Republicans & Conservatives Archives

C&J, many things which can harm and kill people are invisible to the naked eye. Just because you can’t see vast slicks of oil on the surface of the Gulf, anymore, doesn’t mean the oil is gone. Dispersants had the effect of uncoagulating the oil into fine droplets. Oil contains heavy metals, which means a proportion of those tiny droplets are sub-surface. As those toxic compounds and metals settle to the sea floor, bottom feeders in the food chain will ingest them for a considerable period of time, possibly creating an increasing toxicity over the next few years of populations of the Gulf food chain.

There are many unknowns here, that need to be monitored, guarded against, and researched, before the Gulf can be declared a safe food chain again. I for one, am only buying fish, farm raised in the U.S. Imported farm raised fish industries have several horror stories attached to them over the last couple years, especially in China fish farms.

As for FDR, you left out the most important part. That massive deficit spending stimulus into the private sector via the WWII industrial gear up is what saved the U.S. from Depression era cyclical recessions of the 1930’s. FDR and his Congress’ didn’t deficit spend enough in short enough period of time to rescue the economy in the 1930’s. What they did helped many Americans and kept unemployment from rising even further in the 1930’s, but it was insufficient to truly put the economy on its feet again and growing robustly. The massive infusion of stimulus from the federal government into the private sector for munitions and machines, and military buildup and all the employment opportunities associated is what it took to put the economy on a vigorous growth trajectory for the coming decades.

Republicans and many conservative Democrats have thwarted Obama’s and the Congress’ following the lesson of the 1930’s and 40’s for massive and immediate stimulus directed to the private sector creating jobs for national purpose, efforts to create a stimulus big enough and in a short enough period of time to right this economy robustly. Those conservatives have repeated the mistakes of the FDR administration in the 1930’s, too little, and too late.

Obama had the right idea using massive stimulus dollars to create entire new energy industries and and transportation infrastructure which could have both created immediate jobs and secured an energy independent future. Conservatives forced compromise and watering down that effort in order for stimulus to pass, re-creating the mistakes of the 1930’s.

Of course, the new wrinkle today was the Republicans doubling the national debt unnecessarily from 2001 to 2009, causing enormous opportunity costs to be associated with even more massive deficit spending to rescue the Great Recession economy begun during the Republican reign of fiscal terror.

David

There are “hidden dangers” in everything. This particular disaster will probably turn out a lot less damaging than first feared, but it still caused a lot of trouble.

Fish farming is the wave of the future anyway. I am thinking of making some bass ponds. But you are right that any food products you buy from China are probably worse than anything you could get from the Gulf.

Re spending - we have severe downturns in 1920 and in the late 1980s that didn’t turn into much of anything. Maybe the cure caused some of the sickness in the 1930s and now.

I don’t like the big debt and I understand that Republicans added a lot of deficit spending after 2001, but by your logic that must have averted the depression that would have come after 9/11, since you are advocating more of what they did. How long can it continue?

Mr. Remer writes; “The massive infusion of stimulus from the federal government into the private sector for munitions and machines, and military buildup and all the employment opportunities associated is what it took to put the economy on a vigorous growth trajectory for the coming decades.”

I have heard many on this site say we have already done exactly that since 9/11 with our massive spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you explain the lack of results in this massive deficit spending as compared with what you say was the stimilus by FDR?

David

Besides, my original post is about the “benefits” of having a liberal guy as president. It allows the liberals to do the right (in both senses of that word) thing.

I KNOW I KNOW !!! republicans

WE and the world learned many lessons from WWII. Chief among those lessons would be that appeasment and inaction can lead to horrendous events. Few, besides Churchill, were sounding the alarm in Europe about German rearmament and the growing menace of Japan. Even after Hitler began his conquest of Europe many nations preferred appeasement over confrontation…and we all know where that lead.

Today, Iran, with Russian help and expertise, began loading the rods into their new reactor. Despite numerous UN sanctions, all the ineffective sabre-rattling by the west, uncounted meetings and summits, and the hapless attempts by our diplomats, we are much closer today to a nuclear armed Iran.

I have read of the safeguards of spent nuclear material imposed by our Russian friends to prevent using this material for bomb-making. I have heard and read of the Iranian promise for peaceful use of this and other reactors.

Frankly, I don’t believe any of it to be true. There is no doubt in my mind that they are pursuing a nuclear bomb and that, once available, will use it to threaten their neighbors and us. When that occurs, it will be much too late to do anything peaceful to curb their desires.

We have no Churchill today or an FDR who understood the coming cloud of world war.

What we do have are past and current presidents and congress’s who had/have their heads up their collective arses. Where are the potent voices who understand the danger to us and the world?

Much like our fiscal disaster, which no one seems to care enough about to come together in a bipartisian effort but rather kick down the road for another time, the fueling of the reactor in Iraq today will someday be remembered as the last opportunity to stop that growing menace.

Then, much as we see today on this blog, there will will a flurry of posts blaming each others parties for letting this happen. We have become a nation of opposition, distrust, and inability to recognize even our common interests.

There is no more common issue than national survival and yet, we have frittered away our last chances to stop a coming world holocost. May God have mercy on us.

Correction…”the fueling of the reactor in Iraq Iran today will someday be remembered as the last opportunity to stop that growing menace.”

Royal Flush

John Bolton.

Anyway, I think we all recognize the danger of Iran, but it is hard to know what to do about it. I think we are in a much better position because of our success in Iraq, but that is not sufficient.

Over the long run, Iran’s and our interests are actually similar in the region. They suffered since 1979 with a horrible dictatorship, but even that cannot last forever.

IMO - we should be employing the types of active measures we did in Poland that helped saved those countries from the purgatory of communism. We need not pretend that someone like Ahmadinejad will ever be reasonable.

We can, BTW, help weaken the bad guys in ways even liberals approve. For example, we can congratulate the Iranians on Nawruz, a pre-Islamic holiday that the Mullahs dislike but cannot stop and we can show our respect for Persian poets like Rumi, who the fundamentalists have doubts about. It pisses them off when we hit them with stuff like that, but they cannot admit it.

C&J wrote; “Over the long run, Iran’s and our interests are actually similar in the region.”

OH MY…I could write pages refuting that statement. But, it’s time to retire from my computer, perhaps later.

Royal Flush, the explanation is simple. Automation. In WWII the deficit spending went to hiring people to manufacture. Today, government money to Haliburton, KBR, BlackWater, Boeing, do not result in very much labor hiring, at all in the kinds of numbers to make a dent in unemployment numbers. Today’s military manufacturing industry doesn’t rely on manpower like it did in the 1940’s.

Roads, bridges, sewer and potable water pipes, wind generators and solar panels and electrical grid upgrade and installation and burying electrical more securely below ground, are all human labor intensive industries relative to military manufacturing. Hell, an investment in fuel efficient insulation and heating cooling retrofits across America would be enormously labor intensive while securing a vastly more energy efficient and independent nation going forward. Far more economic boost per tax dollar than modern day warfare.

One can’t take solutions from decades ago and expect them to work today without some modification to match conditions of the present.

Royal FLush, Good comments on Iran, and agree with you. Iraq posed no expansionist threat. Iran does. You are right to allude to an analogy between Iran and Germany/Japan in the 1930’s and 40’s. Iran’s moves scream expansionist potential, and they have to be stopped if we are not to be drawn into a much larger and costlier conflict after their expansionism has begun. And I am not referring necessarily to territorial expansion. Iran has its sights on influential expansion throughout the Middle East through intimidation and threat of nuclear force.

Honestly, I really can’t name anything good that Obama has done for the country. Unless, destroying the job market, putting us in debt even more, attempting to destroy our healthcare system, government takeover of the banking and auto industry, bailing out democratic controlled cities and states, bailing out unions and their pensions, destroying our oil production abilities, driving a wedge between classes of Americans, promoting the Muslim religion while attacking Christanity, placing millions of Americans on Federal welfare, lying to Republicans, lying to democrats, lying to America in general, giving us socialist judges & czars, trying to make America a socialist nation, and sticking his face on our TV sceens EVERY DAY, can be counted as good for the coountry.

C&J said: “There are “hidden dangers” in everything.”

If they are hidden, the cannot be instructive of current policy and neither proponent nor opponent of decisions that need to be made. Hidden dangers are for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to action. Of course, if dangers can be anticipated, they are no longer hidden, but calculable.

C&J said: “I don’t like the big debt and I understand that Republicans added a lot of deficit spending after 2001…”

That’s understating the facts. It took America more than 230 years to accrue 5.65 trillion in national debt. Republicans doubled that in 8 years to 11 trillion. The word ‘Big’ grossly understates the horrendous consequences to be wrestled with as a result of Republican’s fiscal madness.

C&J continued: “but by your logic that must have averted the depression that would have come after 9/11, since you are advocating more of what they did.”

First, we did not have a depression after 9/11. We had a recession, and it was the result of the Tech Investment Bubble, not 9/11.

Bush’s stimulus was infused into the military complex and corporate and wealthy tax cuts primarily, during a time when when capital availability was not the cause of the recession. Exactly the opposite. Too much capital availability through leveraging. Which meant the tax cuts for the corporations and wealthy made no sense, and had less than modest stimulative effect.

Unemployment was not a major consequence of the Tech Bubble, except on Wall St. Bush’s stimulus was so inadequate as to be followed by another recession after 2003, and a third Massive recession underway in 2008. Employment never saw a big bounce in the Bush II years. Because employment remained above historical norms, as a result of a trend stemming from the 1980’s right through the Clinton Administration.

In fact, the current unemployment rate is only about 3.5% higher than historical norms. But, it is now combined with an inordinately high amount of structural unemployment which can only be inaccurately estimated.

In a nutshell, this last Great Recession required massive and fast government stimulus to prevent years of anemic economic growth and fits and starts. But, the fact is, America can no longer afford such massive deficits to fight depressions and recessions anymore, thanks to the Republican’s doubling of the nations 230 year accumulated debt in just 8 years.

In effect, Republicans have tied government’s hands and handed the nation a Great Recession. Their growth of the national debt well beyond any Democrat’s since FDR, literally places America in a damned if we do, and damned if we don’t, fiscal position. Fixing the Great Recession pounds nails into America’s fiscal coffin as the Medicare deficits come into play. Failing to revitalize the economy in the present through massive deficit spending insures anemic economic growth and diminished government revenues as the Medicare deficits arrive.

The Republican years were among the most reckless in American government history. There is no way around that fact. I am honestly surprised that our economy has recovered as well as it has under Democrats. Just a year to 15 months ago, there was little optimism that our economy and Wall St. would be in this good shape at this time in 2010.

Look, about four fifths of the worst oil spill in American History is either suspended in the water column, or is settling on the bottom doing God knows what harm to the ecosystem. You want to make it into some political thing, fine, but Democrats are not oriented towards being merely political. We want things done, folks held accountable.

There is tension between the Democrats and Obama, and the rest of the folks in Congress.

But as frustrating as it sometimes is, it’s necessary.

Republicans failed to observe this. If Republicans were not conservative enough in the last decade, as they would claim, or if they were not responsible and competent, or non-corrupt enough, as others would say, one big reason they weren’t would be the failure of Republicans to regularly hold their people accountable, and to see out information sources independent of the parties influence.

Democrats do not control the bulk of the MSM, paranoid conspiracy theories on the right notwithstanding. They have to deal with the push and pull of it every day.

Republicans, on the other hand? Well, ask them why News Corp, owners of the Wall Street Journal and FOXNews contributed a million dollars to Republican Governors to fund their races.

By having a media whose business is to flatter your interests, you have a real danger to your ability to hold your candidates accountable. People might be disappointed with Obama, but at least they know enough to make up their own mind. If your media is actively trying to keep these people in power, then they probably won’t be willing to act like watchdogs FOXNews’ Parent Company just contributed a million dollars to the GOP. What makes you think they’ll endanger their investment?

Republicans don’t know just how far outside the mainstream their policies really are. So they also don’t know why some folks might consider their policies radical, dangerous, irresponsible. So when Republicans ask for compromise, they don’t realize why people don’t have much of a taste for it anymore.

