Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9919)	8/8/2001 8:32:47 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Its also extremely hypocritical after all the demolib wailing and gnashing of teeth about the alleged arrogance of W's stands on BMD and the Kyoto swindle.... JLA

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (9919)	9/11/2001 4:48:17 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

OPEC is in business to make money. I doubt that OPEC members consider US pain unless the US makes an issue out of it, although as you say the US has clout. Our ships patrol those waters around the Gulf to provide safety for the area, and to protect our oil interests. Saudia Arabia does not have a huge army to protect itself to my knowledge. My guess is that Krugman and other Americans are furious because Bush has been completely unsympathetic to the high-prices of energy and its toll on American consumers and businesses. After all, Bush is suppose to represent our interests abroad as well as at home. But at home, Bush lectures the folks in California, as Krugman pointed out: "When California complains about high electricity prices, it gets a lecture about how you can't defy the laws of supply and demand. But when foreign producers collude to prevent prices from falling in the face of an oil glut, the administration not only signals its approval but endorses the old, discredited theory that cartels are in consumers' interest." -KRUGMAN And, it wasn't too long ago when a reporter asked Mr. Bush what would Americans do if gasoline prices rose to $3.00 a gallon. Mr. Bush response was that we'll lower taxes so that they can pay for it. If that wasn't bad enough, this past July, Bush asked the Navy to pay for Cheney's electricity bills at his Washington residence. Cheney is a multi-millionaire. I believe he made around thirty-five million dollars last year. Surely, if Cheney and Bush had any sympathy for the problems that high-energy costs have created for most Americans, Cheney would pay his own electricity. After all, The White House hasn't helped us to pay our electricity bills! But, when Cheney complained about his electric bill, Bush helped him out. ……………………………………….****************………………… "The White House had requested the budget transfer, citing the large and fluctuating electricity bills for Mr. Cheney's 33-room residence, which is on the grounds of the Washington Naval Observatory. The energy bills — an estimated $134,000 this year — are currently shared between Mr. Cheney's official budget and the Navy, with the Navy paying most of the cost. Spokesmen for Mr. Cheney, the administration's point man on energy policy, said the shift would simplify government bookkeeping and would cost taxpayers nothing extra. Some Democrats have said it is wrong for Mr. Cheney to try to make others pay his electricity bill at a time when millions of Americans are struggling with their energy costs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/31/politics/31SPEN.html BUT BACK TO BUSH and OPEC's PAIN If Bush were a tactful person, which he is not, he might have mentioned to OPEC members the hardship that high energy prices have had not only on American consumers but the global economy. If he was a diplomatic man, he could have made this point and still say that he hopes that OPEC will reach an agreement about price stability. But as Mr. Krugman pointed out, Bush's " soul — or maybe it's just his heart — belongs to people, of whatever nationality, who sell oil. With regard to the headline over Paul Krugman's Op-Ed article, it is most likely that an editor and not the author wrote the headline. "Feeling OPEC's Pain" might not have been the best headline for Mr. Krugman's Op-Ed editorial since Mr. Krugman feels very strongly that Mr. Bush gave the greenlight to OPEC ministers to keep production low and prices high. Perhaps a better headline would have said that: Bush supports high oil prices to stabilize OPEC because Bush sold his soul to the oil industry.** Unfortunately, the editors who write the headlines don't have that much space. Cheers, Mephisto PS: It took me a long time to answer your post because it has been a hectic summer. I apologize for the delay.