Originally Posted by ijusluvit

bk - It appears you are actually beginning to agree with me about the role of the federal government. The details you cited about the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase actually illustrate how high a priority it was for Jefferson to attempt to strengthen the country as a whole. He may have thought long and hard about the implications of both actions on state and local governments, but he took the actions, for better (Louisiana), or worse (Embargo).

So, jumping to the present, I am still looking forward to hearing your opinion of the actions taken by the current Congress and administration, using the authority of the federal government to rather dramatically check the actions of banks, credit corporations, unions, investment houses and huge multinational corporations (BP). I'll agree that none of these steps are absolutely perfect. They are all strong assertions of federal authority and other than philosophical opposition, I'd like to know specifically what you think is negative about them.

Since you seem to be a fan of history, you'll agree that the prosperity and liberties achieved by capitalism and free markets overwhelmingly outways prosperity and liberty gained through fascism and government control. I don't agree with a ruling class of intellectuals, bereaucrats and social engineers deciding what society wants or needs. That is what we are protected from with the Constitution.

When our government spends our money to help us and protect us, bad things happen.

My question to you is, who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Since you seem to be a fan of history, you'll agree that the prosperity and liberties achieved by capitalism and free markets overwhelmingly outways prosperity and liberty gained through fascism and government control. I don't agree with a ruling class of intellectuals, bereaucrats and social engineers deciding what society wants or needs. That is what we are protected from with the Constitution.

When our government spends our money to help us and protect us, bad things happen.

My question to you is, who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?

Originally Posted by Pats2010

people, nothing to see here but the typical extreme left-wing talking points.

The hateful venom spewing from the progressive ilk is positive proof that Sarah is saying the right things. I think jealousy is still on the table.

But.... Bush and Palin aren't running... and neither is Kerry...

If I can't mention Bush or Palin, why do you get to throw up Kerry? Where's the fairness in that? Are these the Republican rules???

You've already decided that I cannot swear. I suppose spitting on the sidewalk it out. Do you sell liquor on Sunday? Can I gamble on Sunday? I'm just waiting for the "Official List" when we close on the house.

My husband and I were both born in New York City and have spent the last 35 years in Los Angeles. I'm sure we're going to have enough culture shock for a lifetime. Are we going to regret that we didn't buy a place in Boca?

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?

ijusluvit, I apologize that I didn't explain my opinions better and you misunderstood my answer. Since you said you are a big fan of capitalism and cited your objections to fascism, I wrongly assumed you understood my response.

In a similar political discussion with a friend and a similar misunderstanding that kept going in circles with us both thinking we were getting our points across. We finally realized it was a left brain/right brain (no pun intended) personality thing with how we see things and answer questions.

What I am saying is the problem I have with the federal government involvement of these things is just that; federal government involvement and control means less control on the local level.

It's easier to see something and understand the immediate repercussions when you are closer to the source. Whether the issue is lending to someone buying a home in your neighborhood, arresting and processing someone through the courts system, schools in your neighborhood, businesses in your neighborhood or someone campaigning in your neighbor.

So with that said, for me to explain my objections with the BP issue, I have to be wordy, so please bear with me.

I could easily say it has never been legally proved that "BP" did anything criminal. BP wasn't the only corporation involved in the drilling. There were individual people on that rig that may or may not have been involved in criminality.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financial and the criminality aspects. Regarding the good faith fund setup by BP and the manner it was initiated, Obama simply bypassed the legal process set up in our Constitution. This will come back to do legal injuries to the people in the Gulf with grievances, true of false grievances, when it comes their day in court. That is my opinion and only time will tell on that one.

Anyway....

The first thing that bothers me is the reason the company was drilling so far offshore at an unprecedented depth in the first place. This is a good example of what happens when the federal government is in charge. 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." Earlier history of similar controversies over states rights has led us to where we are today with the federal government overseeing the Mines, Minerals and Energy in this country.

There are federal regulatory agencies who oversee the drilling of offshore oil. Isn't it their job to assure that the drilling is done properly? One of these agencies is the Minerals Services Agency. This agency oversees the leases and the regulation of the rigs. Does that seem like a conflict of interest?

