English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

So.... if gas prices being high are George Bush's fault.....


does he get the credit now that prices are lower?


Or will you finally admit to the free market economy?

2006-09-07 10:10:10 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

So... sorry for labeling and generalizing. I forgot that is the liberal bailiwick. I should know better than that.

Let's all focus on the question at hand. Liberals did blame Bush for higher gas prices. Gas prices are now lower....

Notice that I said lower, not LOW. Learn to read please.

I'm just wondering who gets the credit for the lower prices. Anyone.... anyone..... Bueller.... Bueller..... Frye??

2006-09-07 11:57:24 · update #1

23 answers

stop labeling people.. just say hybrid driving sissys.

2006-09-07 10:19:22 · answer #1 · answered by a_wuchang 4 · 0 3

I dont consider myself a Liberal or a Repulican. But I'm not a hard core Conservative, so they would call me a Liberal since I'm not one of them.

1. Gas prices aren't low. $1.50 a gallon would be low. It's still around $3 out by me.
2. A big part of high gas prices are conflict in the middle east, for which Bush has a lot of responsibility for. (Note I said responsibility, not fault)
3. I'm not sure if you're trying to prove that Bush is your savior, or that the free market economy is a great thing.
4. There is no such thing a free market economy. There is, and always will be some set of controls in place in any economy. It's the degree of how much control there is. Besides, do you think China is playing by your rules?
5. We seriously need to get off our gasoline addicition and I don't see Bush doing 1/10 of what he should be to get that ball rolling. There should be massive tax cuts to anyone who has a hybrid vehicle or owns and uses solar or alternative power in their home.

But I really despise all this "Hey Liberals" and "Hey Republican" name calling and prejudice. It must be really nice to live in a world where everyone is either for you, or against you. That's why I feel the two party system is a failure. If we had at least 1 more large party then there would be more than one boogeyman for each side to blame for everything that goes wrong. We're all Americans, never forget that.

2006-09-07 17:23:32 · answer #2 · answered by Dizazter 3 · 0 0

If you can demonstrate that Bush's fiscal policies promote a free market economy, then you, sir, are amazing. Wasn't it Bush who backed the high tarrifs on imported steel to protect the US steel makers from competition? Isn't it the federal government that gives out billions in subsidies to US agriculture while limiting or imposing tarrifs on imports? Under who's asupices were billions and billions of Iraq-rebuilding contracts given out with a secretive, limited, or just non-existent bidding process? And is it a free market economy to use taxpayer resources to go to war against a countries that threaten corporate economic interests, as we did in Latin America in the eighties and as we are doing in the Middle East now?

Tell me how that's a free market economy and somehow I'll find a way to get you 10 points for the best answer.

2006-09-07 17:16:16 · answer #3 · answered by τεκνον θεου 5 · 0 1

You call this LOW??? What you reference is just a seasonal fluctuation.
The point is that we have an Unelected dictator who has a NEGATIVE impact on EVERYTHING he touches, except for his coup plotters. No, even if he WAS competent and well intentioned for the cause of the American people at large do I believe that he would make the whole problem go away. But instead of the Dictator Dumbya Big Lie Iraqi Crusade at $250 mill/day, that were instead INVESTED, as we someday must ANYWAY if we are to survive, in energy independence.

2006-09-07 17:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0 1

well i didn't think it was w's fault..... but now that you mention it. sure lets blame him. no he doesn't get credit for the prices lowering, that's supply and demand. but i do think it's an interesting coincidence that he's got financial ties to the industry and prices were soaring and oil companies were making record profits. all i can say is i'm glad he was voted for a second term, thta's over and done with and he can't get back in the office after 2008!

oh man dansmith you crack me up! exactly what you said.

2006-09-07 17:19:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

the gas prices are high because of ethynol (its what they're using to treat gasoline now that they can't use mtbe) so it has nothing to do with bush... the tax on imported ethynol is something like $.42 a gallon. There are so many things to fault Bush with- why go with gas prices.... I mean we could start with the thousands of troops he's sent of to Iraq to die. or the way he completely dropped the ball with hurricane katrina last year- making new orleans look worse than many a third world country...

there are so many reasons to hate bush- why blame him for things that aren't his fault? Bush- making polical satirists obsolete since 2000.

2006-09-07 17:15:36 · answer #6 · answered by rachel o 3 · 0 1

what? gas is still high. just because they are lower than before means nothing. and its not georges fault, but is sure is a coincedence that a former Oil exec. takes office and then Gas prices shoot up while the oil companies make record profits.

2006-09-07 17:13:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Hey! I'm still mad at Nixon for letting the price of gas go over 30 cents a gallon. What are you talking about?

2006-09-07 17:22:05 · answer #8 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0 0

Aside from taxing the crap outta gas, what does our govt. have to do with oil prices? I've never understood the liberals reasoning on this, do they think GW is sitting around setting the prices or something? He's not the pres of Exxon, OPEC, or the world, just the USA.

2006-09-07 17:15:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Liberals do not understand such things. They can not grasp the complexities of the US economy and how little any one politician can influence it. After all, they think Clinton is responsible for the effects of the Republican Congress lowering taxes after they swept the mid-term elections in '94. They think he was the reason that the economy took off... it had noting to do with the normal cyclical economy.

2006-09-07 17:22:29 · answer #10 · answered by C B 6 · 0 2

There still high than at the beginning of the war and will never be that low again thanks to his war in iraq and his threating of iran and when they do go back up will you vote democratic. I support the free market economy mostly but it should not be manipulated by a handful of powerful people.

2006-09-07 17:13:47 · answer #11 · answered by region50 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers