Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Bush Administration and Gasoline Prices
dailyfueleconomytip.com — Is the Bush Admin really behind the spike in oil/gas prices?
Hawker400- 83 diggs
- digg it
- AzzidReign, on 06/29/2008, -1/+11Fact: When Bush came into office, national debt was 5.7 trillion dollars. Estimation when he leaves is over 10 trillion dollars. Source: St. Louis Post Dispatch (Dec. 9th 2007).
- toetagger, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5That's ten trillion dollars of labor Americans will have to generate to pay back communist China - one of the principle loan makers to our insane policies. How many of you never thought your child would be a Chinese slave?
- kewidogg, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Fact: You are drinking grape soda. You never drink grape soda. Fact: You are talking to Jim. You never talk to Jim. Source: Dwight Schrute (Season 2, "The Secret").
- Hawker400, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5I know it's popular to bash Bush, but it's impossible for his administration to be behind the jump in oil and gas prices. There are far too many factors involved for it to be just his fault. Even between Clinton and now, we're in far different times...
- Rotzooi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah, Bush has NOTHING to do with the gas prices. It's not like he started a war, disenfranchised voters, lost the trust of most of the other world leaders and is running the economy into the ground.
O, wait. - dpazar2, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1yeah and developing nations dont have anything whatsover to do with demand driven prices on top of dwindling supply...do they?
- Rotzooi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah, Bush has NOTHING to do with the gas prices. It's not like he started a war, disenfranchised voters, lost the trust of most of the other world leaders and is running the economy into the ground.
- goodnrg, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Agree that it is a complicated issue, but the Bush administration has never gone beyond lip service regarding the issue of the of the weakness of the dollar (and related issues of trade deficits and debt). The sinking dollar is, at the very least, a major factor in the price of oil.
- phreak79, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2I don't think they've helped but the demand coming from emerging nations combined with the resource nationalism of places such as Venuzuela have done more than Bush to send the oil price soaring.
- arcticblue, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Gas prices have gone up worldwide. Here in Japan, gas prices will be going up (again) tomorrow.
- ReidFleming, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Last time I did the calculations, gas in England was going for the equivalent of over $10/gallon.
- laughandsing, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2And yet everyone blames the Bush Administration. There is an influx in prices globally. The president of the USA doesn't control prices globally.
- yodaj007, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Laugh: but isn't oil bought and sold in USD worldwide?
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1"And yet everyone blames the Bush Administration"
I blame everyone else who started a war in the Middle East.
- Rotzooi, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4Dude, gas prices have gone up globally, because Bush is ***** up ***** for the entire world!
The Iraq war doesn't just have an effect on Iraq and the US, the entire world if paying for it.
The comment above: 'The president of the USA doesn't control prices globally.' is the dumbest thing I've read on Digg in well, hours! In fact, by ruining the US economy and totally messing up the Middle East, he IS responsible for the high oil prices.
Hell, if the dollar hadn't fallen so much before of his euh, conservative economic policies, the people in Europe would be paying even more than they already are.
- ReidFleming, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Last time I did the calculations, gas in England was going for the equivalent of over $10/gallon.
- swrostmore, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2What a totally worthless blog post this is...the author does some rudimentary statistics to showing that the price of gas increases under Bush have been "staggering" compared to the minor increase under Clinton. Then he states his totally unsupported opinion that you'd have to be "nuts" to think that the President of the United States has the ability to affect the price of gas, along with his totally unsupported opinion that the increase in prices correlate with an increase in demand. Why not include some statistics that are relevant to your argument, buddy? For example, comparison of global demand under Clinton vs Bush? Any kind of factual agrument at all?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by