Texas Utility rates exploding &.....

[msrorysddad]

O.K. here take this.. Ecomike I do enjoy the information you use in your posts, I try my best to read fully and digest it all before I reply. I do believe that all men at some time in their lives will need "help", however to need help, and at the same time keep repeating the act that got you and your family to the point of needing help, is not right. For a family of welfare recipients to keep having children is WRONG. I will tell you now that I believe that a "family" on welfare should not grow, if I cannot support my child(1) I would get more work, not have more kids. As for the statement they should "eat their kids" I'm serious. There is a group of people in the world whom will never seek employment, they will rob, steal, and kill, without ever trying to better themselves. There is no difference between them and animals, animals eat their young, at times. This is where we are as a nation. Do we sacrifice people whom work hard and try for those who do not? Do we become as some societies have, workers in "government quarters" to keep people who refuse to work fed? We need to decide now the warm fuzzy feeling of helping the less fortunate, should go away after generations of the same families refuse to work, yet demand more help. I love each and everyone on this crazy planet, however I understand that love must sometimes come with a tag, and that is work for yours and I'll work for mine, you cannot steal from my plate and expect me to dine often with you. :wave1:

 

[MischiefMan]

The help that you speak of should come from the community...where the person lives and contributes. Prior to the Great Depression we didn't have all these asinine laws that fostered the entitlement theory. People worked or they and their families starved.

Charles Goodyear, of Goodyear rubber fame, was bankrupt several times and lived off of others. His obsessive desire to revolutionize the rubber industry kept him finding new ways to provide for his family and earn money to further his research because people would only provide so much for him. Had he lived in the welfare system that we have today there is no telling how differently things might have turned out.

It is embarrassing to me to be part of a country that coddles people the way we do. My friends overseas make fun of the States because of how we carry on.

 

[Ecomike]

This thread should be titled as the topics turn... IAN, you have a great point. Eco, you surely have a funny one with the bike's. The laws are made up by people who have never had to work for their money (for the most part) They create laws to benefit one group or another, we live in a soundbite world. The law Eco pointed out sounds great until you think about the fact that there will be others who get around the law and make even larger profits, I promise, the law was not made without considering who would profit, and the lawmakers are not looking for the citizens to profit, we are merely a labor pool, see our education system to prove that. As for the ticketing bicycles, I would need to research that one a bit. However, I believe that Texas state law applies to any form of transportation used on public roadways in the state of Texas. You are required to have certain lights, and adhere to the laws just as any motor vehicle must. The problem with cyclists is the danger they pose to motorists, as well as themselves. When we were building these roads for the suburban, expedition gas guzzling autos, we should have been building bike and pedestrian lanes as well. I see workers quarters and "government housing", well even more for the "lower classes" in our near future. We the "middle class" are a dying breed. Man I posted this without spellcheck, what a mes it was, get it, mes, oh I'm so funny:wave1: Holy crap, check the run on sentences.

msrorysddad,

To clarify, I was told that they were issuing tickets for unregistered bikes, not for traffic violations, just for having possetion of an unregistered bike. I don't think they issue drivers licenses for bicycles yet, note that I said yet!!!!

Your post reminded me of a gestopa police incident in the City of South Houston, back in the 1980s (before the Feds busted the SHPD cops for the possesion of illegal guns!!!! another interesting story.....about politics & Police gone haywire right here in the USA).

The SHPD radar cop stopped a kid on a bicycle and wrote him a ticket for speeding on his bicycle through a school zone. Speed limtit was 20 mph, clocked him doing about 23 mph IIRC. The Ex-City Judge of many years, (the judge had been expelled recently and replaced by the new mayor who was pushed, & promoted into office by the Police department politics ), any way the ex-city Judge ran out and gave the kid his business card and offered to defend him in city court!

Talk about ambulance chasers, and cities hard up for money!

 

[Ecomike]

The help that you speak of should come from the community...where the person lives and contributes. Prior to the Great Depression we didn't have all these asinine laws that fostered the entitlement theory. People worked or they and their families starved.

Yes, letting people starve to death back then was so much better than what we have now. But since I wasn't around back then I can't be too sure how great it really was. I'll just take your word for it.:laugh3:

So we should let an entire community starve to death if it gets hit by a hurricane or earthquake rather than help them? They should just help themselves, right?

