BP in Charge of our Environment & Wall Street Banksters in Charge of our Economy

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom's picture

The Washington Post is reporting that the federal agency in charge of regulating offshore oil drilling repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about risks to the environment in a push to quickly approve energy exploration activities. Also, an inspector general report discovered that during the Bush administration, regulators allowed industry officials to fill out their own inspection reports in pencil and the regulators themselves then traced over the pencil writing in pen and signed off on the reports.  We are seeing, in the Gulf, the predictable result of "small government" Libertarianism/Republicanism that protects monopolies and turns regulation of activities that could use or damage the commons over to monopolistic corporations.  George W. Bush put Samuel Bodman in charge of the Department of Energy, for example, for the same reason that Reagan put Bill Bennett in charge of the Department of Education - both men had called for the elimination of the agencies they were put in charge of.  Combine that with a horse judge lawyer running FEMA and the damage done over the past thirty years of Reaganomics and so-called "small government" policies leads to disaster.  It's time for both the administration and our media to start talking about the important and useful functions of government, and how they should be funded.  And particularly for our media to start calling out these so-called "small government" cranks on the stupidity of their policies of putting BP in charge of our environment and monopolistic giant Wall Street Banksters in charge of our economy.


Roboute's picture
Thom wrote:; We are seeing,

Thom wrote:
; We are seeing, in the Gulf, the predictable result of "small government"


LeMoyne's picture
Thom wrote: We are seeing, in

Thom wrote:
We are seeing, in the Gulf, the predictable result of "small government" Libertarianism/Republicanism that protects monopolies and turns regulation of activities that could use or damage the commons over to monopolistic corporations. 

If yr still laughing you are either a monopolist, an oligarch, you missed the quotes or perhaps you didn't finish the sentence.   Or you missed the sentence before or after the quote.

DRC's picture
I presume that had it been

I presume that had it been possible to restock the Executive Branch with non-Bush moles, Obama would have done so.  The problem of broken government was not caused by Obama, and he gets no help fixing it from the powers that be and their GOPimps.  

There is also the political reality that anticipating the disaster would have been a "big government takeover" or "massive regulations" in what would have been claimed to be a remarkably safe record of operations.  Responding to a disaster makes BP the bad guy from the start.  If the anger is that BP and OIL operates with arrogance and government has trouble standing up to them, the answer is not the Rand Paul route.  It becomes a mandate for a government big enough to handle this kind of problem.

Being big enough to confront the Powers of Commerce might also mean shedding a lot of imperial fat.  Like all those corporate entitlements in our welfare capitalism model of Monopoly.

Thom wrote: And particularly

Thom wrote: And particularly for our media to start calling out these so-called "small government" cranks on the stupidity of their policies of putting BP in charge of our environment and monopolistic giant Wall Street Banksters in charge of our economy.


The Quiet Coup

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time. - Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist, IMF.


The financial reform that isn't sort of verifies that. "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."  Sen. Durbin.


Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

A variatioin on a theme: When

A variatioin on a theme:

When outlaws outlaw regulations, only outlaws go unregulated.

bldegl's picture
BP has the slogan

BP has the slogan "Beyond Petroleum".

They are way beyond petroleum. They are into killing people (do to unsafe conditions on drilling platforms), destruction of marine habitat and other acts of eco-terrorism.

We should all realized that regulations are laws and without laws, you only have lawlessness. BP resembles that to the max.   

bldegl's picture
What's the difference between

What's the difference between the US and Afghanistan?

Afghanistan calls their warlords warlords. We call our warlords Halliburton, BP, Massey Energy, etc. 

I don't think we need to be so politically correct, sometimes. 

Dusty's picture
Thom, you are truly one of

Thom, you are truly one of the smartest people in the room and your attempts to focus the woes of the nation on Bush/Cheney are beneath you, imho.

Obama, is the source of nearly all of the ills that the US imposes on its own population and the rest of the world. Reid and Pelosi see to it that nothing of consequence will ever be changed. And as surely as the Sun rises in the East you will conjure up some sort of excuse for any or even for all three no matter how responsible they are.

As long as you and Carl & Christine, Schultz, Rhodes, and so on continue to distract from the source of this nations problems the longer we will suffer them.

LeMoyne's picture
Dusty c'mon.  Thom's post

Dusty c'mon.  Thom's post does not contain Obama's name.  Bush let the fossil fools regulate themselves.  The banksters control our economy through the Fed and the Republicans filibuster to protect them.  The large multi-nationals have off-shored as many jobs as they can over the last few decades.  And there is near total media control by a handful of large corporations after the Bush/Powell FCC.  All of these problems for US came to their poisonous fruition when Obama was in the Illinois state legislature or US Senate and you want to blame him now as President.  To be sure, Obama has done precious little about all this, but a continual attack on the US government is just aiding the fascist takeover of the US.   The initial post is a call for the government and media to do something about "the source of this nation's problems" and not an apology for Obama.

