[BadKosh]

NINE days after the spill, the Obama admin is sending policy wonks to look things over. Where are the engineers and those who are experts on plugging such oil drilling sites? Why did it take nine days? Had this been during the Bush years the press would have been pissing and moaning within hours. It looks like he is way over his head on this and has no qualified advisers that could help him out. Sending the policy types and homeland security folks won't plug the leaks. They don't seem to have any idea what to do.

[Lint Police]

He wants it to be a disaster, and so does anyone that supports him. He hates oil just 'cause it is black. Racist!

Oh well, at least it will create jobs for some duck scrubbers. Something Obama hasn't been able to do on his own.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

NINE days after the spill, the 0bama admin is sending policy wonks to look things over.

Fixed that for you. Unfortunately, it will take a mod to fix the fact that you mispelled "Katrina".

[BadKosh]

Yeah...I don't spehl two gued sumdymes.

I think it's the beginning of his gov't takeover of the oil companies.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I think it's the beginning of his gov't takeover of the oil companies.

lol! That would probably be your wettest dream come true.

[CreepDogg]

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. We're supposed to let the oil companies drill wherever they want, because damn it, we have to keep gas prices down. But then, when somebody royally effs up and fills the Gulf of Mexico with oil, it's suddenly the government's problem? Holy bailouts Batman!

Where are the engineers and those who are experts on plugging such oil drilling sites? Well, they should be working for the oil companies, since private industry is much better at handling every situation that comes up, right? I think everybody knows what to do -- get the effing well plugged up to stop the leak! Now get at it!

[CreepDogg]

By the way, yes, I do think the EPA and whoever else need to be involved as quickly and closely as possible to ensure all the right steps are taken on containment and cleanup. But BP and the platform operator need to pick up the tab.

[stumblinmike]

No, it isn't. But it does have some link to Bush/Cheneys favorite charity: Haliburton! Seems they were supposed to do some cement work for the rig, the same type of cement work they botched in an Australian oil rig disaster not too long ago...Rush might talk about it next week....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

NINE days after the spill, the Obama admin is sending policy wonks to look things over. Where are the engineers and those who are experts on plugging such oil drilling sites? Why did it take nine days? Had this been during the Bush years the press would have been pissing and moaning within hours. It looks like he is way over his head on this and has no qualified advisers that could help him out. Sending the policy types and homeland security folks won't plug the leaks. They don't seem to have any idea what to do.

Aren't you always raging about too much government? So, explain to us why would you want the government involved in this matter?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

By the way, yes, I do think the EPA and whoever else need to be involved as quickly and closely as possible to ensure all the right steps are taken on containment and cleanup. But BP and the platform operator need to pick up the tab.

Legally BP must pick up the tab.

[Wiskedjak]

At least in the case of Katrina the disaster was caused by natural forces. Deepwater Horizon is a disaster caused by corporate forces.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

NINE days after the spill, the Obama admin is sending policy wonks to look things over. Where are the engineers and those who are experts on plugging such oil drilling sites? Why did it take nine days? Had this been during the Bush years the press would have been pissing and moaning within hours. It looks like he is way over his head on this and has no qualified advisers that could help him out. Sending the policy types and homeland security folks won't plug the leaks. They don't seem to have any idea what to do.

Since your parroting Limbaugh here, are you also a conspiracy theorist like Limbaugh suggesting that the disaster was an inside job?
Ezra Klein - Oil spill an inside job?

[BadKosh]

No. I was wondering why olicy wonks were looking at it and not the Army Corp of Engineers, oil disaster clean-up organizations, engineers, or oil rig experts. It looks like the SWAT teams weren't needed either.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Since your parroting Limbaugh here, are you also a conspiracy theorist like Limbaugh suggesting that the disaster was an inside job?
Ezra Klein - Oil spill an inside job?

Except I have a day job and don't listen to the radio then. Funny that you would choose the leftist Post to quote from. How about listening the the community organizers words?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No. I was wondering why olicy wonks were looking at it and not the Army Corp of Engineers, oil disaster clean-up organizations, engineers, or oil rig experts. It looks like the SWAT teams weren't needed either.

When did BP call them in? They should be the ones doing that, seeing as how they're responsible, right?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except I have a day job and don't listen to the radio then. Funny that you would choose the leftist Post to quote from. How about listening the the community organizers words?

Sigh ... just to make you happy. Looks like the words are the same.
Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf

I quoted the WSJ because it was the only publication that I recognized.
http://news.google.ca/news/story?pz=...KtHrZtlwWtZCEM

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This thread is getting less attention than I had expected on here. I did find the OP hilarious however - equating the government's response time to a natural disaster hurricane with its response time to a private companies' accident offshore in the Gulf. Your ****ed-up logic will never cease to amaze me, BadKosh.

So after all the Right-y moaning and bitching about how terrible it is that oil companies have been denied access to available oil / natural resources on environmental grounds... what say ye now?

Is this an acceptable outcome? The danger has been pointed out by environmentalists/others for probably decades now: that it might be okay to drill in some of these spots, but if anything ever went wrong, it would probably be impossible to effectively manage the problem.

These criticisms were roundly ignored. In fact, if there had been a news story last week about a similar type of oil project being denied by the EPA on environmental grounds, it would have been roundly derided on this forum by the Usual Suspects. Well, we're here. I'd love to say that BP will be picking up the tab, but something rather tells me that it will end up being the taxpayers who account for much of the cleanup costs - similar to the Exxon Valdez spill - because after all, it's Joe Public who will be affected and the government simply can't sit back and trust Private Company to protect Joe Public from their eff-up.

What's the answer? Is this sort of outcome an acceptable risk? Many seem to think so, according to your posts on this board. Should there be more government regulation to prevent this sort of thing? Or is this some sort of in-between problem?

greg

[hyteckit]

Pres. Obama needs to create a Duck rescue force.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This thread is getting less attention than I had expected on here. I did find the OP hilarious however - equating the government's response time to a natural disaster hurricane with its response time to a private companies' accident offshore in the Gulf. Your ****ed-up logic will never cease to amaze me, BadKosh.

So after all the Right-y moaning and bitching about how terrible it is that oil companies have been denied access to available oil / natural resources on environmental grounds... what say ye now?

Is this an acceptable outcome? The danger has been pointed out by environmentalists/others for probably decades now: that it might be okay to drill in some of these spots, but if anything ever went wrong, it would probably be impossible to effectively manage the problem.

These criticisms were roundly ignored. In fact, if there had been a news story last week about a similar type of oil project being denied by the EPA on environmental grounds, it would have been roundly derided on this forum by the Usual Suspects. Well, we're here. I'd love to say that BP will be picking up the tab, but something rather tells me that it will end up being the taxpayers who account for much of the cleanup costs - similar to the Exxon Valdez spill - because after all, it's Joe Public who will be affected and the government simply can't sit back and trust Private Company to protect Joe Public from their eff-up.

What's the answer? Is this sort of outcome an acceptable risk? Many seem to think so, according to your posts on this board. Should there be more government regulation to prevent this sort of thing? Or is this some sort of in-between problem?

greg

Even if BP picks up the tab like Obama is promising they will do, it is sure to increase the cost of gas at the pump and impact our economy.

I have no idea why some Republicans think that the answers to these sorts of problems involve less regulation and oversight.

Exhibit a) banks and mortgages
Exhibit b) derivative market
Exhibit c) Enron
Exhibit d) this spill

Conclusion: the free market does not magically operate altruistically, does not always do the morally right thing, and does not always have the best interests of the general public in mind. Therefore, like most other things in life it needs proper oversight and regulation. People are greedy and are willing to take a chance like this if it means more short term profits, this is nothing new. The market cannot always "correct itself", and sometimes when it is clear that it ought to be correcting itself it is far too late.

We need regulation to prevent forms of fraud and abuse in our economy. This, arguably, was abuse in the form of negligence.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sigh ... just to make you happy. Looks like the words are the same.
Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf

I quoted the WSJ because it was the only publication that I recognized.
Rush Limbaugh says this incident is "... - Google News

Did you even LISTEN to your presidents own words where HE called them SWAT TEAMS?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This thread is getting less attention than I had expected on here. I did find the OP hilarious however - equating the government's response time to a natural disaster hurricane with its response time to a private companies' accident offshore in the Gulf. Your ****ed-up logic will never cease to amaze me, BadKosh.

So after all the Right-y moaning and bitching about how terrible it is that oil companies have been denied access to available oil / natural resources on environmental grounds... what say ye now?

Is this an acceptable outcome? The danger has been pointed out by environmentalists/others for probably decades now: that it might be okay to drill in some of these spots, but if anything ever went wrong, it would probably be impossible to effectively manage the problem.

These criticisms were roundly ignored. In fact, if there had been a news story last week about a similar type of oil project being denied by the EPA on environmental grounds, it would have been roundly derided on this forum by the Usual Suspects. Well, we're here. I'd love to say that BP will be picking up the tab, but something rather tells me that it will end up being the taxpayers who account for much of the cleanup costs - similar to the Exxon Valdez spill - because after all, it's Joe Public who will be affected and the government simply can't sit back and trust Private Company to protect Joe Public from their eff-up.

What's the answer? Is this sort of outcome an acceptable risk? Many seem to think so, according to your posts on this board. Should there be more government regulation to prevent this sort of thing? Or is this some sort of in-between problem?

greg

Funny coming from a Global warming chump like you.

[besson3c]

Don't you mean Gl0bal warming?

When all else fails, mock the person with a non-argument

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No. I was wondering why olicy wonks were looking at it and not the Army Corp of Engineers, oil disaster clean-up organizations, engineers, or oil rig experts. It looks like the SWAT teams weren't needed either.

Except that the National Guard in multiple states are already involved, and so are engineers and oil rig experts. They're currently setting up barriers along the shores and sending down cement blocks to try and stop the spill, as per the recommendation of said engineers and oil rig experts. The "olicy wonks" are there to help investigate why and how the valves failed.

[hyteckit]

Why hasn't Pres. Obama fixed Toyota's brake problems?

Toyota faulty brakes, Obama's Katrina.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Funny coming from a Global warming chump like you.

Why is it funny?

Or was that just your way of completely ignoring my post?

greg

[sek929]

That was his way of letting everyone else know his argument is paper thin and was formed in the span of two uneducated seconds.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Did you even LISTEN to your presidents own words where HE called them SWAT TEAMS?

I was linking to Limbaugh's words suggesting that the BP platform disaster was an inside job. I don't care about SWAT teams.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Even if BP picks up the tab like Obama is promising they will do, it is sure to increase the cost of gas at the pump and impact our economy.

You may be right.

I have no idea why some Republicans think that the answers to these sorts of problems involve less regulation and oversight.

Exhibit a) banks and mortgages
Exhibit b) derivative market
Exhibit c) Enron
Exhibit d) this spill

I don't know how anyone can ignore the fact that there are already a number of pricey government oversight provisions in place using each and every one of the above as a fear tactic to create it. They were lame in some cases and partially involved in others. Is BP culpable for a great deal of expenses incurred as a result of their involvement in the movement of that toxin and the profit of its sale? Of course. I don't see how people could champion government oversight and regulation as if it could have or would have served to stop the BP platform disaster. IMO oversight too often leads to a false sense of security and does not acknowledge the operational complexities of the business under its microscope.

Conclusion: the free market does not magically operate altruistically

C'mon man. Who does, Mother Theresa? Was she a government plant or something?

... does not always do the morally right thing, and does not always have the best interests of the general public in mind. Therefore, like most other things in life it needs proper oversight and regulation.

Because oversight is always proper and regulation effective? Seriously?

People are greedy and are willing to take a chance like this if it means more short term profits, this is nothing new. The market cannot always "correct itself", and sometimes when it is clear that it ought to be correcting itself it is far too late.

Just once I'd like to see an argument that does not immediately apply to enter politician's name/government program here.

We need regulation to prevent forms of fraud and abuse in our economy. This, arguably, was abuse in the form of negligence.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Why hasn't Pres. Obama fixed Toyota's brake problems?

Toyota faulty brakes, Obama's Katrina.

