Why is Obama doing nothing about the oil leak?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I disagree. One of the few responsiblities of the Federal government is to protect our country.

This oil spill threatens a portion of our food supply and will further increase unemployment at a time when we can least afford it.

The U.S. Navy is the foremost expert in underwater operations - with access to the best people and equipment. And we are already paying for those resources which are not being used -

Excellent viewpoint.


My problem is this; the entire world blamed President Bush for New Orleans, but it seems that that same level of scrutiny is not being applied to President Obama and this disaster.

 

[saturneptune]

I am sure that everyone is aware of the huge oil leak in the Gulf.

It has been pouring oil into the ocean waters for some time now and the oil slick just gets bigger and bigger every day.

The oil has finally reached the coasts and no relief is in sight.

BP keeps making promises - about how tomorrow or next week or whenever - that they will stop the leak but they are obviously in over their heads.

When is Obama to going to get of the pot and do something?

He has the resources of the entire Navy and Corp of Engineers at his disposal.

Is anyone else as sick of his inaction as I am?

Absolutely not!!!. This is a typical Republican apologist posting. Why is it the government's responsibility to fix this? They did not make the mess. The taxpayers did not make the mess. I doubt you blamed Bush for Katrina, which you should not have, but that is not the point. If BP cannot handle the problem, they can ask for help, and pay the taxpayers back every cent, with no strings attached.

If it is over BP's head, then the govenment action should be to ban them from doing business in our country.

No, I am not sick of the inaction. I am sick of people pretending to be conservatives and Constitutionalists when they are nothing but watered down liberal Democrats.

 

[saturneptune]

Agreed. As much as I hate federal government involvement in just about everything, this is one of those rare times when the Constitution does authorize the government to act.

However, my problem isn't with the government's inaction or Mao-bama's ignoring of the problem, but with the hypocrisy from the left for refusing to hold Mao-bama to the same standard they held Bush to.

Once a liberal, always a liberal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, I am not sick of the inaction. I am sick of people pretending to be conservatives and Constitutionalists when they are nothing but watered down liberal Democrats.

What is unconstitutional about the president acting in a case like this and dealing with BP later? Several states are threatened by this man-made disaster. BP can suffer the consequences when the coastline has been protected.

 

[saturneptune]

What is unconstitutional about the president acting in a case like this and dealing with BP later? Several states are threatened by this man-made disaster. BP can suffer the consequences when the coastline has been protected.

First of all, I know I grew up where the oil is headed, so am well aware of what it can do. What clause in the Constitution would you use to justify such an action, unless it was some indirect reference to the general welfare? Why is it that the first thought as a solution is taxpayer money and the federal government? If you need examples of federal intervention, how about watching the news during any point since fall of 2008, like bailing out private financial institutions, taking over or helping auto companies, bailing out mortgage holders etc, etc etc. How is that running our nation by the document that is the source of our laws, rights,and liberties?

Why is it the federal government considers putting its nose in every situation not dictated by the Constitution, yet will not do a job that is dictated by the Constitution, such as controlling our borders? If it wants to bail something out, bail out the Postal Service, which is in the Constitution.

As far as the government dealing with BP later, they will have plenty of penalities to pay in court, and no doubt fines from the government, plus either a ban or greatly increased regulation from various levels of government.

There has been warning after warning for many years about oil spills, and many examples of what they can do. Maybe the federal government, or I should say politicians, if they wanted to do something productive, should have quit playing Larry Craig footise with the oil companies at election time, and insisted the money the oil companies gave said politicans be used to develope technology to meet such an emergency.

And you have got to be kidding. Look at the way some of the federal agencies are run, in particular the Postal Service and the VA, and you think they have the smarts or technology to stop a leak. I am sure some of the best minds on earth from private enterprise are working on the situation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

First of all, I know I grew up where the oil is headed, so am well aware of what it can do. What clause in the Constitution would you use to justify such an action, unless it was some indirect reference to the general welfare? Why is it that the first thought as a solution is taxpayer money and the federal government? If you need examples of federal intervention, how about watching the news during any point since fall of 2008, like bailing out private financial institutions, taking over or helping auto companies, bailing out mortgage holders etc, etc etc. How is that running our nation by the document that is the source of our laws, rights,and liberties?

Why is it the federal government considers putting its nose in every situation not dictated by the Constitution, yet will not do a job that is dictated by the Constitution, such as controlling our borders? If it wants to bail something out, bail out the Postal Service, which is in the Constitution.

As far as the government dealing with BP later, they will have plenty of penalities to pay in court, and no doubt fines from the government, plus either a ban or greatly increased regulation from various levels of government.

There has been warning after warning for many years about oil spills, and many examples of what they can do. Maybe the federal government, or I should say politicians, if they wanted to do something productive, should have quit playing Larry Craig footise with the oil companies at election time, and insisted the money the oil companies gave said politicans be used to develope technology to meet such an emergency.

