PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Whose ass to kick


Taco John
06-11-2010, 03:49 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Quk0tb2qUwY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Quk0tb2qUwY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Taco John
06-11-2010, 05:31 PM
The Federal Government was a major player in this disaster and shares significant blame for it for these three major reasons:

1. The Spill Happened on Federally Owned Land
My own commentary: The implcations here are staggering when you consider that we as individuals are responsible for our own property and that there is precedent that gives us responsibility for injuries that happen to burglars tresspassing on our own property. The government is, of course, trying to pass the buck by blaming everyone else.

Further than that, whatever you want to say about Bush and Cheney (neither of which I care to defend for any reason), the fact is that the permit for this happened during Obama's administration, and even further than that was "categorically excluded" (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46831) from from environmental analysis because it "posed virtually no chance of harming the environment." The Obama Administration ignored the laws on the books and gave out the permit anyway. These guys are supposed to be stewards of the public land, and instead they cut corners.

2. The Federal Government Regulates Offshore Drilling -
The point above established the responsibility of the government as a steward of the land. Point two shows just how bad they are at it. Type into any search engine the following: "Minerals Management Service sex, drugs, and financial favors". Obama's people were in place when BP was given a permit to drill deep in the ocean on federal land without an EPA review. It doesn't take too much to connect the dots here. Especially when you look at Obama's hand picked guy, Ken Salazar as seceratary of the interior:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/17/us/17transition2-600.jpg

“It’s time for a new kind of leadership in Washington that’s committed to using our lands in a responsible way to benefit all our families,” Mr. Obama said. “That means ensuring that even as we are promoting development where it makes sense, we are also fulfilling our obligation to protect our national treasures.”

Environmentalists weren't happy with the selection (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18salazarcnd.html?_r=1), but oil companies where doing backflips for the fact that he wasn't an "ideologue:"

Oil and mining interests praised Mr. Salazar’s performance as a state official and as a senator, saying that he was not doctrinaire about the use of public lands. “Nothing in his record suggests he’s an ideologue,” said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association. “Here’s a man who understands the issues, is open-minded and can see at least two sides of an issue.”

Because, of course, being an ideologue is a "bad" thing in this country. We're not supposed to hold onto ideals, we're supposed to compromise. You can clearly see what compromising got us.

3. Fed Capped economic liability - True, that Obama isn't responsible for this cap. But what is true is that the Democrats bear the ownership of responsibility for setting this cap in the first place.

WHO Set The Liability Cap At 75 Million?
In 1990, in response to the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress and the President enacted the Oil Pollution Act. The liability cap was set at $75 million. Any amount above that requires claims made against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Fund is funded by an 8 cent tax for every barrel produced or imported into the United States and is projected to have $1.6 billion in it by the end of FY10. However, there is a $1 billion per incident cap on payouts from the fund.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/rush-holt-introduces-big-oil-bailout-prevention-act-to-protect-taxpayers


So, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Written and put forth by who?
The bill was introduced to the House by Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district, along with 79 cosponsors following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which at the time was the largest oil spill in U.S. history. It enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375-5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference. The U.S. Constitution, as interpreted in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), gives Congress the sole authority to regulate navigable waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990

As an important note on the 101st Congress in 1990, which enacted the "Oil Pollution Act of 1990": Both chambers had a Democratic majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_United_States_Congress).


Liability caps are not free market economics. Right now, Congress is moving to up the cap to another arbitrary number: $10 billion. For what reason is there a cap at all? It's governments attempt to stabilize markets by limiting the liability of companies. That's not free market economics. That's, for lack of a better word, progressive market economics. They cap it, and then socialize the rest of the liability against something called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund - better known as taxpayers.

People don't like the word "socialism" but that's exactly what this is. This is the economic model in full action, and you can see what it's given us: corrupt beauracracy and a poisoned environment.

And we're funding it.

KC Dan
06-11-2010, 05:43 PM
racist

Calcountry
06-12-2010, 04:31 PM
racistObama IS the pied piper.