What is it when an oversight body like the NHTSA sits on their hands while reports of deadly Toyotas were hitting their desks from 2002? Neglect. How about the SEC in securities and exchange? Surfing porn during the market meltdown apparently. Neglect. FHFA in the housing meltdown? Neglect.

I have a difficult time jumping on the "more oversight and regulation" bandwagon. It doesn't work and there isn't a thing oversight and regulation could've done for the BP platform disaster that it wasn't already supposed to be doing and didn't.

[besson3c]

ebuddy, I'm not claiming that more regulation would have averted this disaster, this is obviously unknown. However, intelligent and well-defined, conceived, and constructed oversight would certainly increase the odds of preventing something like this.

I find it extremely cynical to say that oversight and regulation is pointless and does not ever have a positive impact, if that is what you are suggesting. Sure many politicians that would be tasked with this oversight are asshats and would miss all sorts of things, but then why do we have any intelligence agencies at all? Why not disband all of them, including the FBI, CIA, DHS, the whole lot of them? After all, they are in charge of overseeing our security and safety. Why not disband the FDA who is in charge of the safety of our food and drugs and just assume that we are going to get sick anyway, so why bother with funding an organization like this? Let's get rid of the EPA too, and let's stop auditing big companies...

Nobody ever said that these groups are perfect, but it is incredibly cynical to assume that we are better off with no regulation and oversight rather than some. The solution is not to concede defeat, but find and demand better ways to enact intelligent and well designed oversight of key resources in a way that is designed to benefit us all. Whatever we come up with won't be perfect, but providing the cost/benefit ratios make sense, it is better than nothing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have a difficult time jumping on the "more oversight and regulation" bandwagon. It doesn't work and there isn't a thing oversight and regulation could've done for the BP platform disaster that it wasn't already supposed to be doing and didn't.

You're absolutely right. So, what's the solution? Clearly corporations can't be relied upon to consider the interests of anyone beyond their shareholders and government can't be relied upon to regulate effectively or efficiently. What would be the conservative way of ensuring that a disaster like BP's doesn't happen?

[hyteckit]

Oversight and regulation doesn't eliminate problems; It reduces potential problems and holds those who are responsible when the problem does occur.

Without it, we would have more problems and no corporation would be punish because we have no legal authority to fine or punish the corporation.

If corporations know that the government can heavily fine them for mistakes, I'm sure they'll be more careful.

You know, kinda like laws saying if you rape and murder, you would get jail time?

Or getting fined for running a red light or speeding.

Does speed limit regulations eliminate speeding? No.
Does driving drunk regulations eliminate drunk driving? No.

But I'm sure have a set of regulations for everyone to follow makes sense and reduce the amount of reckless driving.

I'm sure the business regulations reduce the recklessness of business practices.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're absolutely right. So, what's the solution? Clearly corporations can't be relied upon to consider the interests of anyone beyond their shareholders and government can't be relied upon to regulate effectively or efficiently. What would be the conservative way of ensuring that a disaster like BP's doesn't happen?

You don't think BP is asking themselves this very question while thousands of gallons of their liquid gold is spilling out into the ocean? It's not like this was some ploy to kill baby ducks. I think the companies with the best reputation in their respective industries do in fact show a track record of integrity. BP is not one of them. Now, where companies like BP are going to act reprehensible is the stress reaction to their bottom line in the time of crisis. They'll do things like send waivers to fishermen in the area trying to get them to sign away their right to sue for damages, etc... This is where media and knowledge and the oversight bodies already in existence can step in and mitigate shoddy practice. We have recourse (a kind of oversight) for businesses guilty of being poor stewards of the public trust, we have absolutely 0 recourse when government bodies are guilty of same.

Other than that... accidents happen. What can I say, we don't live in a Nerf world. So... what we do now is probably best answered through a process of elimination and IMO, more oversight and regulation can be eliminated as an effective means of addressing the issue.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I was linking to Limbaugh's words suggesting that the BP platform disaster was an inside job. I don't care about SWAT teams.

