danivon wrote:Actually, I think that there's a global issue to do with commodity prices and availability that is causing a general hiccup in recoveries. But hey, you keep right on blaming one man.

The global economy didn't force him to rack up $3T of debt in two years. The global economy didn't force the shut down of the Gulf oil industry or threaten those in other areas (like West Texas, potentially, because of a lizard).

I know it's not all his fault. I also said, from the beginning, that his policies would not help the US economy recover. They haven't.

So your white knights will win in 2012 and save the USA. What's your problem?

Like most Americans, I would rather the President solve problems than create them.

One analysis of the problems President Obama has created:

But poor public policy is surely one reason why the American economy has not rebounded from recession as it has in the past. And political posturing has also played a major role.

Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajorities of 2009-10 raised federal spending from 21 percent to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Their stimulus package stopped layoffs of public employees for a while, even as private sector payrolls plummeted.

And the Obama Democrats piled further burdens on would-be employers in the private sector. Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill are scheduled to be followed by thousands of regulations that will impose impossible-to-estimate costs on the economy.

That seems to have led to a hiring freeze. The Obama Democrats can reasonably claim not to be responsible for the huge number of layoffs that occurred in the months following the financial crisis of fall 2008. And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did manage to help stabilize financial markets.

But while the number of layoffs is now vastly less than in the first half of 2009, the number of new hires has not increased appreciably. Many more people have been unemployed for longer periods than in previous recessions, and many more have stopped looking for work altogether.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the threat of tax increases and increased regulatory burdens have produced something in the nature of a hiring strike.

And then there is the political posturing. On April 13, Barack Obama delivered a ballyhooed speech at George Washington University. The man who conservatives as well as liberal pundits told us was a combination of Edmund Burke and Reinhold Niebuhr was widely expected to present a serious plan to address the budget deficits and entitlement spending.. . .

People took notice, especially those people who decide whether to hire or not. Goldman Sachs' Current Activity Indicator stood at 4.2 percent in March. In April -- in the middle of which came Obama's GW speech -- it was 1.6 percent. For May, it is 1.0 percent.

"That is a major drop in no time at all," wrote Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal.

After April 13, Obama Democrats went into campaign mode. They staged a poll-driven Senate vote to increase taxes on oil companies.

They launched a Mediscare campaign against Ryan's budget resolution that all but four House Republicans had voted for. That seemed to pay off with a special election victory in the New York 26th congressional district.

The message to job creators was clear. Hire at your own risk. Higher taxes, more burdensome regulation and crony capitalism may be here for some time to come.

Now, you can disagree, but that is exactly what Obama appears to have done, so you'll have to explain how he didn't really do that and why businesses are holding back so much capital. After all, capitalists tend to invest when there is reward available. So, what does that tell us about the "recovery?"

We knew in relatively short order what the problems were and how to prevent them. All these plane, train and automobile analogies really are off the mark. Show me a grounding of planes that lasted for months because of a mechanical failure. The cause is discovered, corrected, and it's over. In this case, the cause and the failures were known but the moratorium went on.