I believe the blowout and the failures in the automatic shutoff valves happened because of the depths (over 18,000 feet) the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling. The temperatures and pressures are unpredictable below 10,000 feet. The depth hindered BP's robotic subs with efforts to shut off the valves and stop the leaks.

We all saw the confusion and wasted time with determining who was "in charge," who had authority to do various things or not do various things from booms to skimming. In the midst of all the insanity, even BP saw the importance, even if it was only on the surface without the true understanding of discussion of local level, to have someone from the area representing their company.

How many times did a local judge make a ruling and say to lift the moratoriums imposed on the federal levels and how many times did the federal government challenge that order? These are the kinds of things that make people question the far away, out of touch federal governments true objectives.

It was a blame game with the government's involvement and threats becoming nothing more than posturing for the sake of politics and policy to pursue their agenda and increase taxes. Eric Holder went to the Gulf to investigate criminality before the disaster was even close to being under control.

If this has been confined to a local problem from the time that drilling permits and regulation of leasing even started, it would have been easier to handle.

But here is my biggest concern with the entire BP fiasco. BP is people. A corporation is people. People on every level of management, but people nonetheless. There were people on that rig that may or may not have made mistakes. Tony Hayward wasn't on the rig.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financially and criminality. Obama simple bypassed this process set up in our Constitution.

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.

ijusluvit, just so you don't think I'm not respondng, I'll get to my objections to the finance and banking regulations after I finish some things here in the real world.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

ijusluvit, I apologize that I didn't explain my opinions better and you misunderstood my answer. Since you said you are a big fan of capitalism and cited your objections to fascism, I wrongly assumed you understood my response.

In a similar political discussion with a friend and a similar misunderstanding that kept going in circles with us both thinking we were getting our points across. We finally realized it was a left brain/right brain (no pun intended) personality thing with how we see things and answer questions.

What I am saying is the problem I have with the federal government involvement of these things is just that; federal government involvement and control means less control on the local level.

It's easier to see something and understand the immediate repercussions when you are closer to the source. Whether the issue is lending to someone buying a home in your neighborhood, arresting and processing someone through the courts system, schools in your neighborhood, businesses in your neighborhood or someone campaigning in your neighbor.

So with that said, for me to explain my objections with the BP issue, I have to be wordy, so please bear with me.

I could easily say it has never been legally proved that "BP" did anything criminal. BP wasn't the only corporation involved in the drilling. There were individual people on that rig that may or may not have been involved in criminality.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financial and the criminality aspects. Regarding the good faith fund setup by BP and the manner it was initiated, Obama simply bypassed the legal process set up in our Constitution. This will come back to do legal injuries to the people in the Gulf with grievances, true of false grievances, when it comes their day in court. That is my opinion and only time will tell on that one.

Anyway....

The first thing that bothers me is the reason the company was drilling so far offshore at an unprecedented depth in the first place. This is a good example of what happens when the federal government is in charge. 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." Earlier history of similar controversies over states rights has led us to where we are today with the federal government overseeing the Mines, Minerals and Energy in this country.

There are federal regulatory agencies who oversee the drilling of offshore oil. Isn't it their job to assure that the drilling is done properly? One of these agencies is the Minerals Services Agency. This agency oversees the leases and the regulation of the rigs. Does that seem like a conflict of interest?

I believe the blowout and the failures in the automatic shutoff valves happened because of the depths (over 18,000 feet) the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling. The temperatures and pressures are unpredictable below 10,000 feet. The depth hindered BP's robotic subs with efforts to shut off the valves and stop the leaks.

We all saw the confusion and wasted time with determining who was "in charge," who had authority to do various things or not do various things from booms to skimming. In the midst of all the insanity, even BP saw the importance, even if it was only on the surface without the true understanding of discussion of local level, to have someone from the area representing their company.

How many times did a local judge make a ruling and say to lift the moratoriums imposed on the federal levels and how many times did the federal government challenge that order? These are the kinds of things that make people question the far away, out of touch federal governments true objectives.

It was a blame game with the government's involvement and threats becoming nothing more than posturing for the sake of politics and policy to pursue their agenda and increase taxes. Eric Holder went to the Gulf to investigate criminality before the disaster was even close to being under control.

If this has been confined to a local problem from the time that drilling permits and regulation of leasing even started, it would have been easier to handle.

