General Question

Steve_A's avatar

Do you think Obama is already done?

Asked by Steve_A (5125points) June 18th, 2010

It seems,and it could just be me in my opinion that Obama is losing a lot of popularity,support,and voters.However you want to put it.

In regards to being re elected and his support do you think he has already lost many voters?Or is he just putting nails in the coffin at this rate, so to speak.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

177 Answers

missingbite's avatar

Let’s hope so. Unless you want $7.00 a gallon gasoline and a much larger Federal Government that doesn’t do much right in the first place.

Blackberry's avatar

I still wonder how Bush was elected for 8 years, so although it could seem this way, it may not stay that way.

janbb's avatar

Nope – I think he’s floundering some and he’s disappointed me in some ways. However, I think the election is still a long way off, he’s done a number good things and time will tell.

Blackberry's avatar

@janbb Lifting the ban on stem cell research alone was good enough for me lol.

Seaofclouds's avatar

I don’t think he’s done yet. He came into office with a lot on his plate and has had numerous other issues brought up since coming into office (the oil spill and Arizona come to mind). The election is still pretty far away and anything could happen between now and then.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

Reagan was more unpopular at this stage in his presidency. It’s early. And the guy is pretty smart.

BoBo1946's avatar

He will be fine! The economy is getting better everyday…and if it continues, he will be re-elected! People vote based on their pocketbooks!

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds (the oil spill and Arizona come to mind), yea, he’s handled those beautifully!

ETpro's avatar

I think when push comes to shove, lots of voters will remember who actually made the incredible mess left for Obama to straighten up and not make the same mistake all over again.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@missingbite , he’s handled the oil spell as well as anyone in his position could. Remember at the start when BP was assuring everyone the environmental consequences would be minimal? Obama didn’t cause the spill. He’s not to blame for the problem. The Government does not have the resources to deal with a disaster like this.

As for Arizona, he’s right to let them self-destruct. Now those idiots want to repeal the 14th Amendment. I don’t know how you’re supposed to deal with nutballs.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite I’m not saying he’s perfect, I’m saying that there is a lot going on and even he is human. If he would have jumped in immediately and took over, people would be complaining that he is overstepping and the government is getting too involved. It’s a slippery slope when dealing with government involvement and there is no way to please everyone.

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex I never said he caused the spill. He has screwed up the clean up so bad it’s not even funny. The refusal to lift the Jones act is one example. Numerous clean up ships halted by the Coast Guard for 24 hours for inspection is another. (Thousand of gallons not cleaned up while we wait) Waiting 59 days to even speak with the head of BP is a third. (Plenty of time for a concert with Sir Paul) Bush was excoriated for finishing talking to school children after hearing of the attacks on Sept. 11th and this ass clown gets a pass for 59 days! I could go on and on. He is a joke.

As for AZ, if the FEDS had been doing their job for years, including Obama, AZ would not be in this position. Try living in Phoenix for a while, then chime in on what “nutballs” they are.

ItsAHabit's avatar

I don’t think he’s over. A lot of people are easily fooled. He fooled people to get elected and he’ll continue fooling a lot of naive people.

cornbird's avatar

Nope hes not done yet. He has done alot of good things for the US and will continue to do so. Many people still recognise this.

tinyfaery's avatar

He’s pretty much going to have to beg for me to vote for him again.

The republican propaganda machine is doing a great job at distorting and manipulating everything he does and people are uneducated and gullible. It will be a tough fight for a second term.

CMaz's avatar

He was done a month before his election.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite So you would rather disregard the safety of the people on those barges in order to clean up a spill that isn’t going anywhere? I know that clean up is important, but so is human safety. Also, I don’t believe Obama had anything to do with the Coast Guard stopping those barges for 24 hours. He isn’t the one that told them to stop. Most likely he didn’t even know about it at first. In regards to the Jones Act there are currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels in the Gulf. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico. (Source) In regards to not talking to the head of BP sooner, what good would have come from talking to him? It was more important to talk to people that were familiar with the rig (which he denies really knowing much about) and scientist that could figure out how to clean up this mess and cap the well.

I’m not saying he handled everything perfectly and that there is a lot things that could have been handled differently, but I do think he is trying to get things taken care of.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@missingbite , so 12 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the U.S. since January 20, 2009? Wow. I didn’t realize those were all his fault, too.

The AZ law is a sham because it’s not attacking the source of the problem, viz., what brings illegals here to begin with: people who give them jobs. They don’t need to have the cops looking for illegals, they need to have them looking for the people who pay them a few bucks less than minimum wage because it’s cheaper than employing people who are going to complain about their wages.

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds “So you would rather disregard the safety of the people on those barges in order to clean up a spill that isn’t going anywhere?” That is the most clueless thing I have ever read on here. A view that I believe Obama shares.

Here is a good source

Nullo's avatar

@tinyfaery His own press people do an excellent job of messing things up.

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex Not 12 million. I said for years it has been a problem and continues. I guess you didn’t read my post. I did say it is partly his fault. He continues to do NOTHING to secure our boarders.

Thread Drift. We can continue this somewhere else.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

people should recognize sarcasm when it’s given

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex Sorry if I missed that. Sarcasm is sometimes hard to read. Cheers!

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite As I said in the question about the Coast Guard, shortcutting and negligence are what got us into this mess. Shortcutting safety measures on those barges could put a lot more people at risk and it’s not a safety risk I think we should take. By “isn’t going anywhere” I meant that we are still a long way off from getting it cleaned up and we don’t even have it capped yet. Those guys are going to be out there on those barges for a while. Their safety should be a top priority.

Nullo's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex Actually, it does. About half of the Arizona bill is dedicated to penalties (starting with fines, ending with revocation of business licenses) to be levied against those companies that hire illegal immigrants.

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds Do you think that vessels are inspected every time they go into the ocean? All of these vessels had already been declared seaworthy. Hence the reason they were allowed to proceed 24 hours after Gov. Jindel raised hell by calling the White House several times. The problem with the whole thing is there is NOBODY in charge.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite I agree with you that there is nobody in charge and their should be. This is why we need a better national emergency response team. Instead the various government agencies and the private sector tend to get in each other’s way and step on each other’s toes. That’s a bit of a different issue. There were similar issues with getting things taken care of after Katrina.

ItsAHabit's avatar

Lying got Obama elected and they will probably get him re-elected. The links referred to below can be found at http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Lies During Second Year

*Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.
Arizona Immigration Law
*The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time
*We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies
*I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go”
Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar “Shovel Ready” bill.
*I got the Message from Massachusetts
Daily Bail

Lies During First Year

*Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies
*Recovery Act will save or create jobs
ABC News
*Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus.
Obama Lies
*I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan
Specator.Org
*We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages.
Obama Lies
*I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
NPR
*Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year
Council on Foreign Relations.
*Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year.
Businessweek: Obama Agnostic on taxes
List of Tax Promise Violations

2008 Campaign Lies

*Would have the most transparent administration in History
Cato Institute
*I have visited all 57 states.
Snopes
*I’ll get rid of earmarks
Source: Any bill passed during presidency
*When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it.
Campaign Speech
*Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009
News Video
*Senors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes
YouTube
*Would not vote for any bill supporting troop funding without a firm withdrawal commitment from the Bush Administration.
He has done nothing but continue the Bush admins strategy and to explain how the “surges total failure” has now become his greatest achievement.
*Present Votes Are Common In Illinois
NPR
*I Won Michigan
Huffington Post
*I won Nevada
The Nation
*I don’t Have Lobbyists
US News
*My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad
Crooks and Liars
*I Have Always Been Against Iraq
Washington Post
*My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country
CNN
*Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
Obama Campaign Video
*I Barely Know Rezko
Sun Times
*My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church
ABC News

And the list goes on and will continue to go on.

cazzie's avatar

What the heck? As far as I can see, those who are biased won’t listen. Those who are easily wavered, won’t help themselves in a fire and would stay and be burned. I can only hope that there is enough reason in the USA to hold out for reason and understanding. The issue with the oil spill is LACK of federal regulation. Get REAL people. I live on the North Sea. Just ask me!

missingbite's avatar

He’s done. The oil spill is not an example of a LACK of federal regulation. It’s an example of failing to enforce the regulation in place. The Deepwater Horizon was skipped on monthly inspections under the MMS. Source BTW, she was appointed June 09 by Obama.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite You’re missing a boatload of information. It was indeed a lack of enforcement, but it was a free ride that had been given by the Bush government and not addressed yet by the Obama administration, but don’t you DARE drop this at the door of the current administration. This rig was installed and built (I KNOW! personally) during the past administration. If Obama is blamed for the oil mess caused by Cheney and his cohorts, then they are trying on the ‘scape goat’ tag and should be ashamed.

And what the heck! Stop pointing fingers like that. These things are NEVER as simple as you want them to be. So,,, if you’re not willing to read and learn.. stop talking.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie First off, I never blamed Obama for this or anything else. However, if his priority was not on other things, enforcing regulation would have been addressed. I am not missing a “boatload” of info. I am stating facts and nothing else. If you don’t like the facts I’m sorry. This is not a Bush/Cheney issue. This has been going on for years! Before Bush! You tell me to stop pointing fingers one paragraph after pointing fingers at the Bush administration? People can keep blaming Bush all they want, it won’t change the FACT that the MMS is currently under Obama and they failed to complete their proper inspections. IF they had not, we may not have had an explosion. We will never know.

Who are you to tell me to stop talking. In this county I am entitled to my opinion and have the right to speak it. (at least right now I do, I GUESS by your post I should not have that right as it is not inline with yours?)

john65pennington's avatar

Yesterday, a radio commentator described Obama as ” a one-man wrecking ball” with Americans and the economy.

Arisztid's avatar

I do not think he is done for yet but, if he does not pick up the pace and there is a better candidate when the time comes, he shall not be re-elected.

I do not think he is the absolute worst of the worst, however, I am not pleased with his job performance so far. That does not mean that, if he picks it up, I am not going to change my opinion.

When the time comes, I shall support whoever I deem to be the best candidate. I do not give two squirts as to what party they are. If he does not pick it up, I just hope and, were I religious, pray that the Republican party can provide a better option.

Kraigmo's avatar

I’ve seen legitimate criticisms of President Obama in the news and on progressive websites, particularly his caving into New World Post 9/11 Order line of thinking, that BS paranoid train of thought force-memed into America by Neocons such as Bill Kristol, and worshiped by the previous Administration. And also his initial hands-off approach to BP.

But the “socialist” criticism-drivel coming from AM Talk radio and Fox News is just stupid, irrelevant, and baseless. It’s really sad that people take that stuff seriously and spend time on it, and base their political worldviews on it.

