published Thursday, June 10th, 2010

The Weather Report

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

64
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Instead of naming Admiral Allen special envoy to the gulf disaster,Obama should have given the job to Sarah Palin who,judging from her criticism,must have specific thoughts about how to deal with the mile deep gusher. After all,as Governor of Alaska,she learned how to deal with big oil companies.

June 10, 2010 at 12:52 a.m.
alprova said...

For nearly two months now, President Obama has endured unending criticism of his handling of the oil spill crisis from people who have been able to flag down a camera, as well as from several media personalities who have attempted to turned the disaster into career boosting opportunities.

Not only are the critics failing miserably to boost their images, they are continuously exposing themselves to be nothing but detractors, and useless in providing solutions themselves.

For instance, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page on Tuesday that, "President Obama admitted that he hasn't met with or spoken directly to BP's CEO Tony Hayward." She goes on to inquire of the media, "...did it not occur to you before today to ask how the CEO-to-CEO level discussions were progressing to remedy this tragedy?"

Does it ever occur to Sarah Palin and others that both the President and Tony Hayward have enough on their plates at the moment? They are both overseeing massive efforts by those delegated to deal with the crises, and the only thing worse than for them to stay focused on the crises, would be for either of them to pause for tea on the White House lawn to discuss the crisis.

These same people who criticize the President are also highly critical of BP and Tony Hayward for spinning the crisis in their favor. So, the President is being a little more realistic when he stated that he has not met with the man, "Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's gonna say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."

Sarah Palin, or rather her ghost writer, writes, "This revelation is further proof that it bodes well to have some sort of executive experience before occupying the Oval Office. The current administration may be unaware that it's the President's duty, meeting on a CEO-to-CEO level with Hayward, to verify what BP reports."

It's not as if the entire nation has not had a play-by-play 24/7 since day one. You can visit no less than a thousand web pages for a live-link look at the spill as it has been ongoing for 53 days and counting. What's there to verify? Oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico and to date, every effort to stop it has failed.

Mrs. Palin says, "Mr. President: with all due respect, you have to get involved, sir. The priorities and timeline of an oil company are not the same as the public's. You cannot outsource the cleanup and the responsibility and the trust to BP and expect that the legitimate interests of Americans adversely affected by this spill will somehow be met."

Mrs. Palin, President Obama is involved, has been involved, and will continue to be involved. Quitting an appointed position on Alaska's oil board, passing a tax on oil companies that was distributed among the people of Alaska, and then quitting your two and a half year venture as Governor does not really qualify you as being an expert in dealing with oil companies.

(cont.)

June 10, 2010 at 5:16 a.m.
alprova said...

Cont.)

Pouncing Palin ends her narcissistic rant calling on the President to consult with Alaska's DNR with, "We've all lived and worked through the Exxon-Valdez spill. They can help you. Give them a call. Or, what the heck, give me a call."

Lest anyone forget, the Exxon Valdez spill occurred on March 24, 1989. Her arrival on the scene in being appointed to the Oil and Conservation Board came 14 years after that spill. Her taking the helm as Governor began 17 years after the spill. She had no involvement in anything remotely related to that spill.

Her husband DID lose his commercial fishing business as a result of the spill.

To the best of my research, Sarah Palin has not been down to the Gulf Coast region once since April 25, 2010. As someone who in 1989 worked for her husband and who ultimately received some rather generous payments from Exxon due to what they lost, why is it that the most productive thing to date that she can find time to do is to sit on the sidelines and bash the President on a daily or weekly basis?

I might find it easy to work up at least an ounce of respect for her, if the she would go down there and to put her money where her mouth is.

SHE should be helping those people being stonewalled by BP to fight to make them pony up the dough to those families who are now in peril of losing everything they have worked for.

THAT'S far more along the lines of her true expertise, and why she came to have the funds to become a factor in American politics at all. In 1989, she was just as impoverished as those down by the Gulf.

Seems to me that she's left all that way behind in her rear-view mirror.

June 10, 2010 at 5:34 a.m.
woody said...

I've seen that look before. This man is having an attack of insomnia. Well, I could tell him from personal experience there is nothing of any substance on after midnight. However, some people must 'see' for themselves.

So, now they're blaming Obama for the weather. Surprise..surprise!

Just remember one thing..every man (or Palin) is accountable for his or her own actions. Just as they will be held accountable, at some point, for their allegations.

Insomnia is a real 'eye-opener', Woody

June 10, 2010 at 6:17 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"storms"? Deficit storm: although President Bush's deficits had not stimulated us to prevent recession, President Obama enlarged the deficit. Economic storm: the stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. Bureaucratic storm: more rules and more b's to run our lives for us... I don't blame our President for BP's corporate carelessness (other companies seem to have done better). Voting (as Senator) for drilling, and implementing this as President, I agree with--though in the middle to long run we could use conservation and alternatives, and I don't like his efforts there--but he did have a year or so to get ready for a spill, and he didn't lift a finger to set up a "Spill Guard," as Jerry Pournelle proposed to Governor Ronald Reagan 40+ years ago. And instead of letting Bobby Jindal build berms, he let the request ooze through the bureaucracy, protecting the oil spill from Louisiana instead of vice versa, doing "process" instead of recognizing an emergency. www.lohr84.com>

EaTn said...

Fox News- I don't need to watch it. I hear and read more than enough of what it presents by listening to those who do.

June 10, 2010 at 7:18 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Olbermann got it right: FOX noise.

Maybe fewer people would watch if the Networks and Cable News didn't rely so heavily on press conferences. I can't find much real journalism out there.

That's one reason why I enjoy Clay Bennett. He has a way of capturing the impact of an issue.

His pictures truly are worth a thousand words.

June 10, 2010 at 8:51 a.m.
aces25 said...

I believe Fox News stands out because it is a right-leaning news organization in a sea of left-leaning media. They seem to have found their niche, as many of their shows hold fairly high ratings. So no surprise here on Clay's viewpoint.

I still prefer to use search engines to look at various articles of the same news event to find more complete viewpoints. The same applies to TV news networks.


Well to no one's surprise, alprova is already Palin bashing. For someone who doesn't seem to like her that much, you sure do follow her a lot closer than I suspect the rest of the people on this message board.

Obama's talk is cheap. As much he wants to say he is (and has been) involved with the spill, the ultimate response of the federal government is what will be reflected on him. And to this point, it doesn't look good. Sorry Clay, I couldn't find any Fox News Pole for you.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1110a1%20Oil%20Spill.pdf

June 10, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
woody said...

Off topic for a moment..I just went back to see what might have taken place after my last 'post' yesterday.

Rolando, was it that late when you last posted yesterday, or have you turned from "old curmudgeon" to just another 'blind follower'?

If I (as you stated) "cherry-picked" the words "No, you can't" in my last post on Wednesday, they were "cherry-picked" from BobMKE's earlier post that same day. I have said many times, and please let me repeat, I don't mind anyone quoting me or taking exception with what I may say here. However, what I do mind is someone misquoting me, or accusing me of misquoting someone else.

So, now, as I said yesterday, despite Rolando's unsolicited charge that I "cherry-picked" my words; BobMKE, Rolando, et al I defy you to show me anywhere in the U.S. Constitution the words (and exactly as first posted by BobMKE) "No, you can't."

'nuff said, have a nice day, Woody

June 10, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Woody,

Please read again what I wrote: If Obama, Pelpsi, and Reid's motto is "Yes we can," the Constitution's is "No, you can't."

I was trying to make the point that there are no's and shall not's in the Constitution. I never said "No, you can't" is in the Constitution. Now that you have cherry-picked" that phase, let it rest. But please comment on all of the no's and shall not's in the Constitution.

June 10, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Aces, I think Al is infatuated with Palin. He does seem to know a disproportionate amount of info on her.

This cartoon is as stupid as blaming everything on Bush. It is not one persons fault about anything in this country. One person does not run the country contrary to popular belief. I think too much blame or fame is put on any president no matter who he is... But that is just me.

June 10, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.
Nagoc said...

The only reason Princess Winksalot hasn't been down to the gulf coast is that she hasn't received her $100k speaking fee to go down there to tell the people they have a problem.

If she had even the slightest idea of how to make things better, why play politics with it instead of offering up a solution? Because it's easier to stand back and bash the President and get a lot of press doing so. She has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

BTW, Jindal doesn't like big government intervention so, why wasn't he authorizing the building of the berms from the beginning instead of going on TV boo hooing about the big bad government not letting him do the job?

June 10, 2010 at 12:35 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

People actually watch Fox News? Incredible!

June 10, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
alprova said...

Aces25 wrote: "Well to no one's surprise, alprova is already Palin bashing. For someone who doesn't seem to like her that much, you sure do follow her a lot closer than I suspect the rest of the people on this message board."


Is it MY fault that the woman decides to take every opportunity to bash the man whose election outcome disallowed her be become Vice President? Is it MY fault that when contrasted to her past writings on Facebook and Twitter, that this one stands out as being rather dishonest in it's entirety because everyone knows that she didn't write it.

To arrogantly suggest that she would have any knowledge in how to address the spill, or is in any manner more qualified to be in the White House, and would have done any more than what is being done by ANYONE, is the most profoundly comical musing session that she may have ever offered to date.


"Obama's talk is cheap. As much he wants to say he is (and has been) involved with the spill, the ultimate response of the federal government is what will be reflected on him. And to this point, it doesn't look good."


It may not seem so, but I truly am not defending our President for political reasons. It would make no difference whatsoever who the person would have been in charge come this past April when tragedy struck the Deep Well Horizon.

I dare say that not one person being critical of the President or his administration has the first clue how to deal with that well head a mile under the surface of the Gulf water. Not one.

Had the President dispatched every single person in our military to Louisiana, currently not fighting those silly wars in the Middle East, along with every piece of equipment owned by this nation, or on day one called upon every American who could make their way to the Louisiana coast to as fast as they could get there, and had taken possession of a battleship, boarded it, and had been bellowing out orders with a bullhorn, while sitting on the deck in the water over the site of the spill for 53 days, where would we be?

EXACTLY where we are now, but with total pandemonium and a coast full of sunburned people still scratching their heads asking themselves why they are there and what the heck can they do.

Armchair critiquing comes far cheaper and with far fewer solutions to the problem EVER being a part of the equation.

How can I prove it?

I want all of you Obama bashers to come up with one point to illustrate what EXACTLY he should have done or has not done, that would have resulted in the spill in the Gulf to be under control now or at any time in the past 53 days.

You folks have all the answers and are adamant that the President isn't rising up to the challenge or has not done enough, so let's hear it.

June 10, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Nurse wrote: "Aces, I think Al is infatuated with Palin. He does seem to know a disproportionate amount of info on her."


I need not do anything more taxing than to Google her name on any given day to become instantly informed to her latest and most recent attributed remarks.

Am I infatuated with the woman? Hardly. What is always humorous to observe, is people, much like yourself, falling all over themselves like the The Three Stooges, defending her moronic and pathetic passages, which always involve bashing the President.

If I am considered to be infatuated with her, would you use that same logic to understand that she is bordering on stalking the President?

She rarely speaks publicly without raising his name at least a half-dozen times. I say rarely, because I have knowledge of a recent personal appearance where she spent 45 minutes speaking to a room full of college kids about her heydays on her high school basketball team, complete with a ten minute minute description of a knee injury she had suffered, preventing her from being billed as an MVP of sorts.


"This cartoon is as stupid as blaming everything on Bush."


Forget Bush. He's no longer the focus of anyone's attention, other than when the subject of the wars being fought in the Middle East is raised. That is and will forever remain his baby, and any criticism he receives is most deserved.


"It is not one persons fault about anything in this country. One person does not run the country contrary to popular belief. I think too much blame or fame is put on any president no matter who he is... But that is just me."


You might want to consult with the Republican party or the Tea-Party associates on that one. They seem to look at things far differently, if some of their more outlandish statements are indication of their findings on that subject.

Of course, they seem to agree on one thing -- They can't seem to pinpoint anything that is not being done that could be or should have been done by the man currently in the White House, but they blame him nonetheless.

June 10, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.
Shock said...

Alprova,

I like your comments usually - I take the middle ground on a lot of topics and you're good counterbalance to a certain bird in a mineshaft with his knee jerk insults and rants.

However, you do seem to have an obsession with Sarah Palin. I can understand your frustration with someone as unqualified as she is to be a leader of this country speaking for a lot of people you don't agree with, but c'mon now - fess up and admit you have a crush on her.

I will take issue with your charge that it is unfair for the Tea Party to blame Obama on the federal deficit and rising debt. Admittedly there are crazy fringe elements saying stupid things, but the main theme of fiscal responsibility runs counter to what Obama preaches. The wasteful wastrels in congress actually wrote the budgets and laws (stimulus spending bill, healthcare, etc.) but it was at behest of Obama and the bully pulpit of the president's office and Obama certainly didn't veto them.

June 10, 2010 at 2:42 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

"Am I infatuated with the woman? Hardly. What is always humorous to observe, is people, much like yourself, falling all over themselves like the The Three Stooges, defending her moronic and pathetic passages, which always involve bashing the President."

Al, I don't remember ever supporting her on these post. I did vote for McCain but not because she had a part. I will admit at first I thought she was a good choice but with time I believe that proved to be incorrect. However, saying that, I also don't believe she would be doing any worse than our current president.

"If I am considered to be infatuated with her, would you use that same logic to understand that she is bordering on stalking the President?"

Really Al, I was just joking. But since you brought this up, I am sure you understand that she is just doing what is popular with her party, putting the man down. You are doing to her what she is doing to Obama.

"You might want to consult with the Republican party or the Tea-Party associates on that one. They seem to look at things far differently, if some of their more outlandish statements are indication of their findings on that subject."

I don't need to consult with anyone because I can think for myself. But I am interested if you would agree with my statement ("It is not one persons fault about anything in this country. One person does not run the country contrary to popular belief. I think too much blame or fame is put on any president no matter who he is... But that is just me.") While I may not agree with everything you say, I do think you are a pretty smart guy and respect your opinions from time to time.

June 10, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
Clara said...

nucanuck,

I hope you were being sarcastic on your opening post.

Exactly what was Palin doing in 1989?

It would seem that she was having babies.

I gather her husband was actually calling the shots and just using her. This is based on very cursory information with no attempt at distinguishing the source or reliability.

HE had all the information on oil, as BP was one source of his income before he quit to manipulate Sarah!

This only MY opinion after reading a few things.

June 10, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
queeni said...

left, middle, or right, it’s just not even clever.... what happened to originality?

June 10, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Shock wrote: "...you do seem to have an obsession with Sarah Palin. I can understand your frustration with someone as unqualified as she is to be a leader of this country speaking for a lot of people you don't agree with, but c'mon now - fess up and admit you have a crush on her."

