GOP congressman apologizes to BP for '$20 billion shakedown' | Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0617/gop-congressman-apologizes-to-bp-for-20-billion-shakedown/)


During a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) called the $20 billion escrow fund that BP has promised to establish a "shakedown" and apologized to BP Tony Hayward.

It gets worse:

Following his statement earlier Thursday that the $20 billion fund amounted to a "shakedown" of BP, Barton found himself under attack not only from Vice-President Joe Biden and other Democrats, but from other Republicans as well. A Florida Republican has called for Barton to step down as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Barton = Former Energy and Commerce Committee
Oil + Gas Industry = Donations to Barton of nearly $1.5 million
Barton speaks out against fines for BP ruining American jobs and devastating the environment...

Well done looking out for lining your pockets!

Hello NK:

Yup. The Republicans are BOUGHT and PAID for by corporate America. No more evidence is needed than Joe Bartons' sad commentary.. He apologized TO BP for what WE'RE doing to THEM. Can you believe that??

You KNOW, of course, he wants the TAXPAYER to bail BP out. I thought the wingers were against bailouts, and corporate welfare - except when they're not... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

You guys need to think some serious reform concerning "donations". Your politicians (esp the repubs) no longer represent their constituency but are in it for the gravy train. It must be frustrating for you guys.

Yeah it is bad form and bad pr.;politically tone deaf. I think Bob Ethridge should give him a beat-down.

But he's essentially correct. It is a shakedown ;typical Chi-town politics . You think not ? All of this was “negotiated” while Attorney General Eric Holder, who has already threatened BP with criminal prosecution, sat in the corner watching . Jamie Gorelick was sitting at the negotiation table too (supposedly representing BP... HAAAA! ) . I wonder what her role was .

And he is also right that just like TARP . It will be used as a slush fund.Does anyone have an accounting of where all the bucket-list stimulus funding went ? Come on VP Biden give us the details !

I wonder if the President plans to make BP pay for the hardship he has caused by his moratorium on drilling ?

I guess neither of you noticed that the GOP leadership was quick to criticize Barton's comment. Dems are just as beholden to corporate interests - not to mention unions - so let's stop pretending this is mostly a GOP problem.

I thought the wingers were against bailouts, and corporate welfare
And I thought you were for due process and contract law.

Dems are just as beholden to corporate interests
Obama was a big benefactor of BP money .

Here is BP's negotiator at the shakedown..


After leaving the Justice Department, Gorelick served for six years as vice chairwoman of Fannie Mae and got caught up in the mortgage agency’s accounting controversy. In 2005, two years after Gorelick left Fannie Mae, a federal investigation into the public-private mortgage company found that accountants had falsified signatures to erase $9 billion in losses from the books. Eliminating those losses resulted in Gorelick and four other Fannie Mae executives taking away six- and seven-figure bonuses in 1998.

The federal investigation found that Gorelick was paid more than $25 million during her time at Fannie, and the huge compensation received by Fannie Mae executives later became a major issue in Congress.
Jamie Gorelick's new challenge: Backing BP - Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38645.html#ixzz0r89rgERb)

I guess neither of you noticed that the GOP leadership was quick to criticize Barton's comment. Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I noticed, but the cat's out of the bag. The majority of the GOP AGREE with Barton, as tom so eloquently explained above. The only reason he HAD to apologize is because the leadership doesn't want the public to know what they REALLY think.

But, in the main, I don't disagree with you about the Democrats. They're bought and paid for too... But, if I were to guess which party is MORE in the pockets of big business, I'd have to say the Republicans...

Uhhhh... And, it's going to get WORSE - not BETTER, since Citizens United.

excon

And I thought you were for due process and contract law.Hello again, tom:

I am... But, if a settlement can be reached BEFORE lawsuits are filed, I'm for that too.

Again, what we we have here is a failure to communicate. What I call a settlement, you call a shakedown. What I call end of life counseling, you call a death panel. What I call the legislative process, you call ramming down throats...

One of us is speaking reality. The other is fudging.

excon

But, in the main, I don't disagree with you about the Democrats. They're bought and paid for too... But, if I were to guess which party is MORE in the pockets of big business, I'd have to say the Republicans...

