[besson3c]

People, individuals, what's the difference?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that some people want hands off government in general, and they want government to be accountable for the failures of a private business in the same breath? Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

We're not confusing conservative with anarchist again are we? I think all involved have claimed some degree of accountability in this, but... wouldn't this be where the government steps in to rescue the hapless victims of corporate greed?

All we've been saying is that these operations were pushed further offshore due to regulations against not only other forms of drilling, but other regions of drilling, and aggressively producing other sources like clean coal and nuclear. We've been pointing out that a government bureaucracy was created to oversee offshore drilling. They've taken your tax dollar for the bureaucracy, they've withheld royalties, they accepted kickbacks from the industry they're supposed to be monitoring, they shirked the one responsibility they had, we get the oil spill, and now we get to watch them stand around with their thumbs up their asses as millions of gallons of oil continue to bleed into the gulf.

BTW, this is quickly turning into Obama's Katrina².

Remember when you were asking who was responsible for Katrina?

Originally Posted by besson

"In case you have been one to advocate issuing the federal government a free pass in all of this: who is to blame for FEMA sucking? Who hired Brown?"

Why the complete 360 here besson? Who appointed the head of the MMS? Why is it "granting the federal government a free pass" when the (R) is in office, but when your guy's in office you point at others as somehow hypocritical (ironic of course) and unfairly critical of this administration?

This incident underscores to me the idea that people are flawed and incompetent, not exclusively government nor private business.

We agree here, but I might add that incompetence starts at the top and snowballs its way down the hill. So... yes, we're all flawed, but thankfully I'm not writing your rules for you and neither is BP. They're not collecting from you regardless of your will. We're beholden entirely to only one of the two parties involved here and as usual we're getting nothing for our money.

[Doofy]

Don't worry ebuddy - change will be along soon.


















Any time now.



















<tap, tap>

















Hmmm. Now?


















Soon, it's coming, I tell ya.















Nearly there.



















Oooo. No, that was just a bit of indigestion. Not much longer...

[Taliesin]

Maybe it was already mentioned, but this desaster is not unprecedented, a year ago in Australia something similar happened where it took 10 weeks to end the spill, though much less oil was spilled than now in the US.

A much more similar desaster happened in 1979 in the Gulf of Mexico, where it took months to end the spill, nearly the same methods were used without success back then as now by BP:

BP's Gulf battle echoes monster '79 Mexico oil spill | Reuters

Only drilling a second relieving well saved the day. The only difference to back then is that the desaster now is happening in a much deeper area, but on the other hand we nowadays have robots to help out.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't worry ebuddy - change will be along soon.

I'm still trying to figure out why there aren't a bunch of musicians and Hollywood types headed down to Louisiana to sing kumbaya? Jindal has been calling for help to build means of stopping the oil from hitting the gulf and has gotten absolutely zilch from this Administration. Where are all the cries of racism against the folks in Louisiana? This disaster could make Katrina look like a thunderstorm.

Change, transparency, leadership... any one of these traits would be refreshing about now, but like you I have a hunch we'll be waiting a loooooong time.

[Doc HM]

Oil companies spill this sort of stuff all over the world, all the time. Since this one is in the US's backyard BP are going to have to clean it up. Look at the Nigerian oil delta. It's an environmental wasteland. But it's out of sight and out of mind.

[BadKosh]

You know it's bad when the press starts turning on Obama. I think the "Hollywood Types" are avoiding him except that has been McCartney. Funny too how Jim Cameron the movie director thinks he knows soooo much about deep sea oil drilling.

[olePigeon]

[ort888]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You know it's bad when the press starts turning on Obama. I think the "Hollywood Types" are avoiding him except that has been McCartney. Funny too how Jim Cameron the movie director thinks he knows soooo much about deep sea oil drilling.

I heard he's trying to transfer his consciousness into a dolphin so he can go take care of this himself.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People, individuals, what's the difference?

One sounds like an indictment of humanity as a whole, the other is a reasonable assessment of reality.

Generally, when something like this happens people prop it up as evidence of how much the human race sucks, while completely ignoring the decades of success in drilling tens of thousands of wells with only a handful of notable incidents. (or whatever the disaster du jour is)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're not confusing conservative with anarchist again are we? I think all involved have claimed some degree of accountability in this, but... wouldn't this be where the government steps in to rescue the hapless victims of corporate greed?

And how would they do that, in this case?

All we've been saying is that these operations were pushed further offshore due to regulations against not only other forms of drilling, but other regions of drilling, and aggressively producing other sources like clean coal and nuclear. We've been pointing out that a government bureaucracy was created to oversee offshore drilling. They've taken your tax dollar for the bureaucracy, they've withheld royalties, they accepted kickbacks from the industry they're supposed to be monitoring, they shirked the one responsibility they had, we get the oil spill, and now we get to watch them stand around with their thumbs up their asses as millions of gallons of oil continue to bleed into the gulf.

