Another use for the 2004 Bush campaign gas tax calculator

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RacerX, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    In 2001 when Bush took office the average price of gas was around $1.50 a gallon. We are now facing the possibility of $4.00 a gallon by the time he leaves office.

    What does this mean to the average American driver?

    Thankfully the 2004 Bush campaign did us the favor of outlining what a 50¢ increase in gas prices would mean for the average American driver... about $600 a year* (or about $50 a month for every 50¢ above $1.50 per gallon).

    Based on these figures, I was curious how much the administration has cost (or saved) the average American driver during the 7 years they have been in office (average gas prices per month given in cents per gallon followed by cost/savings).
    148.7 (-$1.30)
    149.0 (-$1.00)
    145.0 (-$5.00)
    159.1 (+$9.10)
    173.8 (+$23.80)
    165.8 (+$15.80)
    146.6 (-$3.40)
    146.1 (-$3.90)
    155.7 (+$5.70)
    135.7 (-$14.30)
    121.2 (-$28.80)
    112.7 (-$37.30)
    Total: savings of $40.60

    114.8 (-$35.20)
    115.5 (-$34.50)
    128.9 (-$21.10)
    143.9 (-$6.10)
    143.4 (-$6.60)
    142.4 (-$7.60)
    143.8 (-$6.20)
    143.8 (-$6.20)
    144.1 (-$5.90)
    148.6 (-$1.40)
    146.1 (-$3.90)
    142.9 (-$7.10)
    Total: savings of $141.80

    150.0 (-$0.00)
    165.5 (+$15.50)
    173.4 (+$23.40)
    163.3 (+$13.30)
    153.9 (+$3.90)
    153.3 (+$3.30)
    155.4 (+$5.40)
    166.1 (+$16.60)
    172.1 (+$22.10)
    160.6 (+$10.60)
    155.5 (+$5.50)
    152.2 (+$2.20)
    Total: additional cost of $121.80

    161.4 (+$11.40)
    169.0 (+$19.00)
    177.8 (+$27.80)
    183.9 (+$33.90)
    202.3 (+$52.30)
    201.3 (+$51.30)
    195.4 (+$45.40)
    192.0 (+$42.00)
    191.2 (+$41.20)
    204.2 (+$54.20)
    202.3 (+$53.30)
    188.7 (+$38.70)
    Total: additional cost of $470.50

    187.5 (+$37.50)
    195.3 (+$45.30)
    212.0 (+$62.00)
    228.5 (+$78.50)
    220.5 (+$70.50)
    219.8 (+$69.80)
    233.3 (+$83.30)
    252.9 (+$102.90)
    295.1 (+$145.10)
    276.5 (+$126.50)
    230.3 (+$80.30)
    222.9 (+$72.90)
    Total: additional cost of $974.60

    236.0 (+$86.00)
    232.6 (+$82.60)
    246.8 (+$96.80)
    278.7 (+$128.70)
    295.3 (+$145.30)
    293.0 (+$143.00)
    302.5 (+$152.50)
    299.9 (+$149.90)
    260.6 (+$110.60)
    229.3 (+$79.30)
    227.5 (+$77.50)
    235.9 (+$85.90)
    Total: additional cost of $1,338.10

    228.9 (+$78.90)
    232.3 (+$82.30)
    260.9 (+$110.90)
    289.1 (+$139.10)
    318.7 (+$168.70)
    310.2 (+$160.20)
    301.1 (+$150.10)
    283.4 (+$133.40)
    284.9 (+$134.90)
    285.3 (+$135.30)
    312.8 (+$162.80)
    307.0 (+$157.00)
    Total: additional cost of $1,613.60

    309.5 (+$159.50)
    307.8 (+$157.80)
    Total: additional cost of $317.30​
    I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that is a lot of money for most of the people I know (including myself).

    * It should be noted that the Bush campaign site included a gas price calculator in which you could input some of your own personal info to get a more accurate idea of how 50¢ a gallon would effect you... in my case it came to about $640 per year.
  2. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Jan 29, 2008
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    Just what influence do you think a president has on the price of gasoline? Is he responsible for supply and demand? Is he responsible for the tremendous growth India and China are experiencing? What happened to all the talk from Dems just before the mud-term elections, saying if only they were elected, they'd magically reduce the price of gasoline?
    Here, T. Kaine held photo-opts in front of gas stations when he was running for governor. This week, Reps in the Va House defeated a plan he backed, which would have increased the tax on gasoline by 5 cents.
  3. Kashchei macrumors 65816


    Apr 26, 2002
    Meat Space
    With George W Bush & Cheney in office, two oil men with prior relationships with the Saudi royal family, I can't imagine that that they could have any effect on oil prices. Of course, if a democrat was in office, my argument would be completely different.
  4. RacerX thread starter macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    I guess I think the same thing that Bush thought before taking office...

    George W. Bush (June 23, 2000):
    "There seems to be an effort out of Washington to blame me for rising energy prices. And the American people don't buy that. It's the -- Clinton-Gore administration's been there for seven years, we're more dependent now than ever before on energy from foreign sources. And I am amazed that they're trying to shift the blame away from the people that are holding the office. And I resent that kind of politics, and so will the American people..."

    "No, it doesn't. I think we ought to make sure that we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. I'll have an energy policy. But I received a lot more support from people who drive cars, that rely upon -- who want to see the price of gasoline down."

    "And this is typical of an administration that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time."
  5. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Jan 29, 2008
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    I see you were unable to answer any of the questions, and simply resorted to personal attacks. Gee, wonder why there is no rational discussion here...

    He does make a point. If there had been interest and investment in developing domestic sources of oil, there would be less need for foreign sources. B. Clinton was somewhat responsible for China's growth. After all, he could have canceled China's favorable trade status. In reality, however, his statements were just politicking. A President has very little control over the price of gasoline.

    I see you were also unable to answer any of the questions.
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    Is Bush "somewhat responsible" for China's growth these past 7 years?
  7. RacerX thread starter macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    My answer is simple... Bush should be held to the same standards by which he holds others. Leaders take responsibility, and seeing as he felt that the previous administration should have accepted responsibility, I didn't see why the current administration shouldn't either.

    It may be politicking, as you say, but people shouldn't blame others for failures in policies and then be let off the hook when they prove that they are even worse than the people they replaced on controlling the same issue.

    So maybe there isn't anything that a President can do... but it sure looks like Bush thought differently at one point.
  8. MacNut macrumors Core


    Jan 4, 2002
    I hope when Obama takes office that gas is back to $1.50 again.
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2003
    It's not going to happen and would be the worst possible thing for the US.

    First off much of the rise in the price of oil is because of the plummeting dollar. Oil is sold in dollars and although the price in Europe is still rising, it's not affecting them nearly as much because the Euro is strong.

    The only way to stop the increase in oil is to stop the seemingly inexorable slide of the dollar. There's nothing in the near future that will make that happen.

    What the US needs is to get off its oil habit. CAFE standards need to jump, less money for highway expansion and more for mass transit. Better planning regulations, etc, etc.

    The state of California has one of the lowest per capita rates of energy consumption. In large part because of strong laws enacted in the 70s. Change takes time, nothing's going to happen overnight.
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    $1.50 gasoline? Uh, I have a really neat cash deal on a bridge. Interest only loan, adjustable rate mortgage, if you're short of cash. You can't lose!

    Think Economics 101, supply and demand. The apparent Peak Oil peak in pumping was in mid-2005, The amount has not been matched since then.

    China now imports more oil than Japan. The outputs of Venezuela and Iran are declining, as is Mexico's. Nigeria's problems involve guerilla warfare which occasionally shuts down their output.

    There's not one thing whatsoever that Bush or any other person can do about it. And Bush didn't have diddly-boo to do with how much oil is in any particular oil field. Or you or me...