Not a chance. I had her pegged upon the conclusion of her first speech in Iowa. She's a phony, completely in love with herself, and she prostitutes herself for money to receive any attention that is paid to her. She just makes more per event than a woman who would dance behind a piece of glass.

I would have been fine to leave her alone, had she not once again post commentary that ties in so nicely to this cartoon. She is after all, the President's most focused and consistent basher.

And again, had she not attempted to make claims to certain things that are patently false, implied or otherwise, I would not point those out either.

I will be the first to admit, as I did above, that I get a cheap thrill watching people raise their hackles at the mere mention of the woman's name conjoined with negativity.

June 10, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
BOOBOO99 said...

Obama will be the greatest president since FDR who lead us out of the Great Depression....Obama will lead the way..

June 10, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
alprova said...

Nurse wrote: "Al, I don't remember ever supporting her on these post. I did vote for McCain but not because she had a part. I will admit at first I thought she was a good choice but with time I believe that proved to be incorrect. However, saying that, I also don't believe she would be doing any worse than our current president."


Well, we disagree, because I feel that President Obama is doing a fantastic job. He has not once attempted to deflect criticism by pointing his fingers at someone else, which is in and of itself quite refreshing.

Is he a conventional President? No way. He has repeatedly refused to play certain games the way they have always been played, very frustrating I am sure for those who want to play those games to their own advantage.

The man has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be far more intelligent than his detractors, has accomplished far more during his brief time in the office, than most men have accomplished during eight years in office, and has several times, called people out in public for outright instances of political posturing.

Those who dislike him, for whatever reason(s) they have for doing so, would never admit in a million years that the man has managed to hold his own rather well. It must be very frustrating to have a man in the Oval Office who refuses to cower in fear of, or respond to political posturing.


"Really Al, I was just joking. But since you brought this up, I am sure you understand that she is just doing what is popular with her party, putting the man down. You are doing to her what she is doing to Obama."


True enough, but then I am nothing more than a citizen. I am not a politician, nor do people throw me money to hear or read my words. My counterpoints are pure and without any ulterior motives.

When the woman holds herself out as an example of someone who has taken on "Big Oil," when the truth is quite the opposite, does that not deserves to be pointed out, if for no other reason than to motivate people to discover the truth, or lack thereof?


"I don't need to consult with anyone because I can think for myself. But I am interested if you would agree with my statement. (snip) While I may not agree with everything you say, I do think you are a pretty smart guy and respect your opinions from time to time."


Yes...you have proven to be an independent thinker. I apologize for stating otherwise. That was totally unfair on my part.

I have made that same statement several times. It is a fact. I have taken that sentiment farther and have stated that the President really has his hands tied and is often overruled by the powers that truly be.

The failure to close Guantanamo Bay and the continuation of the wars in the Middle East are two such examples of the President having his wishes and/or promises overruled.

June 10, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.
dss said...

Alprova, your word count continually amazes me.

June 10, 2010 at 4:24 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

VENICE, La. (AP) — Professor Peter Lutz is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.

Under the heading "sensitive biological resources," the plan lists marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals. None lives anywhere near the Gulf.

The names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are no longer in service.

BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig are riddled with omissions and glaring errors, according to an Associated Press analysis that details how BP officials have pretty much been making it up as they go along. The lengthy plans approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one.

"BP Exploration and Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan," the oil giant stated in its Deepwater Horizon plan.

In the spill scenarios detailed in the documents, fish, marine mammals and birds escape serious harm; beaches remain pristine; water quality is only a temporary problem. And those are the projections for a leak about 10 times worse than what has been calculated for the ongoing disaster.

Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, La., says there are "3,000 acres (of wetlands) where life as we know it is dead, and we continue to lose precious marshland every day."

There are other wildly false assumptions. BP's proposed method to calculate spill volume based on the darkness of the oil sheen is way off. The internationally accepted formula would produce estimates 100 times higher.

The Gulf's loop current, which is projected to help eventually send oil hundreds of miles around Florida's southern tip and up the Atlantic coast, isn't mentioned in either plan.

The website listed for Marine Spill Response Corp. — one of two firms that BP relies on for equipment to clean a spill — links to a defunct Japanese-language page.

In early May, at least 80 Louisiana state prisoners were trained to clean birds by listening to a presentation and watching a video. It was a work force never envisioned in the plans, which contain no detailed references to how birds will be cleansed of oil.

And while BP officials and the federal government have insisted that they have attacked the problem as if it were a much larger spill, that isn't apparent from the constantly evolving nature of the response.

June 10, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

This week, after BP reported the seemingly good news that a containment cap installed on the wellhead was funneling some of the gushing crude to a tanker on the surface, BP introduced a whole new new set of plans mostly aimed at capturing more oil.

The latest incarnation calls for building a larger cap, using a special incinerator to burn off some of the recaptured oil and bringing in a floating platform to process the oil being sucked away from the gushing well.

In other words, the on-the-fly planning continues.

Some examples of how BP's plans have fallen short:

— Beaches where oil washed up within weeks of a spill were supposed to be safe from contamination because BP promised it could marshal more than enough boats to scoop up all the oil before any deepwater spill could reach shore — a claim that in retrospect seems absurd.

"The vessels in question maintain the necessary spill containment and recovery equipment to respond effectively," one of the documents says.

BP asserts that the combined response could skim, suck up or otherwise remove 20 million gallons of oil each day from the water. But that is about how much has leaked in the past six weeks — and the slick now covers about 3,300 square miles, according to Hans Graber, director of the University of Miami's satellite sensing facility. Only a small fraction of the spill has been successfully skimmed. Plus, an undetermined portion of the spill has sunk to the bottom of the Gulf or is suspended somewhere in between.

The plan uses computer modeling to project a 21 percent chance of oil reaching the Louisiana coast within a month of a spill. In reality, an oily sheen reached the Mississippi River delta just nine days after the April 20 explosion. Heavy globs soon followed. Other locales where oil washed up within weeks of the explosion were characterized in BP's regional plan as safely out of the way of any oil danger.

— BP's site plan regarding birds, sea turtles or endangered marine mammals ("no adverse impacts") also have proved far too optimistic.

While the exact toll on the Gulf's wildlife may never be known, the effects clearly have been devastating.

More than 400 oiled birds have been treated, while dozens have been found dead and covered in crude, mainly in Louisiana but also in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. On remote islands teeming with birds, a visible patina of oil taints pelicans, gulls, terns and herons, as captured in AP photos that depict one of the more gut-wrenching aspects of the spill's impact. Such scenes are no longer unusual; the response plans anticipate nothing on this scale.

In Louisiana's Barataria Bay, a dead sea turtle caked in reddish-brown oil lay splayed out with dragonflies buzzing by. More than 200 lifeless turtles and several dolphins also have washed ashore. So have countless fish.


June 10, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

There weren't supposed to be any coastline problems because the site was far offshore. "Due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected," the site plan says.

But that distance has failed to protect precious resources. And last week, a group of environmental research center scientists released a computer model that suggested oil could ride ocean currents around Florida and up to North Carolina by summer.

— Perhaps the starkest example of BP's planning failures: The company has insisted that the size of the leak doesn't matter because it has been reacting to a worst-case scenario all along.

Yet each step of the way, as the estimated size of the daily leak has grown from 42,000 gallons to 210,000 gallons to perhaps 1.8 million gallons, BP has been forced to scramble — to create potential solutions on the fly, to add more boats, more boom, more skimmers, more workers. And containment domes, top kills, top hats.


