DVD Talk
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low


CRM114
11-04-05, 10:08 PM
Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301685_pf.html)
58 Percent in Poll Question His Integrity

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 4, 2005; A01


For the first time in his presidency a majority of Americans question the integrity of President Bush, and growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.

On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

Virtually the only possible bright spot for Bush in the survey was generally favorable, if not quite enthusiastic, early reaction to his latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel A. Alito Jr. Half of Americans say Alito should be confirmed by the Senate, and less than a third view him as too conservative, the poll found.

Overall, the survey underscores how several pillars of Bush's presidency have begun to crumble under the combined weight of events and White House mistakes. Bush's approval ratings have been in decline for months, but on issues of personal trust, honesty and values, Bush has suffered some of his most notable declines. Moreover, Bush has always retained majority support on his handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism -- until now, when 51 percent have registered disapproval.

The CIA leak case has apparently contributed to a withering decline in how Americans view Bush personally. The survey found that 40 percent now view him as honest and trustworthy -- a 13 percentage point drop in the past 18 months. Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.

The indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, in the CIA leak case added to the burden of an administration already reeling from a failed Supreme Court nomination, public dissatisfaction with the economy and continued bloodshed in Iraq. According to the survey, 52 percent say the charges against Libby signal the presence of deeper ethical wrongdoing in the administration. Half believe White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the president's top political hand, also did something wrong in the case -- about 6 in 10 say Rove should resign.

Beyond the leak case, Americans give the administration low scores on ethics, according to the survey, with 67 percent rating the administration negatively on handling ethical matters, while just 32 percent give the administration positive marks. Four in 10 -- 43 percent -- say the level of ethics and honesty in the federal government has fallen during Bush's presidency, while 17 percent say it has risen.

Faced with its cascade of recent setbacks, the White House is hoping the latest court nomination can rally disaffected conservatives and score the president a victory akin to the one he enjoyed in the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Alito begins the confirmation process with the support of 49 percent of the public, while 29 percent say he should not be confirmed, the poll found. One in 5 Americans -- 22 percent -- did not yet know enough about him to make a judgment.

The dissatisfaction with Bush flows in part out of broad concerns about the overall direction of the country. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 68 percent -- believe the country is seriously off course, while only 30 percent are optimistic, the lowest level in more than nine years. Only 3 in 10 express high levels of confidence in Bush, while half say they have little or no confidence in this administration.

Just 35 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as either excellent or good, with 65 percent describing it as not so good or poor. Although the government reported last week that gross domestic product rose 3.8 percent in the last quarter, despite the effects of Hurricane Katrina, 29 percent of those surveyed said they regard the economy as poor, the highest recorded during Bush's presidency.

Attitudes toward Bush are sharply polarized by party, as they have been throughout his presidency. Almost 8 in 10 -- 78 percent -- of Republicans support the president, while just 11 percent of Democrats rate him positively. Republicans long have been the key to Bush's overall strength, but Bush has suffered some defections since the beginning of the year, when 91 percent approved of the way he was handling his job.

Among independents, Bush's approval has plummeted since the beginning of the year. In the latest poll, 33 percent of independents approved of his performance, while 66 percent disapproved. In January, independents were evenly divided, with 49 percent approving and an equal percentage disapproving.

The intensity of Bush's support has changed since his reelection a year ago, with opponents deepening their hostility toward the administration. In the latest survey, 47 percent said they strongly disapprove of the way he was performing in office, compared with 35 percent who expressed strong disapproval in January. At the same time, the percentage who say they strongly approve of his performance has fallen from 33 percent last January to 20 percent today.

Iraq remains a significant drag on Bush's presidency, with dissatisfaction over the situation there continuing to grow and with suspicion rising over whether administration officials misled the country in the run-up to the invasion more than two years ago.

Nearly two-thirds disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation there, while barely a third approve, a new low. Six in 10 now believe the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, a seven-point increase in just over two months, with almost half the country saying they strongly believe it was wrong.

About 3 in 4 -- 73 percent -- say there have been an unacceptable level of casualties in Iraq. More than half -- 52 percent -- say the war with Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

The same percentage -- 52 percent -- says the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, and only about 1 in 5 -- 18 percent -- say the United States should withdraw its forces immediately. In the week after U.S. deaths in Iraq passed the 2,000 mark, a majority of those surveyed -- 55 percent -- said the United States is not making significant progress toward stabilizing the country.

The war has taken a toll on the administration's credibility: A clear majority -- 55 percent -- now says the administration deliberately misled the country in making its case for war with Iraq -- a conflict that an even larger majority say is not worth the cost.

The president's handling of terrorism was widely regarded among strategists as the key to his winning a second term last year. But questions about Bush's effectiveness on other fronts have also depreciated this asset. His 48 percent approval now compares with 61 percent approval on this issue at the time of his second inauguration, down from a 2004 high of 66 percent.

Bush also set new lows in the latest Post-ABC News poll for his management of the economy, where disapproval topped 60 percent for the first time in his presidency. And 6 in 10 are critical of the way Bush is dealing with health care -- a double-digit increase since March. On gasoline prices, Bush's numbers have increased slightly over the past two months but still remain highly negative, with just 26 percent rating him positively.

The survey suggests a rapidly widening gulf between Bush and the American people. Two in 3 say Bush does not understand the problems of people like them, a 10 percentage point increase since January.

Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- doubt Bush shares their values, while 40 percent say he does, another new low for this president. For the first time since he took office, fewer than half -- 47 percent -- said Bush is a strong leader, and Americans divided equally over whether Bush can be trusted in a crisis.

Told of the poll results, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Bush will rally support through such issues as education reform, changes to the tax code, and a new energy strategy to show the public that he "will continue to push for changes in our government to serve the American people."

A total of 1,202 randomly selected adults were interviewed Oct. 30-Nov. 2 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

The man who claimed to be "bringing back honor and integrity" to the Whitehouse apparently has little of either, according to the American people. What he did bring about are sitting officials being indicted for felonies and record earnings for the oil companies. And we have 3 more years of this guy?

BKenn01
11-04-05, 10:13 PM
It is the traditional mid term slump. The silver lining in the cloud is that the Dems offer no alternative.

darkessenz
11-04-05, 10:34 PM
Stay the course.

Chaos
11-04-05, 11:36 PM
Don't mean a thing so long as his agenda gets through :thumbsup:

tort reform anyone?

