Try and actually understand a post for just ONCE I don't mean always but just ONCE for god's sake.
GWB founded Arbusto Energy, Inc., with $20,000 of his own money.
The company foundered in the early 1980s when oil prices dropped, his father was VP.
The 50 investors, who were "mainly friends of my uncle" in GWB's own words, put in $4.7 million and lost most of it. GWB claims that investors "did pretty good," but Bush family friend Russell Reynolds told the Dallas Morning News: "The bottom line was there were problems, and it didn't work out very well. I think we got maybe 20 cents on the dollar."
As Arbusto neared collapse, Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation bought it in September 1984. Despite his poor track record, the owners made GWB the PRESIDENT (not share holder Jim, President) and gave him 13.6% of the parent company's stock.
Within two years of purchasing Arbusto and making GWB president, Spectrum 7 was itself in trouble; it lost $400,000 in its last 6 months of operation. That ended in 1986, when Harken Energy Corporation bought Spectrum 7's 180-well operation.
GWB was given $227,000 worth of Harken stock, and a lot more. He was named to the board of directors, made $80,000 to $100,000 a year well into the 1990s as a "consultant" to Harken, and was allowed to buy Harken stock at 40% below face value.
So this should clear up the issue that GWB was no more than a mere investor, he was the president, and later appointed to the board of directors at Harken even though his first attempts failed.
He comes from a VERY wealthy background, has received the highest quality edication that money can buy in America and yet claime to be 'one of the people' (wel yes I suppose, two arms, two legs but that's about it).
Answr, to your question, WHY bring BUSH into it, because HE could make a differenceyet his supporters and friends are in the business of selling petroleum so it is not in his better interests if he wishes to keep his friends although it is in the better interests of Americans.
Now, I just KNEW someone would say that the greater MPHG means cars are more fuel efficient, which is common and expected.
Certainly these newer cars go farther per tank of gas than the old V-8 muscle cars did. Yes there is the pathetic California air care act of 1979 (I think it was '79, off the top of my head). Neither of these are accurate when speaking of fuel efficiency. More air is forced into the injectors which reduces the Hydrocarbon emissions while increasing the more dangerous CO emissions.
The other main air control system is designed to create a thorough BURN of unburned fuel, thus again reducing the not so harmful hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons have not proven to bee very harmful to our atmosphere as they are broken down at high alittude, whereas CO is not.
So air care really does nothing other than create work and HUGE profits for guys like myself who are aircare certified to repair failed vehicles. The Califormia air care act was passed long before much of todays knowledge was available and really doen't help much other than to reduce VISIBLE low level hydrocarbons that are viewed as smog. The air LOOKS cleaner down here so it must be up there theory.
WHen I say more fuel efficient vehicle I am not referring to alternate fuels or dual fuel vehicle at all. In Europe, auto manufacturers now build cars with MUCH better fuel 'efficiency' than they do here. This has nothing to do with MPG. As a car gets smaller and lighter of course MPG will increase, the efficiency in which it burns the fuel does not.
Cars today are far less fuel efficiet than a car in the 60's and 70's for example.
Lets look at this on very basic terms:
Gas contains energy, this energy is used to create horsepower and torque to propell the car.
In the 70's engines were heavy, and cars weighed more, the ability for a car to burn a gallon of gas per nile was deemed a good thing.
With todays aluminum blocks and aluminum bodies, the ability to drive a car for 40Miles on one gallon is NOT a good thing. These cars COULD be getting 60MPG if they were burning fuel more efficiently.
Whereas a '69 V-8 would burn a gallon of gas and generate a great deal of horsepower to the wheels, todays cars burn a gallon of gas and much of the fuels internal ebergy is wasted in the form of heat smaller high RPM engines that emit more heat than an Iron Block engine). More gas is wasted, not emissions,but the actual harnessing of horsepower from the potential energy of the fuel. Because of this, our cars generate less horsepower per litre of fuel. The costs for manufacturing are lower though and the car is lighter, so lower MPG stats re reported which is the main selling point behind a compact car. They don't even give you a real spare tire anymore, no not because of trunk space, but wieght reduction that may offer a .1 mpg increase in mileage and sell more cars than the competition.
They are not interested in fuel efficiency, or the emissions and thier harms, they are interested in selling cars. This is capitalism at it's best, deceive the public but it doesn't matter because you make more money from them.
SO inclosing Jim, GWB DID own an oil company, his father was VP, his main campaign supporters were oil barons, he has an extremely high level of education and grew up in a golden world surrounded by capitalist greed, not the down home 'guy next door' he tries to be. I am here for the people and all that crap, well he single handedly just sent how many of the people he supports to die in a premature and unwarranted invasion, but that's another story as you know.
So BUSH is all for OIl he grew up around it, was probably babysat by it and thrives upon oil companies doing well. THAT's why he came into it.
Cars are NOT as fuel efficient as they used to be, despite increased MPG staistics.
In Europe, the leaders of several countries demanded that auto manufacturers improve fuel efficiency of their vehicles and they have. Less smog, less gas burned, better mileage etc.
In Canada, they are talking about knowcking a few cents per litre of the government's taxation on fuel. This does nothing to increase fuel economy, reduce the consumption of our netural (yet not expendable) resources, nor does it help the environment. Increased efficiency DOES all of the above.
Well there are two countries who don't want citizens to see this or request it from Ato manufacturers.
Canada: Taxes accrued from gas are fantastic, even dropping a few pennies per litre would still be bringing in millions if not billions each year.
Reducing fuel consumption doesn't help the government collect taxes.
US: GWB Is in favour of his family and friends who are in the oil business. His supporters are oil companies and car manufacturers. America's auot industry has been nurting for a long time now and couldn't afford to be competetive if forced to build better cars, at least not with the same margins they see now.
So if Canada and the US gets it's ass in gear and FORCES these men to comply, manufacturers will build more efficient cars, pollution is reduced, we get less headaches when in the city, we pay less per year for gas and everyone wins. Except BUSH for pissing off the oil companies that rely on him for protection from the pubic. The auto manufacturers who build batter cars for lower profits and the oil companies who are selling less oil, eaarning lower profits and possibly cutting off GWB's support which may in turn cause him to lose the upcoming election.
SO NO jim, cars aren't more efficient, you are just lead to believe they are by the same people that sell and put fuel in them.
