Does Bush really want to end dependence on foreign oil or does it just make for good TV on report to nation?

Question

Bush reported that the ethanol production in America needs to be increased yet he makes no provisions to provide help in $$$$. Maybe if he taxed big oil then those taxes could go to help alternative energy sources get moving in a positive direction. What do you think?

Answer 1

Of course he does, there is no ulterior motives in his statement or actions--which remain consistent since he took office back in 2001. Clearly your comment lacks awareness of the "separation of powers" that the founding fathers of the U.S. established when they structured the government for that United States of America. The President (as he did in his state of the union) can only direct or suggest to the Legislators what they should focus on, and submit proposals to this end, but cannot "authorize" funds himself without direct consent of the Legislators. A lot of blame that has been placed on the President can be traced to those who truly are to blame…the Legislators (Congress and Senate houses), whose indecisiveness and lack of will are to blame for much of the U.S. problems. It is true that the President (as the executive office of the U.S) must first and foremost be a leader--but under such hostile conditions (and I am not referring to the war on terrorism, but in this country of those who oppose him and are unwilling to meet him half way) it is a miracle that he has managed to accomplish anything. People and the opposition are fast to point out the few things that have not been accomplish--yet dismiss and ignore what has been accomplished. Now, is there more to be done, absolutely--but it requires both patience and understanding to do them…which many seem to lack nowadays.

As for taxing "big oil." This irresponsible action does not address the real problem, but it does create more in that such an action would extend the authority of the government beyond its original intentions. What about free enterprise? How can a free market system function if a "tyrannical and greedy government" taxes their business; bleeding them dry for its own purposes? Because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If "big oil" is to be taxes then so should every other industry. But this will still not address the problem. Funding should be made for alternative fuels, but it can come from both private and government sources--without imposing any more "taxes." Keep in mind that "big oil" is merely supplying a need, but the problem is not the supplier--but those that need what the supplier is willing and able to supply. Address the need and you address the problem…to hate or attack the supplier is wasteful and irresponsible if the needs remains and is allowed to continue unabated. So, imposing another tax on the company will only have an adverse reaction to society as a whole.

It is if for this reason (as well as other factors) that have compelled many corporations to relocate their operations to foreign soils because of the excessive burden (in taxes, litigations, regulations, etc) that is cutting into their profits. The company is not punished when "taxes" are levied upon it, it is the people that suffer (whether it is employee or consumers). If the government imposes high taxes on "big oil" guess who ends up paying it...that's right, we the people. You actually think that they would cut into their profits, give up their five summer homes, their two hundred car collection, private jet, etc...to pay such taxes, heck no...they'll either cut employee wages/benefits, raise the price of goods and services they provide, eliminate jobs, close factories, etc. It is we the people who will pay when such thoughtless and greedy actions are impose...so, under such conditions, both the government and "big oil" will profit and we the people will continue to suffer and the problem remains.

Now, practical alternatives to "taxes" are grants, incentive awards and goal sharing programs, government contract competitions, etc...are but a few examples that could be established to encourage companies to pursue alternative fuels sources more aggressively. But you must understand that in this day and age in which patience is lacking and a "quick and high return" on one's investment are not only expected, but demanded--doesn't makes it very "cost effective" to pursue those alternative fuel endeavors aggressively, but gradually--but there is an extremely high cost in research and development, which often never pay out what was invested into it. Keep in mind that it is not only "big oil" that is part of the problem (they, as the President) are merely the scapegoats or easy targets. There are the automotive industry, the appliance industry, electric companies, computer companies, etc...any business (or individual for that matters) that uses "oil" as a fuel source are to blame since they too must become part of this innovation of converting from one fuel dependence to another. It is easy to point the finger and say, they are to blame…and more often than not, one can easy find the one at fault by merely looking at the mirror and point that finger of judgment towards their reflection and ask, "what have I done to make things better?" And usually the answer will come back as nothing…so if they have done nothing, why should anyone else do anything. One needs to care before they can do...

Which leads us to the simple, yet most effectively powerful tool that the people can use to implement change...and that is to boycott the companies that are obstacles on the path to saving the environment and liberating us from the dependency on foreign fuels--such as oil. But, this is just my two cents...and things to considered. And as a piece of advise, one should reserve judgment until then have all the facts...to do otherwise only demonstrates ones ignorance.

Answer 2

I am not overly sure how a dependence upon foreign oil will be quashed. Fact of the matter is America is a pretty oil hungry nation, consumptions isn't just limited to fuel.

Ideally an investment in alternate energy sources would be a great idea however, oil is not going to be taxed any further than it is. It cuts the bottom line of large producers (they need to decrease cost in order to maintain demand) Large producers are massive contributors to the economy. Think Saudi Aramco.

IN many respects tossing out the word alternative fuel pacifies the environmentally aware, as well as the globally conscious amongst us. I highly doubt there is any sort of incentive program in place to encourage the development of alternative fuel sources.

Answer 3

My opinion only -- he's 100% for it. It is not only good from an ecological perspective but for a business person, there is still plenty of money to be made in the energy industry. Guess what? That won't only be President Bush in on the new energy initiatives, but most of D.C.and 1/2 of Hollywood as well. They are all investing don't kid yourself.

Answer 4

What is the matter with you people? Of course he does! The Republicans have been trying for years to allow more drilling and exploration here to achieve that goal. We have tried for wind and solar . The Democrats have continually blocked every effort to reduce our dependence.

All you have to do is search congressional records and you will find I am telling the truth.

How any American can believe the lies of the Democrats on this I do not know the records are plain.

Answer 5

per chance he ought to carry the moratorium on drilling interior the Gulf besides as all the different federal land the authorities has offered to end the drilling for oil in the previous he cuts overseas imports. See, that way, we would not BE so depending on overseas oil. Gee, how uncomplicated!

Answer 6

It makes for good TV. I guess the administration still thinks we are stupid and believe him when he says this stuff. 28% still believe him. Exxon could lead the industry in ethanol production but they aren't interested....more profit in middle eastern oil for them. Nothing will happen until he is out of office, or if the US stands up to them and demands that they do something about it. LIke anyone will--everyone's too busy watching American Idol to care.

Answer 7

That bad ole' Bush. He just can't do anything right, isn't that right, Libs? Even though the Dems don't seem to have a plan, let's just keep bashing Bush. That's the only plan I have seen them really serious about.

Answer 8

Why hasn't any president lessened our dependence on foreign oil? I believe we have been talking about this since Carter and the gas shortages 30 years ago.

Answer 9

It's good PR to placate the Democrats and the citizens who are getting fed up with an unjust war they can't do much to stop!

If the President has his way MiddleEastern oil won't be foreign it will be domestic!
Just because it isn't in our country doesn't mean we won't own, regulate, and control it!

Companies involved in this process work on a Global scale not just a US scale!

Answer 10

In the 2005 SOTU, according to Dumbya, the USA was "addicted to oil". So for most of last year with a Congress that would do his bidding, what even MINUSCULE micro initiative was begun???

NADA, zip!!!, ZEEROOO!!!!