BP in bed with the Government? - Auto-Trend Repairs and Service Information Forums

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

BP in bed with the Government?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

It wasn't people like PowerStroker who gutted the regulations that could have prevented this. You can thank Cheeney's energy task force for that one.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Spare me PowerStroker... What regulations has your boy Obama put in place? The last time I checked the ban on off-shore drilling has been lifted, hell it's even been expanded.

Truth is no one knows why that rig blew up at the moment, so to blame Cheeney is a little off-base considering that your boy Obama and his Democratic base really has not done ANYTHING to change the regulations.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

~Michael Tomasky's Blog

And now it turns out, according to an environmental lawyer whose interview on Ed Schultz last week is getting a lot of circulation, that this leak may well be traceable in part to...Dick Cheney.

How? It's hardly as far-fetched as it sounds. From the Wall Street Journal:

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week...

... regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.

The Journal's report doesn't come out and say this, but the environmental lawyer, Mike Papantonio, said on the Schultz show in an interview you can watch here that it was Cheney's energy task force - the secretive one that he wouldn't say much about publicly - that decided that the switches, which cost $500,000, were too much a burden on the industry. The Papantonio segment starts at around 5:00 in and lasts three minutes or so.

In the interests of disclosure I will note that I haven't heard the phrase "acoustic switch" until this weekend, so I don't really know. And obviously the fact that the US isn't alone in not requiring this switch indicates that there are legitimate questions about cost v. efficacy. So maybe it's just one of those things.

But then again, maybe it's not. Regulatory decisions have consequences all the time, and the people who made them should be asked to justify their decisions in a democracy. It'll be very interesting to watch this week and see if other news outlets pursue this.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 22nd of August 2010 08:16:42 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

~Michael Tomasky's Blog

And now it turns out, according to an environmental lawyer whose interview on Ed Schultz last week is getting a lot of circulation, that this leak may well be traceable in part to...Dick Cheney.

This argument is no diffrent than say... Older vehicles that did not have fuel inertia shut off switches, or ABS brakes, or SRS systems....

Sure it would be a good idea to incorporate new tech. devices to future rigs. I don't think the Republicans should be faulted.

Example - Mercedes Benz had ABS and SRS systems standard on S-Class vehicles since 1986, well before GM and FORD. Does this mean that GM and FORD'S should be hung out to dry because they waited 4-5 years to do the same? What about the thousands of people who would have otherwise avoided serious injury due to these safty advancements?

I think Obama is trying to shift the focus to others, meanwhile he likes to talk tuff saying "Who's ass he's going to kick" all the while working with these folks behind the scenes in an effort to hide the fact there really is a fuck load of oil still in the Gulf! Hell I think he is even expanding off-shore drilling as we speak and if you read the article above some claim that these safty devices have not yet been made manditory. The problem with Obama is if he's going to "Talk the talk, he needs to walk the walk". It's not like he does not have the resources.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I'm not saying that as soon as some new safety device is invented it should be immediately mandatory on everything across the board without a cost benefit analysis. I'm saying the people who make these policy decisions shouldn't have money thrown at them by the very industry who's profit margin would be affected if such a policy is adopted. This is why corporate political donations are dangerous... Because no longer are decisions based on the best available data, they're based on the most available corporate cash. The founders of this country would be very ashamed of us for letting such a system evolve.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

You forget, the founding fathers of this country still very much supported and condoned slavery. Homosexuality was NEVER spoken of. They were insistant on forming a government to control the people, which they have done. They made money out of thin air and killed people who stood in their way.

While I have much respect for the founding fathers, and the United States of America dont fucking try and act like they were saints. They were looking out for theirs at the same time. I just love how the liberals try and speek as if THEY were THERE. Using the founding fathers to justify corruption at the highest levels makes me sick. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth..

WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO POWERSTROKER.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The founding fathers had a tough needle to thread. Surely our country wasn't perfect in the beginning, nor is it now. But the wrote the best Constitution that they could get the states to ratify, and in it they planted the seeds for continual improvement.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I agree we had to start somewhere. Ensuring that the people of the nation are represented by folks who are not lifetime politicians is a step in the right direction. Ensuring that the work they do is from the heart with as little monitary influence is also another way to ensure the betterment of the nation. While I understand politics must be hard work and taxing on the family I think that compensation should be progressive. Small amounts while in office, with a huge bonus at the end should the public deem they did a good job. That there would ensure these people keep their eye on the ball. Perhaps upon electing new officials there could be a spot on the ballot that allows voters to grade the exiting officals performance.

