President Bush will order the Department of Energy to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve “in order to get more fuel on the market and help reduce rising gasoline prices.”
In September 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for proposing to use the strategic oil reserve in response to high prices:
The Strategic Reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply or for war. Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security.
Today, Bush did precisely what he criticized President Clinton for five-and-a-half years ago.
Oil reserves are not the problem, runaway gas profits are.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:50 amIf the strategic reserve is so completely connected to national security, which it is, why does the government not nationalize oil? If we removed the obscene profits from the oil robber barons, replete with their crony donations and golden parachutes, we could have cheap gas AND fund research into alternatives. Now there is no incentive for big oil to find any alternatives.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:52 amIf Bill Clinton had an energy policy we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:55 amNot exactly. We are at war and it is not just before an election. Clinton was attempting to lower gas prices (which weren’t that high) in September, just before an election.
Bush is consistent - high poll number or low poll numbers, and it drives libs crazy.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:55 amBush a hypocrite? Anyone feigning surprise?
April 25th, 2006 at 10:56 amToday, Bush did precisely what he criticized President Clinton for five-and-a-half years ago.
Bush had no experience in reality at that time to understand that life is not one big fairytale with easy theoretical answers. He’s learning, though more slowly than most folks, that the reality of a thing rarely lines up with your idea of it. Too bad that his education in reality has come at our expense.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:59 amYeah, but Bush needs all the “short term political gain” he can get! His short-sighted, moronic policies have otherwise failed him! Bwaaaahahahaha!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:01 am#3. Bush and the Republicans have controlled the energy policy for 5 years. How long does it take for you morons to have an impact? Or, is it that you simply don’t know how to govern??
April 25th, 2006 at 11:02 amPrice of oil/barrel was around 30$ in 2000. Today it’s around 75$. Maybe you should get educated unbelievable.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:02 amWill the press call Bush on his gigantic flip-flop regarding alternate fuel cars?
He made mincemeat out of Gore on this issue, cuz the a-hole press thought it was funny.
Now look who’s laughing. And look who loves hydrogen cars.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:04 amBush is NOT interested in helping prices at the pumps to come down drastically > his daddy makes lots of $$$$ off his oil stocks, so forget a dramatic price drop! The Oil Cartels want gas prices to go up to 5 bucks a gallon so the same as Europe basically! This is a profits shell-game and petroleum CEOs are pros at swindling consumers!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amPrice of oil/barrel was around 30$ in 2000. Today it’s around 75$. Maybe you should get educated unbelievable.
Comment by sugar magnolia — April 25, 2006 @ 11:02 am
That has nothing to do with anything I said. Perhaps you should get a brain.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amOne thing he did say that we all (well most of us) probably agree on is that he wanted to rollback some of the oil industy’s $2B tax breaks, via (a href=”http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/news/economy/bush_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes”>CNN.
Why doesn’t he end ALL or the oil industies tax breaks? They make more than enough profit. They should be contributing to the countries fiscal needs just like all the rest of us.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amamerica should use nerve gas in its cars - that would solve the whole worlds problems
April 25th, 2006 at 11:06 amduh-oh…try
April 25th, 2006 at 11:07 amCNN
#9: Price of oil/barrel was around 30$ in 2000. Today it’s around 75$. Maybe you should get educated unbelievable. Refresh my memory, but was Clinton president during that period? Was Congress controlled by Democrats?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:09 amTo add to what comment #7 is saying, Republicans controlled the house and senate when Clinton was in office as well, which would make it harder for Bill to pass any positive laws. However, I do recall:
the Kyoto protocol, the extension of tax credits for wind and biomass energy production until 2001, the increase in research funding of more than $1.7 billion in 2000 on both the human and natural forces that effect the Earth’s climate, issued new energy efficiency standards for home appliances, directed federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year.
And besides, do you really think Bush will act on anything he says which involves improving the environment? Bush is an OIL MAN! He is in bed with the oil industry. He LOOOOVES them. He would marry them if he could. Bush will do all he can to make sure oil companies not only loose money, but continue to GROW their profits. There will be no clear skies while Bush is in office.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:13 amBush will claim that he forced the Oil industry to lower the price a little bit, or not to raise it further for a few months, but after Dubya attacks Iran the price of gasoline would shoot thru the roof > expect rationing of gas after Iran is attacked and prices at the pump from $5 to $10 too!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:14 amRefresh my memory, but was Clinton president during that period? Was Congress controlled by Democrats?
Comment by Badmoodman — April 25, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Oh, I see, she was trying to tie 2000 to my comment which happened to reference Clinton. 2000 to Clinton? Ha ha ha! Well, hopefully that troll actually gets embarrassed and won’t be back. Moron.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:15 amIt seemed at first that “sugar magnolia” was a Bush supporter. But with a comment like, “Price of oil/barrel was around 30$ in 2000. Today it’s around 75$.” totally argues AGAINST Bush. Someone give this girl a shovel, clearly she wants to dig herself into a hole.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:18 amAt $2.90/gallon, the price of gas is about eighteen cents per cup.
Buy a ZAP.
You won’t have to buy gas for it. Better yet, buy the stock. It’s symbol is ‘zp’ on the American Stock Exchange.
The end of oil is here.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:18 amGlad you demonstrated what a Flipfloper he is.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:18 amFez is not quite telling the truth. Quelle surprise! Bush isn’t facing re-election and even if he were it’s still over two years away. Clinton on the other hand did dip into the reserves for no other reason than to help the Donks win an election. (it didn’t help though did it losers?HA!)
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
Clinton helps Al Gore
by tapping oil reserve
The issue: President Clinton has ordered the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Our view: The decision was designed to make Vice President Gore look effective with the presidential election approaching.
——————————————————————————–
PRESIDENT Clinton’s decision to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ostensibly in an attempt to bring down oil prices, appears to have more to do with politics than economics. The announcement came barely 24 hours after Vice President Gore proposed the action and seemed designed to make the Democratic presidential candidate look effective.
Gore opposed tapping the reserve last winter when oil prices for home heating went up. At the time, he pointed out that the oil-producing nations could easily counter such a step by curtailing exports.
What is different now is mainly that the election is a lot closer. And Gore’s Republican opponent, Gov. George W. Bush, has been accusing the administration of having no energy policy.
Gore evidently felt he had to show he was on top of the issue — particularly because the people most dependent on heating oil live in many of the swing states of the Midwest, which are likely to determine the outcome of the election. And Clinton played along.