DVD Polizei
11-04-05, 11:39 PM
Of course you know a post-Fox News poll is going to have nothing but kudos.

Myster X
11-04-05, 11:42 PM
I only trust Rasmussen. ;)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

kvrdave
11-05-05, 12:10 AM
It's the economy, Stupid. Or at least that is what keeps a president popular. Economy isn't bad, but utility costs will cause a pinch. And the man spends like a Democrat. I won't be too sorry to see him go. I don't buy the integrity angle much. Even if I disagreed with him on everything, I believe he is doing what he thinks to be correct.

Th0r S1mpson
11-05-05, 12:17 AM
Does this mean you like him even less now, CRM? :(

natesfortune
11-05-05, 12:30 AM
The man who claimed to be "bringing back honor and integrity" to the Whitehouse apparently has little of either, according to the American people. What he did bring about are sitting officials being indicted for felonies and record earnings for the oil companies. And we have 3 more years of this guy?

This is simply ludicrous.

1. It is OFFICIAL - singular, plural, that Bush has "brought" in the form of somebody in his administration being indicted. Clinton had that record well beat. And the guy was indicted for basically the same thing the last President was NOT indicted for, but clearly did - he was not indicted for anything related to the "war" or for what the original Plame investigation was about.

2. You are honestly trying to tell us that "Bush brought us record earnings for the oil companies"??? Are you honestly going to sabatoge your credibility so savagely just to try and score political points with the monumentally ignorant? Is that worth such an embarassingly low and silly assertion?

As if Bush has anything to do with China and India's new economic demands for more oil supply? As if Bush has anything to do with the hurricanes? As if Bush has anything to do with the fact that the Democrats won't allow us to drill where we know more oil is, won't allow us to search for any new oil, and won't allow us to increase refining capacity on the oil we already have - all to please the far-left environmental lobby?

These things are somehow connected to President Bush? That we haven't built a single new refinery in this rapidly-growing country in thirty years? That China needs ten times the oil that it used to? That Katrina and Rita decreased our capacity by 28%?

This is the kind of political tripe that should disgust anybody who knows anything about the way the world works, left or right. A message that you know damn well is completely untrue, yet still choose to aim at the uninformed to score some kind of political victory.

3. These poll numbers are not unprecedented in the slightest. Every modern President has had poll numbers this bad - Clinton and Reagan both had periods where they were in the mid-thirties.

4. It's actually not a horrible number considering the year-long assault Bush has endured from the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media.

A media that blew Katrina far out of proportion, getting nearly the entire story wrong, from the amount of casualties, to the "riots" and unrest that didn't really happen. A media that jumped all over FEMA and the Feds, which was partly deserved, though the biggest failures were clearly those of the state and local(Democrat) governments who failed to follow their own evacuation plan. They demonized FEMA for taking 72 hours to move in, even though that's exactly the amount of time FEMA is supposed to take before moving into a disaster area according to policy.

They got this entire story so wrong, just for the purpose of pinning it on Bush - and it worked.

Big question - the media had ALL their resources covering this Katrina story. Thousands of reporters, crew, cameras, etc. This event took place in our own country, and those involved spoke English. It was the most massively covered news event of this type in history...

And the media got it embarassingly wrong.

Why on earth, then, should we trust the media to cover Iraq correctly? With far less resources, in a war zone, and in a different language?

Yes, Bush's numbers are down. This has been a tough time in his Presidency. But he's still getting quite a bit done, regardless. The media onslaught will surely continue, but Bush isn't the first President to find himself at such a level of public opinion.

natesfortune
11-05-05, 12:33 AM
It's the economy, Stupid. Or at least that is what keeps a president popular. Economy isn't bad, but utility costs will cause a pinch. And the man spends like a Democrat. I won't be too sorry to see him go. I don't buy the integrity angle much. Even if I disagreed with him on everything, I believe he is doing what he thinks to be correct.

The economy is doing pretty spectacular. 5.0% Unemployment - Four Million jobs newly created, and growing at a 3.8% rate this past quarter, which is a very brisk rate even in a normal time - and that was DESPITE the effects of the hurricanes and high gas prices.

That's pretty incredible.

But you are right - those gas prices are making it harder for the average person to "feel" it, along with CRM and others somehow pinning the gas prices to Bush, which is the most dishonest and ludicrous accusation that can be made. But the pitch is working to their target audience - the uninformed.

kvrdave
11-05-05, 12:39 AM
How is the Plame thing related to the war? I had a guy tell me today that the Libby indictment will "force Bush to admit he lied about the evidence to go to war" and some other stuff. It still seems in my memory that the Senate had most of the same information and went along with it. I don't buy the "Boo hoo, I was fooled" by the Senators. They can't possibly thing looking that ignorant and weak is somehow going to benefit them.

Anyway, I don't see it being that big of a deal. :shrug:

natesfortune
11-05-05, 12:45 AM
The Plame thing is considered "related to the war" by the ignorant because that's what the Democrats and their accomplices in the press keep saying - over and over and over.

I don't know how many times I've heard that this indictment is "about the war, and the runup to war", etc. through Mainstream media outlets. And it's a vicious lie - Patrick Fitzgerald himself categorically said that his indictment had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the war, or the runup to the war, either way. It's in no way related.

The media simply disregarded that statement because it doesn't fit their pre-determined "Bush lied" campaign.

As a former Journalist, and as an American, I find it completely disgusting.

tommy28
11-05-05, 05:57 AM
The man who claimed to be "bringing back honor and integrity" to the Whitehouse apparently has little of either, according to the American people. What he did bring about are sitting officials being indicted for felonies and record earnings for the oil companies. And we have 3 more years of this guy?


Yup,it appears that way.

classicman2
11-05-05, 06:43 AM
It really is immaterial what the facts are - it's the perception that counts.

CRM114
11-05-05, 07:11 AM
This is simply ludicrous.


Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that its insignificant that George W. Bush had the only sitting Whitehouse official indicted since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. (Everyone else resigned or was fired by the President.) Keep telling yourself that Karl Rove has been absent from the President's side since the indictments. Keep telling yourself that 5 felony indictments is no big deal.

Obviously, the American people disagree with you.

Keep telling yourself that a swing from $3.29 and gallon to $2.29 a gallon in a month is natural and the free market at work. Bush is not directly responsible but as classicman notes, its the perception. Its the perception people have that Bush never spoke out against the raping by the gas companies. But its fact that many of the administration were officers or on the board of large oil conglomerates.