If Republicans were not bubbled off, too overconfident in their vitriol-produced lead to really see how their positions play in the country, they might realize that their days of just criticizing from the sidelines, one way or another, will soon be over. Either they will be forced to take on responsibilities, with the risk of losing the next election if they’re not upt to the task, or they will find another election falling short of what they wanted, with their minority having burned through much of the other side’s willingness to make deals.

What I find worrying is an argument that proposes “unknown”, “God only knows” as a downside. That sounds more like ideology than sound argument.

Obviously spilling millions of gallon of oil is not a good thing. Burning it may not be much better. Matter is neither created or destroyed. Is it more toxic to spill oil in the Gulf or burn it in a combustion engine?

I don’t get overly worried about boogie men in the night. There are enough boogie men in the daylight to worry about.

SD said:

“That’s understating the facts. It took America more than 230 years to accrue 5.65 trillion in national debt. Republicans doubled that in 8 years to 11 trillion. The word ‘Big’ grossly understates the horrendous consequences to be wrestled with as a result of Republican’s fiscal madness.”

Stephen, you do realize that the national debt has increased almost 2 ½ trillion in Obama’s first 20 months in office and at that rate it would increase over 10 trillion in 8 years, if he was elected again. Now, I know you can’t help yourself, and you will say, “It’s all Bush’s fault”. But in reality, this belongs to Obama and you can spin all you want, but the voters believe it belongs to Obama. This is why the most important thing on voter’s minds is jobs and the economy. And I might also say, Obama has shown no signs of cutting back on spending.

While you are think of some little pithy response, why don’t you tell me why none of the democrat candidates are running on Obamacare? It’s almost like obamacare never passed.

David

We had a downturn in 2001. It seemed that during the Bush times, Democrats were claiming that was really a terrible thing. So now we are saying that it was NBD and that things were good during Bush? Liberals have to keep the story straight.

Re “hidden danger” actually you got exactly my point. We talk a lot today about things we cannot see and fear them. The whole precautionary principle is based on that fear. I agree that we cannot respond to things we don’t know about and cannot find. That is my point in the Gulf. People say there is more damage than is manifest.

Re Democrats - let us not forget that Democrats controlled Congress since the election of 2006. They were complicit in all the spending. In 2006, the economy was okay and the deficit was coming down. One could ask what happened after a couple years of Democratic control too.

Stephen

“God knows what harm to the ecosystem.” God may know, but we cannot seem to find as much as feared. Nature has a way of recovering.

I do regret that the Obama team messed this one up so much, but it looks like the damage they allowed is not as bad as feared.

Gergle

I think we agree on this. I always hate it when people say something like, “We know about X but it could be much worse” That is always true, but never useful. It could also be much better.

I (John) toss watermelon rinds and banana peels in the bushed behind our house. Chrissy gets mad, calls me a hillbilly and claims it is bad. But I have always been able to put her off, since they rot away right quick and make good compost. She uses a variation of the oil argument. Just because we cannot find them doesn’t mean they have not there. Well … they are there, but they have been transformed by natural processes into something harmless and maybe even beneficial.

Beretta

Right. I don’t understand how some spending under Bush can be bad and a big explosion of spending under Obama can be good. And I wonder when Obama will stop blaming Bush. Actually I know when. Bush will stop being blamed as soon as another Republican becomes president. Then they will blame him/her.

I thought Obama was elected to do the one thing that Bush could not do, improve his image.

The fact that the Republicans doubled the debt and are now blaming the liberals while scapegoating the poor and the social programs pretty much suggests that it was deliberate.

C&J, the remarks your are making about the oil have been refuted in the news. Even the Obama Administration is now admitting that their statements that 75% of the oil was gone was woefully wrong.

I can understand the Administrations desires to sweep this debacle under the rug for political reasons.

Stephen, Obama is not a disappointment to me. I had him figured out before he was elected. He has been proving me fairly accurate.

Beretta9-
I am not the person who made the comment you are responded to, but the commenter is right.

You sort of act as if Obama can just make snap judgments on spending. Okay, buddy, let’s what happens if he does!

Well, he could have just had congress stomp on the brakes for those two wars! That would save hundreds of billions of dollars every year. We could get Defense back to something like 300 billion, stop with all those supplementals, save something like 500-600 billion dollars every year.

Are you telling him to do that?

Well, he could also just have unilaterally stomped on the brakes on the Bush Tax Cuts, and agains save hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

Are you telling him to do that?

And all those seniors, relying on the Drug Benefit your party created, we’re just going to remove that altogether, stomping on the brakes again, leaving millions of seniors scrambling to pay for their drugs.

Are you telling him to do that?

Are you telling him to put all the people on Unemployment right now on the street? That could save a few hundred billion.

And maybe he could resume concealing the spending the way Bush did, hiding the AMT fix, hiding the Doc Fix that keeps Medicare supplied with doctors, hiding all the costs of the wars off the budgets, too.

He could have let the economy continue its downturn, put no more stimulus out. He could have stopped TARP and let the banks fail.

It’s anybody’s guess as to whether there would be much of an economy left to pay for the government that was left, and what would result from the precipitous exit from Iraq, but then, if we’re just being simplistic here, if we’re just treating this like some abstract plaything of the mind, instead of a set of financial decisions by the government that have exterior consequences, then maybe Obama could have had us back in surplus again.

Bush took on responsiblities he didn’t have us pay for- that’s another part of the equation. One way for Obama to lower the Budget deficit, if he were so inclined, would be to default on paying back America’s treasury security holders.

That, of course, would both free up hundreds of billions of dollars, and collapse the world economy at the same time. But hey, we’re only talking abstractly here!

It’s really as simple as Obama shirking all his responsiblities, to end a war, to maintain a fiscal policy that doesn’t make the current economic problems worse, to maintain the expected returns on the Medicare and Social Security system, to pay back those who buy America’s debt (which Bush was so generous in creating).

No, that actually doesn’t sound good to me. What sounds good to me is Obama fulfilling his responsiblities, keeping America’s promises, and lowering the deficit, best as he can, while he does the rest.