While a disaster as devastating as a major oil spill will create some problems that can't be solved in advance, or even foreseen, BP's plans do not anticipate even the most obvious issues, and use mountains of words to dismiss problems that have proven overwhelming.

In responses to lengthy lists of questions from AP, officials for BP and the Interior Department, which oversees oil rig regulator Minerals Management Service, appear to concede there were problems with the two oil spill response plans.

"Many of the questions you raise are exactly those questions that will be examined and answered by the presidential commission as well as other investigations into BP's oil spill," said Kendra Barkoff, spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. She added that Salazar has undertaken transformational reforms of MMS.

Said BP spokesman Daren Beaudo from Robert, La.: "We expect that a complete review of the regional response plans and planning process will take place as part of the overall incident investigation so that we can determine what worked well and what needs improvement. Thus far we have implemented the largest spill response in history and many, many elements of it have worked well. However, we are greatly disappointed that oil has made landfall and impacted shorelines and marshes. The situation we are dealing with is clearly complex, unprecedented and will offer us much to learn from."

A key failure of the plan's cleanup provisions was the scarcity of boom — floating lines of plastic or absorbent material placed around sensitive areas to deflect oil.

June 10, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

From the start, local officials all along the Gulf Coast have complained about a lack of supplies, particularly the heavier, so-called ocean boom. But even BP says in its regional plan that boom isn't effective in seas more than three to four feet; waves in the Gulf are often bigger. And even in calmer waters, oil has swamped vital wildlife breeding grounds in places supposedly sequestered by multiple layers of boom.

The BP plans speak of thorough resources for all; there's no talk of a need to share. Still, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley said his shores were left vulnerable by Coast Guard decisions to shift boom to Louisiana when the oil threatened landfall there.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish, Nungesser and others have complained that miles of the boom now in the water were not properly anchored. AP reporters saw evidence he was right — some lines of boom were so broken up they hardly impeded the slick's push to shore.

Some out-of-state contractors who didn't know local waters placed boom where tides and currents made sure it didn't work properly. And yet disorganization has dogged efforts to use local boats. In Venice, La., near where the Mississippi River empties into the Gulf, a large group of charter captains have been known to spend their days sitting around at the marina, earning $2,000 a day without ever attacking the oil.

But perhaps the most glaring error in BP's plans involves Lutz, the professor, one of several dozen experts recommended as resources to be contacted in the event of a spill.

Lutz is listed as a go-to wildlife specialist at the University of Miami. But Lutz, an eminent sea turtle expert, left Miami almost 20 years ago to chair the marine biology department at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. He died four years before the plan was published.

June 10, 2010 at 5:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Come now Indian, that video has been posted all over the place by fellow Obama haters. The man at the microphone is a complete loon.

When he is not bashing our President, James David Manning is calling for all white business owners in Harlem to be ousted from their shops and is demanding that they turn over title to their properties to the true owners of Harlem...black people, whom he considers to be the displaced Jews of America.

Like a great many con-men and products of our prison system, that man exchanged a life of crime for a life behind a pulpit. It's lucrative, it's perfect for a narcissist, and it's legal.

The things people will throw into a debate...

June 10, 2010 at 9:01 p.m.
BobMKE said...

To Boob0099. I like just the first four letters of your name for your post "Boob." When you post in the future I'll just drop the "0099."

To dss. You have to understand that alprova's (AKA alpo) hero is the Great Elderly Chinese Statesmen, "On Too Long."

June 10, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.
rolando said...

Two excellent points, bobMKE.

June 10, 2010 at 9:41 p.m.
alprova said...

Indian wrote: "Alprova,if you don't agree with the video http://la-gun.com/manning you are not an American!"


Just because you say so, does not make it so.


"That man is telling it like it is."


Um...okay.


"I can tell by your words, you voted for the biggest liar and sorriest person to ever hold office!Obama is doing all he can to ruin our country."


You don't need to tell anything from my "words." I doggone sure did vote for President Obama and I will be voting for him again in 2012 too. And you know what? He will most certainly be elected to a second term.


"Obama is now trying to remove THE AMERICAN FLAG from schools and government buildings,now tell me that he is an AMERICAN!!!"


Where do people get this stuff? That may not be the most outlandish charge to date, but it certainly reeks of being the most stupendous claim to date that I have ever read.

President Obama has never called for the removal of any American flag from any school or Government building.


"I could go on and on about the bad things Obama has done and is doing so I will just say this "We need to get Obama out of office as soon as possible!!!"


He'll be out in 2018. Until then, you'll just have to foam at the mouth, I suppose.

June 11, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
aces25 said...

alprova wrote:

"Well, we disagree, because I feel that President Obama is doing a fantastic job. He has not once attempted to deflect criticism by pointing his fingers at someone else, which is in and of itself quite refreshing."

What a joke. When questioned about the degree of bail out spending the federal government is doing, he deflected to Bush and the former administration. When the market hit rock bottom, he deflected to Wall Street bankers. When the oil spill happened, he deflected to BP. Now no one is saying the other parties mentioned do not hold any blame, but there is plenty of reason to believe his level of accountability isn't quite what your fantasy makes it to be.

"He'll be out in 2018. Until then, you'll just have to foam at the mouth, I suppose."

Unless there has been a new bill on term limits, I'm pretty sure there is still an election in 2012. Regardless, I'm more concerned about the one only a few months away.

June 11, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.
Clara said...

indian,

Where did you pick up that information about the flag?

I hope it's not from the Manning site.

I don't think even the far right would agree that it's reliable.

You sound like a brain-washed 15 year old, smart but terribly misinformed.

June 11, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.

Once again Bennett shows no creativity no imagination. His ideas are rehashed, worn, and predicatable

No wonder the TFP is getting thinner every week and the pages see-through. It's not longer strong enough to wrap fish.

June 11, 2010 at 9:49 a.m.
whoknows said...

This one is kind of ridiculous. I wonder if Clay drew a similar cartoon during any of the 8 years Bush was in the seat, and even these past couple of years where he was and is still being blamed from everything that happened, no matter how ridiculous it was. Probably not. Alprova wrote: (in regards to Obama) "And you know what? He will most certainly be elected to a second term." Well, just as you said to indian, "Just because you say so, does not make it so." I know too many people who voted for Obama the first go around who have realized their folly.

And Indian, I, too would like to know where in the world you got that info about the flag. That's just rubbish. I may not agree with much about what Obama does, but that is an outrageous claim to make without citing a credible source for it...

June 11, 2010 at 12:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Aces25 wrote: "What a joke. When questioned about the degree of bail out spending the federal government is doing, he deflected to Bush and the former administration."


He was speaking FACT. Here's the Congressionally mandated spending that was put in play before Bush left on January 20, 2009;

$700 billion to buy assets from struggling institutions;

$50 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee principal in money market mutual funds;

$10 billion in Treasury direct purchases of mortgage-backed securities;

$144 billion in additional MBS purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was increased to $850 billion each;

$85 billion loan for AIG;

$87 billion in repayments to JP Morgan Chase;

$200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase preferred stock to shore up their capital;

$300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration to refinance failing mortgages;

$4 billion in grants to local communities to help them buy and repair homes abandoned due to mortgage foreclosures;

$29 billion in financing for JPMorgan Chase's government-brokered buyout of Bear Stearns. $30 billion more was spent to to purchase questionable Bear Stearns assets as collateral;

And at least $200 billion allocated currently outstanding loans to banks issued through the Fed's Term Auction Facility.