If Obama’s a socialist, then so is every damn president since FDR, and no less so, which makes the whole stupid issue a semantic one.

Obama’s popularity is down though. Probably because he’s President, and the economy still sucks, and the war in Iraq is still draining us of trillions of dollars.

Things would be even worse if McCain was in though, and WAY worse if Romney was in.

augustlan's avatar

No. He’s got a tough road behind and a tough road ahead, but only time will tell how well he navigates.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite I said that you should inform yourself before you talk, not that you didn’t have a right…., the free reign granted by the Cheney administration has been shown up and proved to be flawed. ... fine, ..... and WHO AM I? I’ll tell you! I could have been the widow of one of the 11 on that rig that died…. Don’t start pointing fingers at people when you don’t know the day to day and ins and outs of these men’s lives.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie What you said was, “if you are not willing to read and learn..stop talking” which implies that I should be silent because you think have no idea what I am talking about. Even if I was uneducated and ignorant, I would still have a right to voice my opinion.

Do you have any idea why we are drilling in 5000 feet of water and not shallow water? I’ll give you a hint. It doesn’t have anything to do with Bush/Cheney. It has a lot to do with cap and tax.

Again, you are lecturing me and telling me to not point finger when it is you that is pointing fingers. Hypocrisy at its finest.

FYI, I grew up in South Louisiana and still live in LA today. I have been on countless oil rigs as my father worked until he retired in the oil industry. I know and have seen the dangers. Many of my friends work on those platforms. I think I know the day to day and ins and outs of their lives.

Believe me that there are plenty of people to blame for this. It didn’t start with Bush/Cheney as you like to think. Our country has spent years and years talking and not enforcing regulations. Not just the Bush administration. And if you think the Obama administration gives two craps about the people, and not their agenda, then I guess we will never see eye to eye. I will continue to place blame where I see fit and as of today the Obama administration is not doing enough for the clean up. He is still more interested in cap and tax as he stated in his address to the nation a couple of nights ago. He wants $7.00/gallon of gas. He wants our electric bill to go up. He wants to put coal companies out of business. Problem is, he will use anything including the Gulf oil tragedy to get what he wants.

BTW, I’m glad you were not widowed and feel deep sorrow for those that were.

shilolo's avatar

@missingbite What’s so wrong with $7.00 gallon gas, anyway, except that the oil companies (and oil producing nations) will get rich? Can you describe why this would be bad, economically (and it isn’t so simple to say, more expensive = bad)? FYI, $7.00/gallon is the cost of gasoline in most other developed countries (read: Europe).

As far as Obama being “done”, he is far from “done”. As others have mentioned, he was handed a giant pile of shit by the previous administration in the form of two massively expensive wars, unsustainable tax cuts, a deep depression, gutted regulatory agencies (remember FEMA?), a burst housing bubble, major unemployment, and on and on. No sane person would have envisioned EITHER Obama or McCain as being able to easily tackle all of those problems in 1.5 years to the satisfaction of the electorate.

missingbite's avatar

@shilolo Let’s start with $7.00/gallon of gas. We are not Europe!!! We don’t have the mass transit system they have. Europe is tiny compared to the US. $7.00/gallon means lower middle and middle class can’t get to work. It is not sustainable in this country. Even if we all had Smart Cars, it would bankrupt thousands of people.

As far as the lefts favorite saying, Obama inherited this or that, it’s not what he inherited, it’s what he has done with it. Reagan inherited higher unemployment and a possible Cold War. QUIT BLAMING BUSH AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

The recession, housing bubble, (banks forced to loan money to people who couldn’t afford it by democrats) major unemployment, were all part of our fuel going to $4.00/gallon. When people had to start paying double their monthly allowance of fuel just to get to work, they stopped paying credit card bills and mortgages. So they could get to work. I know this wasn’t all of it but it contributed. That is why it will by devastating for out energy (read, fuel and electricity) bills to skyrocket, like Obama wants.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@john65pennington , the radio commentator’s initials aren’t R.L., by any chance, are they?

shilolo's avatar

@missingbite Your math really doesn’t compute. If you were paying about $2/gallon before the price spiked to $4/gallon, and drove 2000 miles/month getting 20 miles gallon (100 gallons/month), you’re talking about only an extra $200/month. That isn’t enough to drive people to bankruptcy. What drove the housing bubble was very low interest rates, mortgages for everybody, and the sense that houses would appreciate in value indefinitely.

As far as doing “something”, it is a real fallacy to think that anyone can solve such massive problems that are both entrenched and also (partially) out of his control. Individuals cannot solve their own problems so easily, and yet you expect one person to solve highly complex (and perhaps insolvable) problems within one year?

The right will hate Obama because he is black, and because he is literate, and intelligent, and doesn’t “go with his gut” (a la Bush). Everyone makes mistakes, but at least Obama’s don’t involve the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and women, and the investment of our national treasure in Iraq (think of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted there that could be spent here).

missingbite's avatar

Well @shilolo, tell someone living paycheck to paycheck that an extra $200.00 per month won’t send them to bankruptcy. I can agree with you on the housing bubble, low interest rates, mortgages for everybody, and sense that houses would alway appreciate.

You are WAY off base to call the right in this country racist. Shame on you for playing the race card. Are there racist in this country, sure. You can’t lump the entire right into that category. Carter was white and we (read, the right) didn’t like his politics. Clinton was white and we didn’t like his either. Calling the right (read, me) racist for not liking Obama’s politics makes you look small and ignorant. (which I would like to think you aren’t)

LuckyGuy's avatar

I’m still supporting him. He came into office when the plane was going down in flames. The market was in the toilet at 7500 and falling. It is now 10000.
It takes time to turn a battleship around and he is doing it.
For every obamaly you find there are 10 bushisms and 20 palinism.

shilolo's avatar

Unfortunately, the facts of the past 40 years of conservatism belie a clearcut racism of the right. From the so-called Southern strategy, to Cadillac driving welfare queens, to Willie Horton and so on. No less a Republican leader than the head of the party said as much. Facts are facts, like it or not.

venusjc's avatar

Most people are chewing him out right now but keep in mind that he is cleaning up the huge mess that was left for him by our previous president! No matter who was put in office for this term, they knew going in, they had a HUGE challenge…
Now, as he tries to work and do some of the things he discussed in his election, we have republicans going against him… and what makes it worse is that most of the people who report on what’s going on in the White House on the news are republicans and want most Americans to see him a negative light, so the news then becomes bias…I will continue to support Obama…He can’t do any worse than BUSH!!!!

ItsAHabit's avatar

shilolo. Actually the Civil Rights Act was passed with a larger proportion of Republicans voting for it than Democrats voting for it. That’s historical fact and is easily verified.

venusjc's avatar

ok, but that doesn’t change what is happening today…

missingbite's avatar

Here is a good read for the predicament Obama is in. Link

shilolo's avatar

@ItsAHabit Standard meme by Republicans, though untrue (more Democrats total voted for it, and those that didn’t were conservative Democrats from Southern states that likely would be Republicans today). When was that passed, exactly? Who was the President then? How have Republicans behaved since then,from Nixon, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Bush II, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, etc. How many black Republicans are there in Congress right now? How many have there been in the past 30 years? How have they portrayed themselves? Why do they pander to the southern states, with their long history of overt racism? Why does Rand Paul (a Republican) state that civil rights laws shouldn’t apply to private businesses? And so on…

ItsAHabit's avatar

The total number voting for a bill is completely irrelevant to this question. The PROPORTION of Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Bill was higher. People can spin it any way they want, but that’s the historical fact. (I’m not Republican, just a student of history.)

shilolo's avatar

That was 46 years ago (also, why is the proportion so important?) Like I said, what happened in the intervening years? Racism 101, that’s what.

ItsAHabit's avatar

shilolo. You ask why the proportion is so important. That’s Logic 101, Statistics 101, or Research Methods 101.

ETpro's avatar

@ItsAHabit The Republican party was the party of equality back in the early days of the Civil Rights movement. Unfortunately, when Johnson ordered federal troops into the South, the Republican Party made a calculated move to pry the South out of Democratic (Dixiecrat) hands. They appealed to Southern racists and the Southerners who were so inclined listened. Today the South is solidly Red, and the Republican party has stood against rights for blacks, homosexuals, lesbians, bis and women. The very fact that you have to go back nearly 50 years to prove your point disproves it.

shilolo's avatar

@ItsAHabit Oh, please, enlighten me on logic, statistics, and research methods, in detail. Provide for me the names of the current Black Republican congressmen and women and the identities of prominent women in the party like Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi (well, except for the self-promoting Sarah Palin)? Please provide recent precedent (i.e. the past 10–20 years) for inclusiveness in the Republican party.

This could hardly be considered a debate in the sense that it is open record, and indeed, Michael Steele (chairman of the RNC) said as much.

shilolo's avatar

One more direct answer to this question. After taking office in 1992, Bill Clinton suffered a crippling defeat in the midterm elections in 1994. He still managed to bounce back and win in 1996, handily beating Bob Dole. If, as is expected, the Republicans cannot find a moderate to run (because of the strong pull to the extreme right by the Tea Party), then Obama will have a much easier time, and should win reelection.

kheredia's avatar

It’s way too early to say that he is done. Of course if the republicans keep making it impossible for him to do anything, then yeah, he probably won’t be re-elected. I think he went into office with good ideas and good intentions but he wasn’t expecting all the hard headed republicans to be such a pain. I’m sorry but this country needs a lot of changes and the republicans are determined to stick to their old, traditional ideas that are not working for the middle class American any more. But I guess they just don’t get it. It’s too bad they are so closed minded to new ideas.

mammal's avatar

@missingbite your views are sickeningly selfish and epitomise everything intolerable about American society. Americans do not have a God Given right to Gasoline on the cheap. GET IT. The fact that you wont invest in social transportation infrastructure is your fault and no one else’s, after all you manage to transport people to the moon. Grow up.

lilikoi's avatar

Saw on the news popularity is at something like 40%. Somehow this is not surprising. Wasn’t Bush’s popularity about ZERO and still he got re-elected?

LostInParadise's avatar

My feeling about Obama was that he was the right person at the right time and I still feel that way, though I am concerned that he has continued some of the policies of Bush. There will be some losses in the Fall elections, but I think Obama will be re-elected. The Republicans have no vision. Some of their candidates are a bit nutty. They will not be able to parlay their gains into anything permanent.

thekoukoureport's avatar

The reason for his unpopularity can really be traced back to the media’s obsession with a minority party and the infactual talking points that were constantly debated. In the media’s effort to be Fair and Balanced and to pander to a devotional viewing audience ALL media outlets allowed individuals from a small minority (tea Party) to spew lies. Death Panel, March to socialism etc. To an uninformed electorite that only has received this slanted view it would be impossible for them to conclude otherwise. But as the smoke is clearing and we begin to see the facts and his amazing accomplishments, I believe that “We the people” will realize that this is Absolutely the best man for the job. I have spouted some of his accomplishments on youtube. Thekoukoureport.

birdland33's avatar

It’s never over until it’s over, and without a formidable opponent, Pres. Obama is definitely not done (unfortunately).

From what I see on the Republican horizon, there is little viability on a presidential scale. Former Gov. Romney is well qualified. However he made a couple decisions along the way that, IMHO, compromised his integrity to gain electoral support. Go figure…he’s a politician.

Judge Napolitano in 2012!!

I want someone to run that I can vote FOR. I am tired of voting for the person I think will do me the least harm.

missingbite's avatar

@mammal Thank you for proving my point. It’s either your (read liberal) way or we are all just ignorant selfish people. You are what is wrong with people. I never said I had a God given right to cheap gasoline. I never said I wouldn’t invest in mass transportation. I simply stated we don’t have it. It takes years to build. Grow up? You are laughable.

birdland33's avatar

@shilolo you condemned a whole load of people as bigots with your statement. Maybe the right will not like Obama because of his viewpoints, not his blackness, his literacy, or his intelligence. Perhaps they just do not like his utopian view of how things could or should be. Maybe they are grounded in the reality of what is.

Pres. Obama is a thinker, born of thinkers. He is the first president that did not come from the loins of people who produced tangible goods. He has an entirely different point of view because the results of what his parents did can only be seen in the abstract.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@birdland33 So what? I actually like the idea of having a thinker in the White House. It beats having someone who relies on dubious “gut feelings.”

Nullo's avatar

@birdland33 A lot of liberal types simply can’t see past Barry’s blackness. :D

birdland33's avatar

Dredd, I agree with not relying on ‘gut feelings’ per se. But, the man of many ideas and ideals gave us 22 minutes of nothingness the other night, and still there is no plan in place.

Gut feelings, while sometimes ill advised, at the very least result in decisions. Again, being decisive may not be the right course of action always, but you can’t win if you don’t play.

I ‘spose we need to find that middle ground between the do wrong and the do nothing.

birdland33's avatar

…but I digress. The original question was “Do you think Obama is already done?”

I still think he is ripe for the taking, but it is not a foregone conclusion because there is nobody that is ready to seize the moment, at least at this time.

antimatter's avatar

The world don’t need another Bush or an idiot!

janbb's avatar

what’s with the “or”?

antimatter's avatar

The or… implies it can be anything else, asshole, fool, smart ass, perhaps it’s up to your imagination.

jerv's avatar

Considering that perception is reality and a fair chunk of the country will not only ignore but refute provable facts because Glen Beck says that the sky is green, I think it safe to say that Obama is done…. and so is America. WE just may take a while to bleed out and stop twitching ;)

cazzie's avatar

Interesting point, Jerv. The drowning man often kills the would-be rescuer in his panic.

missingbite's avatar

What provable facts is Glen Beck lying about or getting wrong?

shilolo's avatar

It’s ironic. I surfed on over to Sodahead yesterday since someone posted that it is a “conservative haven”. What I found instead were a bunch of raving lunatics. Questions that dealt with Obama all devolved into blaming or slandering him for peoples’ ills. Typical quotes were “I lost my house because of him”, as if Obama had something to do with the housing bubble, the banking crisis, the ongoing depression, or people living beyond their means during times of “plenty”.

The five things going for Obama are 1) there isn’t a credible conservative alternative to his message (the party of NO can’t suddenly become a party of “we have a detailed plan”) 2) there isn’t a realistic (today) Republican candidate that seems likely to displace him 3) the Tea Party loons will drag the Republicans even further to the right extreme than they’ve already been 4) the anti-immigrant, anti-black message will impact Republican’s ability to woo a vital population (hispanics and blacks) and 5) in two years, the rebound from this terrible depression is likely, making people feel better about themselves than they do now.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite If you don’t know then you are not paying attention. Either that or you only get your news from one side of the issue rather than look at everything and find the average. (The truth is often somewhere between the extremes, and Beck is often one of the extremes.)

shilolo's avatar

@birdland33 “Grounded in the reality of what is?” Really? You think the conservative Republican leadership is “grounded in reality”? Why would they promote tax cuts on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class (oh, right, their reality is taking care of multimillionaires)? Why would they foist a war (Iraq) that was as ungrounded in reality as possible? Why would they oppose universal health care when many people have to make horrible daily choices regarding their health (and we live in the most affluent country in the world)? Why wouldn’t they even entertain a discussion on the reality of illegal immigration and trying to come up with a realistic plan that satisfies security but also doesn’t create second class citizens?

These are all real problems requiring real solutions, but the Republicans don’t even want to discuss them. Indeed, many of the problems (Iraq, the housing bubble, irresponsible tax cuts, the gutting of the federal government) were perpetrated by your “realists”.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv I’m not saying he isn’t wrong, I just want some examples. I hear all the time what an idiot he is and he lies and is always wrong, but nobody calls him out on his history lessons. He would be getting sued if he was slandering people. Like Van Jones. Beck calls him a communist. Jones even calls himself a communist. What is he saying that is factually incorrect?

birdland33's avatar

No, I do not think conservative Republican leadership is grounded in reality, necessarily. I did say maybe which is more than you did when you were all inclusive.

Discuss solutions?! Like health care was discussed?

Do you believe in the premise of personal property rights?

Shouldn’t people be allowed to keep part of what they earn, and by part I mean at least the majority?

Please, do not confuse me with a conservative Republican. I do not believe they exist, nor do I believe there is leadership.

I am a good ol’ fashion Thomas Jefferson liberal Democrat. You know, that kind of person that believes in rugged individualism.

I only took exception to you stating that ‘the right’ will…

I think that kind of blanket statement is incorrect and I was just calling you on that.

shilolo's avatar

@birdland33 Health care was discussed. Obama even went to the national Republican meeting to try and discuss it directly. There really wasn’t an effort to find middle ground, as the Republicans decided they would oppose all Obama legislation, at all costs, irrespective of the needs of the electorate.

As far as the premise of personal property rights, I do. What does this have to do with it?

People should keep what they earn, and most people keep the majority (if your highest tax bracket is very high, you are already earning quite a bit).

Rugged individualism would be great, but we don’t live in the 1700s now, and indeed, most people would rather blame someone else (i.e. Obama) for their own problems.

Also, I feel the need to correct your version of history. The entire Bush clan (Bush I and Bush II) never came from a family “producing tangible goods”. The Prescott Bush was a banker and senator, GHWB was head of the CIA, VP and then President. GWB was a nothing, and then governor, then President.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite The one that comes to mind immediately (mostly because I referenced it recently) is Beck’s reaction to Obama’s Nuclear Policy Review. The party line that Palin and Beck (amongst others) spew is that Obama has weakened our defense -by removing the nuclear option in the event that we suffer a non-nuclear attack._ What Beck is omitting is that there are provisions in there specifically allowing us to unilaterally amend the treaty (and thus use nuclear weapons) under certain circumstances, including biological attack.

There is a big difference between forbidding something completely (Beck’s claim) and allowing it under certain conditions, and it’s an outright lie to say that we won’t do something under the conditions that are specifically and explicitly stated.

It is possible that Beck is merely ignorant to the point where he cannot be taken even the least bit seriously, but I would wager that such oversight is more likely intentional for the sake of ratings.

birdland33's avatar

I stand corrected. I thought one of the major criticisms of the Bushes was they were oil men, which is why they were so in cahoots with Big Oil.

Thank you for setting me straight on that.

cazzie's avatar

@birdland33 They weren’t ‘oilmen’ themselves. GWB played at the oil game for a while and lost, but he WAS governor of Texas. You can’t be governor of Texas and not be friendly with the oil industry. Cheney was an ‘oil buddy’ too. They did cut deals and gave ‘wish lists’ to Big Oil. You don’t have to be ‘oil men’ to be in cahoots with Big Oil. Of course the oil lobby wasn’t just powerful during the Bush Admins. They’re a very rich and powerful group.

BoBo1946's avatar

another thing, which Repubican could beat Obama.! don’t see one that i like!

Nullo's avatar

@BoBo1946 Obama had a large “I’m not Bush” component to his platform. Barry’s unpopular enough that an opponent might be able to do the same.
New candidates can come out of the woodwork, you know.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv By that example we should not listen to anything Obama says after he made the idiotic statement that people where going to be questioned about their citizenship just for taking their kids for ice cream. (referencing the AZ immigration law) A total out and out lie. From the President no less. All politicians and commentary types pull that crap.

BoBo1946's avatar

@Nullo the Repubs have been short of new people for several years! We shall see!

Personally, don’t have a problem with what Obama has accomplished. The economy is getting better everyday. Hopefully, in the three years ahead, he will cut back on our debt, develop other energy sources and not depend on foreign oil.

Always wanted to give a man a chance to produce. We are just getting out of the first quarter of the game! Republicans wanted to fire the coach before he was hired. That made no sense. The Repubicans have been about negative, negative, and no no and no! They don’t come up with solutions to our problems, their only agenda is attack the President!

jerv's avatar

@missingbite “From the President no less. All politicians and commentary types pull that crap.”
That is true, but some pull it more regularly than others, and it seems to come a bit more often and far more blatantly from the Right than thebe Left, However, the example you used really does not support your case since there have been many, many cases of law enforcement abusing power.

Do you know anyone who has ever been pulled over for DWB? Obama’s statement may an exaggeration, but there is enough truth to it since, the way the AZ law is written, that actually can happen without contradicting what the legislation says in black-and-white, that I don’t place it in the same league of lies since there is a rather large grain of truth to it. To claim otherwise is to say that race relations in the US are totally harmonious and that there is no such thing as police corruption or abuse of power, and that would be an out and out lie.

