Conquer Club

I guess it's all just a coincidence that Obama is lifting the deep-water drilling ban 3 weeks before the midterm elections. Of course, the obvious answer is because he needs Landrieau's vote to get his OMB nominee through the Senate. Gibbs denies that the nomination is the reason for lifting the ban.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43471.html

Well, it's 2 months too late as it is. They left themselves some wiggle room to end the ban early though, which was smart

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... finds.html

"'Since the April 20 explosion, Kish said, Interior has issued shallow-water permits at a 10 percent clip of its previous rate over the past two years. 'I don’t know what business can run at 10 percent of what it normally does,' Kish said. Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement, said Tuesday it would take at least four to six weeks before new deep-water-drilling permits are granted. 'It will take some time for companies to believe they have complied with the new rules and requirements,' Bromwich told reporters, according to Fox News. 'We will need to do inspections on all the platforms before we can allow those permits.'"

The only numbers that changed weren't from scientists they came from the polls. That's why it got lifted early. This administration is not pro-business no matter what tricks they try before the midterm elections.

This is why senators make such shitty presidents. Everything is a future deal-maker...

Typical. Complain when a policy you don't like is implemented, complain when it's revoked.

You know, at this point a speech by a sweater wearing, peanut farmer sitting in the Oval Office, chastising us for a national malaise would actually seem uplifting.









......................Nope, didn't work

Metsfanmax wrote:Typical. Complain when a policy you don't like is implemented, complain when it's revoked.

not to complain, except for about playing politics with serious issues in the first place...like it matters which way???

Well, there's no evidence that Obama's playing politics. Only some random hack's opinion. The Business Week article seems to indicate that there's a legitimate pragmatic reason why the policy is no longer needed.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, there's no evidence that Obama's playing politics. Only some random hack's opinion. The Business Week article seems to indicate that there's a legitimate pragmatic reason why the policy is no longer needed.

...or ever was in the first place...

You're going to need to do better than that. The article cites the administration saying that the reason it's no longer needed is because of policies which were implemented after the ban.

by some random hack

The only reason they issued the moratorium in the first place was to appease environmental radicals, it had nothing to do with the actual danger or science regarding the drilling. Evidence? The US granted a $2 billion loan to a Brazilian drilling company (where George Soros has stock) to drill in water deeper than our deepest wells. The US also granted loans to Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the same region where our companies were not allowed to drill yet we would be in the same danger of a spill occurs there. Redistribution of wealth at its finest.

Night Strike wrote:The only reason they issued the moratorium in the first place was to appease environmental radicals, it had nothing to do with the actual danger or science regarding the drilling. Evidence? The US granted a $2 billion loan to a Brazilian drilling company (where George Soros has stock) to drill in water deeper than our deepest wells. The US also granted loans to Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the same region where our companies were not allowed to drill yet we would be in the same danger of a spill occurs there. Redistribution of wealth at its finest.

That isn't evidence to the safety of the wells. That is evidence to the US wanting more oil.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The only reason they issued the moratorium in the first place was to appease environmental radicals, it had nothing to do with the actual danger or science regarding the drilling. Evidence? The US granted a $2 billion loan to a Brazilian drilling company (where George Soros has stock) to drill in water deeper than our deepest wells. The US also granted loans to Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the same region where our companies were not allowed to drill yet we would be in the same danger of a spill occurs there. Redistribution of wealth at its finest.

That isn't evidence to the safety of the wells. That is evidence to the US wanting more oil.

If we wanted more oil, why aren't we the ones drilling for it? There is no arrangement that those countries will provide us with the oil, and even if there were agreements, why sacrifice the jobs for our economy?

The reason for those loans was called NAFTA.

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992.

Because it was signed into law, we are obligated to:

# Promote conditions of fair competition.
# Increase investment opportunities.

among other things.

It's those investment opportunities and conditions of fair competition that bite the USA in the butt, not to mention tariff-free lesser quality goods imported in.

