CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums

CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/)
-   Chit - Chat for Cruisers (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/chit-chat-cruisers/)
-   -   Obama must suspend Jones Act to clean up Spill (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/chit-chat-cruisers/374437-obama-must-suspend-jones-act-clean-up-spill.html)

Paul Motter June 11th, 2010 03:48 PM

Obama must suspend Jones Act to clean up Spill
 
I saw on CNN yesterday that there has been a RIDICULOUS standoff between the Coast Guard and the President about the Jones Act concerning cleaning up the oil spill.

At least 20 nations have offered to send ships to assist in the cleanup of the spill - but the Jones Act prevents them from entering our waters to conduct "business".

Now - the local Louisiana authorities have been saying "we have been waiting for Obama to suspend the Jones Act so these ships can come to our aid."

Meanwhile, the White House responded, "We are just waiting for the official request to suspend the Jones Act to come to us."

What? He is the President. Does he have to wait for permission from anyone to do anything in an emergency situation? Exactly who is going to stop him from suspending the Jones Act in this situation?

Paul Motter June 11th, 2010 03:49 PM

Oh wait - I think the answer just occured to me. Let's see if anyone else is thinking the same thing I am thinking...

Lakers Fan June 11th, 2010 03:50 PM

Politics is a farce ,unfortunately there does not seem to be a remedy

Nurse Debra June 12th, 2010 10:09 PM

Paul,

If I may, I can offer a couple of reasons as to why the long delay to suspend the Jones Act.

Like everything else that makes good common sense Obama will suspend the Jones Act when there is enough public pressure to do so. Same thing happened when Obama waited for more than 50 days to even talk to the CEO of BP about possible solutions to the crisis. The meeting is finally scheduled, for next week, but only after FOX news and a few talk shows kept bringing up that embarrassing point.

Many countries offered to help in the first few days, but so far their offer to help has been ignored.

There is also the eagerness of the "green folks" to not let this or any "crisis go to waste" and will want to suspend all oil drilling and to spend tons of money trying to build cars that run on lemonade. LOL

Debra

Manuel June 15th, 2010 11:07 PM

Aren't we getting a bit political for a cruisemates thread?

TM

Paul Motter June 16th, 2010 04:11 AM

Honestly - I didn't mean for it to be political as his actions made no sense at all to me when I first posted this. It was only after I posted it that I had an inkling the reason could be that he wants to save the cleanup job for the US unions.

It may be political, but I think the topic is germaine to cruising since that slick is right off several key coasts and could impede cruising from many cruise ports soon if not expertly handled.

Chuck Palm June 17th, 2010 08:04 AM

As long as we're getting political. I have a hard time blaming Obama when Dick Cheney still to this day will not disclose what went on at the private white house meetings with his oil cronies, back at the beginning of the Busch Jr. Administration. Sooooo I guess we blame Obama for not cleaning up Dick Cheney's mess quickly enough! Is that the idea??? Hmmmmmmmmm?????

What's up is down and what's down is up and the grass is blue!

Chuck Palm June 17th, 2010 08:25 AM

Also there are many good reasons for not suspending the Jones act. If you think unemployment is high now, try suspending the Jones act. Perhaps individual wavers should be given only to ships helping in the gulf recovery but suspending the Jones act would be a nightmare for thousands and thousands of American citizens. Our citizens are number one in my book!

Simple answers for complex problems have led us to where we are today in the gulf!

Does anybody remember the phrase "Drill Baby Drill?" Hmmmmmmm???

Paul Motter June 17th, 2010 11:24 AM

Chuck, I respect your right to your opinions, but in this case I think even most people on the left (even more than the right) want foreign vessels to come and help in the cleanup effort.

Interestingly, I was watching MSNBC - Rachel Maddow, and she was making fun of Republicans (John Boehner) for saying "the Federal Government and BP need to take responsibility for this spill and start the cleanup immediately" - so at least he acknowledged the government bears some responsibility as you suggest.

However Maddow was adamant that it was all BPs fault and the taxpayer's should not pay.

