Pres Bush will say we are addicted to oil tonight

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:33 pm

Bush to Say 'America Is Addicted to Oil' in Talk

Jan 31 5:30 PM US/Eastern
By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON

President Bush, in a push to take charge of the election-year agenda, is expected to say Tuesday that "America is addicted to oil" and must break its dependence on foreign suppliers in unstable parts of the world.

In his State of the Union address, Bush also is expected to renew his commitment to the central pledge of his inaugural address. "Our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal _ we seek the end of tyranny in our world," he plans to say. "The future security of America depends on it."

Excerpts were released in advance of the 9 p.m. EST speech.

Bush will discuss troubles at home and abroad and say the nation needs to strengthen its competitiveness in the global economy. He is expected to call for a major new emphasis on math and science education.

"The American economy is pre-eminent but we cannot afford to be complacent," the president plans to say. "In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India."

"Our great advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people _ and we are going to keep that edge," the president is to say.

With the war in Iraq about to enter its fourth year and more than 2,240 American troops killed, Bush will say the nation must not falter in what he called the central front in the war on terror.

"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders," he is expected to say. "If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."

Hampered by huge budget deficits and the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush is offering modest initiatives to address soaring energy and health care costs and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil.

"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," he plans to say. "The best way to break this addiction is through technology."

Oil prices are inching toward $70 a barrel, and the president's goal of reducing dependence on foreign suppliers has been issued by the White House over the decades but never realized. Bush's primary proposal is to increase federal research into alternative fuels such as ethanol made from weeds or wood chips, instead of corn.

He also is to push for construction of new nuclear power plants and increased use of wind, solar and clean-coal technologies.

On health care, Bush plans to say, "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility. For all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care ... strengthen the doctor- patient relationship ... and help people afford the insurance coverage they seek."

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:47 pm

I like the general oil message ... I hope it's not just a typical state of the union soundbite and is rather the beginning of a real push to do something about it.

If he pushes for fuel efficiency standards on SUVs (removing the "truck" exception so that they are included in the rules in place for cars), then and only then will we know that he's REALLY serious about the issue. So far, that has been something of a litmus test issue.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:55 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I like the general oil message ... I hope it's not just a typical state of the union soundbite and is rather the beginning of a real push to do something about it.

If he pushes for fuel efficiency standards on SUVs (removing the "truck" exception so that they are included in the rules in place for cars), then and only then will we know that he's REALLY serious about the issue. So far, that has been something of a litmus test issue.

BAC,

He'd never do anything to slow a corporations profits, you know that.

Last year he said he was fixing social security, how is that coming along. Also, he's just now realized were "addicted to oil," havent we been for decades????

catbooster · Post by **catbooster** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:58 pm

There are a lot of additional factors that add to the fuel efficiency problem, such as pushing businesses to buy larger vehicles for the depreciation (i.e. get me a vehicle over 6,000 or 6,500 GVW). I'm sure you're more familiar with them than me, BAC.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:01 pm

Bush will be stating something that everyone in America knows, but my big wonder is will he propose a solution. He doesn't listen to sceintists, so alternate fuels are probably not a solution in his mind.

I'm sure he'll say our oil problem is because of partisan politics, and that we need to quit fighting on party lines. A typical cop-out on both sides of the isle.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:13 pm

catbooster wrote:There are a lot of additional factors that add to the fuel efficiency problem, such as pushing businesses to buy larger vehicles for the depreciation (i.e. get me a vehicle over 6,000 or 6,500 GVW). I'm sure you're more familiar with them than me, BAC.

I'd forgotten about that -- good point, catbooster. Yeah, when our tax code encourages small businesses to buy SUVs by allowing them to qualify for preferential depreciation treatment, it's hard to say that we're taking this problem seriously.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:33 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I like the general oil message ... I hope it's not just a typical state of the union soundbite and is rather the beginning of a real push to do something about it.

If he pushes for fuel efficiency standards on SUVs (removing the "truck" exception so that they are included in the rules in place for cars), then and only then will we know that he's REALLY serious about the issue. So far, that has been something of a litmus test issue.
BAC,

He'd never do anything to slow a corporations profits, you know that.

Last year he said he was fixing social security, how is that coming along. Also, he's just now realized were "addicted to oil," havent we been for decades????

He's still working on fixing social security. It's a huge undertaking and will take more time. The main sticking point is to allow workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into individual accounts. The AARP is opposed to it as are most Democrats.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:36 pm

Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:38 pm

Stevicat wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I like the general oil message ... I hope it's not just a typical state of the union soundbite and is rather the beginning of a real push to do something about it.

If he pushes for fuel efficiency standards on SUVs (removing the "truck" exception so that they are included in the rules in place for cars), then and only then will we know that he's REALLY serious about the issue. So far, that has been something of a litmus test issue.
BAC,

He'd never do anything to slow a corporations profits, you know that.

Last year he said he was fixing social security, how is that coming along. Also, he's just now realized were "addicted to oil," havent we been for decades????
He's still working on fixing social security. It's a huge undertaking and will take more time. The main sticking point is to allow workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into individual accounts. The AARP is opposed to it as are most Democrats.

As is anybody that is concerned about incurring a boatload of additional debt for our country (which should include most Republicans), which was the means that was being pushed in the first round of talks. The other option is to raise the maximum cap for FICA taxes (raise taxes on the wealthier people), but that didn't seem to get much traction (although I'm not complaining that this idea fell away).

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:25 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...