There was no doubt government bureaucracy failure, but what sorts of penalties was the government in place to issue given that BP failed so many of those safety inspections compared to their competitors? I'm assuming those safety inspections were issued by the government? To me this illustrates that we don't only need sensible and well constructed forms of regulation, but regulation with *teeth* with authority to enforce. That BP was failing so many of these inspections probably demonstrates that they were taking many shortcuts with how they conducted business. Had the government had been able to enforce adherence to these safety standards, maybe this all wouldn't have happened?

If they did have enough power to enforce (and I'm not suggesting that they did or didn't, I don't yet know), this was indeed more of a failure on their end.

Why the complete 360 here besson? Who appointed the head of the MMS? Why is it "granting the federal government a free pass" when the (R) is in office, but when your guy's in office you point at others as somehow hypocritical (ironic of course) and unfairly critical of this administration?

Project much? I never said anything along the lines of how government is blameless. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There was no doubt government bureaucracy failure, but what sorts of penalties was the government in place to issue given that BP failed so many of those safety inspections compared to their competitors? I'm assuming those safety inspections were issued by the government? To me this illustrates that we don't only need sensible and well constructed forms of regulation, but regulation with *teeth* with authority to enforce. That BP was failing so many of these inspections probably demonstrates that they were taking many shortcuts with how they conducted business. Had the government had been able to enforce adherence to these safety standards, maybe this all wouldn't have happened?

Doesn't this sound AWFULLY familiar?

"Sure the government failed THIS TIME, we just need to do MOOOOORE! Try HAAAAARDER!"

Expecting government to be able to prevent things like this is like expecting a woman to understand logic…when it happens it's rare and usually by accident.

[BadKosh]

I don't think BP was trying to do things on the cheap as they were hesitant to swap out the blow-out when it was already held together with non-standard parts and such. It's looking like there were multiple layers of mistakes. Mistakes that led to the blow-out failing and the fire, to not putting the fire out quickly, which caused the rig to fail and sink, to the government stalling and hand wringing for a week or more to BP's inability to stop the flow, and again the governments stalling before doing as little as possible to help the environment and protect the coast lines. Hind sight is 20:20 but those in the gulf coast have been waiting for decades for the equipment and resources to protect the shores and fragile ecology of the wetlands and the feds and such have pissed the money away on useless BS instead. it looks like the federal government isn't too big to fail on a daily basis. Our current president has never been in charge of anything before and this is showing up in the inept responses. Sentors and representative types have always been lousy presidents compared to governors. I wonder how long the libs will be able to remember this? til their next nap?

[OldManMac]

So now it is the government's responsibility? Make up your mind.

[BadKosh]

it's the governments responsibility to get the mess cleaned up and BP's responsibility to pay for it and plug the leak. The gov't didn't do anything to keep the shores from being ruined like providing the resources to build barriers etc, and to have equipment standing by in case. How much clearer do I need to be? You are incorrectly assuming their is only one person or entity at fault. Typical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

My issue with this is the exact same one I had with ebuddy's comments: their job is to simultaneously make resource extraction "less harmful/dangerous" while still allowing all harvesting that can take place. They have two ideological masters.

Neither of you will acknowledge that. It's weird.

I didn't catch this point at the time so I'll take it up now. I agree, their job is to simultaneously make resource extraction "less harmful/dangerous" while still allowing the production of the commodity, but what you fail to realize is that there is also a disaster preparedness/reactionary component to their capacity. So... they have three masters, but wait - there's more.

• The MMS was enjoying quite a shady relationship with Big Oil in the form of kickbacks, gifts, withheld royalties, sex and drugs with folks within the industry they're supposed to be overseeing, etc... Apparently, there are many more masters I don't think you and I would've been happy to know about.
• By pushing drilling operations further out, they are not making it safer as much as they are pushing operations further from shore and complicating every aspect of the "harvest". Granted, while hindsight is always 20/20, they did not effectively serve the "safer/less dangerous" master.
• The point of actual hardware failure (not to be confused with letting BP off the hook as the client); Transocean- Deepwater Horizon, was granted awards by the MMS for the safety of their operations. The MMS did not effectively serve the "safer/less dangerous" master.

So... they pushed operations further from shore and failed to oversee the more dangerous/more harmful operations of deep water drilling. When the unspeakable occurred, instead of engaging a preparedness plan they've had for decades, they wait on BP to cap the accident while the result of that accident is coating pelicans with crude on the shore. The problem here is that they've got too many masters they're trying to serve and have served none of them effectively.

Look, a simple search of this board can turn up various well-known conservative posters who are calling for less government oversight/regulation so as to allow more oil extraction in the US. It's even simpler to find criticisms of government policies based on "environmental grounds."

While these things may be simple enough to find, what you're missing here is that you don't need oversight and regulation to make sure someone doesn't accidentally slam a pitchfork into their foot. You kind of have to assume people will take adequate precautions to ensure they don't stick a pitchfork into their foot.

I'm working from the IMO, relatively safe assumption that the absolute last thing BP wanted was to spew millions of gallons of a resource they're trying to deliver to market, face untold losses in their market value, numerous suits and litigation, a severely tainted reputation, death to their employees, and an immediate halt to all offshore operations. Don't you think these are relatively safe assumptions? Of course, none of this stops an accident from occurring.