You are talking to someone who has trust issues anyways, so don’t take that to mean that I actually trust Obama or the Democrats. After all, he is a politician. I merely trust Beck and other Far Right types even less.

missingbite's avatar

DWB? That’s cute. I’m sure that happens and if can be proven I would hope the cop would lose his job. Sure people are human corrupt cops exist. Are you aware that the feds can ask anyone for their legal status without cause making the AZ law more restrictive? ICE can walk up to a man or woman walking down the street eating ice cream with their kids and demand proof of citizenship based on looks. We don’t see that happen even though they can. Yet Obama wants to make us think all AZ cops WILL be doing just that when it is illegal for them to.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite ~And Fox News never does that sort of fear-mongering.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv Sure they do. That’s why I watch all sorts of news and read all sorts of Blogs. I mean, do you think Rachel Maddow is not slanted. She tries to make everything the Republicans say look bad. Does she have some valid points, sure. But in my opinion she is just like Beck.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite That is why I prefer John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. See, they are obviously slanted, most of that slant is in whatever direction gets a laugh, and there is just enough truth to what they say to start the brain going and send you to to a little checking on your own.
Unfortunately, there are a fair number of people who actually rely on those two for their serious news…

Aethelwine's avatar

@shiloloYour math really doesn’t compute. If you were paying about $2/gallon before the price spiked to $4/gallon, and drove 2000 miles/month getting 20 miles gallon (100 gallons/month), you’re talking about only an extra $200/month. That isn’t enough to drive people to bankruptcy.”

(I wish I lived in your world) Um, yes it is enough to drive people to bankruptcy, it happened to our family. When gas spiked to $4 a gallon, my husband and I had to resort to credit cards to pay for it. There are no buses that travel to the little farm in Farmington, Il where my husband works, 35 miles from our home. That’s 70 miles a day, not including the traveling I did chauffeuring my children to school activities and grocery shopping. We can’t pay those credit card bills now, and had to file chapter 13. Only $200 more a month can really hurt a struggling family in the heartland, or anywhere, for that matter.

Do I think Obama is already done? Too soon to tell, though he hasn’t impressed me yet.

shilolo's avatar

@jonsblond I’m sorry things have been so difficult for you, but it’s been my experience that events leading up to filing for bankruptcy are not so simple (FYI, my wife and I share our 10 year old Honda Civic and put nearly all of our non-essential income into savings.).

In any event, gasoline prices rose to $4/gallon in June 2008, a full five months before Obama was elected and during the tenure of the Saudi-loving Texan George Bush. If it could happen under his watch, it could happen to anyone.

missingbite's avatar

@shilolo Here we go again with Bush bashing. Besides, in previous posts we talked about oil speculators raising oil prices. On top of that, make sure their are no cameras around when your joke of a leader does the exact same shit as the one you call saudi-loving. He is just as bad even if some in the left can’t bring themselves to believe it. I can understand why, with all the media for the first year and a half thinking he was a savior.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite After W, nearly any Democrat was an improvement in teh eyes of many. Bear in mind that W had a pretty low approval rating so Obama was going to start out with an artificailly high approval rating merely because he was not W and did not have a bat-shit insane VP like W did and McCain would’ve.
And if the people want to think that Obama is Jesus then the media is going to give them Obasus, Savior of Humanity.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv That is partly true. The problem is we have now elected a person that is so far left with no executive experience that he struggles to get anything done. And people still blame the Republicans. Obama has shown very little if any leadership ability. Personally, I think that he is done. Rahm will be gone no later than the midterm and Obama will replace him with someone that will go along with his agenda that will doom his already bad presidency. I could be wrong and time will tell. I predict history will show Obama lower than Carter unless he has a miraculous turnaround. Right now he is awful.

shilolo's avatar

@missingbite Bush bashing how? Gas prices DID go up during Bush’s presidency, yet you want to shift blame to “oil speculators?” Besides, it’s easy to bash the worst President in our history. You think Obama hasn’t done anything, but at least he hasn’t allowed a major terrorist attack (9/11), used it to justify a war that would line the pockets of Halliburton and their ilk, destroyed America’s standing abroad, destroyed our economy, etc.etc. Can any thinking person actually identify ONE major accomplishment in his tenure?

missingbite's avatar

@shilolo You just lost all credibility with me by insinuating that Bush “allowed” Sept. 11th. for monetary gain. Have a nice day. I will no longer participate with ignorance.

shilolo's avatar

@missingbite Why he allowed it is unclear, but the intelligence was there, and he ignored it (note that I never said he allowed it for monetary gain). After that, there is no question that he used 9/11 to justify many things, including war with Iraq (that has drained 100s of billions of our dollars and enriched many companies) and a severe attack on American civil liberties.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite ”... so far left…”? FYI, by the standards of the rest of the world, our entire nation is pretty far to the Right. I mean, when you live in Maine, pretty much every other American is West of you, correct? By the same token, our Liberals are seen abroad as quite Conservative. You really can’t get much more Conservative than current-day America without going to some sort of dictatorship.
As for Bush “allowing” 9/11, I am willing to apply Hanlon’s Razor and entertain the notion that the administration was merely spectacularly incompetent. I feel that “allowed” in this context was less of an intentional act and more along the lines of ignorance.
And while the no-bid contracts for Halliburton are rather suspicious, I feel they were more opportunistic than pre-planned. Sure, Cheney may shoot his friends in the face, but I don’t think that even he would do such a thing.
After all is said and done, I believe that Obama will still show up as better than Bush-43. Carter is also ranked higher than Bush-43 though, so you might be right.

@shilolo One thing to bear in mind here is that Bush and Cheney did not always see eye to eye, and the rift grew wider as time went on. Another thing is that Bush did not have total control over the Executive branch though you’d think he would have more control than he did.
While I blame the Bush administration for many things, I cannot lay all of the blame solely at the feet of George W. Bush. While W may have let his ideology cloud his judgment at times, I sincerely feel that he is a good man and would not intentionally allow a tragedy like 9/11 to happen.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv We will have to agree to disagree on where Obama stands as far as left or right of center. I can agree with you that America is to the right of center. And what is wrong with that? We are different from other countries. I don’t want to be Europe. If I did, I would move there. By your rational that Bush was stupid when it came to Sept. 11th and not malice, I can only guess you think the same about the Gulf oil spill and Obama. I mean, he has been in office 18 months, the MMS had to have known?

jerv's avatar

@missingbite I am happy that you are willing to agree to disagree; that is far more than I usually get. Thank you!

What is wrong with that (us being so Conservative)? Well, the fact that we are wiling to give up the freedoms that our forefathers fought for and trample the Constitution that I spent a few years of my life supporting, upholding, and defending as all politicians swear to in their oath of office; they take the same oath as the military does for the illusion of security. That we are more willing to trust the state than to think for ourselves. It leads to a sort of nationalism where The State is more important than it’s citizenry. Or that we feel so high and mighty as a nation that we can disregard the world community despite thefact that we have fallen from teh #1 spot in many areas and thus no longer deserve the right to do the chest-beating that we do?

THAT is what is wrong with it! Sure, its The Law of Unintended Consequences, but the end result is the same. And it’s also unsustainable; just ask the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Oh, wait… they fell and are now footnotes in history books; a fate that I do not want to see the US succumb to.

Yes, we are different, but so is a child born with cancer that won’t live to see adulthood. Different is not always good. Then again, we are far different from what we were even 30 years ago.

.

As for Obama and the BP spill, bear in mind that Obama’s predecessors made it nearly impossible and definitely poltically suicidal to have any sort of government oversight over businesses. There is also the matter that there were subordinate entities that were supposed to ensure that BP complied with certain regulations even before Obama took office.

When you consider that (according to some sources) BP had nearly 100 times as many violations as the next five oil companies combined, I really don’t think that you can blame any President for that… though it’s a bit easier to blame one that held the reins for 8 years than one who isn’t even halfway through their first term considering how long that particular situation has gone on.

Now, it would be nice if businesses could actually be trusted to regulate themselves, but between BP’s safety record, the shenanigans that led to the economic situation we are in, and other clusterfucks ad nauseum, I think that it has been fairly well proven that there needs to be some degree of government control, even if it is only power to enforce regulations that are already on the books. I don’t think we need more laws, just to enforce the ones we have now and many that we have had for a long time.

The way I see it, Obama inherited a shitstorm that had been brewing for a long time and I feel that he is handling it about as well as can be expected, and better than any administration that involved Sarah Palin possibly could. (I was ready to vote for McCain until he announced her as his running mate, so don’t take that as anti-Republican.) The old saying goes, “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.” so popularity polls are not always a good measure of a politician. That is especially true in our highly polarized society. Combine that with the saying that diplomacy is the fine art of making sure that everybody is equally pissed off and you can see how any President, regardless of political affiliation, is going to piss off at least a sizable minority of the population no matter what they do.

Obama is no more “over” than W was when his approval rating dipped below 35% and has made no major mis-steps yet (unlike W) so I see Obama as an average POTUS in very non-average times.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv I think you and I are much closer in our beliefs than we may think. I am not a right wing nut but I do fall more to the right than center. I am a conservative that does believe in government oversight. I know we need a government to watch out for the people by regulation. What I don’t like and I believe Obama is all about is big government. I believe Bush was doing the same thing. He overstepped boundaries and I disagreed with his policies. I will never believe that government is the answer for the people. The people are the government and it needs to shrink. We need a strong military, safe borders, industry regulation and then let the free market go. What I believe Obama wants is government telling people what is best for them.

You stated that Obama’s predecessors made it nearly impossible and definitely political suicide to have any sort of government oversight over business. I would disagree. Obama was elected on hope and change. He could have come in and enforced regulation. His MMS appointee failed to get control and regulate. They weren’t even doing the monthly inspections on BP when they knew their safety record. He instead went after health care. (that’s a whole different thread) One of his first acts as President was to demand the close of Gitmo within one year. Is that done?

The OP was about Obama being done. I stand by my opinion that unless he changes his fundamental beliefs, he is done. He ran as one person and is being president as another.

On a side note, thank you for your service.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite Let us not forget that Obama (or any President) can’t do much without Congress. Right now, Congress has devolved into hyper-partisan squabbling (well, moreso than usual anyways) thus practically paralyzing DC and tying Obama’s hands when it comes to making policy.

cazzie's avatar

Why didn’t Texas or Louisiana put inspectors on the rigs. It would have been within their rights and they would have plenty of oil rig engineers to choose from. I don’t think this falls right on Obama’s lap. This rig had been in place.. since… 2002, I think. (Hubby was in Korea building the thing in 2001). It IS an absolute shame that Obama didn’t get policy changed in this area, but do you think it would have even made a difference? In time to save this rig? That’s a HUGE amount of ‘what ifs’ and I don’t think pointing the finger in this direction is as effective as looking for the ACTUAL cause. The US has a poor track record when it comes to environmental and worker’s safety. Regardless of who is in the White House, but I think, if given the chance, (and not railroaded by republicans) this government could change a few things. SAFETY PARITY IN THE OIL INDUSTRY NOW! Look to the North Sea, America.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Reading this conversation only reinforces the fact that the Obama administration will be reelected. Because in the end the far right argument falls apart at the end. The media is finally beginning to shift away from the illogical rhetoric of the right. Because the more they talk the more they bury themselves. Apologize to BP! What a joke, but if you follow the logic the Repulicans had no choice because they painted themselves into this corner. The problem is, is that we have allowed and continue to allow the ones that “shout the loudest” to control the message. Socialist, Communist, Death panels, hyperinflation, etc.