I'd have to say it goes in cycles. Right now they're betting on the GOP, in the 2008 cycle they were betting on Dems. But of the top 10 'heavy hitters,' (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) six are unions, one is Democratic PAC, one is the former Association of Trial Lawyers, and another is Goldman Sachs, which all heavily favor Dems.

AT&T, the biggest contributor, and the National Assn of Realtors, split theirs fairly evenly. That means 8 of the top 10 donors heavily favor Democrats.


Uhhhh... And, it's going to get WORSE - not BETTER, since Citizens United.

If you ask me it's worse now that we have a president in permanent campaign mode trying to exploit the very crisis he's been so impotent on.

You guys are right about one thing . Any corporation that thinks they are buying anything when they give money to a politician is delusional. BP thought they had Obama in their pockets even though he has a history of hostility to all business. Bad move !

Actually let me amend this slightly . What BP bought with Obama contributions is rubber stamped permit revisions the week before the explosion.

What I call end of life counseling, you call a death panel.

No one is against end of life counseling unless it's forced on someone which is exactly what those writing the regulations favor, along with deciding which treatments they'll allow during end of life care. The fact is, these people want the kind of health care you get in say, Belgium.

Warning to Britain as almost half of Belgium's euthanasia nurses admit to killing without consent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html#ixzz0rDbTYEcv)

You guys are right about one thing . Any corporation that thinks they are buying anything when they give money to a politician is delusional. BP thought they had Obama in their pockets Hello again, tom:

Well, when it came down to the taxpayers and the poor people in the gulf, OR BP, BP got thrown under the bus. Bummer for them, huh? But, as you infer, no Republican would have done it. When a Republican is bought and paid for, he STAYS bought.

And, it's going to get worse since Citizens United.

excon

Yes the President was so concerned about the "poor people of the gulf " that he prevented the building of barrier berms ;the swift deployment of booms and the use of foreign ships designed to suck the oil from the water during oil spills.
He is so concerned about the "poor people of the gulf " that he imposed a moratorium on drilling forcing thousands of them onto unemployment .

And, it's gonna get worse since Citizens United.

And the Dem's answer to that would have trampled free speech rights. But fortunately, too much bickering led to Pelosi yanking the bill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38698.html). It's kind of hard to deciding who has rights and who doesn't after all.

And the Dem's answer to that would have trampled free speech rights.Hello again, Steve:

Ok, I buy your argument. SEIU is NOT a person, and is NOT entitled to free speech rights any longer. People are. Here's the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I know what it says. I know you think it says something else.

I'll make THIS concession, though. If corporations have the same rights as people, they should suffer the same punishments people do when they violate other people rights. I know a corporation can now be found guilty of a felony - but NOBODY goes to jail.

Therefore, I propose that in the future, if a corporation commits a felony, every single employee in that corporation should go to the slam. Rights come with responsibilities.

excon

I know a corporation can now be found guilty of a felony - but NOBODY goes to jail.

Then perhaps you need to change the sentencing guidelines. (http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/CHAP8.htm) Meanwhile, convicted agents of corporations to go to jail for felonies.

SKILLING GETS 24 YEARS IN PRISON FOR ENRON FRAUD (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/enron/4279719.html)

2 from Enron receive prison assignments (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/enron/4467895.html)

Fraud Case Tied to Enron Ends in Prison for 3 Men (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23natwest.html)

Ex-Tyco executives get up to 25 years in prison (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9399803/)

Ex-Qwest CEO given six years in prison (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19996449/)

Adelphia founder gets 15-year term; son gets 20 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8291040/)

Former WorldCom chief, 63 years-old, could spend the rest of his life in prison.
(http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/13/news/newsmakers/ebbers_sentence/)
Bernie Madoff of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was sentenced to 150 years.


Therefore, I propose that in the future, if a corporation commits a felony, every single employee in that corporation should go to the slam. Rights come with responsibilities.

Never one to shy away from the ridiculous, eh?

Hello again, Steve:

I was careful to distinguish between individuals and corporations. You weren't. In fact, that's actually the BASIS for our disagreement - your inability to make that distinction.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I was careful to distinguish between individuals and corporations. You weren't. In fact, that's actually the BASIS for our disagreement - your inability to make that distinction.