And to make it clear: I don't think anyone is trying to excuse the government agency(ies). But the fact is that anywhere there's oil that's allowed to be drilled - in the US, or in Canada's tar sands or offshore areas - environmental regulators can only make oil companies do the "bare minimum" when it comes to environmental, and oftentimes even safety concerns. Black gold come first. Period. The regulators make them do every little thing they can, but at the end of the day the oil will flow.

If regulators make the producer do every little thing they can, why not follow through on their own law requiring impact studies prior to drilling? The problem is, they didn't do every little thing they could, but I'd argue that this is not the intention of government bureaucracy. The intention of bureaucracy is the bureaucracy itself as evidenced time and again not only by the MMS in minerals management, but by the SEC during market meltdown, the FHFA in the housing crisis, the NHTSA on reports of deadly toyotas from 2002, etc... In this case, the "oversight" took kickbacks, withheld royalties from US taxpayers, failed to oversee offshore operations and to this day cannot even account for the amount of oil produced offshore, failed to follow their own legislation, BP/Transocean botches the operation, we get a major oil spill, and all these government entities from FEMA and MMS to the EPA wait on BP to cap the spill while again... pelicans are flapping oil off their backs.

You're doing your best to "create another Catrina", but the simple fact of the matter is that there's probably not anything anyone could do. No one knows how to fix this problem. That's why it's taking so long - because no one knows that to do, including one of the largest companies in the world who actually works in the field and created the problem.

Build berms on shore to capture/filter as much oil as possible? Jindal's calling for it and not getting much. That'd be a start don't you think? Certainly more effective than dispatching SWAT or a bunch of lawyers to the gulf in order to establish who is to pay for what.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And how would they do that, in this case?

For starters, they could build berms on shore to capture/filter as much of the incoming oil as possible. Jindal's been calling for it per expert recommendation and has gotten zilch. I'd say a good start would be to dispatch more engineers than federal litigators. They could've implemented the disaster response they've had for decades including the dispatch of booms they were supposed to already have on hand only to find out they don't and had to order from an outlet in Illinois waiting weeks for delivery, among other things.

There was no doubt government bureaucracy failure, but what sorts of penalties was the government in place to issue given that BP failed so many of those safety inspections compared to their competitors?

Wait... BP or Transocean? The actual point of failure was the blow-out valve which is Transocean's architecture. Transocean was awarded by the MMS for safe operations in 2009. In fact, they postponed the ceremony for the award due to this spill. [posted a link to the story earlier]

I'm assuming those safety inspections were issued by the government? To me this illustrates that we don't only need sensible and well constructed forms of regulation, but regulation with *teeth* with authority to enforce. That BP was failing so many of these inspections probably demonstrates that they were taking many shortcuts with how they conducted business. Had the government had been able to enforce adherence to these safety standards, maybe this all wouldn't have happened?

There's an old rule of thumb at play here that many do not seem to grasp. If you're enjoying a lucrative career robbing banks with someone, you'll likely not turn them in unless you come into question. i.e. kickbacks, oil royalties, etc... They already had oversight provisions with teeth. They had laws and plans and mandates and followed through on little to none of it. That's why the head of the MMS has been fired and I presume (if there's any justice in this world) many heads within BP and Transocean will roll as well.

If they did have enough power to enforce (and I'm not suggesting that they did or didn't, I don't yet know), this was indeed more of a failure on their end.

It is my understanding that the legislation in question, overseeing offshore operations, have teeth. The teeth were not exposed. I'd be willing to entertain any information at all that suggests these laws and regulations have no teeth. If you've sold your teeth for the gold-fillings well... then we've got another problem entirely.

Project much? I never said anything along the lines of how government is blameless. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I was noting the irony of your post with what IMO was a more apparent double-standard;

Originally Posted by besson

Why is it that some people want hands off government in general, and they want government to be accountable for the failures of a private business in the same breath? Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

Originally Posted by besson

I was just suggesting a double standard here, it's pretty clear that there are plenty of people that are happy to criticize anything and everything Obama or anything and everything, or nothing.

Originally Posted by besson

[in context of post re: BP] This, arguably, was abuse in the form of negligence.

During Katrina

Originally Posted by besson

In case you have been one to advocate issuing the federal government a free pass in all of this: who is to blame for FEMA sucking? Who hired Brown?

This is not "ebuddy putting words in besson's mouth" as much as it is "besson gets called on his own double-standard".

I understand your frustration, but don't hate the playa.

[BadKosh]

Well said ebuddy!

[besson3c]

I don't see how some individual remarks commenting on the tone of debate need to be offset with me jumping all over the government like you have done in order for you to believe that I recognize government failure, but whatever, I don't much care. The government is partially responsible, end of sentence.

[ebuddy]

Just wanted to throw in the fact that the public gives the Obama Administration a lower mark on the handling of the BP oil platform disaster than they did the Bush Administration for Katrina.

We still don't want to SAY this is Obama's Katrina of course, but...

