Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is clearly not a priority for the Biden Administration. Democrats hate fossil fuels that much that they’d prefer for our country to not have this reserve available in the event that a true emergency happens.
I can only imagine some crisis happening and Democrats like “adult in the room” Jennifer Granholm cackling and telling us all to just buy electric cars and solar energy systems.
As opposed to allowing drilling and extraction from the ground. Makes sense.
Kind of reminds me of a village of retarded and hungry people who have vast fields of wheat ready for harvest, a silo with a half bushel of wheat scattered on the floor, and the mayor telling the villagers to sweep up the wheat and mouse droppings off the silo floor to make bread.
My comment was made in reference to the fact the sale actually happened back at the end of Feb, right?
Slow news day, evidently.
My point is to show the history, directly from the gov. thus we can have a discussion about the topic all being on the same page as to the past history of the reserve.
This saves us from having to go through various distracting points and made up arguments regardless of partisan leanings.
So, to me the question is that this is a pretty new tactic...is it good or bad or a bit of both and if so what are the pros\cons.
My point is to show the history, directly from the gov. thus we can have a discussion about the topic all being on the same page as to the past history of the reserve.
This saves us from having to go through various distracting points and made up arguments regardless of partisan leanings.
So, to me the question is that this is a pretty new tactic...is it good or bad or a bit of both and if so what are the pros\cons.
I agree with you on the above. Just seems it was a more relevant discussion back in Feb vs. today. <shrug>
Why do we suppose Congress is pursuing this new tactic?
I agree with you on the above. Just seems it was a more relevant discussion back in Feb vs. today. <shrug>
Why do we suppose Congress is pursuing this new tactic?
Based on currently available information, the reserves are still well below capacity.
So, why is it less relevant today if the status remains unchanged?
To draw that conclusion then the argument would essentially have to be that it doesn't matter that the reserves are down, which goes against decades of US policy...but I'm open to hear differently...sometimes policies cease to make sense as times change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
