Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices

[adios]

Here's a big fat slow one right over the middle of the plate about belt high /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040803/ap_on_el_pr/cheney)

Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices

Tue Aug 3, 3:38 PM ET

By JAMES JEFFERSON, Associated Press Writer

HOT SPRINGS, Ark. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Tuesday that rising consumption and decreasing domestic production have led to high gasoline prices but also blamed his Democratic opponents and their opposition to the Bush administration's energy policies.

The Bush-Cheney campaign accuses Senate Democrats of blocking a Bush energy plan that would increase petroleum drilling and energy conservation and provide new tax breaks and other incentives to spur exploration and production.


"John Kerry (news - web sites) and John Edwards (news - web sites) voted no," Cheney said. "It's another area where I think there is a significant difference."


Cheney advocated increasing domestic oil production in wildlife areas in Alaska and other regions that are off-limits to development.


"We have put ourselves into a box. The only thing I can think of to do is to keep pushing for a comprehensive energy policy," he said. "We are at the mercy of those international oil prices."


Cheney, making his third trip to Arkansas this year, also criticized Democratic filibusters that have blocked consideration of Bush appointees to the bench.


"Anybody that might disagree with their liberal philosophy doesn't get to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, and that's just wrong," he told a hand-picked audience of supporters in response to audience questions. One questioner accused federal judges of legislating from the bench.


"The vast majority of Americans believe this is one nation under God, and we believe we ought to be able to say that when we pledge allegiance to the flag," Cheney said.


Cheney said Bush's re-election is crucial to making America safer.


"This campaign is about what kind of strategy (voters) want. Do they think the president and the rest of us who serve him are on the right track?" he asked. "Sometimes the other team is stuck in the pre-9/11 mentality. They haven't made the transition."


Cheney said the heart of the strategy for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) is to do what the coalition is doing in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq — training, supporting and equipping locals to take over the political and security responsibilities for their own country.


"We don't want to leave too soon and leave a mess there," he said. "The bottom line is ... to leave behind the kind of government that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists."


Cheney spoke from a podium that was in sight of a handful of protesters who marched outside the Convention Center, some carrying signs that included a reference to Bush, Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) as "the axis of evil."

Why jokerswild doesn't have Exxon, Haliburton etc. in his portfolio is beyond me.

[ThaSaltCracka]

So the democrats are to blame for everything even though Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. I have little respect for Cheney. If Bush dropped him and picked literally anyone else, I would consider voting for him.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
So the democrats are to blame for everything even though Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. I have little respect for Cheney. If Bush dropped him and picked literally anyone else, I would consider voting for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same way i feel. Tossing the AG and Cheney would seal the deal.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Right now, Kerry barely has my vote. Bush could do something bold to get my( and probably many other peoples vote). If the other thread is accurate about Bush wanting to do away with income tax, thats a good start.

[Cyrus]

"If the other thread is accurate about Bush wanting to do away with income tax, thats a good start."

I am willing to bet any amount you feel like up to and including the amount of $100,000 that the next President of the United States will not repeal the income tax nor the IRS. I am also willing to give you odds of 5 to 1.

I am perfectly serious. If we are both alive by the end of 2008, we would know. The money could remain in escrow and earning you interest.

This is an open invitation to any interested party. My action is available. (We would agree on the wager's details over e-mails.)

Disclaimer : This is not a gambler's bet. I am not contaminating this website with gambling props. This is just a scientific test to see how many gullible persons roam this supposedly advantage-players' forum.

[Cyrus]

"Cheney advocated increasing domestic oil production in wildlife areas in Alaska and other regions that are off-limits to development."

The amount of crude oil being pumped cannot meet demand. The OPEC countries are almost all going at it full tilt (and making out like bandits). But the refineries, as well, are going full blast at it. Even if there was more crude in the markets, the refineries cannot work for more than 24 hours! The huge Asian upsurge in demand, led by China's stupendous 9% (or thereabouts) yearly growth, renders all talk about the future of petroleum more urgent than ever.

The solution to the oil problem lies in alternative sources of energy. (As if you didn't know that already!) The solution to the high oil prices problem is even higher oil prices. This will make the alternatives economically attractive - at last.

The snag is that people (and especially politicians) will be tempted by the pay-off to drill for crude hitherto unexplored areas, such as Alaska. We should resist the last spasms of the oil era.