[besson3c]

The MMS failed with preventing the disaster by not regulating and overseeing stuff, FEMA failed by not responding to the disaster itself quickly. There is a parallel in terms of there being a failure of government, but I just don't see how the comparison works, and I question the motivations behind people that want to make it work. This is a terrible enough disaster without needing to haul out the partisan scorekeeping. I don't remember ever claiming that a Democratic president or administration would have handled Katrina better.

[Doofy]

This is becoming interesting.

Boris Johnson attacks America's 'anti-British rhetoric' on BP - Times Online

[Doofy]

Right, what's going on here chaps?

YouTube - BP Oil Spill: Who's to Blame?

1:15

Why does she mention "lost tax revenues". Would the state and local tax authorities not be taking their tax share out of the claims made by individuals?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why does she mention "lost tax revenues". Would the state and local tax authorities not be taking their tax share out of the claims made by individuals?

If the cost to repair the damage caused by the spill exceeds the amount that BP is liable for, who will foot the rest of the bill?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If the cost to repair the damage caused by the spill exceeds the amount that BP is liable for, who will foot the rest of the bill?

Union Carbide?
Haliburton?
The people who've been buying petrol for ridiculously low prices for ever and thus are culpable for industry's outlay-saving shortcuts?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Union Carbide?

I suspect Uncle Sam.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The MMS failed with preventing the disaster by not regulating and overseeing stuff, FEMA failed by not responding to the disaster itself quickly. There is a parallel in terms of there being a failure of government, but I just don't see how the comparison works, and I question the motivations behind people that want to make it work. This is a terrible enough disaster without needing to haul out the partisan scorekeeping. I don't remember ever claiming that a Democratic president or administration would have handled Katrina better.

There wasn't as relevant an experience to draw from besson. There most definitely would've been comparisons and scorekeeping had Clinton for example managed a disaster in the gulf. This is politics. I remember toward the waning years of the Bush Administration warning folks not to be too sensitive because there will be criticism of their preferred candidates and representatives. I'm not saying it's always right, but their motivation is a clear ideological difference, not unlike those critical of the Bush Administration. It's a heavy crown. You and I being fair to one another won't stop it unfortunately.

Then I just want to defend myself in that all I was trying to do was provide a measure of public perception as a very relevant point in this thread.

The comparisons that work IMO are those relating to the region specifically and the government response generally. The obvious difference of course is that one represents a natural disaster and the subsequent failures in response and the other represents first a corporate monolith, then a natural disaster and the subsequent failures in response. In this case you've got the absolute tastiest red-meat possible for the left. They naturally have seized on this as affirmation of their distaste for corporate monoliths. The right is a little tied over the barrel (no pun) because it is impossible not to dish on BP for this. They will and should pay a hefty burden to their bottom line, but this had become so much about BP that the Federal government was indeed getting a pass. I admit, some of the criticism is noisy, but the deafening silence of the usual suspects including the PSAs of actors, actresses, musicians, their benefit concerts, and media focus begs for it. If it weren't for grassroots, harsh criticism of this Administration would be very hard to come by IMO.

I don't think it's scorekeeping to say; "if the Bush Administration's response to Katrina was worthy of scorn, by measure this Administration's response to the oil spill is worthy of scorn."

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'm hearing the scorn towards both government and BP. Maybe you are measuring or perceiving it to be different than it is, but it is there, and I think that trying to spawn debate about which side should be treated more harshly just brings out the usual knee jerky left/right back and forth. I think it is up to people like us to not feed into the bottom feeding tendencies of 24 hour cable news.

What is more interesting to me out of all of this is the issue of regulation and how it should or shouldn't exist. Why is it, for instance, that the Canadian banks seem very well run and have been comparatively very resilient throughout the economic collapse despite them also being enormous in size and international wealth? Is it because they are regulated more or less, or is it because the people regulating them aren't asshats? How can we make our regulators less ass hatty, and how does calling for less regulation help or hurt?

This back and forth regulate/deregulate pendulum thing has been going on for ages. What can be learned from this BP experience, and how can we make things better in this country?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This back and forth regulate/deregulate pendulum thing has been going on for ages. What can be learned from this BP experience, and how can we make things better in this country?

Increased regulation is too often little more than an excuse to bloat bureaucracy, produce a false sense of security, and does next to nothing in terms of mitigating the problems it's commissioned to oversee. I've given several examples such as NHTSA, SEC, FHFA, MMS, etc... and the examples continue to mount seemingly by the week.

Again, you don't need a law to discourage someone from sticking a pitchfork into their own foot. The government meddled, gave irresistible incentives for deeper drilling, understood little to nothing about that method, and had nothing for potential disaster. We don't live in a nerf world and unfortunately there isn't an answer for everything, but I can tell you that you can generally trace it back to government meddling and the usual suspects of greedy opportunists working within the framework drafted them by the government bureaucracy. Why? It chooses winners and losers. Unfortunately you and I will eventually lose. Every time.