Dusty's picture
LeMoyne, the Bushistas

LeMoyne, the Bushistas accomplished more in the first 9 months of their illegal occupation of the White House than Obama will do in his entire 2 terms. However, it does not mean Obama is without the ability and power to turn the clock back. Continuing the illegal policies of the Bush/Cheney regime is all one need know to understand the Obama administration, everything else is hyperbole.

The "progressive" agenda is heavy on divining excuse upon excuse for a man who has not opnly continued the crooked policies, but has enhanced and beefed them us as well.

Welcome to the New American Century.

LeMoyne's picture
OK Dusty thanks for

OK Dusty thanks for clarification.  We agree on much.  I am a Green who voted for Obama out of hope based on his rhetoric, fear of McCain's instability, my certainty that he needed an extra 10% of votes to win and the knowledge that a black President would cause the US to move towards a post-racial society.  I was not fooled just hopeful.

I have listened to the 'Obama is playing chess' metaphor until queasy - his game looks more like rope-a-dope where others tae the beating  (liberals, progressives, Greens, even TPers)  - he plays a game where regular folk are taking all of the punches for him.  I have not had real basis for hope since before his inauguration when Obama announced Geithner/Bernancke as his economic team.  I gave up all hope for "change we can believe in [as good for the people]" when Obama gave up on the health care public option in his first few months in office.  I don't think Obama ever said he was a progressive.  He governs to the right of Eisenhower - it seems both TR and FDR would be incensed by Obama's corporation friendly policies with respect to the environment and regular folk.

One of the best effects of Obama is that the Republican 'take back our country' rhetoric now sounds like the racist code-words that it often is: he has served to marginalize and splinter the Republicans in many ways.  Any remaining 'hope' I have for Obama is based on his statement that he is not an ideologue.  Perhaps President Obama may begin to see the REAL effects of his cooperation with soulless corporations in this disaster and be motivated to take on BP - if only in political self-defense - or maybe for the world his kids will live in.  That's a 'maybe', not a hope for change we can believe in.

DRC's picture
Dusty, please listen to

Dusty, please listen to LeMoyne.  Politics is not about how angry or disappointed anyone is in Obama, nor is history and truth served when you excuse the past to blame him for not doing what you want him to do.  I think we are seeing the evil empire exposed to the public.  I think Obama is constrained by the desire to reconcile and hold together what is falling apart.  Lincoln felt the same way until war happened.  

Poly and I agree on the economic advisors we wish were running the show.  I have some other nominees for the team, but we do not think about getting them confirmed or any "baggage" that can be tagged to them by the Corporate Media and FAUX "sleaze-boating."  By taking a very moderate and cooperative stance from the start, Obama has made the rhetoric of him as a radical lose any credibility it might have outside the lunatic fringe.

Is this "rope a dope?"  It worked great for Ali, if it is.  There is real value in having one's opponents state their stupid ideas in their own words and do things that demonstrate their insanity.  Obama does not have to call them names or "attack them" in a partisan or polemical "war."  He can be above all that sniping, in the best place for a sniper to shoot, the high ground.

Or, he can get tagged with being the guy in charge of a broken government who is not fixing it.  He has to start doing something other than go along with the players to see if any of them might be interested in fixing the problems instead of being the problem.  He has to make it a problem for them to be in the way of fixing things.

There is no way that the politics of paradigm shift or Big Change are going to come through the current political system or electoral process.  But it can get the process going.  Assuming that collapse is inevitable given the level of corruption and public dismay instead of real political movements, what are we going to be doing the day after it all falls down?

I would suggest that we start doing it now, and that we include those in the system who agree with the larger diagnosis enough to see if there is any hope within it to help us work with the change instead of waiting for it.

Put all the pressure you want on the White House, but stop blaming Progressives for not buying the lies of the Right.  If Dubya and Cheney were not the authors of this mess, they wrote the last chapter in a tragedy begun even earlier than Uncle Ronnie's Brand.  Going Empire after WWII was always going to break the bank and establish authoritarianism.  It happened long before Obama faced the awesome task of directing the dinosaur where it does not want to go.

Dubya rode the dinosaur of empire like a kid on a horse that had its own ideas of where to go.  Going with power looks very powerful, but it was not about the guy in the saddle then, so why get so focussed on the new driver?  Dusty, your skills as a pathologist are far better than your ability to prescribe a good tonic or cure.  As I said before, "we need to save despair for better times."