 

[Ecomike]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Regulations

If you don't like that one you can also try:



taken from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulations

Again, you play with semantics. New regulations vs. old regulations. The old regulations no longer exist, therefore, any change in the current regulation would be, in effect, a new regulation. No matter how you slice it man, the outcome is the same.

So, let me get this straight. You said, and I quote "the old regulatons no longer exist", so that must mean that all regulations are new regulations? Or are you saying a current regulation can not be an old current regulation?

If an old regulation no longer exists it is no longer a regulation, right? But why can't an old regulation still be enforcable and thus a current, but old regulation? So should I have called it an old current regulation or a current old regulation or just a current regulation?

And you accuse ME of playing with words? LOL.:laugh:

OK, so lets play! :wave1: I will rephrase my statement.

I want the CURRENT regulation changed to a different current regulation!:banghead:

My work over the past decade as a paralegal has shown me that administrative rules are in fact laws. If you want to test that theory try to go against any of the rules, regulations, and/or executive orders as set forth in the Administrative Code and see how far you get.

The average Joe Blow should probably follow your advise on regulations above.

You suggest above that I should try "to go against any of the rules, regulations, and/or executive orders as set forth in the Administrative Code and see how far you get". The fact of the matter is that I and many others have done exactly that and won on more than one occasion. But one does need to pick there battles carefully.

 

[Ecomike]

I have another good story you guys will love.

When I was the Chaiman of the City of South Houston's LEPC, I went to a national Conference on LEPCs and listened to some interesting speechs. One was from a small Texas County Judge where the county had been flooded. It never had been flooded before in their recorded history, it was mostly dry ranch land somehwhere in east Texas so they were ill prepared for it. Anyway they had about 4,000 drowned cows, livestock, and they called Austin for help. Austin sent out a Health Department employee to help them. When he arrived they took him to the site where they had gathered the dead carcases. He got out of the car, smelled the putrified mess, covered his nose, pulled out his book and wrote them a citation for a health violation, told them they had 10 days to clean up the mess or be fined, and he promptly went back to Austin.

"We are with the Government, We are here to help!" :roflmao:

This is a true story!

 

[Ecomike]

I have been accused in this thread of occasionally not answering a question and thus ignoring, or going around certain questions.

Just for your information, I do not answer questions that are worded like this example:

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no? :eyes:

Because it is a rigged question!

To suggest that we can live in a civil manner with out rules, laws and regulations, is just silly. It's been tried in the wild west, and it does not work. We have rules for games even. Even this forum and has rules and bylaws. Just becuase you are tired of rules and regulations is no reason to stop trying to clean them up so that they are less onerous to most of us.

 

[Ecomike]

The help that you speak of should come from the community...where the person lives and contributes.

So the community I live in and contribute to is the USA community, is that what you mean?

Sorry, I just could not resist that.

So what your saying is the rich communitys should not help the poor communitys?

 

[Ecomike]

I enjoy you guys. I truly believe we have WAY (I yelled) more in common, than we do in opposition. I actually agree with Eco, in a way. However, I Think we need to change people's attitudes. I know, it's sad you can't just tell people that life is more about who we affect, not how rich we leave our families. Our society has become more about money, and status, and less about our friends, and neighbors.

Unfortunately that attitude towards money, problem, goes back in part to our founding fathers, the Puritans. IIRC they believed, and their decendents and religeous offshoots still in some part have some sort of overhang tradition, that financial success is a sign of God's favor, and the more finacially successful they are the closer to God they are, and the more likely they are to go straight to heaven when they die, and if their neighbor is poor it is a sign of God's disfavor, and they should therefore be shund and avoided, and certainly not helped finacially.

Just a little piece I recall from a theolgy class many moons ago and an ethics class years later.

Here is an intersting read on the Puritans. Taking Goodburbons advise and just posting the link, rather than all the text, for those inquiring minds with too much time on their hands here is the link!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/09/usa.comment

 

[MischiefMan]

So the community I live in and contribute to is the USA community, is that what you mean?

