The National Debt was in the trillions all through Clinton's reign.

 

Exactly!

All your little chart shows me is that during the Clinton reign taxes were to high because the government had more of our money then it needed.

 

:thumb::thumb:

You must live in a bubble, my friend. To say that most people are better off now than when Bush came into office is not only scewed its near ludicrous. While we are wasting billions of dollars fighting a war we had no business fighting - we have an economy that is in all probibility headed toward a recession.

 

I understand we live in conservative, close minded Kentucky - but open your eyes, man. The economy is not near as good as it was under Clinton. Clinton left a surplus in the billions - Bush has us now in a deficit in the trillions. THE TRILLIONS. Do you comprehend that?

You are aware that we were in a recession at the end of Clinton's run, right? Bush brought us out of it. If not, it's you that is living in the bubble. The bolded shows really how skewed you are, more anti-conservatism at it's worse. As I said, I'm much better off than when Clinton was in office and so are most people I know. That's just hard cold facts in my world.

As All Tell said "all your little chart shows is that during the Clinton reign taxes were too high because the government had more of our money then it needed".

I would disagree with the bolded. The President's policies have certainly had an impact on energy prices. His invasion and occupation of Iraq and continued threats toward Iran have unquestionably destabilized the middle east and added a substantial risk premium to the price of a barrel of crude. And documents came to light in 2005 indicating that Dick Cheney's closed door "energy task force" meetings in 2001 were attended by representatives of the big oil companies, who reportedly gave detailed energy policy recommendations. The minutes from these meetings (and indeed even the fact that the major oil companies were a part of the discussions) have been a closely kept secret by the administration and the oil companies themselves. It is also well known that the Bush family has close ties to the Saudi royal family--it's not at all implausible to think that the middle eastern oil producers could have had input into these meetings as well.

 

Should anyone be surprised that the price of crude oil has risen steadily from about $25 a barrel when Bush took office to its present price of over $96/barrel?

He has nothing to do with gas or energy prices.

He has nothing to do with gas or energy prices.

 

Really? Ever heard of supply and demand? Know what happens when supply is threatened? Price goes up. Even though Pakistan is not an oil producer, the assassination of Bhutto was enough to cause world oil markets to jump because of perceived instability in the middle east. Something similar happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--gasoline supplies were in doubt and prices skyrocketed.

 

Starting a war in the heart of the middle east (and threatening to start a second one) is a no-brainer way to cause world crude oil prices to rise.

 

Thanks for playing.

Really? Ever heard of supply and demand? Know what happens when supply is threatened? Price goes up. Even though Pakistan is not an oil producer, the assassination of Bhutto was enough to cause world oil markets to jump because of perceived instability in the middle east. Something similar happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--gasoline supplies were in doubt and prices skyrocketed.

 

Starting a war in the heart of the middle east (and threatening to start a second one) is a no-brainer way to cause world crude oil prices to rise.

 

Thanks for playing.

The focus is not gas or gasoline but crude oil. That market is governed by a number of factors, none which relate to President Bush or the Republican Party.

 

First, there is the organization of oil producing countries known as OPEC. They are the principal producers of crude oil and between them, have a great deal to say about what they will charge for their oil.

 

Secondly, there are the commodity investors. They examine, as well as they can, the conditions of the market and bet, in effect, on whether the price of a barrel of oil will, on any given day, rise or fall. Presently, the obvious general feeling among this group is that the cost will rise and so then does their bids for the same.

 

Third and most important, and upon which the first two above are very aware, is supply and demand. Oil reserves are not unlimited and once produced are irreplaceable. In view of the industrialization of countries such as China, the demand has been stoutly and perhaps alarmingly increased. An escalation of crude oil prices is an inescapable consequence. It’s really that simple.

 

Glad I played!

Game, set, match. Come back and play again sometime.

Anyone that blames Bush entirely for the rise in gas prices is simply being unfair. There are lots of reasons for the rising prices. Natural disasters, increased demand, failed or non-existant energy policies by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and yes Bush's policies in the middle east probably also have a factor (although I doubt it is as severe as some "want" it to be to support their political agenda).

 

But for the fact that some casual readers of this forum actually believe the silliness posted by some very partisan people on here as being accurate, I'd probably never venture onto this forum. But I almost look at it as my civic duty to post on here to correct the inaccuracies.

 

I'd caution anyone that reads this site that before they accept anything that certain posters say on here that they take the time to research the poster be reviewing all the posts they've made on this forum. You'll quickly separate the fair posters from those that have political blinders on, and then totally disregard anything that the latter group has to say. It really is kind of sad, but then again it is just a snapshot into what is wrong with this country today. We all say that the politicians have become too polarized in their positions and won't work together to make our country better, then you read this site and you realize that we have some posters that are just as bad as the politicians we despise. Sad. Very sad.

 

And by the way, I'm definitely better off than I was when Bush came into office. I don't attribute that totally to Bush however.

The focus is not gas or gasoline but crude oil. That market is governed by a number of factors, none which relate to President Bush or the Republican Party.

 

First, there is the organization of oil producing countries known as OPEC. They are the principal producers of crude oil and between them, have a great deal to say about what they will charge for their oil.

 

Secondly, there are the commodity investors. They examine, as well as they can, the conditions of the market and bet, in effect, on whether the price of a barrel of oil will, on any given day, rise or fall. Presently, the obvious general feeling among this group is that the cost will rise and so then does their bids for the same.

 

Third and most important, and upon which the first two above are very aware, is supply and demand. Oil reserves are not unlimited and once produced are irreplaceable. In view of the industrialization of countries such as China, the demand has been stoutly and perhaps alarmingly increased. An escalation of crude oil prices is an inescapable consequence. It’s really that simple.

 

Glad I played!