The funny thing is, one reason this was done was to reduce illegal immigration; since conditions in Mexico were supposed to improve, those who would otherwise illegally cross borders were supposed to want to stay.

At least, that was part of the bill of goods Republicans sold when they instigated NAFTA.

Night Strike wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The only reason they issued the moratorium in the first place was to appease environmental radicals, it had nothing to do with the actual danger or science regarding the drilling. Evidence? The US granted a $2 billion loan to a Brazilian drilling company (where George Soros has stock) to drill in water deeper than our deepest wells. The US also granted loans to Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the same region where our companies were not allowed to drill yet we would be in the same danger of a spill occurs there. Redistribution of wealth at its finest.

That isn't evidence to the safety of the wells. That is evidence to the US wanting more oil.

If we wanted more oil, why aren't we the ones drilling for it? There is no arrangement that those countries will provide us with the oil, and even if there were agreements, why sacrifice the jobs for our economy?

Because it's cheaper, and the contract probably requires those companies to ship the crude to US refineries.

stahrgazer wrote:
It's those investment opportunities and conditions of fair competition that bite the USA in the butt, not to mention tariff-free lesser quality goods imported in.

They may bite certain American industries in the butt, but overall the American people don't benefit as much with such unfairness. For example, look at the subsidies given to domestic sugar "farmers." Without them, Americans would buy foreign sugar which is about 1/3 cheaper. That's not much, but when one factors how many foodstuffs have sugar in them, then one will realize how much cheaper many foodstuffs would be.

Do you want subsidized sugar (supported by your taxes)?
Or do you want cheaper foodstuffs (with your taxes going elsewhere)?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:
It's those investment opportunities and conditions of fair competition that bite the USA in the butt, not to mention tariff-free lesser quality goods imported in.

They may bite certain American industries in the butt, but overall the American people don't benefit as much with such unfairness. For example, look at the subsidies given to domestic sugar "farmers." Without them, Americans would buy foreign sugar which is about 1/3 cheaper. That's not much, but when one factors how many foodstuffs have sugar in them, then one will realize how much cheaper many foodstuffs would be.

Do you want subsidized sugar (supported by your taxes)?
Or do you want cheaper foodstuffs (with your taxes going elsewhere)?

Are you meaning to imply that one choice is much worse than another? I don't think that this is a question which has an easy answer.

Even National Obama Llama Radio (and Morning Edition is the most liberal of the two pillars of NPR's daily news) isn't singing "everything's comming up roses" with this announcement. Consider the title alone, "Despite End Of Drilling Ban, Uncertainty Remains."

Empasis mine wrote:The Obama administration on Tuesday lifted the deep-water drilling moratorium it imposed in May after the BP oil well explosion, but drilling isn't expected to resume immediately and rig workers remain in limbo.

The damage is already done, so sad wrote:At least four deep-water rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico, and it will be years before they could return. Diamond alone has moved three rigs out of the Gulf and sent them to Congo, Egypt and Brazil.

Brazil, where hearts were entertaining june
We stood beneath an amber moon
And softly murmured "someday soon"
We kissed and clung together

Then, tomorrow was another day
The morning found me miles away
With still a million things to say
Now, when twilight dims the sky above
Recalling thrills of our love
There’s one thing I’m certain of
Return I will to old brazil

DangerBoy wrote:I guess it's all just a coincidence that Obama is lifting the deep-water drilling ban 3 weeks before the midterm elections. Of course, the obvious answer is because he needs Landrieau's vote to get his OMB nominee through the Senate. Gibbs denies that the nomination is the reason for lifting the ban.

Oh please, this has been coming ever since the disaster happened, more quickly since the BP well was capped.

Did he put a rush on to get it through before the elections? Likely. But you cannot have it both ways... you want to complain if it were not done and now complain that it IS done.

Typical sour grapes.. nay, typical Republican/Tea Party/Right wing grousing!

DangerBoy wrote: This administration is not pro-business no matter what tricks they try before the midterm elections.