But here is my biggest concern with the entire BP fiasco. BP is people. A corporation is people. People on every level of management, but people nonetheless. There were people on that rig that may or may not have made mistakes. Tony Hayward wasn't on the rig.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financially and criminality. Obama simple bypassed this process set up in our Constitution.

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.

I am awed by your ability to present your ideas clearly and objectively. You have a magnificent mind BK.

Thank you Gracie for your very kind words. I honestly try to get my views and ideas across clearly without belittling anyone, without playing any typical "gotcha" games or setting somebody up. I really hope what I'm saying to ijusluvit is clear. Reading back over my response, I don't know if it is clearly stated or not. So your words were encouragement to me.

You and I both know, for some people politics is a passionate thing to discuss. You know what we were taught when we were young about discussing politics and religion. The rebellious part of me still loves to venture there and dare to have a good discussion about both.

I think we are all guilty of letting our passions get in the way of manners and politeness in these discussions. When the air clears, we can see it just drives a wedge in healthy discussions and understanding of each others' reasons for believing certain things.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?

It is difficult to discuss the massive, sweeping financial regulation bill signed into law July 21, 2010, by Obama. Even experts who will be directly involved in the changes made with the bill really have no idea what the true impact will be. Not just because of the immensity of the language, but because it isn't finished.

The bill gives banking and market regulators up to two years to write many of the new regulations required by the law. What does this do but open the doors for some powerful lobbying on behalf of special interests. Here's a quote from the NY Times regarding the Dodd/Shumer Bill to show this point, "Nearly 150 lobbyists registered since last year used to work in the executive branch at financial agencies, from lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission to Federal Reserve bankers, according to data analyzed for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. In addition, dozens of former lawyers for the government, who are not registered as lobbyists, are now scouring the financial regulations on behalf of corporate clients."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/bu...obby.html?_r=1


Really, I don't know what impacts, good or bad will come of this. Do you know the answer to that ijusluvit?

I'd love to hear your opinions and insights into the specifics of this bill.

Here are a few of my observations though. As the government pushes the private sector out of the equation and the feds give billions of taxpayer monies to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we were told, and people are expected to trust sight unseen, that it is going to provide safeguards for millions of consumers and is written to restrain Wall Street excesses that could set off a new recession.

I don't buy anything sight unseen. Especially when it comes to the federal government's control in light of the roles government played in federally controlled Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Congressional oversight and Henry Paulson has played in all of this mess. What has the federal government been in charge of that has run successfully? The federal government consumes, it doesn't produce anything.

The president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called the law "a financial regulatory boondoggle." Maybe he knows something we don't. I do know the new law also puts in place a new board of regulators who are suppose to be watchful of risks across the finance system.

It also creates a powerful independent consumer financial protection bureau within the Federal Reserve to write and enforce new regulations covering lending and credit. More beurocrats with unreined and unprecedented power. So much for checks and balances.

When you answer the question asked above, I respectively ask you again: Who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

Hey BK. Thanks for the responses. Now we're cooking! I agree with Gracie too that you're presenting ideas well. But speaking of the real world, my niece is getting married later today, on the front lawn of our summer place. I'm kinda busy. Will get back asap!

BK - I've read your posts carefully and here's where I see things a little differently, and why.

First, I too think it is more appropriate for many life activities to be under local control. You might even say that in most places (except Bell, CA, for example), more can be done more efficiently and with better accountability. I'd even go so far as to make a new axiom I think you'll love: "The farther away things are managed from the local level, the greater the chance for error, inefficiency, and higher costs." But I have one major problem with this. Who is going to protect us from the systematically greedy, the individuals and organizations which have immense power, even to the point of being able to fend of control by anyone, including the federal government? Who is going to defend us against terrorism? Who is going to insure that the Constitution as well as local and state laws are upheld, applied and supported. The answer is the federal government, regardless of how frustrated I am with Washington bureaucracy. Look at Homeland Security for example. Their money has been spent by the truck load for almost 10 years. Even their own officials admit they have often been woefully inefficient. They keep trying new things that don't work very well, but cost a fortune. The story of airline security devices and procedures is almost a comedy - but it isn't funny. But the bottom line is that the rush to respond to 9/11, by thousands of additional employees, at a very high cost, is perhaps why we have not had a couple more 9/11s. It's scary to read of all the plots which get exposed before they unfold in tragedy. I don't believe these stories are cooked up to make us think Homeland Security is just peachy and deserves even more money.
So, with some regret that things don't work better, I am willing to pay the price of living in this incredibly complex America. Our prosperous, free lifestyle makes us the target of every fringe group and half the nations of the world. It will continue to cost a lot to defend ourselves.
Take another example. I hate war more than anything else. I have seldom seen it as productive in any way, while always obscenely costly, especially in peoples lives. In my book, and many historians now agree - perhaps the worst decision ever made by a US President was to invade Iraq. And there is a voice in my head that yells every day: "Get out of Afghanistan NOW". But I know what will happen if we do not accomplish the bulk of our objectives there, as well as in Pakistan. Several million Afghani supporters will be executed, and terrorist forces will achieve an unprecedented legitimacy and power boost. We will lose, short and long term and the future costs of defeat will skyrocket. Regrettably, we simply cannot deal with any of this without a powerful national government and armed force.

I do not let costs determine my political orientation. I've resisted condemning a particular administration or Congress just because of a tax or cost which affected me. I try to hang onto the long view. As a lower middle class kid who's father struggled to put food on the table for seven kids by running a marginal small business, I learned important things by cleaning bathrooms and carrying steel bars from the age of 10. My wife and I lived on a $45 weekly take home check in the summer of 1968 while we looked for teaching jobs. We've worked 40 years to graduate to the full-fledged middle class! Throughout this whole time, the costs imposed on me by ALL of the governments which tax me have only marginally affected my life, despite how conservatives scream that this or that new law will destroy us financially. For me it's probably only been the difference between a Chevy and a fancy Buick. When I think of the enormous cost of keeping this country afloat I am amazed at our stability. Almost every TV person I know admits the same thing: our lifestyle has remained rather stable in recent years. We were not even ruined by the recession, (I'll get to that when I comment about your views on domestic policy), even if we did lose some paper wealth. I can think of two exceptions, both because of health care costs, both who rejoiced the day the health care reform legislation passed. So, my conclusion is that we have the ability to defend our nation without collapsing from within. And regardless of mistakes made by dumb or selfish politicians, we hardly notice the affect, save that awful loss of life.

So, to summarize, I believe we need a powerful federal government, capable of swift and effective response, WHEN NEEDED.

Enough philosophy. Let me apply this to your opinion of the BP escrow case. I'm afraid I disagree that the President's forceful insistence that BP set aside a specific escrow to repair the disaster was either illegal or premature. The Constitution characterizes the role of the President as an initiator, proposer, leader, etc ., with the understanding that this leadership will provide the basis for legislation, where necessary. There are Presidential powers, it is not merely the office of a figurehead. The courts, by design do not impact on situations until decisions and made and actions taken. Using the Constitutional model, President Obama recognized the critical nature of the oil leak crises, the possibility that the company might avoid their responsibility either through bankruptcy or simply dragging their feet forever. He USED HIS INFLUENCE to obtain a decent outcome. BP did not have to comply. But they did!!! They agreed to the escrow. There is no court in the world that would even consider overturning such an action. If it just doesn't seem right to you to give the President some credit, then just say he was lucky to get this concession. I think it's a good example of doing his job to represent the people.

On your concern about oil exploration: The incredible irony of the BP crisis is that the deep-well drilling was done off our coast because it was the only place it would have been allowed! Over recent years, oil companies succeeded in lobbying Congress to water-down drilling regulations. Other countries maintain stronger regulations, but BP was able to drill here, and with less oversight. The awful truth is that if the federal government had kept the regulations we had, and developed stronger ones to address riskier deep-well drilling, the disaster would likely not have occurred. Certainly BP has put up the escrow partly because they know how unreasonably they, their partners and subcontractors acted, taking advantage of a lax situation, falling far short of drilling standards in effect elsewhere in the world. The authors of the effort to relax oil drilling standards were the huge oil companies whose lobbying efforts were so slick and convincing that it was tough for even well-intentioned congressmen to see through them and resist the tempting opportunity to put a few more folks to work in the Gulf.