As for not seeing signs of Obama cutting back on spending, there’s deep irony in that. First, Republicans attacked him on reducing subsidies for insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage policies, told seniors he was threatening their Medicare. He also, in the same bill, stopped the subsidization of Student Loans, putting student loans back into Federal hands. Republicans didn’t like that either. Obama paid for much of his program in offsets from budget cuts, or through tax increases designed to soak up the excess. He ended up signing a bill that was better than budget neutral, according to the non-partisan CBO.

Of course, If you guys actually admitted this, if you told people what budget experts actually said about the bill rather what you wanted them to think about it, you wouldn’t be able to make political hay out of it.

In fact, in trying to cover this fact up, your folks brought up the issue of the Doc Fix.

Interesting thing. Your Republican Congress voted for it every time they had the chance to say no to it. And why did they do this? Well, simply put, without the Doc Fix, A badly misdesigned 1997 law that Republicans authored would start paying doctors unacceptably low rates for their services, resulting in many of them abandoning Medicare. Since then, of course, the Republican Congress, and now the Democrats in Congress have been waiving this decrease, and spending the money to pay doctors to keep Medicare going as a viable program.

After all, Republicans did not want to go to their increasingly more important senior voters and tell them that they had wrecked their ability to get medical care.

But here’s the catch: they didn’t budget for it. They were very willing to continue spending for it, but it wasn’t until Obama came along and put it on the budget, that the cost of the Doc Fix was put front and center.

Of course, its now part of the exploding Budget deficit Republicans complain about, even though they were spending the money, too. They were willing to pay the costs with taxpayer dollars and the money raised from Treasury Bonds that the taxpayers also pay for, but to actually count, actually admit the costs? No, they couldn’t be bothered.

You want a pithy response? How about this: Fiscal conservatism is a con game these days at best, and at worst, it’s a threat to our economic and national security.

C&J-
No, we were not saying things were good under Bush. Things were getting worse. We were talking about jobless recoveries. We were talking about Enron economics and things like that. We were making hay about lost manufacturing jobs, about energy inefficiency and all that.

Republicans were the ones insisting that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. And now, they look at regulation and start saying that more regulation will just create uncertainty.

You know, I just got done watching this Frontline Documentary on the unfortunate Clinton-era policy on Derivatives. You had Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers talking in 1998 about how regulation would be too distruptive, cause to much uncertainty.

This, they said in the aftermath of the collapse of The hedge fund known as Long Term Capital Management.

The only way this avoided becoming a Lehman Brother’s kind of situation was that the Fed under Greenspan convinced the big banks to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars apiece to cash out this hedge funds chips.

When we talk about toxic assets, most of what we’re talking about are Over-The-Counter (OTC) Derivatives. What has made OTC Derivatives such a problem is that they have been traded in secret, with no real disclosure of who owns what, no real capital reserve or collateral requirement. There aren’t even real protections there against Fraud and market manipulation!

Yet Republicans have joined sides with the Bankers to keep this dark market dark, claiming uncertainty made further regulation a problem. Well, the issue at hand is that this uncertainty is mainly fueled by what people don’t know, can’t really know, about all the counterparty obligations, about what things are worth.

From the beginning of history, people have found it necessary to write up rules to govern economic interactions. Without them, the dishonest and the aggressively competitive start figuring out new ways to get an edge on their rivals, a good number of which rely on corrupting the basic market process of determining value and determining the position that is in your interest.

When such becomes corrupted, Markets become incapable of governing themselves, and quite capable of creating illusory gains that cause major meltdowns like we’ve seen in the Crash of 1929 and 2008.

In my view the proper role of government is to enforce the truthfulness and openness of financial transactions, to discourage environments that corrupt financial exchanges and market valuations. I think the last decade, hell the last thirty years should tell us that at the very least, we need to be combatting fraud and irresponsible, unproductive speculative practices.

Otherwise, we pretty much end up like Daffy Duck in this cartoon. I’ve the economy swing into enough trees. We’ve tried the old free market approach. Time to try something else.

On the subject of the oil spill?

Well, I’m curious as to what you mean by “nature has a way of recovering”.

I mean, what I’ve heard is that Oil does tend to break down, but it does that best in warm water near a lot of sunlights. Reports have this stuff lying down on the sea floor, where the temperatures are freezing, and the mud can get pretty anoxic- low in oxygen. Oil can stick around a long time.

Unfortunately, this is where a lot of shellfish like lobsters, crabs, and shrimp hang around. There’s also a question of this stuff getting into the food chain of even plain fish, with all that stuff getting more concentrated as it nears our dinner table, just like Mercury and PCBs might.

Also, I would like to point out that when nature does recover, it often neglects to do so on our timescales.

Sure, the environment will probably find some way, for example, to absorb all the CO2 we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. But we’ve already overloaded the systems that tend to do this naturally, so what does it take for things to get back to normal, a thousand years, maybe tens of thousands of years, or more? Since our timescale for such decisions, for dealing with the conditions of ordinary life are so much shorter, there’s a certain wisdom to not simply telling ourselves that if we ignore it, it will go away, because in our lifetimes, that’s going to be a very iffy proposition.

My sensibility is that for the human species, some timespans are more philosophical than anything else, and we need to define what temporary and permanent mean on our timescale. For a civilization like ours, once things get past a few decades, we might as well treat the impacts of our behavior as though they were permanent, because in our terms, they will be.

Compost will mostly decay on a timeline we can understand, and deal with. The oil in the water in the Gulf? It all depends on where it got put, and if it got put in a place where it won’t be going away anytime soon, we need to consider that fact in our decision-making, if we wish to be responsible environmentalists. We cannot predicate our environmental policy on the wishful thinking of “if we ignore it, it will go away.”.

jlw

What is happening with the oil reports is exactly the wrong thing. The reports are being scrutinized politically. The Obama folks are backing off for political reasons.

I am not saying it is not a serious problem, but when dealing with any problem it is best to figure out the true situation, which is not too optimistic nor too pessimistic.

We just cannot deal with “God knows” or “could be worse than we know” or the precautionary principle writ large.