[BadKosh]

The politics of liberal mismanagement:

FOXNews.com - Experts Say White House &#39;Misrepresented&#39; Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Increased regulation is too often little more than an excuse to bloat bureaucracy, produce a false sense of security, and does next to nothing in terms of mitigating the problems it's commissioned to oversee. I've given several examples such as NHTSA, SEC, FHFA, MMS, etc... and the examples continue to mount seemingly by the week.

Again, you don't need a law to discourage someone from sticking a pitchfork into their own foot. The government meddled, gave irresistible incentives for deeper drilling, understood little to nothing about that method, and had nothing for potential disaster. We don't live in a nerf world and unfortunately there isn't an answer for everything, but I can tell you that you can generally trace it back to government meddling and the usual suspects of greedy opportunists working within the framework drafted them by the government bureaucracy. Why? It chooses winners and losers. Unfortunately you and I will eventually lose. Every time.

Your conclusions are wrong.

If you accept the fact that some amount of regulation is needed to prevent fraud and abuse (and I think there have been plenty of examples in our history of what happens when these safety structures fail and permit fraud and abuse - witness the oil spill and the collapse of the big banks), it just doesn't make sense to conclude like you are that regulation in and of itself leads to problems. Do you really think that a truly free and unregulated market would lead to more stability? If you want stability such as the Canadian banks you need to exercise conservative and safe business practices, low debt, sound management, etc. This is not compatible with practices that try to make as much money in a short period of time as possible via ponzi schemes, Enron accounting, whatever...

What seems true is that *bad* regulation bloats bureaucracies, and *unnecessary* regulation can cripple business, and *mismanaged* regulatory bodies lead to a false sense of security. The solution to all of this is not "stop doing your jobs", it is "do your damn jobs better". What is probably also true is that the bad and unnecessary regulation ratchets up the complexity of our systems, and that the bad and unnecessary regulation was probably implemented by meddling government. However, again, the solution is not that the government should stop meddling altogether, it is that they should learn how to do their jobs so that the meddling they do has a positive impact for consumers and does not cripple business in ways where they have to become "creative" with their business models. This probably would result in less meddling as you advocate, because it seems like much of the meddling that goes on now is in patchwork on flawed systems that have grown to be over-complex and poorly structured.

Then again, this is a very big country, so there will probably always be a tremendous amount of complexity associated with all of these systems. Maybe it isn't absurd to think about these systems as being like software that eventually becomes so complicated and bloated that it needs to be rewritten from the ground up? I would argue that some of this rewriting from the ground up with some of our systems (health care comes to mind) is just what we need.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The politics of liberal mismanagement:

FOXNews.com - Experts Say White House 'Misrepresented' Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium

I agree six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled.

BP oil spill is a wake up call on how ill prepare oil companies and the US government is prepare for an oil spill of this magnitude.

Gives the government enough time to evaluate the situation, reorganize government agencies, implement new policies, and determine if offshore drilling off our coast should continue.

The president will take those 7 experts advice into consideration.

[el chupacabra]

… ..

[BadKosh]

Screw the regulations part of it. The problem is the technology. No contingencies and no specialized equipment to deal with probable 'incidents' You can't regulate stupid, or corrupt or all the other human issues. The lack of foresight and planning for the worst amazes me. Especially since drilling this deep is a new wrinkle to older practices.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your conclusions are wrong.

Meh. Your response follows as one who either doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or simply doesn't want to. See the other thread on the differences between the Canadian banking system and the US banking system where you were trying to sniff out why more regulations = more stability. You couldn't substantiate your argument so you essentially posted a bunch of links to granular "factoids" pretty much saying the same things I said albeit in an equally roundabout way; framed as a disagreement.

What seems true is that *bad* regulation bloats bureaucracies, and *unnecessary* regulation can cripple business, and *mismanaged* regulatory bodies lead to a false sense of security. The solution to all of this is not "stop doing your jobs", it is "do your damn jobs better". What is probably also true is that the bad and unnecessary regulation ratchets up the complexity of our systems, and that the bad and unnecessary regulation was probably implemented by meddling government. However, again, the solution is not that the government should stop meddling altogether, it is that they should learn how to do their jobs so that the meddling they do has a positive impact for consumers and does not cripple business in ways where they have to become "creative" with their business models. This probably would result in less meddling as you advocate, because it seems like much of the meddling that goes on now is in patchwork on flawed systems that have grown to be over-complex and poorly structured.

Then again, this is a very big country, so there will probably always be a tremendous amount of complexity associated with all of these systems. Maybe it isn't absurd to think about these systems as being like software that eventually becomes so complicated and bloated that it needs to be rewritten from the ground up? I would argue that some of this rewriting from the ground up with some of our systems (health care comes to mind) is just what we need.

I present to you ACME Cemetery; government prowess in action.
Arlington Cemetery, body buried on top of another among a wealth of additional examples of mismanagement and scandalous activity.