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers argued that the release of oil from the strategic reserve would “set a dangerous precedent.” As Gore did last winter, Summers pointed out that OPEC could easily offset the release by cutting back its exports.
Summers also said oil traders might dismiss any action as a political ploy rather than a commitment to lower oil prices. But those arguments lost to the need to show the voters that the Democrats were doing something.
There is a further irony. In his book, “Earth in the Balance,” Gore advocated higher gasoline prices as a way to discourage consumption. But that line has been conveniently buried now that prices are rising and people are complaining — and their votes might reflect their unhappiness.
Gore has been accusing “Big Oil” of gouging consumers and blasting Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, for their ties to the oil industry. But Gore’s family for years was closely associated with Occidental Petroleum’s chief owner, Armand Hammer.
http://starbulletin.com/ 2000/ 09/ 26/ editorial/ editorials.html
April 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amNot exactly. We are at war and it is not just before an election. Clinton was attempting to lower gas prices (which weren’t that high) in September, just before an election.
Comment by C Storms
Boy the trolls are using stupid spin today. We are months before an election moron, certainly close enough to be considered “right before an election.” What next crap storm?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:21 amUh, IRI, there’s an election in November of this year…
Sounds exactly like he’s trying to help the Repugs win an election. And, hopefully, your take on history will repeat itself and it won’t work.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:24 amMore of Bull shit Bush’s words to the public. Do as I say, don’t look at the truth. I agree with Jay, Unbelievable and the other progressives…Now a word to the orks or trolls what ever they are on the right………CLINTON HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR OVER 5 YEARS.
9/11 HAPPEND ON THE BUSH WATCH. BUSH STARTED THE IRAQ WAR, DID NOT CATCH HIS BUDDY BENLAUDEN, HAS CREATED THE BIGGEST DEFECIT OF TAX AND BORROW,EVER, NEGLECTED THE SOUTH FOR 4AND A HALF DAYS BEFORE HE DID ANYTHING.
BUSH AND COMPANY DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR PEOPLE OR THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. BUSH IS A WARAMONGER…………GET REAL…….IMPEACH ALL OF THEM THAT SUPPORT OR ARE IN BED WITH THIS REGIME.. It is now 2006 not pre 2000…
April 25th, 2006 at 11:25 amI-R-I was told to get his sore butt in here by Karl Rove > lol.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:25 amLOL best part is despite what 12 years of republican control of the house and senate, and 6 years of control of the executive branch, this is still all Clinton’s fault. Bush is completely doing this for political gain. The use of the SPR, and an announcement about an investigation into price gouging. ROFL, I am sure that Bush’s panel will find no price gouging. I don’t know why he bothers, I am sure Cheney has already written the final report anyway.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:26 amFez is not quite telling the truth. Quelle surprise! Bush isn’t facing re-election and even if he were it’s still over two years away. Clinton on the other hand did dip into the reserves for no other reason than to help the Donks win an election.
Since it didn’t help Gore, we can predict that it will have the same effect for Bush. Does that make you feel better?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:26 amAnother question is why are we defending Clinton for using the SPR as a political tool? He did release the oil for partisan purposes, the same thing that Bush is doing here.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:29 amWhy won’t the administration admit that oil production from Iraq is way below pre-war?Heckofajob Chimp!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:32 amrepublithugs can’t help but blame President Clinton for anything. It’s a knee jerk reaction thing.
unbelieveable - I think you’re wrong on one point. trolls don’t seem to have any embarasement at all in their lack of brains. It would seem that they think it’s a badge of honor.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:32 amOh wonderful, I-RIGHT-I… use an EDITORIAL to post “facts”. What you posted is someones GUESS, it is not fact. And Al Gore himself was not “close” to Armand Hammer. Al Gores FATHER was, yes. But Al Gore never asked for that. In fact, he changed his middle name to further distance himself from the name. What Gores father did has NOTHING to do with Gore’s governing. Unlike Bush 2 and HIS father…. [source: http://independence.net/gore/ ]
April 25th, 2006 at 11:34 amYet another candidate for the Top 10 Bush Flip-Flops List.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:37 amSharon:What’s in that coffee this morning? Blessings.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:38 amAnother question is why are we defending Clinton for using the SPR as a political tool? He did release the oil for partisan purposes, the same thing that Bush is doing here.
Comment by Krazny — April 25, 2006 @ 11:29 am
I wasn’t. I was saying that Bush criticized someone (Clinton in this case) when he personally had no frame of reference, and has since come to learn that the president is frequently a hand puppet to the money that bought him the position in the first place. That Bush’s critique of Clinton has come home to roost.
I am not a Clinton fan. I think he was a better president than Bush on some regards, but just as bad in other ways (the environment and tax breaks for the rich, for example). Blind faith to the Democratic Party line is just as blind as blind faith to the Republican Party line. And was not what our Founding Fathers wanted from us.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:40 am#5 - Bush a hypocrite? Anyone feigning surprise?
Comment by Punchy
I am, but only because I need practice feigning. ;)
April 25th, 2006 at 11:40 amI couldn’t watch the speech this morning because I simply cannot listen to that voice or look at that smirking face anymore. I changed over to Ed, Edd & Eddie.
Did Georgie happen to mention that the people of America ought to be practicing CONSERVATION? Is it really too much to ask? I’m conserving already, but I don’t know how many people I’ve talked to who say it must not be too much of a crisis since Georgie hasn’t asked us to conserve. Ok, I talk to a lot of idiots in my office, but that’s beside the point.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:46 am#33 - “Right between the I’s” doesn’t have facts on his side, so he’s gotta run with the opinions of those who support his anti-American political party.
‘Phants hate it when criticism of their failed policies strikes too hard, so they’ve got to spin the facts or attempt to raise opinion to support their failures.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:47 amPresident Bush Tuesday announced a gas-gouging probe and a halt to deposits to the nation’s emergency stockpile of oil as he seeks to deal with rising oil and gasoline prices ahead of this fall’s midterm elections.
key words: ahead of this fall’s midterm elections
April 25th, 2006 at 11:49 amas if, anyway…
If Bush is being punished for high energy costs, he has only himself to blame. The May 7, 2001 response by then press secretary Ari Fleischer captures the malign neglect that is the Bush energy policy:
For the full story, see:
April 25th, 2006 at 11:50 am“That’s a Big No: Bush, Gas Prices and the Polls.”