Meanwhile - I heard Dick Morris - who worked in the Clinton White House say those MMS negotiations actually started in the Clinton days.

As far as "drill baby drill" goes, that was said in reference to Anwar, and a spill in Anwar would never have had anywhere near as much devastation as this debacle - because a spill on land is controllable and stoppable.

I can't agree with anyone letting the envirment continue to get ruined more & more day after day solely because they are worried about American jobs. What about the jobs of those fishermen? What about the jobs of the oilworkers? Does it seem plausible that they will all change careers to windmills or nuclear power?

Also - I have heard that foreign vessels are working in our waters installing windmills offshore on the east coast.

Bottom line - I just don't agree with the philosophy of constantly looking back and playing the blame game instead of taking care of today's problems. Nothing ever gets solved that way.

Nurse Debra June 17th, 2010 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Motter (Post 1297039)
Oh wait - I think the answer just occured to me. Let's see if anyone else is thinking the same thing I am thinking...

I think one of the main reasons for Obama not suspending the Jones Act and accepting the offer to help of many nations, who have experience in dealing with Oil spills, is that the Labor Unions would not approve. Obama is beholding to Labor Unions and other groups of people, to maintain control of the vast number of the American public who just want to see signs of a leader and clean this mess up, not speeches, finger pointing and forming another Washington commission to look into this problem. Obama continues to make political decisions, while shunning the good of the majority of Americans and continuing the blame game. BP being forced to turn over an open checkbook of 20 Billion dollars to the Obama folks is like giving catnip to a cat. LOL BP should have given the guarantee of funds to the Governors of the states affected and not to Washington.

Like it or not the only people who have the technology to stop the leak are the workers from BP. However, there should have been a concrete plan, in place almost two months ago, by Obama, to clean up of the Gulf waters and the affected shore lines.

Debra

Dave Beers June 17th, 2010 10:33 PM

Sometimes I think the bitterness harbored by so many on the left has so consumed them that their headstone will read "I died and it was Dick Cheney's fault".

Let's get beyond the political rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Obama is the President. This happened on his watch. It is his problem. To cling to some silly notion that the previous administration is culpable is like FDR saying World War 2 was all Herbert Hoover's fault. But then, even though he was a far right liberal, FDR possessed true leadership skills.

You live in the here and now. To constantly dredge up the past as an excuse, is, well, just an excuse. And a lame one at that.

Obama can give exemptions to the Jones Act. Whether he has done so, or will do so, rests with him and it will be a part of the record for his presidency - forever.

Thus far the only person I've seen who has shown leadership is Bobby Jindal, Governer of Louisiana. He is mad and he has a right to be mad. The federal government is simply in his way, and he wants them to get out of the way.

Dave Beers June 18th, 2010 10:36 AM

And how about the Coast Guard yesterday? Jindal took it upon himself to order skimmer ships out and the Coast Guard impounds them for safety inspections.

Paul Motter June 18th, 2010 11:05 AM

There are media reports of conflict between local and national figures on the ground at the spill.

Obama called for the Natrional Guard to be available, but the apparent problem is not a lack of people, it is a lack of equipment and a lack of direction. No one seems to be in charge.

Jindahl has taken charge as much as he is able, but he has limited resources.

I think it truly is up to Obama to take charge and he has really just shown an inability to do so. It is exactly as if he inteionally wants the Oil Industry to look as bad as possible, and that he feels an environmental crisis will be the wake up call we need to take action.

I realize that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and I don't like saying it (I usually abhor conspiracy theorists), but that is how it looks.

In reality, I think it is just Obama being himself. He has demonstrated a tendency to NOT take action or be decisive his entire career - he voted "present" at over 90% of his senate votes, no yes or no. Its ridiculous.

It is like he is afraid to commit to anything for fear of criticism. He is thin-skinned, emotionally and politically.

Chuck Palm June 19th, 2010 06:26 PM

The bottomline here is that the corporations have far too much power in our government.

Transparency is a must. If Cheney's meetings or Clinton's meetings were less than savory, let the light of day shine in. Sunshine is a very good disinfectant when it comes to political matters. Let's see the transcripts of all such meetings. It's our right as a country.