Total: 1.84 TRILLION. All of the above was in play when Obama assumed the Presidency and he had no say-so to either stop or amend so much as one cent of those payouts.

Add another Trillion to the above for the current total that has been spent to wage war in the Middle East.

Since Obama has been in office, the only bailouts attributable to him are those that were coined as TARP Funds, alloted to bail out Detroit and a few financial institutions. Most of those funds are to be repaid, or will have gone unused as the case may be when it is all said and done.

Oh...and yes, our current President has requested and has been granted $130 Billion more in spending for the two wars, which I refuse to hold against him because that also was clearly initiated under Bush.

June 11, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Aces25 wrote: "When the market hit rock bottom, he deflected to Wall Street bankers."


And he is speaking FACT, unless you are amazingly attempting to assert that he or any other President made any investment choices for Americans that led to the meltdown of Wall Street. Who else but those bankers could have been responsible?


"When the oil spill happened, he deflected to BP. Now no one is saying the other parties mentioned do not hold any blame, but there is plenty of reason to believe his level of accountability isn't quite what your fantasy makes it to be."


What would you have had him do? What could he have done? He nor any other person employed by the Government is qualified to deal with a broken well head a mile under water.

Blaming anyone, much less BP is just as useless, in terms of stopping that flow of oil into the Gulf. They are responsible for what happened. They are also the only entity that can amass the personnel and equipment needed to stop it.

All this weeping and gnashing of teeth is fine, but it's also totally unrealistic and completely pointless. It happened. BP and other oil interests, despite all those who think otherwise, have been working around the clock on the problem for 54 days.

Who in their right mind would think that they have not? They are bleeding red ink every second that that well is spewing oil.

The nation has sure been receiving an education since this has happened, but other than those who work in energy day-in and day-out, none of us have now or had the first clue what to do when it happened, including our President.


"Unless there has been a new bill on term limits, I'm pretty sure there is still an election in 2012. Regardless, I'm more concerned about the one only a few months away."


Do I really need to spell it out for you? Obama will be in office until the conclusion of year 2018, because there is not a soul on Earth who will be able to put him out of office in 2012. The Republicans have no one that could come close to doing it.

By the time we reach November 2012, this country will be doing so much better, that not many people will dare upset the apple cart, and he will be awarded another four years in office.

June 11, 2010 at 2:56 p.m.
alprova said...

WhoKnows wrote: "Alprova wrote: (in regards to Obama) "And you know what? He will most certainly be elected to a second term." Well, just as you said to indian, "Just because you say so, does not make it so."..."


First of all, and before any polling results are offered, I am not impressed by any poll that claims that our President's approval numbers are in the toilet. The placement of those polls always tells the tale.

Now, if anyone out there has a better grasp on the reality of the situation than I may have, this is a golden opportunity for them to shine.

Who will it be that the Republicans will run in 2012, who has a hope of chance to go up against President Obama and win in 2012?

According to voting conducted within the Republican Party during three internal gatherings, the highest numbers that any potential nominee has drawn in the past two years, was Ron Paul, with 33 percent. Does anyone think that he will eventually receive the nomination? If he did, would he win?

Not a chance.

The Republican Party is at war with itself, and most of that can be blamed on those who have chosen to coin themselves as "Tea-Partiers," who have only accomplished to dilute any chance that Republicans will win any major and defined victories for years to come.

June 11, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Everybody sing along, BLAME IT ON BUSH, BLAME IT ON CHENEY, BLAME IT ON THE E EEE E CONOMY. W doesn't seem to mind that the worlds problems all point to him. Ya know, the fall of the Roman Empire, pedophile priests, Mount St Helens erupting. Then we move to that awful woman, Sarah Palin who charges money to speak. If I remember correctly, President Clinton made himself an instant multimillionaire giving speeches in the months following his terms as president to the same people he sold our economic future to. Then we have our current "LEADER" who made a cool $5 Million off of book sales while bringing us out of the gutter and restoring us to the respected economic super power we once were. Is the gulf disaster Obama's fault? No. W's? No. Sarah Palin's? No. It is our fault for allowing the government to become so nepotistic, cronyistic, and using our tax dollars for their political slush fund. At least one of you read the AP article I posted. I can tell from the "Did not find useful" comment. Here is an article that someone put work into. And what they discovered was that our federal department that watches porn and gets high on meth during the work day allowed a corporate giant to write a fairy tale for a response manual. To the person who did not find this useful I can only imagine that you knew all about these fictional tales and as a responsible American you did nothing about it. Thanks for looking out for the rest of us. As to the Palin did this and Bush did that, Obama is the greatest president rhetoric, I say this. Obama is good at one thing. Campaigning. He has no experience leading or knowing where to find the answers to serious problems. We as taxpayers need a responsible, knowledgeable and insightful president. A true problem solver. Someone who is very good with money. Not someone who is good at spending someone else's.

June 11, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.
alprova said...

Whatsthefuss concluded his rant with: "We as taxpayers need a responsible, knowledgeable and insightful president. A true problem solver. Someone who is very good with money. Not someone who is good at spending someone else's."


I am simply in awe. I had no idea that until President Obama came along, that no President before him did not spend anyone else's money. They always spent their own, and apparently they kept it a secret too.

June 11, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
InspectorBucket said...

BP oil spill ruined my life, says Louisiana shrimp king Suzanne Goldenberg in Grand Isle, Louisiana guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 June 2010 17.21 BST

Dean Blanchard's firm used to account for 11% of the US shrimp supply. Now, he is reduced to supplying fuel and water to BP clean-up crews

Of all the folks in Louisiana spoiling for a fight with Tony Hayward, none perhaps brings more gusto to the challenge than Dean Blanchard, the local shrimp king.

The outer walls of the trailer office of his seafood empire are plastered with homemade signs reading "BP=Bayou Polluter" and "President Obama: BP took my business and my money."

The frontroom is painted shrimp pink, and Blanchard is working himself up imagining what he would like to do to the BP chief executive if he ever got the chance: fist fight, public wrestling match, jail time?

"He took away everything I love most in the world. I am going to hunt that son of a bitch down like a 'coon," he said. "He wants his life back after all he has done to us? The hell with him."

Then he speculates about peeing in the Queen's water fountain. "What do you think would happen to me? I'd go to jail for that, and it would be relatively minor environmental damage."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/bp-oil-spill-shrimp-king

June 11, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Dear alprova, I am well aware of the fact that the worst part of any conversation is when one realizes they are absolutely wrong. It is obvious you feel you are never wrong. People like you are very scary. Just a few things to bring to your attention. Congress makes the laws, so if President Obama was saddled with this huge deficit and had no choice but to accept it, please be aware that the congress has been in the hands of the Democratic party for quite some time. People seem to be confused about our president. He is not a liberal. Liberals, just like conservatives share the idea of earning money and amassing wealth. The centrist and liberal population voted for a man that presented himself as one of them. The truth came out once the election was over. Our president is a leftist. He wants to take our hard earned wealth and distribute it. Give it to someone that had no hand in the hard work of generations of AMERICANS. I do not think the taxpaying American will re-elect this man. I do hope you come to understand why. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, it has to do with the survival of America as a country. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. We don't need any more problems.

June 11, 2010 at 6:09 p.m.
shutmymouth said...

There is no Fox NEWS Channel. However, it appears Fox does air a daily EDITORIAL rant.

June 11, 2010 at 8:39 p.m.
rolando said...

whatsthefuss --

Since the conservatives here neither bother with nor especially care about getting brownie points from their peers, it remains that whoever gave you the thumbs-down was a Left-Prog. They seldom read anything that points out their follies, their false beliefs, or their BS.