I believe I was making that distinction, "convicted agents of corporations." And that's why I linked to the sentencing guidelines:


The guidelines and policy statements in this chapter apply when the convicted defendant is an organization. Organizations can act only through agents and, under federal criminal law, generally are vicariously liable for offenses committed by their agents. At the same time, individual agents are responsible for their own criminal conduct. Federal prosecutions of organizations therefore frequently involve individual and organizational co-defendants. Convicted individual agents of organizations are sentenced in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements in the preceding chapters. This chapter is designed so that the sanctions imposed upon organizations and their agents, taken together, will provide just punishment, adequate deterrence, and incentives for organizations to maintain internal mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and reporting criminal conduct.

There is no "just punishment" in sending every employee of a corporation like Enron to jail. Those responsible WERE sent to jail in every instance I cited, but there is no justice in punishing the guy taking out the trash because the CEO broke the law. The CEO goes to jail, the company is fined or whatever, and life goes on.

Well, when it came down to the taxpayers and the poor people in the gulf, OR BP, BP got thrown under the bus.
Did they ? This could be a $20 bil.insurance policy on their survival. The President may have just made a foreign company too big to fail. After all ;the cash cow dries up pretty quickly if their undevalued stock and vulnerable position leads to a hostile takeover by... oh ,let's say Gazprom ,PDV ,Sinopec . Good luck collecting on the legitimate settlements then.

This could be a $20 bil.insurance policy on their survival. The President may have just made a foreign company too big to fail. Hello tom:

He did?? Filthy communist...

excon

Another example of looking out for the "poor people of the gulf .
BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379)

another example of looking out for the "poor people of the gulf .
BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379)From the article:

The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.
...
The barges finally got the go-ahead Thursday to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.Didn't seem to be the big issue that you made it out to be.

That takes about 5 minutes and doesn't have to shut the operation down to accomplish . It's nuts to shut down a clean up effort ;one of the few so far that actually is working .

Double post

Hello again, tom:

I must admit, I'm dumbfounded by you guys... You are pissed at Obama for apologizing for, say TORTURE, or KILLING civilians... But, APOLOGIZING to BP for making them PAY for what they DID is cool...

Really... You guys are something else...

excon

PS> Did I see Barton BOW to Hayworth?? I think I DID!!

You know... I don't believe Obama actually apologized for "torture" . It was more like he apoligized for our existence.

He apologized for things like the US “failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world”. “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” [/I]

On Al Arabiya ,broadcast to the whole ummah ,he compared the US to a colonial power .

He apolgized to the UN for our "acting alone " ,and for "opposition to specific policies "

I'm sure there are many more I can't immediately recall.

No I don't accept that he is speaking for me when grovels.

Nor do I say that BP deserved to be apologized to . I only say that Barton was correct when he described what happened at the White House as a "shakedown ".

What would've happened if BP didn't agree... a horse's head in the bed of Carl-Henric Svanberg, and Tony Hayward Would Obama take over BP ala Hugo Chavez ?

You are the one who complained about abuse of executive authority when the President is defending the nation against jihadistan .And evidently you don't think he should exercise them to expidite the cleanup .But you are OK with the President going around the law and arbitrarily deciding how much money a privately owned company has to give the government and then tell it there is no choice other than to do it.

Who made him the judge ,jury and executioner ?

But you are ok with the President going around the law and arbitrarily deciding how much money a privately owned company has to give the government and then tell it there is no choice other than to do it.

Who made him the judge ,jury and executioner ?Hello again, tom:

Again, what I call a settlement, you call a shakedown. It WAS agreed to, of course. That would mean it WASN'T mandated, and WASN'T arbitrary as you would infer. I'm surprised you didn't use the popular smear of the day, and say he "rammed it down their throats"..

And, before a lawsuit is filed, there is NO law that says the president CAN'T negotiate on our behalf. If I'm wrong, show me the law that he went around... You can't, of course.

Look. This is real simple... If somebody crashes into your car, are you allowed to negotiate a settlement with them, or MUST you file a lawsuit? You can settle?? Really?? Who made you judge, jury and executioner?? Dude!

excon

Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness.
Yeah that's the language of someone looking to negotiate a settlement . Sounds more like an "offer he can't refuse" .


