and a civil action (BP is responsible) is somehow escaping you today?
When the oil spill in the Gulf first happened, I gave Obama a pass since it was obviously the fault of BP, or Haliburton, or TransOcean, or all of the above. But this thing has been gushing for days now, and still nothing's been done about it. Does Obama deserve some blame at this point for not doing more about this? What do you think should be done?
Has no control over the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.
No, he doesn't deserve blame.
But, for purely strategic reasons, he should be blamed anyway.
Hell, there were people that blamed President Bush for everything from bad weather to the failures of the BCS. lol
As much as I would love to see President Obama squirm and watch his idiot press secretary try to talk around this fiasco, he cannot be blamed for the oil spill.
-- Modified on 5/24/2010 12:14:01 PM
-- Modified on 5/24/2010 12:14:38 PM
Until we, as tax payers, are willing to pay the taxes that would be required in the research, development, and implementation of the technologies to stop similar oil leaks, and are dependent on the oil companies, and their subcontractors to do so, no president is to blame. I've worked in high tech science and engineering and learned that some types of activities are even too expensive for the federal government to research and develop unless it can be used for military purposes. And, the same scientists and engineers who work in these activities, researching, developing and implementing the technologies, move around in their careers from working for a company to working for the government, and back again, or vice versa, because there are just to few people trained well enough to do the work.
Beside, even if President Obama requested Congress to pass laws to better enforce the laws regulating the prevention of such spills, I doubt if he could get Congress to go along with it. The best he can do is oversee the regulators to make certain they're doing their jobs, which costs more money, which has to come from somewhere.
I think we’ll find a series of failures both electromechanical and human combined (or rather sequenced) to cause this. Were the human errors actually negligence? Who knows? Were the device failures preventable? No, but they were most certainly detectable. Redundant systems only work when the redundant portions that fail are detected and repaired, not left in a state of disrepair. Sufficient technology exists, but it needs to be applied and maintained by people.
You and Coast Guard Commandant Allen are correct that BP should remain in in the lead.
As a person who does not like Obama, I give him very little blame.
Obviously, he has no blame for the incident. It was an accident. That stuff happens. If we get a new President or if we nationalize the oil companies, or if we do anything, there will still be accidents.
When they happen you try and fix it, make it easier to deal with in the future, find out what when wrong, try to prevent it, and pay for the damage.
As to his slow response, when it first happened, it was not possible to know the extent. I don't expect him to jump in full bore for everything that happens. He should be having people check it out, advise, and try to deal with the people helping mitigate the consequences.
When the situation became clear, he started getting more involved. Until it is clear it requires the direction from the top, he has Korea, Iran, and other things.
The only thing I don't like about his actions are his attempts to demonize BP before it is known what happened. I remember someone here defending his use of "alleged" referring to the Christmas Panty Bomber, on the rationale that you don't want to pollute the jury pool in future litigation.
Ooopsie, Oooppsie, Ooopsie. The rhetoric from the Oval Office and press sure as hell poluted any jury pool that may be called on this.
Finally, one reason why I want a small government is the problem in dealing with disaster is that battleships are hard to turn around. Whether it is Katrina or BP, the bigger the government, the more discussions there are between more agencies who have jurisdiction and their own rules and regulations.
In summary, I don't care for the guy, but I don't think there is much blame there.
and a civil action (BP is responsible) is somehow escaping you today?
First, people are already talking about criminal actions,and that could be possible. Hey, they charged AIG, before it was dismissed.
If there are criminal charges filed, are you going to go "mea culpa?" No.
Are you ruling out criminal charges for anything? You can't, since you don't know what happened.
Second, a civil defendant has a right to an untainted jury. Granted, it isn't a criminal trial right, but there is a due process right re being deprived of property. Tainted juries could be a problem.
Anyway, there used to be a time when politicians would not comment on litigation. That is long gone on both sides, regrettably.
However, that still doesn't make it right.
are filed, then you will see the President refer to BP as the alleged defendant, or the suspect.
2. I don't remember any criminal charges being filed against AIG, or its top execs. My memory is they decided not to file criminal charges. I think you are wrong about that but please educate me with a link if it is so.
3. Neither the media nor politicians customarily use "alleged" when describing parties to a civil suit. The reason this is done in criminal cases is bc of the presumption of innocence that attaches to the jury in a criminal case. While technically the presumption applies only to the jury, it has become customary in our society to afford that custom to a criminal defendant in the media.
But I agree with you - the heavy handed comments about BP were inappropriate.
-- Modified on 5/24/2010 6:40:01 PM
1. I just saw and article that charges were dropped.
2. The media uses "alleged" a lot. Google it. Google "alleged" and "Times Square." It will be in the hundreds of thousands. Then look at the first 20 results. Then look at your local newspaper for a month.