Like I said, I don't listen to Limbaugh. Your example is part of why. He's damaged goods like Newt. Limbaugh made himself deaf from his drug addiction. Newt displayed sleaze while his first wife was dying and he was messing around with the girlfriend. I Listen to Mark Levin to get the traffic reports between segments. Levin is at least smart and will cover something in extreme detail with many audio clips and sources. He's better connected to the info than the MSM or even many talk show types.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, intelligent and well-defined, conceived, and constructed oversight

So, non-governmental then.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This thread is getting less attention than I had expected on here. I did find the OP hilarious however - equating the government's response time to a natural disaster hurricane with its response time to a private companies' accident offshore in the Gulf. Your ****ed-up logic will never cease to amaze me, BadKosh.

So after all the Right-y moaning and bitching about how terrible it is that oil companies have been denied access to available oil / natural resources on environmental grounds... what say ye now?

Is this an acceptable outcome? The danger has been pointed out by environmentalists/others for probably decades now: that it might be okay to drill in some of these spots, but if anything ever went wrong, it would probably be impossible to effectively manage the problem.

These criticisms were roundly ignored. In fact, if there had been a news story last week about a similar type of oil project being denied by the EPA on environmental grounds, it would have been roundly derided on this forum by the Usual Suspects. Well, we're here. I'd love to say that BP will be picking up the tab, but something rather tells me that it will end up being the taxpayers who account for much of the cleanup costs - similar to the Exxon Valdez spill - because after all, it's Joe Public who will be affected and the government simply can't sit back and trust Private Company to protect Joe Public from their eff-up.

What's the answer? Is this sort of outcome an acceptable risk? Many seem to think so, according to your posts on this board. Should there be more government regulation to prevent this sort of thing? Or is this some sort of in-between problem?

greg

Perhaps IF the enviro-wack-ohs you side with had not made it impossible to drill in shallow waters instead of a mile down this problem would have been easier to fix? Funny that trust doesn't come up when global warming frauds tampered the data but even though the numbers are suspect, you cling to your as yet unproven theories. They were not interested in integrity or doing anything for the public good either, but just to line their pockets.

[OldManMac]

Perhaps an appropriate Steve Forbert song;