It’s About National Security, Not Oil…
I’ve always been opposed to drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, especially for anti-market reasons. That’s exactly what Bush is doing now and said he would not do when he campaigned against Al Gore in 2000.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:50 amHere’s what Bush said back in t…
I live 40 miles (one-way) from where I work. The highways are PACKED everyday with big trucks and SUV’s, this is Texas after all. I cannot fathom how they can afford to sit in traffic for at least 2 hours a day. If my company did not give me a fuel card I never could.
I cannot wait to get out of this rat…I’d call it a race but we drive verrrrry slowly….crawl and go back to the classroom where I belong!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:51 amOne more empty barrel, one more flag covered coffin. It doesn’t matter to these people as long as the timing is right. I am sure if the decision was closer to the election, that it would have been made by Rove, since this has nothing to with the election (hold your nose) Bolton’s first policy was to feed the pigeons. At least, Rove would have the some sense of the feed supply and would have waited until the fall. Mean while us pigeons will scarf up the bird seed and wait for November, with folded flags, empty barrels and hoping Bolton is not counting the balotts.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:52 amTwo words: Politically expedient.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:53 amWhy isn’t it full already?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:53 am#38 - You mean, did Pres. Bush do a “Pres. Carter” and call on the american people to conserve? Are you kidding?!? How’s his oil buddies going to make the multi-million dollar golden parachutes if people don’t buy more oil?!?!? How’s he going to rape our national forests unless the price of oil rises higher than Rush on oxycontin?!?!?
Pres. Bush has a major juggling act to do over following months. He’s gotta blame the oil problem on anyone but himself in a sad effort to bring up his approval ratings, he’s gotta keep his oil buddies happy by keeping prices high, and he’s gotta try to change the incredibly anti -administration perception that the majority of average Americans have about the Republican party before the mid-term elections.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:53 amNational Security would have been better served, had we started funding for alternate fuels in the 1980’s, instead of waiting for a crises. I also don’t think that this is about national security.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:54 am[…] Ha, ha, just kidding! That was a quote from George Bush in 2000, criticizing Clinton. […]
April 25th, 2006 at 11:54 amThe price of gas at the pumps will level off through the 4th of July weekend and then shoot up afterwards slowly again! Then when Bush attacks Iran in October gas prices will go way above 5 bucks a gallon! October surprise is another war to crash the Democrats retaking the House and gaining Senate seats! If Iran conflict goes badly, then Dubya cancels the elections and declares martial law! Nonetheless the price of gasoline goes thru the roof by December!
April 25th, 2006 at 11:57 amThe only war needed right now is a gas war.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:58 amDuring WWII Roosevelt would not let companies profit from the war. As he sadi “we are all in this together.” Bush does not know the meaning of sacrafice. God forbid Haliburton or Exxon not make monumental profits from the deaths of Americans. Oh wait, I forgot, this war was started so Haliburton and Exxon could increase their profits. Sorry, I am a little tired.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:59 amJay you are an incurable pessimist! I like that in a guy!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pmThese are all band aids to a critical long-term problems.
I do not see Bush doing anything to change things in the long-term.
Clinton is history - over 5 years already - I’m looking forward and who is in the White House now.
Bush said a lot of things and now says the opposite and does the opposite. John Stewart had an excellent video of Bush the Governor and Bush the President. Do we really know what Bush stands for, other than cronyism - he seems to say whatever is convenient at the time. You want peace, I’m the Peace President. You want war, I’m the War President.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pmAs usual, Bush does not have a clue as to what is going on around him. All he does is read what is in front of him.
Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. The man is an idiot drone. He has nothing to add at any time.
I watched some of his speech this morning and he was all aglow, of course with other peoples ideas. I noted specifically that all of his proposals were in an effort to get more gas and other alternative fuels so people could be on the roads more.
Not ONE word about conservation, not one. If everyone in amurka used their cars 5% less, and used public transportation that much more, the problem would be SOLVED, in the short term.
Schumer has the right idea - bust up the huge oil companies and lets start all over again. Competition, we need it. Get it going Chuck.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#47 - Are you praising the outstanding President Carter?
He’s gotta blame the oil problem on anyone but himself in a sad effort to bring up his approval ratings
2 Thoughts on that.
1. The Commander in Chief is not primarily responsible for the economy. If the legislature didn’t demand such a huge share of gas profits, prices would be much lower.
2. I gotta tell you I don’t think Bush cares a whole lot about his approval ratings. Not everyone bases their decisions on what other people think. That’s what Democrats do, so it’s easy to understand why so many think he’s concerned about it, but he’s really not, nor should he be.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#47 - Silly me.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pmBush is the biggest flip-flopper ever… flippity floppity floop!!!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:07 pmBrazil has just marked its first time ever as a nation that is independent of foreign imports. Brazillian President Lula marked the occasion through ceremonies and speeches, and more importantly he paid homage to the real reason Brazil is independent of oil imports and world prices….”Gertulio Vargas”. In 1953 the then president of Brazil Gertulio Vargas declared after strong opposition by self interested parties opposed to the nationalization of oil in Brazil…..The oil is ours!!!. More that fifty years later Brazil is finally in control of its future and its destiny. Wake up America … President Lula pointed out that even today in Brazil there are those who would take away this resource from the Brazillian people. American Oil companies plunder the world reserves using military blood and tax payers money all in the name of corporate profits. At least in Brazil national interests are put before corporate profits.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pmLOL post 53 Jules > having Bush butt around makes me a pessimist! I would like to be optimistic, but Dubya Dunce Decider wants to ignite global WWIII! A reporter asked Bush once what he thought history would say about him someday? Bush replied “I will be dead.”
Bush baby is a lunatic on prozac, same as Hitler was, so we have to pray that somehow we survive the next couple years, or more, since he might not leave in Jan. 2009?!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:09 pmYou expected anything different — not just from a Republican, but from a politician? I mean…HELLO?!?! This is only one reason why politicians cannot really be trusted no matter what their stamp — because politicians as a rule see absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing their opponents for things which they themselves have done, or doing the same things which they’ve criticized their opponents for doing. What can you expect from a profession which essentially forces its practitioners to stretch the truth if not lie outright on a regular basis? Let’s face it — the definition of a successful politician is a person who gets himself or herself elected to office and holds the office as long as possible. Unfortunately, politicians know that the best way to accomplish this is to tell people what they want to hear — regardless of whether it’s what they need to hear, even regardless of whether it’s even true or not. What this invariably means is that politicians can’t really be trusted to tell the truth — what they support or criticize cannot necessarily be taken as a reflection of their real feelings but is more likely a reflection of what they think will continue to curry the favor of their constituents and/or not damage their credibility.