I'm telling you they can't do anything right. Nothing. Why? Because too often the oversight body requires more oversight of its own than the activity it's trying to monitor. I cited several agencies that have made the news recently for their activity during what should have been their rare calls to action. Don't get me wrong, I like a few regs to ensure people at least "try" to mind their manners, but I'm afraid bureaucracy is not nearly as much about their commission as they're about the bureaucracy itself and I find the calls for "more bureaucracy" in the wake of their exposed mismanagement laughable. Maybe we just disagree. You can say we simply need "better oversight", but I'm afraid the examples of it pale in comparison to the examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. There's a reason why our Federal government is the largest employer in this country and it's not because they run such a tight ship. Oil companies had no desire to go drilling out into the deep water until they were given the irresistible incentives to do so. Government meddling. Now, very few have a clue of what to do and the government is among the most clueless in this I'm afraid.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Meh. Your response follows as one who either doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or simply doesn't want to. See the other thread on the differences between the Canadian banking system and the US banking system where you were trying to sniff out why more regulations = more stability. You couldn't substantiate your argument so you essentially posted a bunch of links to granular "factoids" pretty much saying the same things I said albeit in an equally roundabout way; framed as a disagreement.

Huh? I did not say that more regulations = more stability. Going off a little half cocked here?

I present to you ACME Cemetery; government prowess in action.
Arlington Cemetery, body buried on top of another among a wealth of additional examples of mismanagement and scandalous activity.

I'm telling you they can't do anything right. Nothing. Why? Because too often the oversight body requires more oversight of its own than the activity it's trying to monitor. I cited several agencies that have made the news recently for their activity during what should have been their rare calls to action. Don't get me wrong, I like a few regs to ensure people at least "try" to mind their manners, but I'm afraid bureaucracy is not nearly as much about their commission as they're about the bureaucracy itself and I find the calls for "more bureaucracy" in the wake of their exposed mismanagement laughable. Maybe we just disagree. You can say we simply need "better oversight", but I'm afraid the examples of it pale in comparison to the examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. There's a reason why our Federal government is the largest employer in this country and it's not because they run such a tight ship. Oil companies had no desire to go drilling out into the deep water until they were given the irresistible incentives to do so. Government meddling. Now, very few have a clue of what to do and the government is among the most clueless in this I'm afraid.

Nothing right, huh?

This is the same government that you trust to keep you safe from terrorists? Trust to make sure your food and drugs are safe to consume? To deliver your mail? Deliver social security benefits (which have worked well for a number of years until recent times)? Eliminate/minimize harmful toxins being released into the air and/or water supply? To provide medical treatment to old people?

There are a lot of things that the government has gotten right, or right enough, and many of these things do not and/or could not have private market equivalents... I get your point, but since my claim that your conclusions are faulty you have become noticeably testy and exaggeration prone. Just looking for accuracy here.

[BadKosh]

The problem with oversite is that the regulators don't get harshly punished in public for all to see their crappy jobs and be embarrassed. The violation of public trust should have a punishment of losing all your pension, public humiliation, and some sort of jail time. This goes for the clowns browsing porn instead of more closely monitoring and possibly shutting down the deepwater rig to corrupt politicians and their staffs.

[besson3c]

"Oversight", BadKosh, not "oversite".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The problem with oversite is that the regulators don't get harshly punished in public for all to see their crappy jobs and be embarrassed. The violation of public trust should have a punishment of losing all your pension, public humiliation, and some sort of jail time. This goes for the clowns browsing porn instead of more closely monitoring and possibly shutting down the deepwater rig to corrupt politicians and their staffs.

Absolutely ... and, likewise for the people who signed off on the corner cutting decisions that the regulators overlooked.

[el chupacabra]

… …

[el chupacabra]

… …

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh? I did not say that more regulations = more stability. Going off a little half cocked here?

You had another reason for asking folks if they believe Canadian banks are less regulated than US banks? Or what has made them so comparatively successful and stable? Are you saying regulation = instability or are you saying you don't know, then telling me why you disagree with me?

Nothing right, huh?

Okay, perhaps "nothing" was unfair. Naturally, good things aren't as newsworthy, but then we should be able to expect people to perform as paid and promised. IMO, too often they do not. This makes me perhaps more hesitant to contribute to their efforts than you and others. Who knows, with your idea of "better" oversight, there may be less oversight overall and I'd be willing to hear it, but... it just doesn't seem to happen and the lack of movement on root causes is disappointing.

This is the same government that you trust to keep you safe from terrorists?

Not that much really. I commend the efforts of intel and law enforcement addressing a wealth of attempts, but I wonder how many are either simply being Americanized, having second-thoughts, or clumsy.

Trust to make sure your food and drugs are safe to consume?

Food? Fine if their output equaled their input and if they dedicated their resources on agreeable terms. If the drugs we're taking are saving our lives today, how many lives were spent waiting on this cure to get to market? How many pharmaceuticals can continue giving people death yet remain in business without government aid? When it comes to the free market, again this is like wanting laws against sticking yourself in the foot with a pitchfork. It's simply a fundamental difference in our perspectives.

To deliver your mail?

Sure, but here again the postal service is struggling under mismanagement and subsequent insolvency, but without signs of clamping down on waste we'll be tapped to contribute more to poor stewardship. It becomes too much about the bureaucracy itself and we're eventually pumping water down increasingly leaky pipes. More so with other bureaucracies, but the US postal service is in real trouble.