After all, Politicians and baby diapiers are much alike, and should be changed often for much the same reason.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The problem isn't what we pay our Representatives for their services. Members of congress earn 6 figures annually. The problem is that it usually costs millions for them to run a campaign that gets them elected in the first place. If we got all corporate (and union) money out of our election process, it would lower the amount required by everyone to run a campaign and put people on equal footing. I think we should have public funding of elections such that any candidate who can get a specific number of people to endorse their candidacy will qualify for a government grant to purchase the necessary advertising ect. This way a regular Joe the plumber or Rex the mechanic can actually achieve public office and be an actual Representative of actual people as the founders intended. It would be much better than having only the wealthy elites who never worked a day in their lives be our Representatives, and have a perpetual self serving career doing so by sucking on the corporate teat and undermining the interests of working class people.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

So what's to stop the corruption at the election process? I mean how the hell would that work? Do you actually suggest that WE THE TAX PAYERS pay for peoples campaigns?

LOL! Heh-heh-heh. You know where I am going with this... Nooooooooooooo!

I learned a long time ago PowerStroker, I am just Rex the mechanic. So no, I don't expect the public to pay my way to become an elected official. While I think there should be term limits for many of the diffrent possitions, I think the size of someones campain can be directly contributed to how hungry they are, and also how well they can rub elbows. Sort of like how Obama crawled up to the top of the mountian, but without the bullshit. (LoL, yeah right).

I wouldn't mind working in a government possition, but there seems to be more to politics than just bullshitting.

Since this is America, I think the golden rule applies. I'd like to think when I have the gold, the rule will still apply.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

It would actually be cheaper for taxpayers to pay for elections, than to deal with the policies put forth by politicians whom are in the pocket of big corporations. Don't you agree? What George made us spend in Iraq for his oil buddies alone, would have paid for every campaign for every local office on up for several generations.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Sorry dude... I'm thinking NO WAY on the paying for peoples campaigns. Ill be damned if people walk around without insurance, and pay fines for doing so all while some pencil neck gets a free pass on taxpayer cash!

Sorry but I can't agree with that. That's the biggest load of horse shit I have heard in a long time PowerStroker. Thanks for the morning comics!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

No you see, they would have to get enough people to sign a petition in order to qualify for federal funding, it's not like they're handing out 50 grand to any tom dick and harry who says they want to run for office. MANY countries do this already, even in our own country some states have this as an option where people can choose either private or public campaign funding. I know it doesn't sound appealing to you, but it works and it's the only way to guarantee that it isn't just the monied elites running the show.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Let me ask you this PowerStroker... If people of great wealth and power are able to be corrupred by big corporations, what makes you think that poor folks will be able to resist corruption?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

That's exactly the point, humans by their very flawed nature are capable of being corrupted. Thus, removing corporate money from politics eliminates a major potential problem. Once the big money is gone, the only people who will be interested in running for office are those who actually care about the country.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

That's all America needs are some poor folks running the country.

We already have a poor mother fucker living in government housing at the highest level. Nothing new.

You're idea sucks.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

There is a reason the top 1 percent holds 90 percent of this nations wealth and pays a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than you and I... It's because people like you whom have this pie in the sky dream that someday, you will someday be in that top 1 percent and you want to enable them to skew the tax structure so that when that day comes it will actually benefit you. Dream big my friend, and keep dreaming. The founders wanted congress to be made up of regular working class folks. This is why the entire House of Representatives is up for re-election every 2 years. Please tell me how having 535 career politicians - most of whom are millionaires deciding everything for the rest of us is healthy?

By the way, Obama isn't poor. The sales of his books have made him a millionaire now too, but at least he remembers where he came from. It was only a few years ago that he and Michelle were able to pay off their law school loans. They weren't trust fund babies like Bush was.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Who could stand to read more than two pages of any book by Obama? Let alone shell out for 2nd purchase!?

His book must have been a big seller with the Muslims. Can't say that I have ever seen anyone reading one of his books, nor can I say that I have ever seen any for sale. Must not be that good. Prolly a front.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Pretty sure his books were NY Times best sellers.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

Pretty sure his books were NY Times best sellers.

