And protesting the purchase of BP stations is going to hurt the owner of those gas stations who bought the BP franchise, who's only a small businessman, than it will hurt the big company.
So, all problems that occur on the watch of a President are (naturally) the fault of the previous administration?
And, in over a year in office, Obama didn't correct this? A year is 25% of a four year term.
Good point.And protesting the purchase of BP stations is going to hurt the owner of those gas stations who bought the BP franchise, who's only a small businessman, than it will hurt the big company.
Congress writes our nation's laws, so they write the regulations that businesses must adhere to. So Congress could have written tighter regulations on the oil companies to make them have better response plans for an eventually. After all, the President can only enforce the laws that Congress writes.
However, the President directs the policies of government agencies. In some cases, he can direct members of government agencies to ignore or modify the laws and regulations written by Congress. So even if Congress writes a particular law that regulates an industry, the President can use his executive authority to ignore those laws. This has been done and justified as a President's check on Congress.
So what I'd like to do is look at the laws that regulate offshore drilling and see if they are adequate enough. If they aren't, I want to hold Congress to task for not doing their job properly. If they are adequate, then there is a problem with regards to the President. Most likely, Obama did not issue any executive orders changing executive policies regarding offshore drilling, which may mean that we need a better method of transition from one administration to another with regards to outgoing Presidents who defy Congress' will.
That's what I think.
My issue is that a government in the business of regulating individuals or businesses creates its own harm. More harm than would be committed by businesses free to operate. Government regulation creates regulatory frameworks which raise the barrier to entry for new businesses, thereby favoring large corporations. The meaningless documentary requirements create bureaucracy. All that is needed is to ensure that when a company does cause a problem, they have to pay for it.
Funny, because I thought I did pretty well in saying, and backing up my evidence that DEREGULATION were the cause of this mess. Hell, the US regulators chicken out, because of the fact that BIG oil companies complained that it was too expensive. The other thing I was pointing out is that the deregulation's are the cause, and effect of this, and
I also agree that the Obama admiration is at fault too, so is the bush administration, and Clinton Administration for removing some of the regulations we had in place, and also the Obama's, and Bush Administrations for not enforcing the regulations that we have in place at the time.
It also sad that people that want deregulation have no sympathy for the 11 people that were killed by Bp's gross negligence in not obeying the rules that were set for them. The other sad thing is that these deaths could have been avoidable, and the fact that the oil spill could have also been avoidable.
I also thought this article was interesting for that matter. It suggest that we are living in a Corporate State instead of a real free market. Basically he suggested what happen is a Regulatory capture this happens when a regulator acts in favor of the industry other than the public interest, and he suggest that this is what had basically happened in the BP oil spill. It is one of many deregulation that made us in too a corporate state instead of a real free market.
And the Bp oil spill does show us we do need regulation, and that people that don't have regulations don't act responsible to insure people best interest.
Last edited by RyrineaHaruno; 05-30-10 at 09:34 PM.
No, sorry, you did not show that deregulation was the cause of the oil spill.