It's statements like, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" that costs Bush in the integrity department. Its appointing someone obviously unqualified for the Supreme Court in Miers. The people see Bush stand up there and say how it was important to appoint someone outside the "judicial monastery" one week and then appoint someone the exact opposite the next. The man has little integrity.

classicman2
11-05-05, 07:17 AM
Bush Public Support at Lowest Level Yet

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
President Bush's public support has eroded to its lowest level yet, with the Iraq war dragging on, a top White House aide facing felony charges and the White House rushing to replace a failed Supreme Court nominee.

Concerned that the president has lost his footing, some Republicans have suggested Bush should shake up his staff.

A new AP-Ipsos poll found the president's approval rating was at 37 percent, compared with 39 percent a month ago. About 59 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved.

The intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42 percent now saying they "strongly disapprove" of how Bush is handling his job twice as many as the 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."

"This is the poorest excuse for a president this country has ever had," said Max Hollinberger, a businessman from Stanwood, Wash., who leans Democratic. He cited "the economy, going to war in Iraq for no reason, the way we can get to the tsunami victims before Katrina victims the whole business."

A year after his re-election, Bush's second term has been marred by rising U.S. casualties in Iraq, a failed attempt to restructure Social Security, Hurricane Katrina missteps, rising fuel costs and his forced withdrawal of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

In a case involving the public naming of a covert CIA operative married to an Iraq war critic, Vice President Dick Cheney's former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pleaded not guilty on Thursday in federal court to charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators. The case casts a continuing cloud over Cheney and keeps Bush's closest adviser, Karl Rove, in legal jeopardy.

Republicans are starting to worry about the 2006 elections and hope Bush can reverse his slide.

Several senior Republicans who are close to the White House and Rove say there has been a lot of talk inside and outside the White House about the need for him to leave, but they're picking up no indication from him or his associates that it's going to happen at least anytime soon.

Neither Bush nor Rove has seemed to get the message, the Republicans say.

Democrats have kept up the attack. "The 2006 midterm elections will be our next opportunity to change the environment of corruption and incompetence in Washington," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday in a fundraising letter to Democrats. Reid has called for Rove's resignation and a "thorough house cleaning" at the White House.

In the AP-Ipsos poll, nearly one in five Republicans disapproved of Bush's handling of his job, compared with nearly nine in 10 Democrats. Nearly seven in 10 independents disapproved.

Four in five Republicans still back the president.

"I think he's done a wonderful job," said Gloria Bloecher, a Republican from Sherman, Texas. "He's done wonderful things for the economy. He rescued people who needed help in Iraq it was the Christian thing to do. I still trust his people and the people he picks for the Supreme Court."

The president has lost support from some key groups of constituents over the past year. He's dropped 16 points in his approval rating with men in that time, 18 points with people who have a high school education or less, 16 points among Southerners and 13 points among Republicans.

The poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 31-Nov. 2 among 1,006 adults nationwide. The margin on sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
_____________

No, I agree with the the 'head in the sand Repubs,' Bush aint' in trouble. :lol:

classicman2
11-05-05, 07:36 AM
Despite this gloomy picture, Bush does have a few things going for him.

The trend of the price of oil and gasoline is downward.

The economy is in relatively good shape.

If the price of natural gas would go down, that would be a rather big plus for him. It's always good to see the price people pay for energy to subside.

Finally - the Repubs may be able to convince the majority of the people that their tax package (that is coming) will benefit them. Americans are sometimes easily convinced. ;)

Red Dog
11-05-05, 08:12 AM
Maybe if he starts a war, he can bring sagging those numbers up. Oh wait.

wendersfan
11-05-05, 08:43 AM
President Bush clearly has problems, none of which will affect him much, but might affect the 2006 and 2008 elections. Even if the president's approval rating was up around 75% it wouldn't matter much for him personally, since he's already a lame duck.

Chaos
11-05-05, 09:33 AM
Keep telling yourself that a swing from $3.29 and gallon to $2.29 a gallon in a month is natural and the free market at work. . . . . . But its fact that many of the administration were officers or on the board of large oil conglomerates.


-ohbfrank-

Believe it or not, yes - higher gas prices ARE the work of a free market: gas stations have two choices: charge more at the pump to ensure they'll be able to buy the next tanker of gas, or keepo prices low and run out of gas when someone who raised prices buys it.

It's supply and demand, its a global thing - take some economics courses.

It's even been admitted by CNN - Cheney has NO connections to Halliburton, he's severed them all; reports and investigations with access to alot more info than you'll ever see have confirmed that Cheney severed his connections to Halliburton.

Giantrobo
11-05-05, 09:35 AM
Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that its insignificant that George W. Bush had the only sitting Whitehouse official indicted since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. (Everyone else resigned or was fired by the President.) Keep telling yourself that Karl Rove has been absent from the President's side since the indictments. Keep telling yourself that 5 felony indictments is no big deal.

Obviously, the American people disagree with you.

Keep telling yourself that a swing from $3.29 and gallon to $2.29 a gallon in a month is natural and the free market at work. Bush is not directly responsible but as classicman notes, its the perception. Its the perception people have that Bush never spoke out against the raping by the gas companies. But its fact that many of the administration were officers or on the board of large oil conglomerates.

It's statements like, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" that costs Bush in the integrity department. Its appointing someone obviously unqualified for the Supreme Court in Miers. The people see Bush stand up there and say how it was important to appoint someone outside the "judicial monastery" one week and then appoint someone the exact opposite the next. The man has little integrity.


I agree that Bush has got some -SERIOUS- issues that he needs to deal with and frankly, mind you I'm a pretty conservative, I've had an assfull of him at this point in his Reign. But to be honest, much like "clinton haters" from the 90's, the <b>"bush haters"</b> will hate him no matter what.

natesfortune
11-05-05, 10:45 AM
It really is immaterial what the facts are - it's the perception that counts.

For a politicians poll numbers, yes.

But any discussion about what's best for the country with regards to policy, or any discussion about the results of a politician's legacy, or any discussion about what should be done in a certain situation, must be based upon facts.

Spin is fine for politicians - but why should we all follow along? Aren't we interested in the truth on this forum? We may have disagreements as to what the truth is, but I'd like to think that most of us only post things that we sincerely believe are true here. We don't post spin just for spin's sake.

