• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush A Realist When It Comes to Gas Prices.

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,180
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I was watching his online interview, and I must say he did a good job. I was particularly pleased with his response to this question...

Q Mr. President, thank you very much for having us into the Roosevelt Room for the first online interview. In the spirit of the Internet, I wonder if we could ask a question from one of our users, Steve Bailey, of New York, who says: With oil at $126 a barrel, pushing up the price of everything -- even food -- what can your administration do to help people right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate Steven's concerns. With the price of gasoline going up, it's like a tax. I wish I could give Steven a quick answer. In other words, it took us a while to get to where we are -- very dependent on oil, and in a world in which demand is greater than oil. So my answer to Steven is that the best thing we can do is to increase supply, and to drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways at home, and build more refineries. Steven probably doesn't know this, but we haven't built a new refinery since 1976, and if we're truly interested in relieving the pressure on our consumers, then we ought to have a very active domestic policy now.

Q Mr. President, as you know, as a possible solution, Senator McCain, Senator Clinton have talked about suspending the federal gasoline tax this summer. You never said an absolute "no" to that. Is it something you would consider or do you think it's a bad idea to consider?

THE PRESIDENT: I'll consider it. And there's all kinds of ideas -- they're trying to pass a deal to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; we'll look at that.

The truth of the matter is that in order for there to be a substantial change either consumers have to change their habits -- which we're encouraging through alternative tax of automobiles -- or there has to be an increase of supply. And both of them have to go hand in hand in order to achieve less dependence on this very unsettled oil market.

I'd say that about sums it up.

Interview with President Bush - White House Transcript - Politico.com
 
If you like pandering to big oil...

Any new drilling will take 7~10 years to get to the market. That won't solve our problems.
Any new refinery will take years to build. Again, no short term solution.

The only RATIONAL way to decrease prices is to decrease demand. The irrational would be to nationalize and put a price ceiling up.

The good thing about high gas prices is that it makes alternative profitable and thus a good candidate for investment.
 
If you like pandering to big oil...

Any new drilling will take 7~10 years to get to the market. That won't solve our problems.
Any new refinery will take years to build. Again, no short term solution.

Yeah, and if Clinton hadn't vetoed it in the early 1990's, we would be pumping that oil right now.
 
Which would be priced at international commodity markets. The real problem isn't the supply of crude. It's the refineries and speculators.

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - Environment - MSNBC.com

Wow. 50 cents. Big Deal.

Gill, try again.

I agree that speculators are a major cause of the high prices, but the more oil on the market, the lower the price. Simple supply and demand.

50 cents IS a big deal! That's 13% of the current price, nothing to sneeze at. If supply is no big deal, why does the price of oil skyrocket everytime there is a hint of a disruption somewhere in the world??
 
I agree that speculators are a major cause of the high prices, but the more oil on the market, the lower the price. Simple supply and demand.

Not quite. You failed to incorporate refinery capacity. Every time refinery capacity is reduced through a terrorist attack or natural disaster, gas goes through the roof. While a disruption of crude production only sees a few dollars spiking. Furthermore, most of the price of gas is due to the weak dollar. Last time I checked, when oil was $100 a barrel, almost $40 of that could be directly attributed to the weak dollar.

50 cents IS a big deal! That's 13% of the current price, nothing to sneeze at.

But hardly enough to make a impact in the long run. I'd rather have high gas prices causing investment to be fueled into alternative then have cheaper gas and get screwed in 15 years.

If supply is no big deal, why does the price of oil skyrocket everytime there is a hint of a disruption somewhere in the world??

You fail to separate the differences in refinery capacity and extraction capacity. It is rather important.
 
Bush isn't a realist when it comes to reality.

Just as well, since the fact-based community allegedly has a liberal bias.
 
Bush isn't a realist when it comes to reality.

Just as well, since the fact-based community allegedly has a liberal bias.

Yes, you are correct, numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on all have an established liberal bias.
 
Yes, you are correct, numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on all have an established liberal bias.

The bias of numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on can have any bias that the author wishes them to have.

Like the old saying... Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

and that famous statistics book from the 50's:

How to Lie with Statistics is Darrell Huff's perennially popular introduction to statistics for the general reader. Written in 1954, it is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining the common errors, both intentional and unintentional, associated with the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors can lead to biased or inaccurate conclusions. Although a number of more recent versions have been released, the original edition contained humorous, witty illustrations by Irving Geis.
 