I have been listening to Glenn Beck since prior to the election and have found that his show has been meteoric in its intensity because he knew the world was coming to an end…. but it didn’t happen. The government was able to bail out the country and we keep us from a major economic depression. He is also quite the genius in his spin. I call it spin because although he tries to wrap himself in historical fact he does so with the improper premise. If we truly had government out of our lives and let the free market take care of all of our problems. Your children would be still in coal mines for a nickel a day.

Even today we see that US corporations have 1.8 trillion dollars in cash reserves right now. A %26 increase over last year. (Wall street Journal last week) Thats 468 billion dollar increase from last year IN CASH. The government, to “stimulate” the economy provided 0% interest loans, insured Money Market funds, (short term corporate notes) propped up several industries; banks, auto makers, housing market, etc.

The US Dept of Labor reports that the average salary, including benefits is $63,000. They also report that unemployment is at %9.7 or 15 million jobs. Everyone agrees that a healthy economy has an unemployment rate of around %4.5 to %5 or less of course. If you divided $468 billion by $63,000.00 you would find that to equal 7.6 million jobs (rounded). That would make our unemployment %4.6 AND put $468,000,000,000.00 into our economy!

So is the government causing the problem or corporate profits.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv You are correct about congress and are making my point about Obama. If he were more willing to work in the center, he could get anything done. He has the House and Senate democratically controlled and has a hard time getting anything done. The republicans could and have all voted no and he can’t even get the house and senate to agree.

@cazzie Just like border security, the responsibility for regulating the rigs offshore falls on the hands on the Federal Government. They have failed miserably at both for years. Unfortunately for Obama, that means it is his responsibility. Just like it was W’s right after Katrina and Sept. 11th. Obama will have to answer. You didn’t hear Bush’s White House blaming Clinton for Sept. 11th. You may have heard the conservative right like Rush Limbaugh do that. But not from the President. Now we have a President that just blames everything on the “last eight years.”

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite I call…. LAME. It’s his responsibility to deal with it, it’s not his fault. BIG difference.

@thekoukoureport So right on. as for you last question..(statement?) It’s got to be both.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie, Are you even reading? Please show me where I said it was his fault. Please read the posts before you respond…....LAME.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite You obviously forgot Will Rogers’ famous quote: “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
A lesser known quote of his is, “You’ve got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you’ve got to be a humorist to stay one.”

And Obama is perfectly willing to work in the center. However, remember what I said above about even our Left being considered right-of-center abroad? Actually, it’s not quite that bad, but the GOP has shifted far enough to the Right that many life-long Republicans I know have either left the party or are seriously considering doing so. It doesn’t help that the GOP has been more concerned with hindering Obama and the Dems than in doing their damn jobs. I mean, they stall votes on non-controversial stuff that eventually come back 93–7 just because stalling annoys the Democrats!

If you want to Republican Party to be taken seriously, you are going to have to roll the clock back to no later than 1984.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@jerv , I wish you were right about the Republicans, but you forget they rode into town on the shoulders of an angry mob in 1994 and spend the next 12 years fucking up the country. And they’re getting ready to do it again. That’s something that needs to be taken seriously.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite sorry… I guess I wasn’t particularly talking to you in that last remark… but your defence of Beck defies logic….

Sometimes it all just blends together and red all sounds the same to me. I’m getting an earache.

in the rest of the world… red is blue and blue is red. Only in America would a party like the Republicans have the colour red. Such double speak.

Nullo's avatar

@jerv I thought that the GOP had left-shifted. O_o
As a professional antagonist, I can certainly see how the Republicans get a kick out of annoying the Democrats.

@cazzie The Republicans actually used to be blue. They had their colors marketed away from them some years back.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@jerv Don’t forget “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.” Sometimes it seems like Obama needs to do that with Congress.

mattbrowne's avatar

Compare the number of mistakes made by Obama and Bush during the first 18 months. No president is perfect. The oil spill was the result of the drill-baby-drill, shareholder value and corporate greed mentality. Putting the blame on Obama is unjustified. It only shows how desperate Republican hardliners are.

jerv's avatar

@mattbrowne I don’t think that it shows the true measure of the GOP desperation. I have heard a few “credible enough” (as in “neither irrefutable nor bat-shit crazy”) sources put forth the theory that the reason the Republicans in Congress are acting the way they are is so that Obama will fail, the economy will not recover, and the Republicans can sweep the 2012 election due to voter outrage; they will gut our nation for the sake of personal power!

Normally I would say that that is a bit far-fetched, but given how we even got where we are today, I honestly have to wonder if there isn’t more truth to that than some of the other “stranger than fiction” facts of life in the 21st century. I mean, I’ve seen too many weird things to dismiss that notion entirely.

mattbrowne's avatar

@jerv – So it’s all about selfishness and power instead of the common good… how sad…

missingbite's avatar

@jerv If Obama fails for 2012 it will be his fault and his alone. HE CONTROLS THE WHITE HOUSE, HOUSE, AND SENATE! All republicans can vote no on every issue and the House and Senate can pass it anyway. The only thing the republicans can do now is filibuster the Senate. If he fails it will be because he couldn’t get all the democrats to agree.

missingbite's avatar

@mattbrowne Nobody is blaming Obama for the oil spill, we are saying his leadership in the clean up is a joke. He has no leadership. He has, so far, failed at showing leadership. Even his drilling moratorium was shot down by a Federal Judge on the basis it was misleading.

mattbrowne's avatar

Obama has shown far better leadership (though not perfect) when it comes to the oil spill compared to Bush when Katrina hit. And there are plenty of drill-baby-drill judges in America who think green technology is a synonym for communism. Separation of powers means the justice system does not always have to agree with the executive branch.

cazzie's avatar

What a confounding argument. I’d take Obama, or another man like Obama, over anything currently in the republican party.

missingbite's avatar

@mattbrowne Again with the comparisons. You do realize that Bush is at home in Dallas writing a book and joining facebook. We could compare Presidents all day long. It won’t change the fact that Obama is no commanding the situation in the Gulf. If you think he is, you are in the minority of people. Unless you don’t believe polls. source

cazzie's avatar

POLLS? REALLY?? if that’s your best argument, good luck.

mattbrowne's avatar

@missingbite – People are angry. And rightfully so. Part of the blame might have to go in Obama’s direction. He got a tough job and it comes with his job having to deal with criticism. That’s normal. Presidents are human beings. But good criticism allows people to improve if they take it seriously. However, I think 90% of the blame in terms of crisis management goes towards BP management and the safety-related authorities.

Most ultra conservatives in the US simply hate Obama. 98% of all people in the rest of the world admire him.

Obama’s speech about the role of green technologies in America’s future was outstanding. A clear sign of good leadership. Taking climate change seriously and apply the precautionary principle shows good leadership while many narrow-minded Republicans are still drilling away mentally. Drill baby drill.

Resisting green technology will hurt the US big time. The unfortunate climate change denial movement is most active in the US. This is bad news for the US, but good news for the rest of the world because innovation will happen elsewhere and the US will eventually have to import new green technology products. A nation of consumers instead of producers. Unless reason prevails. And there’s hope. Above all, there’s Barack Obama’s leadership and his audacity of hope.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie Polls are a demonstration tool. Not an argument.

@mattbrowne I have no problem with green technology. The problem with what Obama wants, is that he wants to make it so expensive to use our current technology that you HAVE to innovate green technology. That is not leadership, it is thuggery. He has openly stated that under his plan, electricity prices will skyrocket. Who in the short term do you think will pay for that, the electric company? No it will be passed on to the consumer, thus hurting the user. If he really wanted green technology and not more control, he would find other ways to get companies to innovate green. Once it is cost effective to use green technology, Americans will embrace it. Until then, drilling moratoriums under the guise of safety are about Cap and Tax and power. Trying to push out oil companies.

mattbrowne's avatar

@missingbite – More expensive energy is the key. Look what high gas prices accomplished in Europe: fuel-efficient cars. More expensive electricity will lead to PCs, tvs, washing machines, dish washers and light bulbs consuming less electricity. The consumers will make wise choices and actually pay less for electricity even though 1 kWh costs more. Companies will innovate and create ads showing more efficient gadgets. New stuff will only become more cost effective over time. Smart regulation can help without stifling the economy. Here’s an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Germany

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite yes, a demonstration that the person pulling them out in an argument has less credibility.

missingbite's avatar

@mattbrowne I am not arguing that green energy isn’t something to work toward. It just can’t get thrown into the mix in the US like other countries. Skyrocketing fuel prices here will destroy us unless you phase it in VERY slowly.

You mention higher prices in fuel for Europe. That’s great. The drive time from the two farthest cities in Germany is 487 miles. In the US Boston to LA is 2991 miles. That is six (6) times the size of Germany. We have no infrastructure in place to accomplish what Europe has done. If you try to raise fuel prices here to force green energy, it will bankrupt families. This is a question of what comes first the chicken or the egg. You have to have a viable system in the meantime. Like it or not, we are set up the way we are. We have been talking about this since Carter. Cue the anit-republicans saying it’s all our fault for being in big businesses pockets. Whatever. Fact is, politicians on both side have screwed this up for years and Obama can’t change it overnight. If he tries, it will cost him a second term. Tax and Cap will kill his chances. Period. (IMHO)

shilolo's avatar

@missingbite It simply isn’t true that Dems can pass whatever they want. The senate fillibuster and votes on whether to even allow full Senate votes prevent that from happening.

missingbite's avatar

@shilolo Until Scott Brown was elected to one of the most Democratic Senate seats in American History, republicans couldn’t even filibuster. Yet they (Democrats) still couldn’t agree. People can think it was giving into Republicans if they wish. It doesn’t make it so.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite By that logic, G.W. Bush can be blamed for pretty much everything between 2001 and 2009 including 9/11! During much of W’s time in office, the Republicans had the majority of Congress, especially between 2005 and 2007. Also, I do not believe that the Dems have had a supermajority in the Senate for a while, and the GOP was not totally powerless anyways; they managed to do some fine stalling even when the Dems did have a fillibuster-proof 60 seats.
However, you acknowledge that in your latest post about Scott Brown (the type of Republican I think we need more of in order to restore credibility to the GOP after Sarah Palin and Glen Beck started opening their mouths) so I really have to wonder if you are not letting your visceral dislike for Obama cloud your judgment a little here. You are obviously intelligent, but you seem totally unwilling to be objective.
The truth remains that Obama inherited a shitstorm, that neither the POTUS nor either political party actually has any control over Washington, that there are always going to be hardliner Conservatives who will automatically blame any Democrat in power for everything from oil prices to tooth decay, and that there are always rabid Liberals who will do the same to Republicans.

Now, as for the energy issue, you mention that we do not have the infrastructure. I must wonder why not. We are an economic powerhouse with top-notch technology and many of the best scientists in the world, so the only logical reason that we would not have the infrastructure requires is that we do not WANT to change! Okay, maybe right now is a bad time given the global economic situation, but come on! It was relatively easy to put a man on the moon, to split the atom, and to occupy Iraq and yet we cannot build a little infrastructure?
As for the moratoriums, if BP had followed the applicable regulations just like every other oil company seems to then maybe we wouldn’t have this issue right now. And sadly, I have to agree with @mattbrowne in the higher energy prices. I will bet you my left testicle that we Americans would still be driving land yachts like the old Lincoln Continental if gas prices hadn’t gone through the roof when I was a kid.
Hell, look at the vehicles we started using after the $4–5/gallon gas a few years ago; the same sort of cars that Europe and Asia have been using for decades! And it’s not that we can’t; the Corvette is a world-class sports car yet can still get almost 30 MPG. But we are not willing to sacrifice our La-Z-Boy drivers seats and 11,000-pound towing capacity (even though we don’t own a trailer) to drive the same sort of practical cars. Shit, Ford won’t even bring the 65 MPG diesel Fiesta that they have had for a while in Europe even though it performs plenty fine for a non-sports car (better than many gas-burners) and we sell diesel fuel all over the US already.
The truth there is that we WANT to be stuck on gas since there are infinite reserves and that gas damn well better be cheap too since we are Americans and therefore entitled. To argue otherwise is to refute history, to deny our economic might and technological prowess, and to otherwise say that our nation sucks. Please prove me wrong.
BTW – I know enough about cars and electricity that you better bring your A-game for that one ;)

missingbite's avatar

@jerv Just landed from a long flight. I’ll have to tackle this one tomorrow. Cheers.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite No problem. Get some rest; long flights can take a lot out of a person.

mattbrowne's avatar

@missingbite – You got a point that folks in Western Kansas got longer drives than folks in LA. But fuel-efficient cars are actually doing much better when driving 60 mph for longer distances compared to stop and go traffic in LA (unless the car reuses the energy from hitting the brakes).

Higher energy prices created by governments isn’t thuggery. Rather the opposite. Cheap energy is thuggery because people treat our common atmosphere as if it were free. Americans and Europeans pumping too much CO2 in the atmosphere hurts people on other continents. We are guilty of robbery. And we need to do something about it. Now.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv I am not blaming Obama for anything but his policies. I disagree with the direction he is taking the country. You and I have opposite views and that is fine. It was not W’s fault that a hurricane happened any more than Obama can be blamed for BP. I can say that Obama’s leadership in the BP clean up has been a joke. Bush was late to the party but once there, showed leadership. He appointed people who took charge and got the ball rolling. Right now we don’t really have anyone in charge down here. The Coast Guard is grounding skimmer ships for life vest inspections? Really? It takes the administration weeks to approve sand dredging for an environmental study while we are pouring tens of thousands of gallons of oil in the Gulf. Now the Interior Department says they have to stop the dredging because it may be dangerous for the pelicans (like the oil isn’t) but the Corp of Engineers who oversees the permitting knows nothing of the permit being suspended. Meanwhile the administration has put a moratorium on deep water drilling which will effectively send the rigs elsewhere to drill. (I guess it’s ok to drill as long as it’s not our country doing it) Other than kill jobs of Americans, what does the moratorium do? Does he think the companies that own the rigs will shut them down? They are just going to drill somewhere else so his reasoning can’t be the environment. It’s about money! Pure and simple.

Infrastructure. You ask why we don’t have it. Ask Eisenhower. We all know he is the one that pushed for the intrastate system in ‘56. You keep referring to Europe and why we haven’t changed. I explained part of it in an earlier post. We are very large compared to Europe. To set up a train system like Europe has would cost TRILLIONS of dollars that we don’t have. The car issue is another part of the equation. Again, the size of our country comes into play. How do you recommend a family of say four with luggage to take a 500 mile road trip with luggage in a Smart Car or a Ford Fiesta with it’s diesel engine. It is a cute little car! Remember we don’t have high speed rail. (On the other hand as an Airline Pilot I would love for them to fly every time but I know that is not cost effective.) One of the many reasons we purchase larger cars is because of the room they provide. As to why they don’t get better gas milage, ask GM. I won’t argue that we don’t want large cars. I don’t think we should apologize for that either. Again, I don’t want to be in a Smart Car doing 75 MPH next to 18 wheelers doing 80 with my family in it. However, I do have to disagree with @mattbrowne about the gas milage of cars. Hybrids get better milage in town, not on the road. Electric cars are a little hard to take on long road trips. On top of that people purchase cars and trucks to fit all needs of their lives. I can’t afford to have a Smart Car for town driving and a larger car for my family and a truck for our cabin and so on. So we buy SUV’s it guzzles gas but it fits all my needs. (that was a hypothetical, I drive a Tacoma)

Like it or not, our infrastructure is just not set up to mimic Europe. Our lifestyles don’t mimic Europe. The vast majority of Europeans live in multi family homes and more than half rent their entire lives. We need solutions for America and following europe won’t cut it.

I also stand by my statement that you can’t just price people into submission. It will bankrupt too many families who are already pay check to pay check. If we had excellent mass transit in this country, fine, make gas $12/gallon. People could go to work on the train. Wait that’s right, no train where I live. Bus either. I guess it’s a cab. Wait, that’s not cost effective. It’s all relative. One answer won’t work and we are not EUROPE!

LostInParadise's avatar

@missingbite , What specifically did Obama do wrong with regard to BP? What did he do that he shouldn’t have or not do that he should have?

jerv's avatar

@missingbite First off, I have moved sofas in a Civic Wagon, driven from NH to Atlanta in a Saturn with two people in the back seat and still leaving plenty of cargo space, and done other things that people seem to insist that they need an SUV or F-250 for. Most of the people I know who own trucks never use the bed! If you need a truck, the Tacoma is actually pretty decent. Just don’t upgrade to a Tundra unless you start a job where you could actually use it.

The Tesla Model S is pretty close to production. It seats 7 okay, the third row seating is for kids only, gets 300 miles on a charge, quick-swap batteries on a long road trip where you don’t feel like stopping for a few hours every 300 miles hell, it takes me more than five minutes to pump 300 miles worth of gas!, and it doesn’t cost much, especially compared to many other vehicles I’ve seen around and considering the much lower maintenance requirements and overall cost of ownership. So tell me, if we can do that, why don’t we? How much infrastructure does it take to get electricity to every home in the US? Oh, wait… it’s already there!

Or how about the infrastructure required to to the diesel thing and reduce our consumption by using the same vehicles we have now with higher MPG engines? Are you saying that 18-wheelers, large watercraft, construction equipment, and emergency generators cannot operate in large areas of our country? Last I checked, diesel fuel was readily available but I could be wrong. As for hybrids, we have actually crippled them in order to maintain our dependence on oil. I know the tech well enough to know that current hybrids are all fucked up.

But back to Obama. BP has stalled any and all efforts to take total control out of their hands and Obama has to contend with that. However, I agree that he is being a little weak there. Personally, I would declare it a Federal Disaster and do what needs to be done no matter what BP has to say about the matter, but I think I would also make a better Dictator than a President so take that with a grain of salt.

As for pricing people into submission, you went a little far there. Did you notice how things changed when gas was $4/gallon, which was a stretch but not an actual killer like charging $7–12/gallon would be? Notice how automakers did some R&D to make vehicles big enough and fast enough to satisfy the market yet more fuel-efficient to keep the $/mile fuel costs comparable to running an older car on cheaper gas? Trust me, I lived in the woods 15 miles from town with zero mass transit within 50 miles and only two taxis in the county, so I know where you are coming from there.

As for our lifestyles… do you honestly think that our lifestyle here is entirely flawless? Look at the epidemics of obesity, heart disease, violence, poverty, and all sorts of other problems that most of Europe doesn’t have. How places that eat real butter, cook in lard, smoke and drink can be healthier than us should tell you something about our low-fat, no MSG, anti-smoking society. Just because we are not them doesn’t mean that they don’t have good ideas. If everybody else fastened their seatbelt when they got on a roller coaster, would you leave yours unbuckled just because you have to be different?

missingbite's avatar

@jerv I didn’t say we couldn’t move a sofa with a civic wagon. I just said most people don’t want to and I don’t blame them. I’ve done crazier things before.

As far as electric cars, you obviously know more about them than I but how much do the batteries cost. My understanding from reading the info on them is that they last about 7 years and then cost about $12,000 to replace. So at the end of the 7 years you either put 12 grand into the car (if the frame hasn’t rusted out) or you throw it away. Not very economical in my mind. Correct me if I am wrong. BTW, did you notice the ‘base price” of that Tesla? It isn’t cheap. Neither is a Suburban, I’ll give you that, but most people can’t afford anywhere near that expensive of a car.

Diesel fuel is a great idea. It still requires oil consumption. Nuclear power plants are a great idea. I don’t see any of those being built. Why not. Environmentalist have a lot of power with politics.

We can talk about pricing into submission if you like. I know of three families personally that had to declare bankruptcy when the price rose to over $4/gallon. There were plenty more. Unless you have a plan for all houses to run the electricity on solar panels, (about $25,000 to install on my modest 1900 sq ft. house) Obama’s plan is for the price of electricity to skyrocket. source

Do I think our lifestyle is flawless? No. Again with Europe since you like their ideas. How far do most Europeans live from their work. Have you ever been to Amsterdam? There is a reason for some many bicycles. Nowhere to park, streets are small, and the area is tiny. You can get anywhere you need to in 10 minutes by bike. And if you live out of the city, you hop on a train, with your bike, and you are at your office in half an hour. Obesity and heart disease is a major problem I agree. My dad turned 82 last week and grew up eating a pound of bacon every morning and drinking milk straight from a cow. How has he lived to be 82? Because he didn’t sit on his but all day. He worked outside on a farm and continued working like that all his life. He still mows an acre of land twice a week at 82. Americans are lazy. Does that mean the government should force us to change through laws? I don’t think so. I think we should be held accountable for our own actions.

missingbite's avatar

@LostInParadise Specifically he still hasn’t declared it a Federal Disaster. He turned away help from the Dutch because of the Jones Act. (read he gave into labor unions over the environment) He has tried to put a moratorium on deep water drilling that will serve no purpose but kill American jobs. I could go on but that’s a start.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite When we were first offered help, people we saying we could take care of it, so he thought we wouldn’t need it. Saying it’s because of the Jones Act is false because we have foreign ships in the Gulf as we speak helping with the clean up. He hasn’t suspended the Jones Act or given any waivers because at this point, he doesn’t have to with people just being here to help. I posted the source of that information back up towards the top of this discussion.