But saying that Bush has somehow given the oil companies record profits is so far beyond the truth that nobody here, in a place where we are pretty well-informed, could actually believe such a thing.

I don't believe CRM actually buys that, which is why it disappoints me that he would post it.

natesfortune
11-05-05, 10:56 AM
Keep telling yourself that a swing from $3.29 and gallon to $2.29 a gallon in a month is natural and the free market at work. Bush is not directly responsible but as classicman notes, its the perception. Its the perception people have that Bush never spoke out against the raping by the gas companies. But its fact that many of the administration were officers or on the board of large oil conglomerates.

This is just bizarre. You admit that Bush doesn't have anything to do with oil prices, and then castigate him for it anyway because the "perception" is that he does - thanks to people like you posting that kind of tripe even when you know it isn't true.

Doesn't truth mean anything to you? "Bush sucks because he's made oil prices high!" "You know that isn't true". "Yeah, but the PEOPLE think it is! So Bush sux!"

Ridiculous.

If we're going to discuss an issue, discussing the "perception" is worthless. Isn't our goal to get to the bottom of things? To figure out what works and what doesn't?

We are not talking heads on TV going to bat for our parties. We don't need to spew things like this when we know damn well they aren't true.

And yes, it is absolutely the free market that has caused oil prices to go down. Capacity has steadily gone back up since the hurricanes as infrastructure is repaired. And the market itself is slowing down on its rampant speculation for oil, and some selling has taken place, driving the price of a barrel of oil lower.

The oil companies cannot control the price of a barrel of oil. That is set by the marketplace, through supply, demand and speculation from people in the market. If you go out and buy 100,000 barrels of oil on Monday, you'll personally drive up the price a tiny bit by adding to demand. It's that simple.

It's statements like, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!" that costs Bush in the integrity department. Its appointing someone obviously unqualified for the Supreme Court in Miers. The people see Bush stand up there and say how it was important to appoint someone outside the "judicial monastery" one week and then appoint someone the exact opposite the next. The man has little integrity.

I disagreed with the Miers appointment. But it was made because of the classlessness of the Democrat and their "list" of nominees that they would not fillibuster that they handed to the President. The Democrats are still trying to act like a majority party, even though they've lost election after election, and they've threatened UNPRECEDENTED action if they don't get their way. Harriet Miers was on the Senate Minority leaders list. Democrat Harry Reid's list had Harriet Miers on it.

Bush was simply trying to pick the "best" nominee for him available on the Dem's list - trying to play ball and accomodate so he could get a nominee through without a fillibuster - and you're giving him crap about it? Giving him crap for picking somebody that YOU GUYS suggested?

The only reason he pulled her was from the outcry from his own side finally forcing his hand. Now he's been forced to pick somebody "off that list" - a proven Conservative. He's calling the Democrats bluff now, and ironically is in a stronger position to get his nominee through BECAUSE of the Mier's nomination, which has galvanized his base.

None of this would've happened if the Dems weren't acting like little babies in threatening judicial fillibusters over ideaology - something the Republican never even considered with Clinton - because they have class.

natesfortune
11-05-05, 10:59 AM
President Bush clearly has problems, none of which will affect him much, but might affect the 2006 and 2008 elections. Even if the president's approval rating was up around 75% it wouldn't matter much for him personally, since he's already a lame duck.

It would matter a lot.

A good or bad approval rating provides a lot of political capital to get things done in Congress - "lame duck" or not.

If Bush had a 75% approval rating, he would have a much easier time getting his agenda through.

DVD Polizei
11-05-05, 12:00 PM
2006 could be an indication of where 2008 is headed.

classicman2
11-05-05, 12:09 PM
Believe it or not, yes - higher gas prices ARE the work of a free market: gas stations have two choices: charge more at the pump to ensure they'll be able to buy the next tanker of gas, or keepo prices low and run out of gas when someone who raised prices buys it.

Do you really believe that shit?

CRM114
11-05-05, 12:38 PM
Do you really believe that shit?

Yes he does. Didn't you take economics, classicman? :lol:


natesfortune - Miers is now the Democrats fault? Oh my. You guys slay me.

Chaos
11-05-05, 12:50 PM
Do you really believe that shit?

yes - supply dictates demand; when the supply is short, the demand is the same or higher, so prices are a reflection of that. The supply of oil is staying the same for the next few years, but with China and India consuming more, combined with the destruction of the NO refineries and lack of refineries elsewhere in the US, the oil currently being pumped becomes more scarce. The more scarce something is, the higher price it'll command among those who want it. Free markets and capitalism don't provide everything to everyone at the prices they want, but they provide whatever people are willing to pay for; you want something that's in demand? you're gonna pay for it.

CRM - Meirs failing and Alito being nominated is the Democrats fault. Miers was the closest thing the Democrats were gonna get to an O'Connor clone, but the Democrats and liberals sat back and said nothing while the Bush's conservative base tore her apart; now for their silence they're gonna get Alito.

Myster X
11-05-05, 01:03 PM
CRM - Meirs failing and Alito being nominated is the Democrats fault. Miers was the closest thing the Democrats were gonna get to an O'Connor clone, but the Democrats and liberals sat back and said nothing while the Bush's conservative base tore her apart; now for their silence they're gonna get Alito.

That is why Bush is such a great politician. He sets the trap and Demmies fell for it.

hahn
11-05-05, 01:13 PM
-ohbfrank-

Believe it or not, yes - higher gas prices ARE the work of a free market: gas stations have two choices: charge more at the pump to ensure they'll be able to buy the next tanker of gas, or keepo prices low and run out of gas when someone who raised prices buys it.

It's supply and demand, its a global thing - take some economics courses.

It's even been admitted by CNN - Cheney has NO connections to Halliburton, he's severed them all; reports and investigations with access to alot more info than you'll ever see have confirmed that Cheney severed his connections to Halliburton.

:lol: My father has been a petrochemical engineer in Saudi Arabia for the last 26 years, so I'll just say this: energy prices are most certainly NOT the work of a free market. Stock/mutual fund/futures prices are, but that's not the same thing, is it?

classicman2
11-05-05, 01:14 PM
Supply and demand nearly doubled the price of gasoline. Yeah, sure it did.

CRM - Meirs failing and Alito being nominated is the Democrats fault. Miers was the closest thing the Democrats were gonna get to an O'Connor clone, but the Democrats and liberals sat back and said nothing while the Bush's conservative base tore her apart; now for their silence they're gonna get Alito.