Re the economy - if Republican spending too much was a problem, how can Democrat spending much more be the cure? The fat man who eats too many donuts does not solve his problem by doubling his intake.

Your joke re Bush’s image may be a true situation. Bush’s reputation will probably never be good, but it will improve to the extent that Obama screws up along very similar lines, showing that it was not only Bush.

Stephen

I am not advocating ignoring the oil. I am advocating a realistic assessment. Some things are indeed harmless or not very hurtful. Oil has been seeping into the Gulf since deep geological time when the gulf was created. The spill is a much bigger thing, but it is not something new. It can be managed.

I would also point out the the environment will never get “back to normal” because there is no such thing as normal. The climate and environment of 1960 or 1970 was just the conditions of those times. The world had been much colder and much warmer at different times.

I think we need to get rid of the whole idea of natural or normal. We have to start thinking in terms of sustainable, recognizing, of course, that nothing is sustainable w/o change.

re economy - see what I wrote above to Jwl.

If Obama continues as he is now, the Bush times may indeed come to be seen as a golden age. We need some new thinking. Obama is not supplying it. Dumping more money into the economy is not a new solution.

There are estimated between 2.3 and 4.5 million barrels of oil that leaked from BP’s well. It is estimated that about 25% of the oil spill was recovered or burnt off, which brings us down to between 1.6 and 3.2 million barrels actually leaking into the environment. There are 1.5 million barrels of oil that leak naturally into the environment, in the Gulf, every year. So the oil leak represented the same amount to double the amount that naturally leaks every year. About 10% of the oil spill evaporates within minutes of reaching the surface. According to aboutmyplanet.com, it was reported that “the action of microbes in taking down a significant portion of the oil molecules as they sank down to the ocean bottom from the top. Nature always finds a way. There is some, which ends up at the bottom of the sea and is consumed by bacteria over time. The point is, almost as much oil as was leaked by BP, is leaked naturally every year. The Obama administration tried to use this accident for political purposes to pass a climate change agenda. But once there were reports that the oil spill has disappeared and cannot be found, the administration has backed off and as C&J said, “I do regret that the Obama team messed this one up so much, but it looks like the damage they allowed is not as bad as feared.”

It’s typical of the left and the leaf MSM, for 3 months, we were bombarded with the worst ecological event that has happened since the death of the dinosaurs. And now, the media and the democrats are silent. $20 billion BP dollars placed in the hands of the Obama administration to be doled out to the affected. Want to take a guess on how that will go. The $20 billion will end up as part of “Obama’s stash”, and doled out to his supporters.

If there is not enough oxygen in the water for bacteria to consume the oil residue at such great depths, how would shellfish survive?

As usual, this was a “crisis” and as Ram Emanuel says, “never waste a crisis”…

Baretta9,

“$20 billion BP dollars placed in the hands of the Obama administration to be doled out to the affected. Want to take a guess on how that will go. The $20 billion will end up as part of “Obama’s stash”, and doled out to his supporters.”

Why do you deliberately misrepresent the facts? You well know that the 20 billion dollar fund is being administered by an independent group headed by the same person that managed the 9/11 fund.

Honesty I can’t think of one positive thing unless you like war that bush the antichrist did for this country.

Kenneth Feinberg: bama’s “pay czar”, unelected, unconfirmed by Congress, not answerable to Congress, and on the bama’s payroll….Who do you think he answers to?

Glenn Beck, Fox News and the Republicans doing their bidding are trying their darndest to manufacture controversy over the existence of czars in the Obama Administration. Not only is it incredibly hypocritical - no one’s buying it.

Here, for your reference, are the 47 czars during the Bush Administration:

Bush’s AIDS Czars (5)

CNN: Bush Appointed “AIDS Czar” Randall Tobias In 2003. In a story entitled “Ex-Eli Lilly Exec Named Global AIDS Czar,” CNN reported: “President Bush tapped a former pharmaceutical executive Wednesday to coordinate his administration’s $15 billion program to combat AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. If confirmed by the Senate, Randall Tobias — the former chairman and chief executive officer of Eli Lilly and Co. — would head up the administration’s efforts to bring more medical workers, medicine and training to those countries hit hard by the virus.” [CNN, 7/2/03]

NPR: Bush’s First “AIDS Czar” Was Scott Evertz.“For the first few months of the Bush administration, there was a White House Office of National AIDS Policy, but no one seemed to be working there. Public health officials and AIDS activists were concerned there would be no Bush AIDS policy. Today, with a new AIDS office director and a thrust toward international issues, that all changed sharply. The president’s AIDS czar, Scott Evertz is an openly gay Republican from Wisconsin.” [NPR, 4/9/01]

NYT: Joe O’Neill Was Bush Administration’s “AIDS Czar” In 2003. “Among the White House officials briefing the Log Cabin Republicans today was Dr. Joe O’Neill, the administration’s AIDS czar, who is openly gay.” [New York Times, 5/10/03]

AIDS Policy & Law: Carol Thompson Was Bush Administration’s “AIDS Czar” In 2006. “The heads of the U.S. government’s domestic and global AIDS offices will be leaving their posts to take on new jobs. Their replacements have yet to be named. Carol Thompson, director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, sometimes referred to as the national “AIDS czar,” left Feb. 10 for a new job at the State Department’s Africa division.” [AIDS Policy And Law, 2/24/06]

ABC: Mark Dybul Was Sworn In As “AIDS Czar” In 2006. JAKE TAPPER (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover) For its part, the Bush White House won re-election in 2004 partly by campaigning against gay marriage. PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH (UNITED STATES) I believe our society is better off when marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. JAKE TAPPER (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover) And yet, it can seem perfectly accepting of such unions, as was seen this week, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in as AIDS czar Dr. Mark Dybul, who is gay, while Dybul’s partner held the bible. [ABC World News, 10/13/06]

Bush’s Faith Czars (3)

National Review: John DiIulio Was Bush’s Administration’s First “Faith Czar.” “John DiIulio is an enigma. An Ivy League professor with a Ph.D. from Harvard, tenure from Princeton, and now an endowed chair at Penn, he is also a devout Roman Catholic who refers to himself as ‘born again’ and credits black Pentecostalists for his return to faith. A pro-life, pro-family social conservative, he is also a pro-poor registered Democrat who served in the highest levels of the Bush administration as our nation’s first ‘faith czar.’” [National Review, 11/19/07]

