Merged Judge blocks moratorium on off-shore drilling

[Lurker]

I think I already explained my position. The Democrats use market failure as an excuse to increase government control (read: "more socialist") and regulation. That's their goal -- increase government control and decrease business autonomy. If the economy does poorly, they have more opportunities to do this. Hence their motivation for sabotaging business.

And if the economy does poorly they lose elections. We can see historical precedence for this. So your contention is that Democrats want markets to fail so they can initiate more government control which they will not control due to be voted out of office the next year. So really they are crashing teh economy in order for Republicans to gain power and control the economy. Ok.......

 

[Lurker]

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that "improving the functioning of the US economy" is the goal of Obama's policies?
It's not. Obama's goal is government control; economic prosperity or failure, either one, may be a means to that end.

Hmm, I hear Obama talk about needing to improve the economy all the time. You are the one reading his mind to know his "real intentions". That alone should give you pause but I doubt it will.

Does it ever concern you that you and the talk radio hosts sure spend a lot of time reading people's minds? Do you ever wonder if they are correct in discerning a person's soul or that they may be doing so purely to make political hay?

I generally ignored those telling me what Bush secretly wanted. I'd rather judge the man by his words and actions.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And if the economy does poorly they lose elections. We can see historical precedence for this.

Nitpick... "precedent".

If they cripple the economy's capabilities and put changes in place that will be difficult to repeal, they've accomplished their goal. Power is cyclical; changes tend to be pretty permanent.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hmm, I hear Obama talk about needing to improve the economy all the time.

And I prefer to judge a man by his actions -- which, in this case, fit someone who is interested in crippling business to increase government control.

 

[Lurker]

Nitpick... "precedent".

Thanks.

If they cripple the economy's capabilities and put changes in place that will be difficult to repeal, they've accomplished their goal. Power is cyclical; changes tend to be pretty permanent.

True. I agree it is harder to repeal legislation.

 

[Lurker]

And I prefer to judge a man by his actions -- which, in this case, fit someone who is interested in crippling business to increase government control.

Other than the drilling moratorium, which can be attributed to different reasons, I don't see the crippling of business. Can you provide other examples?

I do see him helping businesses like GM and Chrysler. And the financial sector, like AIG, certainly needed help from going under. If you think he has gained control over those companies feel free to show me the government officials sitting on their board of directors or in the CEO, CFO, VP positions.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Other than the drilling moratorium, which can be attributed to different reasons, I don't see the crippling of business. Can you provide other examples?

Certainly you don't need me to regurgitate the many examples you can get off talk radio any day? Or am I really making a claim you haven't heard before?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think I already explained my position. The Democrats use market failure as an excuse to increase government control (read: "more socialist") and regulation. That's their goal -- increase government control and decrease business autonomy. If the economy does poorly, they have more opportunities to do this. Hence their motivation for sabotaging business.

So their goal is to sabotage business and they're motive is to take control of business?

But I thought the actions (increased government control and decreased business autonomy) are both the sabotage and the motivation for that sabotage?

I think it's far more likely that you simply disagree with Obama's approach to the role of government in business. Rather than acknowledge the fact that reasonable minds can disagree, you are attributing made-up (and highly implausible) motivations to Obama's actions.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think it's far more likely that you simply disagree with Obama's approach to the role of government in business. Rather than acknowledge the fact that reasonable minds can disagree, you are attributing made-up (and highly implausible) motivations to Obama's actions.

I would greatly prefer that you were correct, but I sincerely believe you are not. The Democrats' agenda benefits from business performing poorly, and I believe that they understand this and act accordingly. I'd prefer this were not the case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The basis for it would be that there are spin off benefits to local state and federal governments from drilling for oil in the GoM.

I don't follow this. The $75 million liability cap was enacted following the Valdez spill and was not focused on the Gulf of Mexico.

If these governments want to reap these benefits they need to create an environment where drilling is attractive to investors and capping the liability goes a long way towards doing this.

It does mean that government accepts some of that risk onto itself, and pretty much demands oversight to prevent abuse. $75 million is probably to low for the GoM, but it can’t be infinite without impacting the potential economic benefits from drilling.