Pretty sure? LOL

I am Pretty Sure his puppet masters were the ones buying up the books. Like I said, I'm thinking this book was a front.

Now here's a book I will buy, and most likley will be a NY Times best seller.

Bush Returns to Arena With Memoir in Hand

George W. Bush has remained mostly out of view and silent on policy debates since leaving office 19 months ago.

.Now, the former president is about to step into the public arena again, at a moment when Washington is revisiting tax cuts, stem cells and other issues that were among the most contentious of his administration.

Mr. Bush is re-emerging to promote his memoir, to be published a week after the Nov. 2 elections.

While the timing suggests that the book will not provide fodder for midterm campaigns, Mr. Bush will return to the public eye just as the Republican Party looks ahead to asserting greater power in Congress and to choosing its 2012 presidential nominee, and as President Barack Obama accuses the GOP of wanting to take the country back to Bush-era programs that, the Democratic president says, "drove the car into the ditch."

And the contents of his memoir make it likely that his voice will be heard on policy issues of the moment.

The book, "Decision Points," published by Crown Publishing Group, lays out 14 major decisions by Mr. Bush during his life and White House tenure. Among them, according to several people who have seen the manuscript: backing the bailout of the nation's financial system, enacting billions of dollars in tax cuts, limiting the use of human embryonic stem cells, and building up troops in Iraq for the so-called surge.

Some of those issues have regained prominence recently.

Due to a court ruling this week, lawmakers this fall may revisit the question of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, one of the major domestic controversies of Mr. Bush's early years in office.

View Full Image
.Mr. Bush's tax cuts expire at year's end, making them a likely topic of debate by lawmakers this fall, while Mr. Obama's commission on deficit reduction is scheduled to submit its report on related subjects Dec. 1.

Leading up to the midterm elections, the financial bailout also has emerged as a point of debate on the role of government. And this month's drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, and the transition away from a combat focus, has spurred debate over Mr. Bush's surge.

Mr. Bush also offers new details on his decisions during Hurricane Katrina, and on immigration, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and other war-related issues, such as the controversial warrantless wiretapping program.

Mr. Bush's promotional efforts begin Nov. 8 with a one-hour, prime-time special on NBC hosted by Matt Lauer. Advisors to Mr. Bush say other media interviews and a book tour are in the works, possibly further opening him to questions from the media and the public.

Several close advisors to Mr. Bush said in interviews they hoped the book, along with the new museum and presidential center at Southern Methodist University, would begin to redefine the public's view of a president who left office with approval ratings in the 30s.

'Extraordinary, Ordinary People: A Memoir of Family,' in October, from Crown
.The theme of "Decision Points" is "to lay out for people all of the information he received and the advice he was getting, and ultimately engage the readers to decide for themselves how they would have acted if they were in his shoes," said David Sherzer, a spokesman for Mr. Bush.

Former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, a close family friend, said the publicity would give the public a chance to reassess Mr. Bush's record. "Did we head into a tough period in the last six months in office? Sure," Mr. Evans said. "Was it a result of policies in his administration? I think there will be serious debate about that. We'll be debating about it a long time."

Mr. Bush has remained mostly silent and out of public view recently, though he has delivered more than 60 paid speeches in the U.S., Europe and Asia. As former Vice President Dick Cheney led the charge in criticizing Mr. Obama's foreign policy, Mr. Bush said that he would not criticize his successora pledge that advisers said Mr. Bush will keep.

The former first family's only campaign trail appearance will come next month, when Laura Bush headlines a fundraiser for GOP Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois.

Polls show Mr. Bush remains an unpopular figure but less divisive than he was during his final months in office. A June Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that half of Americans felt negatively toward him, compared with 60% who felt that way immediately before the 2008 election.

A new ad by the Democratic National Committee features an image of Mr. Bush and his voice as a narrator warns of returning to policies of the past.

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's longtime political strategist, noted that, according to Gallup, Mr. Bush's approval rating stands at 45%higher than Mr. Obama's in some surveys and a 10-point rise from the former president's standing a year ago.

Mr. Rove said that the president's attacks on Mr. Bush would only serve to raise questions about Mr. Obama. "The energetic hard left of the Democratic Party will say, 'Hooray,' but the vast bulk of the people will say, 'What about now? What have you done?"' Mr. Rove said.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I just threw up a little in my mouth