Nope, I mean your local, small community. I live near Dallas, you live near Houston. My working hard and bettering my life has no effect, nor should it, on you.

So what your saying is the rich communitys should not help the poor communitys?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Again, I work for what I earn. I have, and continue, to go to school and pay my dues so that I can have more and work less. Why should another, who does nothing for me, profit from my work? Why should anyone who works harder than another be forced to "carry" the other?

Ecomike, I have been kind enough to answer your questions. I have asked you several of my own and would appreciate the same respect if you wish to continue to carry on a discussion/conversation with me.

I wholly agree with the comments about your dodging questions and attempts to push the burden of proof off on others because you are unable or unwilling to defeat/defend/substantiate/validate your positions.

Early on in this thread you commented about how we need to learn our history and you alluded to others not being smart (yep, my words, you never came out and said that, but that's the impression you left). I have, at least I feel I have, proven that I do, in fact, know my history and I am not an ignorant sheeple. I should be worthy of your respect and be granted to privilege of your answering my questions, IMHO.

Now, if all you want to do is bitch, moan and whine, heck, I can do that too. In fact, that's one of my biggest talents, just ask Jennifer!

 

[Ecomike]

I wholly agree with the comments about your dodging questions and attempts to push the burden of proof off on others because you are unable or unwilling to defeat/defend/substantiate/validate your positions.

I think I have done a more than an adequite job of answering many questions in this thread, even questions that keep dragging this thread off topic, IMHO. Near as I can tell you have skillfully dodged acknowledging that I was right and you were wrong, when I posted replys, corrections and references to some of your statements of fact that were not entirely correct, statements that claimed my statments were wrong, statments of yours that tried to contradict my statements. Instead you have dropped those arguments like a lead ballon and moved on with others, ad infinitum.

All I can say to your last most dogged question, even though it is off the topic of my original post, IMHO, is I hope you never find yourself in the spot that I and many others like me once found ourselves in, when the chips were down and we needed all the help we could get in Texas from outside sources, including getting financial help from godforsaken places like Washington DC, New York and California in the 1980s.

None were available at that time from our "local community" sources as they were all bancrupt. If you ever do find yourself in that spot, I pray the democrats are in control and in a position to send you aid, as they did many of us in Texas in the 1980s. I say that because you sound like one worth helping when his whole world turns to shit someday. The Reich (sp?, LOL) wing theory that every one should take care of their own and not help others just does not fly with me anymore. It did fly with me when I was young, in my 20s, before the entire Texas state economy turned to shit for 10 years. That is about the best answer I can give you with out posting a huge long drawn out liteny of new links, philosophy and text about why we should lend others a helping hand when they need it, no matter how far away they live, in the hopes that one day when it happens to us they will be there to help us. If I thought Goodburbon would read it all I might post it anyway, LOL! Gotta love GoodBurbon, like a GoodScotch, LOL.

:wave1:

I for one am happy to pay taxes back into the government coffers now to help others when they need it, just as it helped me and millions of other Texas during the 1980s.

I would much rather depend on the US govenment to be there when we really need help, and pay a few dollars in taxes to make sure the government had the resources to help when needed, rather than ever depend on an insurance company or other private, non government safety net option. I have been screwed, and seen many others screwed too many times by insurance companies. And they drop you like a lead balloon as soon as you need them or as soon as you stop paying premiums do to a lack of work and money, or disability. But once again, we seem to be drifting off the original topic, IMHO.

Millions of people have been screwed out of their personal business pensions and retirement savings in recent years by big business (Enron....), yet the social security system that my Repiblican Parent's complained about loadly and frequently, saying they would never live to collect any of it, did in fact survive, it stayed solvent, and my dear sweet mother for her last 15 years after my father died did collect their socialty security benefits they had paid for. When I was young I complained about paying social security taxes too. It was and is a big part of our paychecks. But, I am wandering off topic again.....

So Live Long and Prosper! Even if you are a misguided, unhappy TAXPAYING Republican, LOL!

 

[MischiefMan]

Yes, letting people starve to death back then was so much better than what we have now. But since I wasn't around back then I can't be too sure how great it really was. I'll just take your word for it.:laugh3:

So we should let an entire community starve to death if it gets hit by a hurricane or earthquake rather than help them? They should just help themselves, right?