And you have got to be kidding. Look at the way some of the federal agencies are run, in particular the Postal Service and the VA, and you think they have the smarts or technology to stop a leak. I am sure some of the best minds on earth from private enterprise are working on the situation.

So you would just write off the general welfare clause?

There is no motivation to BP to stop this situation. I don't know the facts, but heard on a couple of podcasts that BP is doing the research to see how harmful their mistake is going to be (disclaimer, I am not certain of the veracity of that last claim).

Unless something is done disaster is going to strike and the damages will be far more than the cost of federal intervention at this point. I am not talking about nationalising oil companies, but simply dealing with the disaster. I hope that BP is forced to pay the cost, but are Americans willing to pay the price at the pump?

 

[saturneptune]

No, I do not believe in writing off the general welfare clause. If this were a rare event, if the government only intervened in the most dangerous of situations, I could understand, with the agreement that every penny is paid back, help from the federal government. However, it is not a rare event is it? It is literally an everyday occurence, for every imaginable problem. It has got to stop somewhere. It is kind of like crying wolf. The government spends and spends to rescue people from their stupid decisions, then, when something bad does happen, there are much fewer resources there to help.

My wife works for a doctor who has a good chunk of patients on Medicaid. The average person is 20-40, in basically good health, does not work, and is being subsidized by a combination of state and federal government funds, including their loratabs and xanax to keep themselves zonked out all day. I do not know what it is going to take, but there is plenty of spending nonsense we could cut out to make those who need help or as in this case, a disaster, plenty of resources avaliable.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, I do not believe in writing off the general welfare clause. If this were a rare event, if the government only intervened in the most dangerous of situations, I could understand, with the agreement that every penny is paid back, help from the federal government. However, it is not a rare event is it? It is literally an everyday occurence, for every imaginable problem. It has got to stop somewhere. It is kind of like crying wolf. The government spends and spends to rescue people from their stupid decisions, then, when something bad does happen, there are much fewer resources there to help.

We are closer to agreement than I thought we were. This, in my mind, is one of those rare events. Nothing on this scale in this populated an area has ever happened. I am a strict constructionist, but I see this as one of those events where the federal government must act for the welfare of the nation, then sort things out later with BP.

I don't think can write off federal action for a legitimate cause just because it is used in so many illegitimate ones.

 

[preachinjesus]

I have read through a couple of transcripts from the Congressional testimony from various people. It seems the Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency are allowing BP to take the lead in this operations because there is no government agency with the knowledge or experience in dealing with this kind of problem.

From what I'm reading from testimony, this is an unprecedented accident that shows how poorly evolved our underwater technology truly is. From what one person has said we seem to be really good at getting the oil out of the ground but not so good at fixing it at that depth when something goes wrong.

The Navy and Coast Guard have no resources to help in this area. It isn't like you can send divers down there to plug the hole.

If anything this accident will help is pushing forward technologies to deal with future incidents appropriately. From what the experts on the government side of things have said it seems we are at a very primitive technological state when dealing with this right now.

 

[billwald]

The US Navy has how much underwater drilling experience?

New Orleans was caused by an "act of God" and systemic Corps of Engineers ignorance. A friend who the safety person on a Corps of Engineers says their construction standards are 30 years behind industry standards. If they comply with federal standards they will be in violation of state standards.

The Gulf mess was caused by systemic capitalistic greed.

 

[rbell]

The US Navy has how much underwater drilling experience?

New Orleans was caused by an "act of God" and systemic Corps of Engineers ignorance. A friend who the safety person on a Corps of Engineers says their construction standards are 30 years behind industry standards. If they comply with federal standards they will be in violation of state standards.

The Gulf mess was caused by systemic capitalistic greed.

No one is arguing that BP, or the platform folks, or someone else in the food chain, did not foul up.

And most folk know that the Corps of Engineers can be stubborn, wrong-headed, and difficult.

But I'm wary of blaming this on "systemic capitalistic greed." Those kind of words intimate that there is a cure--and the cure is strict and complete governmental controls. "Making a profit" in and of itself isn't evil. Running a course diametrically opposed to capitalism might reduce spills--but there are other consequences for those actions

We simply don't know enough to know why the spill was caused. Greed? Carelessness? Other factors?

I mean, maybe we inherited the leak from the Bush administration.

 

[NiteShift]

Absolutely not!!!. This is a typical Republican apologist posting. Why is it the government's responsibility to fix this? They did not make the mess. The taxpayers did not make the mess. I doubt you blamed Bush for Katrina, which you should not have, but that is not the point. If BP cannot handle the problem, they can ask for help, and pay the taxpayers back every cent, with no strings attached.

