Bush Favorable Rating at Only 36% vs Nixons 39%

And you somehow infer that this is evil on his part? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes you better bet I am infering this is wrong. He should not be having a conflict of interest such as this while running our government. You notice our President has not had much to say since the gas prices are sky-rocketing. I wouldn't say anything either if I was making as much money as he was off of the gas prices.

I will state it again. If we held a job where we had a conflict of interest such as this then we would be fired.

Bush is making money off of the high gas prices therefore not wanting to do much about it.

He has become very lazy in office. Not living up to his promises.

 

I likewise say "so what". I have oil commodity stocks as part of my 401k. And ya know what? They haven't been doing too well. So if the claim is that GW is manipulating the market to make oil stocks go up, the claim falls flat on its face when one realizes he's not doing a great job of it.

In fact, cheaper oil prices, not higher ones, tend to result in higher value of these stocks. My biotech stocks are doing better than my oil stocks.

 

I likewise say "so what". I have oil commodity stocks as part of my 401k. And ya know what? They haven't been doing too well. So if the claim is that GW is manipulating the market to make oil stocks go up, the claim falls flat on its face when one realizes he's not doing a great job of it.

In fact, cheaper oil prices, not higher ones, tend to result in higher value of these stocks. My biotech stocks are doing better than my oil stocks. </font>[/QUOTE]I would have to disagree. I know some friends of mine who own oil stocks, and they are making alot of money now that the gas prices are skyrocketing. Everytime the gas prices go up the one who own the stocks make the money. Bush is making some money right now.

 

It is interesting that libs are so concerned about Bush's exercise habits when they were so unconcerned about Clinton's exercise habits.

 

And you somehow infer that this is evil on his part? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes you better bet I am infering this is wrong. He should not be having a conflict of interest such as this while running our government. You notice our President has not had much to say since the gas prices are sky-rocketing. I wouldn't say anything either if I was making as much money as he was off of the gas prices. </font>[/QUOTE] Please go back and read my posts on these issues.

How is it a conflict of interests? I don't like the high gas prices either. It now costs us about $20 a week to drive back and forth to church.

But Bush hasn't caused the oil prices to go up. The Chinese have. A conflict of interests would be if Bush did something through to power of the government to benefit his particular stock. There is no evidence that he has.

So you think it is a conflict of interests because he won't use the force of government to give you (and me) what you want? That's ridiculous.

Oil/gas prices are mostly market driven. What do you want Bush to do? As long as the Chinese are open for business, we don't have nearly the influence as a consumer with the Arabs that we used to have. Bush wanted to open ANWR and was demagogued into submission. Politicians dare not suggest a new US refinery for fear of being run out on a rail by environmentalists.

Do you want Bush to ration gas? Do you want him to set price caps... that will do little except create gas lines and persistent outages?

What exactly is Bush not doing that you think is a conflict of interests?

I missed it. I don't recall him promising low gas prices into perpetuity.

I recall he said that he would vigorously wage the war on terrorism and do all that he could to prevent another domestic attack. He seems to have been successful so far. He said that his tax and economic program would help us climb out of recession, create jobs, and lower the national debt- it has. He said that he would appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench- it appears that he is.

What promise exactly did he make to you that you think he isn't keeping within the limits of the power of his office (he does have to work with Congress remember).

 

Very true. Also of note is that, when adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gass is still about 15% cheaper on average than it was during the Reagan Administration years.

So if some folks are right, and he should be blamed for the gas prices, then they should be commending him, because he's delivered prices lower than they have been in the past.

 

Oh btw, no one answered another connection I made.

Those high gas prices we are paying are directly related to the low prices we're paying for Chinese/'emerging economy nation' products. Are we better off paying a dollar more for a gallon of gas or 25%-300% more for the goods we get made in China or Indonesia or Malaysia?

The jeans I wear are about 40% less expensive now than they were 8-10 years ago without adjusting for inflation. Shirts are sometimes half of what I paid then. The price of just about every product traded on the world market has been driven down as a direct result of these emerging economies consumption of oil.

This relationship between low priced goods and high priced energy shouldn't be ignored by those who are angry with Bush over gas.

 

I don't think there's a direct cause-and-effect relation between the two, since the issue of overseas goods tends to impact labor costs, not fuel costs. Any relation between the two is probably coincidental at worst, and indirect at best. Just a layman's observation.

 

I don't think there's a direct cause-and-effect relation between the two, since the issue of overseas goods tends to impact labor costs, not fuel costs. Any relation between the two is probably coincidental at worst, and indirect at best. Just a layman's observation. </font>[/QUOTE]Think it through again John.

I modified my post btw.

When the Chinese and other emerging economies were more subsistence based, they used little fuel. Demand for fuel was a direct result of using the cheap labor to manufacture goods primarily for export. The new demand that has driven up oil prices is not from Europe or the US. Oil production is high. Refineries are maxed out.

The additional demand that has driven up prices is coming from emerging economies- in particular, China.

 

I would find it hard that the industry of one sole country is solely responsible for driving up gas prices. One rung on a parge ladder, perhaps, but sole or primary responsibility? Hardly. Besides, I think you give Walmart too much credit. Most of what I can find a Walmart I can also find at nearby Target. Few complain that Target does the same thing. It doesn't appear to me that Walmart imports any greater percentage of its goods from China than any other store. On my last few trips to Walmart, I bought nothing that wasn't available at other stores.

 

Let's not forget about the early Reagan years, when the Fed was charging over 20% at the discount window.

 

I do not see where in the world you can say he has help us climb out of recession, create jobs, and lower the national debt. Our economy is the worst I have ever seen it.

Man I don't know how you can say that. </font>[/QUOTE]The reason I can say it is because that is exactly what the numbers reflect.

Have you noticed how the media isn't drilling Bush on job losses anymore? Have you noticed the hush from Dems and libs in general concerning the national debt?

If this economy is the worst you have ever seen then you must be very young or somehow not seeing it. It is better than when GB 1 took office, it is better than when Clintion took office, and it is than when Clinton won reelection.

 

Let's not forget about the early Reagan years, when the Fed was charging over 20% at the discount window. </font>[/QUOTE]Or the late Reagan years when that had been cut by more than half.

 

No I was alive and well during all those years, and I dont know what numbers you guys are looking at but the numbers I am looking at tell me we are in the worst economic state I have seen in years.

I would hate to see you guys idea of a bad economy....

 

So what? He will not be running for re-election.

</font>[/QUOTE]Neither was Nixon but then he had to resign or be impeached. The future indeed looks bright for GW. (sarcasm)