Deliver social security benefits (which have worked well for a number of years until recent times)?

With Chinese and/or printed money either accruing interest for our grandchildren or saddling them with an entirely broken system. Again, the output is quickly not worth the input.

Eliminate/minimize harmful toxins being released into the air and/or water supply? To provide medical treatment to old people? There are a lot of things that the government has gotten right, or right enough, and many of these things do not and/or could not have private market equivalents... I get your point, but since my claim that your conclusions are faulty you have become noticeably testy and exaggeration prone. Just looking for accuracy here.

I don't like being told I'm wrong with what seems little more than "I don't know, maybe..." and I could've handled it more artfully. Apologies. With regard to accuracy, I and others continue to give you real-world examples of exactly what we're talking about and without really addressing any of those examples, you bring up your preferred examples. Soon, we're just talking past one another. All I'm saying is don't ask me to contribute more to the above without signs of better stewardship. It's really that simple IMO. We've made the first move more than our share of times. If you agree with this, dandy. If not, it likely explains part of our barrier. Besides, this thread and most of the conservative complaints you'll hear about bureaucracy are directed at Federal bureaucracy, not State or municipal. (not to say there isn't much to "oversee" here as well) Most voters I know believe they have more representation at the local level and their leadership a little more... approachable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You had another reason for asking folks if they believe Canadian banks are less regulated than US banks? Or what has made them so comparatively successful and stable? Are you saying regulation = instability or are you saying you don't know, then telling me why you disagree with me?

Yeah, I was asking because I didn't know. I did the research and came up with different conclusions than you. It was not a leading question, I didn't know, and still will not cling to my findings if I later find them to be flawed.

Food? Fine if their output equaled their input and if they dedicated their resources on agreeable terms. If the drugs we're taking are saving our lives today, how many lives were spent waiting on this cure to get to market? How many pharmaceuticals can continue giving people death yet remain in business without government aid? When it comes to the free market, again this is like wanting laws against sticking yourself in the foot with a pitchfork. It's simply a fundamental difference in our perspectives.

The pharmaceuticals could, without regulation, perform cruel animal testing, but I get your point. I threw them in there since they are a part of the FDA and I mentioned food. Food safety is really important given the design of the factory farms and the chemicals that are in our food. WIthout the FDA I'm sure there would be far more e-coli and other food borne nasties, although obviously I can't substantiate this with much more than my gut feeling, but agreed? We have no way of telling how many problems have been prevented, but it's not hard to imagine what sort of problems with our food would exist without a competent regulatory body.

Sure, but here again the postal service is struggling under mismanagement and subsequent insolvency, but without signs of clamping down on waste we'll be tapped to contribute more to poor stewardship. It becomes too much about the bureaucracy itself and we're eventually pumping water down increasingly leaky pipes. More so with other bureaucracies, but the US postal service is in real trouble.

I was hoping you would not pick apart each of my points and lose track of the overall point which had more to do with the overall totality. Since you've acknowledged my point I won't belabor this.

I don't like being told I'm wrong with what seems little more than "I don't know, maybe..." and I could've handled it more artfully. Apologies. With regard to accuracy, I and others continue to give you real-world examples of exactly what we're talking about and without really addressing any of those examples, you bring up your preferred examples. Soon, we're just talking past one another. All I'm saying is don't ask me to contribute more to the above without signs of better stewardship. It's really that simple IMO. We've made the first move more than our share of times. If you agree with this, dandy. If not, it likely explains part of our barrier. Besides, this thread and most of the conservative complaints you'll hear about bureaucracy are directed at Federal bureaucracy, not State or municipal. (not to say there isn't much to "oversee" here as well) Most voters I know believe they have more representation at the local level and their leadership a little more... approachable.

We do agree. I thought I made it pretty clear that I fully acknowledge the failures and ineffectiveness of our existing regulatory bodies. All I was trying to say was that I believe that one goes too far in trying to simply eliminate these sorts of programs due to their ineffectiveness, as if this makes things better. Make them do their jobs better, and if they suck at it, keep demanding better, and don't be apathetic. This is a better solution to me than hoping that these consumer protections will exist on its own. Sometimes, you're right, it makes perfect business sense for the products being sold to be safe, but other times preventable disasters occur such as a health epidemic, an oil spill, whatever. It is sort of ironic to me that much of this deregulation or call for deregulation is prompted by the desire to make more money, which is great until we have an expensive oil spill or the like.

Conservative, well managed businesses who abide by the "slow and steady wins the race" mantra are best for consumers and shareholders alike. Any regulation that is effective in preventing another Enron is good, any unnecessary regulation should be eliminated, and any failed regulators need to have their asses handed to them and be granted the proper resources to do their jobs. Especially in an economically volatile time like we live in now, stability is a good thing. We need to get back to this and tell the politicians that want to deregulate every damn thing and "be easy on BP" and the MMS to piss off.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

There's nothing amazing about it. This is how the government works. They are never ever ever proactive. Only reactive. It takes nothing short of an act of congress to make something proactive.

