http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2011/04/22/high_gas_prices_must_be_evil_corporations

So, opinions? Was Bush the reason gas prices went up, yet Obama is not? Or Bush was and Obama is? Or neither were? What say you?

Actually, the President has zero to due with gas prices. Cool ultra-conservative source, bro.

People seem to think the Prseident is always the reason gas prices go up. it is not. They don't just wake up and decide that morning that they're going to make gas prices go up such and such amount per barrel. Tis absurb.

Find me an article from something other than a conservative site that lets people blog about whatever they want and we'll see.

Why does it matter so much? I don't really have the option of public transportation (unless I want to add an extra 1.5 hours onto my commute and save a measly $20 in gas a month) so I just pay what I have to pay and call it a day.

People just want to blame SOMETHING or SOMEONE. Bush, although he was the reason for a lot of crap, had nothing to do with the raising of the gas prices. Just like Obama doesn't control the gas prices. At least he's LOOKING INTO THE SITUATION. Just because he's looking into whether or not companies are using fraud and manipulation to increase the price of oil DOES NOT mean that he feels this is what is happening and that this is going to solve everything. From other sources (that don't have the words CONSERVATIVE written on the front page) all they say is that he is looking into the possibility that it might be fraud and manipulation. Obama did not say this is going to make prices go down. But who the hell knows. At least he's investigating the possibility.

Find me an article from something other than a conservative site that lets people blog about whatever they want and we'll see.

Why does it matter so much? I don't really have the option of public transportation (unless I want to add an extra 1.5 hours onto my commute and save a measly $20 in gas a month) so I just pay what I have to pay and call it a day.

People just want to blame SOMETHING or SOMEONE. Bush, although he was the reason for a lot of crap, had nothing to do with the raising of the gas prices. Just like Obama doesn't control the gas prices. At least he's LOOKING INTO THE SITUATION. Just because he's looking into whether or not companies are using fraud and manipulation to increase the price of oil DOES NOT mean that he feels this is what is happening and that this is going to solve everything. From other sources (that don't have the words CONSERVATIVE written on the front page) all they say is that he is looking into the possibility that it might be fraud and manipulation. Obama did not say this is going to make prices go down. But who the hell knows. At least he's investigating the possibility.

Indeed indeed ^^^

*cough* gas prices have nothing to do with the current supply of oil, nor the ability to produce gasoline from said oil.

Gas prices are a reflection of oil speculation prices, which are an attempt to predict the value of oil in the future given current conditions and potential situations, such as the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, or a rebel takeover of Libya. OPEC attempts to control the flow of oil, but the prices are actually the result of oil speculators.

That's correct! we did our research not long ago and it is indeed the speculators. But folks like to point fingers and blame the President :P

@Squirrel Toots - I agree. Problem is, when gas prices went up under Bush, no one was saying what they are saying now ("Not the President's fault"). They blamed Bush. People on this site did it. MSNBC did it. Just about everyone did it. My issue is not with whether or not the President actually CAN do it, but that Bush was blamed and Obama is not being so blamed.

@Beautiful Lies - you say that as if the people who write for conservative sites don't want to write about conservative thoughts. Surely, they do - or they wouldn't agree to work there. Why does it matter so much? That's a ridiculous question if I've ever seen one. It matters because it's gas prices. It's money out of our wallets. If there is a way to bring that down, then it needs to be done. that's why it matters.

@Anonymous Source - I'm glad you like it. Yes, I read conservative sites. Just as well as I'm sure you don't. We all have our opinions and we consistently read what we agree with. However, as I said to Squirrel Toots, the issue isn't whether the President actually has anything to do with it, but the fact that Bush was blamed as if he did and Obama isn't being blamed by the very group of people who blamed Bush for it. It's a little backwards. It's more than a little wrong. But, I'm sincerely glad you liked my link :)

@kein mitleid - that sounds nice, but didn't you just say that the speculators will raise the prices because of unrest in places like Saudi Arabia and Libya? If that is so, and we KNOW this, isn't it the President's job to make sure things like that do not happen? If Obama knows that unrest over there will hurt us at the pump, why isn't he trying to smooth things over? I understand: we don't need to be involved over there. We don't need another 2 or 3 or 4 Iraq's, right? I can concede some of those points. So what can be done to stabilize the intake of oil without worrying about unrest over there? Drilling our own (as Obama often encourages - with US dollars to back him up - in other countries). And, as it turns out, we can't drill here ourselves. Because Obama has a moratorium on drilling. So, it can be concluded, that the President does have some degree of responsibility, even if not all or most of it. Now, drilling at home aside, I'll go back to my original point: if we, and he, knows that unrest in Libya will drive the speculators to raise our oil prices, thus gas prices, wouldn't be in our best interest to keep Libya out of unrest? Wouldn't that have been easier by not getting involved at all (which most people seemed to want) or getting involved much earlier, much more decisively, and much more forcefully to stabilize the country in some way? Forget trying to make it a democracy, that could be for them to decide, but at least act decisively in our best interests. If things like that cause our gas prices to go up, and he mishandles them - why does he not get at least part of the blame? As Bush did. From the members on this site, as well as almost every news station out there. Rightfully so or not is not the issue; the fact that it was done to him but it is dismissed with the current President is hypocritical.

*cough*

We don't get oil from Libya. You know that whole "state-sponsored terrorism" thing? If the rebels take over Libya, it is likely the US will be friendly toward them and begin to trade with Libya, resulting in more supply, not less. Take a minute to think about things before you go off with this or that about the responsibility of the president.

Not to mention, my original comment was to highlight the fact that the president has nothing to do with gasoline prices. No president does, except when they raise gasoline taxes. In that sense, Bush did briefly lower gas prices with the "gas tax holiday" or whatever it was. However, OPEC is always "in it to win it," so they will always supply the world with oil, albeit trying to maximize profits through matching supply with demand. However, that is entirely irrelevant, because the price of oil is entirely based on the stock market, which is dictated by speculation on the future of the market.

Look up "futures" and do a little homework. The system is a house of cards, made up of entirely fictitious quantities. There is no correlation between the price of oil and actual commodities.

@kein mitleid - now, I agree the prez has nothing to do with it (thought so w/ bush). Just misunderstood your point, so I apologize on that. I also agree that the whole thing is a house of cards. And its just speculation about Libya supplyin us w/ oil. It all depends on who takes over, I suppose. There has been speculation to al Qaeda ties with Libyan rebels, too (I believe an alQaeda officer of some sort acknowledged it..may have just been support for it). If that is so, why would or should we be friendly with them? Though, it seems, it is mostly speculation for now.

Okay, so my point was that I wanted an unbiased source. Not a Conservative source. Not a Liberal source. A 'middle of the road' source. I want to hear the perspective of someone that doesn't want to bash Obama the first chance they get. Ya know.

And it doesn't matter because there is NOTHING I can do about it. However I need gas to get to school so I'm just going to pay for it and get over it. I'm not going to sit around and bitch about it.

@Beautiful Lies - I wish people had felt that way all the time, not just when a president they like is there. And, unfortunately, if you want an unbiased news outlet (from America) you're not likely to find one because everyone has bias, everyone has a spin. There is a difference between news and a person's opinion of the news. So people tend to read conservative/liberal material and think it's conservative/liberal "news" when its not: it's that person's conservative/liberal opinion of the newsworthy event that took place. I can tell the difference between an opinion and news and can separate the two when someone inserts opinion into that news. I don't just assume the news itself is wrong or ignorant because news is news. The news in my original link is all true (about what Obama is doing). It is the writer's opinion about why. I am a conservative, so I agree. But I didn't expect anyone here to so that's why I didn't phrase the question like this: "why did you guys blame bush but not obama?!?!1!" Because I wanted your opinion on the news, not the opinion of the person who wrote it. I, later, brought up the Bush/Obama issue after a few responded to the opinion and not the news, perhaps I shouldn't have (because opinions don't typically change, right?) Anyways. I rambled. Sorry, haha.

@iWRITE: But Bush did have a lot to do with rising gas prices, as he ordered an invasion on one of our biggest oil supplier countries. How many invasions do you think Obama slipped past congress? I'll give you a hint: zero.

But that was like 9 years ago. The gas prices now have nothing to do with either president. It's cool that you read what you agree with, but what you're agreeing with is blatantly incorrect.

@Anonymous Source - so Bush goes to war in Iraq, and oil prices are his fault. Obama engages in "kinetic military action" (war) with Libya, bans domestic drilling and building of new refineries...but he has nothing to do with it?

Oh, and I can play the "no facts" game, too: nuh-uh! Your views are blatantly incorrect! Okay, now that we have that out of the way, how about something to back up the statement? I'll let you go first, since you seem to be so sure.

@iWRITE: *serious facepalm* Rebel. Takeover. Of. Libya. But please, continue to ignore reality. You know, because reality has a liberal slant and everything. Can't have that.

@Anonymous Source - so you deny any American military action in Libya? The bombs we dropped? The drones we sent? The people on the ground (even after assuring us there weren't)? You just ignore those facts and I'm the one ignoring reality? We dropped bombs over there. We still have drones flying over Libya. And this is insignificant? I know there is a rebel uprising in Libya. And they would have ready won, a long time ago, if we had decided to get involved earlier than we did (since he eventually decided to get involved). And, speaking of slipping one passed Congress: has he gone to Congress and made his case yet? I have heard no mention of it. And *gasp* I actually read "liberal" news sites and they don't even mention anything of the sort. Perhaps I'm not the one ignoring reality, then. (Oh, yes, I can insult, too. Great, isn't it? Well, atleast I can pair it with facts. Let me know if I need to link articles to obama admin and news articles admitting "kinetic military" actions in Libya, drones, etc. Just in case you don't care to do it yourself: I can inform :) )

Fuel is much cheaper in America than it is in the UK, so I'd count yourselves lucky! I WISH ours cost what you guys pay.

@redfraggle - yeah, I am grateful in comparison to other countries, but in comparison to a month ago & seeing its climb is unsettling (esp w/ devaluation of US$).

Yes, ours is climbing too. Here it is now around £1.30 per litre, which works out at £3.85/gallon. That is the same as $6.35/gallon.

It's £1.45 in Sweden so at least we have it cheaper than somewhere else lol! Around here it's £1.35 for petrol, £1.39 for diesel. So glad I don't drive.

@red fraggle - ouch! Question: what do you think can/should be done to bring gas prices down?

I'm not sure anything can be done. Except for the government not increasing tax on fuel. But that doesn't make a huge difference. I don't believe it's Obama's fault either.

That's crazy! I about had a heart attack yesterday when I saw it was $4.17/gallon.

Our cars are more effecient though. But I don't think that balances out the fact that we're paying DOUBLE what you guys are paying.