Obama '08?

@plainoldme,

The defects that led to the explosion of the oil rig in this case have much more to do with the lack of redundancy in the method BP chose to use and to the other shortcuts they took in verifying the efficicacy of previous steps they had taken before proceeding, than any inherent defects in the rig itself.

There are very good models of joint regulation and oversight out there. The nuclear power industry has two (the NRC and the industry group, INPO). None involve any political scientists or fishermen.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The defects that led to the explosion of the oil rig in this case have much more to do with the lack of redundancy in the method BP chose to use and to the other shortcuts they took in verifying the efficicacy of previous steps they had taken before proceeding, than any inherent defects in the rig itself

Super, but the BOP WAS defective, and BP knew it was defective. It was defective the day they Transocean installed it with one set of rams being testers and not the actual rams, and it was even more defective days before the blowout when it was known that the BOP had a hydraulic leak. It was also defective because a battery was dead, and while we don't know that BP knows this it does not matter, not checking the battery is just as bad as knowing it was bad and not fixing it...batteries need to be checked, everyone knows this.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gulf Oil Spill: Is There Really A Mystery to the Obama Administration's Response?
...
We are witnessing the increasing breadth and depth of the disaster caused by the explosion of a BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. As this tragedy continues to unfold, millions of Americans are asking themselves "why is the Obama administration dragging its heels in getting the clean-up efforts moving?"

Mr. President, you may not be able to cap that well singlehandedly, or suck up the guck with a straw, but please tell us why your administration appears to be doing its level best to destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families?

We all know he was aware of the size of the disaster very early on, but made minimal effort to convey this or respond to it appropriately. We all know that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal begged for three to five million feet of boom less than one week after the explosion and that he has only received about 800,000 feet as of the last week. We all know that President Obama is also Commander in Chief Obama who has access to the vast resources of the military, including the National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers (pronounced "core," Mr. President, not "corpse," as in the 11 dead human beings in the oil rig explosion).

Why, indeed? Could this tragic accident be just the crisis they need to try and ram another piece of horrible legislation down our throats? If the Obama administration can pull it off, the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2010" (S.B. 1733) will be the largest tax increase in American history at a time when the unemployment rate stands at 10.2%

And to top it off, last week Senator Mitch McConnell said from the floor of the Senate that BP lobbyists played a significant part in writing Cap-n-Trade bill now before them! We know Obama has no problem swimming with corporations if it furthers his ideologically driven agenda, contrary to his populist rhetoric.
...

Cap-n-Trade Patent for a Cap and Trade System (You won't believe the lead name on the patent!)

A Bipartisan Coalition Against the EPA (at last, something positive)

We know there are a number of solutions to cleaning up the oil spill and the government seems inept at employing any of them. Here are a couple solutions that are both cost effective and efficient.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4166581/huckabees-word-424#/v/4238785/unusual-gulf-cleanup-proposal/?playlist_id=87485

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4166581/huckabees-word-424#/v/4238786/bright-mind-tries-to-solve-oil-spill/?playlist_id=87485

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're a sad ******* person, John.

Cycloptichorn

No, I'm a quite happy ******* person, Gregor.

I wasn't discussing your internal state, John, but instead what the rest of humanity must feel, about the fact that we have Jackals who walk around and call themselves people.

Nobody gives a **** whether you feel happy...

Cycloptichorn

Not true Gregor. I know quite a number of people, including me of course, who care whether or not I feel happy.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're a sad ******* person, John.

Cycloptichorn

No, I'm a quite happy ******* person, Gregor.

I wasn't discussing your internal state, John, but instead what the rest of humanity must feel, about the fact that we have Jackals who walk around and call themselves people.

Nobody gives a **** whether you feel happy...

Cycloptichorn

Not true Gregor. I know quite a number of people, including me of course, who care whether or not I feel happy.