What Bush and most Americans are choosing not to face is the fact that if the energy experts are correct and the world is coming close to maximum petroleum production and/or the Hubbert Peak of available supply, redirecting oil into the market rather than the Strategic Reserve is a short-lived and relatively ineffectual (hence rather misleading) measure. It may lower prices for a period of time, but they will inevitably climb again — and our time would probably be better spent encouraging people to conserve and to investigate development of alternative energy resources so that the supply we have will last longer. Encouraging people to burn up the current supply even faster than we already are — and it’s reasonable to assume that this will occur if a temporary price reduction takes place — will not be to our advantage in the long run.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#56 - if Bush is not primarily responsible for the economy than why does he always take credit when (he says) the economy is improving?
If there were not taxes on gasoline then they would need to increase income taxes to run the government. I would personally not mind this as it would aid the poorer in our nation. And yes the government does need the revenue. Remember this little war Georgie got us into?
If Bush does not care about poll numbers than he does not care about Americans. However, I think he cares a little more than he claims. Otherwise he would not need Boltens five-point plan (which is basically stay the course - continue to lie to the American people).
April 25th, 2006 at 12:11 pm1. The Commander in Chief is not primarily responsible for the economy. If the legislature didn’t demand such a huge share of gas profits, prices would be much lower.
Comment by C Storms — April 25, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Wow not that is a great bit of specious logic. Since the government is just now talking about a windfall profits tax, how have they been demanding a huge share of the gas profits? An added point, the main reason gas prices have remained low, especially compared to Europe and other parts of the world, is government subsidies of the oil industry. What has changed is stability in the middle east, and greed by oil companies.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#56 - Pres. Bush sure cared about his “approval ratings” when Sen. McCain out-polled him when they were running for the Rep Primary. It was then that (then Gov.) Bush started to trash Sen. McCain about his supposed “mental problems” when he was a POW, and said “Open you military records to prove you’re not mentally affected!” he did, but the seed of doubt was planted an took root. Sen. McCain should have said “I’ll open mine when you open yours”, but now he’s the political whore for Pres. Bush and has sold his honor for politics.
The Republicans pay attention to the polls, they just lie and claim they don’t.
The commander and chief WAS completely and totally responsibel for the doom-N-gloom predictions when Pres. Clinton was elected. In fact, the Republicans ran on a plank of “Clinton is going to destory our economy, and he’s completely responsible for everything!” When the economy was running just fine, they had to change their tune.
How is the legislature demanding a “huge share of gas profits”??? They’re not, and you’re trying to spin the facts.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/242
Rep. Terry Everett: “The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps.â€
Dennis Hastert: “House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest.â€
Rep. Wally Herger: “Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration’s complacency during the current gas price crisis. ‘Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,’ Herger said. ‘The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.’â€
Larry Kudlow: “The Clinton-Gore administration’s hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC’s oil-price hike. … While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer.â€
Glenn Spencer: “In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. … With the Clinton-Gore administration’s policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore’s camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration.â€
Various Repubs: “Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps.â€
Interesting how they’ve decided to just shut up about this now that they’re the ones in the White House. I guess the party of “personal responsibility†refuses to take responsibility for their past statements.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:15 pmC Storm where’d you go? I guess you are waiting for the Rove/Rush talking points huh?
April 25th, 2006 at 12:18 pmAnyone who sat in line for gasoline during the 1979 crisis knows the real story. Carter called for conservation and was crucified for addressing the nation in a sweater. Reagan went so far as to dismantle the solar panels Carter installed at the WH. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush — no administration since has attempted to develop a real, coherent energy policy since. Nor have I seen many Presidents wearing sweaters. Some presidential dogs and cats, maybe.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:20 pmAs Storms wrote….”I gotta tell you I don’t think Bush cares a whole lot about his approval ratings. Not everyone bases their decisions on what other people think. That’s what Democrats do, so it’s easy to understand why so many think he’s concerned about it, but he’s really not, nor should he be. ”
The Bush apoligist never cease to amaze me. When not ignoring bad polls they suggest that polls are unimportant and that great decision makers never pay attention to the polls. Then of course they use the same brush to paint their opponents and thereby deflect criticism throught the¨”they do it, not us” Finger pointing must be endemic in the Republican ranks by now. I only hope that no one has an injured eye, they won´t be able to read the latest polling results. Do they honestly believe that Bush is not “really concerned about it”. However, i suggest that if his defenders in the Congress are not re-elected and the supenoa power is returned to the Democrats I am sure to hear the Bush apologists claiming that he should not be impeached for lying to the american people. The reason…Lying is not a sin until God call it a sin.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pmWhy is it that anytime you bring up anything Bush has done, the republicans say “That is in the past and we need to look to the future.” except for when it comes to something they want to pin on Clinton?
April 25th, 2006 at 12:26 pmI think I found the real reason for the sudden change of heart for Bush.
Please see yahoo link below.
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20060425/ ap_on_go_pr_wh/ bush;_ylt=AkJeFYC3vwM4eET.j1R5klw8rowC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
April 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pmJules & Soldier, - You can’t govern a country based upon polls. I mean if your’re a Republican you can’t, because you’ve got priciples. Did President Bush care about polls when he was running for office? Sure. But governing and running are two different things. I know you’re not criticizing someone for trashing someone else politically. Have you read the postings here?
And since when has money given to the government actually gone to help the poor? Democrats controlled Congress for dozens of years and supposedly taxed us to take care of the poor, but there are still poor people. Where did all that money go? No, I don’t really trust the government to take my money away and give it to someone else. I can do that on my own, and do.
Just a side note, and I know it’s hard for liberals to understand. If you lower taxes revenue actually goes up, because people are keeping more, spending more, and hiring more. Funny how that works.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:33 pmStephen #67, don’t you mean ‘great DECIDERS’ never pay attention to polls? ;-)
April 25th, 2006 at 12:34 pmPost 66 I lived in California in 1979 and remember the gas crises very well! I had to wait in car lines for hours to get my quota of 10 gallons! Some people turned their engines off and pushed their cars in the line > lol. At one station a driver got to the pump, and they told him they sold out, so the driver shot the gas station owner dead and set fire to the pumps! Bush does the Jimmy Carter thing again and Americans might burn down the White House with him and Laura inside?!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#11 With a little difference: In Europe, the most of the price of oil are taxes. In your country, are benefits for the CEOs of the oil companies. This makes way more outrageous the price in your country.
#21 Yep, the car is a little ridiculous at the first glance, but is killer when parking it in a crowded city.