For the last thirty years we have heard the "less government" mantras over and over again. Whether it is Enron, air travel deregulation, recent home loan scandals, a mining disaster in the south, unfixed levies in New Orleans or the oil volcano in the gulf led by the charges of the felon corporation B.P., we are seeing the fruits of no real governmental oversight. The corporation wrote the rules and inserted their cronies in the oversight positions Foxes watching the henhouse is not a very effective way to protect a farm, where I come from.

We need more reasoned and just oversight by our government or we will all be in harm's way...or so it seems to me.

Revisionist history about the intent of McCain/Palin as they spewed the chant: "Drill Baby Drill...Drill here, Drill there, Drill Everywhere!!! Will not change what has happened. The bottomline is that the left coast of this country is far safer because three blue states Oregon, California & Washington) refused to have any deep water drilling off of their sensitive coastal environments.

The tree huggers, sea mammal activists, and other such environmentalists don't seem as silly as they were once portrayed to be by corporate America and the corporate controlled media, in my humble opinion.

Paul Motter June 19th, 2010 07:56 PM

Hey Chuck - "Fox watching the henhouse, that's a good one."

I realize that I personally have a lot of progressive ideals. There is nothing you say that I can disagree with in principle.

My only doubt is that government regulation is actually capable of fixing everything.

I would love to let the sunshine in - but I honestly feel that we live in an age of mainstream media bias to the left and there is no real "sunshine" in today's media, you get either far left or far right, and very little in the way of real truth.

I do think it was a mistake to repeal Sorbanes Oxley - that one goes firmly against the Republicans, we could have avoided a lot of banking failures that way. But at the same time I see real people like Chris Dodd getting free loans from Countrywide in the mid-2000s - right at the height of the time that company was fraudulently saddling people who had no right borrowing with "signature approval" mortgages and I say to myself "this is the head of the senate finance committee?" and Barney Franks is the head of Senate Banking Committee and he was fully behind letting Fannie Mae back trillions in government guaranteed bad mortgages...

and at that point the disconnect between what I think government shoud do, and what I believe they are capable of doing, fully kicks in.

I think that is one of the big fallacies we have in the media and politicians these days - that there is actually very little talk in the way of problem solving. There is almost no reaching across the aisle and allowing frank and open discourse to bring solutions to the table. Instead we get talking points where people who are supposed to be our problem solvers are actually far more interested in getting re-elected.

I think that alone is why the right wants less government. It isn't because they don't want solutions, it is because they don't trust the people in charge to bring them the right solutions.

Your "drill baby drill" thing is wrong in my opinion for this reason. As long as oil is out there we should profit from it as an industry in America. It means jobs.

Let me ask you this - what if we actually get to the point where America reduces its dependence on oil by 50%. What happens to the price of oil? It drops! Everytime the price of oil drops the alternative energy business dries up. It's self defeating. I agree we should be developing the alternatives, but also recognize that they only way they can ever survive is by making them cost-effective. You can't mandate that people spend more money on somehting just because that is what government wants, Its unconstitutional to mandate that anyone buy something. (which is why the healthcare bill just might go away as well).

In the long run this country has always thrived because of ingenuity - not government regulation.

The government can be very effective - give us the goal and money to go to the moon and we can do it.

But using government as a way to limit personal freedoms, even in the name of "fairness" or "what's best" usually meets with disaster because you take away the incentive of people to strive to be successful.

So - once again, I do believe in reasonable government oversight - but I abhor a government where people are not allowed to question its methods. Take the BP $20-billion payout. I agree BP should be responsible for damages, but what about due process? Where in the constitution does it say the federal goevenment has the right to take anyone's money without a fair hearing?

Make BP responsible - but also have the process to find out what they are responsible for, first.

Mistrust of corporations is just over-simplification to me, as is mistrust of government. What we need to do is trust the constitution and hold the people involved in any case up to its magnifying glass. Let the sunlight in there.

