It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the Oil Spill is Killing the Tea Party

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
theatlantic.com


President Obama may be the most visible political casualty of the BP oil spill, but there is another big loser: the Tea Party. A mainstay of cable news programming for much of the last year, Tea Party coverage all but vanished during the month of May, according to the media-monitoring service TVEyes, as the spill dominated the headlines. There are still people in funny hats shouting about bailouts and vowing to ''take back the government.'' But suddenly they're a lot less prominent.

It's seldom a good idea to think of cable news programming as a gauge of anything other than the decline of civic discourse. Yet it's hard not to see a connection between the story that is captivating cable viewers and a recent shift in the national mood.

The Tea Party movement, animated by intense disapproval of government activism, has smacked up against an unprecedented environmental disaster that is providing a vivid daily illustration of why an activist government is sometimes necessary. There is little doubt about which force is prevailing. According to a recent CBS News poll, a majority of Americans now oppose offshore drilling, and nearly two-thirds say Obama should be doing more to stop the spill. This desire for more aggressive government action is the antithesis of the Tea Party ethos, and poses a problem for a movement that had recently been gaining steam.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is analogous to the well known "paradox of the commons." In this paradox you have a theoretical commons (an area of land owned by the town as a whole) which can be freely used by any citizen of that town. It is profitable, and therefore desirable, for any individual townsperson to graze as many of his or her cattle as possible on that land, which provides plenty of free grass for their herd. A problem arises, though, if every resident of the town grazes as many cattle as they possibly can, as the grass is soon devoured and then there is no grazing possible for anyone any more.

Because it is profitable to graze as many of your cows on the common land as one can, no one individual can be counted on to restrict the size of their herd. Restrictions must be placed on the individual use of the common land by a higher authority of some kind. This where a town government is needed to regulate the usage of the town commons.

So it is in the Gulf of Mexico. The waters and the coastland are used by many different, individual businesses, such as commercial fishing, recreational and sports fishing, shrimping, shipping, tourism, real estate, etc. as well as oil drilling. In addition the wetlands and marshes along the coast protect the towns and cities further inland from encroachment by large storms, so their preservation is vital to the whole population of that region.

It is not profitable for any one individual oil company to spend the huge amount of money and resources required to research and develop the extensive safety measures and equipment needed to control and/or clean up a spill if it occurs. This money could go toward the profits and not the expenditures of any one company.

Therefore, as per the paradox of the commons, a higher authority of some kind must be marshaled in order to restrict and control the use of the common waters, as well as the coastland, along and off the shores of the United States.

It is not surprising, then, that the mood of the country has turned to demanding more action and accountability from our government in the prevention and clean-up of oil spills that endanger so many people and their livelihoods.

It is not a time in history to oppose a strong central government.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
A great movement doesn't have to have a protest every week, or media coverage everyday to be effective.

Unless you think that if the drive-by media doesn't report on something it doesn't exist?

First the drive-by media ignored the TEA Party, then they laughed at it, then they demonized it.....but it is still going strong!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

It is not a time in history to oppose a strong central government.



What a bunch of propaganda.

Its not called a paradox, its called a tragedy.

Its only a paradox to Statist tyrant Keynesian economists that believe Government is God.

The reason why such tragedies exist is because of a lack of property rights and a functional system of enforcement.

Let us also not forget that the criminal fascists you call a federal government colluded with BP to get legislation passed that limited BP's liability to 75 million in clean up costs.

BP should be bankrupt.

Of course, the tax payers will be made to pay the burden of the clean up costs.

Thanks big government.




...I seem to recall some other mega-corporations using government to protect themselves from liability and bad business decisions.

www.bloomberg.com...

Government is nothing but a bunch of criminal looting thugs that are incapable of doing anything, including cleaning up the oil spill and capping the well.

The Atlantic is an outright communist propaganda box. The editors of that magazine honestly believe we would all be better off if the entire world was one big "tragedy of the commons".

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
On just about any other board stuff like this may float through...
But on ATS we flush crap not embrace it..

Is that seriously your opinion, or just the articles?

Yes people want government accountability whilst they pour billions down a neverending hole, lets run down the list.

Two wars...failure
Katrina....failure
GOM.......failure
Bailout.....failure

Need I go futher. So after every failure they scream we need more control, more money, more access then it wont happen again. They never deliver but always ask for more and idiotic imbeciles keep slurping it up, and handing it to them.

This doesn't go against the Tea Party which I have reservations about for other reasons.