Dick Cheney, thus, is being a short-sighted fool.

[Stu Pidasso]

I'll wager 400 quatloos

Stu

[ChristinaB]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/b5613.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't care if he doesn't repeal it, anyone, especially the president, who gets the discussion going is doing a good enough job IMO.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The snag is that people (and especially politicians) will be tempted by the pay-off to drill for crude hitherto unexplored areas, such as Alaska. We should resist the last spasms of the oil era.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and the other aspect is that a terrorist attack on an oil producing ANWR would be devastating to the environment.

[adios]

.......

[cardcounter0]

NO, they would never drive up to an undefended ANWR and blow it up, causing a major disruption to the entire countries energy and major environmental damage.

Everybody knows they are attempting to get thru high security airline gates in order to build bombs in airplane restrooms.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

Adios, me and you should open up a business, since we finally agree on something!!

How about a bull-[censored] company? we could make a fortune!!!

[ThaSaltCracka]

I can tell your being sarcastic, but both are resonable targets for terrorists.

I for one am raising my terror alert level to beige... anyone want to join me?

[Cyrus]

"I don't care if [George W Bush] doesn't repeal [the income rax], anyone, especially the president, who gets the discussion going is doing a good enough job IMO."

I believe that this is completely wrong but this is just my opinion. I believe that a politician who starts something in order to generate excitement, sympathy or any kind of positive feedback and then does nothing or does the opposite is beneath contempt! Far better for a politician who intends to do something unpopular (or not to do something popular) to STAY SILENT ON THE SUBJECT, than to try and mislead the public into thinking that he is gonna do something about it.

(BTW, if the person who "gets the discussion going" is a journalist or any non-politician, then that is, of course, perfectly alright. Even if the person "does nothing about it".)

Sorry but it is awfully clear to me. Bush cannot do anything like abolishing the income tax even if he wanted to but his people are nevetheless blatantly trying to excite Libertarians who are disgusted with Dubya's policies regarding individual freedoms and federal spending.

[Boris]

He might be correct but not for reasons he stated. My opinion is that the US needs more refining capacity, not more domestic drilling. Refineries are dirty so probably those wussy environmentalist democrats make it difficult to build new ones. Of course current refinery owners are on the side of the democrats too as they definitely don't want any more refineries being built. It's a beautiful case of industry and environmentalists working together to restrict output, maintain oligopoly profits and make the USA a cleaner place.

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, it makes much more sense to ship the raw material here, mess up our environment refining it -Versus- refine it as close to the raw material source as possible, mess up their environment, and save on shipping by transporting the finished product here.

I propose we build a new refinery next door to you. Since you aren't a wussy environmentalist, I can't see you having any objections.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Your rational is incredibly stupid here. Something as radical as abolishing the federal income tax should be discussed at length by lawmakers before any decision is made. They shouldn't quietly scheme up something, it should be talked about openly. Even then, if they do not decide to repeal the tax, this open discussion could lead to the government deciding to stream line the IRS or even repeal other taxes. Without the discussion, nothing happens, thats how politics work, thats why we have a senate and a house, but I guess you probably know that.

[adios]

Good points, no spare U.S. refining capacity from what I understand. Also the pouperi of environmental requirements for gasoline on a state by state basis is part of the refining capacity problem from my understanding. Again the Democrats want cleaner, burning fossil fuel /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Boris]

I wouldn't mind another refinery near the SF bay area. This place is already on overpopulated shithole in many places. I would gladly trade 10 walmart superstores for a refinery. It would make my drive into the Sierra foothills to go fishing much cheaper.

[MMMMMM]

I'll wager one Miniature Schnauzer

[Ray Zee]

no one wants to give up their big fat hamburger, or gas gussling giant suv, or keeping their thermostats at 68 in the summer and 72 in the winter, and lights lit up all hours even when nobody is around. but it has to come to an end soon. so do we wait until it crashes our economy and completely spoils the environment for an extra ten years of ease. or do we get the bandwagon for cleaner cheaper energy going at full speed so we may salvage some of that comfort that is going away one way or the other.

[Zeno]

Good post Boris.

Most people here are yapping through the top of their heads.

This is what needs done-

1. The US should be punching about a million holes a day exploring for oil/natural gas. Including the portions of Alaska that are currently off limits, and also offshore drilling/exploring.

2. Streamline all environmental laws/regs that stifle growth and efficiency. The EPA should be cut in half at least or completely disbanded (like the IRS should be).