And one problem not discussed in this thread: in the same package of measures, Bush has given a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline. Surprise, surprise. How convenient. For the Georgie Boy’s pals in the oil industry…
April 25th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI visit many blogs and I have to say that without a doubt the trolls on this site are the stupidist. I feel badly for them because they are so lonely. You can feel the sadness of their souls as it seeps out of their skiin, runs down their legs and puddles around where they are standing. Because I am a Liberal Christian I want to help them. I want to engage in meaniful dialog but then I read what they have written and the MOM in me just wants them to get their stinking ass off my couch and go home and bother their own mother who most likely kicked them out the house because they couldn’t stand them either.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pmCS,
everytime that the economic model of lower taxes equal higher revenues, etc has been tried, it has failed. Did you notice the economy did just fine when Clinton did a slight tax raise. Please pay attention to actual history instead of Rush.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:39 pmC Storm - you did not answer the posts. Just like your downtrodden leader you are cherry picking!!!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pmPRICE OF OIL ON 1/20/2001: $22.50
PRICE OF OIL ON 4/21/2006: $75.17
April 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pmHow great is this. I begin talking about cutting the federal taxes on fuel and Raw Story has a story about it. The dems are proposing cutting taxes $.06.
Now C Storm - I know you have difficulty understanding this concept so I will explain it to you. These cuts would directly benefit the less fortunate who drive as they will see their gas bill reduced at the pump. They do not need to wait for a government handout. And since they are the people affected the worst by price increases this will benefit them immediately. Get it? Or do you need pictures?
April 25th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#70 - You’re making an incorrect correlation betwen federal income and lower taxes. If you’re logic were 100% correct, then if we lover all taxes to 1%, then we’d have more money rolling in than ever before! Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You eventually reach a point where the lower your tax rate, the lower the money coming in.
Also, you’re assuming that the money saved by lower taxes actually gets spent. It doesn’t. The top 5% put the money into savings and mutual funds and basically remove it from the taxable cash flow, thereby reducing the tax revenues even more. Sorry, but your failed policies are just that: failures.
Libs understand that you don’t govern by polls, but you’d better address the citizens concerns or else they’ll turn on you. Look back at the 10 times that the Congress and house have changed from Rep to Dem and back to Rep. Look at the dates, and then look at what was happening in the country and world. There is a direct relationship between really crappy times brought on by failed policies and the changing of majority status. NO SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY has a lock on the majority status. The Republicans are finding out that one-party-rule also means one-party-responsibility. They had no problem blaming the Democrats when they felt like it, now they cannot take responsibility for their failed policies.
But, whatever helps you sleep at night, go ahead and believe it. You’ll just continue to be wrong.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#73 Oops, I posted the same link as Krazny in #69. But it’s worth the double post :D
April 25th, 2006 at 12:45 pmOil crises in 1979 was contrived to destroy President Carter and set up Ronald Reagan for the presidential elections in 1980! Carter still does not realize to this day that his presidency was sabatoged by the GOP and the Oil Cartels! Iran hostage mess finished off Carter > I visited DC in 1980 and watched Iranian students chant down with America and Carter in front of the White House! Seems like our America went down hill after Reagan/Bush got into office?!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:49 pmuh… i admit to ignorance here, but if it’s a RESERVE,
April 25th, 2006 at 12:55 pmwhy does it need deposits? is it leaking?
this is only half in jest…
Oh looky what I found from way back in 2004:
The presumptive Democratic nominee (Kerry) complained that Bush has not taken steps to drive prices down, calling on the administration to stop pumping oil into the nation’s emergency stockpile until Americans see cheaper prices. The administration has rejected that notion.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday the administration opposed using supplies from the reserve because independent analysts have concluded the impact on prices would be minor and that it is important to have necessary resources in case of a severe disruption in supplies.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115594,00.html
Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:56 pmMan, I wanted a piece of c storms too. But what do we expect from bushco cheerleaders….the truth? No, we never get that from them. Honesty? Jesus, you better start sayin’ your Hail Marys now…..Integrity? Yea, that’s it….Here we have a president that snorted more rails than all the tracks laid in the United States, drank more alcohol than fish drink water, and he’s the second comming of christ……Hard to imagine they can even put their pants on properly every morning.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:56 pmNote > new TP thread on Bush above this one > pic of Bush on his bike > he is a moron!
April 25th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWHY BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE TO BLAME FOR HIGH GAS PRICES:
When George Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.46. Today, the price is $2.91, a 100 percent increase over the course of the Bush presidency. [AAA Fuel Gauge Report, 4/25/06]
Under Bush’s watch, U.S. dependence on foreign oil has increased by nearly one billion barrels. [ EIA, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin and Annual Energy Outlook 2006]
Senate Republicans killed a Democratic proposal to make gas price gouging a federal crime. Without making price gouging a federal crime, the federal government can only prosecute oil companies if they can prove collusion to control markets, a standard that is nearly impossible to meet. [S. 2020, Vote #334, 11/17/05; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11/18/05]
The Bush Federal Trade Commission has looked the other way when it comes to price gouging. Even during Hurricane Katrina, when price gouging was rather evident, the FTC investigation “found no evidence of collusion among oil companies in the 2005 gas price surge.†[ San Francisco Chronicle, 4/25/06]
The GOP Congress has ignored oil and gas monopolies: Since 2001, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee in charge of overseeing mergers, led by Mike DeWine,has held just one hearing - two years ago - to examine high gas prices.[ USA TODAY, 4/25/06; Judiciary Committee Hearing Schedule, accessed 4/25/06]
The GOP Congress has turned a blind eye to holding executives from the nation’s richest oil companies accountable. In November, when executives from the nation’s richest oil companies testified before the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees, Republican leaders refused to force them to testify under oath. [Cantwell Release, 11/8/05; CNNMoney, 11/9/05; Fox News, 11/17/05, CNN 11/17/05]
Republican lawmakers who crafted the 2005 energy bill showered billions in tax breaks on oil and gas companies that that they later testified under oath they do not need. [Bloomberg, 7/29/05; Video Clip of March 2006 Oil and Gas Hearing, available here]
In December, Senate Republicans – with Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote – adopted a budget package that included $20 million in cuts to Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program. [Vote 363, 12/21/05; House Budget Committee, Democratic Caucus Analysis, 12/22/05]
Oil and gas companies are constantly lining the pockets of Washington Republicans and GOP candidates. In the 2004 election cycle alone, the oil and gas industry contributed more than $20 million to Republican candidates and incumbents. In the 2006 cycle, this number has already topped $6 million. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 4/24/06]
The White House’s failure to properly plan for the war in Iraq has caused a disruption in the pre-war supply of 900,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq, the largest single supply disruption that is leading to spikes in the price of oil. [CERA, 4/24/06]
http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060425_gas/
April 25th, 2006 at 1:00 pmJust a side note, and I know it’s hard for liberals to understand. If you lower taxes revenue actually goes up, because people are keeping more, spending more, and hiring more. Funny how that works.