Uh, yeah, if they are too stupid to leave the area that is going to be devastated. We have many forms of advanced warning. There is no reason for people to stay in such situations except for entitlement and laziness.

Survival of the fittest and population control man.

You tell us that we need to learn our history, yet when I hand you the history you blow it off saying that you don't know because you didn't live back then. Which is it man?

You complain about your "hard earned dollars" yet you are suggesting that you give those same "hard earned dollars" to others who are not willing to do what it takes to make sure they can earn their own. You truly boggle my mind man. Choose one position and stick with it....sheesh!

So, let me get this straight. You said, and I quote "the old regulatons no longer exist", so that must mean that all regulations are new regulations? Or are you saying a current regulation can not be an old current regulation?

If an old regulation no longer exists it is no longer a regulation, right? But why can't an old regulation still be enforcable and thus a current, but old regulation? So should I have called it an old current regulation or a current old regulation or just a current regulation?

And you accuse ME of playing with words? LOL.:laugh:

And again, you try to take my words and twist them into something I did not say. If the regulation has been repealed and replaced by a new regulation, then it is no longer a regulation. It is not enforceable under any law. If it is an old regulation, but still in effect, then it falls into the "new regulation" category and thus enforceable.

I want the CURRENT regulation changed to a different current regulation!:banghead:

Well, at least you're beginning to narrow down and clarify your position. Now, let's see if you can stick with this one.

The average Joe Blow should probably follow your advise on regulations above.

You suggest above that I should try "to go against any of the rules, regulations, and/or executive orders as set forth in the Administrative Code and see how far you get". The fact of the matter is that I and many others have done exactly that and won on more than one occasion. But one does need to pick there battles carefully.

Yep, it happens all the time. This is how I make my living as a matter of fact. We have means for changing the system. I believe that's what I've been saying and suggesting all along. However, as above, you are once again attempting to twist my words and use them in a context that was not stated. What I said was that if you don't believe regulations to be laws, test your theory. I did not say that the regulations were proper or just, only that they were, in fact, laws by definition and intent.

My questions to you have not been leading. They have been open-ended in nature. Your accusation that they are is completely unfounded. If by my asking that you make a choice, to stick with it, and to take a stand one way or the other is somehow a threat to you, I apologize. I have spent too much of my life studying and practicing the art of being a spin doctor to watch someone make political comments in a public forum and not be prepared to back them up. I am of the opinion that if you are going to make the comment then you better be prepared to back it up and not be wishy-washy about it. Again, I apologize if somehow you are threatened by someone who is willing to challenge your comments. I find it truly sad, but I do apologize.

You have proven nothing except that you are wanting something at the expense of others and that you don't want to pay your fair share but would rather the government force others to comply to your wishes. I do not acknowledge that you have adequately responded to anything that anyone has asked or said to you because you have not done so. At no point have you directly, completely, or concisely responded to anything that was asked of you. Instead you would rather play games with fallacies. While I freely acknowledge that may have successfully made myself look like a pompous arse, you have in my HUMBLE opinion done nothing but whine. I think that those of us who have participated in this thread have done nothing but make the others roll their eyes at us.

Once again it is being pointed out to you that you are saying that you want more government intervention in our daily lives and in the same post you're complaining about the governmental control and power. Again, as I have from the beginning of this thread, I ask you straight forward, which one is it that you want?

I take my time to respond to these posts not because I enjoy it, not because I get some perverse pleasure out of attempting to help you see what you're saying to others, and certainly not because I have nothing better to do, but rather so that in a time of such heated political debate and turmoil people can see just what our government is doing to us as a society and on the individual level.

You seem to want to continue with the entitlement policies that have plagued our country for far too long now. You seem to think that by the very fact that a person exists that they are somehow entitled to something that I have worked for.

Again, I say to you and all others..... Reputo Solvo Exsisto Solvo. (it's Latin, look it up :looney

I'm done posting to this thread (again) for now. If/when you decide to adapt one position and stick with it, I'll be happy to discuss/debate the merits of that position. Your constant "bobbing and weaving" and flip-flopping is growing tiresome however, so I'll leave you to your "I want it all but I don't want to pay the price for it" mentality.

