Obama’s White House Covered Up The Severity Of BP Oil Spill

Loading

Well color me surprised:

The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission’s staff describes “not an incidental public relations problem” by the White House in the wake of the April 20 accident.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill’s size, and President Barack Obama’s senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was “gone.” The analysis actually said it could still be there.

“By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem,” the report says.

The administration disputed the commission findings, saying senior government officials “were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be.”

Seems like every week we get another script for a 2012 ad eh?

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not a Problem…Obama must read Pravda…

Chernobyl becomes popular extreme resort

http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/05-10-2010/115214-chernobyl-0/

” A special memorial and tourist park in Chernobyl is to be opened by 26 April, 2011 to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the catastrophe. The park will be a mini copy of the entire exclusion zone.”

The photo of the current POTUS reminds me of a similar photo of a past POTUS in which he makes a cross out of rocks on a significant beach in N France. Thing is, it was reported that no such rocks exists on that beach. Does this type of person take courses in chalatanry?

Obama is writing his legacy in the sand.

“I can’t do this to myself!”

-Barack Obama

Hmms, would such actions of failure to report truthfuly to the Public and Congress/Senate be deemed a Misdemeanor violation of some sort? I don’t want to ask this question to attack the presidency, but I am asking it because I thought such information is to be reported to Congress or the Senate. I’m exhausted from insomnia, so I can not recall what laws (if there is) that outlines enviromental damages reports to Congressional hearings with what laws and rules apply to such hearings.

I hope I am wrong.

You mean to tell me that there are still people out there that do not understand that government causes problems not solve them. The only solution government has to problems is to put a spin on the problem and if that don’t work start lying.

With the lefts disdain for the oil industry and Obama’s cozy relations with BP, wouldn’t surprise me that this was an inside job. What better way to shut down drilling in this country. Now his buddy Soros can make a bundle with his foreign oil investments and the so called green economy.

“Transparency” is just a slogan to obama.

@ #24 #6:

“You mean to tell me that there are still people out there that do not understand that government causes problems not solve them.”

Do you really believe enormously wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars a day to pitch that message because they have mainstream America’s best interests in mind?

Do you really think big money’s best interests are identical with your own?

Big money doesn’t really want to eliminate government influence. Big money wants to own government, and use it to their own best advantage.

When they talk about downsizing government or cutting back programs and services, they’re really only talking about getting rid of what doesn’t serve their own ends.

@ #24:

“You mean to tell me that there are still people out there that do not understand that government causes problems not solve them.”

Do you really believe enormously wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars a day to pitch that message because they have mainstream America’s best interests in mind?

Do you really think big money’s best interests are identical with your own?

Big money doesn’t really want to eliminate government influence. Big money wants to own government, and use it to their own best advantage.

When they talk about downsizing government or cutting back programs and services, they’re really only talking about getting rid of what doesn’t serve their own end

Greg,
That was a great response! Nothing whatsoever to do with the post you responded to of course, but still great!

It is great because your observation fully supports the need for a smaller government limited to only those specific duties listed in the Constitution.

Without big government, there is no interest in government by big money. And even if there was it couldn’t do big harm. To quote one of your no doubt heroes, “That’s a big F***ing deal!”

@ JustAl, #10:

Without big government, there is no interest in government by big money. And even if there was it couldn’t do big harm.

Who or what, then, would counter-balance the overwhelming power than invariably comes with concentrated wealth? Who or what would represent the interests of average people, and give them some say in things? What prevents the tyranny of a tiny, super-rich majority?

@Greg: And you looooove to hate them there big, evil corporations, doncha’?

Tell us Greg, who works in those corporations? Oh yeah, taxpaying American citizens…

Tell us Greg, who works in those corporations? Oh yeah, taxpaying American citizens…

They’ll happily send the jobs of those taxpaying American citizens overseas if they can increase their corporate profits by doing so. They’ll blame those same citizens for having wanted too much in wages and benefits, blame the government for regulations protecting those workers and their environment, become indignant if anyone complains that their cheaply-produced foreign products are flooding the U.S. marketplace, costing more American jobs, and scream bloody murder if anyone suggests that they should be subject to higher taxes.

Maybe I do have a bit of an attitude.

OK Greg,
Let’s cut to the chase and make it real super easy for us super silly folks.

Please give one example. . . just one, where the socialism you propose (don’t mince words, that IS what you propose), has actually ever worked.

The government you adore is made up of people, usually not the best sort of people because those actually can get jobs in the private sector and don’t rely on quotas etc. And people can be bought. The guy who heads the current regime is an excellent example on both counts actually. And this story is a great way to explain it.

First, tell “the little people” how much you care about them, then, when one of your major campaign donors hits a snag you cut a side deal. You publicly chastise your buddies at BP for the entertainment of the “little people.” Then you set up a political slush fund which a. limits the liability of your buddy’s company, and b. is virtually impossible to keep track of. Then, to make sure that it really does limit your buddy’s liability, you keep the press away from the scene and suppress information from sources you directly control.