How about putting some congressment in the same hotseats we have put GM, BP, Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae? How would Chris Dodd fare?

By the way - they did do that to Greenspan, and he admitted he made mistakes. And we have not heard too much from Cheney since the oil crisis.

You know - though, it kills me. The left reviles Cheney, but at the same time have we ever had a more ineffectual VP than Biden?

What has he accomplished as VP. Let's see, he was put in charge of the stimulus money because "no one messes with Joe," so are we ever going to get an accouinting of where that stimulus money went, and exactly what jobs it created (or "saved" as they say) ?

Rev22:17 June 22nd, 2010 06:34 PM

Everybody,

So far, I have bitten my tongue and refrained from comment.

But now, this whole morass is really starting to reek.

>> The administration is standing in the way of action to contain damage to the environment on at least three fronts. The Army Corps of Engineers refused to grant emergency approval to Governor Jindal to construct berms that would have kept the petroleum out of sensitive coastal marshlands, ostensibly so it could do a full environmental review. The result was environmental damage to marshlands far greater than any damage that the proposed berms could have caused. The refusal to grant a waiver to the Jones Act is preventing foreign vessels from assisting in the clean-up is causing petroleum to remain in the Gulf of Mexico, where it's an environmental disaster waiting to happen, much longer than necessary. And now we hear that the Coast Guard stopped skimmers from doing what they are designed to do, simply because it had not gotten around to inspecting them. Again, vessels that will remove crude from the water can't do more harm than good. But this begs the question of whether the President's advisors think that a major ecological disaster attributed to off-shore drilling will "jump start" the President's energy and "carbon tax" agenda that are now dead in the water.

>> The slush fund controlled by the President's hand-picked trustee smacks of political bribery as well as running rough-shod over constitutional guarantees of due process. What happens when the Predident's hand-picked trustee gives away the whole amount and there are more unpaid claims -- does British Petroleum have to ante up more? Or if British Petroleum shows claims paid by the President's hand-picked trustee to be fraudulent after the fact, does the government have to ante up that amount? Or is there some tacit agreement that the President's hand-picked trustee will be a dilligent custodian of the resources of a major donor to his campaign?

>> Backing up a step, how long has British Petroleum been advertising its research into alternative sources of energy on our television networks? Does British Petroleum stand to gain an upper hand over other oil companies through a ban on further drilling along our coasts and through laws intended to force us to shift to other sources of energy?

>> Some of the crew rescued from the drilling vessel reported that a supervisor known to be a "company man" ordered use of a procedure that they deemed inappropriate, and other petroleum companies have since said that the procedure was not appropriate for that environment. So why did government regulators approve its use, apparently with minimal review?

>> And why did the drilling rig sink so quickly following the explosion? Wasn't it properly compartmentalized? If not, how did it receive certification by the Coast Guard?

Sadly, this whole situation is smelling of a scheme between a company with politically very "progressive" management and an administration with a very "progressive" agenda to create a disaster of epic proportions in order to advance a political agenda beneficial to both.

Norm.

monkeythyme June 23rd, 2010 01:45 PM

Louisiana can't buy a break. When Katrina hit, they had a Democratic governor, and now they have a Republican governor. Politics is entertainment...very expensive entertainment. And come to think of it, they are non-union entertainment. They are all over the TV all day investigating the oil industry when they should be investigating the regulators they supposedly oversee, and I will bet not more than a dozen of them have AFTRA cards.;)

monkeythyme June 23rd, 2010 02:01 PM

Government is a corporation, or perhaps I should say corporations are patterned after government, and the larger either gets, the less effective it is. Therefore, it is weird to me how some people can have faith in the one and disdain for the other regardless of which way they are inclined.

Lakers Fan June 23rd, 2010 02:04 PM

There is a theory that the government as we know it does not exist but that a group of people ,republican and democrat run the country and have been doing so since Truman came into office

Nurse Debra June 23rd, 2010 06:18 PM

I think for the first time ever, I agree with everything Norm had said in an earlier post on this thread. Great post!!!!!

