Direct money for the crude itself, but whos shipping it, whos processing it, whos buying it in the US, and selling it to us in the US? People are being paid all along the lines from this. Regardless oil companies are making more because their product is in lower supply and the same demand, congress members hold oil stocks, corruption? Who knows, I don't particularly care about any of it simply because there is nothing I can do about it.
The president takes blame for everything, when in fact presidents don't really do much more than be a political symbol and somewhat set up a national budget (advisors and congress do most of it, president basically comes up with a rough draft).
Problems with the economy are more the fault of a nation as a whole including big businesses and us ourselves, than it is the governments. The govt. gets there money from us when we spend money, or receive money. When we spend money we are taxed, and then that same money is taxed again when someone else receives it. Then when they spend it and yatta yatta yatta. Whether or not the government has enough money to do what they want is dependent upon the government's budget, and how much we as a nation are receiving and spending. Technically if noone saved most of their money and spent it on things they wanted only saving a little for emergencies or unforseen expenses we'd be a financially stable nation, BUT since there will always be people who can't do that, and millions who wouldn't want to trust other people with our finances (I'm one of them) our free market capitalist economy will never be perfect. Instead it fluctuates in times of war and in times of particularly bad business. If Europe has a bad business year, then so will we, unless of course we are the reason Europe had a bad business year. It's complicated yes, impossible to understand every aspect of it, yes. The government can try and balance out our mistakes and fill in the gaps where our economy is failing, but they need our money to do so.
Sure the government would be readily available to do this if we were in a overall budget surplus (not just annual surplus) but we're not, and we haven't been for decades. What the Bush family does is exactly what FDR did during TGD. Deficit spending. Spending money on certain goals, and cutting taxes. FDR spent it on farms and crops, Bush spend it on war.
If you look at the U.S. market analysis during and after times of war they will be identical to the exact curve we are at now, except a a less steep curve (WWII would be as deep, but in less time since they didn't spend 150mil on a missle every 10 minutes). After the war is over the market will raise steadily and will be profitable. Seeing as how this will be when Bush is out of office, he will never get the credit for what he's doing.
Why are we spending so much money a war? To keep people from dying. Our people that is, can you put a price on a person's life? The government does every time they send a 100+ million dollar smart bomb at a target. It's unavoidable and it's preferable to our friends and families dying.
This has probably been all over the place, from topic to topic, but if I didn't skip around and I elaborated on every point to it's absolute fullest I would be writing more than 10 pages on every single point. Everything is really just that deep and that complicated.
| 
Linear Mode