3. You are one of the tiny number of people I have heard correctly comment that the presumption of innocence is a judicial thing and that it is for trial. Yes. Yes. Yes. Congrats. I don't have to go through life saying "Eichman, the alleged mastermind of ...."
True he never had a trial, and Al Capone is not the alleged gangster.
You are right on something that drives me bongos about the media. Count the "alleged Times Square Bomber."
is contrary to common sense.
When a person is arrested and then indicted for a crime, this usually means that:
a. a professional LE officer has determined that there is probable cause to believe he has committed a crime;
b. a neutral magistrate reviewing the arrest warrant has likewise concluded that probable cause supports the warrant; and
c. the prosecutor or grand jury has determined there is probable cause for prosecution and usually that he believes the charges can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
So it is logically absurd to presume innocence if this is all you know about the case. You should presume guilt like that horrid Nancy Grace.
Speaking of "alleged," during the O.J. Simpson trial, one of the defense attorneys referred to glove as "the alleged glove." No. It was a glove, not a hat. It may have been "allegedly found." But it sure looked like a glove.
Also, in the news, I have seen people referred to as "the alleged victim." Hint to the L.A. Times and CBS. When someone has four bullets in his head and his hands are tied behind his back, he is the victim.
I agree that a smaller government is desirable.
Unfortunately, as long as we have gigantic corporations capable of wielding enormous power in our socioeconomic system, we also must find ways to live with a gigantic government which is the only way we can possibly counter corporate power. This is something the naive libertarians don't understand.
That's exactly why corporations work so fucking hard to 'capture' government and why people should be concerned about preventing this. Corporations have plenty of power without adding the power of government to it.
Capitalism is predicated on the assumption that no firm will be able to affect price (or quality, consumer preference, etc). Once one firm is able to do so, then the free market is no longer free and corporate power must be countered by the power of some other organization, unless one believes that the profit motive is the best way to address ALL problems and issues. That means government must be large enough and powerful enough to provide an effective counter.
Damn. Them's a lot of words. I feel like JohnGalt
want to dismantle the FDA, SEC, FEMA, DOJ, FTC or other regulatory or emergency preparedness agencies. The objective is for them to be competent in doing their work, and efficient with the money they are allocated. When the majority of people talk about a smaller government, they are primarily referring to the budget and deficits at the federal, state and local levels. We can't sustain the actions of the past 2 years. Yes the WW's of the world will go back to Reagan, Bush, but when you have a President add $3T in just 2 years, and $1T per year until 2020, you can see where the majority of Americans are just pissed off. It's one thing for Bush to run a deficit at 3% of GDP, it's another for Obama to run a deficit at 10%. We ain't fucking Greece.
There are a number of federal departments that can be dismantled, and I doubt we would see any significant change in the overall operation of the federal government. We could probably reduce each remaining dept by 10-15% and not see any decrease in operational effectiveness. But at the end of the day, a smaller government means reining in entitlement programs, which consumes 2/3 of our budget. If Europe, that social welfare state that liberals in this country absolutely adore can publicly announce draconian budget reductions in their cradle to grave support, then why can't we.
Personally, I would opt for a cap of a federal budget not to exceed to 20% of GDP. At a current GDP of $14T, the federal govt gets $2.8T. As the GDP grows, then so does the federal govt. No more no less.
Is there such an animal?????
Unfortunately, bureaucratic inefficiency is an artifact of an organization's size. GM and Chrysler are good examples. Even though they were much smaller than the federal government, they experienced inefficiencies at least as detrimental as those we find in government.
As I said before, if we reduce the size of corporations (thus limiting the power of any single corporation to exempt itself from the discipline of the market) then we can also reduce the size of government. Big Gubmint is a response to Big Bidness.
As for the cap idea, what about wartime? Are we at war now? If so, haven't we been at war constantly since Korea?
The only real solution to any systemic problem faced by a democratic political/economic system is a better educated and dedicated ciitizenry. Unfortunately, we seem to be headed in the opposite direction, especially since the Reagan admin began the conservative assault on public education.
First, public unions corrupt more than corporations. Look at CA. The best line I heard about Greece was someone saying it was not an "anti-govt" riot. It was the govt rioting, in that most rioters were public civil servants, acting un-civilly.
That said, the problem with "big" government is when you have commissions and angencies that do nothing, like commissions on self-esteem and similar things.
Second, multiple agencies and commissions with overlapping jurisdiction generate a geometrically increasing amount of paper. That is one problem with Obama care, the creation of hundreds of new agencies that will eventually decide when procedure X is called from. (They can't pay for everything, which everyone admits. That means someone has to decide what is mandated.)
IOW, not very much. Could he have done a better job? perhaps. Does he bear any real blame for what happened? No.
I think you will find that unlike the rabid left, the conservatives as not as quick to blame Obama, no matter how much we despise him, for things that aren't really his fault.
There is more than enough blame to go around, but to blame the POTUS for something like this would only be playing politics.
I still think he could've covered himself in cotton and gone diving. For that matter, if he brought Reid & Pelosi, I'm sure the situation would improve.
Either that, or they'd be slimier than they are presently.
How could any of that bunch possibly be any slimier than they already are??? lol
and what I mean his continual anti-business rhetoric, An example is the administration's "boot heel response". Was that really necessary? He could accomplish a helluva lot more behind the scenes. Look, I'm not supporting BP, Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron, or any other company directly involved in this accident. These companies need to "man up" and do the right thing. Our economy is close to tanking again. Some of it is out of his control as it relates to Europe. What Obama can do is knock off the continual attacks on just about every industry, and for once act as a positive influence, and use that same influence to control his congressional left wing loons. The market is the best predictor of the future, and what we are seeing again and again is uncertainty, draconian regulation, onerous tax increases, and just a plain disdain for corporate America.
The company I work for just put on hold the hiring of 5,000 employees due to the above. I expect other companies to do the same thing. Obama is committing political suicide for being a stubborn left wing prick. I can sit here and short the market, make money, and wait in anticipation for the November elections, but even I find that distasteful as I see one person who can act as a responsible leader by being both tough and pragmatic during this eco tradegy.
''If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand."
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html
You gotta wonder if we had been able to contain the oil and burn it off like that early on could we have stopped a lot from getting a shore .
And when Kethie O., now being critical of Obama with a day log Obama has trouble 
-- Modified on 5/24/2010 10:44:59 PM
then by necessity, you also need to blame Bush and Clinton.
It's no different than blaming Bush for 9-11, the problems in both cases started well before each one of them took office. I seriously doubt the fire booms just got up and walked away in 2008 when Obama was elected.
every bad thing that happens. Like blaming them for it will make the problem go away.
Everything is political these days. Makes me sick to my stomach.
I do not blame Obama for the spill but his administration was responsible for keeping inventory current.
We need to do what they say Canada does and drill a relief well at the same time an exploration well is done so you can have it to shut off.
Hold on 5,000 employees? Little bloating may be? Companies are not always the best predictor, Financial Crisis proved that they are not.
American business does know how to compete with regulations in place, they do all over the world. Some, just don't like domestic regulation so, they can stash money overseas and evade taxes.
I work for a U.S. hi-tech company with over 100K employees, so an increase in 5K employees is really not that significant. I didn't say that companies are the best predictor. I said the market is the best predictor. And what is the market telling you?
Companies deal with regulation and taxes in every country that work in. There just needs to be a balance in the amount and impact of regulation and taxes. If one country has onerous regulations and taxes, then a company will scale down its presence. It's as simple as that.
Let me give you a small, yet very current example, and this example is not even a U.S. one. Australia is imposing a 40% windfall profit tax on Australia miners, i.e. Rio Tinto, BHP, and other miners. What do you think Rio and BHP will do? If you say they will scale down their Australian mining presence, you would be accurate. As a result, tax revenue would actually drop, and unemployment would rise. This anti-business attitude exists in the U.S. Don't you remember the effort to tax oil companies on windfall profits when oil was at $150?
The objective is to create a balance between free enterprise and regulation/taxes. Right now the pendulum is swinging toward regulation and taxes, and as a result companies will move operations and employment. Companies go where their money is treated the best. It's as simple as that.
It certainly didnot help us get out of the energy crisis we were in then, nor will it do so now.
teams in the playoffs, and suggest that Lebron would be a good fit in Chicago. If I was David Stern, I'd hit Obama with a $100K fine for tampering. How different is that from what Mark Cuban said? Wouldn't that be funny. Now if only Obama can be as nice to business as he is to the NBA, which I might add is a cartel, maybe our economy has a small chance of surviving.
Give the guy a break. He took a few minutes to "forget" about his troubles and make a comment about sports, something all of us sports fans do on a daily basis.
He's got a 24-hour, 7-day-a week, 365-days-a-year job so I'll be more than happy to give him a moment or two to talk about one of his favorite teams.
I'd rather have him talking about looking for a new job come January, 2013 but that is only wishful thinking . . . . . . . .
At the moment Rio Tinto and BHP can't do crap. Chinese companies will take their place so, jury is out. 100k employees and adding 5k is big deal because I also work for a company with ~300k employees world wide and high-tech.
Don't believe there is anti business movement in the US. As a matter fact, US one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. I don't see companies from Western Europe closing business in Germany, France, and UK and moving here, do you?
Markets have proven to be not such a good predictor. In the last decade and longer, the markets were purely arbitrage, Goldman Sachs and the like comes to mind. An arbitrage based market does not promote business or increase productivity, they merely bet on someone not able to pay their bills and go under.
Oil being at $150 is also due to arbitrage. I am not against the market or against arbitrage as long as arbitrage is done by those who have skin in the game. Anyone betting commodities must use the commodity or take delivery and once upon a time it used to be that way. Today, it is just manipulation by financial institutions, that I am against.
the threat and promise of an increase in them, but more precisely uncertainty of where the increases will end. As you say, investment will always go where it is treated best or has the higher return. But nothing will momentarily shrivel investment more than uncertainty about the future.
Obama’s lapses in responsibility have shown up in his inability or desire thus far to cut the federal red tape that is interfering with others to do the right thing. Two major examples recently in the headlines are 1) the EPA interfering with dispersant application and 2) the Army Corps of Engineers not issuing permits to the state for building temporary dams and levees.
He should only be criticized for not getting involved sooner. It was obvious as soon as it happened that this was a major deal and he didn't react. He's so far in over his head, he probably just didn't know what to do.
BP said it was spilling only 5000 gallons a day. The same people saying Government should have gotten involved sooner would crying Government stepping on private business, government take over and socialism. Heard that song before.
Obviously, GWBush deserves the blame. Obama has a four year grace period for which he can blame Bush.
Unless someone wants to blame Reagan. Then there is no time frame.
. . . except that he's president and it happened on his watch. Does the US government have better technology and resources available to stop the gusher? Hasn't the clarion call from the right been to leave business alone and let them do what they do without interference? Wouldn't the federal government stepping in and taking responsibility be another government bailout that our eminent teabaggers despise?
I was never one to believe that large corporations do anything in the public interest without coercion, but I was surprised that no one who engages in deep water drilling seems to have contingency plans for worst case scenarios. In my naivete, I ASSUMED that anyone who drilled for oil at least had a meeting where the question was asked, "What do we do if our procedures fail?"
-- Modified on 5/25/2010 8:52:54 PM
How and why?
What would you have done rationally, I mean?
well, all the dems are showing weak leadership. Bobby J. is trying to build the artifical islands to keep the oil from hitting the wetlands and is generally 100% occupied with this mess (of course he is gov of la). And the dems are criticizing Bobby J. The get up and go gov is the new target for the dirty rotten dems.
Obama just comes across as if it's an annoyance and that he can't be bothered with it. He just blaming BP. Obama is a narcissistic asshole.
''He blew it. Obama faces a meltdown akin to the unraveling of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A press conference and a visit to the region are simply too little too late. It doesn't matter whether government could do any better than the oil companies. The political fallout has taken hold. Obama failed to manage a massive crisis. There's no fixing this failure. His only hope now is changing the subject. Good Luck.''
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2010/05/obamas-katrina.html
Wow ,when you got Obama cheerleader Craig Crawford slamming Obama it ain't good news for the President !
And I don't get why Obama does not take the advice of that retired Shell oil executive and set up a flotilla of tankers to suck the oil up like the Saudis did with their big spill in the 90's .
-- Modified on 5/26/2010 11:56:31 PM
The Obama administration's response is "dysfunctional, there's no chain of command, no one's in charge," says Parish President Billy Nungesser in Plaquemines, La.
Obama '' And I actually visited the Republican Caucus today, and it was a very warm and cuddly meeting''.
Pathetic had to take a swipe because they get under his skin , Obama cannot stay above the frey and he should not be at a fund raiser in San Francisco while the poor shrimpers cannot even get approval from the EPA for building berms.
The "political stupidity is unbelievable," Democratic strategist James Carville said on "Good Morning America" today. "The president doesn't get down here in the middle of this. ... I have no idea of why they didn't seize this thing.''
-- Modified on 5/27/2010 2:52:57 AM
"Never let a crisis go to waste." He was talking about the 2008 financial crisis, but it shows their mindset.
Technically there is someone in charge, Admiral Thad Allen, ex Coast Guard Commandant (as of this week). He is now the Incident Commander. In Federal speak this is usually the most senior person on sight according to the rules of the ICS (Incident Command System). It does not even need to be a Federal person, but it's usually the person with the most ICS training or experience.
Even so the admiral is not in charge of everything. Federal red tape always abounds. In your example it is actually the Army Corps of Engineers that are still doing their impact study about the berms, although I'm sure the EPA has their noses in their as well. Only someone like the POTUS can issue orders for his various departments to get down off their high horse and snap to.
At the very least, Obama was trying to distance himself from this while attempting to give the impression he was going to be heavy handed in dealing with the evil BP. Bottom line, he didn't know what to do, no one really knew exactly. But rather than at least give the impression he was a partner in this he chose to be the antagonist.
-- Modified on 5/27/2010 9:25:17 AM
the only difference is he has had a hell of a lot longer to address the issue the GWB, and yet he still failed.