You can tell me right now that the Holder criminal investigation has ceased ? That there will be no prosecution , grand jury indictment ,trial (beyond the ridiculous Congressional Stalinist show trial) I don't think so .By what authority does he demand that BP suspend divident payments ? This is worse that what happened to GM and Chrysler .

I still have heard no denial about the claim that BP will have to pay compensation to workers who are unemployed right now only because the President declared a moratorium on drilling.

You the civil libertarian should be appalled at the lack of due process. Just because the President was able to strong arm and intimidate Bp into caving to his demands doesn't mean he had the legal authority to do so.

Hello again, tom:

Again, what I call a settlement, you call a shakedown. It WAS agreed to, of course. That would mean it WASN'T mandated, and WASN'T arbitrary as you would infer. I'm surprised you didn't use the popular smear of the day, and say he "rammed it down their throats"..

And, before a lawsuit is filed, there is NO law that says the president CAN'T negotiate on our behalf. If I'm wrong, show me the law that he went around... You can't, of course.

Look. This is real simple... If somebody crashes into your car, are you allowed to negotiate a settlement with them, or MUST you file a lawsuit?? You can settle??? Really??? Who made you judge, jury and executioner????? Dude!

excon

This is the law that he bypassed on his way to making BP pay more.

The 1990 Oil Protection Act - $75 Million Cap
The Oil Protection Act was part of the federal government's response to the 1989 Exxon Valdez catastrophe in Alaska. The Act requires oil companies to have a plan for preventing spills from occurring and for cleaning up oil spills should they occur. It also caps damages from oil spills at $75 million in many cases.

Ref:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oG77WZIB1MptUAfe9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzY2diYzE 3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0g1NjdfMTM3/SIG=11j55klup/EXP=1277063705/**http%3a//epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf

Yeah that's the language of someone looking to negotiate a settlement . Sounds more like an "offer he can't refuse" .


you can tell me right now that the Holder criminal investigation has ceased ? That there will be no prosecution , grand jury indictment ,trial (beyond the rediculous Congressional Stalinist show trial) I don't think so .By what authority does he demand that BP suspend divident payments ? This is worse that what happened to GM and Chrysler .

I still have heard no denial about the claim that BP will have to pay compensation to workers who are unemployed right now only because the President declared a moratorium on drilling.

You the civil libertarian should be appalled at the lack of due process. Just because the President was able to strong arm and intimidate Bp into caving to his demands doesn't mean he had the legal authority to do so.

We don't know what really went on in these negotiations. The 20 billion does have some benefits for both parties.

BP can certainly afford it. Their stock can stabilize now that uncertainty about payments is less. I would hazard a guess that 20 billion is pennies on the dollar as to real costs [ lives lost, jobs lost, environmental damage, cleanup costs etc ], so they are getting off rather cheaply in my opinion.

The administration benefits by getting funding to help stop the leak, clean up and help restore lives and the environment. That is what I want, what most Americans want; action, a plan,/ not more talks or conferences or studies. This is day >50 of this catastrophe.

What is the alternative? Endless lawsuits, appeals, investigations. Nothing
Will get done NOW. BP may declare bankruptcy and not have 20 billion to give?




G&P

Not defending BP, but isn't the accused innocent until proven guilty?

Let's let BP get the hole plugged and THEN investigate whether laws were broken or whether it was JUST an accident.

For our government to threaten felony charges before we even know why the rig blew up looks like plain old extortion to me.

The harmed get to split up $20 billion? Good. Will it be enough? Who knows.

But as Ex ususally argues, the end does not always justify the means.

BP can certainly afford it. Their stock can stabilize now that uncertainty about payments is less. I would hazard a guess that 20 billion is pennies on the dollar as to real costs [ lives lost, jobs lost, environmental damage, cleanup costs etc ], so they are getting off rather cheaply in my opinion.


The $20 bil in the President's words was "a good down payment".


That is what I want, what most Americans want; action, a plan,/ not more talks or conferences or studies.

Yes that's what we all want. So why is the President involved in the side-show ?


What is the alternative? Endless lawsuits, appeals, investigations.
Or in other words, the legal process for remedying the economic cost of someone else’s negligence.


