|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 21, 2010 22:25:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 22, 2010 7:10:48 GMT -8
Reflects on the intellect of the commentator and those that think it drives home the point about the need for increased Socialism......Seeing short-term, targeted spending from the Gov to save the economic future of a region the same as the expansion of Gov entitlements that last for ever and eventually go unsustainable.
With this reasoning, a lefty would assume that conservatives didn't want the US to fight WWII lest they be hypocrites. Lame.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 22, 2010 10:20:18 GMT -8
Very weak commentary by Mr. Pitts. If there were no Jones Act and if we had a competent MMA and decisive leadership from the Obama Administration there would be a whole different outcome. It might not even have happened with competent oversight that the Mineral Management Folks are charged with providing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 22, 2010 10:26:31 GMT -8
There were many conservatives, as well as liberals, that firmly believed in Isolationism before WW2. They were the majority. Pearl Harbor changed all of that. I will point out that FDR, no conservative, was pushing to help Britain and France. The Lend Lease Act may have been the lifeline that saved Europe before Japan made their mistake.
BTW, you may want to research Henry Ford and his relations with Germany before WW2. His plants in Germany were gearing up for war long before his plants in the USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 22, 2010 12:20:47 GMT -8
FMS is currently a policy that conservatives support. Lend/Lease was a net exporter and it likely had more to do with ending the Depression and its double-digit unemployment than any of the make-work policies that dominated the preceding years under FDR.
Avoidance of international entanglements is a good policy so long as your national interests are not at stake. But when Japan attacked and Germany declared war on us, that policy no longer applies. No conservative at that time said the government must not grow to meet the threat of the Axis and they were not signaling a desire for more Socialism with that position.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 22, 2010 14:02:46 GMT -8
FMS is currently a policy that conservatives support. Lend/Lease was a net exporter and it likely had more to do with ending the Depression and its double-digit unemployment than any of the make-work policies that dominated the preceding years under FDR. Avoidance of international entanglements is a good policy so long as your national interests are not at stake. But when Japan attacked and Germany declared war on us, that policy no longer applies. No conservative at that time said the government must not grow to meet the threat of the Axis and they were not signaling a desire for more Socialism with that position. WW2 is a huge watershed as far as the size of our government is concerned. Up until then after a war the government shrank down to prewar levels. It never did after WW2. The Cold War took care of that. If you think about it our country has been on a war footing since the start of WW2. That helps explain why our government is the size it is. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 22, 2010 14:08:39 GMT -8
As interesting as the conversation about government size and the history of WW2 is, it does not address the original point. How does a small government, that can not do anything as well as private industry(according to the conservatives), react in a disaster like this one? Conservatives can not ask for a small government if they are going to call on government to act in big disasters. That requires big government. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 22, 2010 14:58:18 GMT -8
Government can be "big" in the areas of responsibility to which the Constitution assigns it.
Conservatives like me don't say "small" government. We say "limited" government. Limited to its Constitutional mandates.
Not that difficult to expect the government to remain within its restraints.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 22, 2010 15:05:22 GMT -8
I don't see Jindal's complaint against Obama's lack of urgency and slowness in allocating resources as a demand for larger government.
In one case, the Government is already big and it was more a lack of efficient Executive action when Obama doesn't apply the resources he already has as his beck and call in a timely or smart manner.
And extra, temporary funding, in advance of any BP shakedown slush fund, for private contractors to work the spill cleanup sooner rather than later does not demand a large standing, permanent bureaucracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2010 17:33:50 GMT -8
As interesting as the conversation about government size and the history of WW2 is, it does not address the original point. How does a small government, that can not do anything as well as private industry(according to the conservatives), react in a disaster like this one? Conservatives can not ask for a small government if they are going to call on government to act in big disasters. That requires big government. You can't have it both ways. I just love these left-wing navel gazing, "gothca" type arguments. How about all you big government types explain to all us small government types why it is that the huge bloated government we have now has been so feckless and ineffectual in response to this and other "crises" of the moment. Further; please enlighten us is to how much bigger the government has to be before it becomes competent. If the government controls literally everything and enforces a 100% tax rate will it then be ultimately competent? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 22, 2010 17:38:58 GMT -8
Frankly, I continue to be surprised that the conservatives are asking the Federal government to do anything. They have been harping for years that the Federal government can do nothing right. Why are they complaining now? Why are they not calling on BP to show us all how competent they are at oil spill clean up. They had a plan in place for just this contingency did they not? It has worked flawlessly. Right? I mean there is not a single dead walrus. Doesn't that prove it?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 23, 2010 8:44:57 GMT -8
Government can be "big" in the areas of responsibility to which the Constitution assigns it. Conservatives like me don't say "small" government. We say "limited" government. Limited to its Constitutional mandates. Not that difficult to expect the government to remain within its restraints. Which article in the constitution says the government is responsible for cleaning up oil spills? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 23, 2010 10:23:04 GMT -8
As interesting as the conversation about government size and the history of WW2 is, it does not address the original point. How does a small government, that can not do anything as well as private industry(according to the conservatives), react in a disaster like this one? Conservatives can not ask for a small government if they are going to call on government to act in big disasters. That requires big government. You can't have it both ways. I just love these left-wing navel gazing, "gothca" type arguments. How about all you big government types explain to all us small government types why it is that the huge bloated government we have now has been so feckless and ineffectual in response to this and other "crises" of the moment. Further; please enlighten us is to how much bigger the government has to be before it becomes competent. If the government controls literally everything and enforces a 100% tax rate will it then be ultimately competent? LOL So tell us some more how competent BP is. They are in over there head, about a mile over their head, and can do nothing about it. I just love how right wing apologists can never see private enterprise ever doing anything wrong. Poor BP.  The big mean government wants them to clean up their mess and explain how they could have screwed up so badly. Right wing apologists(Boy, am I ever using the right word) are so sorry that the government want BP to be responsible for their incompetence. What are you thinking, afan? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 23, 2010 12:58:39 GMT -8
This arguement goes round and round and will never end. Let's just use some common sense about things like letting help come in and not worry about some "Jones Act" union baloney. Let's make sure this has very little chance of happening again by drilling where it is safer like shallow water and ashore. Lets ask why BP has such a horrible safety record while Exxon/Mobil is near spotless. Lets ask why Obama made this political from the get go rather than try to let BP mitigate the problem with all the help offered by Norway and Holland.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 30, 2010 19:28:42 GMT -8
Here is an important fact about the oil spill situation. As I understand it, there is a federal law limiting a company's liability in case of an oil spill to 75 million dollars. That's a ridiculously low limit, of course, and BP has already pledged 20 billions. The point is that the limit by the Feds was essentially an insurance policy for the oil companies.
Had there been no Federal guarantee, the oil companies would have had to get private insurance. (I doubt any company would have decided to proceed on a self-insurance basis, but just in case there was any doubt, the Feds could have required insurance. . . that would be one govt. action that makes sense.) No insurance company would have granted BP or any other company a policy without very carefully checking to make sure that the company's disaster plans were adequate.
Please note the angle on this. Though acting in the public interest would not have been the insurers' prime motive, their own self-interest would have caused them to achieve that goal anyway. Ayn Rand made this exact point in one of her books; I think it was The Virtue of Selfishness.
A final thought. As, I believe, Win has said, conservatives and libertarians do not favor no government. We favor limited government that acts according to the provisions of the Constitution only. That is not Obama's preference; he has made a statement (which I hope I can find later) indicating that it's a shame that the government is so limited.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 30, 2010 22:21:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 1, 2010 6:48:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 1, 2010 20:03:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 1, 2010 21:04:12 GMT -8
Here is an important fact about the oil spill situation. As I understand it, there is a federal law limiting a company's liability in case of an oil spill to 75 million dollars. That's a ridiculously low limit, of course, and BP has already pledged 20 billions. The point is that the limit by the Feds was essentially an insurance policy for the oil companies. Had there been no Federal guarantee, the oil companies would have had to get private insurance. (I doubt any company would have decided to proceed on a self-insurance basis, but just in case there was any doubt, the Feds could have required insurance. . . that would be one govt. action that makes sense.) No insurance company would have granted BP or any other company a policy without very carefully checking to make sure that the company's disaster plans were adequate. Please note the angle on this. Though acting in the public interest would not have been the insurers' prime motive, their own self-interest would have caused them to achieve that goal anyway. Ayn Rand made this exact point in one of her books; I think it was The Virtue of Selfishness. A final thought. As, I believe, Win has said, conservatives and libertarians do not favor no government. We favor limited government that acts according to the provisions of the Constitution only. That is not Obama's preference; he has made a statement (which I hope I can find later) indicating that it's a shame that the government is so limited. AzWm William, you expressed yourself very well. Your second paragraph is the thrust of your argument. Look at your lead sentence. " Had there been no federal guarantee, the oil companies would have had to get private insurance." There is only one way to read that sentence. Parse all you want. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 1, 2010 21:18:27 GMT -8
I heard an idea that Exxon/Mobil might try to buy the assets or some of the assets of BP. Just how would that work as far as liability is concerned? It was a comment from someone of Bloomberg. Don't remember who and have not heard or seen anything about it since. Seems to me that it would not be possible to sell the assets unless it was the only way to come up with cash to meet their obligations. It would almost have to be a cash deal and not an exchange of stock since I don't think XOM would want to take on the liabilities.
Thoughts?
|
|
The big mean government wants them to clean up their mess and explain how they could have screwed up so badly. Right wing apologists(Boy, am I ever using the right word) are so sorry that the government want BP to be responsible for their incompetence. 
