Is Bush responsible for rising oil prices?

Question

I heard today that OPEC will raise the price of oil, on account of a weakened US dollar (oil prices are based on the US dollar). And a weak US dollar is indicative of a weak US economy. Since Bush decided to go to war ( no semantics on who funds what, etc...HE and he alone declared war) the economy has gotten worse, and hence oil prices have risen. Can we NOW accept that Bush and his policies directly affect the price of oil? What do you think of my new conspriacy theory?

I'm aware of the marxist sponsored theory of supplyside economics...or REAGONOMICS. I also saw what it did to our economy. Bet you didn't know that was supported by a communist, did ya?

I guess I got my news early...oil prices are going up, forclosures are at an all time high, record surplus turned into record debt, and president declares war...congress funds it.

Alan Greenspan retired. Man, I guess I AM getting my news early! That's what happens when you don't watch FoxNews or CNN

Answer 1

Insightful. I don't think its a "conspiracy theory" though. More like Economics 101. You failed to draw the line completely, though. The war didn't cause the dollar to fall directly, but borrowing to fund the war did. That causes the dollar to fall and as you argue, that causes OPEC to raise the price of oil.

Answer 2

-oil prices are going up,

I wasn't aware the President controlled the oil market prices. I must have missed that when I read through the Constitution.

-forclosures are at an all time high,

Is that the number or the percentage of homes in forclosure?

-record surplus turned into record debt,

If you look at what was called a surplus in real terms you will note very creative book keeping that would not be allowed in a civilian firm. And I'll give you that the debt is too high. But wait just a few months and you'll see no real change when the Democrats are in charge. Congress is responsible for the budget. The president only sends a wish list and signs the final draft. The President does not have line item veto. A big mistakein my opinion.

-and president declares war...congress funds it.

Congress (including many Democrats) OK'd it. Only Congress can declare war. And then changed their minds AFTER it wasn't over in two months. Contrary to what you hear in the coffee house the President cannot by himself declare war.

I think your new theory inhales.*LOL*

Answer 3

It amazes me the answers you are getting about the economy, particularly those who say the economy is booming. I wonder what they are comparing with that observance. The economy expanded at one of the slowest rates in 2006 and is expected to perform worse in 2007. The main cause of this is government spending. Government spending always shrinks the economy.
People seem to think that Bush is boosting the economy by creating tax breaks. Nothing can be further from the truth. Regardless of the tax rates, huge government spending kills the economy. Here's why.
To pay the government's bills, money must be taken from the private sector, that would be you, me, and business. This money comes in the form of taxes and borrowed money, treasury bills. Taxes come directly out of our pockets, leaving us less money to spend on other things,like comsumer products. With less comsumer products being sold, jobs are lost. Loss of jobs means less taxes being collected.
To pay the bills that collected taxes do not cover, the government issues treasury bills. In other words, it borrows the money. This money also comes from the private sector. When huge amounts on money are funneled into T bills, it has the same effect on the economy as high taxes. That cash would have been invested in business instead. Had it been invested in business, it would have created more jobs and more tax revenue collected.
This is the drag that government deficit spending has on the economy. To pay the bills, the government must take money out of the private sector either by taxation or borrowing. Bush has everyone bamboozled into thinking his tax cuts are great and are fueling the economy. They are not. They would be if there wasn't a deficit.
Government spending must come under control soon. If not, we'll all be in the poor house in a few years.

Answer 4

Atleast you admit that its a conspiracy theory.

1. Bush did not "declare war" because a President cannot declare war. Nevermind the fact that the House and Senate voted voerwhelmingly in favor to invade Iraq.

2. The economy has been doing very well in the last year. You obviously haven't read about it. The unemployment rate is very low, home ownership is high, the stock market has been hitting new highs for the last month or two, etc.

3. Oil prices have been going DOWN since September, and many economic factors are at play. Bush isn't one of them

4. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Answer 5

The only way the President of the U.S. can directly affect the prices of anything is by 1) signing an tarriff into law 2) signing a bill into law that directly regulates the price or 3) sign a bill into law that imposes some new regulation on industry.

Anything else is just political nonsense. It is way of swaying people to vote for one candidate over another.

Answer 6

Hichefhiedi
Your argument is well thought out
has pertinent points and asks a direct question
WHICH IS WHY NO NECONS WILL ANSWER you unless to insult you or with some airheaded theory with no substance
like the guy who told you about China
what the helle does that have to do with Bush's US economy
Which is simply a war on the middle class
Hes just trying to get the money of 300 million Americans inot the hands of 400 billionaires

Answer 7

So you are saying that if the price of oil drops , you will give Bush a well deserved "thanks" ? Oil is a commodity. No American President has to do with the price of oil. OPEC dropped the price of oil by $1 a barrel today ... Heating oil futures fell 3.25 cents to $1.8152 a gallon, unleaded gasoline is down 1.7 cents to $1.6685 and natural gas dropped 43.2 cents to $7.99 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Answer 8

Rising oil prices are caused by supply and demand. Our politicians have been bought and paid for by many special interests, including the big oil companies. There really is no shortage of oil on this planet. The politicians merely whine about their concern for "The Environment" to keep anyone else from getting it out of the ground. It is a monopoly, and monopolies always require government action or acquiescence.

Answer 9

I accept that idea. I also accept that many things can and do affect the price of crude. No different than the stock exchange. Is it the actions of the President alone that affect this? No way, too many variables involved. Alan Greenspan gets out of bed on one side, the dollar goes up, he gets up with a headache, the dollar goes down...go figure.

Answer 10

As a liberal, I found a truism. Money is the second most powerful force in the Universe next to gravity. So with that in mind, let me offer a lesson on a theory of mine on Bush’s War on Terror and then tell me how you feel, now. So please be open minded for what I’m saying to you.

In the first few lessons of a basic economics course, they cover Monopolies and Cartels. Cartels, a group of suppliers, such as OPEC, corner markets by artificially controlling and restraining the supply of any item in demand, such as oil, to drive up prices and profitability. Typically under a free market system, Cartels typically fail due to the cheating element when one or more members secretly cheating against the group by selling under the table. It only takes one major supplier to cheat to break the Cartel. When this discipline fails with the Cartels, the whole thing falls to the free market system where prices match a natural level of supply and demand.

With that in mind…take a look at Iraq before George W. Bush. A 10 year war with Iran and complete devastating loss to the Americans in Desert Storm has beaten Saddam down. Broke and barely hanging on to power Saddam is bribing every sympathetic UN officials during the “Food for Oil” program. He trying to get sanctions lifted so he can make it to the free market because he is desperate need of money to hang on to power. Plus he is now hates personally the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait and would love to burst their OPEC bubble. If Saddam makes it to the free market with his oil, he makes a bunch of money and he hurts his rivals, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

To preserve OPEC, The King of Saudi Arabia tells George W. Bush that Saddam must go. Bush and the Arabian Kings trumped up charges of WMDs against Saddam along with some other bad stuff, which were probably true. Americans are so mad after 9-11 they don’t care who gets their Azzes kicked. Saddam is removed to preserve the OPEC oil cartel not save us from Saddam blowing us up. No WMDs were found.

Proof is simple. After five years of Saddam’s removal, No Iraqi oil is hitting the world market. The Iraqis are buying oil from the Saudis/Kuwaitis to keep their daily lives going. Americans are paying for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Now if my theory is correct. Who LOST? Bush has spent billions getting close to a trillion of US assets to preserve OPEC. We have lost 3000 or so troops during this process. At home, the US consumers got robbed at the pump and the domestic economy had got strangled due to the high cost of energy. Who WON? All friends of Bush: OPEC Members, Texas Oil Business People, and Military Contractors.

Don’t believe me ask any college economics professor if what I’m saying is plausible. If I’m right, maybe conservatives should start questioning their country’s leadership about their motives. If this is true we all have been cheated, liberals and conservatives alike.