Yeah, jackals do tend to run in packs. Laughing all together.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You're thinking closer to home with your metaphor - hyenas are the ones that "laugh."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

By the way,

I understand that you have long-standing narratives ready to go regarding the inability of Democrats or Europeans to govern properly, but your accounts would be more credible if they were backed up by, yaknow, facts. We've been over this before. To wit:

Quote:

No mention is made of the fact that he appointed the now departed head of the MMS bureaucracy, or that his administration turned down very early offers from the Netherlands & Norway of skimming ships & rigs that could have significantly reduced the volume of the contamination

This is untrue. From the Washington Post:

Quote:

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.

It's really, really dangerous (for your argument) for you to post rumors and allegations you've read on right-wing sites, George, without first fact-checking them. You are an intelligent guy and I respect your viewpoint, even when I disagree with it; but don't let your ideology start to drive your narrative.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Yes, Palin has the relevant experience that Obama lacks.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You didn't read what I wrote very carefully. The acceptance came rather late in the recovery, several weeks after the offers were made and after an earlier rejection & associated adverse press reports. Moreover, the Interior Department blessed the ill advised (in my opinion) widespread use by BP of surfactants to break up agglomerations of petroleum to speed their chemical breakdown by natural action. This would have been the appropriate response for a smaller petroleum release, but for the major release we are experiencing it has made the large scale skimming of surface petroleum less effective. In short they, in a somewhat natural reaction, made an implicit bet that the release would be much smaller than it has turned out and did so in circumstances that suggested it would have been far wiser to bet on a large release to limit the worst case.

Merely finding a reference on the web does not constitute understanding.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

George,

I honestly believe that you guys would have damned Obama no matter what he did on this issue - this is to say, if he had ordered a much more aggressive response right off the bat, you and others would have beat him up just as much for 'taking control of private industry' in the same way that you have done so in other interventions.

So when you say 'the Government should have been much more involved earlier,' I'm tempted to point out that hindsight makes this much clearer then it was at the time. As someone who has ran large enterprises, I'm sure you are well aware that after situations have happened, there is never a shortage of people who point out the things that could have done better.

In retrospect, it's easy to say that the government should have immediately discounted BP's estimates regarding the rate of the flow and the amount of oil escaping. You are correct that this was an error on Obama's part and on the part of the government.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George,

I honestly believe that you guys would have damned Obama no matter what he did on this issue - this is to say, if he had ordered a much more aggressive response right off the bat, you and others would have beat him up just as much for 'taking control of private industry' in the same way that you have done so in other interventions.

So when you say 'the Government should have been much more involved earlier,' I'm tempted to point out that hindsight makes this much clearer then it was at the time. As someone who has ran large enterprises, I'm sure you are well aware that after situations have happened, there is never a shortage of people who point out the things that could have done better.

In retrospect, it's easy to say that the government should have immediately discounted BP's estimates regarding the rate of the flow and the amount of oil escaping. You are correct that this was an error on Obama's part and on the part of the government.

Cycloptichorn

You might not be familiar with this popular concept from the last quarter of the 20th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

No, If you will again read carefully, I wrote that their initial reraction was "natural" - a common reaction to disasters involves hoping, sometimes against the evidence that the outcome will be less than what one fears. I suspect this influenced both the BP folks and the government overseers. However, the government's real role in this or any disaster is to limit the worst case, and that is precisely what they failed to do.

The fact is I have been fairly restrained in my criticisms of our current president. I certainly voiced my suspicions and preferences during the campaign ... just as you did. I also voiced my opposition to both the overinflated stimulus and the health care legislation, in debates in which all involved were expressing opinions. This is one of my very few general criticisms of his leadership and (probably) his character. In fact, I have held out some hope that, despite my personal opposition to some of the policies he advocates, he will do us some good in other areas. It is only recently that I have given up on even that and concluded that he is an inept opportunist, elevated by those who saw him as the perfect political foil, to a level beyond his abilities and experience.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is only recently that I have given up on even that and concluded that he is an inept opportunist, elevated by those who saw him as the perfect political foil, to a level beyond his abilities and experience.

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with this assessment, and what more, that he has already been quite successful in passing the sorts of policies that need to be passed. And I believe he will continue to do this for several years to come, and into another term, because - let's face it - the Republican party is a joke right now and you have no leadership who can even begin to effectively challenge the man for the top spot.

The Stimulus was too small - not too big. A fine example of the differences of philosophy that we have.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

That is entirely consistent with the point of view you have expressed previously. I accept it but, as you know, strongly disagree. I believe you should, as you have suggested to me, stay tuned and process other evidence as it unfolds. I have done so and have only recently come to the opinion I gave above.

I recall you earlier asserted that, once the health care legislation was passed, rapidly growing public support for it would drown out the voices that opposed it. That has not occurred so far. Indeed there is evidence that public approval of it has shrunk since its passage. In addition most indicators also suggest that public concerns about our fast growing deficit have eclipsed those favoring more government support of health care. Certainly the continuing Euro Zone financial crisis is adding to this process, as the "European Model" of social welfare that was held up to us as appropriate is revealing itself to be financially unsustainable.

There is also recent news suggesting that the Democrtat Congress is reluctant to extend the stimulus benefits that the President requested, citing greater concerns about the deficit. This doesn't sound like the scernario you forecasted.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

This is what I hate about our politics. The partisenship on both sides is disgusting. This exchange and admission of similar behaviors when the other party is in charge is exactly why problems in our country will not get fixed. I have no respect for either position.

Why can't you both either agree that either

a) Bush ducked up the Katrina response AND Obama has ducked up the BP response

OR

b) Bush did the best he could have done AND Obama is doing the best he can do. And both are/did agonize over each tragedy.

maporsche, I have reviewed the last few pages and this post of yours caught my attention, because I believe there is a real difference between the two parties, and that management approach and philosophy do matter. In other words, it is not a simple matter of partisanship. Partisanship simply indicates there is a disagreement in philosophy of governing and approach to problems. Your post seems to imply that both parties are equally wrong, but I think you are dead wrong on this point. I think that is a copout on your part, and a lack of understanding that there is a right way and a wrong way to view issues and solve problems, and that one party has a better approach than the other. I do believe Bush has much more management ability than Obama, especially in regard to industrial, non-political issues

maporsche, it goes back to basic political philosophy, one party believes in big government and that big government can bring about very ideal or almost utopian like circumstances, and that party also is biased against the abilities of the free market and of businesses and people to solve problems. Because of those two very different philosophies, I think Bush was wrongly accused of not doing enough during Katrina. Liberals have this mistaken idea that big government, namely the president and FEMA were responsible for not preventing the disaster and evacuating the people, but in fact it was the mayor and governor of Louisiana that had that responsibility to have a plan in place and to execute it in a timely manner, which they failed to do. The blame falls directly in their court. In contrast, in fact the oil drilling was I believe on federal leases which are issued by the Department of Interior, is that not right? In that case, it seems to me the responsibility of that department to make sure the drilling operations are conducted according to certain guidelines to protect against such mishaps, and if one occurs contrary to the guidelines, then it would be the company's responsibility to have a backup plan in place and to execute it. It also occurs to me that the Department of Interior, namely the head Salazar, should have immediately set up a communications and disaster headquarters in the area down there to help in any way necessary to insure the proper technology is being applied by the company doing the drilling, and also to help the efforts in any way possible. Salazar should have been coordinating and reporting to Obama during all of this time, and if he wasn't up to the job, he should not have been appointed to the job in the first place, perhaps we need a new guy to take his place?

It all boils down to which party can problem solve the best, and which party has the most practical approach rather than some utopian lip service that has nothing to do with the problem. I believe the Republicans, although not perfect, have the best expertise, they believe in who has the best answers, and they have the best and most realistic approaches to solving problems. And look, some problems are not easy, hurricanes cannot be prevented, nor can all accidents be prevented from happening with industrial operations such as drilling in deep water. Finally, I tend to agree with Palin, that drilling in ANWR is probably a safer and more trouble free area to develop oil reserves than in very deep water in the gulf, and if we had been allowed to drill more in Alaska first, perhaps this would not have happened.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

That is entirely consistent with the point of view you have expressed previously. I accept it but, as you know, strongly disagree. I believe you should, as you have suggested to me, stay tuned and process other evidence as it unfolds. I have done so and have only recently come to the opinion I gave above.

I recall you earlier asserted that, once the health care legislation was passed, rapidly growing public support for it would drown out the voices that opposed it. That has not occurred so far. Indeed there is evidence that public approval of it has shrunk since its passage. In addition most indicators also suggest that public concerns about our fast growing deficit have eclipsed those favoring more government support of health care. Certainly the continuing Euro Zone financial crisis is adding to this process, as the "European Model" of social welfare that was held up to us as appropriate is revealing itself to be financially unsustainable.

There is also recent news suggesting that the Democrtat Congress is reluctant to extend the stimulus benefits that the President requested, citing greater concerns about the deficit. This doesn't sound like the scernario you forecasted.

I will say that the Republicans have done a great job with their newfound 'deficit hawk' mode, that they strangely morphed into the instant the Dems took power. Election-year politics have indeed made it difficult for the Dems to pass many of the programs that they would like. So I would say congrats to the Republicans for playing the political game well.

A question, though: when you say 'most indicators also suggest that public concerns about our fast growing deficit have eclipsed those favoring more government support of health care,' which indicators are you referring to?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I will say that the Republicans have done a great job with their newfound 'deficit hawk' mode, that they strangely morphed into the instant the Dems took power. Election-year politics have indeed made it difficult for the Dems to pass many of the programs that they would like. So I would say congrats to the Republicans for playing the political game well.

The previous Republican record was mixed. Bush did attempt a structural reform of Social Security that might have addressed our most fundamental issue, but got only the most shrill opposition - and no counter proposals - from Democrats. He then went on to add a whole new entitlement ijn drug benefits for Medicare that foolishly contradicted his earlier action. However in terms of both absolute and percentage additions to our deficit and debt the current administration has the previous one beat by a mile - and they're not done yet. Cap & Trade, if passed could cripple the economy.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A question, though: when you say 'most indicators also suggest that public concerns about our fast growing deficit have eclipsed those favoring more government support of health care,' which indicators are you referring to?

Cycloptichorn

Mostly poll data that suggests the public sees the growing deficit as a greater concern than health care, and other data that suggests lower levels of support for the health care legislation now than when it was enacted.

5 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, in my opinion Bush screwed up royally by initiating the Prescription Drug Plan, and other federal power growing programs like No Child Left Behind. What we need is a true conservative along with a conservative Congress that will actually slash government expenditures and unneeded programs. We need to recognize that we the people at the local and state government level need to take responsibility for most of our own government, education being one biggee. For example, lets face it, we became the greatest and most technologically advanced nation on earth without the federal government running education and giving away free breakfasts and lunches to millions of kids in the country. We need to once again teach and emphasize citizenship and what it requires, along with freedom and liberty and what we need to do to maintain it and deserve it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie, I appreciate your responses to my posts. I can't respond now, but I will soon.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Bush did attempt a structural reform of Social Security that might have addressed our most fundamental issue, but got only the most shrill opposition - and no counter proposals - from Democrats. He then went on to add a whole new entitlement jn drug benefits for Medicare that foolishly contradicted his earlier action.

Seeing as Medicare part D was passed in 2003 and the push to reform Social Security took place in 2005, I think you have your timeline backward on this one.

I would also add that from the Democratic viewpoint, Bush's SS proposals did little to nothing to actually solve the problems of the program's funding, and did a lot to enrichen Republican donors in the financial industry. There was no real attempt at negotiation on the part of the Republicans in Congress or the President and the move was extremely unpopular nationally, far more so than the current health care legislation.

Quote:

Cap & Trade, if passed could cripple the economy.

Nah, it won't. This is just breathless alarmism from the party who has cried wolf on this issue so many times, it has no effect any longer. Every single regulation proposed by the Dems is guaranteed by the Republicans to 'cripple the economy.'

Quote:

Mostly poll data that suggests the public sees the growing deficit as a greater concern than health care, and other data that suggests lower levels of support for the health care legislation now than when it was enacted.

Which poll data? Can you link to some or describe it?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know