I'm not going to go very far with this, because it's after work and I'm enjoying a couple quick ones (beer & politics don't mix, as they say). I can appreciate your liberal views, but wonder if you're spending time here trying to promote a cause, because spending time in your area of the state (egriz) would be like singing to the choir. Nothing personal, I enjoy your posts. Just sounds like you're getting a little testy about being on the 'short end of the stick.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:28 pm

GOKATS wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...
I'm not going to go very far with this, because it's after work and I'm enjoying a couple quick ones (beer & politics don't mix, as they say). I can appreciate your liberal views, but wonder if you're spending time here trying to promote a cause, because spending time in your area of the state (egriz) would be like singing to the choir. Nothing personal, I enjoy your posts. Just sounds like you're getting a little testy about being on the 'short end of the stick.

Have you spent any time talking politics on egriz? It's closer to a klan meeting (most vocal posters, anyway) than a hippie fest.

In general sports fans are conservative ... that's just the way the demographic works.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:43 pm

Uh yeah, politics on egriz doesn't fly. Hmm, I'll post my drinking game and see what happens. Most of the people that post there are conservatives too, you would be surprised.

http://www.egriz.com/GrizBoard/viewtopi ... 964#155964

GoKats I posted earlier in this section that I really enjoy the "hangout" b/c in other chat boards I'll be torn to shreds for bringing up politics.

Sorry if I'm a little pointed 2nite (since I'm usually not) its just been a rough day if you're a liberal/progressive/democrat whatever.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:51 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
GOKATS wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...
I'm not going to go very far with this, because it's after work and I'm enjoying a couple quick ones (beer & politics don't mix, as they say). I can appreciate your liberal views, but wonder if you're spending time here trying to promote a cause, because spending time in your area of the state (egriz) would be like singing to the choir. Nothing personal, I enjoy your posts. Just sounds like you're getting a little testy about being on the 'short end of the stick.
Have you spent any time talking politics on egriz? It's closer to a klan meeting (most vocal posters, anyway) than a hippie fest.

In general sports fans are conservative ... that's just the way the demographic works.

I slum over there on occassion to see what's happening, but have few posts. I don't think they have a forum that would allow any "intelligent' discussion on any topic beyond how "Griz thou Aren't".

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:59 pm

I wouldn't go that far, there's plenty of good discussion, just don't get political over there, it's almost an unspoken rule.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:43 am

Tivo'd most of the address, there was some positive things (yes I'll admit) I do like to efforts to invest in zero emmission coal power, wind, solar and nuclear. I also like the efforts to break free from the middle east and their oil, who wouldn't? The timelines seem stretched, but thats just my opinion.

Really it just seemed like talk, more of the same for the most part. Iraq, they're not leaving, don't question it. Bin Laden, Al Queda, blah blah, let me break the law, it's ok it'll keep you safe. Partisan Politics are pulling us apart.

He mentioned training teachers, great. How will that be paid for, our defecit could run over 400 billion this year. More funding for math and science and AP classes, once again where is the funding. The other interesting this is tomorrow the house GOP will be cutting a chunk of student loans. I guess I'm seeing a trend, AP classes, specialized teachers, less student loans, it looks like the education plans are aimed for those who don't need student loans (upper class) and those whose kids have enough schooling for AP classes (mainly upper - middle class). I guess the war on the middle/lower class continues...

Somethings I would've like to have seen him better address, Katrina - the slip up, the lack of funding, the lack of caring from the national government. The wiretaps, why didn't he use the courts? Iraq, any sort of extended withdrawl, are we just going to be there forever, should we have an exit plan if things aren't working 2 - 5 - 10 years down the road???

I saw some positive thoughts, but hollow promises, more of the same.

And by the way when did it almost become un-american to question what the president does? I thought that was part of our political proccess.

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:43 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:Bush will be stating something that everyone in America knows, but my big wonder is will he propose a solution. He doesn't listen to sceintists, so alternate fuels are probably not a solution in his mind.

I'm sure he'll say our oil problem is because of partisan politics, and that we need to quit fighting on party lines. A typical cop-out on both sides of the isle.

So when you talked to him last time, who did he say he listens too?

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:25 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...

Did you notice the Democrats gave Pres Bush a standing O when he said that he was unable to get Social Security passed last year. They were proud of the fact that they were able to stop it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:35 am

Stevicat wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...
Did you notice the Democrats gave Pres Bush a standing O when he said that he was unable to get Social Security passed last year. They were proud of the fact that they were able to stop it.

Because it was a bad plan. If only they had killed the drug plan as well....

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:10 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Stevicat wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote:Its funny, the typical Republican excuse for why they don't get anything done is partisan politics, something I'm sure we'll hear more and more of tonight and this spring/summer. Republicans now control all 3 branches of the government, what would stop them from doing this? Does the AARP have a vote in congress, or did the Democrats magically get extra votes in the house or senate?

If the republicans wanted to they could call a vote, and along party lines pass it, and they blame Dems? Thats makes a lot of sense...
Did you notice the Democrats gave Pres Bush a standing O when he said that he was unable to get Social Security passed last year. They were proud of the fact that they were able to stop it.
Because it was a bad plan. If only they had killed the drug plan as well....

It's fine if the Dems think its a bad plan but they are happy with the status quo which just isn't realistic in the long run. SOme debate on these things would be good but it just isn't happening.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:14 am

The Dems didn't like the private accounts. I'm all for it. I want some of my FICA withholdings to go into a private account that I can manage. What's so bad about that?