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.

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

Originally Posted by cashman

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 negligent, we will know if a legitimate investigation is conducted. It would be fair to wait before condemning the Private Sector which is another Liberal approach.

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.

Originally Posted by Donna2

The Tea Party was not formed to give public policy. It is a protest of the size and scope of government spending....

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cashman

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.

Originally Posted by cashman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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 !!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

REMEMBER AS YOU READ THIS WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS...

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.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Why do you Radical Conservatives ask such ridiculous questions?

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