Ask Me Help Desk - GOP congressman apologizes to BP for '$20 billion shakedown'

GOP congressman apologizes to BP for '$20 billion shakedown'

GOP congressman apologizes to BP for '$20 billion shakedown' | Raw Story

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 Your politicians (esp the repubs) no longer represent their constituency but are in it for the gravy train.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.

Quote:

I thought the wingers were against bailouts, and corporate welfare

And I thought you were for due process and contract law.

Quote:

Dems are just as beholden to corporate interests

Obama was a big benefactor of BP money .

Here is BP's negotiator at the shakedown..

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,' 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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. It's kind of hard to deciding who has rights and who doesn't after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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. Meanwhile, convicted agents of corporations to go to jail for felonies.

SKILLING GETS 24 YEARS IN PRISON FOR ENRON FRAUD

2 from Enron receive prison assignments

Fraud Case Tied to Enron Ends in Prison for 3 Men

Ex-Tyco executives get up to 25 years in prison

Ex-Qwest CEO given six years in prison

Adelphia founder gets 15-year term; son gets 20

Former WorldCom chief, 63 years-old, could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Bernie Madoff of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was sentenced to 150 years.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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:

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 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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=A0oG77WZIB....gov/opa90.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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 ?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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

The 1990 Oil Protection Act - $75 Million Cap

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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)