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

Bush keeps helping his buddies in big oil when we know and he knows that ethanol can cut oil dependency. He spoke about it on National television in his address yet he does nothing to help make ethanol production increase and gives your money away to fight a war that everyone knows cannot be won. What is he doing?

2007-02-06 02:10:22 · 12 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4 in Politics & Government Politics

To c=jd, your assumption that Mr. Bush and his trillion dollar investment into the war is baseless also. Just throwing money at this problem is not going to solve it, yet you do not call his assumption baseless. I based my assumption and opinion on the military generals who themselves have said this war may not end in success. Your other idea concerning the President influence on oil prices can be found in the war also. Invading a country with huge reserves, having them set on fire instead of giving them up to the US does have an effect on oil prices. So does ticking off the closest neigbour Iran and also making all arab nations plus Venezuela as well pissed at your comments and actions will of course drive oil prices higher. They were more modestly priced before this war began and then the new highs came and may come again if this President gets the chance to invade Iran as well.

2007-02-06 05:54:35 · update #1

To namsaev There are more economic ways to get ethanol other than using corn and Mr. Bush has not even made any attempt whatsoever to find these or create studies into the matter. Oil prices caused this war and oil prices will not end it because too many moves have been made on this global chess board that the USA is going to take years to correct if they can at all. Mr. Bush has made too many enemies and as more and more coalition troops withdraw from Iraq he will need more and more Americans to fill the void. Yes the President can affect the price of oil and by not endorsing alternative fuels but just mentioning them in passing really does nothing for them. Their prices rose toward the state of the Uniion Address and then when it just came out as words with no cash behind it their stock prices plunged. This means that he is still banking on oil, which means he thinks he can still rule how Iraq will go. Sorry but the USA is in Iraq until this President is out!

2007-02-06 06:05:02 · update #2

12 answers

He will be known as the closest thing to a dictator we have ever had. To satisfy his own mind...I think he just changed the word to The Decider.

2007-02-06 02:18:48 · answer #1 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 0 2

Well there you have it. Everything is the fault of the government. NOT.

Your claim that Bush has doubled the price of oil just doesn't hold water. Since you obviously flunked civics and economics, I'll enlighten you. The price of oil is NOT I repeat NOT controlled by the government and definitely not by the President.

The price of crude oil is artificially high at the moment. That is market driven. the two fastest growing economies in the world right now are India and China. Neither on has their own sources of oil. They are driving the market as much as the US is.

While ethanol and bio-diesel can be made now. The cost is higher than what crude can be pumped out of the ground. The investment cost to make ethanol and bio-diesel viable at today's market price is great. But who is going to invest the kind of capital when they know that if renewable sources become really competitive, crude producers can drop their price 25% and still turn a profit. While ethanol and bio-diesel can't do the same.

You want government to do it? Who's going to foot the bill then? Taxpayers? The governments tab for the coming year is probably going to be about 3 TRILLION dollars. Tack on about another 500 Billion to get the government to foot the cost od development and implementation. We can't grow enough corn and soybeans to do what you want.

The price of oil may have jumped on Bush's watch. But that doesn't mean he had anything to do with it.

2007-02-06 05:29:18 · answer #2 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1 0

Debra L- you're an absolute bone head.. curiously you dont examine the wallstreet mag or shop on with the worlds monetary markets too heavily (and once an afternoon contained in the morning consisting of your espresso would not count number!).Exxon (XOM) revealed list breaking 9 billion dollar salary in Q1 of 2008 ok? So dont say that they arent being rewarding resign fist.. they're and the authentic kicker is they ought to publically submit this info. and they do, and nevertheless no human being talks or is merely too outraged with assistance from it. examine your info back Debra. Bush has funds invested in huge oil.. dont for a second imagine that ANY of the intense score politicians dont.... Im paying 4.10 a gallon in boston, and that i'm now bicycling 20 miles an afternoon to paintings and reduce back to no longer provide the oil organizations any extra of my funds! Edit- nicely Debra, this "jellyfish" reads the WS mag each day, has funds invested contained in the markets, and really knows what he's speaking about. bypass inspect XOM Q1 2008 salary and tell me that the oil organizations are not being rewarding like loopy. Randy F- precise on! The liberals will also argue that huge Oil isn't making any funds off the cost gouging... and they are hurting too... enable's pay extra taxes on gas and extra for gas to assist them out even as we are at it. lol McCain is fairly the lesser of two evils this election.

2016-11-02 11:43:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You're illiterate in basic economics.

No President "controls" oil prices. Anyone with the slightest knowledge in basic econ knows atleast that much.

Bush has also pushed for alternate fuel technologies several times. (Note that ethanol production comes with its own problems: greater use of corn for energy means less corn for food. This would harm poorer countries dependent on corn. Law of unintended consequences at work.)

Your other baseless assumption: The war "cannot be won" and that "everyone" knows that it "cannot be won." This is purely your own opinion and has no foundation or support.

2007-02-06 02:30:31 · answer #4 · answered by C = JD 5 · 0 0

Any person with a brain in their head or who possesses an ounce of integrity knows that consumer inconvenience is what keeps the oil such an important issue!!
Bush and his fellow oil barrens will try to appease the American people with their "alternative fuels" banter.........but that's all it is .........banter!!
When I actually see some legislation toward the development by this administration .......then I'll believe it!
Anyone can pay lip service if it is necessary to fool the people to make them think that you care and aren't actually sitting back and counting the untold BILLIONS of dollars that you, your family, and powerful business buddies are making at the expense of the American people!!!
President Bush will be referred to 100 years from now as the man who brought our country closer to Fascism and the beginning of WWIII!!!!!!

2007-02-06 02:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Flim Flam Bush the lame duck President, that got American soldiers killed for oil. Stay the coarse with "NO PLAN" Bush, "OPEN ENDED WAR" Bush......21 Trillion dollar deficit Bush, Inflation Bush.....Bush and the NEOCONS did it all with their majority rule Dictatorship, and have absolutely no excuses either. Spin and spam will never get them out of this hole!!!!

2007-02-06 02:26:52 · answer #6 · answered by Earl 3 · 1 0

Providing the world with lots of Bushisms to pass around to your friends. At least he was good for something.

2007-02-06 02:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

The old blood for oil complaint as you drive off in your Hummer.

2007-02-06 02:14:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

He is reacting to the strings being pulled that control him. He is a puppet afterall...

So probably not "Big Oil".... Maybe... "Big Dumb Dubya"

2007-02-06 02:15:48 · answer #9 · answered by Flynn380 3 · 2 1

And what if he does. Will it have any long term effect on how history views you?

2007-02-06 02:16:37 · answer #10 · answered by phxfet 3 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers