Who Should Have Done What And When?
 

The headline of Saturday's New York Times says, BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, But U.S. Missed Chances to Act. There's a lot of back and forth that's politically-motivated right now, but I'm still left with a basic question.

The Deepwater Horizon rig that sank was one of the furthest off the U.S. coastline, well beyond our international borders. The criticism now is that the federal government didn't act fast enough and relied too heavily on the owner and operator of the rig, Transocean and British Petroleum, to assess the problem and contain the leaking oil. People are saying that the slow response of the government, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, will be a contributing factor to whatever damage ultimately occurs.

So how about this for a question...or questions.

• The Deepwater Horizon rig was privately-owned and operated by foreign companie in non-U.S. waters. Why should the federal or even state governments have gotten involved at all? Isn't this a situation caused by private companies that should be solved by private companies? Do we only rely on the free market when it's convenient?

• If the answer is that both state and federal government agencies should have become involved even earlier than they did, shouldn't it be argued that the governments are just as responsible for damages done to the coastline and the economies of the region damaged by the oil as are Transocean, the owner of the rig, and British Petroleum, who leased and operated it? Shouldn't a court find that when those injured by the oil finally file suit(s), that Transocean and BP as well as both the state and federal governments should be held responsible to pay the costs of the cleanup and any resulting economic damages?

For those who say that the free market should always prevail, that functions beyond national defense and international affairs should not be the role of the federal government, and that the government is already too involved in our daily lives...what are the answers?

We can't have it both ways, can we? Can we expect the government to get involved in private situations some times, but most of the time demand on the free market and the private sector to both create economic growth as well as resolve any problems they may have created by doing so?

Would the Tea Party have an opinion here? If they do, I haven't heard it yet.

Poor attempt
 

Have you forgotten that the US Federal Government should react responsibly and timely to protect the coast and coastal waters of the country from any threat of this magnitude.

Obama was late on this one. BP may or may not be neglegent, we will know if a ligitimate investigation is conducted. It would be fair to wait before condeming the Private Sector which is another Liberal approach.

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;262232]



The Tea Party was not formed to give public policy. It is a protest of the size and scope of government spending. My first and only participation was on April 15,2009.

VK....I was struck by your comment referring to the Tea Party....what were you thinking here..why would you refer to them ?

Thanks

Too Expensive
 

I sure can't see how assigning blame to the companies responsible for the damage currently being created after a fair investigation is conducted is a "Liberal approach". Even after such an investigation is completed, responsibility for the explosion and resulting damages absolutely lies with the owner and operator of the rig. It might be determined that it was an unavoidable accident, sabatoge or even an Act of God, but the responsibility for the accident is crystal clear. Someone has to be responsible and I can't see any other party than the two companies mentioned.

I hadn't forgotten the responsibility of the federal government for coastal security, but that responsibility raises another issue. If it is the responsibility of the federal government to "react responsibly and timely to protect the coast and coastal waters of the country" as you say, that means we need to be prepared to do that against any kind of threat. That means threats ranging from a military threat to weather, rising sea levels causing erosion, one such as we are experiencing along the gulf coast right now, and even others that we haven't thought of yet.

To expect the government to be both manned and equipped to deal with any threat to our coastlines is probably an unrealistic expectation. It would certainly be an expectation which would be extraordinarily expensive. The feds might have been slow to react by a day or so to this threat, but even now we don't have either the hardware or the manpower to deal with this kind of problem. We can try to use military hardware such as deep water submersibiles and military planes to drop chemicals in the oil slick, as well as the knowledge we have of the ocean and the ocean floor. But the government doesn't have the hardware on hand to deal with capping off the leaking well, containing or disbursing the floating oil, or dealing with the damage caused when it hits the shoreline. If you listen closely to the various government representatives, we're doing a lot of talking and advising, but we have neither the capability nor the legal authority to completely take over the response to the threat of the oil leak. Does anyone think that the government should be prepared to deal with any and all such threats?

I doubt that anyone would argue that the government should be prepared and equipped to deal with any threat to our coastlines. If we had such an expectation, the associated cost would certainly seem to work against any argument that federal spending should be minimized.

I will predict one way where the federal government will become more involved as the result of this disaster. The federal regulations for "U.S. flagged" oil rigs have substantially fewer requirements for blowout protection and mediation than rigs in virtually every other part of the world, particularly off the coasts of other developed countries. Why are our regulations so less restrictive than those of other countries? Might it be the effect of lobbyists for big oil on our elected and appointed officials? It's been noted that the safety requirements on foreign rigs add substantially to their cost--costs which owners and operators of rigs authorized by the U.S. Department of the Interior don't have. I'm predicting those regulations will be changed to become as restrictive as those in the rest of the world. I trust no one will argue against that sort of increased government involvement.

Context
 

Bucco and Donna--I referred to the Tea Party only in the context that their platform is for dramatically less government and government spending. That seemed to contrast with expectations that the federal government be prepared and equipped for immediate response to emergencies such as being experienced now on the gulf coast.

I always wonder why the tea party is viewed or presented
 

usually by liberals as the opposition party, usually annointed conservatives or Republicans, when the tea party movement has one of the most bipartisan participations in recent history. I guess that never gets any play because it does not suit the purposes and intents of those who rail about or against anything tea party based.

btk

"Obama was late on this one." i knew it was only a matter of time before someone would blame him for the oil spill and completely ignore the FACTS of this case. To blame him or anyone else for this and not BP is total nonsense.

katrina
 

Are you Liberals now willing to give Bush the same consideration on his response to Katrina as you are to Obama on the oil spill.

Your no spin response would be appeciated.

Why do you Radical Conservatives ask such ridiculous questions?

To Cashman......No.

Yes
 

I won't necessarily own up to being completely liberal, although I lean that way on some social issues.

But to answer your question--yes, I don't think George Bush had much to do with the problems encountered in Katrina, particularly in the early days of the disaster. The rules of the game at the time were that the initial first response was the responsibility of the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana. The feds could not unilaterally deploy their assets until the city and state requested that a federal state of emergency be declared and federal assistance be provided.

Various federal agencies knew what was happening and were waiting for the mayor and governor to request such assistance, but that didn't happen for a couple of days. The federal agencies were hamstrung, waiting for a request for assistance that was too long in coming. So the initial slow response was NOT George Bush's fault.

I'll add that Bush was far from faultless, however. If he made any mistake, it was his attempt to politicize the situation. Remember the speech made at night under the klieg lights in front of Saint Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter? The President made all kinds of promises that ultimately weren't delivered upon...and still haven't been delivered, even under a completely different administration and Congress. If he can be faulted, it's for politicizing a bad situation, but certainly not for what appeared to be a slow initial response.

From NPR one year after those promises you said that he made and used politics...

REMEMBER AS YOU READ THIS WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS...

Progress Report for Jackson Square Promises

Bush's Promise: "Within [a Gulf Opportunity Zone for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama], we should provide immediate incentives for job-creating investment, tax relief for small businesses, incentives to companies that create jobs, and loans and loan guarantees for small businesses, including minority-owned enterprises, to get them up and running again."

Result: Enacted by Congress. Now, nearly $8 billion in tax breaks are available to businesses building or rebuilding in hurricane-struck area.

Bush's Promise: "I propose the creation of Worker Recovery Accounts to help those evacuees who need extra help finding work. Under this plan, the federal government would provide accounts of up to $5,000, which these evacuees could draw upon for job training and education to help them get a good job, and for child care expenses during their job search."

Result: Proposal stalled in Congress.

Affordable Housing

Bush's Promise: "To help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity."

Result: Proposal also stalled in Congress.

Bush's Promise: "I've asked USA Freedom Corps to create an information clearinghouse, available at usafreedomcorps.gov, so that families anywhere in the country can find opportunities to help families in the region, or a school can support a school. And I challenge existing organizations — churches, and Scout troops or labor union locals — to get in touch with their counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana or Alabama, and learn what they can do to help."

Result: The USA Freedom Corps' Web site has served as a clearinghouse, where users can find out where to send money and what volunteer opportunities may be available in various communities.

The nonprofit Foundation Center estimates that foundations and private companies have donated roughly $600 million to Gulf Coast recovery. Other estimates suggest Americans have given an additional several billion dollars.

Those amounts are dwarfed by what the federal government is committing. The Brookings Institution in Washington estimates that Washington has thus far committed $108 billion to recovery from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5738211
I just thought you might want to know all this !!!!

Can't Shift Rrsponsibility
 

Then President Bush shouldn't have promised what he wasn't sure he could deliver. Or he shouldn't have made premature promises for political purposes.

Remember his "victory speech" from the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln eight years ago today? That was an earlier example of the President listening to his political advisors too much and making public pronouncements that were either premature or that he couldn't deliver on.

Having expressed that criticism, Bush wasn't responsible for the slow initial response to Katrina.

Why do you Radical Left Wing Liberals answer questions with questions?

Example of why regulation is a good thing.
 

Other countries insist on safety devices which could have prevented this mess. We can't assume that companies will do the right thing, whether it's banking, oil, car manufacturing, mining, whatever. Government regulation is not "socialism." It protects all of us from the greed of companies whose only focus is the bottom line.

At least President Obama didn't say, "job well done Brownie," amid the devastation of New Orleans. As Americans, perhaps it is time for us to start pulling together to to come up with solutions to fix what needs fixing, rather than pulling apart, and finger pointing. Remember the old saying, "when you point your finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you."

WOW....you really are in that "get Bush" crowd. What a stretch...you KNOW that he made "premature promises for political purposes."....I can only imagine what you think of, although you will NEVER crticize, of our current President and all of his many political promises not kept, NOR PROPOSED while his party controlled congress.

I know..I know...Bush bad...Obama good

Why is there drilling so far off shore and at record breaking depth with new technology? The answer isn't anything new. Government regulations. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy."

Here is an interesting article, like me you may or may not agree with some of the editorial issues in it, but it helps explain the history of government involvement in offshore drilling and how politics has and does play a role.

http://hnn.us/articles/54465.html

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works. Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.

We starting pulling together after 9-11. Guess which party started pulling us apart? You lefties can't just put the nation in constant turmoil for 8 years and then expect everybody to "pull together" because your now in office. YOu guys really have a nerve, Don't Cha?

Of course the Progressives are not going to compare this to their perceived slow "Bush response" to Katrina. In fact, I'm waiting for this oil spill to be attributed to Bush.

Bush flew over the Katrina devastation and was called callous for not meeting the people affected promptly. Obama will fly over this and be called "responsible" for lessening his "footprint" on the ground thereby not disrupting the response to this ecological disaster.

In any disaster that is too big for private interests to handle expeditiously to protect the greatest number of citizens the government agencies we fund for these purposes need to get involved in a timely matter. This did not happen here and it would be nice to know why. Of course, unlike the flogging of President Bush, it won't be attributed to any failure of the Executive Office by the mainstream drive-by media.

We call this revisionist history....Yes the country came together after 9/11 and then the lies started....Yellow Cake in *****, WMD in Iraq ....war protesters being tear gased. And you just point the finger and say "You lefties". We had the country in turmoil for 8 years you guys were in charge...I would use that last term loosely.

Talk about nerve...

Obama's Katrina
 

If this oil spill had occurred under Bush, the headlines would be brutal right now, no? Funny this oil disaster happens a day before earth day.
I'm willing to bet that if Obama was president when Katrina hit, the media would have just claimed it was a natural disaster (it was) and let it go.
Every socialist leader knows what the press can do by printing lies every day. The lamestream media should be prosecuted for what they did to Bush the last 5 years. No matter how bad this incompetent buffoon in the White House screws up, he will be given a free pass by the so-called press. And you know it!!!!

Right on Cologal
 

I wonder how much Donna2 gets paid by Limbaugh & Hannity to perpetuate the lies they tell without any remorse. A closed mind fed only by these wingnuts is the surest road to ruining our democracy. That's why they're called dittoheads. Incapable of intellectual investigation or discourse, it's easier to just regurgitate the sound bites from the wingnut pundits.

Donna2 asked about the tea parties. Well dear, Google "Richard Armey- Tea Party Express" and see who's behind your "grass roots" movement- while there are truly millions who are upset about the state of our government and our treasury and our country- look to see who the elites are, and how much they are paying themselves, to set up a dummy movement.

Also, why are you guys so distraught whenever the fairness doctrine comes up about talk radio, but then scream bloody murder when the networks take a point of view that doesn;t represent your own? Sound like a double standard to me.

Just like Bobby Jindall suddenly calling out all the federal dollars he canget to protect his "state." Seems to me that he's calling for big "socialized" government to save his butt, even though he's criticized all that in the past.

Google Soros and Albore and see what truth you blindly follow.

Liberal talk radio fails every time as nobody likes to listen to lies. We have that on all the major networks and newspapers.
If you want to ruin democracy, then vote democrat in November. Democracy is almost over the cliff. Obama and the Libdems are bringing us to bankruptcy.

You really need to read about facts instead of parroting your lamestream idols.

Why answer the question when you can throw mud?
 

I don't blindly follow anyone. I gave you a source to find out about the Tea Party Express. What would you like to show me about Al Gore or George Soros. I'd happily read responsible criitical journalism.

I know they're not saints and I don't follow any of their movements, ala a "Tea Party Express" (I do support Greenpeace, but I have done that for 35 years-that was long before Al Gore even invented the internet!)

What is it about rightwingers' immaturity about needing to name call in childish taunts (Albore, lamestream, etc.). Churlish.

"A closed mind fed only by these wingnuts is the surest road to ruining our democracy." by ptownrob

With all due respect to you ptownrob, as much as people like George Soros would like to transform it, our great nation, America, is not a democracy. It is a republic. I too, like Donna, call upon Almighty God to set the course of this nation back on track. His will be done.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

"Other countries insist on safety devices which could have prevented this mess." by springfield

Actually, two other countries. If you can't assume that companies will do the right thing, it is only logical to make the assumtion: We can assume that companies will do the right thing. Of course it is in their best interest to do the right thing.

"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated.

"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html


Also: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/co...1466-26364577/

I'd just like to repeat my previous post that didn't get a response. I'd like to see another opinion to learn a little more.:

Why is there drilling so far off shore and at record breaking depth with new technology? The answer isn't anything new. Government regulations. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy."

Here is an interesting article, like me you may or may not agree with some of the editorial issues in it, but it helps explain the history of government involvement in offshore drilling and how politics has and does play a role.

http://hnn.us/articles/54465.html

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works. Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.

Here we go again.
 

The Liberal attitude is again clearly exposed. Liberals think the USA is inferior to other countries.

Why not leave our country if you do not like it.

Your distaste for the private sector is so obvious you would no doubt be happier in one of the great socialist countries.

I am still amused at how some can measure history in
 

increments...like this year, last year, the previous 8 years, and so on. Is it a coincindence those increments are party oriented? :laugh:
And how many can only respond only in terms related to which party was in office and when.

History and it's accomplishments or not are really more complex than what party is in charge (at that moment).

Such narrow scopes of recall....a pity!!


btk

Cashman here is your conservative attitude exposed.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there.""It's as natural as the ocean water is."......and
"What better eay to head off more oil drilling,nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig?"......Then he goes on to lie about the origins of Earth Day....
none other than the eminent conservative spokesman..... RUSH!!!
With this guy leading your side maybe you should leave instead.

Could you give us links or other proof of your outlandish accusations? I am not a regular listener of Rush or his web site, but will go there with a link occasionally. I find his talk very interesting and informative. He is monitored by many left-leaning "watchdogs" so he is not about to "lie" purposely.
I suggest that you wander away from you marching order sites and actually read some of Rush's dialogue. You might actually learn something instead of always parroting your union loving progressive cohorts.
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_ht...limate-change/

I don't listen to Rush either and I have looked for anything on youtube about this waynet. I can't find it. I went straight to the source. Rush's website where they archive transcripts from his shows. Here's two transcripts of his show where he talked about the oil spill. You have to read the entire transcripts to get the point of remarks. You can't pull things out of context.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/...113.guest.html

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Li...ing_Up_Oil_Rig

The reason Rush is watched is because he lies to his audience. Sort of like another conservative spokesperson Michell Bachman who really tells some doozies.
.

If you read what was actually said in the previous transcripts I posted, Rush even said that Obama would blame the Tea Party for blowing up the oil wells. You have to read the entire conversation to understand the context of what was being said.

Your pretty loose with that "lie" word, buddy. My guess is that you are lax and do not really read the whole thing.
Why on earth would somebody tune in to listen to lies. You do not make any sense. When lies are broadcast every day, you get the ratings of MSNBC or CNN.

Yeah, what do you think? They are all politicians????
 

Politicians lie as a matter of practice.
Knee jerk commentary!!!!!!!!!

btk

I am not loose with the lie word. He's been caught so many times it has become a joke. Most people listen to what they want to hear wether it is true or not and some do not have the time to fact check all he says. He has been known for his chronic inaccuracies and his lack of accountability for a long time.

Again. Facts or links. All you ever post is hearsay, innuendos and BS. Derogatory crapola is easy to post. Your talking junk.

Simple question
 

waynet: "...some do not have the time to fact check all he says."

If you don't fact check, how do you know if it is or is not true?