If it is over BP's head, then the govenment action should be to ban them from doing business in our country.

No, I am not sick of the inaction. I am sick of people pretending to be conservatives and Constitutionalists when they are nothing but watered down liberal Democrats.

The spill occured in Federal waters. Not Florida, or Louisiana, or B-P waters. That is why the Feds have responsibility here, and they have had oil spill contingency plans since 1994 (which were not followed here btw).

 

[targus]

The Gulf mess was caused by systemic capitalistic greed.

Don't leave out the greed of some others.

BP donated a million dollars to Obama's campaign and in turn Obama waived the environmental impact statements usually required for such a project.

BP hired former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, and Leon Panetta - all Democrats - who were each paid $120,000 a year to serve as special "advisors".

They took a little helicopter ride out to the Gulf of Mexico and upon their return declared that BP "got it right" in their safeguards. Oh well, little did they know.

And finally just 18 days before the spill Obama made a declaration of how safe offshore drilling is - but he's changed his tune now.

Do you think that he will give BP their million dollars back?

 

[targus]

First of all, I know I grew up where the oil is headed, so am well aware of what it can do. What clause in the Constitution would you use to justify such an action, unless it was some indirect reference to the general welfare?

The oil spill is threatening to destroy 30% of our seafood supply. I would say that protecting our food source is a matter of general welfare.

As far as the government dealing with BP later, they will have plenty of penalities to pay in court, and no doubt fines from the government, plus either a ban or greatly increased regulation from various levels of government.

None of that will undue the damage.

Talking about penalties and court sounds like Obama's first response.

Perhaps you are a lib in disguise?:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

The oil spill is threatening to destroy 30% of our seafood supply. I would say that protecting our food source is a matter of general welfare.



None of that will undue the damage.

Talking about penalties and court sounds like Obama's first response.

Perhaps you are a lib in disguise?:laugh:

Perhaps for once in your life you should think of a solution to any problem that does not involve the government.

 

[saturneptune]

The spill occured in Federal waters. Not Florida, or Louisiana, or B-P waters. That is why the Feds have responsibility here, and they have had oil spill contingency plans since 1994 (which were not followed here btw).

Did it ever occur to you that maybe they should not be "federal waters?" When did that happen and why? Another way for federal power to be spread? As far as the contingency plan for oil spills, if that is what you are depending on for your health and welfare, then you do not have a very high standard of yourself. It is like one would kind of get the hint with the response to Katrina, and others. Maybe a person with common sense would get the message, "Hey, I have to take care of myself and mine."

George Bush did not steer Katrina into New Orleans. It is not his fault or the federal government's responsibility. If you will note the difference between the recovery in Louisiana and Mississippi, you will see a vast difference. In New Orleans, and Lousisiana, everyone depended on the federal government, and pretty much got what they asked for. In Mississippi, local agencies, individuals, and limited help from the state government resulted in a rapid recovery. It is called neighbor helping neighbor, not a hand out from Uncle Sam Clause.

Obama did not cause the oil leak. It is not his fault or the federal government's responsibility. With his obvious record of wanting to run different aspects of our lives, such as auto companies, financial institutions, mortgage companies and anything else, why on earth would you encourge another intervention? If BP cannot handle the job, and we need fresh brain power to solve the problem, I would strongly suggest we come up with something other than the federal government. Have you ever experienced a VA operation?

 

[HankD]

Why is Obama doing nothing about the oil leak?

It's out of his pay-grade.

HankD

 

[targus]

Perhaps for once in your life you should think of a solution to any problem that does not involve the government.

You know just because someone does not agree with you on a single issue does not mean that they automatically fall into some convienent box for you.

I believe that the government's role is limited to protecting the citizens.

That includes things like - maintaining an army and protecting our borders.

But I also think that it includes things like protecting a not small percentage of our food sources from the accidents of private citizens.

If there were to be a large forest fire threatening thousands and thousands of acres and the guy who accidently lit it could not put it out - I would think that the government should do it. Not just let it burn and then say, "You can sue the guy that started the fire."

 

[targus]

I would strongly suggest we come up with something other than the federal government. Have you ever experienced a VA operation?

And there it is !

I was wondering why you are being so pig headed on this issue.

So your personal dependence on the government didn't work out for you.

You personally looked to the government to provide you with health care and it didn't satisfy you so now you are having an emotional response that prevents you from seeing that a massive oil spill along perhaps hundreds of miles of our national shoreline - containing 30% of our seafood supply - is a national security issue.

And you little personal visceral response to your own prior poor judgement of feeding at the public trough instead of being responsible for your own healthcare causes you to think that the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people and the marshland environments and the seafood supply should just wither and die.

 

[billwald]

You all pleased that Obama shut down drilling and pumping? I am. Lets burn Arab oil first and save ours.