They are not "anti-business", either. They are SLIGHTLY more pro-people. A nice change. Still, I wish they had delayed a bit longer.. until real and true preventative measures and the ability to fix any future problems was set. But.. that would be a truly liberal idea. Obama is frankly conservative.

This idea that the "all might dollar" is more important than anything else, even amongst supposedly Christian religious conservatives, is not just self-destructive, its dangerous to us ALL!

I'm going to have to side with Player on this one, the timing is ... politically the worst thing that could have happened. Everyone knows that the people won't be employed immediately and certainly not until after the elections. Thus it only serves to open old wounds and remind people that the administration policies caused one section of unemployment and the movement of jobs overseas.

I have to go with the explanation I heard from one official on one of the news shows, the regulation revisions took less time than they originally anticipated and now that they have them they can start the process again under these new regulations. The moritorium was always in order to devise new regulations in order to move forward. Sometimes they do manage to get things done early.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:
It's those investment opportunities and conditions of fair competition that bite the USA in the butt, not to mention tariff-free lesser quality goods imported in.

They may bite certain American industries in the butt, but overall the American people don't benefit as much with such unfairness. For example, look at the subsidies given to domestic sugar "farmers." Without them, Americans would buy foreign sugar which is about 1/3 cheaper. That's not much, but when one factors how many foodstuffs have sugar in them, then one will realize how much cheaper many foodstuffs would be.

Do you want subsidized sugar (supported by your taxes)?
Or do you want cheaper foodstuffs (with your taxes going elsewhere)?

Are you meaning to imply that one choice is much worse than another? I don't think that this is a question which has an easy answer.

The answer is pretty clear.

The subsidies only benefit an extremely small and wealthy group of people at the large expense of all those people who buy and sell any good that once formerly contained American sugar. Not only that, but anyone competing in the sugar market outside of US borders also benefits from the now fair competition.

Therefore, subsidies for the American sugar industry should be ended.

Looks like the Inspector General agreed with the critics: Obama's drilling moratorium was politically motivated rather than driven by science. Thank you Obama for killing jobs for political gains.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html

My memory's a bit fuzzy on this, but when was the ban imposed? During Obama's presidency or before? And was it passed overwhelmingly in Congress or not really?

BigBallinStalin wrote:My memory's a bit fuzzy on this, but when was the ban imposed? During Obama's presidency or before? And was it passed overwhelmingly in Congress or not really?

Seriously? It was put in place by Obama at the beginning of the summer as a response to the oil spill. A judge lifted the ban because the ban was based on biased data. Obama put the ban back in place anyway, but lifted it a few weeks before the election. The Inspector General has now found that the ban was a political move rather than one based on science. Congress was never involved in this unilateral decision.

Night Strike wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:My memory's a bit fuzzy on this, but when was the ban imposed? During Obama's presidency or before? And was it passed overwhelmingly in Congress or not really?

Seriously? It was put in place by Obama at the beginning of the summer as a response to the oil spill. A judge lifted the ban because the ban was based on biased data. Obama put the ban back in place anyway, but lifted it a few weeks before the election. The Inspector General has now found that the ban was a political move rather than one based on science. Congress was never involved in this unilateral decision.

Yah, suriusly, I can't follow everything.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, but I got one more question.

Why do they say it was a political move? In what way did Obama gain by imposing the ban? Was it to gain approval by some easily misled environmentalists?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do they say it was a political move? In what way did Obama gain by imposing the ban? Was it to gain approval by some easily misled environmentalists?

Gain approval by environmentalists: yes. The whole point was that the administration claimed the decision was made on science in that a panel of scientists had said that the moratorium was necessary. In fact, no such panel of scientists had made that recommendation, so Obama's decision was not actually based on scientific recommendations. Therefore, the motivation they found was purely political as the administration went so far as to manipulate the report to make it appear that scientists had provided the recommendation. They were playing games to achieve their desired political outcome. As far as I know, the report never said he actually gained politically (and many would argue that he lost ground politically), just that politics were the motivation.