Let me be clear about BP .I hope they go belly up when this is settled. A long time ago we should've cut off all business to them when they didn't go along voluntarily with our Iranian embargoes.
But what the President did has no legal authority. If you told me a judge ordered BP to set aside the $20 bil I'd have no issue with it.

But handing over the money to President so a political crony can administer it without any guidelines is worse than TARP . At least Congress approved the blank check they gave Paulson.

This is the law that he bypassed on his way to making BP pay more.

The 1990 Oil Protection Act - $75 Million CapHello again, dad:

Nahhh. That's the law that WOULD have applied, should the courts have been involved... But, they weren't, and aren't going to be. That's GOOD for the recipients... VERY GOOD! It's actually GOOD for BP too. I'm sure that's why it happened.

Let me bring up the car crash scenario above. Let's say a guy crashed into your car, and you negotiated a settlement way above what his insurance would have paid, and way beyond what your car is worth. Had you chosen ANOTHER process, you would have gotten less. But, that didn't make what you did illegal.

Had the president CHOSEN another process, the people would have gotten less. However, he did what he did completely within the law.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Nahhh. That's the law that WOULD have applied, should the courts have been involved... But, they weren't, and aren't going to be. That's GOOD for the recipients... VERY GOOD!! It's actually GOOD for BP too. I'm sure that's why it happened.

Lemme bring up the car crash scenario above. Let's say a guy crashed into your car, and you negotiated a settlement way above what his insurance would have paid, and way beyond what your car is worth. Had you chosen ANOTHER process, you would have gotten less. But, that didn't make what you did illegal.

Had the president CHOSEN another process, the people would have gotten less. However, he did what he did completely within the law.

excon

Ok, Im game lets use your example. Then in making a deal there would be a settlement of some kind and papers would be signed and it ends there. That is mostly how settlements work. But in this case what the President did was arm twisting to get a blank check. And it is in no way a settlement of any kind. The people are still within their rights to sue BP for damages etc. So Im not seeing the settlement your talking about. Should BP now recoup funds for having the government stand in its way to the clean up or the capping of the well ?

Should BP now recoup funds for having the government stand in its way to the clean up or the capping of the well ?Hello again, dad:

When did the government do that?? I missed it.

excon

Hello again, dad:

When did the government do that??? I missed it.

excon

Just the other day they recalled all the ships taking in oil from the spill for inspection. They didn't have to do that. They could have done it while in port or out at sea. But instead they chose not to allow the oil to be pumped off. Why?

Just the other day they recalled all the ships taking in oil from the spill for inspection. They didnt have to do that. They could have done it while in port or out at sea. But instead they chose not to allow the oil to be pumped off. Why?See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2399837-post24.html

And then see my reply (#25)

And yet again, instead of being part of the solution the Feds are being a part of the problem.

Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging (http://www.wdsu.com/news/23997498/detail.html)

But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

I guess the fish and wildlife the berms will protect is of no concern .

Hello again:

I wonder, IF the position held by Joe Barton IS mirrored by MOST Republicans, why they're embarrassed by it, and why they keep tamping it down.

You guys aren't embarrassed, are you?

excon

Hello again:

I wonder, IF the position held by Joe Barton IS mirrored by MOST Republicans, why they're embarrassed by it, and why they keep tamping it down.

You guys aren't embarrassed, are you?

Excon


Nope... I call em' as I see em' .


And as you pointed out ,the Republican Study Committee said essentially the same thing.

Since Barton is retaining his position on the Energy Committee, I don't think the GOP is contrite . Barton is safe .Going to the woodshed was taking one for the team.

These apologies are postures.And the Dems Kabuki dance over-reaction is a distraction to hide a failed energy policy.

What is a shakedown ?
A shakedown is a stronger party ignoring good faith negotiations and instead forces a weaker party to bend to it's will.
There were ,as far as I can tell, no favorable terms at all offered to BP ;only the threat of further vilification if they didn't agree.


Shake down is the Chicago way. That is what the Blago trial is all about. Video shows Blago threatening the Tribune because they were doing negative editorals against him. So he told them he would hold back state help if they tried to sell the Cubbies unless they ceased .Racetrack executive John Johnston testified that Blago shook him down by demanding campaign donations in exchange for legislation supporting the racing industry.
Obama leaned from masters.