As far as him not declaring it a Federal Disaster yet, there have been a few articles I’ve read that say there is a question as to what good it would do since this is in the water and not on land. A major disaster declaration entitles residents in affected areas to money for housing, medical bills and other immediate expenses. It also would make cities and other local governments eligible for assistance with debris removal, repairs and other costs. Under those guidelines, declaring the spill a Federal Disaster would probably not help the states affected by the spill that much. If he did declare it a Federal Disaster at this point, I honestly think it would just be for show.

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds You are correct that right now we have foreign ship helping with the skimming. All we can go by right now is that the administration is saying initially they didn’t need the help. We will never know if that is the truth or not. Either way it is a failure of everyone involved on the Federal side. I don’t believe anything the administration says.

Do you know why he hasn’t declared it a Federal Disaster? What about the moratorium?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite I don’t know why he hasn’t done it other than my speculation that it wouldn’t help much (as I posted above). Declaring a Federal Disaster provides help on land, not so much in the water. At this point, people don’t need to have their houses repaired for it or pick debris up from their neighborhoods (which is what declaring it a Federal Disaster would help with). So why should he declare it as one?

What do you mean by “what about the moratorium”? Are you talking about the drilling moratorium? The one that was imposed by the Interior Department about a month ago that halted approving any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells. Which then was overturned by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman because he felt that just because one rig exploded it didn’t mean other rigs posed a risk. To which the Obama administration was trying to delay that court ruling so that they can appeal Feldman’s decision to overturn the moratorium? What exactly did the Obama administration do wrong in this situation? (Source)

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds Yes that moratorium. The one the administration is re filing trying to block the drilling. Since the rig owners are in limbo as to wether or not they will be able to drill, they are looking for other places to put the rigs which will create a job loss for Americans.

Please tell the many people who own beach front property in Louisiana, MIssissippi and Alabama, and now Florida that the oil isn’t in their neighborhoods. Any idea what’s gonna happen to their property value down here?

thekoukoureport's avatar

I don’t know of ANY president who got 20 Billion for victims from any irresponsible corporation. Usually it’s the other way around like how Haliburton made money off of Hurricane Katrina. All the Monday morning quaterbacking of this situation is the primary example of how political discourse in this country is entirely based on a negative. Obama should have done this and why isn’t he doing that. BULL. When the talking points are done go back and read the disaster response plans of four of the companies that are drilling in the gulf so that you can learn about the effects that a spill would have on Walruses. Now Job losses is the new talking point. Why are you not blaming the companies who did this to themselves? We still haven’t stopped the leak and your talking about job losses. Really? I remember 9/11 when we as a people got behind our president which a majority of us didn’t vote for. We didn’t blame him for the attack, we united to a cause. Whats different here? It’s a democrat.

missingbite's avatar

@thekoukoureport NOBODY IS BLAMING OBAMA FOR THE SPILL. Please read! We are saying his policies with the clean up are terrible. Some of us attacked Bush for his reaction to Katrina. He was a Republican. I wouldn’t give a mouses fart if Obama was a Republican. It is my responsibility as an American to question authority and disagree with it when I feel it is wrong. Not to blindly follow someone for any reason. The fact of the matter (IMHO) is that he is screwing up the clean up which he has stated he is in charge of. PERIOD!

Don’t talk about jobs? What a crazy thing to say. Tell that to the people of South LA who are struggling. Aren’t we still blaming Bush for the economic problems and job losses we are facing. But let’s not talk about Obama. That may be unfair or even worse…...racist. Whatever. (talk about talking points) I’m no waiting for someone to say I disagree with him because he is black.

20 Billion? That’s great. What if it cost 40 Billion? Is Obama gonna ride down on Air Force One and demand another 20? That’s the American Way! Talk about great PR. Have you seen the US’s approval rating with the people of Great Britain? Talk about making enemies.

We are blaming the oil company involved. I am still holding out to see why this happened before I judge but it sure looks to be BP’s carelessness. Time will tell for sure. Do you have any idea why we are drilling in depths so great??? It’s not because the oil companies want to.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Are you for real? They are drilling at those depths because their are major oil deposits down there. Thats what I am talking about, how can you say you question when you start on the wrong assumption and continue. I have read the entire string and continue to do so. So when you sit back and spew the talking points you show your true independent mind that is being drivin by the idiots in the media.

Why bring up black. I never said racist… unless democrats are a race. Republicans are militant in their obsession to win power and that was my point. Thanks for proving me right.

And futher more
The federal government does not own Tankers, Deep submersssables, or have any knowledge on how to drill oil. If he did take it over would your next argument be that he is socializing the oil industry. Who cares if England is upset. Again obfiscating the actual subject at hand so as to cloud over the actual good things that this administration has done in the wake of this disaster. As for the jobs… Why do we continue to make it the governments resposibility to make sure these jobs are secure? Why should you as an American who’s responsibilty it is to question authority not want to question ANY new drilling in light of the facts that are before you. Your holding out on judging the oil company but it sure seems that time don’t count for THIS administation. Interesting how closely your last paragraph mirrors that of the Bush administrations “History will be the judge” nonsense. So your shilling for big oil is patently ridiculous.

Did you know that there are over 300 platforms drilling at less than 500 ft. So what that last question four other than to deflect blame from the free market and place it on the Democratic government. If Bush was in office I’m sure you would be saying that it’s the environmentalists fauls like you were about to in the end of you bloviated tirade.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite So you don’t think there should be a moratorium on drilling so that we can do something about it’s safety? You think we should just let them go ahead and drill some more? I think they are doing the right thing.

I never said that people who own beach front property don’t have oil in their ‘neighborhoods”. I just stated what a declaration of a Federal Disaster does and based on that information, that it wouldn’t help much with the oil spill. The fact remains that as of right now, people don’t need the kind of aid that declaring a Federal Disaster would provide. I’m not saying that those areas don’t need help, just that declaring a Federal Disaster wouldn’t actually be helping them. Therefore, I feel like if he did declare one, it would just be for show to make people think that it would help.

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite The moratorium affected 33 rigs out of 3600 operating in the Gulf. The people idled by the moratorium would be made whole by the $20 billion fund, since their loss of work was a direct consequence of the spill. The rigs may go elsewhere if they are idled for 6 months. Let them. There will be rigs built and available to suck up that oil as soon as we know how to do it safely, and looking at the economic impact of doing in unsafely, it is insane to suggest we just go back to drill-baby-drill! It is political pandering by the right, and pandering built on lies, that makes the moratorium a bad idea. Nothing could make any better sense than to find out what went wrong before we compound the error.

As to what happens if the damages are more than $20 billion, that is already explicit. The President saud the current escrow account is a down payment, not a final amount. And anyone who wants to go to court instead of using the fund is welcome to do so.

Nullo's avatar

I’d like to see Barry fail for the sake of the schadenfreude, and so that I don’t have to see any more big government-building.

janbb's avatar

@Nullo “Schadenfreude” is cold comfort. Trust me, many of us know that from the last ten years.

missingbite's avatar

@thekoukoureport We are drilling in those depths for several reason. One being that technology and cost has caught up with time and we can now reach those debts safely. We have had a strong push for years for the rigs to go farther and farther off shore.

The government doesn’t need to own the equipment or have the knowledge of how to use it. It has to open up and ask for help. (we are finally accepting help from many other countries ON DAY 70…source) Who knows why it took so long.

Jobs is supposed to be Obama’s number 1 priority in this economy. The moratorium is bad news. We are blaming an entire industry in one accident. Do we ground all airplanes after one crash? Lets find out if this was negligence or neglect by BP BEFORE we destroy deep water drilling.

@ETpro The idea that the moratorium affects “only 33 rigs” is very short sighted. We can’t look at just the rigs, we have to look at the companies. Some rigs are already leaving and the companies that drill off our coasts want reassurance of stability. Oil leaks like this are very rare and shutting down drilling of all companies with great safety records because one company screwed up is bad business. Other companies will think twice about drilling here because of this. They already have.

You guys can think I am in the tank for the right all you want. You are simply wrong about that. As someone who has lived down here my entire life, I have a good understanding of what and how things are done down here. Obama is getting almost as much heat from the left on this as he is the right. Just one source but there are many others. He has sucked at this oil disaster according to almost everyone except the few that think he can do no wrong.

janbb's avatar

@missingbite Almost gave you lurve for “drilling in those debts.”

See the question on this site regarding the wait of 70 days for foreign help for the refutation of that statement.

missingbite's avatar

@janbb thanks I changed the word.

cazzie's avatar

@missingabit I know foreign help arrived earlier than that because WE sent people over almost right away. 70 days my ass.

cazzie's avatar

http://www.olf.no/news/norwegian-oil-spill-resources-to-assist-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-article19584-291.html

They couldn’t use the dispersant (according to EPA regulations), but the people and other resources are there.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie I didn’t say all help was turned down but a lot was. They have now opened up to more help. No one will give reasons for some of the help being turned away. Your ass isn’t the only place to offer help. Some has been turned down.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite I think the fact that this oil spill has been going on for over 70 days and we still haven’t capped it off is an excellent reason to hold off on the deep water drilling. Obviously we don’t have the capabilities to handle situations like the one we are in now. We need to be prepared and be able to handle this situation should something like this happen again (let alone if it happens at an even deeper depth).

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds You may be correct. You may not. My point is that we are damaging an entire industry at this point based on speculation. We don’t know if BP used faulty parts, was totally incompetent, or what. Other oil companies have had much better safety records than BP. What if we are destroying an entire industry based on speculation. Again, we don’t ground all airplanes because one carrier disregarded safety procedures to save money and crashed. This has happened and will happen again in aviation.