This administration is so tied to the hard left by ideologies that it can not even make a simple decision as to where to have the trial for the master mind of 9/11, let alone the some of the hard decisions that need to be made, such as how to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf. Instead the current administration will continue on there merry way to push cap and tax, Gore's global warming issues, union card check and amnesty for illegal aliens to gain more Democratic voters. I would bet my next Celebrity cruise that there will be no announcement about the trial until after the elections in November and then it will probably be moved back to a military trial as the vast majority of Americans know is by far the best decision. So much for the new way for a working across the isle and an open and transparent administration in Washington!!!

Instead of the political cow-towing, we needed to have a comprehensive plan to clean up the mess in the Gulf. Common sense, to anyone who really is interested in cleaning up the spill, would necessitate suspending the Jones act immediately after the spill began and seek all the help we can get.

Debra

Snoozeman June 23rd, 2010 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurse Debra (Post 1299312)
I think for the first time ever, I agree with everything Norm had said in an earlier post on this thread. Great post!!!!!

Well not sure about the 1st time, but IMHO I agree with most of Norms points. Yes BP does stand to gain either way by going more 'green'.

Nurse Debra June 26th, 2010 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Motter (Post 1298340)
There are media reports of conflict between local and national figures on the ground at the spill.

Obama called for the Natrional Guard to be available, but the apparent problem is not a lack of people, it is a lack of equipment and a lack of direction. No one seems to be in charge.

Jindahl has taken charge as much as he is able, but he has limited resources.

I think it truly is up to Obama to take charge and he has really just shown an inability to do so. It is exactly as if he inteionally wants the Oil Industry to look as bad as possible, and that he feels an environmental crisis will be the wake up call we need to take action.

I realize that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and I don't like saying it (I usually abhor conspiracy theorists), but that is how it looks.

In reality, I think it is just Obama being himself. He has demonstrated a tendency to NOT take action or be decisive his entire career - he voted "present" at over 90% of his senate votes, no yes or no. Its ridiculous.

It is like he is afraid to commit to anything for fear of criticism. He is thin-skinned, emotionally and politically.

Paul,

I am with you when you said you abhor the many conspiracy theories that seem to float around. There is even a group of folks, who say we never landed on the Moon.

I don't like these wild conspiracy theories either, but when you see what is going on with the current regime it is hard for most people not to at least wonder. Some of the things I mentioned in an earlier post are designed to benefit a few and garner more Democrat votes, while destroying the future of the America that I have known all of my life.

The finger pointing and feet dragging on the clean-up of the oil spill only adds to my dubious opinion of what is currently going on in Washington.

Debra

Parrot Mom June 26th, 2010 11:30 PM

Simple answer
 
Everybody can moan and groan and finger point.. BUT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DISASTER LIKE THIS.. and nobody,I repeat nobody, including the USA has any idea how to remedy this. What makes this all worse is that BP has been lying about t his for the past weeks..Fingerpointing at our government is not the answer.. Yet, they want to resume the drilling for oil off the coast., many of the residents..This is their livlihood, I feel for these people and for the harm it has done to this earth.. I wont get into politics, this isn't the place.. but past administrations played a hand in allowing the oil companies to run rampant. You can't have it both ways.. the Government staying out of our business and suddenly you want them in the middle of our busines.. which way is it.

Rev22:17 June 28th, 2010 06:40 PM

Sandra,

Quote:

Originally Posted by You (Post 1299912)
What makes this all worse is that BP has been lying about t his for the past weeks..

There's plenty of legitimate culpability on British Petroleum's head, but I don't see any evidence that the company's officials have been lying about anything. In this kind of situation, the intial estimates of the severity of the problem are often off -- often by a couple orders of magnitude because there are no instruments capable of making reasonably accurate measurements. Those attacking the problem have to go with the best information that they have.

The evidence of the government's complicity in the disaster and obstruction of efforts to contain the damage, however, is clear.

Norm.

Mike M June 28th, 2010 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parrot Mom (Post 1299912)
Everybody can moan and groan and finger point.. BUT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DISASTER LIKE THIS.. .

Yes there has and there still is an ongoing disaster that makes this look like a dimple on an elephants rear end. The Nigerian Delta is suffering from oil leakage in the yearly amount of an Exxon Valdez oil spill and it's been going on for 50 years.

In Nigeria, Oil Spills Are a Longtime Scourge - NYTimes.com

Just shows how "wonderful" local governments and oil companies can be.

Within six months the relief wells will be drilled, the leak stopped and the clean up will begin. However, the leaking and devastation in Nigeria will go on for many more years. Hopefully CNN, FOX, MSNBC and BBC World News will point their cameras in that direction.

Take care,
Mike

Nurse Debra June 29th, 2010 06:40 PM

70+ days and still no suspension of the Jones Act?????
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev22:17 (Post 1300201)
Sandra,



There's plenty of legitimate culpability on British Petroleum's head, but I don't see any evidence that the company's officials have been lying about anything. In this kind of situation, the intial estimates of the severity of the problem are often off -- often by a couple orders of magnitude because there are no instruments capable of making reasonably accurate measurements. Those attacking the problem have to go with the best information that they have.

The evidence of the government's complicity in the disaster and obstruction of efforts to contain the damage, however, is clear.

Norm.

Norm,

Exactly right!!! The chaos caused by the hard left government, which now wants to control everything, except for the clean-up of the oil spill. They have even stood in the way of getting more help to clean-up the spill as it comes ashore. It should also be noted that this current regime also gave BP an award for excellence in safety with their offshore oil wells. The Obama folks even suspended some of the safety requirements for off shore drilling by BP. This happened only days before the explosion and ensuing oil spill.

Most Americans do want the government to adhere to the Constitution and not get into the business of running auto companies, banks, advancing the agenda of unions and controlling our health care. Most Americans want a limited government to for National Defense and helping in the case of a disaster such as this. In this regard we have seen nothing but finger pointing and letting ideologist stand in the way of immediate clean-up.

What we have seen in this disaster is just one more example of how those who would like to see a small group of ideologist, attempting to control everything will always be disappointed with the results.

Debra

Rev22:17 July 1st, 2010 07:39 PM

Nurse Debra,

Quote:

Originally Posted by You (Post 1300421)
Most Americans do want the government to adhere to the Constitution and not get into the business of running auto companies, banks, advancing the agenda of unions and controlling our health care. Most Americans want a limited government to for National Defense and helping in the case of a disaster such as this. In this regard we have seen nothing but finger pointing and letting ideologist stand in the way of immediate clean-up.

Ah, unfortunately, their votes in the November 2008 election said otherwise....

Which is why we have the government that we have, along with a healthy dose of "buyer's remorse."

Norm.

Paul Motter July 2nd, 2010 08:40 AM

It seems that with ther threat of a hurricane Obama finally lifted the Jones Act. That's the way with him, it seems, it takes something becoming a crisis before he even looks at it.

Rev22:17 July 2nd, 2010 04:56 PM

Paul,

Quote:

Originally Posted by You (Post 1300956)
It seems that with ther threat of a hurricane Obama finally lifted the Jones Act. That's the way with him, it seems, it takes something becoming a crisis before he even looks at it.

The bigger problem seems to be a need to analyze every option to the nth level detail before making a decision, with the consequence that the action has often been too little, too late, and ultimately more harmful than beneficial. In a crisis, the need is to act immediately to contain the damage, and imperfect action is usually much better than no action at all. One can always fine tune the chosen course of action when further information becomes available.

Norm.

Nurse Debra July 5th, 2010 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Motter (Post 1300956)
It seems that with ther threat of a hurricane Obama finally lifted the Jones Act. That's the way with him, it seems, it takes something becoming a crisis before he even looks at it.

Paul,

This was "quick and decisive action", by Obama, some 77 days after the problem began! It just makes one wonder, just how much impact the goals of the hard left had in allowing this disaster to do so much more damage when it comes ashore, because of the inaction by our government.

We will now be feeling the effects for many months, and probably years into the future because of this irresponsible delay in accepting the help offered by some 14 countries all around the world.

Debra


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1