"Oh the engine's gone dead," cried the men who work there

And she passed up the dock on the wide Delaware

Then the ship ran aground and the oil got away

And they penned that report, "The Big Spill" on that day


It was hundreds of thousands of gallons galore

Stretching thirty-two miles down the Delaware shore

There were geese in the marshes out looking for food

They got stuck where they stood in the oncoming crude



And it's oil, oil

Ah, drifting to the sea

Oil, oil

Don't buy it at the station, you can have it now for free

Just come on down to the shoreline where the water used to be



In the well-charted waters of the Nantucket shoals

There's a ship run aground full of oil, we were told

In a week's worth of rough winter weather and waves

The boat started cracking and it could not be saved



It was seven-point-six million gallons this time

Consider the danger and think of the crime

As it poured out a slick stretching into the tide

Over hundred-miles and yes, it came deep, it came wide



And it's oil, oil

Oil pouring in the sea

Oil, oil

Oh, don't buy it at the station, you can have it now for free

Just come on down to the shoreline where the water used to be



There's talk of some writing found in the ship's log

Saying one of the helmsmen's unfit for his job

And the ship's gyro compass was six degrees shy

Their charts were outdated but they, they tried to get by



And you know it's oil, oil

Yeah, pouring in the sea

Oil, oil

Don't buy it at the station, you can have it now for free

Just come on down to the shoreline where the water used to be

Yeahhh



Now both of these ships, like a great many more

Got registered in through Liberian doors

Inspections are quick and regulations are few

Just sign on the line and go find you a crew, yes



One of these ships was the Olympic Games

The Argo Merchant was the other one's name

Well it's sad, but it's true, things got worse for the seas

'Cause I ain't even mentioned Amoco Cadiz



Amoco Cadiz, between England and France

The big super tanker out there taking it's chance

With its one-hundred-thousand black tons of the slime

Amoco Cadiz spilled the most of all time



Yes, ya' know it's oil, oil

Man, it's creepin' in the sea

Oil, oil

Oh, don't buy it at the station, you can have it now for free

Just come on down to the shoreline where the water used to be



Now down in the Gulf east of Mexico Way

There's something gone wrong, so the papers all say

A Mexican oil well is leaking it's goo

They say it's the worse that things have ever come to



Yes it's gallons of sludge, sixty-million and more

It's cruising and oozing towards many a shore

Yes, things have got bad but they will probably get worse

If you can't drink the oil, oh, you might, you might die of thirst



Because it's oil, it's oil

And it's creeping in the sea

Oil, oil

Don't buy it at the station, you can have it now for free

Just come on down to the shoreline where the water used to be

[PB2K]

thanks for posting song lyrics , it makes the thread unreadable

The USA wanted to cut down fuel costs by allowing offshore drilling, it's new, it fails, now you end up with the worst oilspill ever. wrong bet.

[Paco500]

I don't think this will be Obama's Katrina- there is a bad guy to blame other than the weather, but I do have to say I'm disappointed in the public face of the response. I can't say with any kind of confidence what was actually going on from thousands of miles away, but it seemed to me the response was not as vigorous as it should have been.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Aren't you always raging about too much government? So, explain to us why would you want the government involved in this matter?

BadKosh, you still haven't answered this questions yet.

Why do you think the government should be involved in this situation? Why not leave it up to the private sector to handle? Do you really think the government is able help with this problem in any way?

[pooka]

These academic debate are cute and all, but regardless of your leanings, shouldn't SOMEONE have a plan in the event someone else drops the ball. Since we're playing with semantics, what if it's determined that the oil rig was blown up by Cuban terrorists. Is it the "market's" problem to handle? The shit part is - there is a whole lot of oil spewing into the ocean. Would it hurt to have the fed publicly call out BP and say if you don't get this under control, we will use the full force of the govt to grind your company and its assets into the ground? I dunno. Leadership from somewhere would be awesome.

[hyteckit]

The federal government doesn't have the expertise or equipment to plug up an oil spill.

What do they do in China?

Shoot the guys in charge of BP for the major screwup?

I guess no more drilling along the US coastline. Since these so called oil drilling experts can't plug up the hole and lied to the government about the potential dangers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Would it hurt to have the fed publicly call out BP and say if you don't get this under control, we will use the full force of the govt to grind your company and its assets into the ground?

How exactly would the US government go about grinding an international company and its assets into the ground? War?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by pooka 

These academic debate are cute and all, but regardless of your leanings, shouldn't SOMEONE have a plan in the event someone else drops the ball. Since we're playing with semantics, what if it's determined that the oil rig was blown up by Cuban terrorists. Is it the "market's" problem to handle?

Yes. It's BP's rig. It's their responsibility to secure and maintain it.

If someone breaks in and vandalizes your house, the government (police) may get involved to catch the vandals. If they do, they'll hold the vandals accountable to pay for the damage (if they can pay). If they don't catch them, or they can't pay, you're on your own to pay for the damage. (You may have insurance, but the point is you're responsible to find a way to deal with this situation). Same holds true here.

The shit part is - there is a whole lot of oil spewing into the ocean. Would it hurt to have the fed publicly call out BP and say if you don't get this under control, we will use the full force of the govt to grind your company and its assets into the ground? I dunno. Leadership from somewhere would be awesome.

Isn't that pretty much what's happened? The government has come out and said that BP is financially accountable for the control and cleanup here.

Originally Posted by President Obama

Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill. But as president of the United States I’m going to spare no effort to respond to this crisis for as long as it continues and we will spare no resource to clean up whatever damage is caused.

Edit: I don't think it's necessary to be so vindictive as to 'drive them into the ground'. Just to make sure they clean up the mess they made.

[pooka]

Jesus. Ok. Another hypothetical then.

Superman is exposed to synthetic kryptonite. Instead of making him physically weaker, it affects his mind. He starts banging prostitutes, drinking lots of alcohol and flying at supersonic speeds into the ocean floor right off the coast of Louisiana. THIS results in oil spewing into the gulf. Ignoring the fact that Superman is pretty invincible, When does the federal government step in? Never? Or do they just take their time putting out a bid?