Did we know what the problems were and how to solve them? If they included having improved inspection how long do you think it would take to rewrite inspection policies, and retrain the appropriate engineers on the specific inspection protocols? What the MMM had become versus what an engaged and independent inspection agency should be is night and day. Deep water drillers were simply filling out the inspection reports themselves and faxing it in Steve.
The safety and action plans requried were carbon copies of 20 year old plans and even pointed to outside experts who would be "on call" for emergencies who were dead. The actual equipment required for any of the plans weren't actually in the area. On and on it went....
There's so much about this statement Steve thats just plain wrong. Drilling in deep water is complex, difficult and fraught with unknowns. When the drilling companies were fighting the kinds of regulation regularly acepted in Norway, becasue of expense only, its easy to understand that a complete re-engneering of the regulatory body, focussing particularly on inspection capabilities and auditing was required.
Thats miles from comparing it to finding the defective part in a type of plane that had been grounded. Its more akin to finding that the FAA had neglected to actually staff appropriately or with competent people or had actually stopped doing inspections themselves .... It would be akin to American Airlines ignoring the safety measures that the industry regularly followed in order to keep its planes aloft longer and when one crashes allowing American to keep flying based upon a promise to do better.It would be akin to allowing the same customs and border security after 9/11, and almost immediatly resuming international travel with the same controls that existed before 9/11 before now protocols, training and measures were actually put into place.
The difference is that American competes for passengeres in a commercial market. BP and Horizon have no competitive pressure from a customer dependent on their personal safety. If they end up with a poor safety record they'll always find someone willing to work their rigs. Off shore of Nigeria the drillers kill workers regularly through dangerous practice. But they can always find workers who are forced to accept the danger because of economic circumstance.
Without a rigorous reexamination andf reengineering of safety protocols a quick re-establishment of depp water drilling would have invited exactly the same kind of disaster, with the same kind of response. I wonder, Steve, if the people involved in the fisheries and tourism sector were put in the same room as the oil drillers who would hold sway in the arguement over "acceptable risk"?
And lets do remember that 13 people died in the Deppwater. The safety measures that failed didn't only lead to an economic problem they directly resulted in 13 deaths. In your haste to reinitiate drilling i suppose the safety of the workers has no meaning?

You know what? Your argument amounts to this: Brazil and other countries can do this safely, but the US cannot. We knew what the problems were--they were talked about ad nauseum while footage was shown of the attempts to fix it.

Keep prattling. Anyone who does not work for Obama (including many Democrats) knows the truth.

steve

We knew what the problems were--they were talked about ad nauseum while footage was shown of the attempts to fix it.

See, here's how you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. You talk about "attempts to fix it".

The reason there was a shut down of the deep water drilling was to Prevent another mishap.
And to put in place mitigation methods in the event of an accident, that not employed in deepwter drilling in the US prior to the Horizon explosion.
None of that is accomplished quickly.
Without that, there would be no change in the risk level assumed, after Horizon from that prior to the accident.

rickyp wrote:steve

We knew what the problems were--they were talked about ad nauseum while footage was shown of the attempts to fix it.

See, here's how you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. You talk about "attempts to fix it".

No, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of "fix it." That's what they were doing--trying to cap ("fix") the spill.

The reason there was a shut down of the deep water drilling was to Prevent another mishap.

Were there many other wells that had exactly the same design flaw? If so, how many? Why didn't they all fail? To just shut everything down on a semi-permanent basis, just a few months after telling the nation how safe drilling in the Gulf is, indicates one of two things is true: 1) Obama was lying or misinformed the first time around; 2) Obama was lying or misinformed when he instituted the broad-based moratorium.

For those, like Richard, who believe Obama is not anti-job and depressing energy production, thus hurting the non-rich:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background.

So, the EPA has its finger on the pulse of American healthcare costs?

Sure.

steve

Were there many other wells that had exactly the same design flaw? If so, how many? Why didn't they all fail?

All deepwater drilling sites shared these characteristics:
- lack of acoustic shut off valves.
- inherent problems in cappng a well should a leak occur where the shut off systems fail
- lack of a detailed mitigation plan that had been proven and tested.
All Gulf drilling sites shared these characteristics
- insufficient onsite inspections by qualified third party engineers.
- inadequate reporting and recording of activities, in particular of planned mitigation in event of an accident.

The shutdown of deep water drilling wasn't because they didn't know how to "fix" the leak in Horizon. It was to prevent another accident happening where they would have to employ the methods learned about "fixing". And to prevent explosions killing more drilling teams.

To put it into an airline anology. A plane falls out of the sky when all the engines fail. Engineers come up with a way they think pilots should be able to restart planes should they fail in a similar manner. The reasons for the failure aren't fully understood, but part of it was due to a faulty inspection system missing important wear.
You're argueing that the planes should fly again because the restart method is known and just might work.
I'm saying they should wait till every plane has the benefit of a new inspection regimen.

