Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Sunday, June 6, 2010

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE INVOLVED IN THE OIL SPILL?

Marc Perkel of Marc Perkel Rantz asks the question and has this to say:

"It’s interesting to see Republicans and Tea Baggers changing their tune when they want the government to bail them out after the capitalists have failed. After all, isn’t the oil spill “Free Enterprise”? They didn’t like the government bailing out the banks, but they want the government to bail out the oil companies and help clean up the spill? I thought they believed that wasn’t the government’s role. They shouldn’t interfere with the “free market system”.


Now the conservatives want the government to “take over”. They want government run beach protection? Are they asking for socialized government run environmental protection? Isn’t this just more “government regulation”. Just another “big government takeover”? Why do we care about the environment? That’s what those liberal progressive tree hugging global warming socialist hippies want. Now the conservatives are calling out to the “federal bureaucracy” for a “bailout”. What about British Petroleum’s God given right to make a profit?


When things are good it’s easy for Tea Baggers to run their mouth. But when the disasters come and we have to deal with reality all of a sudden they change their tune and come crying to Uncle Sam wanting the liberals to clean up their mistakes. I think the news media is giving these people intellectual welfare to even listen to them anymore."

A very fine rant, Mr. Perkel.

11 comments:

Sue said...

Oh what can we say about the morons except just that...

Do you see any conservative bloggers talking about this oil disaster? I don't, but what can they say except to blame Obama and environmentalists! Isn't it a scream??!!

tnlib said...

"I think the news media is giving these people intellectual welfare to even listen to them anymore."

Beautifully said, but maybe a little understated?

Z-man said...

I don't see how the government should be involved in practically everything else but not the biggest environmental calamity in U.S. history.

Dave Miller said...

But Z, that is the rub...

The lib side probably agrees with you. But the conservative, dare I say, libertarian side, intellectually, has to be in a quandry.

Look, basic conservative belief is that big government is bad and that bailing our companies is bad. Just witness the response to the bank bailouts.

We might also add that anytime lately that the feds have gotten involved with business, they have been accused of being socialist, commie, red loving, fascist pigs.

All we take from this is an understanding that the conservative side does not believe government has a role regulating, or directing any private business.

If we can agree on that, then we need to find an answer to how, within that philosophy, conservatives can believe government has a role to play in the oil crises.

It is intellectually dishonest and incredibly inconsistent, to say it was wrong for government to tell GM and the banks how much to pay their CEO's, but it is okay for the feds to essentially run and direct BP oil.

You can't have it both ways, as many conservatives are claiming.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Sue,

I checked on a sampling of conservative blogs that we frequent and found nothing about the spill.

tnlib,

I thought Marc hit the proverbial nail when he wrote that.


dmarks,

I'm guessing he meant "bailing" in a sense of rescuing them from having to solve their own disaster.

Z-man,

I guess the whole point of the post is to point out the inconsistency--again--in complaining about the Obama administration not stepping in and taking over a private corporation when he was criticized by the opposition for doing exactly that during the financial calamity. We're asking the same question: Why did it enrage the GOP when Mr. Obama took over, say, GM, but it would not enrage the GOP if he took over BP. Both of those private corporations were having a catastrophic impact on our nation.

Why is okay in one instance but not the othr?

Dave,

Yes.

Z-man said...

Dave conservatives believe in a limited government. To believe that no government should ever exist at all is the anarchist's argument. To believe that the government should never get involved in safety inspections for meat let's say is NOT a conservative argument at all but I've heard alot of libertarians say just that. To recap conservatives believe in limited government, anarchists believe in no government whatsoever but the libertarian would limit government even further than your average conservative would. So I think maybe the Oil Crisis is really a quandary for the libertarian type is what we're getting at here.

Z-man said...

Shaw I've not heard anyone suggest that government should take over BP. The position is that government and BP should do whatever it takes to cap that damn leak and to clean up the mess. Sure charge every nickel and dime to BP but the U.S. Coast Guard getting involved let's say does not pose a problem or a quandary for your average conservative. Let's say there's an earthquake in LA or a series of devastating tornadoes down South, no conservative ever suggests government and relevant government agencies (e.g. FEMA) should not get involved, quite the contrary. The Oil Spill is no different.

dmarks said...

Looks like Homer Simpson is in charge of the oil company, and Mayor Quimby is leading the Federal government response.

dmarks said...

Shaw asked: "Why did it enrage the GOP when Mr. Obama took over, say, GM, but it would not enrage the GOP if he took over BP. Both of those private corporations were having a catastrophic impact on our nation."

Interesting question. Well, the situation is rather different. GM was not bungling a major national crisis at the time. If Obama had not intervened, it would have gone bankrupt, and would have been re-organized according to the dictates of the bankruptcy court. Would this have been so bad?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

You're ignoring the fact that the already massive unemployment rate would have become worse had GM had to fire its workers. It would not have been just GM affected--all the perifery businesses connected with it all over the country would have been hurt and caused a major crisis.

Also, explain for us exactly what you think Mr. Obama [the federal government] can do to stop the leak in the Gulf.It appears you too believe that an angry president running around the country shouting at BP would be so much more effective than one who is reasoned and using all the data available to solve this Herculean problem.

Z-Man: "The position is that government and BP should do whatever it takes to cap that damn leak and to clean up the mess."

That is exactly what is happening. The US government is not in the business of deep sea drilling and has little to no expertise in it. It HAS to rely on what BP's experts say to solve this mess.

Here's Republican Senator Lemar Alexander demanding a government take-over of BP.

Michael said...

Here is Governor Jindal demanding government action.

Here is Sarah Palin saying Obama hasn't done enough.

Here is Sean Hannity saying Obama hasn't done anything.

Here is Senator Inhofe supporting the cap on oil company payouts, thus leaving the remainder of the cleanup costs for you and I to pick up.

Here is Lamar Alexander talking about a BP takeover.