Blaming Bush for gas prices

Dubya's responsibility for the rise in oil/gasoline prices are by both omission and comission.

The omission is due to not leading Americans to conserve more and by not raising CAFE standards (average mile/gallon gas usage in new vehicles. More omission is for not investing more in public transportation and investment in researching alternative fuel sources to replace oil.

The comission is the Iraq war that has consumed vast quantities of oil/gas. This is also the primary reason the costs of building supplies like plywood and drywall have went through the roof.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise...So according to the lefties, we went to Iraq for oil & it's Bush's fault gas prices are high? Maybe it's just me, but I thought if a country invaded another country for resources, the invading country would have access to those resources (because they own them now and all) thus driving down prices on the homefront. Um, my colleague is having a bad hair day. I told her to send a letter to Bush because it's his fault, and will someone tell Bush to let up on all the rain over here? My backyard is turning into a swamp!

Woah. No way to embed little spreadsheets? Sorry, but that's impossible to read.

Biased poll questions. Worthless article, published only because some of the poll results can be used to diss Republicans.

Note, for example, how poll question 23 contains a factual predicate about how the Fed has increased interest rates, but question 12 contains no factual predicate explaining how well the economy is doing (high growth rate, low inflation). Evidently factual predicates to poll questions aren't used if the facts show the economy in a favorable light.

Note also how Mr. Silva picks and chooses results from the poll, but provides no link to the actual poll so that readers can see the entire poll and judge for themselves. Reporters seeking to inform their readers provide such links.

All this article proves is that there are people who are so ignorant on economic issues as to think the president is solely responsible for their own economic woes. Anyone who has ANY clue about how things work knows that the president is one of the least influential figures concerning the economy. The federal reserve chairman has a lot more power over the economy than the president. Even a CEO of a large company is in many ways more economically influential. That being said, I don't believe that Bush has any real resemblance of an economic policy or even any understanding of economics. Despite these shortcomings, the nation is still doing OK for the most part. But somebody will have to clean up the mess he allowed to be made with so much deficit spending.

I don't see a particular direct link to President Bush being responsible for oil prices -- there are a bunch of INDIRECT ones (maybe), but it DOES tend to get to the point of blaming him for the weather. He could have bullied his buddies at the big oil companies instead of liberals, but it's his choice to do what he did, I don't have a grudge aganst him for that choice, and it's still pure conjecture to think that oil-buddy-bullying would have done any good anyway.

Jay, we don't own Iraq or its oil. Bush explained when we went in that he planned on having Iraq pay for the war through oil revenues, but that hasn't happened yet. Wish it would.

Bruce, take an Ex-lax and shut up. You're just plain tiresome.

I don't blame Bush on this one! I do blame J Dennis Hastert for about a decade Hastert has been taken $1000.00 day fishing trips paid for by oil lobbyist. Funny the energy bill gave the oil companies everything they wanted.The Republican Congress is just a rubber stamp for big oil companies. Walfare for oil companies is just cutting the people's life style.Now Bush should of veto that bill. But Hastert would of lost his Fishing trips along with other Republican Congressmen

Your poll was interesting in that it may show why Republicans and conservativies are so far removed from the rest of America. They are the only groups that believe they are doing better in the past 5 years. Alternatively, their responses were based more on their politics than the questions.

Bruce does'nt understand the different nature questions 12 and 23. If you don't like the results attack the messanger.

Can we question that George Bush's unethical, immoral, and unwarranted invasion of Iraq has driven up gas prices? Warnings about destablizing the region by the State and Energy Departments were brushed aside by his administration as he was blithely claiming that Iraqi oil resources would pay for the war, while at the same time he was ignoring the "guesses" of experts who told him that the Iraqi oil infrastructure was nearing a state of collapse due to sanctions George said had failed.
While touting futuristic hydrogen powered vehicles, he has ignored the practical use of ethanol; a renewable, environmentally cleaner alternative resource that this country can produce in vast quantities with very little investment. He castigates the suggestion of taxing war-profiteering oil companies to whom he owes his fortune and office while their executives claim that their high prices are doing the nation a favor by diminishing demand and point out that European gas prices are 2 to 3 times higher. They imply that they could be gouging us a lot more than they are without mentioning that European gas prices are inflated by taxes designed to curtail usage and used to explore alternatives. Meanwhile, President Bush puts out the hope that oil companies will use their windfall profits to expand refineries and exploration without proposing any concrete legislation to insure that it happens. George asks us to trust him and his judgement; I see no reason to question him since he has never mislead us before and his judgements have always proved to be sound!

Bush's policies have made our country weaker.
-The war has been a disaster and cost us thousands of lives lost and many more thousands of permanentaly disabled citizens. For what?
-The huge deficit he made out of what was a budget surplus will cost us and our descendants for many years to come.
-In every past war sacrifices were asked of people in increased taxes and the like. The only sacrifices have been of our poor service people. Instead of causing us all to pay the cost of his war, he lowered taxes especially for the rich
-The fear of foreigners has lessened the number of scientists willing to come to the US and thereby strengthened other countries
-His neglect and destructive policies re the environment will result in increased global warming that will brign destruction to our coastal cities
-He will go down as the worst president in our history. Amd the people are beginning to become aware of this.

Ah, Doug, the Iraq War has nothing to do with gas prices. Raising CAFE standards won't help much either. Drilling in ANWR, which could have begun 10 years ago when more than 60 Democratic and Republican senators voted to drill there only to be vetoed by President Clinton, could have helped.

But it's funny. The GDP grew 5.6 percent in 1st Q. Also new housing starts continue to increase (but the Trib and other media buries the good news deep within newspapers while putting ANY bad news on front page of front section).

The economy has grown every year under Bush except for 2001. Unemployment is at and near historic lows of 4.7. Yet people think the economy is bad?

Retail sales remain strong, now housing starts remain strong, travel is up (despite gas prices). But why do people think the economy is bad? Perhaps because of the lies of the hateful and brainwashing media??

Jay

This admin is so incompetent that when it invades another country to steal its oil, the amount of oil shipped actually drops.

Typical responses from Bruce and Jay I see, if any journalist writes anything critical about the Bush Administration, even if the story is proven fact, or just posting results of a survey with results they don’t agree with, it must be kind some media conspiracy.

Here's a link Bruce. Feel better now?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econpoll29jun29,0,5298422.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The actual results are in a pdf linked from that page. Now you can go through he actual source of something BEFORE try to discredit it. Put your money where your mouth is.

John D., Think micro. All your macro indicators look good on paper but don't mean a thing to those who are suffering on a personal level. Retail numbers are strong? Housing starts strong? You're only lying to yourself if you think that matters to a family of four trying to survive on wages that have stayed flat while healthcare costs and energy costs rise

Let me tell you all a story 'bout a guy named "George"...

Listen folks, George Washington would have low poll numbers today. Why rumor has it that even Slick Willie might not be so popular with all the crap that's going on in the world. So...what's the significance of the polls? Nada! Zilch! Nichts! Absolutely, totally, Z-E-R-O ! !

There is one thing in the polls that is significant, however. It's that French-Fried, New England, Florida, and California Neo-Com's (Those who read the Gospel of Marx.) and the anarchists from the Great States of Oregon and Washington, have made headway in converting once True, Red-White-and-Blue Yanks into quivering, 'fraid of their own shadow, bleeding heart idiots.

Now, I'm not saying Bush didn't lie about doing all he could to secure our borders with Mexico and Canada, he did! And I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be keel-hauled for the Katrina mess he made, he does!

But if he were running again in 2006, I have a feeling most of us would hold our nose and vote to re-elect him; no matter what the polls said. Why? Because we only have one "American" political party in this country. And that's the way it is, June the 29th, 2006. Good Night!

Your right John, the goal was to pay for the war with Iraq's oil revenues, but really, when has any country ever paid us back? We always seem to be writing off debts owed to us. It's a tough situation that America is in. Other countries are jealous of us to the point of hatred, yet when they need a helping hand, who is the first country they goto? Anway, it's been said before, but we need to start making major investments in alternate sources of fuel so we can end our dependency and let Europe, the middle east, and far east destroy eachother once and for all. This starts at the top and the best thing we can do as Americans is to force this issue to become a major agenda in every party. Cost be damned, security is the issue here.