OK, enough for tonight. You think you're wordy! More on domestic legislation later.
(the wedding was fabulous!)

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

BK - I've read your posts carefully and here's where I see things a little differently, and why.

First, I too think it is more appropriate for many life activities to be under local control. You might even say that in most places (except Bell, CA, for example), more can be done more efficiently and with better accountability. I'd even go so far as to make a new axiom I think you'll love: "The farther away things are managed from the local level, the greater the chance for error, inefficiency, and higher costs." But I have one major problem with this. Who is going to protect us from the systematically greedy, the individuals and organizations which have immense power, even to the point of being able to fend of control by anyone, including the federal government? Who is going to defend us against terrorism? Who is going to insure that the Constitution as well as local and state laws are upheld, applied and supported. The answer is the federal government, regardless of how frustrated I am with Washington bureaucracy. Look at Homeland Security for example. Their money has been spent by the truck load for almost 10 years. Even their own officials admit they have often been woefully inefficient. They keep trying new things that don't work very well, but cost a fortune. The story of airline security devices and procedures is almost a comedy - but it isn't funny. But the bottom line is that the rush to respond to 9/11, by thousands of additional employees, at a very high cost, is perhaps why we have not had a couple more 9/11s. It's scary to read of all the plots which get exposed before they unfold in tragedy. I don't believe these stories are cooked up to make us think Homeland Security is just peachy and deserves even more money.
So, with some regret that things don't work better, I am willing to pay the price of living in this incredibly complex America. Our prosperous, free lifestyle makes us the target of every fringe group and half the nations of the world. It will continue to cost a lot to defend ourselves.
Take another example. I hate war more than anything else. I have seldom seen it as productive in any way, while always obscenely costly, especially in peoples lives. In my book, and many historians now agree - perhaps the worst decision ever made by a US President was to invade Iraq. And there is a voice in my head that yells every day: "Get out of Afghanistan NOW". But I know what will happen if we do not accomplish the bulk of our objectives there, as well as in Pakistan. Several million Afghani supporters will be executed, and terrorist forces will achieve an unprecedented legitimacy and power boost. We will lose, short and long term and the future costs of defeat will skyrocket. Regrettably, we simply cannot deal with any of this without a powerful national government and armed force.

I do not let costs determine my political orientation. I've resisted condemning a particular administration or Congress just because of a tax or cost which affected me. I try to hang onto the long view. As a lower middle class kid who's father struggled to put food on the table for seven kids by running a marginal small business, I learned important things by cleaning bathrooms and carrying steel bars from the age of 10. My wife and I lived on a $45 weekly take home check in the summer of 1968 while we looked for teaching jobs. We've worked 40 years to graduate to the full-fledged middle class! Throughout this whole time, the costs imposed on me by ALL of the governments which tax me have only marginally affected my life, despite how conservatives scream that this or that new law will destroy us financially. For me it's probably only been the difference between a Chevy and a fancy Buick. When I think of the enormous cost of keeping this country afloat I am amazed at our stability. Almost every TV person I know admits the same thing: our lifestyle has remained rather stable in recent years. We were not even ruined by the recession, (I'll get to that when I comment about your views on domestic policy), even if we did lose some paper wealth. I can think of two exceptions, both because of health care costs, both who rejoiced the day the health care reform legislation passed. So, my conclusion is that we have the ability to defend our nation without collapsing from within. And regardless of mistakes made by dumb or selfish politicians, we hardly notice the affect, save that awful loss of life.

So, to summarize, I believe we need a powerful federal government, capable of swift and effective response, WHEN NEEDED.

Enough philosophy. Let me apply this to your opinion of the BP escrow case. I'm afraid I disagree that the President's forceful insistence that BP set aside a specific escrow to repair the disaster was either illegal or premature. The Constitution characterizes the role of the President as an initiator, proposer, leader, etc ., with the understanding that this leadership will provide the basis for legislation, where necessary. There are Presidential powers, it is not merely the office of a figurehead. The courts, by design do not impact on situations until decisions and made and actions taken. Using the Constitutional model, President Obama recognized the critical nature of the oil leak crises, the possibility that the company might avoid their responsibility either through bankruptcy or simply dragging their feet forever. He USED HIS INFLUENCE to obtain a decent outcome. BP did not have to comply. But they did!!! They agreed to the escrow. There is no court in the world that would even consider overturning such an action. If it just doesn't seem right to you to give the President some credit, then just say he was lucky to get this concession. I think it's a good example of doing his job to represent the people.