Why is Obama so quick to judge an entire industry for one rig and one company?

janbb's avatar

@missingbite I don’t have a source, but at the hearings, it was shown that none of the other companies have a better plan than BP did for dealing with a spill in deepwater drilling. I think it would be totally irresponsible to not have a moratorium at this point.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite Comparing the number of violations that BP has had in that area, I would say that it is less speculation and more “saw it a mile away”. True, it’ wasn’t as certain as death and taxes, but to anybody who knows math, the odds are good enough to warrant a shutdown and investigation.
As for why Obama ia so quick to judge, again, look at BP’s record; 4% of the refineries and yet 54% of the violations in the industry. I think that racking up 760 violations severe enough to be labelled “Egregiously willful” by OSHA in only two plants while the other 53 refineries combined only got one should tell you something unless you are the type of person who thinks you can play Polish Roulette and live. However, the rest of the industry has to suffer too because we can’t really single BP out without a full investigation and yet the stakes are so high that we cannot allow them to continue as they were, so we have to bang the brakes and screw everyone while we sort this mess out.

missingbite's avatar

@janbb We need to find out why this happened before we destroy the industry. We as a government decided in 1995 under Clinton to push drillers farther into the Gulf by giving incentives to companies who drill in deeper water. The DWRRA was signed by Clinton and has since expired but the incentives still exist. So they drilled. Now we have had what appears to be negligence, among other things, by BP. We have no reason to believe that the blow out preventer shouldn’t work if used properly, which it looks like BP hadn’t done, yet we want to shut down all Deep Water Drilling, when it was out Government that placed incentives for them to go there.

@jerv You are exactly correct. Everyday it looks more and more like BP was negligent if not criminal. I still want a full investigation and I am not alone. source This is not the first time I have agreed with Clinton. He is a hell of a lot smarter and was a better President than Obama will ever hope to be. Notice how he doesn’t come out and say it was BP’s fault. He even stated the government may be some to blame. Some of it may have been his fault. (Read DWRRA) The simple fact is Obama has handled this horribly. No two ways around it. (IMHO, which everyone is entitled to one.)

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite Drill baby drill just won’t sell. Nobody is talking about destroying the industry. That’s crazy talk. We are talking about temporarily suspending new deepwater drilling for 33 operations. 3600 are all still going and there is no current effort to suspend them.

You clearly would drill no matter what. No amount of argument would change that. I’m at a point of agreeing to disagree.

missingbite's avatar

@ETpro We can agree to disagree but before I go, let there be no mistake on how I feel. I am for drilling right now. If we prove it can’t be done safely in those depths we should stop. We have failed to PROVE that yet. I think it is possible to do it safely. As for your 33 operations, like I said before, there is more to it than 33 platforms. It has to do with the companies and their willing to operate in unfriendly atmospheres. Not to mention, there are THOUSANDS of non platform workers that you seem to be failing to take into perspective. Of those 33 platforms you are so willing to send away, do you have any idea how many people are employed servicing those. PHI, FBO’s, firemen, caterers, engineers,...the list goes on and on. Once these platforms are gone it’s gonna be a lot harder to get them back. Unless you are just for Cap and Tax and want to get rid of drilling, why rush to judge all companies on the failures of one? Must be another motive. You are correct, I just don’t get it.

thekoukoureport's avatar

Missingbite has been brought to you by the American Petroleum institute w/ cooperation from freedom works and the AD council (just kidding about the last one)! with that I would just like to say Bon Voyage to all the platforms that are leaving may they find safe harbor wherever they may come to rest. As you actually don’t read other peoples replies, continuing anymore discussion seems…..................

missingbite's avatar

@thekoukoureport Thanks for making my point. The platforms will find another place to drill. So the genius one, Obama’s Moratorium, has done nothing for the environment, but has killed American jobs. Kudos for finally getting it.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite A Moratorium isn’t a ‘cancellation’. Perhaps you need to look the word up in the dictionary. But THIS isn’t the point. It’s a chess game. Regardless of the moratorium taking effect or not, he had to make a show of power towards the drilling companies. It’s as much for their safety as the environment’s. (don’t forget it wasn’t BP guys that died, it was Transocean guys. There is currently a DEEP (pun intended) lack of regulation in the Gulf. The regulations that exist haven’t been enforced, and the ones that need to be put in place are facing a VERY powerful lobby. NOW, the lobby may not have a oil pot to piss in, so it’s time to play hard ball with them and show them the current administration and the agency means business.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie Just because I don’t agree with your policies and I feel they are wrong does not mean I am stupid. I know what moratorium means. I happen to have a physics degree. I also know how to read between the lines. Like I have stated numerous times, a moratorium is going to make these companies nervous to put rigs in the Gulf. Which means they will leave. I also know how to play chess and understand full well what this administration is doing. Scaring companies away that have done nothing wrong. That is because Obama would rather kill the industry. The moratorium will make these companies drill elsewhere. HOW IS THAT MAKING IT SAFER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? THEY WON’T JUST STOP DRILLING, THEY WILL JUST STOP DRILLING WITH U.S. EMPLOYEES.

I have never talked down to anyone on Fluther until I was attacked first. Why do you all think I need a dictionary? If you can’t have a debate without personal attacks, stay away.

I know they were not BP employees that died. Why do Exxon Mobil employees need to lose their jobs because of BP. Remember, the U.S. Government gave them incentives to drill in deep water to begin with in 1995.

Personal attacks usually come because the attacker has lost their point. If you have something to add without attacking me by telling me I need a dictionary or as @thekoukoureport does by implying I have to be in the tank for the “American Petroleum Institute” keep debating. If not. We can drop it.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@missingbite I understand what you are saying about punishing other companies, but those other companies have even said they wouldn’t know what to do if they were the ones in BPs position. That is why I agree with the moratorium. None of the companies know what to do. Yes, planes crash and we don’t shut down all airlines, but that is different because they know how to handle things when planes crash. This is different because no one really knows what to do. Can you imagine how devastating it would be for the Gulf if there was another major leak going on at the same time as this one?

cazzie's avatar

I tried to respond to your post, but was blocked.

missingbite's avatar

@Seaofclouds Sure I can imagine that. I’m down here with this one. Historically, we have had way more oil spill while being carried, yet we aren’t grounding tankers. source We have been drilling farther and farther off the coast for quite some time rather safely. I just feel we need to start enforcing the regulations we already have. If we prove it is not safe to drill that deep, stop it. A moratorium only hurts U.S. workers. Like I said before. These companies will find other places to drill so this can’t be about the environment.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie I have no idea why it would be blocked.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite Part of my point is that they drill safer in other regions because they have to. Like you said, they need to start enforcing the regulations they have, AND they need to bring the practices in line with the rest of the world’s oil drilling regions.

Since 2001, 858 fires and explosions have broken out on oil and gas industry facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, killing more than 55 workers, according to the US Minerals Management Service.

Please excuse me if I get rather passionate about this subject and cross lines of politeness, but this is a very personal subject for me.

The oil rigs aren’t going to leave because of a 6th month moratorium. They’ll lose money, but they aren’t going to leave where the oil is. Anywhere else they go, they’ll have to follow stricter, more expensive procedures. The Gulf of Mexico,... well.. off he US coast, is the wild west of oil drilling….

I’m sure they’ve already put together a task force to examine ALL the rigs and their equipment, procedures etc. I don’t know if it’s possible to retro-fit the rigs with the equipment they should have in place already, but they had better do something along those lines as well.

missingbite's avatar

@cazzie I can understand your frustration. We agree about the regulations. The MMS has given too much power to the oil industry. I also know that there are more deaths in the Gulf than on drilling platforms in Europe. Those are facts. I am not sure what the statistics are for the rest of the world. I freely admit we could do a better job. However, the U.S. is currently at 4.84 deaths per 100 million hours worked. Europe is at 1.07 per 100 million hours worked. While these are too many when you consider what a life is worth, it is doesn’t even enter the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

I disagree on the moratorium. Some will stay and drill, others will leave. Once gone, I feel it will be very difficult if possible at all to get them back. Good luck to all involved. I’m done.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite Sorry you are done, but one thing I feel I should point out before you leave is that the moratorium could also be seen as a mere stop-gap in order to buy some time to figure out how to enforce safety regulations. I know that when bad things happen on the CNC machines in the machine shop, the first thing you do is hit the big red button and bring everything to a screeching halt. Sure, stopping the machinery also stops production and costs money, but sometimes it’s the only option you have.
We grounded all air traffic on 9/11 for a similar reason; we needed to remove the potential for more harm and put measures into place to prevent a repeat performance. Yeah, it cost a lot of money, but I think it was worth it.

As for finding other places to drill, the oil is where it is. Why do you think there aren’t many oil rigs in New England? Those that leave will lose out in the long run. Granted, most companies seem to care more about quick profit than the long-term, but that is another discussion for another time/place.

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite I vehemently disagree that there is no proof the current drilling methods and regulations are unsafe. Just how many people must be killed, how many million square miles must be fouled, how many small business bankrupted, how many species driven to extinction before you have enough proof there is a potential problem?

I do agree drilling at great depths can be carried out far more safely than it has been being done. But the safety regulations that were in place were clearly insufficient. BP’s claim that there was a zero percent possibility of catastrophic failure was clearly a lie. That lie is in the other deep water drilling plans as well. It is insane to proceed when we know that. We need a moratorium to establish regulations that will keep drilling at extreme depths relatively safe (The rigs on the North Sea already have such—we can adopt theirs) and to develop ways of rapidly responding to spills when they occur. Because say what you want, when you are pushing the state of technical art, the idea of a 0% probability of any catastrophic failure is absurd.

As @jerv points out, as soon as we have better regulations established, there will be pelnty of companies ready to bring up that oil.

cazzie's avatar

@missingbite I don’t think a moratorium is either here nor there, and I’m cynical enough to think that all it was was a threat. I think there should be a moratorium on NEW drilling, until the rules can be put in place, but I think that rather than stopping the drilling they should just come down like a brick and review EVERY single platform that is out there now to see what the hell has been going on.

There are organisations set up within the industry that can help. The taint this has left on oil drilling everywhere is staggering. It has sent shock waves through Norway, I can tell you that.

The oil industry here has been wanting to drill off Lofoten for some time (as you can see from the date on this article.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3227662.stm
But they’re still up there, doing seismic surveys http://in.reuters.com/article/idINLDE6211Z820100302
And they STILL are insisting on making plans and back peddling to allay fears.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/06/09/drilling-debate-over-lofoten-rages-on/

Someone mentioned tankers and what they spill every year. Did you know that double hull is now MANDATORY, but the Russians ignore this and they drive their tankers along the top Arctic coast of Norway. Makes us very nervous.

I also ran across this about the judge who lifted the moratorium….
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, reported owning stock in 2008 in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Feldman’s 2008 financial disclosure report—the most recent available—also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

Conflict of interest, anyone?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther