2007:
For too long, our Nation has been dependent on oil. America’s dependence leaves more vulnerable to hostile regimes and to terrorists, who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.
2004:
America's dependence on oil is a threat to our national security and our economy. Growing demand and shrinking domestic production means America is importing more and more oil each year - much of it from the world's most unfriendly or unstable regions. We spend more than $200,000 per minute -- $13 million per hour -- on foreign oil, and more than $25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone. By October 2004, Americans had shelled out $249 per capita to foreign oil-interests.
2002:
It is in our national interest to limit our import dependence through market-oriented policies to increase domestic efficiency, conservation, and production. However, oil imports will be an unavoidable component of the energy supply mix of the United States. Under current circumstances, significant reduction of oil imports could not be achieved without severe effects on our industries and a significant reduction in the buying power of American families. Through an effective energy security policy, however, we can do much to ensure that oil imports do not erode the independence of our foreign policy or the security of our economy.
1977:
If this trend continues, the excessive reliance on foreign oil could make the very security of our Nation increasingly dependent on uncertain energy supplies. Our national security depends on more than just our Armed Forces; it also rests on the strength of our economy, on our national will, and on the ability of the United States to carry out our foreign policy as a free and independent nation. America overseas is only as strong as America at home.
The Secretary of Defense said recently, "The present deficiency of assured energy sources is the single surest threat... to our security and to that of our allies."
Republican Groups agree with Democratic Groups.
So the question is...why haven't these past and current Presidents as well as the past and current Congress members actually done anything? We are talking about some of the same problems we knew were coming in 1977 and there has yet to have been a solution from either party...
That is without even addressing the irony in Obama saying something similar to what President Bush said...
3 comments:
You actually raise a good point here... it's been a long time. Presidents and candidates of the past say what is politically convenient just so that they may get elected. However, if we look at our situation today, the need for energy independence is dire. In this respect, President Bush and Sen. Obama are right, as is T. Boone Pickens, though natural gas is not the solution.
This country must become energy indepedent in order to succeed, and the answer lies in the oil companies investing in renewable energy, expanding refinary capacity, and least importantly, finding new sources of oil within our own borders. The issue is not actual supply, it is actual refining. I agree with the democrats that these windfall profits are outrageous, particularly when you consider the amount of reinvestment from the companies that benefit. They invest nothing in comparison. It's no wonder that the American speculators have raised our gas prices so high, without regard to reality. Gas should be around $2.00 a gallon, but the speculators chose to create a bubble, similar to the tech bubble of the late 90's. Soon it will be over. All it will take is an internationally respected President like Barack Obama.
Similarly, in 1993, President Clinton actually balanced the budget, which led to 7 years of peace and prosperity. So though goes your theory, Lisa, that the President has no impact on the economy. That and he also appoints the FED chairman. You should be not so quick to dismiss their economic plans. The President has great influence over the economy.
Kurt
Kurt, I'd never assume I knew more about the law than you do. Almost every economic expert I've spoken to or have read has stated the President has no real impact on the economy beyond making appointments to the Federal Reserve. That Congress has more impact than the President as well.
As you pointed out with your example, who really passed a balance budget? Congress...
I believe this is a carry over from our monarchy days where we want to have "one" person be totally responsible. Yet, that's not the way our government is supposed to be created.
Considering this has been a problem since before 1977, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that Obama alone can solve this. The reason it has not been solved is that Congress has done nothing both under a Republican and a Democratic majority. Same with health care, it's been an issue since the 70's with campaign after campaign making promises to get elected that the American people are evidently naive enough to continue to believe that "this time" it will be different.
My position? Unless there is a major change in Congress, eliminating all of those from both parties who have become "part of the problem" instead of "part of the solution" it won't matter who we elect as president. Obama may get more cooperation from a bit higher number but most of those currently in Congress right now, have not and are not doing anything to solve these long term problems.
Lisa,
Sorry for the delayed response, I've been out of town. With regard to your position that the president has no economic influence, I must respectfully disagree. We're in a time now where the next president will likely be Barack Obama, unless of course he screws it up. You've suggested that the President can do nothing with regard to the economy. I don't think that's true when the Presidency, the house, and the senate are all controlled by the same party. Particularly when the senate, house, and president have the power to balance the budget like Bill Clinton did in 1993. You are correct that the president can't do it alone, but he or she has great influence.
In fact, I would contend that the economy is based entirely on popular opinion. Either you want to spend money or you don't. I would contend that things are tough in Toledo right now, and pretty much everywhere else. But we have the natural resources to do better. There is no legitimate reason for this area to be declining. Unless of course you wish it to. And the voters continue to vote for the past, not the future. That's a bit of a problem if you ask me.
Kurt
Post a Comment