Yeah, it's the Democrats fault. Pleaseeeee!!!!!

First rule of politics - when you're opponent(s) is self-destructing, let him self-destruct.

Put on your thinking cap just a little. What in the hell do you think would have happened had the Democrats came out and praised Harriet Meirs? The Neanderthal Wing of the Republican Party would have spewed out twice the venom against her. A blind man see what would have happened.

classicman2
11-05-05, 01:20 PM
I never thought I would say this on this forum; but, I must be truthful.

It's finally happened.

The Bush apologists have surpassed the Clinton apologists in ther zeal to defend this president. :lol:

Myster X
11-05-05, 01:35 PM
The Bush apologists have surpassed the Clinton apologists in ther zeal to defend this president. :lol:

Shouldn't you wait till he's out of office before jumping to that conclusion. Afterall, most Clinton apologists rise from the ashes after he left office.

Chaos
11-05-05, 01:39 PM
Put on your thinking cap just a little. What in the hell do you think would have happened had the Democrats came out and praised Harriet Meirs? The Neanderthal Wing of the Republican Party would have spewed out twice the venom against her. A blind man see what would have happened.

You seem to be forgetting that almost half the US is liberal - if they had spoken up, she might've gotten farther along than she did; if they were silent when she was being torn apart, they've got no right to complain now that Alito's up to the plate.

Chaos
11-05-05, 01:41 PM
:lol: My father has been a petrochemical engineer in Saudi Arabia for the last 26 years, so I'll just say this: energy prices are most certainly NOT the work of a free market. Stock/mutual fund/futures prices are, but that's not the same thing, is it?


so what is the cause of oil prices then? Stocks aren't a necessity to getting around, oil is; people want it and it becomes scarce, prices go up, its free market and capitalism.

classicman2: if its not free market, please explain what it is then

classicman2
11-05-05, 01:43 PM
classicman2: if its not free market, please explain what it is then

How about greed?

Myster X
11-05-05, 02:01 PM
I think Classicman is flip-flopping here. You used to defend the oil company and against inquiry into the high prices.

CRM114
11-05-05, 02:07 PM
yes - supply dictates demand; when the supply is short, the demand is the same or higher, so prices are a reflection of that. The supply of oil is staying the same for the next few years, but with China and India consuming more, combined with the destruction of the NO refineries and lack of refineries elsewhere in the US, the oil currently being pumped becomes more scarce. The more scarce something is, the higher price it'll command among those who want it. Free markets and capitalism don't provide everything to everyone at the prices they want, but they provide whatever people are willing to pay for; you want something that's in demand? you're gonna pay for it.


Thanks for providing a ninth grade review of economics. Please explain a $1 swing in gasoline prices in 2 months. Thank you. Also please explain how profits exploded for Exxon/Mobil in the face of such tumultuous change.

CRM114
11-05-05, 02:08 PM
CRM - Meirs failing and Alito being nominated is the Democrats fault. Miers was the closest thing the Democrats were gonna get to an O'Connor clone, but the Democrats and liberals sat back and said nothing while the Bush's conservative base tore her apart; now for their silence they're gonna get Alito.

This is the greatest post in the history of the Politics forum! Kudos.

DodgingCars
11-05-05, 02:14 PM
so what is the cause of oil prices then?

Largely speculation. Prices didn't go up after Katrina because there was a real shortage -- but because of a fear of shortage by those who bid on barrels of oil.

CRM114
11-05-05, 02:49 PM
Largely speculation. Prices didn't go up after Katrina because there was a real shortage -- but because of a fear of shortage by those who bid on barrels of oil.

What was the source of the fear? Hmmmm.

classicman2
11-05-05, 02:54 PM
I think Classicman is flip-flopping here. You used to defend the oil company and against inquiry into the high prices.

You're confused.

I defend the independent oil men. I've been very critical of the major oil companies. They're simply interested in buying crude oil at the cheapest price - not becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

I said the major oil companies don't control the price of crude oil.

I've said that the price of crude oil is the principal determinant of the price of gasoline - most always - it's not the determinant in this round. The price of gasoline rose much higher than the price of crude oil.

It's time that the government took the major oil companies to the wood shed.

darkessenz
11-05-05, 03:16 PM
Since people have to buy oil, the oil companies can charge alot no matter how much supply there is. Supply/Demand is much less influential when the products demand is inflexible. The companies near monopoly on supply doesn't help things, as this creates more difficulties for independent and new firms to challenge the current levels of pricing.

darkessenz
11-05-05, 03:17 PM
Even an economist will tell you that capitalism allows big firms to monopolize consumer surplus, in fact their goal is to do so! Trust-busting and other forms of social control on the size of corporations and their leverage on pricing seems to have jumped the shark with this age of mega-mergers and corporate restructuring.

DrRingDing
11-05-05, 03:25 PM
You seem to be forgetting that almost half the US is liberal - if they had spoken up, she might've gotten farther along than she did; if they were silent when she was being torn apart, they've got no right to complain now that Alito's up to the plate.

i am liberal (and that's NOT a bad word) and as much as it pains me to say this, i'd rather have alito on the bench than miers. at least he's not a sycophantic, unqualified joke. give me a break. i'm happy the dems didn't fight <i>for</i> her.

it pains me to see somebody so pro-big business as alito being put up for o'connor's place, but i'd still rather have somebody with some form of judicial competence on the bench.

plus, there was absolutely no indication that miers wouldn't have been as bad as us liberals perceive alito to be. that's why i'm happy that she was ditched. at least we <i>know</i> where alito stands.

the other bad thing i see is that there is no way, <i>if i was a senator</i>, could justify not allowing alito onto the bench. i am frustrated and upset by his politics, but IMO politics is not a reason to disqualify somebody from the bench.

that said, i'm not a senator and i, of course, hope the dems pull something off to scuttle the nomination despite the fact that i wouldn't move to do it myself if i were a senator. (this is also based on present knowledge because there will be dirt unearthed, inevitably, and my opinion will change as subject to the significance of the dirt...)

if i was president, i would try to maintain the balance of the court. i think the court has been in a good position for awhile with a nice balance where the vote on a controversial issue was never a foregone conclusion. but with one of the normal mystery votes (how will she vote?) retiring, bush is putting up somebody who will undoubtably rule conservatively, both socially and fiscally. i believe in the integrity of the court (i mean that in the larger picture - i'm not saying that alito is without integrity) as a representation of the population at large and i think the balance should be maintained.

just my $.02.
-di doctor-

Chaos
11-05-05, 03:33 PM
if i was president, i would try to maintain the balance of the court. i think the court has been in a good position for awhile with a nice balance where the vote on a controversial issue was never a foregone conclusion. but with one of the normal mystery votes (how will she vote?) retiring, bush is putting up somebody who will undoubtably rule conservatively, both socially and fiscally. i believe in the integrity of the court (i mean that in the larger picture - i'm not saying that alito is without integrity) as a representation of the population at large and i think the balance should be maintained.

just my $.02.
-di doctor-

good point, but you're forgetting O'Connor was supposed to be a sure-fire conservative vote when she was nominated; she only became moderate once she had been sitting, which disappointed everyone initially behind her.