Comment by C Storms — April 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
So following C Storms logic, the GOP lowers taxes to raise revenues, yet they still saddle the country with an evergrowing deficit.
So basically we have incompetent businessmen running the finances of the country.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:00 pmFaiz - Instead of you and the other “enlightened” ones here slamming every breath President Bush takes, why not pat yourselves on the back (progressives love the feeling of moral superiority!) and congratulate the President for his policy “evolution”? I heard Dem strategist Marianne Marsh make a couple of other suggestions with which I agreed: temporary repeal of the federal and state gas taxes for immediate gas pump relief, a meeting at the White House with execs from the oil companies asking them to lower their profit percentage, and a face to face with the opportunistic Saudis and demand a lowering of barrel prices in exchange for our continued defense of their oil fields. Let’s use technology to wean ourselves off of black-gold and send two-faced Middle Eastern oil barons packing.
But then I remembered that progs love to wring their hands - when is the last time a prog remarked on the cleaner environment ?? Bashing Bush and conservatives is the favourite sport of progs.
Until later….
April 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#88 Uh… the environment is not cleaner, as you suggest. So no reason to enjoy.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:10 pmMA I cannot believe it but you are an even bigger moron then C Storm. No wonder everyone here changes your title to mighty moron.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pm[…] As Think Progress Reports, Bush Criticized Clinton for this in 2000: The Strategic Reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply or for war. Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security. […]
April 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pmIn response to all about the gas problems in the 70’s I have some insight on that. I lived in Washington state then. Most people were waiting in line for hours and had the odd or even number to get gas. If your licence tag was an odd # you went on certain days, even went other days and you were aloted so much gas. Here’s the deal, all unleased empty gas stations had full underground tanks and Shell oil and other tankers were going into canada to empty their fuel because ours were full…My local gas station would call me and tell me to come down after hours with my 55 ga. barells and fill them up so he could get as much as he could. I had more than 200 gal’s of gas on my property all the time. No problem. It was an american forced lie by the oil companies. I know it is true because I had a relative that worked for Shell at the time and I lived through it in grand style.
Now another bunch of lies, plus the $6,500.00 an hour to fly air force one all over, not to mention air force 2 with evil # 2 going everywhere. More,do as I say not as I do..It’s all lies, hype and spin folks. The oil co’s are going to get richer and so are their backers, Bush, Cheney, Rice and all politicians.. More will die as more get rich….. Good posts all……Guru, today’s coffee is spiked with Grand Marnier, seeing the fool in charge made me break out the good stuff to start my day………Blessings
April 25th, 2006 at 1:14 pmSoldier - True, we will reach a point where it won’t work, but I believe we are far from that point.
Spent? Where do you think money that’s put into savings or mutual funds goes? Do you think there are like big barrels that the money just sits in? That money gets invested over and over again, creating businesses, which creates jobs. More people have jobs and more people are paying taxes. That’s real welfare reform I might add. The added revenue with lower taxes comes from the strengthened economy.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#84 - What an insightful comment, but I’m not sure, do fish actually drink water?
April 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pmC storm
It hasn’t worked ever. the money is put into savings acccount, or property is bought, or stocks and bonds are purchased. it didn’t work under coolidge, it didn’t work under reagan, and it isn’t working now. our economy didn’t start improving until GB I raised taxes during his term. Please for gods sake read some history and pay attention. The taxes need to dropped on middle the middle class not the ultra rich and corporations. The middle class buys most of the TVs DVD players, homes, cars, couches etc. not a handful of rich elite.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pmC Storm - yeah, we see how well that is working. Other than Wal-mart how many companies have actually added jobs as compared with the number of jobs cut. How many jobs have been created - over and above those lost - during Bush’s tenure? Try again!
April 25th, 2006 at 1:25 pmWhy am I not surprised that the Bush solution to high gas prices is to roll back EPA regs? i.e. pollute more
Does anyone keep track of how much oil Bush Admin. has added to Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the last 1-5 years?
April 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#93 - Again, wheter helps you sleep at night.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010603.shtml
“In defending Reagan, Bartlett notes the obvious (as did Niskanen). As a general rule, it’s absurd to claim that lower tax rates produce higher revenues. Did any Reaganite ever say different? On that matter, we cannot judge. But in last week’s column, Bartlett makes the obvious point. In almost all instances, lowered tax rates produce lower revenue. Duh! In general, you can’t get higher federal revenue by lowering the rates of taxation.
Why is Bartlett due high praise? Because this bit of “nonsense†is a treasured piece of dim-witted talk-show conservatism. Indeed, Rush has told dittoheads, for years and years, that Reagan’s lowered ’81 tax rates produced higher federal revenue. Others sing the silly song too. Here was Sean Hannity on last Friday’s H&C, chatting with Dem consultant Vic Kamber:
HANNITY: The point is that we’re overtaxed.
KAMBER: Our deficits are getting bigger. We’re not getting out of debt in this country. And George Bush is calling for greater tax cuts. That’s baloney, that’s ridiculous.
HANNITY: Well, John F. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it. Reagan doubled revenues.
All good cons knew what Sean was saying—revenues doubled under Reagan because he cut those tax rates. But why did revenues grow under Reagan? For the same reason revenues always grow—due to population growth, productivity growth and inflation. Sean and Rush keep telling cons that revenues grew because of the cuts. That is sheer nonsense, as Bartlett notes—but how are dittoheads supposed to know that? How are dittoheads supposed to know when Rush and Sean just keep telling them different?
BARTLETT’S BLIND SPOT: Just how silly is the claim that lower tax rates produce higher revenue? Here’s a longer passage from Bartlett:
BARTLETT: Supposedly, [Reagan officials] sold Congress and the American people a bill of goods by saying the 1981 tax cut would lose no revenue…[T]hey are said to have asserted…that there would be such an outpouring of work, investment and economic growth that higher revenues would be collected at lower tax rates.
This whole story is, of course, complete nonsense. No one in a position of authority ever said any such thing. And even if they had, how can one possibly believe that a skeptical Congress and a liberal news media would allow anyone to get away with it?
