 |
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.Quote:
Well, when it came down to the taxpayers and the poor people in the gulf, OR BP, BP got thrown under the bus.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
From the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Didn't seem to be the big issue that you made it out to be.Quote:
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.
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 ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Yeah that's the language of someone looking to negotiate a settlement . Sounds more like an "offer he can't refuse" .Quote:
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.
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.
This is the law that he bypassed on his way to making BP pay more.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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=A0oG77WZIB....gov/opa90.pdf
We don't know what really went on in these negotiations. The 20 billion does have some benefits for both parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
The $20 bil in the President's words was "a good down payment".Quote:
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.
Yes that's what we all want. So why is the President involved in the side-show ?Quote:
That is what I want, what most Americans want; action, a plan,/ not more talks or conferences or studies.
Or in other words, the legal process for remedying the economic cost of someone else’s negligence.Quote:
What is the alternative? Endless lawsuits, appeals, investigations.
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.
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2399837-post24.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
And then see my reply (#25)
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM. |