As for Brazil... does President Obama's administration have any say over the health and safety regulations and environmental regulations within Brazils domain? .

rickyp wrote:steve

Were there many other wells that had exactly the same design flaw? If so, how many? Why didn't they all fail?

All deepwater drilling sites shared these characteristics:
- lack of acoustic shut off valves.
- inherent problems in cappng a well should a leak occur where the shut off systems fail
- lack of a detailed mitigation plan that had been proven and tested.
All Gulf drilling sites shared these characteristics
- insufficient onsite inspections by qualified third party engineers.
- inadequate reporting and recording of activities, in particular of planned mitigation in event of an accident.

The shutdown of deep water drilling wasn't because they didn't know how to "fix" the leak in Horizon. It was to prevent another accident happening where they would have to employ the methods learned about "fixing". And to prevent explosions killing more drilling teams.

Clearly, you have a source. How about sharing?

As for the "prevention" argument, are you saying it's a miracle nothing like this had happened before? Are you saying that all deep-water drilling rigs except those under American control, are safe?

To put it into an airline anology. A plane falls out of the sky when all the engines fail. Engineers come up with a way they think pilots should be able to restart planes should they fail in a similar manner. The reasons for the failure aren't fully understood, but part of it was due to a faulty inspection system missing important wear.
You're argueing that the planes should fly again because the restart method is known and just might work.
I'm saying they should wait till every plane has the benefit of a new inspection regimen.

Your analogies are specious.

As for Brazil... does President Obama's administration have any say over the health and safety regulations and environmental regulations within Brazils domain? .

No, but whose money is Brazil using to fund their latest exploration? And, who said they want to be Brazil's "best customer?"

As for the "prevention" argument, are you saying it's a miracle nothing like this had happened before?

No. Because it has.
Oil disaster off Australia raises concerns about deepwater drilling
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/eFmSLP

rickyp wrote:

As for the "prevention" argument, are you saying it's a miracle nothing like this had happened before?

No. Because it has.
Oil disaster off Australia raises concerns about deepwater drilling
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/eFmSLP

So this happened before your man, Obama, declared such things safe.

Is he a moron?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Actually, I think that there's a global issue to do with commodity prices and availability that is causing a general hiccup in recoveries. But hey, you keep right on blaming one man.

The global economy didn't force him to rack up $3T of debt in two years.

No, because he didn't inherit a bad economy with deficts of over $1T a year and with a populace who want to close the deficit and get tax cuts at the same time.

The global economy didn't force the shut down of the Gulf oil industry

No, a bloody great explosion did.

danivon wrote:No, because he didn't inherit a bad economy with deficts of over $1T a year and with a populace who want to close the deficit and get tax cuts at the same time.

Not to mention a populace that expects to be taken care of at the government's expense. Deficits are not only due to not enough income. The spending needs to be severely curbed Typical left response of more money needed in taxes.

b

Not to mention a populace that expects to be taken care of at the government's expense. Deficits are not only due to not enough income. The spending needs to be severely curbed Typical left response of more money needed in taxes.

Could this "get something for nothing" attitude comes about when people are repeatedly told that revenues will go up every time we reduce taxes? That a reduction in benefits and services isn't tied into lower taxes? That spending isn't tied to revenue?
If people are lead to believe this is possible, indeed always possible, then why wouldn't they continually expect that lower taxes shouldn't be desirable? They don't expect there to be consequences ...
You teach people to believe in myths long enough and they will believe in them.

bbauska wrote:Not to mention a populace that expects to be taken care of at the government's expense. Deficits are not only due to not enough income. The spending needs to be severely curbed Typical left response of more money needed in taxes.

A lot of them see that they've paid for it. You paid for Social Security, and then the politicians decide to scale down Medicare? Or kvetch about unemployment payments?

And they also want lower taxes.

Sure, the USA has a problem with people wanting something for nothing. And yet far more socialist nations don't have the same problem of deficits. Perhaps that's the problem?