The marketplace is supposed to be free, though, right? I would think Bush would be more in favor of promoting business than manhandling it. That'll be for the next Dem Prez...

Yes, never the twain shall meet between free marketplace and corporate responsibility.

Consumers are the main regulators of industries in the free market, though. If people, who the government is supposed to represent collectivly, aren't concerned enough about the environment to demand those they purchase from change their ways, why should the government?

"responsibility" is a vague term. It isn't so easy once you realize how many people are employed by these industries, and the effect that a small change in operating costs would have on the cost of their product. How would Bush fair if he pushed through punitive changes in how they do their business, and then people couldn't afford the enevitable price hike?

With energy it is double troubling. On the one hand people are demanding Bush do everything he can to make sure people can afford their energy costs. On the other people demand Bush impose standards on the energy companies that would no doubt raise the cost of providing said energy. It isn't as easy as just telling them to be more responsible.

On the other people demand Bush impose standards on the energy companies that would no doubt raise the cost of providing said energy.

Exxon's $36 billion net profit for the year could easily absorb added costs.

So you want to cap profits? They will raise the price to match the profits they expect unless you do. With both sides of the aisle playing patsy to lobbyists from energy companies, do you think there is much of a chance of making that law? Or is it easier to just blame Bush, when in reality it would take a legislative effort that simply wouldn't happen?

Yes, never the twain shall meet between free marketplace and corporate responsibility.

FDR tried that with the National Recovery Act (NRA), remember? He tried to strong arm the industries into setting their own responsibility rules. It worked for awhile, until major companies like Ford decided they would not play along. (Which was a little ironic since old Henry could sometimes be a real corporate socialist) The NRA was already starting to unravel before the Supreme Court shot it down, because the market's own Greed will always win out.

But when the Government regulates/taxes the hell out of a companies here in the US, while the same companies in other countries that are not regulating/taxing, will surely lead to the lose of the regulated US companies.

In your view apparently there is no such thing as excess profits. No, I don't blame Bush: I give him lukewarm praise for at least hoping the profits will be poured back into creating a better equation than profiteering.

Of course there are excess profits. I think they are greedy bastards and I probably wouldn't dodge if they stepped out in front of my car.

On the other hand, I am troubled by a nation that is desperately frightened by the idea of a government that is too powerful, and yet demands that said government reach in and squeeze based upon subjective ideals like what are "excess profits".

You like your idea of excess profits, but what happens when someone with a irrational idea of fairness gets into power? When you set the precedent that the government can regulate the excess cash you make and redirect it to more meaningful social needs, taxation becomes a joke and it pretty much becomes communism. You can't price your product anymore, you can't really do much about the costs of production for fear you'll offend the powers that be.

No, like people who favor prayer in schools, you aren't considering what happens next week when your kid has a hindu teacher. You are smart and honest and fair in my opinion. I wouldn't have to worry much if you were in charge. On the other hand you wouldn't be in charge for more than 8 years, and God only knows the imposition we'd suffer thereafter.

government can regulate the excess cash you make and redirect it to more meaningful social needs, taxation becomes a joke and it pretty much becomes communism.

I know where you're coming from and it is very rational; nevertheless, just as you worry about unfettered government, I worry about corporations who show no reverence to the society in which they profit.

But when the Government regulates/taxes the hell out of a companies here in the US, while the same companies in other countries that are not regulating/taxing, will surely lead to the lose of the regulated US companies.

Yet large corporations are pleading for the government do what other governments do by subsidizing them in health and retirement plans--the main reason for the recent 60,000 layoffs at GM and Ford.

I am glad you said Jawbone.  In the end, unless they see an ROI, they will do nothing.  But remember, their profits, excess or not, will go one of 2 places.  Shareholder dividens, or R&D.  If they are smart, they can see the energy crunch we are in, and will start investing in other sources.  Just remember, they did not get to the position to make $36 billion by being stupid.

Exxon's $36 billion net profit for the year could easily absorb added costs

When all is said and done operationally, Exxon's profits belong to all the stock holders and most stockholders are NOT wealthy. Their average to above Joe's that have a small number of shares, some it might be their only holdings, some it's part of their retirement program.

there is no such thing as excess profits

Not in a capitalistic society driven by supply and demand economics and profits are not controlled, budgets are. That also means one years "excess profits" can easily be used up over the next few years as those same successful operations grow more costly and or markets fluctuate downward.

I worry about corporations who show no reverence to the society in which they profit.

What you're not paying heed to and GWB knows is corporate America takes social responsibility pretty serious. They don't publicize every civic, social and charitable act of benevolence so average Joe can make note. GWB also knows by making a subtle statement that he's seeking help some corporate leaders will come to the plate.

I have often wondered since when is making a lot of money so bad? I mean, isn't that the purpose of every business? I have always said that things are not as valuble as they say but as valueble as people are willing to pay. I know gas is not exactly something we can just go get somewhere else, after all Exxon probaly owns many of the brand name gas stations and some or the nameless or personally owned ones as well. But maybe people should learn to waste less gas. But that's just me.

I don't like the idea of the Gov't trying to control something for our benefit that they are not suppose to, but then those companies try to take advantage of the Gov't not controlling them at the same time. So It's a matter of deciding what would you want more. I personally would rather not have the Gov't involved and find ways to deal with these companies such as not buying their products or in Exxon's case use less fuel as often as possible. It seems like a no win situation to me.

I hope I'm understanding.

GWB also knows by making a subtle statement that he's seeking help some corporate leaders will come to the plate.

Yeah, I'm sure they are impatiently waiting in the on-deck circle.

I have often wondered since when is making a lot of money so bad?

It is when excessively at the expense of the country and its people.