Alas! Even Bartlett buys the myth of a “liberal news media.†In fact, the “liberal news media†has allowed talk-show cons to spread this treasured piece of “nonsense.†That’s how our modern media actually works. Dems have to learn to confront it.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pmONE MORE BIT OF STANDARD NONSENSE: Hannity alluded to another bit of Standard Nonsense—the treasured notion that Kennedy was a hero of low tax rates, while Clinton was Mr. Big Tax Man. The reality? Kennedy lowered the marginal rate—to 70 percent! Clinton raised it—to 39.6! But how does our modern discourse work? Laughing in his listeners’ faces, Rush makes invidious comparisons between Clinton and Kennedy on this score—and he never mentions the relevant numbers. Dittoheads deserve to know that they’re being misled—and only Dems, with a Rush-of-the-left, will ever be willing to tell them.”
OMG - as usual the GOP is blaming Democrats for the high gas prices. I keep getting confused - aren’t they the party in charge?
April 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pmPalosi just on CNN with a Dem. response on the gas gouging and their plan, Bood one but doubt it will go anywhere with bull shit and company running everything…..Blessings
April 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pmInstead of writing difficult to read words, here’s a picture for the liberals to take a look at.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pmSorry again, cat ran across key board, should of been Good one, not Bood one……
April 25th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#101 - Go ahread and trust in “voodoo” economics. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:46 pm#101 I fear the picture is the size of your mind.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#101 - Answer one simple question:
If lower taxes raises revenues, why are we running the highest deficit in history?
Since Pres. Bush has lowered taxes, we should be seeing higher revenues any second now.
Any second.
Now.
How about. . . . . . . now?
Now?!?!?
It’s been 5 years since Pres. Bush has lowered taxes! Where are all those higher revenues?!?!?! The “war on terra” only accounted for 250 billion over 5 years, so where are all the higher revenues?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Voodoo economics.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#92 - Guru, today’s coffee is spiked with Grand Marnier, seeing the fool in charge made me break out the good stuff to start my day………Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox
Damn, Sharon, no wonder you’re always so mellow. Are you hugging the trees or leaning on them? ;)
April 25th, 2006 at 1:50 pmThis is weird, because there’s a “C Storms” right across the hall in the accountant’s office. I know it’s no the same person because the C Storms I know is friendly, has a brain, and buys the greatest shoes.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:54 pm107 - You’re partially right. Reagan & Bush both couldn’t control spending. That’s why it hasn’t worked. Reagan was dealing with a Congress who didn’t want to see it work, and Bush is just a big spending “Conservative”. If he would begin to veto spending bills, we would see a decrease in the deficit and wasteful tax & spend policies stopped.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pm101, we all remember and are reminded daily by this bull shit bunch in office that trickle down does not work. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. The old, are you better off today than you were during the Clinton adminstration would be a good moto. The answer ofcourse is NO. Next I for one am sick of the right wingers lieing corruption and pissing on our country and the world. Their moto has been cut it, drill it, pollute it , kill it and sell it off………If you can’t come up with anything constructive do us a favor and viset red state, better yet go viest your dictator in charge…….
April 25th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#109 The bigger expending bills are the ones of the war with Iraq. When will we see a veto?
April 25th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#108 - Oh, it is me across the hall, and thanks I spend a lot of time picking out just the right shoes.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pmAll: here’s the place to go that whos the lower taxes are NOT responsible for higher revenues. It’s the higher population in the workforce that’s much more responsible for higher revenues. All you have to look at is the rising employment taxes, and lowering “individual tax” rates since 2002.
Oh well, I’m sure the ‘Phants and con’s will cling desperately to their failed policies rather than pull their heads out of the sand. With luck, they will not be around in 2007 to continue the “borrow and squander” ways.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005923.html
April 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pmflip flop flip flop flip flop sort of like a dying fish isn’t it?
flip flopflip flopflip flopflip flopflip flopflip flopflip flopflip flop
April 25th, 2006 at 2:10 pmBig engines stay popular despite gas spike
Popularity of V-8 engines stayed steady in the first three months of the year, despite rising gas prices.
April 25, 2006; Posted: 12:37 p.m. EDT (1637 GMT)
DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. consumers bought vehicles with big, gas-guzzling engines at an unchanged rate in the first three months of the year despite rising gas prices, according to a survey released on Monday.
In the first quarter, about 25 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States were equipped with eight- cylinder engines, according to sales trends analyzed by the Power Information Network, a data tracking service of consulting firm J.D. Power and Associates.
That market share level for V8s — typically the most powerful engines used in trucks and large sport utility vehicles — was unchanged from the average of 25 percent in the fourth quarter, according to the Power Information Network.
http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ AUTOS/ 04/ 25/ big_engine_sales.reut/ index.html
April 25th, 2006 at 2:11 pm109 - I’m glad we agree on one thing. I guess my point is that if you undertake a fiscal policy on a national basis and only implement half of it, you aren’t going to see the results you wanted to. Now I’m more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt with Reagan, as he did have an opposition party running the two other houses of Congress. Mind you, I won’t bring up that both those oposition Houses of Congress passes budget bills that were within 90% of what Reagan had proposed. Now with the bush43 administration, no, you won’t get any slack there. They’ve controlled it all for 4 of their 6 years. They haven’t even tried to bring down spending, in fact, he’s jacked it up hugely in his term..
But that National debt….That’s ALL of ours.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:14 pmSoldier - That’s my point. There are more people in the work force, because there’s more money available to borrow to start businesses. There’s more money for people to use to develop new products. All that increases the number of jobs. It all starts with more money being left with the people.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe managing editor of our local paper writes a weekly column on computers and electronics. Several months ago while giving suggestions on HDTVs he took off on a brief tangent and said that cutting taxes reduces federal spending. How? Because with fewer revenues coming in, Congress will be inclined to spend less money.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#112 - I could tell. I loved those strappy sandals you were wearing the other day. Perfect for a spring day. I’d stay away from GWB with that shiny bald head.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:30 pmC Storm - once again - when are we going to see all of these great benefits? Cause they have not “trickled down” yet!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:33 pmZookeeper and all, not to worry. One little shot in the coffee now and then does not a drunk make….Don’t lean on these little trees and the 80 footers in my yard like an occasional lean by an old woman………One more thing before I go……The actual figure should read 8.6 trillion and our intrest on this huge debt is in the millions per day. You all are forgetting Bull shit Bush has been funding the war with emergency supplementals that are not factored into what they print and lie to us about… Even the 8.6 trillion I printed here could change in a moments notice, given the way this bunch borrowes and spends……Off to hug the trees…..Blessings
April 25th, 2006 at 2:33 pmSpent? Where do you think money that’s put into savings or mutual funds goes? Do you think there are like big barrels that the money just sits in? That money gets invested over and over again, creating businesses, which creates jobs. More people have jobs and more people are paying taxes. That’s real welfare reform I might add. The added revenue with lower taxes comes from the strengthened economy.
