Posted on 09/11/2006 3:05:11 PM PDT by screw boll
So with crude crossing the $50-a-barrel threshold in late September and continuing to set new records, it raises the question, Will George W. Bush pay for this year's 50%-plus rise in oil?
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
$2.25 gas is what matters to people. If anything he can use this to hammer the liberals and states that won't allow drilling 50 miles offshore to get with the program and stop funding the ME.
What difference could it make? He's in his second term already and can't run for another one.
LOL! I don't know if Ronaldus said that, but I would definitly believe it.
I read that OPEC will continue to pump at current levels despite falling prices...if so, then they must believe that prices are going lower no matter what they do, and they want to sell as much oil at today's prices as they possibly can.
I think the irony is in the DATE of the article.
People are that stupid?
The oil cartel will put a whammy on the drop, they will cut back production, our friends/ sure.
Actually, OPEC wants oil to be around the $40/bbl level - because once it goes above that, alternatives to their product start looking awfully good. And they really don't want people to do that.
Am I missing something? Bush won't be on the ballot.
Let me break the news to you. Bush IS running again. In the mid-terms this year and then again in '08. If you don't believe me just look at all the dims running against him, not to mention the MSM and all the talking heads.
Every barrel they cut back INCREASES the daily excap figure (because, clearly, the crude is still there and can be ''turned on'' again at any time), and as this figure rises, the upward pressure on the price of crude decreases -- IF supplies are adequate, and they are today. More than adequate, actually. The US has increased its stocks-on-hand more than 300 MM bbl since July 2001, and is well over the 5- and 10-year avgs.
Cut 1 MM bbl a day, OPEC! Do it, you sods!
I guess someone at cnn thinks it's more important to bash Bush than to remember today.
Er, 'please', not 'plase'. Sheesh.
Yes, the date of the article.
October 18, 2004
OPEC issued a statement last month saying that $75bbl was a 'fair price'. Previously, they had agreed that oil should always be between $23-35 bbl. Those were the good old days before China and India became huge consumers.
Then they are fools, because at $75/bbl almost all the "alternative" sources become more than economically viable - they become the economic alternative.
On second thought, don't pass that on. I'd prefer that they continue to be fools, and that we develop the alternatives.
"Am I missing something? Bush won't be on the ballot.'
But Republicans are. Bush Republicans, the same thing
CNN, always on the look-out for a downside for Bush! What would we do without this important public service they provide?!!
When oil prices are up, it's going to hurt Bush. When they're down, they're going to hurt Bush. Leave it to CNN and others in the Clown Car Media to try to spin low oil prices as being a reason people should vote against Bush, after they spent the last year telling us high oil prices are a reason to vote against him too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.