Dusty's picture
DRC, please, I'm not trying

DRC, please, I'm not trying to anger you, but your posits are not always clear and your insistence on rejecting a discussion on law in favor of some notional morality frustrates meaningful discussion. I'm sure you feel way towards me so maybe we should ignore each other.

Dusty's picture
LeMoyne - I didn't vote for

LeMoyne - I didn't vote for Obama. I knew he was a conservative in spite of all the progressive rhetoric. However, I felt he was the perfect man to break the wall of electing anybody - so long as he's a white guy.

Obama's racial background has been completely co-opted, now. He is not a balck man. He is of mixed race, which I belive is the penultimate in breaching the wall. A guy who is white and black. How much better a representative of the US public could the country have selected? Most countries openly discriminate and the election of Obama could have broken more than just some racial barrier had he really been as progressive as his political rehetoric. It will be a very long time before we ever see another example of setting race aside.

Elections and the partisan process of deciding who "we the people" get to chose from sets up a fools choice for public office. There is no longer a mechanism left us to correct, through elections, the make up of the central government.

DRC's picture
What discussion of law?  What

What discussion of law?  What 'notional morality?'  I asked you specific questions about "equal access" and "commerce v. privacy" based on Mr. Paul's ideas.  You had gone off about how we and Rachel had treated him so poorly and not listened to his real ideas.  BS.  We heard him very clearly and were amazed that anyone would want to go back to that crap.

I admit that I find your intransigence frustrating.  I think you projected a lot in that indictment.  If your point is that Obama has not dismantled the imperial presidency or restored the Justice Dept., we can agree on the facts.  Your indictment of him as 'worse than Bush' or just more of the same appears to me to be extremely superficial and somewhat premature at best.

If your concern is that we will be seduced into supporting Obama as the lesser of two evils, what real world alternative do you suggest now?  I think we need to build for the future while we do what we can with the present.  If you like the former and hate the latter, go with my blessings to work on the future with passion, vision and commitment.  But would it be possible to give those pursuing the latter more respect as allies instead of enemies?  

Whatever it is that I don't 'get' by your measure, I obviously do not understand.  Your posts have not made it clear to me.  I think I have addressed your issues and only have asked for a wider perspective and some tolerance for diversity of opinion.  And strategy.

LeMoyne's picture
LOL - there are two threads

LOL - there are two threads with this title and we have derailed this one a bit...  Thom just said 'yes' on the air to the allegation that this is a continuation of the Bush Family crime spree.  It remains to be seen if this will be the wake-up call that people all across the political spectrum keep hoping, praying and shouting for Obama to get.  US needs to wake-up on the issues of privatization of the commons, corporate infiltration of government, energy and economic sustainability and more.

Dusty wrote: "The

Dusty wrote: "The "progressive" agenda is heavy on divining excuse upon excuse for a man who has not opnly continued the crooked policies, but has enhanced and beefed them us as well."


A progressive agenda? I haven't seen Obama put forth any progressive agenda. Most progressives I know are fed up with him....and a few keep hoping he'll finally institute "Change We Can Believe In".

He's an admitted  "New Democrat". A neo-liberal right in line with Bush, Clinton and the Chicago School of Economics. The same basic economic thought most libertarians adhere to without realizing it. Libertarian disagreements are in implimentation...not sustance.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

jeffbiss's picture
Here's but the latest proof

Here's but the latest proof that our government is wholly owned by private business special interests, Congress just

Timothy Karr writes in Will Dirty Politics Kill the Internet? that

"On Monday, 74 House Democrats joined 37 Senate Republicans to sign an industry-written letter that tells the Federal Communications Commission to halt all efforts to protect Internet users and stop big companies from blocking Internet traffic."

Great! So much for the Democrats being for the little guy. We know that the Republicans are agents for business interests and the Democrats are showing themselves to be almost just as bad, at least those that accept campaign contributions from business interests. The only answer to business interests controlling our government is to a) publicly finance all elections and (b) make it illegal for officials to work for the industries that they affected, forever.

We are now a fascist state, although not an authoritarian one, under control of business interests for their benefit at our expense.

babbaramma's picture
Reap What Ye Shall Sow Obama

Reap What Ye Shall Sow

Obama wanted to paly cards with the big boys, well now he is the sucker in the room. He has made bludner after bludner on key appointments trying to play politics rather than solve problems and he is now reaping his just rewards. His failure to clean out the Bush DA's and hading over of the Treasury to Citi Bank and Goldman Sachs pretty much sealed his fate.

The massive oil leak and the attempts to save the well and oil over saving the enviromnet are symbolic of the Wall Street bailout over saving the housing marekt. While the oil and money continue to flow to the wrong places the rest of the country is being over run by debt and corruption.