On your concern about oil exploration: The incredible irony of the BP crisis is that the deep-well drilling was done off our coast because it was the only place it would have been allowed! Over recent years, oil companies succeeded in lobbying Congress to water-down drilling regulations. Other countries maintain stronger regulations, but BP was able to drill here, and with less oversight. The awful truth is that if the federal government had kept the regulations we had, and developed stronger ones to address riskier deep-well drilling, the disaster would likely not have occurred. Certainly BP has put up the escrow partly because they know how unreasonably they, their partners and subcontractors acted, taking advantage of a lax situation, falling far short of drilling standards in effect elsewhere in the world. The authors of the effort to relax oil drilling standards were the huge oil companies whose lobbying efforts were so slick and convincing that it was tough for even well-intentioned congressmen to see through them and resist the tempting opportunity to put a few more folks to work in the Gulf.

OK, enough for tonight. You think you're wordy! More on domestic legislation later.
(the wedding was fabulous!)

Hey congratulations to your relatives with the wedding and marriage. Glad to hear you had fun. Good memories. That's what life is all about.

I take it you are/were a school teacher. So, maybe you'll appreciate a request I am going to make of you. I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. I honestly enjoyed our exhanges.

Now, I'd like to ask you to do me a favor and explain, in your own words, the three branches of federal government in the US and their roles according to the US Constitution. Explain, also in your own words, which of these branches, Constitutionally, is the most powerful.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Hey congratulations to your relatives with the wedding and marriage. Glad to hear you had fun. Good memories. That's what life is all about.

I take it you are/were a school teacher. So, maybe you'll appreciate a request I am going to make of you. I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. I honestly enjoyed our exhanges.

Now, I'd like to ask you to do me a favor and explain, in your own words, the three branches of federal government in the US and their roles according to the US Constitution. Explain, also in your own words, which of these branches, Constitutionally, is the most powerful.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

I'm still waiting on a reply...

BK - immediately following your August 8th post I received a that post via email through the Talk Host of TOTV before I saw it in this thread. I have no idea why this happened, but I replied the same day to that email which I thought would go to you. It apparently did not.

this is what I sent you:

"BK - In fact I taught the US Constitution for some years. I'm not sure what you are driving at with your questions about it. I have made a comment or two about recent actions of the the executive and judicial branches. President Obama's actions to date are consistent with the power to "recommend" written in the original document. With respect to the judiciary, they simply hear cases of matters which have already occurred, as per my reference replying to the BP matter.
No branch is more powerful than another, indeed the separation of powers was sheer genius at work. Historically one branch or another has temporarily been somewhat more dominant, but only for a brief period. This has a lot to do with the longevity of our government.

I intended to answer your question and make further comments about finance regulation legislation, but I'll save that for the sometime tomorrow or Tues."

Not having seen anything from you until 8/15, and as we have left town to visit my daughter who delivered our first granddaughter on the 13th, I've not made any additional comments.

Finally, I've made some strong statements supporting the need for a strong central government. Knowing you do not generally share that view, I'd appreciate your comments on those specific points.

Originally Posted by laurie91423

of a woman who needs to *wink* to get her point across? I think not. I'm not jealous, I'm ashamed that this country was the laughing stock of the civilized world when they saw who's McCain's running mate was. I might have voted for him? Well, probably not, but geez, couldn't his team have come up with anyone better than her?

Gotta say one thing, she's making some Judith Lieber bag out of that sow's ear. Brava, Brava. I can give credit where credit where credit is do...even if I still think she's the village idiot... fortunately in another village.

I was voteing for McCain until he took on Sarah. Thats all I got to say about that.

"However, I believe he(Thomas Jefferson) would support social security and the new health care reform because of the benefits provided for the average citizen".



He would be the first politician to ACTUALLY READ THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL TO DECIDE EXACTLY WHATS IN IT, WOULDNT THAT BE SOMETHING!

NANCY PELOSI SAID LETS PASS IT, THEN WE CAN ALL READ WHATS IN IT???
DUH