Oh, I don’t know, hmmm, let me think, hmmm… Oh yeah - how about Daddy Bush??? :smack: And it still didn’t help him get reelected…
From: http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/1999-12/12081999Forbes.asp
President George Bush – George W. Bush’s father – tapped the reserve to protect the domestic gasoline supply during the Persian Gulf War when oil from Iraq and Kuwait was unavailable.
Zinged again, Sam! 
It didn’t help Clinton/Gore either we they released the SPRO to drop prices back in September 2000. From PBS
Of course you guys were’nt at war back then.
I’m fully aware that Bush I and Clinton used the SPR in this manner. I just don’t think it’s good policy. A point in Bush’s favor is that not only is he leaving it alone, he’s refilling it at a rapid rate.
Of course, now that I’ve said that, Bush will probably announce suspension of filling of the SPR. And then I’ll criticize him just as I criticize Kerry for suggesting it.
Sam, there’s certainly good reasons to stop filling the reserve for the moment, whether you believe doing so will alleviate gas prices or not. Oil prices are hovering around $40 right now, so filling the reserve with expensive oil that may become cheaper later is doesn’t seem wise. More to the point, the reserve is currently 93% full, so there’s no urgent reason to be purchasing this pricey oil with our tax money. At the current rate of 300,000 barrels/day goung into the SPR, we’re spending around $360m/month that could be spent elsewhere (or hell, cut everyone’s taxes by $1/day).
Pishtosh. All election threads are about comparing the 2 candidates available. Attempts to limit any such discussions to only one implicitly *avoid * the topic rather than face it.
At least be consistent. If you don’t think this thread is about Kerry, then don’t be so voluble in it about how much you hate Kerry.
Only if you can be *realistic * about it, without the partisan fact-filtering and middle-excluding “reasoning” (among other fallacies) that typify your posts, including this one. Go ahead if you like, but you know the consequences - as seen in the intervening posts.
Grey, this time the war is against a country that already has oil. A subtext of the war rationalizations was that we’d get hold of it. Why would we need more of our own oil to go get theirs? Nope, it’s just too easy to look at Big Oil’s revenues as perhaps too obvious a reason.
zoo, thanks for the kind words.
Has anyone actually checked the gas gauge lately? Presidents have gotten into trouble over shenanigans with federal fuel reserves before, and that would provide an excellent reason not to tap into the supply.
ElvisL1ves said:
Wow. A personal insult and a threat all in the same paragraph. And here I thought you were losing your touch.
Perhaps Bush isn’t the real dimwit he so often gets portrayed as. After all, Bush is just a figurehead, the personification of his supporters. So instead, one might reasonably conclude that it is the people who will choose to ignore the history of the past 3 years, those who are closing their eyes and covering their ears in ignoring the totality of lies, misdirection, mistakes and failure of leadership of this administration, but still willing to pull the lever for Bush in 2004 based solely on what appears to be ideology, who are.
I say let the real evidence speak for what is best for future of the country, not simply what party you may be affiliated with. While Kerry may not be the perfect candidate, IMO, Bush has shown that he is not fit to be president and leader of this great country. He most certainly has not turned out to be a “uniter”.
Looking back, I was mislead by Bush’s “compassionate conservative” pitch in 2000 and voted for him on that basis and as someone who I thought would follow the path of fiscal prudence. I have been proven wrong and I will not make the same mistake again. As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”.
Really? Which country has the largest stockpile of such weapons( = Which country forms the greatest threath to the survival of the entire planet?)
Which country has meddled itself the most in other nation’s policies and wars and is right now occupying a sovereign nation after invading it?
The USA is the greatest terrorist nation on this globe having its own state funded terrorist organisation named CIA.
Ah. I see. When an other nation has oil, then the USA has to God given right to invade and occupy. So sorry that I don’t support such criminal illogical reasoning.
Really good logical reasoning. Help plant the UN a nation on other people’s land, then give yearly billions of military aid to that nation; veto every UN resolution against that nation’s murdering oppressing occupying policy and the result is endless bloodshed to keep that nation alive. Very locigal reasoning… Good for winning the Jewish lobby and electorate in the USA and the lunatical Christian fundy Bible Wavers. Yet not so convincing for others who have no message at this Bible Waving “justifying” the Jewish state where it was planted. Sorry.
By the way: can you name these “multiple countries” in the region, because from what I gather comes forward that the vast majority of these nation’s population tend to look at their governments as US puppets and US slaves. Also when it comes to the Palestinian issue.
I find the arrogance that speaks out of your post not in the least surprising, but I’m afraid you are on the wrong track for convincing those outside the USA.
Especially not those living in that region that is now about to explode because of Bush & Maffia and their Great War Mongering (+Israel applauding) Murdering Foreign “Policies”.
Salaam. A
Doesn’t it terribly bother people that the media and American people openly debate what kind of stupid the President is? I mean, not whether he IS stupid, but whether he is stupid in a bumbling way, stupid in a deviously clever way, or stupid in an archvillain way? We have Wile E. Coyote leading this country, and people seem OK with that… frightening.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentiment, to me.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentiment, to me.