If the potential damage they can cause is infinite, then the potential liability is infinite. I'm sorry but the argument that without this cap in place the industry would be crippled doesn't wash just based on the history of the oil industry. The cap was part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the same legislation, BTW, that added new requirements for the contingency plans we've been discussing in this thread). The industry did fine before 1990.

And again, the cap is only on accidents that don't involve negligence or other wrongdoing. If there was a tort or crime involved, the cap does not apply. So investors know there is a risk of "infinite" liability--just as investors in any industry know this.

ETA: I just read this part--the OPA also doesn't override state laws that might impose additional liability--including unlimited liability--and state-imposed fines. So even with this law in place, investors know they risk unlimited liability.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And if the economy does poorly they lose elections. We can see historical precedence for this. So your contention is that Democrats want markets to fail so they can initiate more government control which they will not control due to be voted out of office the next year. So really they are crashing teh economy in order for Republicans to gain power and control the economy. Ok.......

QFT

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would greatly prefer that you were correct, but I sincerely believe you are not. The Democrats' agenda benefits from business performing poorly, and I believe that they understand this and act accordingly. I'd prefer this were not the case.

But why do you sincerely believe this? What is the evidence that Obama (or is it the Democrats in general now?) intend to sabotage the economy?

As Lurker points out, it doesn't even make sense politically. Obama really really would like the unemployment rate to be back down--especially before the next campaign cranks up--so he can take credit for improving the economy.
____________
Think this off-topic discussion deserves its own thread?

 

[Drysdale]

But why do you sincerely believe this? What is the evidence that Obama (or is it the Democrats in general now?) intend to sabotage the economy?

As Lurker points out, it doesn't even make sense politically. Obama really really would like the unemployment rate to be back down--especially before the next campaign cranks up--so he can take credit for improving the economy.
____________
Think this off-topic discussion deserves its own thread?

The theory I've heard is basically this.

It does'nt make sense politically now ,but if they pass welfare programs and people become dependent on them then they have a section of voters that will never vote them out or risk to lose their welfare status.

Is that feasible? I dunno, I'm more inline with he's just in over his head with some bad advisors and has a couple of nutjobs leading the house and senate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The theory I've heard is basically this.

It does'nt make sense politically now ,but if they pass welfare programs and people become dependent on them then they have a section of voters that will never vote them out or risk to lose their welfare status.

And how does that apply to the moratorium on offshore oil drilling? Avalon says Obama's goal is to sabotage the economy so big guvment can take over.

FWIW, it sounds like BP is the one responsible for the economic damage in the Gulf region. If Obama had his way, BP would be held responsible for economic losses due to the moratorium as well.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I think I already explained my position. The Democrats use market failure as an excuse to increase government control (read: "more socialist") and regulation. That's their goal -- increase government control and decrease business autonomy. If the economy does poorly, they have more opportunities to do this. Hence their motivation for sabotaging business.

And how are they doing this again? Sabotaging business I mean.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And how are they doing this again? Sabotaging business I mean.

I think it goes like this: Obama is sabotaging business by increasing government control in order to increase government control of business.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I think it goes like this: Obama is sabotaging business by increasing government control in order to increase government control of business.

Yeeeep...that's pretty much what I was suspecting.

 

[lomiller]

I don't follow this. The $75 million liability cap was enacted following the Valdez spill and was not focused on the Gulf of Mexico.

Where did I suggest it was focused on the Gulf of Mexico? Drilling for oil benefits the economy of any state where it occurs be it Alaska Or Louisiana.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think I already explained my position. The Democrats use market failure as an excuse to increase government control (read: "more socialist") and regulation. That's their goal -- increase government control and decrease business autonomy. If the economy does poorly, they have more opportunities to do this. Hence their motivation for sabotaging business.

Of course, you have no actual evidence to support these absurd claims of yours. I guess you just have faith in your beliefs.

 

[Lurker]

Certainly you don't need me to regurgitate the many examples you can get off talk radio any day? Or am I really making a claim you haven't heard before?

That is why I made a preemptive strike mentioning GM, for example. Talk radio is non-stop about how Obama has taken over GM and that is evidence of socialism. The problem is, I am not aware of any changes at GM management where a government official is calling the shots. That is not something that talk radio discusses as it runs contrary to their talking point.

So, looking at just that example, what do you think? Do you find it offensive that talk radio is being a tad dishonest in saying there was a government takeover of GM when there is no evidence of government control? If not, why not?