This will be repeated over and over. Now the executive dept takes over the role of the civil courts . The precedence is set . Any large scale industrial accident will be cause for a pseudo -nationizing of the company... a so called trust fund established that the President ,or his appointed flunkie determines who gets reimbursed ;bypassing the fair hearing in front of judge and jury. I'm surprised the Obots didn't use this model on Toyota. This bypasses the legal process ;and I can assure you ,investors in the American economy will take notice.

nope ...I call em' as I see em' .

I can assure you ,investors in the American economy will take notice.Hello again, tom:

At least it's clear, when it comes down big oil, or the people they harm, Republicans are on the side of big oil. I don't see nothing to be embarrassed about either. It's just the truth...

But, I'm thinking that if it got out that PEOPLE, who aren't in the INVESTOR class, AREN'T at the forefront of Republican policies, there'll be a mad rush for the exit. That's why they're embarrassed.

You're probably a member of that class, so I don't think you've been fooled. But, I'm talking about hard working people like Galveston, Inthebox, Smoothy, 450, and even Steve. The Republicans aren't looking out for them. Isn't Galveston on the Gulf? He's a victim. Does HE apologize to his attacker?? Maybe. Let's see.

excon

What is a shakedown ?
A shakedown is a stronger party ignoring good faith negotiations and instead forces a weaker party to bend to it's will.
There were ,as far as I can tell, no favorable terms at all offered to BP ;only the threat of further villification if they didn't agree.

What was it that both the Interior Secretary and the White House Press Secretary said, they'll keep their "boot on the throat" of BP? Who's that demanding BP set aside $20 billion for damages and assigning a czar to see to it BP's money gets distributed ASAP, Captain Kicka$$? No, there's no shakedown going on here. :rolleyes:

So what's your option, letting BP decide if any money gets spent on damages?

So what's your option, letting BP decide if any money gets spent on damages?Hello NK:

They're option is simply this. Let the damaged people file law suits and wait - probably for 10 years or more. The result? BP wins (wink, wink).

It's clear WHO'S side these guys are on, and it ISN'T the small businessmen, and the PEOPLE who are the VICTIMS of this disaster. They're on the side of the PERPETRATOR! They don't understand, that if somebody FOULED their own personal property, they'd be confronting 'em shot guns "shaking them down" for damages. What they WOULDN'T be doing, is filing a lawsuit.

excon

Nk did you read my reply ?

a so called trust fund established that the President ,or his appointed flunkie determines who gets reimbursed ;bypassing the fair hearing in front of judge and jury.

The process quoted and highlighted above is called the rule of law. That is how civil cases are decided .

But, I'm thinking that if it got out that PEOPLE, who aren't in the INVESTOR class

Yes I guess there are some of them left. But there are many people you champion who's pensions and retirement funds are at least partly invested in BP stock and bonds or funds containing them . Not everyone can afford to buy gold and silver and bury it in their yard.

So what's your option, letting BP decide if any money gets spent on damages?

No one is saying BP shouldn't be held accountable, but my government has no business keeping their "boot on the throat" and kicking a$$es here. Tom made the point here:


This will be repeated over and over. Now the executive dept takes over the role of the civil courts . The precedence is set . Any large scale industrial accident will be cause for a pseudo -nationizing of the company... a so called trust fund established that the President ,or his appointed flunkie determines who gets reimbursed ;bypassing the fair hearing in front of judge and jury. I'm surprised the Obots didn't use this model on Toyota. This bypasses the legal process ;and I can assure you ,investors in the American economy will take notice.

the process quoted above is called the rule of law. that is how civil cases are decided .Hello again, tom:

If you're going to cite the rule of law, do it correctly. Civil cases are decided according to the rule of law, UNLESS THERE'S A SETTLEMENT. In fact, MOST cases are settled LONG before a judge or jury gets involved. If you don't like the word settlement, try offer.

Yeah... But, it doesn't matter what it's called in the real world, because you people wouldn't get it anyway. After all, you call end of life counseling, a death panel... Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Oh I expect there are prosecutors like Elliot Spitzer ;Andrew Cuomo ,who abuse their power and strong arm some sort of settlement . I never thought you were one of those who would support that type of tactic.