[/quote]
But you omit the second half of that philosophy, which few conservatives will ever admit to: “…and someone else should pay for the roads and sewers and police and firefighters and other public services that I use.”
No, conservatives are quite willing to pay for those things. Even most Libertarians accept taxes to pay for the infrastructure they use.
What they don’t want to pay for is:
[ul]
[li]The Department of Education[/li][li]Their neighbor’s day care bills[/li][li]Their neighbor’s medical bills[/li][li]Their neighbor’s retirement[/li][li]Public television[/li][li]The Metropolitan Museum[/li][li]The local farmer’s F-350 truck[/li][li]Funding some business that a politician deems is worth taking your money to fund.[/li][li]Paying more for their goods because the cheap stuff is blocked by tariffs and regulations[/li][/ul]
Etc. But your reaction is typical of politicians who are under spending pressure. It’s an old game - when someone wants you to cut spending, you threaten to first cut the services that people want the most. Our city government spent a fortune a new modern glass and steel city hall. They spent a fortune ‘gentrifying’ districts that have important supporters in them. They spend a fortune on cultural programs and festivals. They set up ‘sister city’ programs so the politicians would have an excuse to jet around the world. They gave themselves huge retirement packages. Then when the people demanded spending cuts, where did they threaten them? The police, fire services, and roads. The pensions were, of course, off limits.
That’s false and you know it. Cite where any conservative has said that “someone else” should pay for roads/sewers/police/firefighters?
He already said that few would ever admit to it, so the demand for a *cite * is off-target. If you want an example of it, though, how about the constant insistence that lowering of taxes is inherently a good thing, no matter by how much or on whom? That necessarily means reduction of revenues. If you don’t proportionately reduce your insistence on having the things those revenues pay for, then who the hell do you expect to pay for them? You can either do without, or go into deficit and have the following generations pay for them at interest-increased prices. That’s the kind of irresponsibility **rjung ** is decrying, and quite rightly so. It’s also what conservatism used to mean in the pre-Reagan years, not long ago - but those who today use the term mean something entirely different by it.
**Sam ** espouses a slightly different view, though - he’s willing to have others help pay for public services he uses, but he doesn’t want to pay for those that only other people use. That’s no more responsible, unfortunately. And, Sam, last I checked, you don’t pay a cent for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Department of Education, so what the bloody fuck are you complaining about?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
That necessarily means reduction of revenues.
[QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t. Cutting taxes can and does raise revenue. See Reagan, et al.
Oh, sorry.
Libertarians don’t want to pay for:
[ul]
[li]The CBC[/li][li]Perpetual off-season welfare for maritimes fishermen[/li][li]Forced programs of ‘multi-culturalism’[/li][li]Huge transfer payments to support Quebec’s social standards and culture[/li][li]price fixing by agricultural boards, and freight tariffs to control the flow of goods[/li][li]Subsidies for rich farmers[/li][li]socialized health care[/li][li]Excessive minimum wages and welfare payments[/li][/ul]
Is that better?
How does not wanting to pay for services that one isn’t using fall into the category of irresponsible?
Oh, dear. You still believe this old canard. I can’t find a good cite right now, but the usual story goes that Reagan cut taxes and government revenues increased by almost a factor of 2 during the decade of the 1980s. Unfortunately, this claim relies on three misunderstandings:
(1) It looks at total revenues, which includes those from payroll taxes, which were raised under Reagan. In fact, the revenues from payroll taxes increased more than a factor of 2 and those from income taxes by less than that.
(2) It doesn’t correct for inflation. Even 7% inflation over 10 years will double the cost of living. In the 80’s, inflation wasn’t quite 7% but it was high enough to account for the lion’s share of the increase.
(3) It doesn’t bother to compare with other times. In general over time, our society has gotten richer, i.e., our GDP per capita has grown, and our population has grown too. So, increasing government revenues has been the rule. Once you correct for inflation, I believe the number you get for the 1980s is an increase in personal income tax revenues in real terms of something like 15-20%, depending on exactly what years you use (e.g., 1980 to 1990 or 1981 to 1991). By contrast, during the 1990s these revenues went up by something like 70% in real terms. In the 1970s, the growth was somewhere in between.
So, in fact, the conclusion one draws is that Reagan cut income taxes and, as a result, revenue growth for the next decade was anemic compared to other decades. In fact, what happened is that for several years, the income tax revenues in real terms were below the 1981 levels…I believe it took til like '86 for them to climb above again. We are repeating such a revenue dip now under the Bush tax cuts, although I think the dip is probably even more dramatic.
Because it is very convenient to only want to pay for those government services that you use and not for those you don’t. And, it is particularly convenient when you label all those services you don’t use as services that government should not provide. (How about services that I wish to do without? Personally, I don’t want to be paying for the Iraq war since I think it was foolhardy.)
Hmm, regardless of your position on the war, Defense spending is necessary and proper, while funding the “arts” is not. A crucifix in urine, feces on the Virgin Mary, and standing on the Flag are not worth paying for. Mind you, anyone can express those feelings, but they better well pay for 'em themselves.