Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High gas prices...just another tax! Why doesn't Bush open up the strategic oil reserve?
Reuters ^

Posted on 03/10/2004 2:32:47 AM PST by Capitalism2003

Gas prices are hitting record highs in many parts of the country...I really think it is in Bush's interest to leak out some of our huge reserves to drop prices. This is just another tax on the American people, and its the last thing he needs in an election year. The economy is ready to zoom and $30+ weekly fillups are putting the recovery on hold. ______________________________________________

Reuters, 03.09.04, 6:30 PM ET

NEW YORK, March 9 (Reuters) - A measure of U.S. consumer confidence fell to the lowest since early November in the latest week, dragged down by the weak job market and rising gasoline prices, a report said on Tuesday.

The ABC News/Money Magazine Consumer Comfort index declined to -18 in the week ended March 7, compared with a reading of -16 in the preceding week. The index reached a 21-month high in January and has since fallen to its lowest level since November.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gasprices
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 03/10/2004 2:32:48 AM PST by Capitalism2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
I really think it is in Bush's interest to leak out some of our huge reserves to drop prices.

How would this help exactly? These reserves are for a real emergency. There is no real shortage, just high demand and potentially threatened futures. The trouble in Venezuela coupled with the Middle East oil cartels is the issue here.

If we can't increase our own production then we are slaves to foreign imports. Slam the rats, they are the ones who stopped us from tapping local supplies.

In addition, as I recall, when Clinton stupidly opened the reserves, there were many instances where they were purchased by speculators who then sold those reserves over seas. They never hit the American market. So what would it really achieve in the end except to drain our emergency supply?

Whatever, dealing with the enemies within the rat party is frustrating, and it seems that very few people ever truly realize just how much they hurt us and all Americans.

I just want to scream when I think about it. Guess I really need to try decaf some day. ; )

2 posted on 03/10/2004 3:02:44 AM PST by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
I'm not sure what your title has to do with the referenced article:

US consumer confidence hits 4-month low-ABC/Money Reuters, 03.09.04, 6:30 PM ET

... but I've been saying for years the way to revive and restore the economy ( and it would have headed off these oil price problems as well ) was to

1- drill for gas & oil like crazy- onshore, offshore, and in Alaska
2- go nuclear for power
3- convert stationary plants to clean coal technology
4- slash taxes and regulations like crazy

3 posted on 03/10/2004 3:03:33 AM PST by backhoe (Has that Clinton "legacy" made you feel safer yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
When gas hits $2 or $3 a gallon, remember this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093951/posts
The Politics of Oil and a Butterball Turkey
OmegaLetter ^ | 3/5/2004 | Jack Kinsella
A new, proven technology called Thermal Depolymerization, could remove the global oil market from the global economic equation overnight.
So, how come nobody is talking about it? The full article about the process is in the public domain -- it isn't a secret. It was first published in Discovery Magazine, Vol. 24, No.5, May 2003 issue. And it is on the level. But about the only media discussing it's implications are the internet bloggers.
4 posted on 03/10/2004 3:18:38 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
3- convert stationary plants to clean coal technology

Bingo!!! We have huge reserves of coal in this country

5 posted on 03/10/2004 3:20:55 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
We have huge reserves of coal in this country

I have read reports claiming between 200 and 500 years of energy reserves in coal alone... just in America, and recall that when the allies squeezed Nazi Germany, they made petroleum products from coal.

I believe South Africa did, as well, more recently.

6 posted on 03/10/2004 3:26:38 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
The thieving states and the feds should first and foremost lower their gas taxes. Wonder why GA has the lowest gas prices in the country? Our tax on gas is the lowest in the U.S.

We should also tell these wussy environazzis to take a leap and start drilling, drilling, drilling. We have the resources, use them. Same goes for the no-nuke nuts. Nuclear power is safe and clean.

We do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have the resources and technology to do so. If we only had the political will.
7 posted on 03/10/2004 3:31:29 AM PST by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
I agree.

Assuming you are in Georgia, did you know that when I toured Plant McManus here in Brunswick circa 1963, they burned powdered coal ( had the capacity for coal, oil, or gas, as prices dictated ) and the stack effluent was clear.

No smoke, just the waver of hot gasses exiting the chimney.

I mention that to point out 2 things- the technology has improved immeasurably since then, and have you ever noticed how the TV networks, whenever they have something about the environment or pollution, always show row after row of stacks belching black smoke?

I always wonder what era those date from.

8 posted on 03/10/2004 3:43:39 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
The news media dramatizing pollution for to advance their own left wing agenda? I am shocked. /sarcasm

We should use technology as best we can to bring down our demand on foreign oil. Every economist knows, lessen demand and the price will go down (unless the OPEC folks lessen supply correspondengly).
9 posted on 03/10/2004 3:56:40 AM PST by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
The news media dramatizing pollution for to advance their own left wing agenda? I am shocked. /sarcasm

I know, I know... the media- press and entertainment divisions- are about 9 out of 10 in favor of a markedly left-wing agenda:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918370/posts
Creator of 'Mr. Sterling' Admits: We TV Writers Are '99% Leftist'
NewsMax.com ^ | 5/27/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media


CyberAlert -- 05/07/1996 -- NQ CyberAlert
... recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed 89
percent voted for Clinton versus 7 percent for Bush in 1992. Do you think the ...

Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...

Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

The Politics of Hollywood
Uncommon Knowledge ^ | July 20, 2001 | Peter Robinson
A poll by the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change in 1992, eighty-three percent of film and television writers, directors and producers voted for Bill Clinton. Eighty-three percent. The vote that Clinton received in the country at large, forty-three percent.