Your notion that government can, ever has, ever will, or ever really wanted to represent the “little guy” who doesn’t give huge campaign donations against those big (surprisingly not all that evil) corporations, is naive at best, and delusional if you are over 30.

Greg, what is your problem with wealth. I worked very hard for my money and give away tons in taxes and contributions. Too bad babies like you only know how to whine because somehow the big bad rich guy didn’t give it to you. Grow up dude!!

Where do you think jobs are created?? Let me give you a hint, it’s those bad rich guys like me. I would guess if I hired you I would fire you because no matter what I paid you it wouldn’t be enough, you wouldn’t earn it, and you would be like poison to the rest of my staff.

My recomendation to you is simple. Grow up and accept responsibility for yourself and your pathetic life!!

@Greg: You said:

They’ll happily send the jobs … overseas if they can increase their corporate profits by doing so. They’ll blame those same citizens…

One question Greg – Who is this THEY you speak of?

Common Sense, I think you’re taking what Greg said out of context. The phenomena of rising wealth and income inequality could have many unforeseen negative consequences down the road, everything from the concentration of power Greg alludes to, to economic malaise. It’s not just about taxation, it’s about why and how wealth has been rapidly accruing to a small economic elite. While we don’t know for certain the inpact, don’t you think it’s at least worth investigating?

The business writer for the Washington Post had an interesting column on this recenty that’s worth taking a look at. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100505535.html

Concentrating so much income in a relatively small number of households has also led to trillions of dollars being spent and invested in ways that were spectacularly unproductive. In recent decades, the rich have used their winnings to bid up the prices of artwork and fancy cars, the tuition at prestigious private schools and universities, the services of celebrity hairdressers and interior decorators, and real estate in fashionable enclaves from Park City to Park Avenue. And what wasn’t misspent was largely misinvested in hedge funds and private equity vehicles that played a pivotal role in inflating a series of speculative financial bubbles, from the junk bond bubble of the ’80s to the tech and telecom bubble of the ’90s to the credit bubble of the past decade.

The biggest problem with runaway inequality, however, is that it undermines the unity of purpose necessary for any firm, or any nation, to thrive. People don’t work hard, take risks and make sacrifices if they think the rewards will all flow to others. Conservative Republicans use this argument all the time in trying to justify lower tax rates for wealthy earners and investors, but they chose to ignore it when it comes to the incomes of everyone else.

Tom,
There was far more concentration of wealth when the US was founded, far more.

An example from this source:
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

#

George Washington was paid a salary of $25,000 a year from 1789 to 1797 as the first president of the United States. The current salary of the president has recently been doubled to $400,000, to go with a $50,000 expense account, a generous pension and several other benefits. Has the remuneration improved?

Making a comparison using the CPI for 1790 shows that $25,000 corresponds to over $585,000 today, so the recent raise means current presidents have an equal command over consumer goods as the Father of the Country.

When comparing Washington’s salary to an unskilled worker, or the measure of average income, GDP per capita, then the comparable numbers are $11 and $24 million. Granted that would not put him in the ranks of the top 25 executives today that make over $200 million. It would, however, be many times more than any elected official in this country is paid today. Finally, to show the “economic power” of his wage, we see that his salary as a share of GDP would rank him equivalent to $1.8 billion.

Remember the old saying, “a rising tide lifts all boats?” The government did not create the middle class, the only class the government ever created is the welfare class.

Name one thing the US government has ever done efficiently? The very first thing it ever did was create an army, yet it still can’t get the troops’ pay straight nor get ballots to them.

The “concentration of wealth” cunard is rubbish, the world isn’t fair, people need to live with it and accept that equal treatment under the law is the best any government can offer.

Redistribution is stealing, plain and simple, stealing from someone with more is still stealing, hiring a thuggish politician to still in your name is still stealing, except it’s also cowardly.

Guess what those big corporations that ship jobs overseas have in common? Big, technology based corporations run by those high rolling liberal CEO’s.

Silicone Valley and all of Northern California has craploads of self-serving, Liberal techie CEO’s all too happy to get on their high horse about liberal causes and move production overseas.

I for one am all too tired of listening to that blowhard Warren Buffet and his offshore holdings.

Republicans party of the rich? Yeah, 30 years ago.

There was far more concentration of wealth when the US was founded, far more.

Where is your proof for that statement? You take one job and extrapolate from that? Were there internet moguls back then? Were there hedge fund managers?

I’m not sure what you’re point is, but, using your selective approach, and your own link, I can construct a much more convincing case than yours: let’s examine the wealth of one person (not even one of the top 30 richest in America today) Mark Zukerberg, the founder of Facebook. His current wealth is estimated at $6.9 Billion. That would be $427,000,000 in 1780 dollars using the CPI. Are you telling me that there were young entrepreneurs in 1780 who had amassed that amount of wealth in six years by the age 26?

I doubt it. Again, according to your link, the US GDP in 1790 (earliest year given) was $187M. In other words, Mark Zukerberg in 1780 would have been worth more than twice the GDP of the United States

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

Tom, you REALLY think that there weren’t rich people in 1790?? Really??

Of course not. My point is that wealth and income are trending upward at an alarming rate that would have been inconceivable back then. Feel free to sample the data. I personally would have never introduced the Colonial era into this, seeing as it’s an aburd comparison.

BTW, glad to hear your surgery was a success and best wishes on your recovery.

@ JustAl, #14:

Please give one example. . . just one, where the socialism you propose (don’t mince words, that IS what you propose), has actually ever worked.

It worked pretty well in the United States, until we lost sight of the fact that tax revenue has to keep pace with expenditures.

Tom,

Remember slavery (that the Democrats loved so well) and indentured servitude? By the way, what is the statute of limitations as to being “absurd”? And thank you for making that point, it’s been a couple of hours since a lib launched an ad homonym attack on me. I’ll bet you buy into man made global warming to don’t you?

Tom in CA makes an interesting point I was pondering the other day. I have several customers across the border. And I can not think of a single major corporation that has taken large plants offshore. . . that isn’t headquartered in a “Blue” state.

Greg,
Now that’s funny, socialism worked in the United States. . . right up until it ran out of other people’s money. You truly are a gift that keeps giving.

@ Tom, Just curious, do you believe that behind every accumulation of wealth is criminal behavior?

Like the Kennedy wealth???

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/716/what-is-the-true-source-of-the-kennedy-familys-wealth

What is the true source of the wealth of the Kennedy family of Hyannis, Massachusetts? I have heard several stories about Joe Senior having made a killing in Prohibition rum, sleazy stock market practices, or the Boston construction industry. I heard the other day that he made the seed money for all this by selling opium to China, and that takes the cake. Also, what is the Kennedy money doing today? Besides the Democratic party, is there a family business? Do they have a foundation or something? Why don’t I see the Kennedy Trust as a sponsor of quality public television?

— Peter Greenberg, Jackson Heights, New York

Dear Peter:

Cecil doesn’t ordinarily go in for this People magazine stuff, but Lord knows I like dishing the dirt as much as the next guy, and Joe Kennedy is a target the size of all outdoors.

J.P. was what we call an operator. He made his money by (1) pulling various hustles before it had occurred to anyone to make them illegal, and (2) possibly pulling other hustles that were definitely illegal but generally winked at. His stock-market shenanigans were an example of the former, his Prohibition liquor business (never proven, by the way) an example of the latter. That said, let’s not get ridiculous. He didn’t sell opium to the Chinese; the British did. Nineteenth century. Very famous. Trust me.

Joseph P. Kennedy was the ambitious son of a prosperous Boston saloon keeper and ward boss. He married the mayor’s daughter, went to Harvard, and generally made the most of his ample connections and talent. He ran a bank (admittedly two-bit) at 25, and was number-two man at a shipyard with more than 2,000 workers during World War I. At 30 he became a stockbroker and made a fortune through insider trading and stock manipulation. He was a master of the stock pool, a then-legal stunt in which a few traders conspired to inflate a stock’s price, selling out just before the bubble burst.

Kennedy may also have traded in illegal booze, although the evidence is circumstantial. His father had been in the liquor business before Prohibition, and Joe himself got into it (publicly, that is) immediately after repeal. Some believe the family business simply went underground during the dry years. He may have been strictly a nickle-and-dimer; Harvard classmates say he supplied the illicit booze for alumni events.

But there might have been more to it than that. In 1973 mob boss Frank Costello said he and Kennedy had been bootlegging partners. Other underworld figures have also claimed Joe was in pretty deep. At least one writer (Davis, 1984) thinks bootlegging enabled Joe to earn his initial financial stake, but that’s hard to believe; he had plenty of chances to make money more or less legally.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Kennedy’s real strength wasn’t his alleged criminal ties but his business smarts, notably an exquisite sense of timing. In the mid-1920s he became a movie mogul (taking time out for a celebrated dalliance with Gloria Swanson), then organized a merger and sold out just when the industry was consolidating, clearing five to six million dollars all told. He pulled out of stocks early in 1929 and sold short following the crash, actually making money while others got creamed. Just before Prohibition was repealed he lined up several lucrative liquor-importing deals.

By the 1930s Kennedy was rich, but he didn’t make serious money by modern standards until he got into real estate in a big way during World War II, raking in an estimated $100 million. In 1945 he made the deal that remains the centerpiece of the Kennedy fortune: for a measly $12.5 million he bought the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, a huge wholesale emporium that had cost $30 million to build. Within a few years the annual gross in rent exceeded the purchase price. In 1957 Fortune declared Kennedy one of the richest men in America, with assets of 200 to 400 million bucks.

The Kennedy family’s wide-ranging business affairs are now run by hirelings at Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises in New York. Joe did establish a number of charitable ventures, several of which help retarded children (his daughter Rosemary was retarded). But he put most of his money in trust for his family. Being the odd combination of stud and monomaniacal family man that he was, he figured his real legacy to the country was the fruit of his loins.

— Cecil Adams

@ Tom, Just curious, do you believe that behind every accumulation of wealth is criminal behavior?

No. I’m not sure what would make you think that, or that I’m against the accumulation of wealth in general. I don’t go to work every day for free.

Remember slavery (that the Democrats loved so well) and indentured servitude?

No, I don’t remember. I wasn’t alive then.

I’m sorry for being flippant, but I don’t know how to respond to you. Your first response to my comment was inaccurate and your second doesn’t really address anything I’ve written.

Tom, if you really believe that the disparity gap (a popular liberal term) in income did not exist in Colonial America, you are just being silly.

Thank you for the well wishes.

Antics, again, I understand that there was an income gap in Colonial times. I took issue with the claim that there was “far more” income concentration then.

My point, which has been side-tracked by talk of ye olden days, is that there is an astonishing accumulation of weatlh and income in the top 1% of the population (it’s even more striking in the top 0.01%). Whether that’s good or bad thing for the future of the country is certainly a valid topic for debate, don’t you think?

It seemed as if you felt that there were either no wealthy people back then or a ton of wealthy people back then. In reality, there were far more poor people than wealthy people, just as there are now.

BTW, what is wrong with a few people being wealthy? Why is that a bad thing? Is it jealousy? Pettiness? I have never understood the idea that it is bad for a small minority to be wealthy. More power to them, they worked hard, in all likelihood provided a good or service and helped to grow the economy. Why is it bad for them to be wealthy?

Colonists were of two main types:
Wealthy people who paid their own way here and created businesses here in goods/foods/resources
And….
Poor people whose way was paid for them to get here by their INDENTURED SERVITUDE.
Indentured servants usually worked 7 years for their freedom.
Some of them went on to become welathy but the vast majority stayed poor here just as they had been in the Old Country.

People often forget that the North had this form of temporary slavery because the South had such a different (and far more visible) form of permanent slavery.

Sorry Nan,

It is “absurd” do make comparisons any further back than Tom’s living memory.

🙄

No, Al. The problem with you bringing up the 1700s is that your assertion can’t be proven with your evidence, and its well outside the range of data that I linked to (did you happen to look at it?). So it’s basically an evasion. If you’d like to discuss the contents of my post (#17) I’d be happy to.

Antics, I have nothing against people being wealthy. My point is that most Americans have no idea the degree of which wealth is concentrated in the hands of such a minuscule portion of the population. Therefore, it makes it easy for people to believe, and in some cases preach, propaganda about “wealth distribution” and socialism that flies in the face of facts. I would rather know the facts before making up my mind, rather than making up my mind and ignoring facts that don’t suit my mindset. With two wars, a recession and a giant deficit, I think there are plenty of people and issues more worthy my time and concern than crying over the tax rate of the top 1%.

@Tom:

You’ve already tried that study here. To summarize the majority of the people have no clue as to how many rich we have and just want the US to be like Sweden.

As with countries with socialized medicine, they are starting to privatize just as some in the US are attempting to saddle us with it. Sweden is rejecting the socialism, just re-elected a hawk who is cutting spending on social programs.

Learn the little phrase, “life isn’t fair” never was, never will be.

So, what do you suggest? Go beg the rich for alms or have the government take it away from them for you? 🙄

btw, is “alms” to dated for you?

And, now that I think of it, I didn’t see that you were too concerned by Obama protecting the wealth of BP, which is what the topic of this thread is.

@Tom: You said:

My point is that most Americans have no idea the degree of which wealth is concentrated in the hands of such a minuscule portion of the population.

To which I answer – “So, what?”

Who gives a rats petootie how many rich people there are in America, or even the whole world for that matter.

Why should I care, when I live in a country that allows me better myself and work and claw my position in life to the point where I am one of those rich folks. Why in the hell does it matter HOW MANY rich people there are?

Seriously, I just don’t get it.

Good point, Antics at #36.

Hubby likes to say the country was founded on the basis of the equal right of all to pursue happiness, but socialists, who want to ”spread the wealth around,” believe we must aim for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities.

Your hubby is right, Nan. Socialists want to ensure equality, but all that does is spread misery. Everyone is equal, but equal in misery. I would much rather be poor in America than poor in some socialist country that “spreads the wealth” around.