Since people have to buy oil, the oil companies can charge alot no matter how much supply there is. Supply/Demand is much less influential when the products demand is inflexible. The companies near monopoly on supply doesn't help things, as this creates more difficulties for independent and new firms to challenge the current levels of pricing.
. . . . Even an economist will tell you that capitalism allows big firms to monopolize consumer surplus, in fact their goal is to do so! Trust-busting and other forms of social control on the size of corporations and their leverage on pricing seems to have jumped the shark with this age of mega-mergers and corporate restructuring.

:thumbsup: thanks for the explanation, twas much better explanation than classicman2's "greed" (which sounds an awful like DVD Polizei), or CRM's.

I had forgotten about the monopoly tendency and demand inflexibility, makes sense

hahn
11-05-05, 03:41 PM
CRM - Meirs failing and Alito being nominated is the Democrats fault. Miers was the closest thing the Democrats were gonna get to an O'Connor clone, but the Democrats and liberals sat back and said nothing while the Bush's conservative base tore her apart; now for their silence they're gonna get Alito.
This is the greatest post in the history of the Politics forum! Kudos.
Maybe so, but the followup post has got to be a close second:
That is why Bush is such a great politician. He sets the trap and Demmies fell for it.
:lol:

DrRingDing
11-05-05, 03:43 PM
good point, but you're forgetting O'Connor was supposed to be a sure-fire conservative vote when she was nominated; she only became moderate once she had been sitting, which disappointed everyone initially behind her.


sure thing. however, it worked out for the best! alito, however, has a larger track record than o'connor did when she was nominated and it makes it much easier for us to assume which direction he'll go on most issues. true, we are still assuming but a vast majority of his decisions on record indicate he will not be moderate.
-di doctor-

MartinBlank
11-05-05, 03:48 PM
Crap, this means he's in trouble for re-election in 2008, right?

The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off the left, and anything that pisses off the left is cool in my book.

classicman2
11-05-05, 03:57 PM
Crap, this means he's in trouble for re-election in 2008, right?

The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off the left, and anything that pisses off the left is cool in my book.

A low presidential job approval rating has an affect on whether he can get his agenda passed.

Congress has much more 'fear' on a president with a 60 job approval rating than they do with a president with a 35 job approval rating.

A 59-60 job approval rating saved Clinton's bacon.

If it had been 35 - he'd been gone.

classicman2
11-05-05, 03:59 PM
I still think Bush is a decent man who has made some courageous decisions. I will admit though, if somehow it came down to it again, right now I'd vote for Gore (never for Kerry though). However, most of the criticisms made against Bush are unfair, and plainly hypocrite.

I didn't vote for Gore. I voted for Kerry.

Gore violated the law when he was Vice President. I have a problem voting for people who do that.

classicman2
11-05-05, 04:07 PM
I still think Bush is a decent man who has made some courageous decisions. I will admit though, if somehow it came down to it again, right now I'd vote for Gore (never for Kerry though). However, most of the criticisms made against Bush are unfair, and plainly hypocrite.

I believe Bush, after 9/11 and for some months thereafter, performed superbly as president.

if i was president, i would try to maintain the balance of the court.

I wouldn't.

I'd nominate someone who would interpret the Constitution how I believe it should be interpreted. I don't believe a moderate (as generally defined) would do that. I believe a moderate would be more like O'Connor - wish-washy, as the wind blows, how the public feels (let's take a poll}, what she thinks is good for America, etc. I don't want people of that mold on the court.

The president, being a politician, has to somewhat do that. A federal judge should not be doing that.

MartinBlank
11-05-05, 04:18 PM
What's the reason for the poor approval rating? Does anyone have a really real answer?

Chaos
11-05-05, 04:32 PM
Nothing really specific, but in general its the combined effect of Katrina, continued bad news from Iraq, oil prices and such.

hahn
11-05-05, 07:10 PM
Crap, this means he's in trouble for re-election in 2008, right?

The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off the left, and anything that pisses off the left is cool in my book.
The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off far more than just the left. Let's see if he sets a record for all time lowest approval rating. Who holds that title right now anyhow?

hahn
11-05-05, 07:11 PM
What's the reason for the poor approval rating? Does anyone have a really real answer?
People finally waking up and seeing that the emperor has no clothes?

classicman2
11-05-05, 07:27 PM
The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off far more than just the left. Let's see if he sets a record for all time lowest approval rating. Who holds that title right now anyhow?

I assume Richard Nixon - 27%.

nemein
11-05-05, 07:28 PM
People finally waking up and seeing that the emperor has no clothes?


Is it a case "waking up" or being "lulled to sleep" by the continued rhetoric from the left :scratch2:

Terrell
11-05-05, 07:31 PM
Is it a case "waking up" or being "lulled to sleep" by the continued rhetoric from the left

In this case, I think we can say it's the stupidity of Bush and his administration.

What's the reason for the poor approval rating? Does anyone have a really real answer?

Take your pick! There's only about a half dozen reasons.

crazyronin
11-05-05, 07:31 PM
The way I see it, his low approval rating means he's pissing off far more than just the left. Let's see if he sets a record for all time lowest approval rating. Who holds that title right now anyhow?

Nixon 24%

2nd Carter 30%

hahn
11-06-05, 02:53 PM
Is it a case "waking up" or being "lulled to sleep" by the continued rhetoric from the left :scratch2:
:lol: If rhetoric were enough to sway the opinion this heavily, Clinton would be one of the LEAST popular presidents in our history. But when the "rhetoric" starts to ring true...

But keep on telling yourself that it's just rhetoric. ;)

nemein
11-06-05, 03:23 PM
If rhetoric were enough to sway the opinion this heavily, Clinton would be one of the LEAST popular presidents in our history.

Rhetoric from the left would make Clinton the LEAST popular president :hscratch: Actually my comment was based more on my dislike of the phrase "waking up" (no matter the subject or which "side" uses it) since it tends to simplify complex issues to the very basics assumptions. It's also insulting since it presumes that people who don't believe like you are somehow not getting it or are asleep. Considering you're the "intellectually superior" person though I guess I shouldn't be surprised by insults/simplifications of this nature.

CRM114
11-06-05, 03:27 PM
Rhetoric from the left would make Clinton the LEAST popular president :hscratch:

I think you missed the point. Clinton got hammered for years by the "liberal media" and the right wing rhetoric. Yet his approval ratings stayed strong throughout. You have to hand it to the people, they know the difference between individual moral failings and the absolute failure of a President's positions.

nemein
11-06-05, 03:31 PM
I think you missed the point.

No I got the point it was meant as a sarcastic comment ;)

Goldblum
11-06-05, 04:06 PM
Again, what the opposition needs to understand is that they already lost against Bush. He won't be running again. Instead, they should be focusing on cohesion in their own party.

DrRingDing
11-06-05, 05:52 PM
Again, what the opposition needs to understand is that they already lost against Bush. He won't be running again. Instead, they should be focusing on cohesion in their own party.

agreed to a point, but you shouldn't overlook/underestimate the "President as head of the Party" effect. with numbers this low, some of it is bound to affect the races of republicans in general because i think there will always be a percentage of people (and i couldn't presume to guess how big or small) who will vote on limited perceptions/knowledge - "i'm not in good shape right now and because the president is republican, i should vote for the other party." it's a simple way to vote, but there are undoubtably more than a few people who do it.

so, that means that the opposition at this minute can afford to let the president help scuttle his own party. however, they have 360-some days before the next election and that is a long time for not only the legislative republicans to distance themselves from a sinking president OR for bush himself to rebound somehow.

then again, if the dems somehow find the knives that i'm not sure they still have (lost somewhere in the 90's, i think), they might be able to carve a nice chunk out of the republicans if they (the dems) can <i>exploit</i> the <i>seeming</i> corruption within the (rep) ranks in every branch of the fed gov't.

-di doctor-

CRM114
11-06-05, 06:26 PM
Again, what the opposition needs to understand is that they already lost against Bush. He won't be running again. Instead, they should be focusing on cohesion in their own party.

Why do you care what the opposition should do? What the opposition -wants- to do is get the real story in what happened within this administration leading to a war that cost 2,000+ American lives.

Goldblum
11-06-05, 07:08 PM
Why do you care what the opposition should do? What the opposition -wants- to do is get the real story in what happened within this administration leading to a war that cost 2,000+ American lives.
They've been down that road before. But what I was actually referring to was the Bush bashing in general, not any specific issue. Dr. RingDing makes some good points, however.

classicman2
11-06-05, 07:09 PM
Again, what the opposition needs to understand is that they already lost against Bush. He won't be running again. Instead, they should be focusing on cohesion in their own party.

They should be doing two things:

1. As they're doing, taking advantage of the Iraq situation as they're doing - keeping in mind not to overplay their hand. They have to be critical of the administration and it's policies. They can't go so far as to give the American people the impression that they're not supporting the troops.

2. They need to fix the problems the Democratic Party has. This is a very difficult task because of the over-influence that small interest groups have in the party. They need to become more 'average American' oriented.

BKenn01
11-06-05, 07:10 PM
In this case, I think we can say it's the stupidity of Bush and his administration.

Keep underestimating this administration!

Isnt it hilarious how a low approval rating is all the Dems have to hang their hat on after 5 years.

Nazgul
11-06-05, 07:15 PM
They should be doing two things:

1. As they're doing, taking advantage of the Iraq situation as they're doing - keeping in mind not to overplay their hand. They have to be critical of the administration and it's policies. They can't go so far as to give the American people the impression that they're not supporting the troops.


The problem for the Dems is that the far-to middle left anti-war crowd (Sheehan, et. al.) are quickly becoming the public face of opposition to Iraq and it's an albatross around their necks. Howard Dean praising Sheehan was a pander to the fringe that never should have been done.

classicman2
11-06-05, 07:16 PM
Keep underestimating this administration!

Isnt it hilarious how a low approval rating is all the Dems have to hang their hat on after 5 years.

Are you serious?

What was to be the cornerstone of the Bush second term was, the scheme to privatize Social Security, never got off the ground. You don't hear about it anymore, do you? The Demcorats led the charge. That was clearly a victory for the Democratic Party.

classicman2
11-06-05, 07:18 PM
The problem for the Dems is that the far-to middle left anti-war crowd (Sheehan, et. al.) are quickly becoming the public face of opposition to Iraq and it's an albatross around their necks. Howard Dean praising Sheehan was a pander to the fringe that never should have been done.

That's not reflected in the polls. Sorry!

hahn
11-06-05, 07:23 PM
Rhetoric from the left would make Clinton the LEAST popular president :hscratch: Actually my comment was based more on my dislike of the phrase "waking up" (no matter the subject or which "side" uses it) since it tends to simplify complex issues to the very basics assumptions. It's also insulting since it presumes that people who don't believe like you are somehow not getting it or are asleep. Considering you're the "intellectually superior" person though I guess I shouldn't be surprised by insults/simplifications of this nature.
I find it HIGHLY ironic that you're complaining about oversimplification of complex issues. From the VERY BEGINNING, myself and others have been trying to hammer home the point that our foreign policy was an oversimplification of matters, based on a complete lack of understanding of Middle Eastern culture, and that you don't just go marching into another country thinking that that will or could even possibly make things better. Now, that this is FINALLY becoming the more popular thinking, I think I'm well justified in saying "waking up". If you take it as an insult, that's too bad. How insulting do you think it was to the liberals that conservatives have continued to sneer for the past 5 years that in spite of what "intellectuals" think, that they were correct because the majority of the country was behind Bush?

I think just goes to show that "winning" an election does not justify the competence of the winner. You conservatives don't have intellectual support, and now, you don't even have popular support. And you really don't have anyone to blame it on since the conservatives control virtually all aspects of the government now. So let's see exactly how the conservatives are going to justify in the next 3 years, the actions of one of the most incompetent men we've ever had for president. Do I take some joy out of pointing out just how obviously moronic he is? Hell, yes. It's vindication. And you probably should ask yourself if you're really feeling insulted only because I'm insinuating stupidity, or if you're feeling more than a little embarrassed at supporting this asshat of a president.

CRM114
11-10-05, 07:14 PM
The big 3-6. :lol:

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175184,00.html)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?

Approve Disapprove
All 36 53
Dems 10 84
Reps 72 18
Ind 25 58

classicman2
11-10-05, 07:19 PM
I believe his job approval rating in the latest NBC/WSJ poll was 38.

He's leaving the country again. Even he can't stand this ridiculously low job approval ratings. :lol:

hahn
11-10-05, 08:00 PM
The big 3-6. :lol:

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175184,00.html)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?

Approve Disapprove
All 36 53
Dems 10 84
Reps 72 18
Ind 25 58

If ONLY the liberals would stop bashing him, his approval ratings would be much better. It's probably another trap that he's setting for the Democrats and liberals.

:lol: I ALMOST said that with a straight face.

Bacon
11-10-05, 08:16 PM
Approve Disapprove

Reps 72 18

reps have such a sense of humor -ohbfrank-

BabiG
11-11-05, 03:08 PM
so what is the cause of oil prices then? Stocks aren't a necessity to getting around, oil is; people want it and it becomes scarce, prices go up, its free market and capitalism.
I know this particular discussion has passed by, but I really can't believe someone could jump into the oil prices discussion without knowing the difference between an elastic and inelastic resource. That's quite literally an Economics 101 concept, well 301 in my case because the intro class was three credits.

Lets just say this, when you're running at 'E' at your next fill up, if gas was $20/gallon how much gas are you going to put in your car? Now, if you ran out of Paprika that same week and it had shot up to $10 an ounce, how much Paprika are you going to buy?

Bottom line, the price of some resources respond to supply and demand fairly directly and with elasticity, while others don't. Oil is very inelastic and while supply and demand is a factor, there's probably at least 3 or 4 factors that go in front of it in importance to price.

DVD Polizei
11-11-05, 03:30 PM
My grandfather voted for Bush and he's sorry he did. I'm pretty much in the same boat with him. A lot of Republicans in my family voted for Bush who will vote for any Democrat come 2008. So, if this is an indicator of most families across the country, there's going to be another big change coming in a few years--maybe even sooner with the 2006 elections.

DVD Polizei
11-11-05, 03:35 PM
I know this particular discussion has passed by, but I really can't believe someone could jump into the oil prices discussion without knowing the difference between an elastic and inelastic resource. That's quite literally an Economics 101 concept, well 301 in my case because the intro class was three credits.

Lets just say this, when you're running at 'E' at your next fill up, if gas was $20/gallon how much gas are you going to put in your car? Now, if you ran out of Paprika that same week and it had shot up to $10 an ounce, how much Paprika are you going to buy?

Bottom line, the price of some resources respond to supply and demand fairly directly and with elasticity, while others don't. Oil is very inelastic and while supply and demand is a factor, there's probably at least 3 or 4 factors that go in front of it in importance to price.

So, why is gas so expensive in Oregon and Washington. And why do the prices coincidentally rise and drop with natural disasters and low gas use (i.e., winter is coming and prices are dropping like crazy because historically, people don't travel much during cold weather).

That has nothing to do with elasticity or whatever your Economics class says it is. It has everything do with a corporation taking advantage of a crisis, and jacking up prices when they know they are untouchable.

tommy28
11-11-05, 03:37 PM
anyone else feel that Big Headed JO named Michael Moore was right?

maybe not right about everything/but most!

Chaos
11-11-05, 03:39 PM
BabiG - meet DVD Polizei and his theory that "All corporations charge because they're greedy"

an understanding of economics is something that's not grasped very well by many people.

Chaos
11-11-05, 03:42 PM
anyone else feel that Big Headed JO named Michael Moore was right?

maybe not right about everything/but most!


The man's a hypocritical tub of lard, so No.

see other thread, Moore decries the stock market but owns a nice chunk of Halliburton stock.

DVD Polizei
11-11-05, 04:38 PM
I don't like Moore either but not liking him merely because he's a hypocrite, is not a solid reason. Unless you think hypocrisy is exclusive to Democrats.

Chaos
11-11-05, 05:17 PM
I don't like Moore either but not liking him merely because he's a hypocrite, is not a solid reason. Unless you think hypocrisy is exclusive to Democrats.

yes, being a hypocrite is a perfectly good reason not to like someone; this is especially true when the hypocrite is telling Americans at large how to live.

see other thread; I don't see Repubs telling people the stock market is evil and then owning stocks, I don't see Repubs advocating unions and then banning them in their hotel chains.

Repubs are hypocritical just as Dems are, but at the least they don't benefit financially from their hypocrisy

classicman2
11-11-05, 06:07 PM
Repubs are hypocritical just as Dems are, but at the least they don't benefit financially from their hypocrisy.

Does that also apply to the oil company executives who testified before the Senate this week?

Of course I can't be certain they were Repubs, but they damn sure indicated a good deal of hypocrisy.

BabiG
11-11-05, 07:35 PM
So, why is gas so expensive in Oregon and Washington. And why do the prices coincidentally rise and drop with natural disasters and low gas use (i.e., winter is coming and prices are dropping like crazy because historically, people don't travel much during cold weather).

That has nothing to do with elasticity or whatever your Economics class says it is. It has everything do with a corporation taking advantage of a crisis, and jacking up prices when they know they are untouchable.
You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Like I said, there are probably 3 or 4 factors ahead of supply and demand, corporate profit margin is possibly (well... probably) one of them. And "jacking up prices when they know they are untouchable" has everything to do with inelasticity, it's the reason this is an issue at all.

There was less oil in the ground, and approx. the same amount of refining capacity in 1995 then there was in 1985, yet the price was higher in 85 then in 95, in both normal and inflation adjusted dollars. Demand certainly wasn't lower in 85 then it was in 95. Supply and demand can affect oil prices of course, but not predictably and not in some linear coorelation. The oil prices sky rocketed with Katrina and dropped with Rita, and if you bet on oil stocks between Katrina and Rita, you're hurting pretty bad right now. Refining capacity took a similar sized hit both times, but with very different results.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0