Do You Approve Or Disapprove Of The Job George W. Bush Is Doing?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rachael' post='1569894' date='Jun 12 2008, 04:15 PM']Blame the Dems? Are you serious?
You're right, it's a great thing, but what else? A single reason can't hold here.[/quote]
The Democrat party has controlled Congress for approximately 75% of my llife time. So, yes, I do tend to blame that party for the problems in Congress.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Apotheoun

[geauxsaints26]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1570182' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:09 PM']Oil prices are not controlled by the president of the United States, they never have been and never will be.

Nixon and Carter were not responsible for the increase in oil prices in the 1970s, nor is Bush responsible for it today.[/quote]

Why would he not be resposible for it? Are you saying his decision to go to war with Iraq has had no effect on prices? What about him beating the drum to go to war with Iran? Everytime Bush mentions Iran oil goes up.

Why did oil go up in hte 70's? enlighten a youngster.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570245' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:45 PM']Why would he not be resposible for it? Are you saying his decision to go to war with Iraq has had no effect on prices? What about him beating the drum to go to war with Iran? Everytime Bush mentions Iran oil goes up.

Why did oil go up in hte 70's? enlighten a youngster.[/quote]
The same reason it goes up now. Supply and demand, along with various political pressures (i.e., from OPEC). In the 70s OPEC was punishing the West for supporting Israel. At the present time demand from newly industrialized areas like China have been pushing up prices. The answer to the situation is for the U.S. to rely more on the 300 or more year supply of coal that we have, along with drilling for oil in areas that have been placed off limits by Congress.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Apotheoun

[geauxsaints26]

Opec attempting to punish the US because of its foreign policy looks like it has a lot to do with the executive branch. Supply and demand has an impact as well I agree, but not to the extent that I would dismiss the impact that the ongoing wars and potential near future wars in the ME have had.

The wars of the bush administration have had a significant impact on oil,IMO.

[CatherineM]

Part of the problem with gasoline prices has to do with refinery capacity. One of the reasons OPEC won't drill and ship more oil, is that it would just get stacked up in tankers. The biggest problem is speculators who are trying to make a quick buck trading on people's fears over peak oil, global warming, war in the Middle East, you name it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570301' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:07 PM']Opec attempting to punish the US because of its foreign policy looks like it has a lot to do with the executive branch. Supply and demand has an impact as well I agree, but not to the extent that I would dismiss the impact that the ongoing wars and potential near future wars in the ME have had.

The wars of the bush administration have had a significant impact on oil,IMO.[/quote]
Actually OPEC isn't trying to punish the U.S. at all right now, and Saudi Arabia has indicated that it will increase production.

The economic growth of China and India is far more of a problem for U.S. consumers.

In 1990 there were about 1 million cars in China, by 2005 there were approximately 18 million cars in China, and in 2008 aloone it is expected that by the end of the year more than 10 million cars will be sold in China.

The answer to the U.S. energy problem is to make more fuel efficient vehicles and increase coal and oil production, which is something that the Democrat Congress does not want to do.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Veridicus]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570301' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:07 PM']Opec attempting to punish the US because of its foreign policy looks like it has a lot to do with the executive branch. Supply and demand has an impact as well I agree, but not to the extent that I would dismiss the impact that the ongoing wars and potential near future wars in the ME have had.

The wars of the bush administration have had a significant impact on oil,IMO.[/quote]

I just have to disagree with you there. I would never try to argue that the past 8 years of the Bush Administration's economic and foreign policies have done any good for oil prices...but I think it would be equally unfounded and reactionary to try and somehow pin bush for rising oil prices. They are a commodity controlled by a cartel who restrains supply even while demand is ever increasing. Of course prices are going to rise. That's simple economics. As CatM stated, the speculators in the futures market aren't helping the situation any at all. I just think trying to pin the tail on George Bush is foolish; there are plenty of other faults and failures of the Bush Administration which have a credible and discernable correlation.

Peace

Edited June 13, 2008 by Veridicus

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1570305' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:10 PM']Part of the problem with gasoline prices has to do with refinery capacity.[/quote]
Yes. No one wants a refinery built near them. This same type of problem occurred in California a few years ago when energy shortages brought down the administration of Gov. Davis. Many people don't want a power plant (or a refinery) near their home.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1570311' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:15 PM']The answer to the U.S. energy problem is to make more fuel efficient vehicles and increase coal and oil production, which is something that the Democrat Congress does not want to do.[/quote]

While we increase coal and oil production we should also begin construction of more nuclear power plants and increase R&D into hydrogen fuel cell technology IMO.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1570315' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:19 PM']While we increase coal and oil production we should also begin construction of more nuclear power plants and increase R&D into hydrogen fuel cell technology IMO.[/quote]
I agree. The U.S. has a 300 year coal supply, and that number takes into account economic growth. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The Dems had a chance to drill in Alaska when Clinton was in office but they choose not to. within the past year or two there has been nothing that Bush could have done to lower prices.[/quote]

see... people think it was actually wise to drill back ten years ago. i cannot see how, given what i posted in my last post. eg... instead of a dollar gas, it's be fifty cent gas. and now ten years later, when it's pretty much all gone, we'd be where we are now for the most part, and nothing to curb it from four dollars to two... and nothing in the future to curb it from ten dollars to five. as i expounded on in my last post.

they may not realize... there's only about seven months of oil up there, if we ran our country on inothing but that ie, it's not so much that we might as well use it now... but it's enough to curb it when we're really feeling it.

if there wree a ton of a ton up there... then sure drill... an then when it starts getting low, let up. save it for when you're going to get something from it, and for more exigent circumstances.

it's not that i'm being liberal hippie about it. in fact, it could be argued i'm just being economically wise, and conservative ish as far as stereotypes go.
the only reasons conservatives want to drill now, is because they want to conform to the wanting to be develop and drill happy position as a good conservative on this postition... and i would guess they don't know all the details or insights i've been giving here.

Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1570318' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:20 PM']I agree. The U.S. has a 300 year coal supply, and that number takes into account economic growth. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.[/quote]

And technological advancements have ensured much more efficient and cleaner burning coal than ever before. 300 years is PLENTY of time to develop and create a better more sustainable energy infrastructure. Sustainable American energy needs to be a priority political focus in my lifetime.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Veridicus

[geauxsaints26]

When I mentioned opec trying to punish the US I was referring to what you said about the 70's not now. Of course oil will go up in price like everything else but the rise in price has been significant. I don't see how a person can say the Bush Administrations policys particularly choosing to go to war with Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially Iran has no impact on oil cost. Again before Iraq oil was 30 bucks a barell is everyone going to tell me that demand over the last 5 years has risen 300 or even 400%

[Apotheoun]

Developing ANWR and our coal reserves would be enough to make America energy self-sufficient for up to 300 years. That is more than enough reason to develop the reserves there.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570328' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:32 PM']When I mentioned opec trying to punish the US I was referring to what you said about the 70's not now. Of course oil will go up in price like everything else but the rise in price has been significant. I don't see how a person can say the Bush Administrations policys particularly choosing to go to war with Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially Iran has no impact on oil cost. Again before Iraq oil was 30 bucks a barell is everyone going to tell me that demand over the last 5 years has risen 300 or even 400%[/quote]
OPEC hasn't done anything to the U.S. for the invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq.

China is basically willing to pay almost anything to get more oil, and this is something that portends a darker future for America, i.e., unless we choose to develop our coal and other resources.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Apotheoun