SternFanNetwork Archive - Bush fails again: Saudis see no reason to raise oil production

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Bush fails again: Saudis see no reason to raise oil production - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Bush fails again: Saudis see no reason to raise oil production - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

mkriss5681

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516...wh/bush_mideast

Saudis see no reason to raise oil production now

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until their customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

During Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, Saudi officials stuck to their position that they are already meeting demand, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices topped $127 a barrel, a record high.

The Saudi government indicated that it is willing to put on the market whatever oil is necessary to meet the demand of its customers, Hadley said.

But even then, he said, Saudi leaders say increased production would not dramatically reduce pump prices in the United States.

The Saudis are investing in ways to increase oil production over time. Officials told Bush they are doing "everything they can do" for now to address a complicated market.

Hadley said the Bush administration will take the explanation back to its own experts and "see it if conforms."

When Bush and Abdullah met in the kingdom in mid-January, the president also sought more Saudi output but got a chilly response to that plea. Saudi Arabia said it would increase production only when the market justified it and that production levels appeared normal.

Bush acknowledges that raising output is difficult because the demand for oil — particularly from China and India — is stretching supplies. Also, economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slowed production.

High energy costs are a major drain on the U.S. economy, which is experiencing a slowdown that some think is already a recession. At the pump, gas prices rose to a national average of $3.78 per gallon on Friday, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

Beyond oil, Iran also dominated the meeting between the president and the king. The two shared a concern over the recent in violence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah overran Beirut neighborhoods last week. The display of military power by the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, resulted in the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

Hadley said the leaders shared concerns the recent events would "embolden Iran." The U.S. and Saudi Arabia, he said, "are of one mind in condemning what Hezbollah did in bringing pressure on the duly elected government of Lebanon."

"Iran, working directly and through Syria, was very much behind what happened in Lebanon over the weekend and it is another example of Iran taking actions that are contrary to the interests of those in the Middle East who want peace, security and freedom," Hadley said.

On Thursday, the Hezbollah-led opposition and U.S.-backed government reached a deal to end the violence after Lebanon's Cabinet reversed measures aimed at reining in the militants.

Earlier, Bush and Abdullah formalized new cooperation between the kingdom and the United States on a range of topics, including the development of civilian nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia.

Bush was spending the day with Abdullah at his horse farm outside Riyadh, talking mostly out of public view over three tea services and two meals.

The White House says the president's visit is intended, in part, to celebrate 75 years of formal U.S.-Saudi relations. But the rising price of oil commanded attention.

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel. The run-up of oil prices lately has been dramatic.

Bush's visit comes two days after Congress voted to temporarily halt daily shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil to the nation's emergency reserve. Bush has refused to stop pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the stockpile was meant for emergencies and that halting the shipments would have little or no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.

It's a move that Democrats have sought for the past year to increase supply and apply downward pressure on prices. With an eye to the November election, the Senate sent the measure to the president Wednesday night without a single GOP objection. The White House has indicated that Bush will sign the reserve measure.

Also, as Bush prepared to leave Washington, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution that would block $1.4 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless Riyadh agrees to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels per day. The Democrats said they introduced the measure to coincide with Bush's trip to send a message to Saudi Arabia that it should pump more oil to reduce the cost of gas for Americans.

Besides wanting to discuss oil, Bush is paying his second visit to Abdullah this year — on top of a stop by Vice President Dick Cheney in Saudi Arabia in March — to talk about his goal of achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before he leaves office. Saudi Arabia's immense power in the region means that its backing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and any concessions he will have to make is key.

mkriss5681

Sorry to spam this forum with new threads but its been a busy news day chopped full of Bush's failures. So all he accomplished during his Middle East visit is to commit treason.

Stonewall

Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
Sorry to spam this forum with new threads but its been a busy news day chopped full of Bush's failures. So all he accomplished during his Middle East visit is to commit treason.

Lets just be glad the national government does not control health care. I think we would be seeing lots of threads about how Bush has screwed-up that national treasure.

ArivacaCharlie

You think Toby Keith will weigh in like he did against the Dixie Chicks?
Similar incident, isn't it?
Not only is Bush a fuck-up but he fucks up using the same methods as his detractors!

ArivacaCharlie

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Lets just be glad the national government does not control health care. I think we would be seeing lots of threads about how Bush has screwed-up that national treasure.

Well, let's be honest: If Bush is involved, he will most assuredly screw it up.

Turd_Cutter

You mean THIS guy couldn't get the deal done?

mkriss5681

Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
You mean THIS guy couldn't get the deal done?

He's doing his oil dance :D

NCMike06

So obviously everyone who is getting on Bush about this supports drilling in ANWR and more drilling off the continental shelf, right??

Kinda hypocritical that the dems demand OPEC produce more oil, when they refuse to allow us to do the same..... But I guess that's Bush's fault too... :rolleyes:

Stonewall

Saudis to boost oil output after US pressure

I guess this means Bush was a success?

:)

Billyfromsphily

I guess the Saudis didn't see BUSH cheerleading in Israel the past few days?

That should have put them on the same page!

mkriss5681

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
So obviously everyone who is getting on Bush about this supports drilling in ANWR and more drilling off the continental shelf, right??

Kinda hypocritical that the dems demand OPEC produce more oil, when they refuse to allow us to do the same..... But I guess that's Bush's fault too... :rolleyes:

I was referring to the main reason why Bush went to the middle east is to have them lower prices and increase production. Bush failed to get them to both. I think it's ironic that after all Bush has done for the Saudis that they back stab him at the end of his administration. Another example of Bush being a "lame duck".

mkriss5681

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
I guess the Saudis didn't see BUSH cheerleading in Israel the past few days?

That should have put them on the same page!

Yeah really. This might have been one of the reasons they spurned him. Anyone with any political incite would have gone to the Saudis first then went saber rattling in Israel. Not the other way around.

ArivacaCharlie

Not really. Most Dems don't want to destroy otherwise pristine American soil. Asking OPEC to produce more doesn't effect that.
Personally, I wouldn't oppose more domestic drilling if it would, indeed, lower prices. But, the greed that the oil companies have exhibited says that it will do nothing to lower prices. It will just mean product at less cost to the oil companies. They, in turn, will keep the extra money.

CrackHead_Fan

Had the Saudis said yes, you'd post something about how Bush had to beg at the feet of his Saudi masters.

You hate your President. We get it.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Had the Saudis said yes, you'd post something about how Bush had to beg at the feet of his Saudi masters.

You hate your President. We get it.

Well we will never know , will we?

ArivacaCharlie

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Had the Saudis said yes, you'd post something about how Bush had to beg at the feet of his Saudi masters.

You hate your President. We get it.

I'm guessing you're gonna hate the next one.
:ps: OBAMA! :ps:

CrackHead_Fan

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Well we will never know , will we?

Ever wonder why the very people who do nothing but denigrate their President are the ones complaining that he has lost credibility outside our borders? I know, you'll say he lost credibility first, or never had it, or any number of anti-Bush rhetoric I see posted on this site every day. But you expect your President to have a lot of pull around the world DESPITE the constant bashing he gets by his own citizens, which everyone in the world sees and you and your ilk take pride in supplying?

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Ever wonder why the very people who do nothing but denigrate their President are the ones complaining that he has lost credibility outside our borders? I know, you'll say he lost credibility first, or never had it, or any number of anti-Bush rhetoric I see posted on this site every day. But you expect your President to have a lot of pull around the world DESPITE the the constant bashing he gets by his own citizens, which everyone in the world sees and you and your ilk take pride in supplying.

\

So if I kick you in the balls, you will buy me dinner?

We don't expect him to have anything. He is the victim of his own 7 years of being a tough guy .

"BRING IT ON" Remember that classic line.

He is trying now to have a make a legacy for himself, but it too late now, he fucked himself over since day 1 .

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
I was referring to the main reason why Bush went to the middle east is to have them lower prices and increase production. Bush failed to get them to both. I think it's ironic that after all Bush has done for the Saudis that they back stab him at the end of his administration. Another example of Bush being a "lame duck".

The only way to 'lower prices' is to increase supply. (or decrease demand) OPEC does not control all oil production so that their ability to increase supply is somewhat limited.. However, there is no magic wand, not from the Saudi's or anyone else, to lower prices. You must either decrease demand, or increase supply.

WHat do you think about the hypocrisy o the democrats of demanding OPEC increase production, while refusing to do the same here?