Jim Towey Replaced DiIulio as “Faith Czar.” “A former Florida political insider who once worked as legal counsel to Mother Teresa will be named today (Friday) to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Cox Newspapers has learned. President Bush will announce that Jim Towey, president and founder of Aging With Dignity, will replace John J. DiIulio Jr. as director of the office the president says is central to his ‘armies of compassion’ campaign to help lift poor people out of poverty.” [Cox News Service, 1/31/02]

Jay Hein Became “Faith Czar” In 2006. “On Aug. 21, Jay Hein became the third director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.” [Religion News Service, 9/6/06]

Bush’s Budget Czars (4)

Indianapolis Star: Mitch Daniels Was Bush’s “Budget Czar” In 2004. “A new political action committee, dubbed “Frugal Hoosiers for Mitch,” was formed Wednesday to persuade White House budget czar Mitch Daniels to seek the Republican nomination for governor in 2004.” [Indianapolis Star, 12/5/02]

Orlando Sentinel: Joshua Bolten Was White House “Budget Czar” In 2005. “White House budget czar Joshua Bolten conceded the money was only a ‘stop-gap measure’ and Congress will need to approve more money later. FEMA is spending $500 million a day so far.” [Orlando Sentinel, 9/2/05]

White House Bulletin: Rob Portman And Jim Nussle Were White House “Budget Czars” In 2007. “At the same time, the resignation of White House budget director Rob Portman, who is returning home to Ohio possibly to run for governor, has led to the appointment of former Congressman Jim Nussle as the new budget czar.” [White House Bulletin, 9/22/07]

Bush’s Cleanup Czars (3)
Tri-City Herald: Jessie Roberson And Paul Golan Were “Cleanup Czars” In 2004. “The acting assistant secretary for environmental management at the Department of Energy, sometimes called the cleanup czar, will visit Hanford next week. Paul Golan has been filling the position temporarily since Jessie Roberson resigned in July.” [Tri-City Herald, 11/9/04]

Tri-City Herald: James Rispoli Was Cleanup Czar In 2005-2006. “James Rispoli, a key Department of Energy official for Hanford cleanup, plans a visit to the Tri-Cities next week. The assistant secretary for environmental management is scheduled to speak at a meeting of DOE’s Environmental Management Advisory Board in Richland. He’s held the position, sometimes referred to as the cleanup czar, since being sworn in a year ago.” [Tri-City Herald, 8/17/06]

Bush’s Communication Czars (2)

US News & World Report: Ed Gillespie And Dan Bartlett Were “Communications Czars.” “Recently named White House communications czar Ed Gillespie is winning rave reviews for handling critical PR issues, a sign that gives insiders confidence that the president will weather the upcoming congressional storm over the Petraeus troop surge review…You might recall that Gillespie replaced Dan Bartlett, Bush’s longtime communications aide.” [U.S. News & World Report, 8/21/07]

Bush’s Cybersecurity Czars (2)

San Jose Mercury-News: Richard Clark Was “Cybersecurity Czar” In 2003. “Since a 2003 presidential commission issued the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, the White House has suffered from a leadership vacuum on cybersecurity. Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator, retired as cybersecurity czar just as the strategy was published.” [San Jose Mercury News, 11/12/07]

Wired: Rod Beckstrom Was Cybersecurity Czar In 2008-09. In a story entitled, “Cyber-Security Czar Quits Amid Fears of NSA Takeover “, Wired reported: ”Rod Beckström, the Department of Homeland Security’s controversial cyber-security chief, has suddenly resigned amid allegations of power grabs and bureaucratic infighting. Beckström — a management theorist, entrepreneur and author — was named last year to head up the new National Cybersecurity Center, or NCSC.” [Wired, 3/6/09]

Bush’s Homeland Security Czars (2)

Vanity Fair: Tom Ridge was Bush’s “Homeland Security Czar.” “Former Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge remained the dutiful Bush & Co. team player throughout his tenure. Once he left the organization, however, he became increasingly forthcoming.” [Vanity Fair, September 2005]

Michael Chertoff was Bush’s “Homeland Security Czar.” “The latest National Intelligence Estimates were released yesterday and they are enough to make any sane person want to head for the nearest bunker. The combined assessment of the nation’s 16 spy agencies are a sobering reality check of the dangers - long and short-term - that exist right here on our own shores. Perhaps it was his own advanced look at the report that caused Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff to have that well-publicized uneasy feeling in his ‘gut.’” [Boston Herald Op-Ed, 7/18/07]

Bush’s Intelligence Czars (2)

Time: John Negroponte Was Bush’s “Intelligence Czar.” “As the government’s new intelligence czar and the President’s primary intelligence adviser—a position created late last year by Congress after fierce lobbying by the 9/11 commission and families of the 9/11 victims—Negroponte has the job of making sure that the kinds of intelligence stumbles that led up to 9/11 and the sorts of miscalculations about Iraq’s WMD programs don’t happen again.” [Time, 1/20/05]

Mike McConnell Took Over As Intelligence Czar. “Negroponte, who will be replaced as DNI by former National Security Agency chief Mike McConnell, had received some criticism for his quiet, behind-the-scenes approach to the daunting task of unifying the massive, $44 billion intelligence community.” [U.S. News & World Report, 1/4/07]

Bush’s Manufacturing Czar (2)

Detroit News: Albert Frink Was Bush’s “Manufacturing Czar.” “Michigan lawmakers had hoped that President Bush’s manufacturing ‘czar’ would be a powerful voice in support of the state’s battered factory sector. Instead, they’re seething in bipartisan anger over what they see as his lack of clout — and accomplishment. For instance, Albert Frink, U.S. Commerce Department assistant secretary for manufacturing and services, has rarely even been in the same room as President Bush in his first year and a half on the job.” [Detroit News, 4/28/06]