People haven't forgotten their reasons for change, and the GOM will do nothing but further illustrate the incompetence of government.

Centralization and global government are the most insanely moronic ideas ever concieved in the mind of man, and the fact that our "leaders" subscribe to this lunacy, shows how little intellect they really have.

From Alexander, to Genghis to Hitler this goal is nothing but the ravings of power hungry mad men. Somehow our leaders ass-ume they can succeed where much greater men have failed. Anything attempted on to big a scale will breakdown, because it fails to account for diversity. Its so simple a child can grasp it why can't these fools.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by ISHAMAGI]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I think this has more to do with a lack of coverage than lack of action.

The oil spill is the headline now, not the Tea Party Movement (as it was for the previous months), nor the 2008 election (which was prior to that), nor the Afghanastan (sic) or Iraq wars (prior to that).

Does a lack of War protest coverage mean there are no protest rallies? No, its only an indication that the MSM has moved on to the next topic that sells their ad space.

I think it indicates more the mood of the MSM, not the public. As we know from experience, the MSM molds the mood of the public more so than reflect it.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by indianajoe77]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
just the way obama wants it, he'd rather have death and destruction being shown than the opposition to his uselessness and the neomarxist transformation he is implementing.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Let us also not forget that the criminal fascists you call a federal government colluded with BP to get legislation passed that limited BP's liability to 75 million in clean up costs.



The limitation of an oil company's liability to 75 million in the event of an oil spill was determined by the first Bush administration in response to lawsuits that followed the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Since then Republican administrations have been removing more and more regulations and restrictions and liabilities on the oil giants and other mega-corporations. It has been the philosophy of the Republican party ever since the Reagan administration to remove all controls whatsoever over free enterprise, even those regulations that would protect the public from negligence and greed.

The Obama administration inherited the 75 million cap, as well as the cozy relationship between the MMA and the oil companies. It did not institute them.

Raising the amount of liability a corporation has for its oil spills is one of the reforms that a central government can institute effectively.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ISHAMAGI
 


I don't count those as failures of government per se.

I count them as the failure of the model to"run government like a business".

Corporate types are always bragging about the wonders of running government like a business, thinking that the same skillset that breeds profits will translate into effective government.

They are WRONG: always have been and always will be.

People who support this ideology forget that in business, absolutely everything is for sale, and the benefits are always restricted to the few.

When the Bu#es took power they filled every regulatory position with people who didn't believe in regulation, and now we reap the bitter harvest of "running government like a business."

Don't blame the idea of government, blame those who deny its worth,



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

The limitation of an oil company's liability to 75 million in the event of an oil spill was determined by the first Bush administration in response to lawsuits that followed the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Since then Republican administrations have been removing more and more regulations and restrictions and liabilities on the oil giants and other mega-corporations. It has been the philosophy of the Republican party ever since the Reagan administration to remove all controls whatsoever over free enterprise, even those regulations that would protect the public from negligence and greed.

The Obama administration inherited the 75 million cap, as well as the cozy relationship between the MMA and the oil companies. It did not institute them.

Raising the amount of liability a corporation has for its oil spills is one of the reforms that a central government can institute effectively.


Excellent point.

It goes to show that both parties are a bunch of criminal thieves.

23.7 trillion stolen by banks on Obama's watch, while Bush colluded with oil companies to put the burden of clean ups on the tax payers and started two wars of aggression which Obama has expanded.

The government is a system of theft, violence, and abuse.

It is entirely evil and has no good merits.




[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

23.7 trillion stolen by banks on Obama's watch


I know you're fond of making that claim whenever you get the chance to post, but could you please post some evidence? Some of us have a hard time believing that twice the national GDP and something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire global monetary reserves were 'stolen by Banks' in the last 2 years, and only you noticed.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by mnemeth1

23.7 trillion stolen by banks on Obama's watch


I know you're fond of making that claim whenever you get the chance to post, but could you please post some evidence? Some of us have a hard time believing that twice the national GDP and something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire global monetary reserves were 'stolen by Banks' in the last 2 years, and only you noticed.



www.bloomberg.com...


July 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today.


It's more than 23.7 trillion today.

However, I'm being conservative and using the published numbers.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Err... that's referring to the liabilities of the TARP program and other guarantees made by the Bush administration in 2008.

The actual cost of bailouts since then has been around $91 Billion. A large amount of TARP has also been returned by the Banks.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Err... that's referring to the liabilities of the TARP program and other guarantees made by the Bush administration in 2008.