Game, set, match. Come back and play again sometime.

 

 

Some of your points are just flat out wrong. For example, OPEC doesn't set price or decide "what they will charge for their oil", they set production levels. And while increasing demand from China plays a role in the runup of crude prices, you haven't addressed my central point that the creation of instability in one of the major oil-producing regions of the world threatens the certainty of supply to meet that demand. And that causes prices to rise.

 

If you don't believe perceived threat to oil supplies can cause prices to increase, read the following article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10409162). Just by releasing information about a possible terrorist attack on Nigerian oil facilities, crude oil prices jumped $1.17 in one day. The information was released by the U.S. state department (which falls under the Secretary of State in the President's cabinet). So you can see that a simple decision by the Administration to release or not to release information related to a rumored terrorist attack can very clearly affect world oil markets. The price for commodities and indeed entire markets can be driven by such information. Now, consider the effect on oil prices of a war being started in a major oil producing region of the world. To insist as you do that the Administration does not or cannot affect the price of oil is very naive.

Good post LN. A wasted effort perhaps, but a good post.

Some of your points are just flat out wrong. For example, OPEC doesn't set price or decide "what they will charge for their oil", they set production levels. And while increasing demand from China plays a role in the runup of crude prices, you haven't addressed my central point that the creation of instability in one of the major oil-producing regions of the world threatens the certainty of supply to meet that demand. And that causes prices to rise.

 

If you don't believe perceived threat to oil supplies can cause prices to increase, read the following article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10409162). Just by releasing information about a possible terrorist attack on Nigerian oil facilities, crude oil prices jumped $1.17 in one day. The information was released by the U.S. state department (which falls under the Secretary of State in the President's cabinet). So you can see that a simple decision by the Administration to release or not to release information related to a rumored terrorist attack can very clearly affect world oil markets. The price for commodities and indeed entire markets can be driven by such information. Now, consider the effect on oil prices of a war being started in a major oil producing region of the world. To insist as you do that the Administration does not or cannot affect the price of oil is very naive.

H, oil prices rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. The government can cause an influx from time to time, but you flat out blame Bush for what the oil prices are and that’s where you are flat out wrong.

Over the past 30 years, we in the U.S. have tripled our consumption of oil and its byproducts. To satisfy this need, we import close to 80 percent of our needs. We should blame ourselves long before we point our finger at Bush, but nobody likes to stand up and admit their part.

We live in an 'it's not my fault' society these days. High gas prices? Somebody else's fault. Right - must be Bush! America's demand for energy is insatiable. We are all responsible, and we all need to admit it, and do our small part to fix it. Government can't do it alone, no matter who's in office.

Your dislike of Bush seems to be nothing more than a general hatred of the man and the result is your posts are a bit distorted because of that hatred, IMO.

Was it?

 

 

There's no getting around it.

Also, for anyone to suggest that tuition costs and public universities has nothing to do with tax policy and revenue is also a little silly. I won't blame the tuition increases on Bush, but on the conservative push to never raise taxes, and Grover Nordquist.

 

Beshear was on the telly just yesterday and this morning talking about the horrible shape the state budget is in, but holding fast to the claim of not raising any taxes - even the tobacco tax. We know that would increase revenue and we have not come anywhere close to the line of where the taxes cause a decline in demand.

Also, for anyone to suggest that tuition costs and public universities has nothing to do with tax policy and revenue is also a little silly. I won't blame the tuition increases on Bush, but on the conservative push to never raise taxes, and Grover Nordquist.

 

Beshear was on the telly just yesterday and this morning talking about the horrible shape the state budget is in, but holding fast to the claim of not raising any taxes - even the tobacco tax. We know that would increase revenue and we have not come anywhere close to the line of where the taxes cause a decline in demand.

H, oil prices rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. The government can cause an influx from time to time, but you flat out blame Bush for what the oil prices are and that’s where you are flat out wrong.

Over the past 30 years, we in the U.S. have tripled our consumption of oil and its byproducts. To satisfy this need, we import close to 80 percent of our needs. We should blame ourselves long before we point our finger at Bush, but nobody likes to stand up and admit their part.

We live in an 'it's not my fault' society these days. High gas prices? Somebody else's fault. Right - must be Bush! America's demand for energy is insatiable. We are all responsible, and we all need to admit it, and do our small part to fix it. Government can't do it alone, no matter who's in office.

Your dislike of Bush seems to be nothing more than a general hatred of the man and the result is your posts are a bit distorted because of that hatred, IMO.

 

 

I see. Rather than confronting the substance of my arguments, I get the "you just hate Bush" response. First of all, you're implying that I blame Bush entirely for $3.00/gallon gas and $96 oil. I never said that. I merely said that this President, by his actions in office, has materially affected the price of oil. I then gave examples showing how oil and gasoline prices can be impacted by regional instability and the potential for supply disruptions. I never said growing Chinese and U.S. demand weren't also factors.

 

All of this started in post 48, when it was claimed that a president has "nothing to do with" the cost of energy. If you don't like your claims challenged, maybe you shouldn't make them.

I see. Rather than confronting the substance of my arguments, I get the "you just hate Bush" response. First of all, you're implying that I blame Bush entirely for $3.00/gallon gas and $96 oil. I never said that. I merely said that this President, by his actions in office, has materially affected the price of oil. I then gave examples showing how oil and gasoline prices can be impacted by regional instability and the potential for supply disruptions. I never said growing Chinese and U.S. demand weren't also factors.

 

All of this started in post 48, when it was claimed that a president has "nothing to do with" the cost of energy. If you don't like your claims challenged, maybe you shouldn't make them.

The fact that the President doesn't set prices on oil is what I was getting at, I think you knew that. Like it or not, you and I are are more guilty than Bush is.