William G. Sutton Replaced Frink In 2007. “The Senate recently confirmed William G. Sutton, a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral, to serve as the assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing and services. Sutton’s government role as lead advocate for the manufacturing community will require perseverance in addressing the issues that constrain U.S. manufacturers’ ability to compete globally. According to industry observers, Sutton will need to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, Al Frink, to raise the country’s awareness of such issues as the industry’s skills shortage; the impact of regulations, litigation, and taxes; and the importance of free trade…The job of assistant secretary for manufacturing — sometimes referred to by NAM as the ‘manufacturing czar’ — gained momentum under Frink, who was the first to hold this position and who resigned in December 2006.” [Managing Automation, 9/29/07]

Bush’s Public Diplomacy Czars (2)

Washington Post: Karen Hughes Was Bush’s “Public Diplomacy Czar.” “Karen Hughes, the new public diplomacy czar charged with improving the U.S. image, began her maiden diplomatic voyage Sunday, meeting in picturesque settings with Egyptian students who have benefited from American largess.” [Washington Post, 9/26/05]

Washington Post: James K. Glassman Was Bush’s “Public Diplomacy Czar.” Al Kamen wrote, “Meanwhile, the agency is also minus a chairman because the current one, James K. Glassman, who took over just a year ago, was sworn in yesterday as public diplomacy czar at the State Department.” [Washington Post, 6/11/08]

Bush’s Regulatory Czars (2)

Albany Times-Union: John Graham Was Bush’s Regulatory Czar. “The curious case of John Graham, the ‘regulatory czar,’ who can block any new regulation from his position inside the Office of Management and Budget, has attracted some attention because of Graham’s unusual public record.” [Albany Times Union, 8/25/01]

Washington Business Journal: Susan Dudley Was Bush’s Regulatory Czar in 2007. “President Bush avoided a nasty confirmation battle by appointing Susan Dudley as his regulatory czar while Congress was out of town. The recess appointment avoided the need for Senate confirmation of Dudley, who has been criticized as being an anti-regulatory extremist by consumer groups, labor unions and environmental organizations.” [Washington Business Journal, 4/16/07]

Bush’s Other Czars (18)

NPR: Neel Kashkari Was Bush’s “Bailout Czar” In 2008. “And so today, in the Rose Garden where he’s made so many appearances lately, President Bush announced what he called the G7 action plan to strengthen banks across the country. Neil Kashkari, the Treasury Department’s bailout czar, now expresses confidence that we are building the foundation for a strong, decisive, and effective program.” [NPR, “All Things Considered,” 10/14/08]

US News & World Report: Leon Kass Was Reported As Bush’s “Bioethics Czar” In 2003. In a story highlighted as “College professor Leon Kass has become the nation’s first bioethics czar,” U.S. News & World Report reported, “Leon Kass loves the intellectual back-and-forth of intense conversation. The man whom President Bush picked to direct a national discussion on bioethics confesses, “I believe in talk. I believe in argument, almost to a fault, if the goal is understanding, not victory.” [US News & World Report, 2/1/03]

Politico: Stewart Simonson Was Bush’s “Bird Flu Czar” In 2004. “Remember the bird flu czar? He was Stewart Simonson, appointed by President Bush in 2004 as assistant secretary of health and human services for public health emergency preparedness. Simonson’s mission - his wonkish title aside - was no less than protecting the country from an avian influenza epidemic.” [Politico, 10/21/08]

Salon.com: Eric Keroack Was Bush’s “Birth Control Czar” In 2007. “Even our birth control czar was one until Eric J. Keroack resigned amid allegations of Medicaid fraud. (Now, according to a killer bit of investigative reporting by Raw Story, it seems he may have gotten his federal job based on fraudulent qualifications as well. He claimed to have been in private practice for 20 years, but other documents suggest it was closer to five years; his much-touted experience as ‘medical director’ for nonprofit group A Woman’s Concern looks as if it may have been a part-time volunteer position.)” [Salon, 5/31/07]

The Nation: “Aids Ambassador” And “Abstinence Czar” Randall Tobias Stepped Down After He Appeared on D.C. Madam’s Client List. “So far, the most significant player to show up on Washington madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s much-discussed client list is USAID chief Randall Tobias, the former pharmaceutical company CEO who ran Bush’s global AIDS initiative for its first three years. His ignominious tenure as AIDS ambassador was marked by a preference for pricey brand-name HIV drugs over cheap generics, which sharply reduced the number of people who could be treated. Ironically, given his regular ‘massages’ from call girls, when we can surmise he ignored the abstinence-only instruction to ‘keep all of your clothes all the way on all of the time,’ Tobias was also an avid defender of the President’s puritanical approach to HIV prevention… Tobias is not the first abstinence czar to leave his job after running afoul of the moral agenda he promoted. Claude Allen, once the leading White House abstinence advocate, stepped down as domestic policy adviser last year after he was caught stealing.” [The Nation, 5/10/07]

Slate: Elliot Abrams Was “Democracy Czar” In 2005. “Hours before the president’s State of the Union address earlier this month—a perfect moment for burying inconvenient news—the White House announced the ascension of Elliott Abrams to the highest ranks of its foreign-policy team. Abrams has moved from the staff of the National Security Council to the post of deputy national security adviser. It’s a significant promotion, one that gives Abrams both an elevated stature and new management powers. Specifically, the White House says Abrams will be in charge of ‘global democracy strategy,’ effectively making him Bush’s democracy czar.” [Slate, 12/17/05]

Washington Post: Karl Rove Was Bush’s “Domestic Policy Czar” In 2004. “In the wake of Bush’s 2004 reelection, Green reports, Rove, newly promoted by Bush to domestic policy czar, concluded that the time for this realignment had come.” [Washington Post, 8/15/07]

New York Times: John P. Walters Was Bush’s Drug Czar in 2001. “President Bush today nominated as his drug czar John P. Walters, who has long argued for jail time over voluntary treatment for drug offenders, calling him the man to battle illegal drugs that rob people ‘of innocence and ambition and hope.’” [New York Times, 5/11/01]