That vote you got was a knee-jerk...or maybe just a jerk.

June 11, 2010 at 9:15 p.m.
rolando said...

woody, I looked through this thread for anything I might have posted that got your dander up...there is nothing there.

Since you said something about yesterday's postings, and since this thread didn't exist yesterday, perhaps yesterday's thread was the proper place to make your accusatory post. [There was not a word there this morning...and I won't check again.]

Carrying one thread's posting over to another unrelated thread is not good forum protocol nor is it anything other than a chance to vent.

Hope you enjoyed it, whatever it was about.

June 11, 2010 at 9:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Whatsthefuss wrote: "Dear alprova, I am well aware of the fact that the worst part of any conversation is when one realizes they are absolutely wrong. It is obvious you feel you are never wrong. People like you are very scary."


I'm as subject to being wrong as anyone. However, I rarely put myself in that situation before I type. When I am wrong, I'm the first to admit it, unlike many people.


"Just a few things to bring to your attention. Congress makes the laws, so if President Obama was saddled with this huge deficit and had no choice but to accept it, please be aware that the congress has been in the hands of the Democratic party for quite some time."


And your point is what? 91 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for those bailouts in 2008.

Once the money is allocated by Congress and is either handed over or is sitting in trust accounts, it cannot be recalled, not even by executive order of the President, not that Obama would have attempted to do so. The bailouts were necessary to prevent a total collapse of this nation's financial system and most people understand that simple fact.


"People seem to be confused about our president. He is not a liberal. Liberals, just like conservatives share the idea of earning money and amassing wealth. The centrist and liberal population voted for a man that presented himself as one of them. The truth came out once the election was over. Our president is a leftist. He wants to take our hard earned wealth and distribute it. Give it to someone that had no hand in the hard work of generations of AMERICANS."


Yada...yada...yada. You're just singing another stanza of a silly song. The man to date has not imposed, or had imposed on his behalf so much as one cent more in taxes upon a soul who resides in this country, and you people keep spewing that utter nonsense.

Folks like yourself are too ignorant to understand just what would have happened had the financial bailouts not taken place, had GM and Chrysler not been handed a lifeline, or had the unemployed people in this nation not been afforded more time to find a job and handed extended unemployment benefits.

Unemployment would have hit no less than 20%, the net worth of half of this country would have been wiped out, and there would have indeed been people literally dying in our streets. Bush and Obama did the right thing.

You, nor anyone else has paid one cent more as a result of the spending that seems to have some folks hyperventilating.


"I do not think the taxpaying American will re-elect this man. I do hope you come to understand why. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, it has to do with the survival of America as a country. If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. We don't need any more problems."


Mark my word. There is not a Republican who can begin to stand toe to toe with our current President.

Good luck in 2018.

June 12, 2010 at 12:15 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

That Manning video is the perfect example of all that is embodied by Clay's cartoon. I cannot believe that anyone would actually take the rants of Manning seriously. "White folks is going to rise up and riot." The man could barely contain his laughter. And despite working himself up to some self justified lather, he really didn't express whatever the heck it is about Obama that he is upset about. Maybe he didn't get an invite to the White House. Who knows. But I know that this white folk isn't going to fall under Manning's "power" of suggestion. Ludicrous.

I do find myself oddly agreeing with one of Manning's beliefs...Harlam should be given back to it's original inhabitants. Go ahead...give it back to the Dutch!

Good grief, indian, surely you aren't serious?

shutmymouth, that was the most intelligent thing that I've seen posted in a loonnnnggggg time.

June 12, 2010 at 12:21 a.m.
Clara said...

Rolando,

I, too, have posted something irrelevant to the shown cartoon.

It was done because I could not access the comment section on the proper blog. I think it was the Dave and Golly Cartoon.

I am still having trouble and often have to hit the refresh button 3 times before a blog end finally appears, and is liable to hold up even then, even on a short blog.

I've spent 1/2 hour trying to comment.

Stop nit-picking.

June 12, 2010 at 12:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Indian, get a grip.

The ONLY incident that comes close to what you wrote occurred on May the 5th of this year, when five students attending Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, were sent home for wearing t-shirts with depictions of American flags on them. Prior notice was given to every student that for that one day only, no apparel by anyone would depict the flag of either nation.

No American Flag has been taken down from any school anywhere in this nation without good reason...period. If someone snapped a photo of a flag not on a pole, it would have been taken down due to local weather conditions.

In 2006, demonstrating students, not those in attendance of the Montbello High School, located in California, DID take down the American flag, hoist up a Mexican flag, and then turned the American flag upside-down and raised it to a point just below the Mexican flag. That picture has made the rounds around the net, and it is real.

But, as you should know, Mr. Obama was not President then. You can't pin that one on him either.

President Obama has done nothing that even comes close to an impeachable offense. Hold your breath though, if it will make you feel better.

President Obama has made it clear as a bell that he believes in preserving 2nd Amendment rights and has no plans to take away any guns from those who lawfully own them.

Every student in any American school has the right to pray as often as they feel the need to. There simply is no ORGANIZED prayer rituals held in our schools any longer, due to the fact that there are too many religious platforms in this nation.

On March 11, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to "God," in public schools, DOES NOT violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state.

No school system in this nation that I am aware of, has banned the Pledge of Allegiance from their curriculum, and at least for now, they will continue to include the phrase "under God" as we all have since 1954.

I hate to break this to you, but most of the people who voted for President Obama were lily white. In fact, 45% of the votes cast for the President were from white folks like myself. The only truth to what you claim above, is that it has been estimated that of the African-Americans who cast votes in 2008, 95% of them voted for Obama. People of all races voted for the man. Collectively, 53% of those who voted, voted for Obama.


"One thing about this great country,you have a right to your opinion and I have the right to mine."


Yep...you sure are entitled to your opinion, even if is an ignorant one.


"In November we are going to weed out most of Obama's puppets and in 2012 it will be Obama's turn to leave."


Good luck with that. It's not gonna happen.

June 12, 2010 at 3:26 a.m.
alprova said...

SavartiTn quoted: "I cannot believe that anyone would actually take the rants of Manning seriously. "White folks is going to rise up and riot." The man could barely contain his laughter."


The first time I watched that "sermon," I DID bust out laughing.

I couldn't find anything solid, but I'd bet my left arm that the man was snubbed by the President at some point in his past, which earned the President the nickname "Mac-Daddy Long Legs" by Manning.

Funny stuff.

June 12, 2010 at 3:38 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Dear alprova, Please allow me to spew just a little more of my ignorance and then please respond with your superior intellect. Your reference to the 2008 bank bailout with the 91 republicans. How much was it for and what isle did the republicans cross? I would like you to bring us up to speed on GM and Chrysler. The GM rhetoric in their commerical was that they paid back $5 billion to the feds ahead of schedule. Please tell us how much federal money is still invested in GM. In other words who is the majority stock holder. Also please give us a timetable for repayment. Please also tell us what happened to all the retired GM retirees and their benefits? Also what changes to current and future employees. As to Chrysler, tell us what happened to the Chrysler stock holders after the feds stepped in and helped the sale to Fiat along. Also changes to employee salary and benefits. Also was half the countries net worth invested in Chrysler and GM as you stated or did I read that wrong. Also, did we as taxpayers bailout GM and Chrysler because they were to big to file for bankruptcy protection so they in turn could go file for bankruptcy protection? Lets move on to taxes. My taxes have gone up and I, as an ignorant person as you state, fully expect them to continue to go up. With the mass infusion of cash to the states through the stimulis plan, most states have already spent the money allocated to those states for next year. Perhaps you have heard 1500 education positions were cut in the Atlanta School District for the coming year. Furlough days are included at almost all government departments. Please explain to us po ignorant folk alprova, how much is our deficit and when will we start to repay it and how will we repay it??? Then i wont be ignorant no mo. I anxiously await you reply. XXX OOO

June 12, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Whatsthefuss wrote: "Dear alprova, Please allow me to spew just a little more of my ignorance and then please respond with your superior intellect."


