers do.. especially if the people behind and funding the TEa party are the Koch Brothers who own the largest privately owned oil and chemical company in the USA.... Can`t picture them wanting to fund nuclear power over oil, do you? Or Exxon giving up their billions of profit per quarter to help fund nuclear energy... NA...ain`t gonna happen unless exxon, Chevron, Koch Industries etc actually buy into the nuclear sector...

      The Financial system in this country --- Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc, etc... looks huge to the average American ... but in comparison to the power of the oil industry --- it`s an ant on an elephants butt in comparison.

      • 1 Reply to kcf_07757
      • Big oil is retro conspiracy theory originating from green party in the 60's. Obama buckled and allowed big oil to drill in the gulf. Wasn't one of his contributors the big BP. The two oceans have been blocked for drilling by Dem. Fracking gas is under attack for water issues.

        There is no evidence of oil effectively holding back the nuclear industry-

        The green party and Carter were a disaster with synfuel credits. Nuclear is specifically held up for the waste disposal issue and some element of plant safety.

        The French dispose of the nuclear waste in their country - how many greens are for nuclear power here?

        The oil companies are more concerned with the cost of drilling and access and environment - they have a ready market outside the US. 75% of oil market is outside US and growing fast.
        They just want to be left alone by the agencies and lawyers.

        It is a total myth they are controlling Wash.

        Nuclear is the future but unfortunately we might have to wait for the dollar to become a little more weaker and we become more deperate. Don't look for the left to initiate anything look at what the stocks have done in ancitipation of Rep control!

    • As the world economy continues to grow, and the price of oil surges again (within the next year, I think) the focus of the issue - outside of the US, where boutique views of global warming have enjoyed center stage for a number of years - will increasingly be on energy, period. Not "clean energy", not "alternative energy", not "renewable energy", but affordable energy in whatever form it can be had. Most of the world realizes that nuclear needs to be an important "playa".

      In the US, the Republicans seem to be about as focused on oil as the Democrats are focused against it. All of our leaders need a wakeup call. Economies do not grow without affordable energy. A new oil embargo would probably do the trick. It almost did in the 70s, but Carter flubbed the opportunity handed to him.

      • 1 Reply to brotherjim3
      • Did Carter flub the opportunity or did the Republicans with the backing of the oil sector undermine him... My family owned a gas station during that 1970`s oil crisis and my brother and I pumped gas on all the odd/even days with lines around the block....

        That should have been obvious to the dumbest of Americans that this country was on borrowed time regarding oil.... which included REagan... 8 yrs and4 yrs under Bush Sr and no consistent energy policy except buy from Saudi Arabia, etc..... Even Clinton didn`t do anything -- left Gore under a rock about it...

        Nuclear has to be sold to the USA (because Repubs don`t believe in science) that Nuclear energy is an economic as well as a military necessity-- otherwise without it -- the USA will be fighting China, Russia, etc for dwindling oil reserves and sending our wealth overseas to OPEC ... to drive cars, trucks that could just as easily be running on electric or something else...

    • I believe nuclear has always been a Republican favorite - yucca mountain for waste is in Reid's state making it difficult. McCain I believe in his last campaign indicated nuclear over vote grabbing farmers for ethanol or vote grabbing mining unions for coal both Democrat strategies. The idea of nuclear is interesting since ex Greenpeace executive has allegedly claimed they are now pronuclear. Look for a possible compromise that is very efficient and scalable and green like nuclear.

      With this election it will out greens since they are not really for reduction in carbon but in taxation and control. Nuclear will probably be proposed to out this maybe along with nat gas.

    • I read the article. Please point out where it says anything about Republicans liking or disliking nuclear power.

      • 1 Reply to project1947
      • Hi Project,

        Look under the section "BIG OIL": "Any high-cost source is going face greater resistance, including nuclear," said Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC. "The central Tea Party message is about reducing government spending, and providing huge subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration or nuclear power in an energy bill is not consistent with that," Roy said.

        I think the issue us subsidies for nuclear, too.

    • View More Messages
8.63+0.15(+1.72%)Sep 28 4:00 PMEDT