Really trying to cross party lines here...?

Question

A previous question asked about Hillary Clinton's plan to take money from the oil companies to use it for research for alternative fuels. Good question. But the answers are very party driven - reps thinking its a communist plot, dems thinking its a good idea, seemingly because its coming from 'their candidate'.

So here's my question...with an open, unpartied mind, please think about it...

If Bush proposed the same, but phrased it differently, would it be accepted by reps? If he said he was doing it for the future of America and the American people. To provide alternatives in the future, but not at the expense of the American people, to make us less dependent upon Middle East countries...

I'm hoping you can look at this without party blinders... I really think its a legitimate and interesting thing to think about....

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration and thought...

Answer 1

Personally I'll support any politician who comes up with a good idea that benefits the majority of Americans. Vote the person, not the party. Register Independent, it scares both parties.

Answer 2

1) Corporations don't pay taxes, the collect them. Increasing taxes on the oil companies would result in higher fuel costs for all of us.
2) Taxing domestic production is a reverse tarrif. It would subsidize imports, that's the last thing we should want to do. The only tax that would make any sense would be to impose import duties on oil from unfriendly countries (almost everyone except Canada, Mexico & Norway). This would, of course raise prices & oil company profits, but would spur domestic explotation & production.

Answer 3

Party loyalist will always praise the plan of their party face. It is solely based on if their party face proposed the idea. I often ask if Clinton and Bush were reversed in their decisions, how many of both parties would see things in an opposite fashion.

That being said, Dems are far less controlled as the Repubs have become of late via the neo-conservative movement. Dems don't accuse those who do not agree of being cowards, commies, and traitors. Dems do not blanket all muslims as being of one mindset to destroy the world. Therefore Dems get more support from me than Repubs due to the neo-hate factor.

Answer 4

If a candidate actually was going to do something about our dependence on foriegn oil and oil in general for that matter I wouldn't care if they were purple and from the planet zepton.

But the reality is Bush is not going to do this. Hillary obviously did not get a lot of money from big oil when she was filling up her coffers or she wouldn't be on the bandwagon either.

Answer 5

I agree with lokking for alternative fuel sources but I think it's wrong to force a company to pay for something that will put them out of business. Why don't we raise money for ir like we do cancer research? If it's so important then we can find a different way to pay for it.

Answer 6

I am a conservative and I think that it is a good idea simply because we are going to run out of oil in about 120 years. What do we do then? I'm with you though, I'm tired of people not supporting someone else just because of the difference in parties.

Answer 7

probable exceptionally difficult because the get jointly with a majority hardly sees defections on account that people like potential. contained in the residing house regardless of the indisputable fact that the Republicans ought to probable artwork with the 40 4 member Blue canines Democrats who're average/conservative and per the left of the Republican get jointly.

Answer 8

Consumers, not the government, should decide how the means of production are allocated.

Any other model is necessarily based on the assumption that you know better than the consumers what is good for them.