3. Part of the Federal gas tax should go into an environmental fund that will be administered by a business that you and I will set up. This fund will be used to clean up accidental spills or attendant environmental ills caused by all phases of oil production and distribution. We would be at least 5,000% more efficient than the stupid governmental goofballs and idealistic yahoos that pollute the bureaucratic ridden EPA.

4. The US should invade and take over Mexico. This will have two positives: It will solve the immigration ‘problem’ and boast our oil reserves in the process. Plus the US needs to expand. We treat Mexico as a territory initially and then give it a ‘commonwealth’ status and let them more or less run their own internal affairs.

5. In keeping with the theme in # 4 above the US should be overt in busting up Canada. We can then easily persuade the Western provinces and the Northern Portion of Canada to become part of the Union as full-fledged States. Thus we gain territory, population, and expanded oil and mineral potential. This would be a Win-Win situation for Western and Northern Canada also.

6.Once all this done (I give it 5 years) and we have a military of about 10 million we simple take over the Middle East and Western Europe. The Russians can have the fractious Eastern portion of Europe and China can dominate the rest of Asia. We pay off the Indian subcontintent to stand by and watch and checkmate the Pakistanis.

7.Our company makes billions and we both retire in 10 years to the Cayman Islands and live a life of luxury and ease, gambling and sport fishing for marlin and other game fish.


Think about it.


-Zeno

[cardcounter0]

"Our company makes billions and we both retire in 10 years to the Cayman Islands and live a life of luxury and ease, gambling and sport fishing for marlin and other game fish."

I think Bush and Cheney have already beat you to this part of the plan.

[Cyrus]

"Your rational[e] is incredibly stupid here. Something as radical as abolishing the federal income tax should be discussed at length by lawmakers before any decision is made. They shouldn't quietly scheme up something, it should be talked about openly. Even then, if they do not decide to repeal the tax, this open discussion could lead to the government deciding to stream line the IRS or even repeal other taxes. Without the discussion, nothing happens, thats how politics work, thats why we have a senate and a house, but I guess you probably know that."

Simmer down.

I would never disagree with the high sentiments you express about due political process!

However, it has been my position all along (as I made clear by offering a real money wager to anyone interested) that THIS IS A TOTALLY INSINCERE IDEA! The Bush administration knows that there can be no question of abolishing the income tax or the IRS. It would be catastrophic.

So about the public dialogue that you think follows when the issue of taxes is brought to the forefront, you are correct about the Law of Unwanted Consequences - but you will not get me to laud any politician who causes 'em! It's like having a public debate because of the danger to individual freedoms when a crap piece of legislation such as PATRIOT is introduced. I will welcome and enjoy that dialogue - but don't ask us to respect or support the person(s) who "caused" the dialogue, i.e. the pols begind PATRIOT! They are the villains in this piece.

(Same as Dubya is the villain in the taxes issue. He is conning people. America is at war. There has never been an administration in the history of any nation, including America's that managed not to raise taxes in wartime. Bush not only tried to lower the taxes on the rich, but he now sneaks to the electorate some crazy spin about eliminating taxes altogether! Pure, pure con.)

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"My opinion is that the US needs more refining capacity, not more domestic drilling."

Correct, in theory. So why are the oil companies not building any?

"Refineries are dirty so probably those wussy environmentalist Democrats make it difficult to build new ones."

You must be the one Zeno had in mind when he commenetd that people in this thread are talking off the top of their heads. FYI, the specs for building new refineries are more stringent every decade through actions with which the world oil industry is in full agreement! (I don't have time to expand so you'll have to trust me on this. Think of the rules a big fish in a cave would make to keep little fish out of the cave, for a start. Alright?)

By the way: The same criteria apply to expansion of current capacity for US refineries. The ones owned by the behemoths. Oil companies could expand if they truly wanted to. Read on.

"Of course current refinery owners are on the side of the democrats too as they definitely don't want any more refineries being built."

You got the second part right and the first part all wrong. Follow the money trail, Boris. The money is going to the elephant.

Now, a small primer on the oil biz:

EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION : Big investment/ High risk/ Big rewards

REFINING: Big investment/ Low risk/ Small rewards

MARKETING: Small investment/ Low risk/ Big rewards

...Hope you will read tomorrow's news in a more informed light.

--Cyrus