Price of oil - Not linked to Bush?

Yesterday I asked the Bush bashers to prove to me that Bush had direct control of the price of oil. Not one answer to prove what you libs are bashing. Here is the question:





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=2鈥?/a>





Since you cannot provide me or prove to others on this web site that Bush has had a direct impact on the price of oil. Is it possible for you to quit your mindless dribble on this topic and begin a real political discussion. Or is that too difficult for you?Price of oil - Not linked to Bush?
Analysts have been predicting for a while that oil prices will reach over $100 a barrel. Analysts base their evaluations partly on global political factors.





The current political factors that are affecting the price of oil are the Bush administration鈥檚 growing pressure on Iran and the potential of a Turkish incursion into Iraq. Speculators have been heating up the market on fears of Bush鈥檚 political moves, or lack thereof.





This is nothing new. Oil prices rose in early 2003 due to fears that Bush would invade Iraq.





Also, contrary to your assertion, you actually got a few very good answers to your last question.Price of oil - Not linked to Bush?
If anything, liberals are responsible for the price of oil. They restrict building of any new refineries. And drilling for oil in and around the U.S.





Not at all Bush's fault. But in the news, everytime an arab sneezes, the price of oil goes up.
Bush is happy the prices of oil are rising.





Do your research - Where do you think papa bush got all


his money? Why do you think they live in Texas?





Isnt there oil in Texas? - wow now that would be a coincidence.
Last time I checked OPEC is more than just one family. Texas only produces a drop in the bucket compared to the world supply.
I think Bush has a vested interest in oil prices as that is his family business. He is an oil tycoon first and a leader much, much second and is obviously in favor of large business that will promote his business endeavors.





However, he doesn't have as much power as the public thinks he does and his schemes are obviously failing. Putting money first isn't the real basis of American society and Bush isn't powerful enough to make that fact change (even though he may like to.) We must give him credit for trying though.





I think Bush is a joke.
The one thing that is nice about the Bush made gas expensive argument is that when you hear it from a liberal you know that you are dealing with a mental midget. The person clearly has no understanding of the very basics of economics.
No, they will continue to blame Bush for everything. It's all they know how to say.
Bush does not have direct control over the price of oil. If he did, don't you think that he would want lower oil prices to improve his political clout?





However, Bush's (or any President's/Congress' actions) do have an indirect impact on the price of oil. The recent high prices of over $90 a barrel are partially fueled by the fear of a conflict with Iraq. Although Bush has repeated he wants a diplomatic solution, the oil markets apparently aren't buying it.





That being said, our political positions should be based on more than the cost of oil. Would you trade national security interests for oil that was $20 a barrel? Would you trade our principles (such as they are) for $20 a barrel? Would you trade the lives of servicemen for $20 a barrel?
Why? You apparently didn't read the answers provided to you. Cons live in a bubble a world seeing only what they want.
I know what you mean , I have asked people here to name one thing that Bush has done that has directly cost them more money right out of their pocket on anything ...I have not gotten one answer , Not one person can say Bush is directly responsible for costing me an extra dollar for anything .....





As far as ther Bush's Oil Company :





Arbusto Energy (arbusto means Bush in Spanish). The company fell on hard times when oil prices fell. He made several attempts to revive the business, first by changing the company's name and later by merging with other companies. In 1983, Bush鈥檚 company was rescued from failure when Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, bought it. Bush became chief executive officer. Harken Energy Corporation acquired Spectrum 7 in 1986, after Spectrum had lost $400,000. In the buyout deal, Bush and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation. Bush became a director and was hired as a ';consultant'; to Harken. He received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year. In 1990, Bush SOLD his remaining stock options and LEFT the OIL business.
What ?


Libs mix truth and politics,impossible.


They keep flapping their jaws without proof and complaining about everything.


But when in office they just make things worse.


Point in fact,this lib controled congress ,that can't even send a budget up to the White House.
You can't argue with a jackass (hey it's their parties symbol)!
While Shrub of course doesn't directly effect supply and demand, he IS responsible for the lunacy in Iraq which has destabilized the Middle East and spooked the oil markets - thus driving up the price.





BTW, you're incorrect that no one gave good answers to your previous question. Check out ';John Q. Public';'s answer and to a lesser extent, the answers from ';Crabby_blindguy'; and ';Holy Cow';. They all make valid points. My guess is that you're simply a blind partisan zealot who only sees your own viewpoint as valid. sad.
OPEC is a huge organization and no Bush is not directly affecting the public.





However, with the price of gas and the predicted price of heating oil this winter there are things to be done. Subsidies for lower income families so they don't get cold, public transit initiatives, and a major movement to switch our source of fuel to something greener and renewable are all efforts that could be made.