NPR: David Atchison Was Bush’s “Food Safety Czar” In 2007. “There’s been lots of U.S. czars since then right up to food safety czar, David Atchison, who took office this month.” [NPR, 5/16/07]

AP: John Howard Was Bush’s World Trade Center Health Czar in 2006. “New York lawmakers and Sept. 11 health advocates urged President Obama on Monday to rehire a World Trade Center health czar who was let go last year by the Bush administration. John Howard’s six-year term as director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health expired last July and he was not asked to stay on. Since 2006, Howard had become the government’s point person for post-Sept. 11 illness.” [AP, 2/23/09]

ANSI: David J. Brailer Was Bush’s “Health IT Czar.” In a story titled “David J. Brailer Resigns as Health IT Czar,” the American National Standards Institute reported, “Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt announced this evening that he has accepted the resignation of Dr. David J. Brailer as National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Brailer was appointed to the position by President George W. Bush on May 6, 2004.” [ANSI, 4/20/06]

Time: Philip Mangano Was Bush’s “Homelessness Czar.” “With a freak-show economy in which unemployment has reached 6%—a 50% increase since November 2000—but housing prices have stayed at or near historic highs, the number of homeless appears to be at its highest in at least a decade in a wide range of places across the U.S., according to Bush’s own homelessness czar. ‘It’s embarrassing to say that they’re up,’ says czar Philip Mangano of the number, ‘but it’s better to face the truth than to try to obfuscate.’” [Time, 1/20/03]

New York Times: Donald E. Powell Was Bush’s “Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar.” “The White House said Friday that the administration’s Gulf Coast reconstruction czar, Donald E. Powell, was resigning to return to his family in Texas.” [New York Times, 3/1/08]

Sunday Times: Michael Gerson Was Bush’s “Policy Czar.” Andrew Sullivan wrote, “And, in fact, every single critical figure in this White House has been there from the start: political guru Karl Rove, secretary of state Condi Rice, former speechwriter, now policy czar, Michael Gerson, budget director Josh Bolten, and national security adviser Stephen Hadley. Hadley, according to the Post, schedules a full battery of meetings on Saturdays as well.” [Sunday Times, 3/19/06]

Education Week: G. Reid Lyon Was Bush’s Reading Czar. In a story titled, “National Reading Czar to Leave Public Sector for Teacher Ed. Venture,” Education Week reported: “G. Reid Lyon, the influential chief of the branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development that sponsors studies on reading and a key adviser on the federal Reading First initiative, will step down July 1 to take a job at Dallas-based Best Associates.” [Education Week, 6/7/05]

Business Week: John Marburger Was Bush’s “Science Czar.” In a story entitled “A Talk with Bush’s Science Czar,” BusinessWeek reported: “When President Bush needs to talk science, he turns to John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.” [Business Week, 3/16/04]

CBS: Richard Clarke Was Bush’s “Terrorism Czar.” “Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.” [CBS 60 Minutes, 3/21/04]

Wall Street Journal: Gen. Wayne Downing Was Bush’s “Counterterrorism Czar.” “Gen. Wayne Downing, said to be tired of battles with Pentagon’s Rumsfeld, exits as the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism czar at the White House National Security Council.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/28/02]

AP: Bush Chose Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute For War Czar. “President Bush has chosen Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Pentagon’s director of operations, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a ‘war czar’ after a long search

Well, jeff. I wasn’t complaining about the czars. But, tell me, what part of my statement is untrue?

“Kenneth Feinberg: bama’s “pay czar”, unelected, unconfirmed by Congress, not answerable to Congress, and on the bama’s payroll….Who do you think he answers to?”

“Kenneth Feinberg: bama’s “pay czar”, unelected, unconfirmed by Congress, not answerable to Congress, and on the bama’s payroll….Who do you think he answers to?”

Kenneth Feinberg’s contract is with BP directly. He has no contract with the Obama Administration. His salary and that of his staff are paid directly by BP and not from the escrow account. He is not on “the Bama’s payroll.”

So he is working for free as the bama’s csar?

Rich He was appointed by Obama so therefore he works for Obama as administrator of the 20 billion BP payout for the spill Not for BP. Google is a useful tool whgen you want to find out info.

Beretta9-
They’ve found a nice, 20 something mile long plume in the Gulf under the water. But I guess that doesn’t exist because it might frighten the children and make Republican policies look bad.

Same way you just claim any damn thing you want to about the spill compensation fund. Where’s your damn evidence, might I ask? You seem to be eager to claim horrible things about Obama, but when pressed to find things in the real world to back what you’re saying, you go jumping around in circles.

Barreta9,

Please, be reasonable. The account is an escrow account. That is an account held by an independent third party with a fiduciary duty to manage the account on behalf of the parties and in accordance with the stated purpose(s) of the account. President Obama appointed Ken Feinberg as the administrator. BP is paying his salary under a contract between Feinberg and BP. The funds in the account are under the control of Feinberg, not the Obama administration nor BP. An accounting of the funds is required.

Calling it an Obama slush fund is just plain irresponsible. But, why am I surprised. The far right has little shame when it comes to slander and outright misrepresentation.

Rich-
The Right in this country is not looking to have this election be about the facts. They’d lose on the facts.

They want it to be about feelings, and directing those feelings against people. They’re just hoping to poison the political environment to the point where even if you don’t believe in the individual charges of corruption, you’re overwhelmed by the sense of negativity and the feeling that there’s this hopeless corruption around.

It’s cheap, but sadly, it sometimes works.

Stephen,

The maddening part about this “drive by shooting” approach to debate is that it prevents any truly effective solutions. Divert the discussion to some phoney, contrived issue (death panels, birthers, Obama is a Mulsim, Obama is a thief, Obama is a socialist, Obama is a fascist, etc.). Avoid the issues.

What is the right thinking? That the nations economic problems, health care, energy needs, etc. are not real problems deserving of true, honest debate on the merits? I am sure that thinking conservatives have real contributions to offer. However, the politics of the right dictate that such ideas shall never see the light of day.

Ultimately, I think that this strategy will fail. Voters are not completley stupid. Eventually, conservatives will have to present a coherent approach to solving the nations problems. They can’t ride the “Tea Party” nihilism forever.