Bush's Job Approval Rating Plummets in Polls!

[classicman2]

According to the CBS, Gallup, Pew, etc. polls, Bush's job approval rating is 43-45%

Reasons - depends on who you listen to. Some have said it was due to the Schiavo case. Others (more likely, IMO) have said it was due to the rising gasoline prices and people's concerns (and opposition to the President's plan) about Social Security.

Unless this rating improves a little bit - the administration is going to have major problems getting their agenda through the poll-conscious congress.

[Red Dog]

Probably gas prices. The wallet always drives the carbon blob's opinions.

[General Zod]

This should make people re-think the "no blood for oil!" thing.

[wendersfan]

Probably gas prices. The wallet always drives the carbon blob's opinions.
I'm trying to make a joke about hydrocarbons and carbon blobs, but I got nothing.

Define "plummet"? Did it drop from 48% to 45%? Is the drop within the margin of sampling error?

[classicman2]

This should make people re-think the "no blood for oil!" thing.

But some oil anaylsts say that our 'involvement' in Iraq has raised the price of oil.

[classicman2]

I'm trying to make a joke about hydrocarbons and carbon blobs, but I got nothing.

Define "plummet"? Did it drop from 48% to 45%? Is the drop within the margin of sampling error?

I believe the Gallup Poll said it dropped 7 points (to 45 in that particular poll) in a week.

That's a pretty big drop. Maybe plummet is not too bad a choice of words. ;)

[wendersfan]

I believe the Gallup Poll said it dropped 7 points (to 45 in that particular poll) in a week.

That's a pretty big drop. Maybe plummet is not too bad a choice of words. ;)I agree, that's a pretty big drop.

Somewhat (only somewhat) off-topic: are the Schiavo story and gasoline prices that big a deal? I only ask because I've paid practically no attention to the former, and as far as the latter, I ride a bike to work and drive all of 20 miles a month on average, so gas prices doesn't affect me much personally.

[Duran]

How about "all of the above"? Oil prices continue to rise, and all the Feds do is hold hearings about baseball and meddle in the Terri Schiavo business.

[X]

I ride a bike to work and drive all of 20 miles a month on average, so gas prices doesn't affect me much personally.Unless you want to travel by plane or consume anything that isn't made in your neighborhood.

[sfsdfd]

Of course, the voting public is not a homogenous block. Different groups vote with different dependability. I'd be interested in seeing his approval ratings among his high-voting-percentage core constituency - doubtless they've only grown.

- David Stein

[classicman2]

How about "all of the above"? Oil prices continue to rise, and all the Feds do is hold hearings about baseball and meddle in the Terri Schiavo business.

What do you want Bush & Congress to do about rising oil prices?

[wendersfan]

Unless you want to travel by plane or consume anything that isn't made in your neighborhood.
Well sure, but what I mean is that the increase in gasoline prices doesn't seem to affect me personally in a specific way. Quite frankly, the position of the dollar <i>vis a vis</i> other currencies affects me more obviously.

[dick_grayson]

What do you want Bush & Congress to do about rising oil prices?


well, it doesn't help that neither Bush nor most of Congress (if not all) aren't affected by gas prices. they're all rich and/or chaffeured everywhere, so why should they care?

[X]

Well sure, but what I mean is that the increase in gasoline prices doesn't seem to affect me personally in a specific way. Quite frankly, the position of the dollar <i>vis a vis</i> other currencies affects me more obviously.I know what you mean. You mostly only feel it at the gas pump. Although fuel surcharges on plane tickets are pretty noticeable and I remember fuel surcharges on UPS some years back. Not sure if they did that again yet.

[classicman2]

well, it doesn't help that neither Bush nor most of Congress (if not all) aren't affected by gas prices. they're all rich and/or chaffeured everywhere, so why should they care?

Why should they care? Because the entire economy is affected by gasoline and diesel fuel prices. The president and congress don't want to 'preside' over a suggish, if not even more drastic, economy. Politicians don't like to take blame for things.

[X]

well, it doesn't help that neither Bush nor most of Congress (if not all) aren't affected by gas prices. they're all rich and/or chaffeured everywhere, so why should they care?Given the types of cars so many people drive and the amount of driving they do, they don't seem to care that much about high gas prices either. I hope that's changing.

[dick_grayson]

Why should they care? Because the entire economy is affected by gasoline and diesel fuel prices. The president and congress don't want to 'preside' over a suggish, if not even more drastic, economy. Politicians don't like to take blame for things.


well, my question was more sarcastic than realistic. obviously, they "have" to care.

[kvrdave]

But some oil anaylsts say that our 'involvement' in Iraq has raised the price of oil.

I am quite sure there are enough oil analysts to cover every possible opinion on the matter.

[classicman2]

I am quite sure there are enough oil analysts to cover every possible opinion on the matter.

I believe all of the analysts believe Iraq has a negative effect on oil prices. Obviously there's disagreement on how much effect.

[wendersfan]

I am quite sure there are enough oil analysts to cover every possible opinion on the matter.And I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that their opinion hinges more on their feelings about our involvement in Iraq than it does about how that involvement has or hasn't influenced oil proices. Deciding how you feel about something and then working backwards to find a reason you feel that way seems to have become the norm in public opinion these days.

[classicman2]

Didn't Bush 'promise' that Iraqi oil production would soon return to at least the pre-invasion level?

Has it?

I'm just asking questions. ;)

[Duran]

What do you want Bush & Congress to do about rising oil prices?

I didn't say they could, I was merely pointing to potential causes of a plummetting approval rating.

[dick_grayson]

Didn't Bush 'promise' that Iraqi oil production would soon return to at least the pre-invasion level?

Has it?

I'm just asking questions. ;)


I remember being told something about the oil there would fund the war (or something along those lines too)

[classicman2]

I remember being told something about the oil there would fund the war (or something along those lines too)

Yeah, I vaguely remember hearing Bush saying that. ;)

What happened?

Congress authorized billions and billions of dollars for Iraq's reconstruction - some of that money, btw, is 'missing.' No one knows what happened to it.

[Tracer Bullet]

I know what you mean. You mostly only feel it at the gas pump. Although fuel surcharges on plane tickets are pretty noticeable and I remember fuel surcharges on UPS some years back. Not sure if they did that again yet.

We use FedEx quite a bit at work, and they've added fuel surcharges. Not sure how recent this is.

[Myster X]

We should blame China

[DVD Polizei]

You're typing on a keyboard made in China. :D

And that looks like a Chinese Smilie. :hscratch:

[Myster X]

Shit! You're right. I'm using a HP keyboard at work and it's Chinese made. :(

[Pharoh]

Yeah, I vaguely remember hearing Bush saying that. ;)

What happened?

Congress authorized billions and billions of dollars for Iraq's reconstruction - some of that money, btw, is 'missing.' No one knows what happened to it.


I am not positive, but I don't recall the President specifically saying that. One of the deputy secretaries of defense saying that may very well be another matter entirely.

[X]

I am not positive, but I don't recall the President specifically saying that. One of the deputy secretaries of defense saying that may very well be another matter entirely.That's the way I remember it.

Although I think the dividends are beginning to be seen and they're not just in oil.

[wendersfan]

Although I think the dividends are beginning to be seen and they're not just in oil.:up:

[dick_grayson]

That's the way I remember it.

Although I think the dividends are beginning to be seen and they're not just in oil.


like what?

The whole situation about spending my tax dollars to finance (the billions of dollars each month) this goddamn war is eating up makes me seethe with rage. I can barely think about most of the time. Kids without healthcare, research money to find a cure for aids and cancer, prescription drugs for the elderly, the list goes on and on. It’s a moral outrage, in my opinion.

[DVD Polizei]

Just remember, even without the war, your wishes wouldn't have been a reality. The problem is, we have politicians spending YOUR money for THEIR causes. If your cause just so happens to parallel theirs, then hey, life's a peach. Otherwise, forget about any of your tax dollars actually benefiting society. Unfortunately, we just haven't climbed out of the scum pond yet.

[AGuyNamedMike]

I am quite sure there are enough oil analysts to cover every possible opinion on the matter.

True dat. Analysts and consultants are all alike: they each have assholes out of which to pull extremely expensive and utterly meaningless buzzword-filled reports.

[Otto]

Somewhat (only somewhat) off-topic: are the Schiavo story and gasoline prices that big a deal? I only ask because I've paid practically no attention to the former, and as far as the latter, I ride a bike to work and drive all of 20 miles a month on average, so gas prices doesn't affect me much personally.
Gas prices don't affect me much either (I walk to work now, and fill up my car maybe once a month, max), although I was absolutely shocked by the prices last weekend on my drive to Georgia. $2 a gallon in Georgia is just flat out unheard of. Prices there have always been the lowest anywhere. Amazed me, is all.

But the Schiavo case is definitely costing Bush some support. I've noticed a lot of people whom I know, *know*, voted for Bush in the last election have been complaining about it. Sometimes they're saying it's a waste of time, sometimes they're griping about the privacy implications, but usually the sentiment is "let her die already" sort of thing. I would not be surprised if the 7 point drop was directly related to that. Considering it's on CNN every 15 minutes, that is.

[VinVega]

I think maybe Bush's ratings are just returning to "normal." In some ways, his approval rating might have risen because there was a Democratic challenger whom he could be compared to. Now that the weak challenger is no longer against him, he returns to his mediocre rating that he had all along. A sad testiment to today's politics. Neither side seems to have very inspiring figures. Maybe we'll get on a better track in the next election cycle.

[spainlinx0]

Looks like he won't be getting reelected with those job approval ratings. :)

[classicman2]

He'll be lucky if he's not impeached. ;)

[mikehunt]

You're typing on a keyboard made in China. :D

And that looks like a Chinese Smilie. :hscratch:

japanese. didn't you ever see the racist bugs bunny cartoons? ;)
it was the japanese guys that had squinted eyes and huge buck teeth

[BigDaddy]

Stupid question I heard that jet fuel prices have gone up as well. Does jet fuel come from the middle east?

[DVD Polizei]

It's pretty much a given that if gas prices increase, everyone including their great distant buck-toothed cousin will justify their price increases. UPS will increase their shipping, FedEx, and the USPS. Groceries will increase because of the "shipping" costs (you probably notice this more on fresh vegetables and fruits and perishables). Just about everything will increase--except your paycheck.

Obviously, The White House is more concerned with one single woman than hundreds of millions of Americans and the economy.

[classicman2]

Obviously, The White House is more concerned with one single woman than hundreds of millions of Americans and the economy.

Again - I ask you the question. What do you want the White House to do - invade Saudia Arabia and force lower crude prices? Overnight, construct 20 new gasoline refineries? Just what do you wish this administration to do?

BTW: The hundreds of millions of Americans is somewhat an exaggeration, isn't it?

[DVD Polizei]

The WH doesn't even have to set one single foot on foreign soil to change the current prices. All they have to do is begin to stand up for Americans. I ask you, is that too much to ask? Maybe make a public announcement that the people are more important than a few rich oil tycoons, laughing their asses off of the situation in their multi-million dollar boat they just purchased because of the price hike?

And would it make you feel better if I said "Tens Of Millions"? Last time I checked, the population is around 291 million. I'm failing to see how half of this population is not affected by the current oil price gouging, and the economical tailspin this is going to create yet once again.

[OldDude]

Stupid question I heard that jet fuel prices have gone up as well. Does jet fuel come from the middle east?

Well, YEAH!!!! Gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, fuel oil, and residual fuel oil are all refined from crude oil in petroleum refineries. (Also all the raw materials for plastics, and MANY other petrochemicals).

So both the availability of crude and refinery capacity to make something useful of it are getting to be critical issues for the US. Not only is the US importing a large portion of its oil, but due to lack of refineries, an increasing amount is being imported as refined product.

[classicman2]

The WH doesn't even have to set one single foot on foreign soil to change the current prices. All they have to do is begin to stand up for Americans.

If you really believe that - tell the forum how the White House is supposed to stand up for Americans? Give us some concrete examples - not just generalizations.

[DVD Polizei]

Well, for starters:

The White House announces new energy alternatives in a public statement.

The White House would look elsewhere for their oil.

The White House would publicly announce lowered financial relations with oil countries who have continuously increased prices to gouge its customers.

The White House would publicly announce investigations into the West Coast prices of oil, being so unbalanced from the rest of the country.

The White House would publicly announce, by name, the oil companies who have increased prices, and with an independent firm, investigate their business practices.

----

Feel free to shoot my specifics down.

We all know the White House would never conduct investigations into oil companies, and hasn't since Bush has been in office. Like I said, there's a reason for it.

Now, I have to ask you a question. Why wouldn't you want your government to stand up for its people. It seems like you don't demand much from your White House. And well, maybe that's the problem. Over the years, people have become so silent, the politicians have made a financial killing off the common taxpayer.

[classicman2]

The only way the White House can measurably affect the price of world crude oil is to convince the congress to ignore the opponents of a comprehensive and realistic energy policy for this country - basically the environmentalists and their allies in congress - and adopt such a policy.

Concerning world crude oil prices - the problem is not with the U. S. oil companies. They don't set the price of crude in the world. They just buy it. Investigate all you want. It won't help.

Your problem should be with the folks that do affect that price - mainly OPEC.

[al_bundy]

Earlier in the week I caught an interview with a CEO from an energy company on CNBC about the high oil prices. Valero or whatever the company is called is in the business of refining sour crude oil as opposed to sweet crude oil.

As to the future, he said the sector is going to make improvements to existing refineries in the US. No new ones are planned except for those outside the US.

[al_bundy]

The WH doesn't even have to set one single foot on foreign soil to change the current prices. All they have to do is begin to stand up for Americans. I ask you, is that too much to ask? Maybe make a public announcement that the people are more important than a few rich oil tycoons, laughing their asses off of the situation in their multi-million dollar boat they just purchased because of the price hike?

And would it make you feel better if I said "Tens Of Millions"? Last time I checked, the population is around 291 million. I'm failing to see how half of this population is not affected by the current oil price gouging, and the economical tailspin this is going to create yet once again.

I haven't seen much of a reduction in the amount of SUV's and trucks on the streets in NYC in the last year. Maybe this has something to do with it? People are buying car based SUV's, but there are still a ton of truck based SUV's on the road. Maybe it's coincidence but I have actually seen more H2's in NYC in the last few months than before.

[DVD Polizei]

Well, as to the H2's being seen more, it's a redundanct observation. What I mean is, these people who buy the H2's, can afford the high prices of gas in the first place. Instead of buying a Mercedes SL 600 this year, Mr. Adventurous decided on the H2. It's not like we have Volkswagen and Subaru owners trading their vehicles in for Hummers.

C-Man,

You're missing my point. And I've said this before. The US oil companies are being very complacent and don't even attempt to lower prices. BP, Shell, Texaco, Arco.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."


Read this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

I kind of wonder if US oil companies manage to destroy OPEC, if we would see even higher prices. Knowing US Corporation greed, I wouldn't be surprised.

What we have here is a situation of companies having complete control over a basic nessecity product--much like water or food, because our society requires we travel long distances to work and find employment.

[al_bundy]

if you forcefully lower the price and don't do anything to dampen demand then get ready for some long gas lines.

That's why we have a free market.

[SFranke]

I read an interesting article about this topic today. The author, from MIT, basically said to effectively lower prices from OPEC, we need only to buy less oil and start using our reserves. The OPEC nations are so far in debt because of range-of-the-moment planning that their economies are in severe debt and have virtually no other industry developed. If they were to see their revenues dwindling, even for a little while, they'll realize they cannot get away with keeping production down for higher prices because the US just will not tolerate it. Production would increase, prices would decrease, and they would be put in their place.

[classicman2]

I read an interesting article about this topic today. The author, from MIT, basically said to effectively lower prices from OPEC, we need only to buy less oil and start using our reserves. The OPEC nations are so far in debt because of range-of-the-moment planning that their economies are in severe debt and have virtually no other industry developed. If they were to see their revenues dwindling, even for a little while, they'll realize they cannot get away with keeping production down for higher prices because the US just will not tolerate it. Production would increase, prices would decrease, and they would be put in their place.

We've tried that before. It didn't work.

Price of gasoline was lowered by 1-3 cents.

If it's correct that OPEC has only 2 million bbls. per day reserve production, it's rather immaterial whether they increase it, because 2 million bbls. per day will do precious little to lower prices. Now if they have 10-12 millions bbls per day reserve production, then that's something different.

The author of your cited article is making the same argument that the Brown Group made over 25 years ago - that oil will be sold. As I've said before - we'd better pray that assessment is true, because if it's not - we're in a heap of trouble. ;)

[SFranke]

We've tried that before.

When? Using reserve stocks when quantity is high wouldn't affect prices significantly.

The author also pointed out that OPEC currently produces only 1/3 of the world's oil. If OPEC does cut production, then production would rise from the other 2/3, which, the author explained, is why relatively high oil prices are relatively short term.

[X]

I read an interesting article about this topic today. The author, from MIT, basically said to effectively lower prices from OPEC, we need only to buy less oil and start using our reserves. The OPEC nations are so far in debt because of range-of-the-moment planning that their economies are in severe debt and have virtually no other industry developed. If they were to see their revenues dwindling, even for a little while, they'll realize they cannot get away with keeping production down for higher prices because the US just will not tolerate it. Production would increase, prices would decrease, and they would be put in their place.
MIT, huh?

Kuwait set for record windfall as oil income soars
March 21, 2005

KUWAIT CITY -- Oil-rich Kuwait is set to post its largest budget surplus ever in fiscal 2004-5 on the back of high oil prices and a rise in production, official statistics show.

Figures posted on the finance ministry's Website on Saturday show that total revenues in the first 11 months of the year reached 8 billion Kuwaiti dinars ($27.1 billion), up on the $11.25 billion projected for the whole year.

Actual oil revenues reached $25 billion, up 31 percent on the corresponding period in 2003-4 of $19 billion and almost triple the budget projection for the whole current year of $9.27 billion.

The government calculated oil income on the basis of an ultraconservative price of $15 a barrel at a daily output of 2 million barrels.

But Kuwaiti oil has actually fetched an average of more than $35 a barrel in the past 11 months and earlier this week it hit the highest level ever of $46.22 a barrel.

The emirate is pumping at full capacity of 2.6 million barrels per day (bpd), some 500,000 bpd above its OPEC quota.

Oil income in February jumped to $2.6 billion, up 44 percent on January. The month saw the third-largest monthly income from oil after November and September.

March is expected to boast the largest oil revenues of the year because both the price and output increased considerably.

Accordingly the emirate is tipped to finish the year with income of more than $30 billion, the highest ever.

Kuwait's fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31.

Actual spending until the end of February was 4.287 billion dinars, way below budget projections for the whole year of $22 billion.

But the figure is expected to rise considerably after making financial adjustments at the end of the fiscal year.

National Bank of Kuwait (NBK) said in its latest economic report that in the first 10 months of the year, government spending grew 13 percent over last year's figures.

Independent economic reports have forecast a surplus of around $10 billion, twice the windfall posted in 2003-4 of $4.8 billion.

This will be the sixth year in a row that Kuwait boasts a surplus due to high oil prices following almost two decades of deficits because of weak prices and costs associated with the 1990 Iraqi occupation and the Gulf war of the following year.

The emirate posted surpluses totaling more than $21.3 billion over the past five fiscal years.

Returns on foreign assets, estimated at more than $90 billion, are not included in the budget.

The 2005-6 budget forecasts a deficit of $7.9 billion, with projected revenues of $15.6 billion and spending of $23.5 billion.

But it, too, is based on a conservative oil price projection of $21 a barrel.

Between 1990 and 1999 the emirate incurred accumulated deficits of 21.1 billion dinars and managed a surplus of $210 million only in the 1996-7 fiscal year.

However, more than 61 percent of the total deficits came in the first two years of the last decade to finance the 1991 Gulf war.

http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050321-053056-7649r

[DVD Polizei]

I bet that new Dubai hotel is going to look nice.

[SFranke]

Is Kuwait as governmentally controlled as, say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Iraq a few years ago? According to the CIA, the economy there is relatively free, which is in contrast to the other three countries mentioned.

Also, notice that Kuwait is also producing ~25% above their OPEC quota and is selling oil for an average price below the world price. X must've forgotten to bold those parts.

Also notice that their revenues from oil increased 44% from January to February. We know that gas pump prices are delayed by about a fortnight from changes in the price per barrel. Wasn't it in February and mid-March that we began feeling the pinch of the OPEC price controls? Wouldn't this indicate that Kuwait's revenues increased because demand for their lower-priced oil increased? If more Kuwaiti oil is purchased, then less of the other cartels is purchased, so they are feeling a price control pinch of their own. Kuwait benefits when the other cartel members increase their price, because they low-ball their prices.

This just goes to show that the cartel doesn't always play from the same sheet of music, and that somebody in the cartel loses when prices are raised. The bottom line is that OPEC does not control the world.

[X]

Is Kuwait a member of OPEC as in "The OPEC nations are so far in debt..."?

If you want to further qualify the guy from MIT's statement here are the other members of OPEC:

Algeria
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Nigeria
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Venezuela

[classicman2]

When? Using reserve stocks when quantity is high wouldn't affect prices significantly.

The author also pointed out that OPEC currently produces only 1/3 of the world's oil. If OPEC does cut production, then production would rise from the other 2/3, which, the author explained, is why relatively high oil prices are relatively short term.

The point is that the other producers (not all, but most) go along with what OPEC does. Just as most of OPEC (most of the time) goes along with what Saudia Arabia does - not always, but most of the time. That's why the Saudi Oil Minister is one of the most powerful men in the world.

OPEC may not control the world, but they are they principal guide post for determining the price of crude oil in the world.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Didn't Bush 'promise' that Iraqi oil production would soon return to at least the pre-invasion level?

Has it?

I'm just asking questions. ;)

It has. A long time ago, it was producing far more than pre-war levels.

We're not getting any of substance, though.

We don't want to fuel (npi) the no blood for oil crowd.

Besides, we'll get more money just from the shitloads of companies waiting to come over here for contracting jobs alone.

[classicman2]

It has. A long time ago, it was producing far more than pre-war levels.

Link, please.

[SFranke]

Is Kuwait a member of OPEC as in "The OPEC nations are so far in debt..."?

So he made a generalization, which is true for a large part of the make-up of the group. Your "argument" that pointed out that Kuwait isn't dirt poor didn't exactly knock out the lone pillar supporting his thesis.

Let's hope he never posts at DVDTalk, because we just don't tolerate that kind of generalizing around here.