He plays his flute, and the hope and change crowd goes off the cliff like lemmings.

bevischief
06-12-2010, 06:31 PM
Obama IS the pied piper.

He plays his flute, and the hope and change crowd goes off the cliff like lemmings.
ROFL

Count Alex's Losses
06-12-2010, 11:09 PM
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

cdcox
06-12-2010, 11:31 PM
TJ and others --

let me get this straight. You support a secretary of the interior who is an environmental ideologue, who is closed minded, and who can only see one side of an issue?

My bet: if it's anti-Obama it has to be good, even if it contadicts your own agenda. My other bet: here comes the wiggle.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2010, 12:30 AM
I read about the Federal Cap liability.

Now, I have to wonder if BP was allowed to own the land where they drilled and the water if they would have taken more precautions.

Again, this is what is called the "tragedy of the commons." Aka no one really owning it or publically owned. Kinda like how people don't take care of public housing....even steal the copper wire out the places.

Taco John
06-13-2010, 12:59 AM
TJ and others --

let me get this straight. You support a secretary of the interior who is an environmental ideologue, who is closed minded, and who can only see one side of an issue?

My bet: if it's anti-Obama it has to be good, even if it contadicts your own agenda. My other bet: here comes the wiggle.


Obama means nothing to me. Why would I waste my time being "anti-Obama?" Obama isn't a principle.

As far as your question goes, what do you get when you cross an oil industry executive with an environmentalist?

TrebMaxx
06-13-2010, 01:00 AM
Obama can't kick his own ass because Pelosi is in the way.

patteeu
06-13-2010, 08:06 AM
TJ and others --

let me get this straight. You support a secretary of the interior who is an environmental ideologue, who is closed minded, and who can only see one side of an issue?

My bet: if it's anti-Obama it has to be good, even if it contadicts your own agenda. My other bet: here comes the wiggle.

Does TJ support Salazar? I didn't really get that from this thread.

cdcox
06-13-2010, 08:23 AM
Does TJ support Salazar? I didn't really get that from this thread.

My point was that TJ would probably not be happy with the kind of secretary of the interior that the article advocates, since libertarians seek to minimize regulations and allow the court systems to determine when actual damages have taken place. I never meant to imply that he liked Salazar in particular.

patteeu
06-13-2010, 08:55 AM
My point was that TJ would probably not be happy with the kind of secretary of the interior that the article advocates, since libertarians seek to minimize regulations and allow the court systems to determine when actual damages have taken place. I never meant to imply that he liked Salazar in particular.

I'm not sure which article you're talking about (there were several and I didn't read them all), but my impression from the thread (wrt Salazar/regulation) is just that since the government does regulate this activity (whether a libertarian would agree with that regulation or not) part of the blame for the outcome should fall on government's shoulders. The articles seem to be used as sources of evidence/facts that support that position rather than for whatever arguments are being made in the articles themselves.

Chiefshrink
06-13-2010, 10:19 AM
I read about the Federal Cap liability.

Now, I have to wonder if BP was allowed to own the land where they drilled and the water if they would have taken more precautions.

Again, this is what is called the "tragedy of the commons." Aka no one really owning it or publically owned. Kinda like how people don't take care of public housing....even steal the copper wire out the places.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!! And rather be a "TRUE LEADER" and HELP, Obama decides to 'politicize' instead and it comes back to bite him in the ass:shake:

But why should we be surprised when Marxists "RULE" the WH!!

The Mad Crapper
06-14-2010, 12:13 AM
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs317.snc3/28531_414800384144_770099144_4316345_2340995_n.jpg

Taco John
06-14-2010, 02:29 PM
I'm not sure which article you're talking about (there were several and I didn't read them all), but my impression from the thread (wrt Salazar/regulation) is just that since the government does regulate this activity (whether a libertarian would agree with that regulation or not) part of the blame for the outcome should fall on government's shoulders. The articles seem to be used as sources of evidence/facts that support that position rather than for whatever arguments are being made in the articles themselves.


This is exactly right.