    The dollar is continuing its decline in value when measured against foreign currencies. The oil producing nations are serious about demanding payment in euros instead of dollars since they're tired of losing money from being paid in funny-money. When that happens, expect oil to move toward $150 a barrel, and gasoline toward (IMO) some $6 per gallon.

    If the talk of taxing oil companies comes to fruition, expect less exploration and development and thus even less production in the future. Less oil, fewer jobs and a reduction in petrochemical exports. Higher prices on anything of plastic.

    The only way you'll ever see $1.50 gasoline would be to have bought gold, platinum or silver when those were priced about half what they are today; sell some and buy gasoline. Heck, copper, for that matter...

    Hang on tight, 'cause it's gonna get exciting. And don't expect Obama, Clinton or McCain to be able to change anything, except make it worse.

  11. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    You can't possibly be saying the war in Iraq and the failings elsewhere aren't contributing to the rise in gas prices and lowering of the U.S. dollar.

    I don't remember them saying that, just pointing out that they kept going up under GOP rule, and that the oil companies were getting sweet deals as they made billions in record profits.

    There is, but you ignore it, pretend we're saying something none of us actually are, then make comments like you do, lowering the argument to something else entirely, then complaining that we're the ones not being rational. :rolleyes:

    No one is expecting that, just hoping it won't continue to skyrocket the way it has.

    I think you missed his point, which was similar to yours.
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    Ah got to love threads like this and how some people love to blame the president for things he has little to no control over.

    This is the kind of stuff that makes the liebral side looks like idiots. They can not see around the fact that oil is at inflation adjusted record highs.

    Can not see the fact that we have had climbing fuel cost since Clinton was in office.

    Can not see the facts that the worlds energy demands and oil demand have been sky rocketing for well over 10 years. That does not matter who is in office.

    No all they can see is we have gas and energy prices climbing and they have to blame some one. They can not acted the fact that it is a part of the supply and demand curve. Or see worlds demand on everything is causing it t o go.

    Do you really think the war in Iraq really effect fuel prices that much. I will give you at MOST 10% and that is at most. Chances are it is heck of a lot less than that.
  13. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    Partially, yeah. There are other factors, some not his fault, but some certainly are. We're not blaming him entirely, but neither should one say he and Congress are completely blameless. Same with the economy. When it's going well, it's all him. When it's going poorly, it's someone else's fault. They said gas prices would go down, even trying to scare us by saying gas prices will go up if we don't go along with what they wanted, but they're going up anyway even though we did. The lowering dollar is also a contributing factor. Again, not all the administration's fault, but they certainly didn't help, and evidence shows even actually made things worse. I'm also reminded of the secret meetings with the oil execs who for some reason didn't have to go under oath. As noted, Bush himself made this same comparison, which he's now ignoring as his people suffer.

    So again, are you actually saying he isn't responsible for some of this?
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    Just for fun, you can go even farther back on the history of oil-price rises. At least to Kissinger and the Shah, much less the 1973 embargo.

    At one time, the "Seven Sisters" told the mid-east oil producers what the upcoming year's price would be. Around $1.50 per barrel, give or take a little. Kissinger decided that if the price were higher, the Shah could pay for the wartoys we wanted to sell him as an ally against the USSR.

    Among other things: Dear Old Henry advised the Sisters to deal independently, and with one producing country at a time. One bit of bargaining led to another, and the next thing we knew, oil was up to some $3.37 a barrel. Great for the Shah, et al. The bottom line, though, was that the producers had learned of the actual power they had, in those fairly early years of OPEC. They didn't have to take whatever was offered; they could deal with a more open marketplace.

    Then came 1973, and there was even more realization of the power of OPEC.

    We've seen prices rising and falling as developments such as our North Slope, Mexico's Cantarel and the North Sea productions have come on line, risen and fallen. Our own imports have risen, and now China's in on the act.

    The only way oil prices will come down, absent a serious world-wide recession, would be to drill more holes in our own offshore and in ANWR. And end political instability in such places as Nigeria and in the "underbelly" of Russia. But that's only short-term, as producers such as Mexico, Iran, Venezuela and others continue their decline.

Share This Page