Reply #74: Do you care to elaborate? I find your post quite strange given the post

[lostinacause]

condemning the choice of foreign policy under Bush and mocking people who think that a more aggressive policy would do any better. On the issue at hand I have also implicitly said that Bush and the formerly Republican controlled House and Senate should have done something to deal with the forthcoming age of expensive oil.

The sad thing is that the economic theory of price controls and hording are quite clear in the circumstances. In the absence of changing prices, just before and after major events like this we see either an increase in demand or a decrease in supply, hording and shortages. You would expect that your (I'm not an American) politicians would either know this themselves or have an economic advisor capable of understanding this. Because of this there are two possibilities; either the politicians voting for this lack the information or are doing it for political gain. In both cases this paints a bad picture on the ability for politicians to adequately represent the needs of Americans.

If it was indeed the case, as I believe it to be, that the decision was made for political gain then it sends a bad message to politicians. It essentially says that the American people are content with a quick “solution” that proves to do more harm then it does good. It says that Americans support based on initial preconceived notions rather then actual effect. It also says something about the ability for people to judge the effectiveness of a policy. This is the type of thing that Bush, likely largely through Rove, has done for his entire presidency. We certainly don’t need the people who voted for this bill to follow that example.

Also, because my criticisms depend on the validity of the policy in question they have greater meaning then those who provide blanket criticism.