Okay, I know that this OP might not be in the right place, but I have a feeling it may, shall we say, bloom into something a bit too political to belong elsewhere, so here goes:
A few months ago, I complained a lot about how I felt our oil-interrest-linked / controlled president had done nothing to aleviate the high gas prices, which in my neighborhood were upwards of $2.60 a gallon.
Now they’re down to a more reasonable $2.05. Still not great, but going the right direction.
I figure, if I was going to blame the prez for the high prices, I should at least say ‘thanks’ for the lower ones… Although I’m not actually sure that he’s done anything to lower them personally.
I’d say that maybe your gas prices have gone down due to local/regional conditions favoring lower prices. Gas prices here have only dropped about a dime most places in the last month/month and a half.
We also have natural resources beyond cityscape and laws.
More seriously, the US is used to relatively low prices and personal automobiles. We’ve built a culture around it. You can rant, you can belittle, you can blame us for everything since the death of Jesus but it will take more than temporary price hikes to change that.
It will change in the next fifty years. But keep in mind that it took a half-century to build to this point. Don’t expect it to take significantly less time to undo.
Surely one can hope that the president can help solve problems that are not necessarily his fault? Are firemen only to put out fires they themselves start?
You missed my point. If the President cannot take any credit for the decline in prices, that would imply that market forces are more significant and that he can hardly be blamed for the high prices. Or is it being offered that the President is at fault for the high prices but the prices are coming down of their own accord?
I don’t think that anything Bush has done has had any effect one way or the other.
I don’t know enough about the situation to credit or blame the President, but in theory I could blame him for high prices while not crediting him for low prices. Assuming that there’s more than one influence on gas prices, his influence could be wholly negative, and recent positive influences have simply begun to outweigh his negative influence. Or vice-versa.
The point I was trying to make, which may have little or nothing to do with what you said, is that if the president has the ability to do something about high prices, he can be blamed for them continuing to be high, or at least blamed for not trying to fix the problem. Whether he was the cause of them being high to begin with is irrelevent.
My apologies for misunderstanding and not being clear.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are those of us who want a president who doesn’t mess with the market. I don’t want the government intervening to change the price of gasoline anymore than I want one who will work to bring down the price of cabbage caused by a drought in Oregon.
Market forces deserve credit for both the ups and downs. Any proper government intervention would hardly show an effect in the short term. A long term effort to develop alternative fuels and reduce dependence on petroleum is the proper response of government.
