U.S. President George W. Bush plans to lift a ban on offshore drilling on Monday to combat soaring energy prices, a largely symbolic move unlikely to have any short-term impact on the high cost of gasoline.
Because it’s not a short-term solution.
U.S. President George W. Bush plans to lift a ban on offshore drilling on Monday to combat soaring energy prices, a largely symbolic move unlikely to have any short-term impact on the high cost of gasoline.
Because it’s not a short-term solution.
Q:Why did the Reuters headline cross the road?
A:It didn’t.
They are really more checkers than chess players.
I just read that the Congressional ban expires in Sept, 2008. This should get very interesting, I suspect the Dems will be the cowards they are and just let it expire. But if they don’t it could radically change the election.
Isn’t a little late to be thinking short-term energy solutions after three decades of Democrats saying NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO ad nauseum to long-term solutions.
What other country in the world has their very own citizens continually voting for politicians who systematically restrict all access to the country’s own natural resources?
WE, in the America of the US, have screwed ourselves to the point of being out of Energy.
A viagra pill won’t be enough to get it up.
The supreme idiocy of it all: true liberal energy beliefs revealed.
royf–
Linky?
I found this:
Congressional Off-Shore Drilling Ban Expires Sept. 30, 2008 — Unless Congress Renews
Monday, July 14, 2008 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 12:17:01 PM by kristinn
For those of us with limited knowledge of the ins and outs of the debate on off-shore drilling along American coastal waters, it is important to understand this fact:
The ban by the U.S. Congress on off-shore drilling has to be imposed every fiscal year and is scheduled to expire Sept. 30, 2008.
This explains President Bush’s announcement that he will repeal a separate executive order on off-shore drilling leaving only the Congressional ban in place.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045230/posts
Read it on a post by Kristinn on FreeRepublic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045230/posts
Do you have a Reuters link Dan? I read AP’s short piece this morning. They said…
But that’s wrong cause it’s only Democratic lawmakers that have shown no interest in producing more oil. NPR repeated the no interest thing verbatim too. Why do they lie like that? I think it makes it harder to be an informed citizen when they lie like that.
Oh. That link is to a slightly updated piece but it’s still a lot mendacious.
OT, but Dan-centric:
Not only did the “civilian national security force” post get Insta-lanched, but it’s also Jonah-lanched.
Obama’s long-term, non-gimmicky solution is to send out another round of rebate checks.
Thanks, Karl.
Would someone care to look up how reuters referred to calls to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum reserve? Was these utterly symbolic and futile proposals referred to in the same way?
Won’t the expected increased production from lifting the ban force those evil speculators to trim their future forecasts? Although, with the Obamassiah and his disciples in Congress, they will resurrect the ban on the Third Day after the inauguration.
OT some more: Karl, I want to jump all over that civilian national security thinger but the sourcing issue thing gives me pause. Here. Where exactly did that quote come from exactly?
If it was up to President Bush to do that before what the hell was he waiting for?
Here is the latest Reuters article.
Oh. Reuters answers Christopher’s question kind of.
Neither the AP or Reuters has an estimate of how many jobs offshore drilling would create. I think the answer is probably more, but it’s probably a good idea to wait until the AP or Reuters finishes investigating before going out on a limb like that.
All he’s doing is rescinding an EO banning exploration. Actually taking the discoveries to production was banned by Congress.
Now there’s a shocka.
Thanks. I found the version I used.
Thus the narrative continues. Anything that provides a long-term solution that is not supported by the Dhimms is recast as an attempt to provide a short-term solution. A failure by its very definition.
However, for anyone who understands Futures (and I only claim a superficial understanding–I’m in the process of exploring them more myself), they will see that a short-term impact is, in fact, in the offing. Because Futures are all about, you know, the future, if Futures buyers and sellers see that more oil will come out of these actions in the future then, interestingly enough, Futures prices will go down. And it is Futures prices on petroleum that is driving the high cost of gasoline. Period.
Law of supply and demand, writ large. Econ 101, gang. But expecting news agencies to understand that is out of the question. And expecting Democrats to understand, and support, that is the very definition of insanity.
It doesn’t matter what actual effect this will have it should have been done years ago.