If you like pandering to big oil...

Any new drilling will take 7~10 years to get to the market. That won't solve our problems.
Any new refinery will take years to build. Again, no short term solution.

The only RATIONAL way to decrease prices is to decrease demand. The irrational would be to nationalize and put a price ceiling up.

The good thing about high gas prices is that it makes alternative profitable and thus a good candidate for investment.

God knows I don't want to defend Bush, but 7-10 years is a very short time and we need to be concerned about our near future just as much as our immediate future.
We also need to be concerned about our distant future.
Those that handed this world to us made it a point to be sure it was paid for.
Paid for by their hard work and struggle.
Not only are we benefiting from their generations hard work, but we are also borrowing from our children's future instead of doing what we have been taught.
Our generation is a double ended leach.

The Democrats have a far superior plan in that they want to invest dramatically into alternate energy.
However, the best plan would be a combination of both.
We need to increase investment into alternate energy WHILE we drill for oil for our future.

---

Anyhow, I felt Bush gave a better speech when he responded with total bewilderment, shock, and awe to a reporter that asked about $4.00 gas.
It gave a much better representation of the man and what his priorities are.
 
Last edited:
God knows I don't want to defend Bush, but 7-10 years is a very short time and we need to be concerned about our near future just as much as our immediate future.

Which is why we need to have a Manhattan like project for alternative. The benefits of that would be tremendous. Huge new industries with massive amounts of new jobs. Massive growth in exports. Once again being a technological leader in something other then destruction. The more we prolong this the weaker our economy will be. Having more oil only prolongs this.

The Democrats have a far superior plan in that they want to invest dramatically into alternate energy.
However, the best plan would be a combination of both.
We need to increase investment into alternate energy WHILE we drill for oil for our future.

Perhaps. I'd rather see nuclear be built then more oil. Even if we do drill for more, we need to maintain the focus that oil is merely buying time, that it is not the solution and we cannot rely on it. That I fear will be lost.
 
I agree that speculators are a major cause of the high prices...

Not so sure about that.

[URL=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11454989]The Economist[/URL] said:
Stuck for answers, politicians have been looking for scapegoats. Top of the list are the speculators profiting from other people's hardship. Some $260 billion is invested in commodity funds, 20 times the level of 2003. Surely all that hot money has supercharged the demand for oil? But that is plain wrong. Such speculators do not own real oil. Every barrel they buy in the futures markets they sell back again before the contract ends. That may raise the price of “paper barrels”, but not of the black stuff refiners turn into petrol. It is true that high futures prices could lead someone to hoard oil today in the hope of a higher price tomorrow. But inventories are not especially full just now and there are few signs of hoarding.

and

[URL=http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11453090]The Economist[/URL] said:
Those who see speculators as the culprits point to the emergence of oil and other commodities as a popular asset class, alongside stocks, bonds and property. Ever more investors are piling into the oil markets, the argument runs, pushing up the price as they do so. The number of transactions involving oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the biggest market for oil, has almost tripled since 2004. That neatly mirrors a tripling of the price of oil over the same period.

But Jeffrey Harris, the chief economist of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates NYMEX and other American commodities exchanges, does not see any evidence that the growth of speculation in oil has caused the price to rise. Rising prices, after all, might have been stimulating the growing investment, rather than the other way around. There is no clear correlation between increased speculation and higher prices in commodities markets in general. Despite a continuing flow of investment in nickel, for example, its price has fallen by half over the past year.

By the same token, the prices of several commodities that are not traded on any exchange, and are therefore much harder for speculators to invest in, have risen even faster than that of oil. Deutsche Bank calculates that cadmium, a rare metal, has appreciated twice as much as oil since 2001, for example, and the price of rice has risen fractionally more.

Investment can flood into the oil market without driving up prices because speculators are not buying any actual crude. Instead, they buy contracts for future delivery. When those contracts mature, they either settle them with a cash payment or sell them on to genuine consumers. Either way, no oil is hoarded or somehow kept off the market. The contracts are really a bet about which way the price will go and the number of bets does not affect the amount of oil available. As Mr Harris puts it, there is no limit to the number of “paper barrels” that can be bought and sold.

That makes it harder for a bubble to develop in oil than in the shares of internet firms, say, or in housing, where the supply of the asset is finite. Ultimately, says David Kirsch of PFC Energy, a consultancy, there is only one type of customer for crude: refineries. If speculators on the futures markets get carried away, pushing prices so high that refineries run at a loss, they will simply shut down, causing the price to fall again. Moreover, speculators do not always assume that prices will rise. As recently as last year, the speculative bears on NYMEX outweighed the bulls.

Not so sure about the refinery thing, either...

[URL=http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2005/06/refinery-myth.html]Calculated Risk[/URL] said:
Here is a simple diagram of a bottleneck:

Raw Material --->> bottleneck --->> Finished Good

What happens with a bottleneck? If the process is running at full capacity, there is a fixed supply of finished goods, so the price of the Finished Good will rise rapidly with any increase in demand.

But what happens to the price of the raw material? Since the process is running at full capacity (a bottleneck), the demand is fixed, and any additional supply of raw material will cause the price of the raw material to drop!

For the Oil industry: Crude oil is the raw material, the potential bottleneck is the refining process and the finished good is gasoline (also other products, but I'll use gasoline in this example). If refining is at or near full capacity, any additional demand for gasoline would increase the price of the finished good (gasoline) but would not change the demand for crude oil (demand is fixed by the refining bottleneck).

Since demand for crude would be fixed with a bottleneck, any additional supply of crude would depress the price of the raw material (crude oil). Therefore the lack of refining capacity could only depress the price of crude and would not contribute to the rise in the price of crude - the opposite of what is being reported. Adding more refining capacity would increase the demand for crude oil and could lead to higher crude oil prices, unless additional supply of crude is brought online.

Our ratio of production to refinery capacity isn't any worse than it was in the 60's when gas was going for far less. We've been able to increase refinery capacity by about 1-2% since the mid 80's, which was cheaper than building new refineries. If current prices really were the result of a lack of refining capacity, prices would have skyrocketed back then as well.
 
I was watching his online interview, and I must say he did a good job. I was particularly pleased with his response to this question...



I'd say that about sums it up.

Interview with President Bush - White House Transcript - Politico.com
-
:2wave::dohWell this is the truth about 'SUMMING it UP'!:roll:
-
bush has been in office for nearly 8 years with a Repub controlled Congress from 1994 to 2007 and THIS is his answer???? Let the next Pres do it???
-
**** you bush you American People HATER, Iraqi people LOVER and BIG business LOVER!!!!
Got it bush???
**** YOU BUSH!!!
 
Too funny....Bush talking about gas prices :lol: That's like the Ku Klux Klan talking about racisim....or a 500 lb. woman talking about dieting....
 
Yeah, and if Clinton hadn't vetoed it in the early 1990's, we would be pumping that oil right now.
-
Is that right?:roll:
-
How about the Repukes have had control of Congress for nearly the last 14 years along with bush for nearly 8 years?:roll:
-
WTF did they do except let the Big American PIG oil companys reap RECORD PROFITS while Americans are chosing between eating or putting gas in their cars.
-
Get off the Clinton **** and get real about all the LOSER Repukes and lowlife bush.:roll:
 
-
:2wave::dohWell this is the truth about 'SUMMING it UP'!:roll:
-
bush has been in office for nearly 8 years with a Repub controlled Congress from 1994 to 2007 and THIS is his answer???? Let the next Pres do it???
-
**** you bush you American People HATER, Iraqi people LOVER and BIG business LOVER!!!!
Got it bush???
**** YOU BUSH!!!

Too funny....Bush talking about gas prices :lol: That's like the Ku Klux Klan talking about racisim....or a 500 lb. woman talking about dieting....
are you two married?????

i'm just saying :shrug:
 
-
Is that right?:roll:
Yes, as a matter of fact it is right.

How about the Repukes have had control of Congress for nearly the last 14 years along with bush for nearly 8 years?:roll:
-

Republicans passed the bill to drill in ANWR and Clinton vetoed it. What don't you understand????

WTF did they do except let the Big American PIG oil companys reap RECORD PROFITS while Americans are chosing between eating or putting gas in their cars.-
Get off the Clinton **** and get real about all the LOSER Repukes and lowlife bush.:roll:

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill THIRTEEN years ago, we'd be putting that oil in our gas tanks now.

What exactly have the Dems done since they took control of Congress to lower the price of oil???

How much has the price of oil risen since the Dems took control of Congress???

Try taking your partisan blinders off for a change.
 
Too funny....Bush talking about gas prices That's like the Ku Klux Klan talking about racisim....or a 500 lb. woman talking about dieting....

What, exactly, do you think he should have said or should be doing in order to not seem like a hypocrit about oil?

Well this is the truth about 'SUMMING it UP'!
-
bush has been in office for nearly 8 years with a Repub controlled Congress from 1994 to 2007 and THIS is his answer???? Let the next Pres do it???
-
**** you bush you American People HATER, Iraqi people LOVER and BIG business LOVER!!!!
Got it bush???
**** YOU BUSH!!!

Do you have a logical negation of his solution or are you just going to litter your next post with emoticons and curse words? I'm guessing it will be the latter.
 
Yes, as a matter of fact it is right.



Republicans passed the bill to drill in ANWR and Clinton vetoed it. What don't you understand????



If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill THIRTEEN years ago, we'd be putting that oil in our gas tanks now.

What exactly have the Dems done since they took control of Congress to lower the price of oil???

How much has the price of oil risen since the Dems took control of Congress???

Try taking your partisan blinders off for a change.
-
Hummmmmm, as usual when theres NO WAY to cover bushs and the Repukes ass' you turn to Clinton!:roll:
-
Get with the times. :roll:
-
What part of,
The Repubs have been in charge from 1994 to 2007 ALONG with a Repub Pres, bush for' *****7***** *****7***** *****7***** *****7*****
SEVEN **** in years and they haven't done **** about anything to do with NEW DRILLING are you having trouble understanding???:roll:
-
Care to explain why bush and the repubs havent done anything about new drilling???:roll:
OR are you still going to blame Clinton and FORGET all about bush and the repubs not doing ANYTHING about drilling new areas?:roll:
-
If the Repukes trierd to do something about drilling ***13*** years ago we would have plenty of oil!
-
And here we go again with the Bull **** about 'the Dems not doing anything'.
Hey!!!! You, Yo, YOU, they have only been incharge for nearly *****ONE***** Year? Got it! ONE ****ING year!
 
-
Hummmmmm, as usual when theres NO WAY to cover bushs and the Repukes ass' you turn to Clinton!:roll:
-
Get with the times. :roll:
-
What part of,
The Repubs have been in charge from 1994 to 2007 ALONG with a Repub Pres, bush for' *****7***** *****7***** *****7***** *****7*****
SEVEN **** in years and they haven't done **** about anything to do with NEW DRILLING are you having trouble understanding???:roll:
-
Care to explain why bush and the repubs havent done anything about new drilling???:roll:
OR are you still going to blame Clinton and FORGET all about bush and the repubs not doing ANYTHING about drilling new areas?:roll:
-
If the Repukes trierd to do something about drilling ***13*** years ago we would have plenty of oil!
-
And here we go again with the Bull **** about 'the Dems not doing anything'.
Hey!!!! You, Yo, YOU, they have only been incharge for nearly *****ONE***** Year? Got it! ONE ****ING year!

I'll try and make this simple and use little words. Republicans DID pass a bill to drill for more oil, but Clinton vetoed it!!!!

Do you deny that fact???
 
I'll try and make this simple and use little words. Republicans DID pass a bill to drill for more oil, but Clinton vetoed it!!!!

Do you deny that fact???
-
OK, i'll try and use kindergarden words and some little pictures to you.:roll:
-
:2wave:Of course not! Its true! Clinton vetoed it! Hey, YO, Hey, Yo Yo, Hey Yo yo, hey you, wake up! I never said he didn't veto it!:roll:
-
So, YO, why didn't the repubs pass a bill for the near same 8 years they have been in control with bush as president. Do you think bush would have vetoed it?:roll:
-
Now be a man (if you can) :dohand admitt that the Repubs and bush haven't done anything about new drilling either in the same amount of 8 years that Clinton was in office.
 
How is Bush a realist when the real issue of rising gas prices is far more related to the decline of the dollar then any other issue?

See Sutherland's post about how many direct Bush and Fed policies are responsible for the decline in the dollar.
 
Back
Top Bottom