Comment by C Storms — April 25, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
And the tax money that’s spent on the president’s grand experiment? I think we know where it’s going:
A no-bid Halliburton project in Iraq could cause nightmares for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney after the failed project receives front page treatment in Tuesday’s New York Times… The article begins by describing an Army Inspector’s view of a gargantuan trench which was supposed to be a glimmering achievement in the US rebuilding of Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
#
The project, called the Fatah pipeline crossing, had been a critical element of a $2.4-billion no-bid reconstruction contract that a Halliburton subsidiary had won from the Army in 2003. The spot where about 15 pipelines crossed the Tigris had been the main link between Iraq’s rich northern oil fields and the export terminals and refineries that could generate much-needed gasoline, heating fuel, and revenue for Iraqis.
For all those reasons, the project’s demise would seriously damage the American-led effort to restore Iraq’s oil system and enable the country to pay for its own reconstruction. Exactly what portion of Iraq’s lost oil revenue can be attributed to one failed project, no matter how critical, is impossible to calculate. But the pipeline at Al Fatah has a wider significance as a metaphor for the entire $45-billion rebuilding effort in Iraq. Although the failures of that effort are routinely attributed to insurgent attacks, an examination of this project shows that troubled decision-making and execution have played equally important roles.
The Fatah project went ahead despite warnings from experts that it could not succeed because the underground terrain was shattered and unstable. It continued chewing up astonishing amounts of cash when the predicted problems bogged the work down, with a contract that allowed crews to charge as much as $100,000 a day as they waited on standby.em>
Hope you don’t mind a little “presidential pork” with your whine.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pmReagan & Bush both couldn’t control spending.
Comment by C Storms — April 25, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
BULL….Clinton proved you know nothing because he FORCED Newt to Clintons terms in 95….remember it,
Reagan or Bush 43 or Bush 41 could have done the same if they cared about spending out of control as much as they pretend to……..instaed they signed the bills thus they agreed by their signatures attest to………..like many here have said ….read some real history, instead of Rush-Fox lies and you wouldn’t seem sooooo stupid.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pmTo Sharon Cox; sounds like good stuff. Double Blessings.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:46 pm[…] Taylor Marsh: This is the most preposterous story I’ve read recently. Bush is going after his own people, the ones who helped get him elected. He’s going after the very men and companies that have led to this situation. First, Bush allows private meetings with oil companies and others, including people representing nuclear, so they can help craft our energy policy. Republicans give subsidies to companies that don’t need it. All the while President Bush doesn’t do a thing to help mitigate our independence, believing only ANWAR is the answer. If it isn’t drilling it doesn’t have a place in Bush’s world. We’ve also got Frist and Hastert planning to look into the oil companies. There’s only one reason they’re doing this and it’s because there’s an election. They’re trying to save themselves. The don’t want solutions or they would have been working on one long before now. Bush has been in office for years. What, he’s now just discovering we have an energy problem? This is a charade. […]
April 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#121 - One little shot in the coffee now and then does not a drunk make….
Comment by Sharon Cox
Speak for yourself, Sharon!
April 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pmBill Clinton MUST be the GREATEST President ever… Regardless of what he did, I can remember gas NEVER exceeding $2 under his watch, and “if” it did I can remember the economy being so prosperous that it hardly mattered…
However, it seems that NO MATTER what happens that makes DUMBYA look more like an IDIOT, LIAR, and HYPOCRITE that he is, the more they reference BILL CLINTON for DUMBYA’s faults!!!
The man has been in office for 6 YEARS and they (REPUBLICANS & trolls) still blame EVERYTHING on CLINTON!!!
BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!!
DAMN, you’d think they (trolls) would have something ORIGINAL by now?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm[…] Think Progress […]
April 25th, 2006 at 5:44 pmI have not read the thread in its entirety yet but
Tapping the reserve and not filling it are two different things. Now is Faiz just stupid or intentionally misleading you sheeple.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pmTapping the reserve and not filling it are two different things. Now is Faiz just stupid or intentionally misleading you sheeple.
Comment by troll — April 25, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Not if both were done for purely political purposes ….now who is the sheepkle on his knees for kkkarl?
April 25th, 2006 at 7:31 pmObviously Karls got you on your knees trying to find your teeth after each and every walloping he has given you for 7 years. You cant even think straight let alone “progress”. Faiz and the other TP cult leaders feed you crap and you eat it, Dont get me wrong Bush is a dissapointment. But when you need to grasp at straws like this lame topic you know you are desperate.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:54 pmNot grasping at straws foole but simply commenting that a move for political purposes is simply that no matter what political party it comes from. If you can’t acknowledge that then keep to the knee pads and KKKarls secret entrance.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pmThe topic of the thread is an attempt to smear President Bush for criticising Clinton for opening up the reserve and then allegedly doing the same when that is not the case at all. Faiz is comparing apples and oranges. If you can proove that this was merely a political move then maybe you can stretch it for political gain. But you cant. What Faiz is doing is manipulating your puny little minds into a frenzy. So you can shout your “Bush sucks” mantra. It is he you should be pissed at for treating you all like idiots. It really reveals what they think of you. You are pawns to be used for their political ends and nothing more.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:20 pmYou opinion and we know what opinions are worth……..Bush and Clinton both are using the oil either in the reserve or the oil they must replace because they took it out eariler for a lowering of prices for political gain……..still the main element of the post and all the words you twist and type will not change that……but good little troll KKKarl will be pleased.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:38 pmYou state opinions are worthless then give an opinion that Bush had a political motive. Thats a bad way to try to win a debate.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:54 pmWhat opinion, both bush and clinton changed the proceedures at the reserve to lower gas prices and improve their political standing…….but only has the repugs denied it in the past, and do it now.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:05 pmIraqvet - So you remember distinctly that something didn’t happen, but then say if it did happen, it doesn’t matter. Pretty confident. And you’re right, the measure of a President is the price of gasoline while they are in office. Clinton was the greatest.
Not that you care, but BitsBlog