 

[msrorysddad]

hasta :doh: Like wrestling a pig , you both get dirty, but only one of you enjoys it. Last post to this thread I promise. The problem with our society is people want to do what FEELS GOOD, not what is right. To give people "HELP" for generations is to raise slaves whom will never understand true freedom. When we as a nation can no longer afford to feed the millions on welfare, and they finally riot in the streets to gain food. The same people who tell you it is your job to "HELP" them, and that the "GESTAPO POLICE" are the bad guys, will ask where are the police, and why is this happening. Goodbye my friends, remember I was in the military, and my friends and family (AS WELL AS ALOT OF YOU AND YOURS) to defend others right to be wrong. However to allow unanswered assaults to go unanswered, and believe others will see through them is wrong, and how we got in this mess. You do not have the right to free food or housing. You have the responsibility to feed and house your family. GOOD PEOPLE DID NOTHING! Stand and deliver :us:

 

[Ecomike]

I switched REPs twice this year, in the last 4 months. I came to the following conclusions that:

It is a mistake not to have, and keep a fixed price contract with an REP that has a good 6 to 12 months to go, and to buy into those contracts around April or between August and September when natural gas futures are typically at their lowest (another topic....). Here in Texas Natural Gas prices, futures have a huge effect on retail electric rates. They peaked here at about .28 cents per KWh this year. :banghead:

Second, make sure your fixed price contract is with a large well financed company that also practices fiscal responsibility (doesn't play the futures market with real risky derivatives or practices). If you have any idea how to do that let me know!:banghead::eyes:

Oh, and say your prays, practice you voodoo or what ever you do to increase your luck!!!!!

So, I finally signed a 12 month contract with one of the two largest REPs here last month, the largest in my area, and one of the largest in the state. Hell the local stadium is named after them, RELIANT ENERGY!

So then Hurricane Ike hits, and this weeks news says they lost 1 billion dollars last month due to unsold, over bought (Kinda like being stocked) energy (natural gas futures pre bought or contracted ahead of use, idled power plants maybe, don't have all the details), but between that loss and the credit crunch they are talking this week about selling the company, meaning they are in trouble in now. So once again I am probably a short preiod of time away from getting screwed again. Accept this time, if Reliant goes out of business about 1.8 million Texas are going to screwed this time, not just 40,000.

I doubt the current stock market, financial situation favors their getting bought or getting a loan. My new contract with Reliant started 2 weeks ago. Oh, and one more thing, Centerpoint had no staff to read electric meters last month, due to the Hurricane damage. So they have calculated estimated bills. There was an apartment owner on the news last night that got an estimated bill of $1,000 for a 1 bed room apartment that had no power 3 weeks out of the month during / after the hurricane.

 

[Ecomike]

Recent news here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/6043725.html

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...&topicId=100007979&docId=l:864517315&start=11