But in most civil cases as I understand it the settlement is negotiated directly between the lawyers of the parties. The government (the judge) is not a party to the negotiations.

It's clear WHO'S side these guys are on, and it ISN'T the small businessmen, and the PEOPLE who are the VICTIMS of this disaster.

It's a good thing most people don't rely on you for clarity.

But in most civil cases as I understand it the settlement is negotiated directly between the lawyers of the parties. The government (the judge) is not a party to the negotiations.Hello again, tom:

I'm willing to use real English if you are. What happened here was jawboning, which IS a presidential tool, and a good faith offer, which BP absolutely may make. It ain't no more difficult than that.

excon

It's a good thing most people don't rely on you for clarity.Hello again, Steve:

So, clear it up for me. You're on the side of the victims or BP.. It ain't a hard choice. You got door number #1 or door number #2.

excon

So, clear it up for me. You're on the side of the victims or BP.. It ain't a hard choice. You got door number #1 or door number #2

I choose door number 3, fairness and the rule of law.

I choose door number 3, fairness and the rule of law.Hello again, Steve:

So, you've never heard of a perpetrator OFFERING up damages BEFORE he got sued? Really?? Welcome to the USA? Where are you? Ellis Island?? Dude!

I'd also suggest to you, Steve, that if BP didn't think the deal was fair, they can go to court. They really CAN. So, what ISN'T fair when you've got and offer, and acceptance of that offer??

Dudes. You guys don't get it, and you never will - that's because you think end of life counseling is a DEATH PANEL.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm willing to use real English if you are. What happened here was jawboning, which IS a presidential tool, and a good faith offer, which BP absolutely may make. It ain't no more difficult than that.

Excon

You call that real English .I call it spin. So you really think it was sitting down at a beer summit just using the power of reasonable persuasion.. the normal give and take of a negotiation ? The Godfather's "I'll make him a (good faith)offer he can't refuse " is simularily simple 'jaw jawing" then.

But ,when such "tools " are employed in the real world ,it is called extortion( in plain English... exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority. It may include threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure.).

exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority. It may include threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure.).Hello again, tom:

Wow! The Obamanator did all that? I missed it. When did all that happen?

But, it didn't happen, did it? You just like the word shakedown, and death panel, and stuff like that.

excon

It may include threats of physical harm...Liar.

Liar.
This was a dictionary definition moron

So, you've never heard of a perpetrator OFFERING up damages BEFORE he got sued? Really?? Welcome to the USA? Where are you? Ellis Island?? Dude!

Wow, you made a really huge leap there.


I'd also suggest to you, Steve, that if BP didn't think the deal was fair, they can go to court. They really CAN. So, what ISN'T fair when you've got and offer, and acceptance of that offer??

Here's the thing, I'm all for BP taking care of the whole stinkin' mess. I'm not fond of my government being a bunch of domestic jackbooted thugs looking for whose a$$ to kick, particularly while genuflecting to dictators and apologizing for America.

I'm not fond of my government being a bunch of domestic jackbooted thugs looking for whose a$$ to kick, particularly while genuflecting to dictators and apologizing for America.All Fox News talking points rolled up into one post, cool!

Of course the fact that it's an escrow fund shouldn't enter into your EXTORTION!!!!!!! debates.

All Fox News talking points rolled up into one post, cool!

Pretty cool that FNC gets its talking points from me, eh?


Of course the fact that it's an escrow fund shouldn't enter into your EXTORTION!!!!!!! debates.

And that changes it how?

P.S. Here's another valid reason the Obots should back their boots off a tad, 'Reasonably high' chance BP files for bankruptcy (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-23-reasonably-high-chance-bp-files-for-bankruptcy/).


Peter S. Kaufman, the President of investment bank Gordian Group and head of the firm's Restructuring and Distressed M&A practice, told me that if he had BP's ear, "I'd advise them to explore the option of bankruptcy." If he had the government's ear, he'd tell them to stop berating the company to the point where BP would find it appealing to use bankruptcy to limit its liabilities..

Here is one of the comments he made to Wall Street CEOs when he wanted to do some jaw jawing .

"My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks,''

As I recall ,private investors suddenly got very interested in recapitalizing the zombies.