There was technology, foresight, and planning. All this came up years ago. We knew what would eventually happen in the gulf. Thats why the government under Antichrist Bush was lobbied to force companies to have relief wells already drilled before hand...along with other safety features....Just like in other countries; the technology is there. However Big oil lobbied against it... and won. And your surprised? Why would Bush care? What did Bush have to lose? He made out like a bandit.

My last post may have seemed long but it didnt even touch the real idiocy of the government. Something else I just like to add: There was a time when a new company came to town because it was unsatisfied with the regulations of its previous town. So we hired 4 new people to regulate that company. Well that company was so unsatisfied with how harshly we regulated them they left in 2 days. And the people we hired to regulate them lost their job. The government spent millions upgrading facilities for this company that left after just 2 days.

We always referred to the people we were regulating as "our customers". Because they bought our regulatory permits/licenses. And we were ridiculed for giving bad customer service.

hello? Are you connected to reality? Bush and his buddies have been out of office for a while now. THIS IS THE OBAMA ADMIN. The Blame bush thing is over. You've obviously getting your 'news' from the propagandists on the left like Huffington, Maddow and other opinions instead of facts types. I guess since Clinton was president less than a year after 9/11 he and his admin should be to blame if we follow your lead.

The fact is that those drilling are not prepared for a disaster. The required equipment and expertise isn't quickly available.
Tha Obama admin did nothing but send lawyers and political hacks in the first weeks. He and his admin should have mobilized people and equipment to prevent the ecological disaster. So much for the democrats being the green party types and caring about the environment. Their priorities seem to be to not let the president look as stupid and over his head like Carter did. Whoops! Too late. Obama says he doesn't want to talk to the CEO types. Why? It's because they have proven they can do the job, whereas Obama is proving he can't, and a meeting would just re-enforce that truth.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

hello? Are you connected to reality? Bush and his buddies have been out of office for a while now. THIS IS THE OBAMA ADMIN. The Blame bush thing is over.

You've clearly decided not to recall that Republicans did the "Blame Clinton thing" right up to the end of Bush's second term.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You've clearly decided not to recall that Republicans did the "Blame Clinton thing" right up to the end of Bush's second term.

Republicans? Absolutely, that's politics. It's a heavy crown. It's decidedly more pathetic however when the blame game is perpetuated from the office of the Presidency. Love him or hate him, this did not occur from Bush's desk, but it has become an integral part of Obama's vernacular.

Now, in regards to this particular disaster - it was Clinton (in '94 I believe) who offered the break on royalties for deepwater drilling (to the tune of saving the oil companies 16% right off the top) resulting in an irresistible incentive for deepwater offshore drilling; a vastly more complex operation.

[el chupacabra]

… …

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Bush specifically looked into this and fought for oil's right to not have to drill a relief well and install manual blowout preventers.

Can you provide a link for this? The initial incentive to even perform deepwater drilling occurred under Clinton. Did oil have the "right to not have to drill a relief well and install manual blowout preventers" when the practice had begun?

By the way if the 'blame Clinton thing' is never over then the blame Bush thing wont end for a long time. The devastation he caused will last for years to come.

First of all, had the required studies been conducted in accordance with law enforced by MMS regulations we already have, this may have been a non-issue. It's really not about blaming either one of them or even Obama in this case anyway. The harshest criticism toward the government has been the reaction to this issue. The parallel has been drawn to show two different Administrations' reaction to a gulf disaster. I mean unless you can illustrate how the spewing of millions of gallons of a precious commodity was somehow in BP's "greedy" (my word) interest.

... so there would be no spill in the first place...since the legislation on this subject came up during the Bush admin.

No, again from what I've read the legislation on this subject came up through a package of incentives for deepwater drilling under the Clinton Administration. This would be the "legislation on this subject".

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I find it weird that people pretend it's better for Obama to be prepared to clean up a spill rather than for Bush to have set it up so there would be no spill in the first place...since the legislation on this subject came up during the Bush admin.

Isn't the 'left' better connected to the green causes, and those who support them? Where were their suggestions on how best to clean it up? All I hear is silence. Could that be the fault of the media which sets the subjects to be covered? As far as spills are concerned, they will always happen. Careless happens all the time. Designing better systems for dealing with these kind of surprises looks to be a new industry as the oil industry will have to re-tool for a decade or so. Each oil rig should have associated emergency ships standing by. This might have prevented the fires from getting out of control and causing the rig to sink in the first place. It might have been able to rescue the workers too. We will never know. I think BP never wanted anything like this to happen, and now it's gonna ruin many lives as the company goes under or bankruptcy. Politicians never talk to the leading engineers and those who design and maintain the systems whether it's a Space Shuttle, Locomotive, oil drilling and refineries, coal mining and burning and other such industries or unique complex machines like the shuttle. The politicians have no idea of the true nature of these things and as we see lately, Obama call the wrong shots and way late in the game in the first place. I dunno, but perhaps those who are predisposed to be politicians may also not be mechanically inclined, or able to see things in simple obvious ways.