http://www.gseconsultinglp.com/News.aspx?Item=115
"Reliant Energy will reduce the size of its Texas retail electric business by changing how it manages risk and reducing the number of business customers it serves as it contends with the ongoing credit industry crunch and a roller-coaster year in local power markets.
In a conference call Tuesday with analysts and investors, Reliant officials said the retailer, the state's largest by power delivered, has to find ways to cut the amount of collateral required to run its retail business.
About 70 percent of the company's profits come from residential customers, but 70 percent of the money it needs to post as collateral for wholesale power purchases is for the customers in Reliant's commercial and industrial segment.
Chief Operating Officer Brian Landrum said the company spends $7 billion a year for the power it sells to customers. But it is required by its power suppliers to have lines of credit that can cover the changing price on up to 450 billion cubic feet of natural gas — a power plant fuel that essentially drives wholesale electricity prices.
Since commercial customers generally have longer-term contracts, the company's exposure to natural gas price swings can be tougher to manage in those accounts.
"We need to lower the capital requirements of the business in light of the dramatic increase recently in the cost of credit," Landrum said. "We will focus on building those parts of the business that use the least capital to generate the highest return."
Residential customers won't see changes in their existing contracts with Reliant, company spokeswoman Pat Hammond said.
But renewing commercial customers may have to accept shorter-term contracts or deals structured so they bear more of the risk from changing commodity prices.
Shares of Reliant fell $2.73 to $7.35 on Tuesday, a 27 percent drop, which was the company's biggest since July 2002, when investors dumped the stock amid concern the company might run short of cash. Reliant has lost more than half of its stock value since Sept. 15.
Reliant operates nearly 15,000 megawatts of power plants in nine states where it produces power for the wholesale market.
On Monday, Reliant said it was cutting its 2008 revenue projections by about $800 million, with as much as $350 million coming out of the retail business and $480 million from the wholesale business.
On the retail side about $200 million is directly related to Hurricane Ike, including the reduction in customer power purchases because of widespread power outages in the Houston area, Landrum said.
He attributed another $100 million in reduced revenue projections to wholesale prices the company locked in last spring when natural gas prices were higher than they are now, and to cooler August weather that reduced demand for power to run air conditioning.
Many retail electric providers try to hedge against changing wholesale prices through futures contracts, but can lose money if spot prices turn out to be lower at the time the contracts come due.
The company said Monday it was terminating a credit agreement with Merrill Lynch that it had used to backstop much of the power purchases for its retail business, replacing that line of credit with a $650 million loan from Goldman Sachs and a $350 million equity investment from First Reserve on terms much more costly than the agreement with Merrill.
"I would certainly acknowledge that it was not an ideal time to raise money in the capital markets and it was expensive to do that," Reliant Chief Executive Mark Jacobs said in Tuesday's conference call.
The year 2008 has also been particularly rough for Texas electric retailers.
Wholesale power prices rose sharply in the first half of the year because of a run-up in the price of natural gas, Texas' main generation fuel. Some companies failed to hedge properly against those increases through long-term wholesale contracts.
The wholesale market also saw a number of price spikes in April, May and June mainly because of weaknesses in how the state's main grid operator managed congestion on its power lines. Those spikes sent some cash-strapped companies scrambling to meet financial obligations to the grid operator. Five retailers went out of business. A few others sold their customers to larger rivals.
Reliant was already struggling with difficulties in its retail business this year but a $4 to $5 drop in the price of natural gas in recent months, combined with Hurricane Ike, led to the actions this week."

 

[msrorysddad]

it's an ism. Call it what you will. To tax me to care for someone else, whomever it may be is not what our government was set up for, I don't recall it being in the bill of rights, or the constitution. The Republican bashing gets old Eco. the republican/democrat B.S. gets old. Cut it how you will, "the well the government helped me, so I should pay", is also a load of tosh. The ability to help others is not our governments job. The more power our government gets regulatory or otherwise leads us closer to the isms. To tell me people have the right to expect the government to "help" them is silly. There are two R.s involved there. Individuals with a certain mindset say people have the "RIGHT" to certain items, be it health care, bailouts, help with housing. The other R is responsibility. With "RIGHTS" comes "RESPONSIBILITY". So if Joe Public has the right to health care, Joe worker is shouldered with the burden of "RESPONSIBILITY" , paying for it. Also this prayer or voodoo jab, get a grip. Churches from what I've seen aid more individuals than the government you seem to love so much. I've given more to the local food pantry than I've paid in taxes this year. When the government takes money for these "causes" you seem to love, does it all get spent on the cause, or is most of it wasted in bureaucratic B.S.? I'm not ready for the bread line, nor am I ready for the government to take more from me. I will say this again, I love you brother, and enjoy you p.o.v. even if I can't wrap my head around it. :wave1:

 

[MischiefMan]

Randall, have you not realized that the vast majority, not all, but the vast majority want all the "rights" with none of the accountability?

What is hilarious to me is that we have very limited rights in this country. We have many liberties, but very few rights. People seem to confuse the two. As this country caters to the lowest common denominator we get lazy and decide that one word is a synonym for another when it is not.

I'm confused as to why this thread is still active or what Mike's point was in posting the quote of the article. The energy companies are private companies. They contract to provide a service, just like many other companies. We have ways of dealing with breaches of such contracts. So, Mike, what WAS the purpose of the post?

 

[xxmidianxx]

It's still going cuz people like you are still posting in it.

 

[MischiefMan]

Well, it's rude to just ignore people.......