Billyfromsphily

NOTE TO MCDOPEY.......................................They have the instant ability to do so!

mkriss5681

Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The only way to 'lower prices' is to increase supply. (or decrease demand) OPEC does not control all oil production so that their ability to increase supply is somewhat limited.. However, there is no magic wand, not from the Saudi's or anyone else, to lower prices. You must either decrease demand, or increase supply.

WHat do you think about the hypocrisy o the democrats of demanding OPEC increase production, while refusing to do the same here?

I pretty much agree. We need to tap the oil locally while finding ways to decrease supply. Bush has not come close to do either in the past 8 years. Pandering to the Saudis in the last few months of his administration is going to get nothing done. At least the Democrats got the federal reserve to stop putting in new barrels of oil but that's 5 cents a gallon a little to late, but it's still more than the Republicans have done.

CrackHead_Fan

Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
I'm guessing you're gonna hate the next one.

To the contrary. IF it ends up that Obama is elected, I certainly anticipate disagreeing with his vision for America, but I refuse to hate my President. That's something you and I will just never agree on. You see it as "dissent" while I see it as anti-American. I don't measure my patriotism by the volume of negative attacks on my leadership.

I most certainly disliked Clinton's policies and to this day can't name a single accomplishment in his legacy, but I would never want to see the office (and the country) weakened by saying I hate my President.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
I pretty much agree. We need to tap the oil locally while finding ways to decrease supply. Bush has not come close to do either in the past 8 years. Pandering to the Saudis in the last few months of his administration is going to get nothing done. At least the Democrats got the federal reserve to stop putting in new barrels of oil but that's 5 cents a gallon a little to late, but it's still more than the Republicans have done.

Sorry, the Republicans have tried numerous times to increase drilling, via ANWR, the GULF, and elsewhere....each time to be blocked by the Democrats.

Filling the reserve should have been done when oil was at about $10 per barrel in 1998-99... SOmeone was too busy to be responsible then.....just one of numerous instances of Bush having to clean up the mess of the prior administration.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
To the contrary. IF it ends up that Obama is elected, I certainly anticipate disagreeing with his vision for America, but I refuse to hate my President. That's something you and I will just never agree on. You see it as "dissent" while I see it as anti-American. I don't measure my patriotism by the volume of negative attacks on my leadership.

I most certainly disliked Clinton's policies and to this day can't name a single accomplishment in his legacy, but I would never want to see the office (and the country) weakened by saying I hate my President.

Well America was founded on the right to disent and that is why we don't like the self serving, arrogant, selfish, hypocrytical, smug, ignorant prick.

Now just giving blind loyalty is not patriotic it is totalitarian!

CrackHead_Fan

So the only thing that separates you calling your President a self-serving, arrogant, selfish, hypocritical, smug, ignorant prick from a foreigner (or enemy) doing the same is mileage. The result is the same.

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
So the only thing that separates you calling your President a self-serving, arrogant, selfish, hypocritical, smug, ignorant prick from a foreigner (or enemy) doing the same is mileage. The result is the same.

No its not and it never will be !

Your regard for the obvious is stunning!

patcracker

Here is one of the reasons why demand has sky rocketed:

Origin of the SUV Tax Deduction: "A Hummer of a Loophole"

A 1997 provision in the U.S. tax code (Section 179) provided small businesses with a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for a vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds- used 50% of the time for work purposes. The original intent behind this provision was to encourage investments in pickup trucks, minivans, and other needed service vehicles. A far smaller incentive was provided for cars--less than $7,000 over two years.
Today’s average vehicle fuel economy is at a 20 year low (24 mpg on government tests).

The explosion of SUV, pickup, and minivan sales in America's passenger vehicle fleet has turned this small business benefit into a massive loophole in the tax law. Currently, 38 different passenger SUVs including the Lincoln Navigator, which nets a combined 15 miles per gallon according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Cadillac Escalade (16 mpg), the BMW X5 (18 mpg), the Mercedes-Benz ML55 (16 mpg), and the notorious Hummer H2 (estimated 11 mpg) all weigh more than 6,000 pounds. This loophole allows some of the most fuel-inefficient passenger vehicles on the road today to qualify for a significant tax break.

In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles.
Accountants, SUV dealers rush to capitalize

Around the country, auto dealers such as "the Car Guy" Jerry Reynolds in Texas and hundreds of accountants and online tax management sites have been encouraging small business owners such as doctors, lawyers, and realtors to rush out and take advantage of this tax windfall. One advertisement from Dugan & Lopatka, an accounting firm in Wheaton, IL, reads, "Write-Off 100% of Your New SUV? Yes, If It's Under 100,000!"

According to a November 7, 2003, article in the Washington Post, Dugan & Lopatka were so inundated with phone calls regarding their advertisement they nearly had to shut down their switchboard. Industry analysts predicted a spike in purchases last November and December due to the typical year-end rush to claim the deduction for tax returns.
Senators push for closure of loophole

Several proposals have been offered to fix the loophole. At one point, the Senate Finance Committee staff actually proposed raising the weight limit to 14,000 pounds, enough to disqualify even the Hummer. Bills introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) would take a different approach to closing the SUV tax loophole. In The SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act, they propose that SUVs weighing 6,000 pounds or more simply be reclassified as cars under the tax code.
100 years ago Ford’s Model-T got better fuel economy than today’s average SUV.

In October, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a 3-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation.

This is just a seriuosly stupid way the stop the need for foriegn oil.

cal!guL.A.

booybob

Between Anwar and the OUTER continental shelf THE USA has approx 120,000,000,000
120BILLION barrels of oil that can be produced.
The oil shales in the midwest contain BILLIONS of barrels of oil yet, all we can do is go grovel at the feet of the Saudis.

I say the hell with the caribou and lets drill. Oil will be the main supplier of energy for at least the next 20-25 years. Why should we not be able to access OUR OWN supplies??

NoName

It's good to see Bush hanging with terrorists again.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Had the Saudis said yes, you'd post something about how Bush had to beg at the feet of his Saudi masters.

You hate your President. We get it.

I hate him and can't wait to see him rot in jail!!

CrackHead_Fan

Hold your breath until that happens.

jetdog

If anyone actually believes Bush did or said anything to the Saudis, smoke another one. No way would he even be asking them for anything, he has a lifelong relationship with the Saudis.

zimmie

I wish gas would go to $10 a gallon. If you can't afford it...FUCK YOU

zimmie

I wish gas would go to $10 a gallon. If you can't afford it...FUCK YOU, walk to a fast food job at night

zimmie

I wish gas would go to $10 a gallon. If you can't afford it...FUCK YOU, walk

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
I wish gas would go to $10 a gallon. If you can't afford it...FUCK YOU, walk

I hate thugs ,thieves and scum bags....now I know why guys like you end up victims....you deserve it

Gaiking77

Its the same group of people who oppose the Iraq war,but want to free Tibet.
How do you free Tibet without a nice nuclear exchange with Beijing?

Further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by Gaiking77
Its the same group of people who oppose the Iraq war,but want to free Tibet.
How do you free Tibet without a nice nuclear exchange with Beijing?

Further proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

:bigclap:

Didn't you hear?....Obama can wave his magic rhetoric before all dictators, and murderous regimes, and they will bow to his will... :rolleyes:

acefree

its not bushs fault they wont increase supply. they arent our friends. tho it is his fault for being naive and thinking they are our friends.

quit with saying "the dems" constantly. the correct statement is some dems, and some reps.
no democrat could stop the drilling in anwar bill, without the support of some republicans.
your man john mccain voted against drilling.
my man ron paul voted for drilling.
start putting your votes where your rhetoric is.

acefree

i oppose the iraq war, and i dont want to free tibet. so please rephrase your statement.

NCMike06

Quote: Originally posted by acefree
its not bushs fault they wont increase supply. they arent our friends. tho it is his fault for being naive and thinking they are our friends.

quit with saying "the dems" constantly. the correct statement is some dems, and some reps.
no democrat could stop the drilling in anwar bill, without the support of some republicans.
your man john mccain voted against drilling.
my man ron paul voted for drilling.
start putting your votes where your rhetoric is.

Sorry......all it takes is 40 senators to stop something...last I checked, there were 40 DemoRatic (that better??) senators...

McCain is not 'my man' He will be a horrible president...however, that will still be better than the complete disaster that Obama would be.

qbert95

The price of Oil is never going to come down again and people need to accept it. The only possible way that it will is if hydrogen or some other form of storable energy can be mass produced at a economically reasonable price to directly compete with it.

Your Ad Here

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
All code and concepts property of iMonkey Inc.

This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans.
We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.

All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.