Or am I mistaking the pulse on this and it's not that big of a deal. Just a mess that needs some cleaning up?

[The Final Dakar]

I believe this is the one time that having Aquaman might be useful.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Jesus. Ok. Another hypothetical then.

Superman is exposed to synthetic kryptonite. Instead of making him physically weaker, it affects his mind. He starts banging prostitutes, drinking lots of alcohol and flying at supersonic speeds into the ocean floor right off the coast of Louisiana. THIS results in oil spewing into the gulf. Ignoring the fact that Superman is pretty invincible, When does the federal government step in? Never? Or do they just take their time putting out a bid?

I like the Aquaman idea. They call up Aquaman, and have him round up Superman to make him drink up all the oil he spilled.

Or am I mistaking the pulse on this and it's not that big of a deal. Just a mess that needs some cleaning up?

Well, among other things, we have 11 dead rig workers, a sunken destroyed rig, a massive oil leak, impacted wildlife, and a big threat to industries along the gulf coast. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big mess to be cleaning up.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

These academic debate are cute and all, but regardless of your leanings, shouldn't SOMEONE have a plan in the event someone else drops the ball. Since we're playing with semantics, what if it's determined that the oil rig was blown up by Cuban terrorists. Is it the "market's" problem to handle? The shit part is - there is a whole lot of oil spewing into the ocean. Would it hurt to have the fed publicly call out BP and say if you don't get this under control, we will use the full force of the govt to grind your company and its assets into the ground? I dunno. Leadership from somewhere would be awesome.

Yes, the government should have a plan in case BP "drops the ball". And the government plan should be exactly what you outlined, forcing the company to resolve the problem no matter what, no matter the cost.

As far as BP is concerned, market forces should be allowed to play out. BP should be held accountable for performing the clean-up and paying for every last cent of it. And if that hits their profits hard this year, so be it. The government should not step in and perform the cleanup just so BP doesn't take a big financial hit.

Besides, BP has been in the oil drilling business a long time and knows that the great rewards from this business carry great risks. And, those risks just bit them in the ass. So, now they have to accept that they will lose lots of money now, and potentially lots more in the future, from this accident. And the government shouldn't do anything to minimize the burden of these losses. The market forces from such a business calamity should be allowed to play out.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Jesus. Ok. Another hypothetical then.

Superman is exposed to synthetic kryptonite. Instead of making him physically weaker, it affects his mind. He starts banging prostitutes, drinking lots of alcohol and flying at supersonic speeds into the ocean floor right off the coast of Louisiana. THIS results in oil spewing into the gulf. Ignoring the fact that Superman is pretty invincible, When does the federal government step in? Never? Or do they just take their time putting out a bid?

Or am I mistaking the pulse on this and it's not that big of a deal. Just a mess that needs some cleaning up?

Yeah . . . ummm . . . you know Superman doesn't exist, right?

You might want to use a reality-based hypothetical the next time you make an argument. Dumbass!

[pooka]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big mess to be cleaning up.

Cool. And everyone is ok with the guys that made the mess being in charge of cleaning up the mess? The federal government need not get involved in this market-based solution. I'm just askin' questions here.

And for the record, my hypothetical superman scenario is way better than most of the stupid shit that gets discussed in here.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Cool. And everyone is ok with the guys that made the mess being in charge of cleaning up the mess? The federal government need not get involved in this market-based solution. I'm just askin' questions here.

The federal government's job is to make sure the market-based creator of this mess cleans up the mess (and taking the corresponding market losses that go along with it). So, the federal government needs to ride* the company executives never letting up on them until the mess is cleaned up and the well capped.

BP signed a contract with the federal government to get that license to drill--a contract which contained provisions for accountability in case of an accident. Now that an accident has happened the government needs to enforce that contract and make sure BP does what they are supposed to do to clean up after an accident. So, the government's job is really to enforce contract law by making sure BP fulfills it part of the business deal it made when it got the license to drill.

*This could be anything from Obama's statements about responsibility to threats to arrest and imprison the CEO of BP to freezing the transfer of BP's funds/assets out of the country.