No Bias in Media, ha ha, tee hee

10 posted on 03/10/2004 4:07:09 AM PST by backhoe (So 9/10 in a 9/11 World...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
have you ever noticed how the TV networks, whenever they have something about the environment or pollution, always show row after row of stacks belching black smoke?

It's the same with ANWR. Always footage of pristine mountain vistas instead of the vast featureless frozen plain that it really is.

I'm so shocked that the environmentalists feel they have to be untruthful to push their agenda. Shocked I tell ya.

11 posted on 03/10/2004 4:11:38 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
as long as no one suggests that any aspect of our chosen lifestyles might be creating this shortage of gas. If I want to drive a Hummer, then Bush can damn well tap the SPR so that I can put cheap gas in it. Oh, by the way gas today is at the same price it was in the 1950's adjusted for inflation, but never mind that, I'm a nominal guy living in a nominal world, and I still think gas should be 34 cents a gallon and I should have a 400 cubic inch V8 for my trips to the drugstore.
12 posted on 03/10/2004 4:12:54 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
I own a few shares of Exxon/Mobil, and I want 'em to charge whatever they can get away with. That's the way it's supposed to work, right?
13 posted on 03/10/2004 4:23:11 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
when Clinton stupidly opened the reserves

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/25/112857

Michael Savage Monday, Sept. 25, 2000

Vice President Al Gore endorsed the sale of a government oil field in 1998, the largest sale of federal property in the history of the U.S. government.

The Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, located near Bakersfield, California, was established in 1912 to help fuel Navy ships. President Clinton proposed the sale in 1995 saying the oil field no longer served a military purpose!

The DOE (Energy Department) received a total of 22 bona fide offers but decided to sell this "crown jewel" of oil and gas fields to Occidental Petroleum Corp. By selling off this resource the Clinton/Gore team eliminated the U.S. Navy's primary source of emergency crude oil. They argued that this field "no longer serves a national security purpose."

"We view this asset as becoming the crown jewel of our domestic operations," said Occidental Oil and Gas C.E.O. David Hentschel.

Couching this questionable attack on our National Security in conservative jargon, Patricia Godley, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, claimed the sale was part of Al Gore's efforts to "reduce the size of government" and "return inherently non-federal functions to the private sector." The largest federal divestiture was also said to help "pay off the national debt."

The sale of this government oil field to Occidental Petroleum may have directly benefited Al Gore through his ownership of Occidental stock. While his aides denied Gore encouraged this sale, his booklet "Reinventing Government" called on the government to sell these precious oil reserves. Gore wrote "...Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves... no longer serves its original strategic purpose for the Navy."

Gore called for the sale of this prime contingency source of fuel for the Navy, calling it "Common Sense Government." In an emergency, where will our Navy get its fuel? From Iraq?

The same Al Gore witnessed the loss, theft or sale of the crown jewels of our nuclear war know-how from Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whether these events are interconnected we do not know. That our national security has been seriously damaged is a certainty.

14 posted on 03/10/2004 4:26:19 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
I read opening the reserve would only lower prices about 2 cents/gallon. That's not enough given the hige rise we've seen.
15 posted on 03/10/2004 4:26:38 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
NEW YORK, March 9 (Reuters) - A measure of U.S. consumer confidence fell to the lowest since early November in the latest week, dragged down by the weak job market and rising gasoline prices, a report said on Tuesday.

The ABC News/Money Magazine Consumer Comfort index declined to -18 in the week ended March 7, compared with a reading of -16 in the preceding week. The index reached a 21-month high in January and has since fallen to its lowest level since November.

16 posted on 03/10/2004 4:33:04 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
This is just my speculation.

The saudi's don't want Iraq to succeed, that is why they are cutting back on production.

Iraq has huge oil reserves and could compete with the Saudi's. As long as saddam kept the oil infrastructure in abysmal shape, was building palaces, and not threatenting to invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, they were happy. But now saddam is gone and Iraq is on the verge of profiting from it's huge oil reserves.

If Kerry wins, he will abandon Iraq and there is chance that Iraq would go back to the controlled chaos the Saudi's want. Bush will see Iraq through.

Kerry himself cannot capitialize on his energy record. All Bush has to do is point out Kerry's votes to not to drill in ANWR and other envirowahcko votes.

17 posted on 03/10/2004 4:43:46 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
Bush can't open up the strategic oil reserves

GORE SOLD MOST OF THEM OCCIDENTAL OIL-- the Armand Hammer connection

The Old Geezer
18 posted on 03/10/2004 5:18:07 AM PST by Stretch (Stretch from Apple Valley, CA who got out and moved to God's Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
If what we hear about refineries is true - they are at capacity. How would additional oil in the supply chain make any difference in gasoline prices if that oil cannot be refined?

My personal opinion - WE can blame that thug in Venesuela and the greedy and ungrateful Islamo-satanists in the middle east that are raping the American consumer.

Of course, our own gasoline producers are not innocent of making a little extra profit - after all, the old saying goes: "make hay while the sun shines".

I would rather a moratorium on gasoline taxes. Depending on where you live, you could be paying more than 40 cents per gallon just in taxes....

Then there is that lame excuse for the "oxygenated" and "low-sulfur" fuels. Refineries claim they cannot make the stuff as fast....

And of course, those of us who drive large vehicles get some blame too - our trucks and SUV's are supposedly so pig-like.

Of course, which of the above reasons are the one's blamed for the current situation with gasoline prices..........?????
19 posted on 03/10/2004 5:18:29 AM PST by TheBattman (leadership = http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capitalism2003
What's the emergency? Gas prices are high and inconvenient...but to open the reserves without an emergency is a temporary fix only. Once done, the American people will continue to demand it be done until the reserves are empty. Then what?
20 posted on 03/10/2004 5:20:14 AM PST by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson