I personally don't think Bush has had a lot to do with the price of oil. You have to consider the fact that approxamatey 1/2 to 3/4 of our oil is imported. The eastern oil cartell imposes oil prices and every other oil producing country more or less follows. Conflict in the middle east surly didn't help any. And our own government won't help either because the government gets taxes on every gallon of gas pumped. That's like leving a tax increase and not having to go through congress and do the paper work. The government gets a wind fall on taxes every time the price at the pump goes up. That's why when Exxo /Moble anounced that obsene profit made a few years ago and congress had the oil companey's representives on the carpet, nothing was done. Congress said it may tax the oil companies for that excessive amount. However, that means they would be going against free interprize. Besides, with the oil and gas prices that high, congress was raking in the cash from a goose that lays BIG golden eggs.
On the other hand, This is forcing americans to do something they couldn't do in the past because of low or no proffit. And that is pump our own oil, turn that money back into our communities, put a lot of people to work, and build alternative energy sources here at home through technology we already had but wasn't profitable untill now. The bottom line is; the Middle East is forcing Americans to relunctly move into the 21'st century. Here in West Texas companies are putting up wind generators at an astounding rate. with plans to build 70 in our area around Odessa Texas at a whopping 300 million dollars. We may run out of oil or be priced out of it, but we will always have wind! Now if we can only install sails on our cars.
2007-10-31 03:35:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jackolantern 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I can disprove Mr. X's assertion by counter example (not a great one either, but then again neither is the reasoning behind accusations that he is somehow fixing oil prices).
After the war, the price of gas went up. Speculators and conspiracy theorists thought this was because a war was going on that was disrupting supply. I can believe that.
Alan Greesnpan asserts in his new book, that had Bush not invaded Iraq oil would have hit $135 a barrel (I have yet to read the book, I consider Greenspan a smart man but that last accusation makes me wonder if he's becoming senile).
You can't have it both ways, saying the war was to increase the price of oil to prevent the price of oil from increasing. None of those accusations is backed by facts, and so people just pick an evil, in this case high oil prices, pick another evil, usually Bush, and just tie them together. It's convenient to wrap all your enemies in a nice little package, but it doesn't say anything about reality.
2007-10-31 10:00:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Well, the Bushes do have ties to the Saudi royal family. But it's not his fault. Despite the costs of gas (we're actually only getting around what Europe has been paying for years and it's our own fault for not wanting to give up the SUV's), the economy is healthy. Jobs are growing. Even with the subprime fallout, its good out there to be a buyer. Say what you want about him, but this country is in a safer security position than six years ago and the economy is healthier.
Are you better off than you were six years ago? I know I am. I got a great deal on a house. The tax cuts have put a few bucks in my pocket, which I'm more than happy to sink back into the local economy. And since 9/11, I know that there is someone at the top who won't surrender our ideals or national position of strength out to appease fanatics. GW is a man who follows principle over opinion polls. Unlike any Dem who's currently in the running.
2007-10-31 10:08:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Matt D 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
You don't need a website to verify this. Just think for yourself.
>The price of oil rises and falls based on a number of factors. But--overridingeverything else (including variations in demand) is the perception of uncertainty in international affars as the relateto/may affect oil prices. There is no arguement about this--we have decades of economic history that prove it.
>Bush has created an ongoing climate of uncertainty by invading Iraq. This was--and is--an unprovoked act of aggression against a country that had not attacked us and had no ties to the people who did.
>Bush's policies in Iraq (and Afghanistan) have perpetuated the ongoing violence, thus resulting in a long-term state o funcertainty.
>Bush has further heightened the uncertainty in the last year by provoking fears of a war with Iran--also a country tht has not attacked us and does not have WMD. True, tey've supplied arms to insurgants--but that is not an act of war--in fact, it is a routine act many nations , including the US, engage in in various situations.
Bottom line--the rise oil prices is due largely (not entirely) to a climate of uncertainty. Bush created that uncertainty and stubbornly refuses to make any policy changes that would reduce it--in fact, he continues to do the exact opposit.
2007-10-31 10:10:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Sanctions are one thing. Price control is another.
The best way to hurt Iran, for example, is to hit them in the purse. Their economy is directly linked to oil. They have nothing else going on.
When the administration wants to whack Iran, they send Cheney to Saudi Arabia. He convinces them to cause a postponment of an OPEC meeting on production rates. As long as OPEC does not meet, they can not cut production and the price of oil remains low if not just stable. This sends Irans budget forecast into a tail spin.
I think it's a great soft weapon. Nobody dies.
I love it.
2007-10-31 09:52:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Lets' see, we invaded Iraq primarily to control Middle East oil. Don't believe it? As we speak, major oil companies like Exxon-Mobil are negotiating production sharing agreements with the Iraqi government. Controlling the production of this oil-rich nation directly affects barrel prices. Bush, Cheney, and Rice all made their fortunes in the oil business. Is it a coincidence that oil prices have reached record highs and oil company profits are off the charts during the Bush administration's reign? Exxon-Mobil claims that their mark-up to retailers hasn't changed, yet they enjoy record profits. Do the math.
2007-10-31 10:00:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Hemingway 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
There are a number of things that affect the price of oil (which is reflected in the price of gas at the pumps). Bush is not one of those (not directly at least). The war in Iraq has had an impact on higher prices. The latest increase is from storms in Mexico. OPEC has a big impact (but not as big as they think they do).
One person does not control the price of oil. It is set by the global market.
2007-10-31 09:57:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mutt 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Approx 30% of the price of oil is what they call "risk". That is based on what traders consider the risk or volitility of the market. Bush is said to contribute to this because of "saber rattling" statements about Iran, current relationships with Russia and Venezuela, and Iraq. The more volitile relationships like this are, the higher the price.
2007-10-31 09:59:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Well, I guess I won't be getting your ten points then.
The only thing that either raises or lowers the price of any freely traded commodity is the free market. As long as prices aren't set by a governing body, cost and therefore price is going to fluctuate based on supply and demand and also the PERCEPTION of supply and demand.
President Bush does not control oil prices.
2007-10-31 09:50:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mark A 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
If you are looking for a mindless answer to this question that can put Bush at fault for the oil prices, well, you won't be able to do it. Therefore there shouldn't be anyone awarded 10 points.
Fact is, oil is traded on the commodity market. So.... winter is coming, there are people on wall street saying wow, looks like it's going to be cold this winter lot's of heat oil used. So they trade futures of oil yesterday, for what they think it will be worth today. (not literaly that quick, but I'm trying to be elementary for you)
2007-10-31 09:59:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by damond h 6
·
3⤊
2⤋