« Meat’s role in global warming | Main | Presidential election options »

July 27, 2008

Gas prices aren’t Bush’s fault

Mark Anderson (7/20, Letters) suggests that the current energy crunch is a conspiracy between Bush-Cheney and the oil industry. He wrote: “Anyone who can’t see this is dumber than Bush, and that is dumb!”

Wow, lest we forget Mark, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her can’t-do gang took control of Congress in January 2007, the average cost of gasoline was between $2.10 and $2.20 per gallon. After two years of the can’t-do gang we have hit $4 per gallon.

You’re right, Mark. That is dumber than Bush!

Paul Howe
Platte City


Pub 17

Engineer, I really have other things to do than to repeat myself once or twice a week on economic commonplaces, best found in two-semester textbooks. You want to see textbook examples of how to destroy the value of a currency, either look in an actual textbook or review the Bush macroeconomic record.

I weep for the loss of the workers' paradise for the middle class created by the Bush team in the last seven years.


Pub 17
Just what are these "Bush economic policies"? His tax cuts kept the Country from going into a severe recession, So far as I can make out, Obama's domestic policies are just more of the same but on steroids. in Berlin he said the walls between rich and poor nations should be torn down. So look out, you hard working semi-skilled middle class people.

Pub 17

Why is it necessary to cover and recover the same ground day after day? Bush Administration economic policies have savaged the value of the dollar which contributes heavily to the rising cost we pay at the pump. Bush doesn't determine international economic demand, but he has made China and India rich in hard currency terms so that they are major players in world oil markets instead of third-world bystanders. Can we please move on?


Obviously you have to be wrong. Oil prices can't be due to international demand as Bush and Cheney are not responsible for international demand. But it seems to me that any increase in supply has to have a depressing effect on prices. If the US adopts and aggressive drilling and exploring stance it seems to me that this must have a great effect on speculators. As to proven reserves, past experience would indicate that these will be greatly increased as we develop new areas.


Hey Sammy:

What makes you think these reserves won't be supporting international demand? Do you honestly think a Royal Dutch or BP would not have a stake in these reserves? Even if they are developed exclusively by domestic producers, do you not think that domestic producers would export this crude to their international operations that are seeing greater increases in demand than the US?

Granted, I agree exporting crude from domestic sources would help our balance of payments, strengthen the dollar and that within itself would impact the price the US pays on the global market, but adding 5% - 10% to global supply over 15 to 30 years would barely keep pace with growing demand so the the current equilibrium on a global level would remain intact, don't you think? As a result, I don't see any real price reduction once the current bubble corrects itself, which we have seen over the last couple of weeks.

Given forecasted increases in global demand, I'm just not seeing any great market reductions as a result of developing these resources, which different from saying that it should not be done. I don't think we have a choice. That's the way I see it anyway.


Casady - I'm disappointed in you. You know that ANWR and offshore reserves won't be supplying the total world demand for oil. If your numbers are accurate, and we use a more reasonable assumption that those sources could supply 5% - 10% of world demand, then those sources would supplement other sources for 15 to 30 years. You know demand curves well enough to know what a 5% - 10% boost in supply from the free world could do for the price of a commodity with supply restricted by some dubious regimes.


I'm surprised Paul didn't find a way to blame $4 gas on Jimmy Carter.

Or, Bill Clinton.

Or, Franklin Roosevelt.

Well, not that surprised. I guess that's what the "brilliant" followup comments are for.

Please, continue. As you were.


As expected, Khmer Rouge is unable to back up his statements with anything closely resembling facts. And since no one will take his boneheaded statements seriously, he puts that 6th grade education of his to work and responded with name calling. A true master of debate.

I am aware that oil is in ANWR "AND" Offshore. ANWR's proven reserves are around 19B barrels. The Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf shelves contain proven reserves of 29.5B barrels.

I've said countless times before that I am in favor of developing these reserves. I have also provided links to DOE studies stating that developing these reserves would do little to ease pressures in the global market. Apparently, Rouge, you did not bother to read these reports, my guess is because there were some pretty big words in there and not enough colorful pictures.

Pub 17

EKAN steps in it big time-either Bush has p.o.'d liberals AND conservatives AND independents AND the entire cast and crew of Joanie Loves Chachi, or 78% of the electorate are liberals. Gotcha, big thinker.


Hopalong, imagine, just imagine that increasing the supply of oil might lower the prices, it sure as hell won't raise it!

The oil is offshore and in ANWR, but the dipstick posts as "Hopalong".

mike d

EKAN - You forgot that the dumbest man on the planet masterminded the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind - 9/11.
He is Verbal Kent/Kaiser Sose genius!


It is quite funny how Bush, a moderate Republican, has pissed off liberals so much that they believe Bush is the most powerful man ever.

"Jimmy Carter is a peanut man.
Gas was at record high prices and shortages.


I'm still waiting on a link to that analysis which shows how drilling offshore and ANWR will impact global oil prices, Rouge. Once again, you are blowing the usual party line smoke and have don't have a fimr grasp on the issue. While I support drilling in such places, the fact of the matter is the proven reserves both offshore and in ANWAR is about 49B barrels or a 18 month supply given global demand. Not much in gthe grand scheme of things, is it?

Pub 17

I got it! I got it! So Pelosi and Reid used their two-house supermajority to ram through new policies to put record profits in the pockets of Big Oil! With Bush and Cheney fighting them all the way! How blind I've been! Wow! Wait'll I tell the kids at the clubhouse!


"Bush is an oil man.
Cheney is an oil man.
Gas is at record high prices.

Now that's what I call logic.


(Thank you web site for making me post this twice.)

OK, jack (leg) and 17 Pubes lets go through this once again. (Perhaps someone should draw pictures for you?)

Which party has opposed all off shore drilling?

Which party has consistently blocked drilling in ANWR?

Which party has said No to nuclear power plants?

Which party has opposed all clean burning coal plants?

Which party said no to drilling in ANWR ten years ago, because it would take at least ten years to produce?

Which party refuses to part with, for even one month their precious federal gssoline tax?

In short, which party has consistently opposed any action that would reduce energy costs to all of us, Hmmmmm?

Hers is a hint boys, it ain't the party of President Bush, and VP Cheney.

Pub 17

Bush is an oil man.
Cheney is an oil man.
Gas is at record high prices.


Okay now, make up your minds. McCain is running ads specifically saying that Obama is to blame for oil prices. You are saying it is Pelosi, or congress or somebody.

And remember, Bush and all the other Republicans, has no responsibility when the price goes up, but total responsibility for when prices go down.

Heads I win, tails you lose is a pretty dumb reason to vote for someone.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright