Real gas prices now lower than when Bush took office
The Washington Times has the story here:
A once-popular bumper sticker says simply, "When Bush took office, gas was $1.46." It was meant to be a slam, but as the end of his eight years approaches, President Bush is seeing gas prices that, adjusted for inflation, are lower than when he was inaugurated.
Last week's $1.59 - the average for a gallon of regular on Dec. 29, according to the Energy Information Administration - works out to $1.33 in 2001 dollars, or 9 percent less than it was the day Mr. Bush took office. The tumble in prices, from a high of more than $4.05 in early July, has meant incredible savings. . . .
posted by John Lott at 4:33 PM
8 Comments:
See how many Obama supporters will put their money where their boasts are.
"So, will you bet me $10,000 that gasoline will be, adjusted for inflation, less expensive after Obama's second term?"
One, it's a safe bet for you. Obama will not be able to win a second term. He'll be dumped out on the lecture circuit as the Jimmy Carter.
Two, no liberal is going to make a bet because he knows he will lose.
So, John, we're all wondering: why do you only approve comments from conservatives on your blog?
Dear forthesakeofscience:
Ugh? Are you serious? You haven't read the postings very much. I don't believe that you have really read my blog.
It is true that liberals often tend to repeat the same points over and over again 50+ times and do not appear to read the responses, but try looking at here and here. There are lots of liberal comments left all over the place.
Then I'm left to wonder why you seem to deny certain comments, especially after you've gone around and posted your links all of the Internet.
At any rate, as I said earlier (and as you deleted earlier), the huge global recession has more than a small role in the current price of gas, not Bush.
Dear forthesakeofscience:
Possibly you should read the directions on the posts. There were two reasons on a couple of posts.
1) I said that I didn't want people repeating the same point over and over again without responding to my responses.
2) The posts were closed because I didn't have the time to respond.
That still leaves the matter of the randomly deleted post concerning Bush and gas prices left here. Beyond that, my response was akin to your response in that it was a link.
Anyway, it still remains that Bush cannot be given much credit for the current price of gas. There's simply low demand because of the massive job losses.
Dear forthesakeofscience:
I have no clue what you are talking about.
I had left two responses on your blog at the time of leaving the above third response. One had to do with the fact that gas prices are not lower because Bush is some great leader. That was left on this post. The second was a link providing a response to your claim that bloggers got wrong the ulterior motive of your op-ed on the Minnesota recount. Neither response made it on your site. The second was particularly disingenuous of you since not only had you provided links to your blog on various other blogs (mine included), but you also responded to the post in question on my blog.
Now you have an idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home