The actual cost of bailouts since then has been around $91 Billion. A large amount of TARP has also been returned by the Banks.


Err... no, all that money was dished out under Obama's watch.

blogs.abcnews.com...

Bushed signed it, Obama expanded it and is administering it.

Obama has not moved to stop it.

And while some of the TARP has been returned, as the article points out, TARP is a tiny fraction of the wild spending and looting that is ongoing.

TARP is a sideshow compared to what the FOMC is doing and the Fannie/Freddie holdings.

We can also now include the bailout of GM and the bailout of BP, which will run into the tens of billions easily, more likely hundreds of billions.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The bailout you hate so much prevented the U.S. and most of the rest of the world from going into a depression at least the size of the one in the 1930's, or worse. In other words, the whole world's economy was at stake.

BP wouldn't get a bailout because the economy is not dependent on it to keep functioning.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The bailout you hate so much prevented the U.S. and most of the rest of the world from going into a depression at least the size of the one in the 1930's, or worse. In other words, the whole world's economy was at stake.

BP wouldn't get a bailout because the economy is not dependent on it to keep functioning.




Sure buddy.

Keep supporting the bankers.

Like I said, you're a propagandist that probably works for government or the banking industry.

Hypocrite.

Let me give you a further piece of my mind:

BP, while a criminal organization, is nothing compared to the Federal Reserve cartel.

BP actually produces something useful that America needs, unlike the financial turds on Wall Street and in Washington.

If anyone should be bailed out, it should be BP, since everyone needs oil, while no one needs debt enslavement.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here's some financial education for you:



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1



Sure buddy.

Keep supporting the bankers.

Like I said, you're a propagandist that probably works for government or the banking industry.

Hypocrite.

Let me give you a further piece of my mind:

BP, while a criminal organization, is nothing compared to the Federal Reserve cartel.

BP actually produces something useful that America needs, unlike the financial turds on Wall Street and in Washington.

If anyone should be bailed out, it should be BP, since everyone needs oil, while no one needs debt enslavement.


Excuse me, but we don't seem to have learned the same history.

The reasons the banks got "too big to fail" in the first place was because Republican administrations since Reagan have been dismantling all the safeguards and regulations that were put on them during and after the Great Depression of the 1930's. The idea of placing these regulations on the banks was to keep them from causing a second depression. But Republicans took all the regulations off anyway and sure enough, the economy tanked once again.

The Republican party has long been the friend of big money. You do remember that the first bailout of Wall Street was done by the Bush administration, don't you? It wasn't that long ago.

And you may recall the very recent Wall Street reforms enacted by the (Democratic) Congress which will help put curbs on the banking giants to keep them from getting so enormous again and threatening to take the whole economy down with them yet a third time.

Democrats are not totally innocent of course. BOTH parties are guilty of having too cozy a relationship with Wall Street. But of the two the Republicans are by far the friendliest to the big banking interests. They're the ones that deregulated them.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Err... no, all that money was dished out under Obama's watch.

blogs.abcnews.com...

Bushed signed it, Obama expanded it and is administering it.


You linked to an article showing Obama authorized $1.5 billion for the State Housing Finance Authorities. Your CLAIM was that Obama gave $23.7 Trillion dollars to Banks. Step up and prove your claim or stop posting misinformation.

[edit on 6/17/2010 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
You its funny, everyone keeps mentioning this 'Tea Party', but these tea baggers, all they want is for you to vote republican?

We already tried them, didnt work to good,



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I don't like the idea of getting rid of the EPA.

When I was little, my dad had an automotive shop, and he was ignorant, and would dump oil in a ditch that turned into a stream, and I was PLAYING in it until I was 6 or so. My 'mud pies' were half grease. I did not know better - I was so little - and I really don't think HE- or my mom- did EITHER.

The EPA came out one day and got on dad's tail. He and his friends HATED the EPA. He had to clean up the mess and get a proper way to dispose of oil or get fined. They did give him a good time period to do it.

Now I am in my mid-40's and I think about that. I appreciate the efforts of the EPA. I don't know many kids in the US today playing in oil and grease. Except maybe a few on the gulf coast.

It was the EPA that was trying to get them to quit it with the toxic dispersant.

Now, I like a lot of the ideas of Ron Paul and the tea party - I like the return to the constitution and from Ron Paul a lot of his social progressive ideas - but I don't like the idea of getting rid of the EPA.







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join