John D., I am a professional with a good job. I am less well off financially than a year ago and definitely less well off than 4-5 years ago. Although it is not Bush's "fault", he, as you, summarily dismisses it as not possible. Maybe he, and you, should try to understand that the world is not black or white.

Typical response from Rory. Nothing useful to say. What's critical about what Mark writes? He's merely reciting polls. I was referring to the typical liberal blame game. See the numbers in column 3 of all questions. I do find it interesting, however, that 58% of democrats say the state of their personal finances are secure, yet 62% think the economy is doing badly. Guess the dems are running around with alot of "old money."

Bruce,

I am sure George Bush NEVER EVER used a biased poll in his favor. Especially not against John McCain in South Carolina in 1999. No, a golden god like George Bush who has led this country to an unrivaled era of peace and prosperity would never do anything like that.

Wake up.

Once again I click on the "Swamp" and have to read ignorant, partisan rants by Bruce. Hey little buddy, get a life. No one mentions the secret energy meeting with Cheney and the execs from the oil companies...you know the ones. Those who the Republi-crooks in the Senate allowed to avoid swearing an oath that their statements were true, and then proceeded to lie to the Congress and American public. You know, Bruce, that 4 out of 5 execs said their companies weren't at Cheney's meeting and a day or so later we learned that they were meeting with Dr Death. Go ahead, Bruce, keep drinking the Republi-crooks kool-ade. Here's something to ponder. Oil companies claim outside forces are creating the higher prices. This would mean that their costs increased too. But when you see they're making record profits, something is amiss. What's amiss? A clueless President; rubber -stamp moronic Congress who thinks gay marriage and flag burning amendments are more important that $3 gas; out of control health care costs; immigration reform, etc., etc. The problem is that people like Bruce enable this crap. Please Republi-crooks, get back on your meds, and no not on Rush-can't get it up-Limbaugh's Viagra

Mg, if you bothered to read the pdf you provide a link to, you'd find out the pdf was not the "actual results" (as you claim) or the results from the entire poll. Rather, it is a press release, giving a summary of (and I quote) "the economy-related questions only". Take a look at (for example) how the pdf skips from question 23 to question 43. And the pdf doesn't include the underlying demographics of the poll sample, something that is standard operating procedure for polling firms.

Can't you guys get anything right?

As Jim Quinn says, "Liberalism is the art of standing on one's head. then telling the rest of the world they are upside down."

Well said M.Murray. Those of you complaining about your wages may want to do something other than waiting for the gov't to help you out. I make more money every year, and if I didn't, you better damn well be sure I'd be doing something other than blaming my President for it.

I remember back when KennyBoy and Enron were ripping off California, Bush was asked if he was going to do anything to help California. His response was, "What's going on in California is the result of the free market." Or something very close to that. His response is the same regarding what ails America. Why do people even listen to him anymore!?

What a hoot. Here is a line from Neal: "Once again I click on the "Swamp" and have to read ignorant, partisan rants by Bruce."

To be followed by this: "No one mentions the secret energy meeting with Cheney and the execs from the oil companies...you know the ones. Those who the Republi-crooks in the Senate allowed to avoid swearing an oath that their statements were true, and then proceeded to lie to the Congress and American public."

Talk about an ignorant, partisan rant. Hey, Neal, do yourself a favor and stop reading the DailyKos and other deceiving left wing blogs. Trust me, you'll be better off!!

What a hoot. Here is a line from Neal: "Once again I click on the "Swamp" and have to read ignorant, partisan rants by Bruce."

To be followed by this: "No one mentions the secret energy meeting with Cheney and the execs from the oil companies...you know the ones. Those who the Republi-crooks in the Senate allowed to avoid swearing an oath that their statements were true, and then proceeded to lie to the Congress and American public."

Talk about an ignorant, partisan rant. Hey, Neal, do yourself a favor and stop reading the DailyKos and other deceiving left wing blogs. Trust me, you'll be better off!!

What could have caused the $3 gas prices?

It may be the purity, genius and efficiency of the free market. You know, too many dollars chasing to little oil. Be proud of your part in this great capitalist drama as our dollars are efficiently and fairly transferred from our pockets to the oil companies, then to the Republican National Committee. We’re all on the same team, right?

Or maybe it’s the minimum wage cashiers that work at the gas stops. I read just the other day they were being blamed by many Americans for the price increases this spring. Now that’s critical thinking America; The clerks are controlling everything!

Or, maybe when Mr. Cheney had his secret meeting with Exxon/Mobile and the rest they decided to run up the price of crude oil. The scheduled Iraq war would shock the price up to $2.50, a couple refinery outages and we accept $3.00, and some sabre rattling at Iran may get us to $4.00!

Why, you may rightly ask? That kind of gas price makes it economically viable to exploit those marginal, left over reserves on the public lands and in the National Forests.

Now, I’m not saying which scenario is correct.

***********

PS to John D.
You didn't respond to Neal in any way.

John D,

Can't handle the facts, can you little man. I see no where do you refute my facts...because you can't. It's a fact that the execs were not sworn in...it's a fact that they claimed they were not involved in Cheney's secret energy meetings...and it's a fact that their PR departments corrected their mis-statements and four of the five were indeed at that meeting. Your a typical Republi-crook, John. When the facts hit you square in the face its time to divert, spin and lie!

Mg, if you bothered to read the pdf you provide a link to, you'd find out the pdf was not the "actual results" (as you claim) or the results from the entire poll. Rather, it is a press release, giving a summary of (and I quote) "the economy-related questions only". Take a look at (for example) how the pdf skips from question 23 to question 43. And the pdf doesn't include the underlying demographics of the poll sample, something that is standard operating procedure for polling firms.

Can't you guys get anything right?

As Jim Quinn says, "Liberalism is the art of standing on one's head. then telling the rest of the world they are upside down."
Posted by: Bruce | Jun 29, 2006 1:47:33 PM"

Bruce, I could give a rats a-- what you think. I just hope it kept you busy for a while.

Chopper - Look at the Macro Question #12 and the Micro Question #15. There is a 20 point difference. 66% of the people believe they are doing well, while only 46% think the overall economy is doing poorly. This difference in perception is largely do to the media message.

Rory - typical response from you and Zook.

Neal - if you don't have a point, just tar and feather everyone.

Jay

You made a great point with “…58% of democrats say the state of their personal finances are secure, yet 62% think the economy is doing badly.” Old money probably is a factor but your post led me to go over the numbers again.

That is when I realized - the vast majority of EVERY category of people polled state that “the state of [their] own personal finances these days” is secure – liberals topping out at 84%. They know they are doing well personally (in overwhelming majorities) but somehow they think the economy is bad despite their personal situation and major economic indicators (like unemployment, home ownership, etc). To me the obvious factor is the lemming-like characteristics of the political left when it comes to anything told to them by the mainstream media. CBS/CNN tell people the sky is falling and only the left is gullible enough to believe.

By the way, I do not like $3 gas anymore than the next person but they need to get over it. It is still well below historical highs (adjusted for inflation) and we still pay far less than the rest of the industrialized world. Keeping prices as low as they are should be considered a triumph when you consider the amount of gasoline production and pipeline capacity eliminated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (all these silly conspiracy theories the left is floating on this page really fall apart when you consider that they pay $7 a gallon in parts of Europe - now that is price gouging).

RRD

RRD- Please check your facts. The 84 percent you are referring to is for Republicans. I know the survey is a little difficult to read. As for the that question re: financial security, it, just like the rest of the questions on this survey is very subjective. It would be interesting to know what was the sample size for each category, from what part of the country are they polling. Let's face it, some parts of the country are better off than other financially/economically. Also, let's keep in mind 1321 adults is hardly a representative sample of the US. Polls can be useful, but they can also be misleading if not taken in the proper perspective. Also keep in mind that no statistical analysis shows that one response is correlated to another. Just cause libs are financially secure does not mean it's due to the state of the economy or what bush or republicans have done for (or to) the economy. There are too many other factors to consider to make a statement like you did. So please don't imply that there is a relationship there unless you have the statistical analysis to prove it.

As for the economic indicators you mentioned, they are numbers, too, and people can make them say what they want. You have to look at where they came from. Please think critically, and not republican or right or left or liberal.

As for the price of gas these days, Katrina and Rita only showed how dependent we are oil, like an addict is to his smack. If anything, Katrina show how vulnerable we are if the refineries and pipelines were hit. Bush seems to be more talk than action on alternate energy sources or energy conservations. It seems to me that he is saying things that people want to hear, like most politicians do, and it's shame that for someone who appears to be intelligent, that you are falling for it.

The above article cites an "LA Times" poll and the LAT summary by Jill Darling Richardson. I invite everyone to take a look at another LA Times poll, again with Jill Darling Richardson providing the commentary.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091303I.shtml

As you can see, this poll proclaimed 1) that Gov. Grey Davis wouldn't be recalled by the voters of California; and 2) that Arnold Schwarenegger would lose his race for governor to Cruz Bustamente. As we know, Davis lost the recall in a landslide, and Arnold won the subsequent election in a landslide.

Can't be more wrong than that. And if their polls were THAT wrong in the recent past, why should anyone trust their polls for the present?

No wonder only 14% of the American people have a "great deal" of confidence in the media, according to the Harris Poll.

JohnK, I cannot imagine a scenario in which one group of democrats would be polled on their personal finances and an entirely different group of Democrats would be polled on the state of the economy. Imagine polling 1321 adults for each separate question. I'm sure the same democrats that were polled on their personal finances, answered on the economic side as well (along with all other questions). Whether or not 1321 polled is an accurate reflection of the overall demographic is anyone's guess, but it doesn't take much critical thought to conclude that the answers to those questions illustrate the liberal bias against this administration and that the usual incosistency in liberal thought is present yet again. The only constant I see from the left is the hatred for Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, and Rove.

JohnK

I stand corrected - the majority of Liberals who say their finances are secure is only a 67% majority rather than 84% (I just wrote on another post that someone would get me sometime).

Nonetheless, the point stands. I have my doubts about polls also but just over a 1000 is pretty standard for polls like these and while they have problems with the close calls (45-55% ranges), these are really big majorities on this question.

I will agree that my speculation that the gap is caused by media bias is indeed only my opinion -please note, I specified "to me" in my post. It is, however, a reasoned and logical opinion as there clearly is a wide gap between the personal and public perceptions of our economic status.

Finally, economic indicators are what they are. if you are going to say Clinton accomplished something good with sub-5 percent unemployment, you have to say its an accomplishment for Bush too.

RRD

OK, Neal, you want facts, here are some facts. Oil per barrel has been selling in and around $70 for quite some time. In fact, it has been selling for more than $40 a barrel for about 2 years. Oil companies DO NOT set the price of oil per barrel. Oil companies pay that price. BP pays the $70 per barrel.

Now, about 8-9 years ago, oil as selling at about $15 a barrel. We were paying about 1.25 for a gallon of gas (regular unleaded). We're now paying around $3 for a gallon of regular unleaded -- a little less than three times more than we were 8 years ago. But the price per barrel has is more than 4 times higher today than it was then!

So at the pump we are paying less than three times higher than 8 years ago, but the oil companies are paying MORE than four times as much as they were 8 years ago.

There are many reasons for the gas company profits, chief among them that they are selling more gas than 8 years ago. You sell more products, you make more money. McDonalds sells more hamburgers, they make more money, hence their profits go up. Pretty simple concept, really.

Pretend you're a kid selling lemonade. One day you sold 20 cups of lemonade at 50 cents a cup. You made $10. The next day you sold only 8 cups. You only made $4. Understand?

In addition, oil companies' profit on a gallon of gas is about 9 cents. However, Cook County taxes you 10 cents a gallon. Cook COunty makes more money on a product they have nothing to do with than the company that actually makes the product. So, who is gouging whom?

I seem to remember, long ago during the huge economic expansion of the Clinton years lots of conservatives and economists saying that the president has little impact on the economy during their term regardless of what they do.

In fact, many Republicans said the PRIOR president has more impact than the sitting President, due to all the time lag in any policy, thus giving credit to GHWB for the 90'w expansion, not Clinton.

Guess that means Clinton is to be credited with the current expansion, right?

It's a mistake to start believing your own propaganda.

CMorris

"lots of conservatives and economists saying that the president has little impact on the economy during their term"

Actually, most conservatives would still find this valid. However, the longer their time in office, the more impact they have and the more historically exceptional occurences happen during their watch, the more they might have an impact.

Clinton took over with an upswing in the economy already underway and enjoyed the "peace dividend" brought about by his predecessors. He enjoyed a tech industry boom that can be likened to the California Gold Rush in terms of unexpected financial gain. He also had the advantage of the first balanced budget since the last time Republicans controlled Congress (before you go there, I am not entirely happy with where this same bunch of Rep congressmen have gone over the past few years either) and - according to most experts - a seriously over-valued stock market

Bush took over with a recession already underway and the beginning of the end of the over-valued stock market (something I do NOT blame Clinton for, btw). The Enron/Worldcom/Arthur Anerson scandals started (all of which developed under Clinton's watch), and, of course, the big one - the 9/11 attacks. (Later, Bush would also have to deal with historically exceptional national disasters at home and abroad but we can stick to the early years if each Admin to keep it simple).

Imagine how rosy Clinton's scenario would have been if the first WTC bombing attempt had worked and the stock market tanked in response back in the first year of his term. Do not think he would have made it to a second term under those circumstances - H. Ross would have probably decided to sit the next election out if it was going to undermine his fortune.

The old cliche is that Presidents "sail the ship of state" - within that context Clinton did well on a calm sea and favorable winds. Bush has contended with a perfect storm and we are right back on track economically. Which required the greater skills?

RRD

RRD,

Reasonable response.

I might point out that the discredited (by conservatives) Carter inherited many fiscal problems from both Johnson and Nixon/Ford. The guns and butter policies of both administrations during the Vietnam war, and Nixon's 'wage/price' freeze' (which rooked me out on a military pay raise in '71!!) finaly ganged up on Carter as 'stag-flation' anf high interest rates.

My worry is the 'cut more taxes, spend even more' policies of our current Republican rulers will really hit hard in a few short years.

At least the 'tax and spend' Dems got the 'tax' part of the equation. Also, polls showed a majority didn't want the Bush tax cuts, but actually wanted to pay down the public debt. Ideology trumped what America wanted. How could we not want tax cuts? Screw the debt.

I don't buy the 'percentage of GDP is not that high' argument.

Nine trillion dollars is, well, nine trillion dollars.

No spell check on this one, here we go!

RRD,

I submitted a response, but it didn't get in yet for some reason.

CMorris - looks like they caught up this morning.

A lot of agreement on my part. Carter got a raw deal (Viet Nam did that to a lot of people, even after it was over)and while I still think he was way off base on foreign policy/defense (my most frequent issue with Dem candidates) he is the best ex-President I can think of. His use of his stature over the past 20 years is very admirable and seems to have set a precedent that others are following.

I agree that 9 trillion is a lot (you are apparently old enough that I can just remind you of Sen. Dirksen's comment on "real money") and I want a lot more spending control from this administration and Congress (I am old fashioned but consistent on this point - the power of the purse was placed with the House and they hold most of the responsibility for the budget so far as I am concerned). However, I will say that when push comes to shove, the proportionate challenge of the current debt/deficit is not any greater than it was 1992 and we saw how quickly that got "solved" with a balanced budget.

Which brings us to the classic debate about tax rates and tax revenues - I went into detail about this on another post (and have not got the time to do it again this morning) but the last fifty years seem to back up the notion that lowering taxes stimulates a disproportionate growth of revenues. I know there is a point where the return diminishes but we do not seem to have it that point yet.

Thanks for a reasoned set of posts.

RRD

RRD