I'll do my best.


"Your reference to the 2008 bank bailout with the 91 republicans. How much was it for and what isle did the republicans cross?"


As I stated earlier, the bailout package was for a total of $1.84 Trillion dollars that was spent or put into escrow accounts to bail out financial institutions.

You claimed that the bailouts were strictly due to the efforts of the Democrats, and that is simply not the case. The bailouts in 2008 were a bi-partisan effort, with 91 Republicans voting in favor along with a majority of Democrats.


"I would like you to bring us up to speed on GM and Chrysler. The GM rhetoric in their commerical was that they paid back $5 billion to the feds ahead of schedule. Please tell us how much federal money is still invested in GM."


GM paid $2 Billion from their own accounts, then took $4.7 Billion from $50.6 Billion in TARP funds that were being held in escrow.

GM has to date only borrowed $4.7 Billion to clear the initial $6.7 Billion dollar Bush Administration loan off the books. It was a completely legal transaction because the TARP escrow funds were there for GM to use at they deemed necessary to run their business.

There is currently a balance of $45.3 Billion in TARP funds in escrow.

So where exactly do they stand at the moment? Their stock tanked a year ago at 6 cents a share. Today, it's worth 52 cents a share. They currently have $193 Billion in immediate liquid assets.


"In other words who is the majority stock holder. Also please give us a timetable for repayment."


GM repaid the $6.7 billion that the government considered loans. The remaining $43.3 billion was converted to a 61 percent ownership stake, or collateral if you will.

When GM goes public again, the Government will sell their stake in the company back to GM for cash. That transaction is expected to take place by the end of this year or early next year. During the first quarter of last year, GM lost $6 billion dollars. Their first quarter earnings this year was $865 million.


"Please also tell us what happened to all the retired GM retirees and their benefits?"


To pay off its shareholders, including the government, a United Auto Workers union health care trust and its old bondholders, the stock market would have to value GM at more than $70 billion.


"Also what changes to current and future employees."


I think that is rather obvious -- They still have a job.

(To be continued)

June 12, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.
alprova said...

(continued)

"As to Chrysler, tell us what happened to the Chrysler stock holders after the feds stepped in and helped the sale to Fiat along."


The stock tanked to nothing, just as GM's did. Chrysler however, was bought by a private enterprise, and a foreign interest at that. Fiat did not offer, nor were they obligated to make anything good to prior shareholders. That Sir, is the risk of investing in any enterprise that goes bankrupt.


"Also changes to employee salary and benefits."


I have no clue. That information has not been released to the public, as far as I can ascertain. I'm rather sure however that those workers are not and will not be receiving what they once did, which is perfectly understandable, considering that the company was salvaged and bought for dimes on the dollar.


"Also was half the countries net worth invested in Chrysler and GM as you stated or did I read that wrong."


Uh...no. I have no idea where you are getting that from.


"Also, did we as taxpayers bailout GM and Chrysler because they were to big to file for bankruptcy protection so they in turn could go file for bankruptcy protection?"


GM and Chrysler were saved to preserve tens of thousands of jobs that would have otherwise been lost forever.


"Lets move on to taxes. My taxes have gone up and I, as an ignorant person as you state, fully expect them to continue to go up."


The only possible reason that you would have paid any more in the form of taxes, would be due to an increase in your income. Otherwise, you are lying through the tips of your fingers. Not one person in this country has experienced any tax rate increase since President Obama took office.


"With the mass infusion of cash to the states through the stimulis plan, most states have already spent the money allocated to those states for next year."


And?


"Perhaps you have heard 1500 education positions were cut in the Atlanta School District for the coming year. Furlough days are included at almost all government departments."


And that is easily explained by the fact that high unemployment rates result in a diminished amount of revenue going into Government coffers.


"Please explain to us po ignorant folk alprova, how much is our deficit and when will we start to repay it and how will we repay it???"


The same way it was paid down after WWII, when the deficit was much higher, when adjusted for inflation, and when there were far fewer people paying taxes.

If you earn more than $250,000 a year, you can expect a tax rate increase to occur at some point in the future. No one has made a secret of that.

Prior to 1987, people in the top tax bracket paid a rate of 50% of their earnings in taxes. If you earn less than $250,000 a year, you have nothing to fear.

It's just that simple.

June 12, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.
alprova said...

Indian wrote: "Alprova,since you are so up to date on all of "your" presidents actions,you need to go to www.nra-ila.org and get the facts on your claim of the Second Amendment!"


Look you Bozo, I am a card carrying NRA member. The ONLY issue related to gun ownership that the President has ever weighed in on, was to state several years ago that he was not comfortable with any law that would allow conceal/carry on a Federal level, and neither am I.

There are several lawmakers who have introduced a handful of bills to amend gun laws, but they are acting on their own. Take up your complaints with them. They are not Obamabots.


"Approva this comment section should be re-named as the "Alprova's comments."It seems you have nothing better to do than remark on every one's comment.Out of all of these comments you have 15 of them and we all see that Obama is your "idol" and you have no open mind or common since."


If that is a problem for you, then don't read my comments.


"We should never be banned from displaying the American flag in any way we choose.Not for 1 day or even 1 second!Do you think another country would take down their flag and replace it with ours?I can tell you #&%^ NO!"


Hey...if you want to be a flaggot, more power to you. I don't wrap my life around the American flag or any other flag.

Asking all students to refrain from wearing t-shirts with ANY flag on them for one day, is asking students to show respect for others, something that many in this country have all but forgotten how to do.


"I remember in the 1960's prayer was said over the intercom in school and then we recited the Pledge of Allegiance with our hand over our heart.Now,tell me about what has been taken from us because of offending some one.No don't tell me,I have heard enough of you and your stupid remarks."


It's not just your world. It's not just your country. In fact, it never was. You are among many people, with many different religious beliefs, and no one gets to dictate theirs over another in public institutions, including our public schools.

How hard is that for you and others like you to understand?


"I am done...I was hoping that I could bring every one's attention to what Obama is doing to our country.It looks like no one cares what happens and every thing I say is wrong.85% of this country is not pleased with Obama and it looks like the 15% that is pleased is on this comment section.Good-bye Obama lovers,you can have him!"


I can't speak for others, but I love a good discussion with anyone, as long as they can stick to debating the facts and the truth.

No one's trying to run you off, but if that's how you feel, don't let the door smack you on your fanny.

June 12, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Dear alprova. This is from your post. The second paragraph has the reference to half of our net worth."alprova" Folks like yourself are too ignorant to understand just what would have happened had the financial bailouts not taken place, had GM and Chrysler not been handed a lifeline, or had the unemployed people in this nation not been afforded more time to find a job and handed extended unemployment benefits.

Unemployment would have hit no less than 20%, the net worth of half of this country would have been wiped out, and there would have indeed been people literally dying in our streets. Bush and Obama did the right thing. Heath insurance benefits are going to be added to our gross earned wages with the health care reform. If your employer dosen't offer it, pay the premium of the penalty. My property taxes did go up last year and I do expect them to go up again this year. It is all trickling down from the top. Our roads are crumbling and where are the funds to replace or repair? With less federal money the buck must come from somewhere. My comment to the democratic controlled congress was just that. If you didn't like the bailout packages look to your fellow dems. PS. President Obama, when a congressman voted for every one of President Bush's, as you like to call them, bailouts. He also continues to run record deficits and the end is nowhere in sight. As to GM and Chrysler, this was nothing more than a payback to the unions for election support to the current administration. At the rate GM is making money with many of its obligations wiped clean I don't see us getting our money back anytime soon. I for one could have cared less if GM and Chrysler went the way of the chopping block. Let the leaner union free car manufactures pave the way. Detroit caused their own problems with outrageous demands from union leadership. I think wall street should have also been kicked to the curb. The belief that we would have all died without them is laughable. We saved one and let the other one go?? Please explain. It's my ignorance again! As you stated with the Chrysler shareholders, its part of playing the game. Whats good for the GOOSE, you know. As to $250,000 earnings and less, no tax hike,,,, We will see. Lets save that for tax time in a few years. It's been fun. I hope to see you again soon on Al Gore's invention. It's a great thing he did!!! Here is a little Wall Street Humor for this fine Saturday!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC0qc...

June 12, 2010 at 1:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Whatsthefuss wrote: "Heath insurance benefits are going to be added to our gross earned wages with the health care reform."


Nope...the proposal being bantered about in Congress is to impose an excise tax of 40 percent on the portion of any policy, paid for by any employer on the behalf of a workers that costs more than $8,500 for individuals or $23,000 for families. Less than ten percent of the people in this nation would be affected, if that proposal is passed.


"My property taxes did go up last year and I do expect them to go up again this year. It is all trickling down from the top."


Property taxes are received by the county and/or state you live in. The US Government does not see a dime of them.


"Our roads are crumbling and where are the funds to replace or repair? With less federal money the buck must come from somewhere."


When times are good, the money flows freely to pave the roads. When times are bad, they patch the holes.


"My comment to the democratic controlled congress was just that. If you didn't like the bailout packages look to your fellow dems. PS. President Obama, when a congressman voted for every one of President Bush's, as you like to call them, bailouts."


I don't have a problem with the bailouts. Obama absolutely did vote in favor of those bailouts. They had to be done.


"He also continues to run record deficits and the end is nowhere in sight."


It'll all work out. It took years to get here. It'll take years to get out of it.


"As to GM and Chrysler, this was nothing more than a payback to the unions for election support to the current administration."


Do you REALLY think that there are enough union members left in this country that can make or break a Presidential election?

There are only just over a million currently working and retired UAW members in this country. That's a very small slice of the American population.


"At the rate GM is making money with many of its obligations wiped clean I don't see us getting our money back anytime soon."


Their obligations have not been wiped clean, by no stretch of anyone's imagination.

The fact of the matter is that they will fulfill their obligations, they will be going public sometime within the next year, they will repurchase their outstanding stock being held by the Government, and everyone will be happy as a clam.


"I think wall street should have also been kicked to the curb. The belief that we would have all died without them is laughable. We saved one and let the other one go?? Please explain."


Hundreds of institutions were saved. Had nothing been done, not only would have the retirement plans of millions in this nation been wiped out, the bank accounts of millions would have been wiped out too. Imagine having to wait months for a check from the FDIC to replace what you lost.

June 12, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

ALPROVA, Once you stop your name calling and respond to what is asked you seem like a very nice person. My comment on GM"s obligations were in reference to them getting out from under the financial problems associated with the retirement & health care. It seems to be the achilles heel surrounding many of our financial problems today. Is it true that the new health care plan also includes a real estate sales tax of over 3%? One more question and I'll let it be. I'm only asking for your opinion. Do you think with the loss of American production over the last 20 years along with the financial trickery of the financial institutions that we will ever recover and bring the youth of today a chance at the American Dream? I've enjoyed the banter. Have a nice day!!!

June 12, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Whatsthefuss wrote: " My comment on GM"s obligations were in reference to them getting out from under the financial problems associated with the retirement & health care. It seems to be the achilles heel surrounding many of our financial problems today. Is it true that the new health care plan also includes a real estate sales tax of over 3%?"


That's a new one on me. No where have I read of such a proposal being part of the health care plan.

But you know what? It's not entirely a BAD idea. It ought to be discussed as an alternative to taxing income.


"Do you think with the loss of American production over the last 20 years along with the financial trickery of the financial institutions that we will ever recover and bring the youth of today a chance at the American Dream?"


I'm going to be perfectly honest. When I look around and see how much it seems that everyone is seeking the shortcut to amass wealth, taking no prisoners, and not caring who they stomp on to do it, I get very discouraged.

I'm well aware that our current President is not viewed very well by many people, but he honest to God gives me hope that some of what ails this nation can be reversed for the benefit of most Americans, even over the objections of many.

I am absolutely for Capitalism, but the way things were going, it was going to choke this country to death, and it almost did. I pray on daily that the Republicans, in their current mindset that is, do not regain control of our Government for many years to come.

I do hold hope for our future generations. I have many opportunities to interact with those much younger than I am, and am encouraged by the fact that they are not all budding Capitalists who only worship green dollars. Most of them care about people. I hope that remains to be the case as they assume leadership roles in our communities.

I apologize for my calling you any names. I try not to do that, but it's easy to slip into that mode when discussions become passionate.

June 12, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.
alprova said...

Indian wrote: "Alprova,you are NOT a N.R.A card carrying member,if you were you would not be in love with Obama."


I AM a member and I like our President. The two are not exclusive or inclusive of each other, despite your personal assessment.


"If you are a member of the N.R.A you would know about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty,this is about taking guns from everyone in the United States and Obama is behind that!!!"


The UN does not want to confiscate firearms from any American. What they do want to do, however, is to make it more difficult for guerrilla armies, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, The Bush Administration opposed the treaty process. Why? Because the United States is among the world's largest exporter of small arms.

The issue at hand is TRADE, not confiscation. American firearm manufacturers are screaming to the sky because if trade restrictions are imposed, they stand to lose millions or even billions of dollars in sales to foreign customers.

So how better to get people to cry fowl, than to put out a false story that the Small Arms Treaty is all about confiscating guns from Americans? It's a lie.

And unless I missed something, the NRA is not spreading that particular lie. This is the work of the National Association of Gun Rights, which is nothing more than a blogger, and a VERY ignorant one at that.

Here: Read it for yourself. The NRA is well aware that there is widespread misinformation being circulated regarding the issue;

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5843

NRA: "We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue."


"You would also know about all of the bills Obama is trying to pass that affects our gun rights.You need to go back to the N.R.A web site and have some one read it to you again.You didn't listen the first time and have forgot every thing you heard."


No President writes legislation. Legislators write legislation. If you have any information that the President is attempting in any manner to prevent you or anyone else who is legally and lawfully allowed to own a gun, then I urge you to post a link to it. You sure won't find it on the NRA website.


"I am a handgun permit holder and a LIFE member of the N.R.A.We should have the right to carry every where we go.We are law abiding citizens,NOT CRIMINALS!We also won the right to carry in places that serves alcohol and I hope that burns you up!"


Why would it? I conceal and carry myself with all the proper permits in place that allows me to do so. I don't want it to be something permitted on any Federal level, nor do I want the Federal Government to be in charge of the permitting process.

June 12, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.