• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP Oil and White House reach compensation deal

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Excellent. This isn't quite what I had hoped to see, but its a good step towards setting the situation right. I'm very pleased to see that the 20 billion was not a strict cap and that BP could have to pay more.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,949
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was listening to the Mark Levin radio show yesterday and as usually he was on one of his anti-Obama rants. Something he said caught my attention, however.

He said (as he always tends to do) that the President doesn't have the authority to compel BP to set up this escrow account for their liability in this oil spill. Well, I did some research and he's WRONG!

Oil Pollution Act (OPA)

Sect. 2706(b)(1) - Designation of trustees

(1) In general

The President, or the authorized representative of any State, Indian tribe, or foreign government, shall act on behalf of the public, Indian tribe, or foreign country as trustee of natural resources to present a claim for and to recover damages to the natural resources.
The question was asked why the President set the dollar amount on BP's liability so high instead of sticking to the $75M minimum liability. According to the OPA, the dollor figure isn't a set amount.

Sec. 2704. Limits on liability

(a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed--

(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000;
In other words, BP is on the hook for ALL cost incurred for this oil spill PLUS $75,000,000! Furthermore, knowing that the cost of recovery would be great and no one knows where BP's liability will end, the President had to set up a large fund - the escrow account. But here's the legal rational for setting the fund so high:

Sect. 2706(d)(3) - No Double Recovery

There shall be no double recovery under this Act for natural resource damages, including with respect to the costs of damage assessment or restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition for the same incident and natural resource.
Folks who continue to scream "unconstitutional" need to remember that Congress - our nation's legistlative body - does make these things called laws as authorized them by the Constitution. It is these laws that govern specific functions or gives specific authority to various representatives to perform certain duties. So, just because something's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean that a person, i.e., the President, doesn't have the authority to act according to your demands.

We are a nation of laws. I'd urge people to remember that the next time you scream, "It's unconstitutional". Read the law that govern.

Link to Oil Pollution Act
 
Last edited:

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,640
Reaction score
9,435
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In other words, BP is on the hook for ALL cost incurred for this oil spill PLUS $75,000,000! ]
The way I understand it is that there responsible for all costs associated with the cleanup + 75,000,000, that means that if the payouts to the fishers and workers and condos on the beach that go out of work top 75 million (which it will) then we could have a problem, though now that we have written consent of 20 billion, the 75 million cap doesn't mean much of anything.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,949
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ah! But if you read Sec. 2702. Elements of liability -

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of this section that result from such incident.
Subsection (b) outlines the extent of the liability, i.e., damage to natural resources, equipment, rental/real property, lost revenues/wages, taxes, etc., etc. So, in effect, BP is responsible for paying for both the cleanup AND the legal liability ensued for damages in this mess, and the President has the authority to collect!
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
rong thred.
Oops.
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,949
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Zimmer,

So, what you're saying is although you see the oil still spewing from the Gulf of Mexico, know that people in the Gulf region are being severly advestly affected by it, and that this escrow account will not only act as a liability fund but also help ensure that BP remains solvent, you still refuse to accept that setting aside this funds was the right thing to do for all involved - BP, the affected states, the affected people and in the best interest of the government (taxpayers)? Am I to understand you correctly?

You'd rather that the President ignore the authority vested in him by the OPA to collect for damages from a private company due to their own negligence on behalf of this nation's citizens and pull this money from the U.S. Treasury?

Think before you respond...
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,566
Reaction score
30,462
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Any bets on how much of this 20 bill gets pissed away on pet projects, union bailouts and political funding?
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zimmer,

So, what you're saying is although you see the oil still spewing from the Gulf of Mexico, know that people in the Gulf region are being severly advestly affected by it, and that this escrow account will not only act as a liability fund but also help ensure that BP remains solvent, you still refuse to accept that setting aside this funds was the right thing to do for all involved - BP, the affected states, the affected people and in the best interest of the government (taxpayers)? Am I to understand you correctly?

You'd rather that the President ignore the authority vested in him by the OPA to collect for damages from a private company due to their own negligence on behalf of this nation's citizens and pull this money from the U.S. Treasury?

Think before you respond...
No. That is what YOU are saying.
BP said they would do right. If they do not there is a court system.
That is how things work.
The last I knew this wasn't a dictatorship, where the leader gets to dictate to companies how he wants things. That's the job of another branch of government. You know, the law makers, legislators.

The government should not be distributing this money, it is open to massive abuse, especially with these people in charge.

Any bets on how much of this 20 bill gets pissed away on pet projects, union bailouts and political funding?
Precisely my point.
They have failed to act quickly and responsibly in the few matters that count, now we should trust them with a wad of cash?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

.
 
Last edited:

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,190
Reaction score
3,949
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So, in other words you're just going to ignore the points of the law I've quoted that outline the President's authority on holding BP accountable for this mess and instead deflect and rely on partisan talking points.

Good to know you bring some objectivity to the discussion. You get a nerdy "thumbs up", a "gotcha ;)" and a not so cool "finger point" just for playing. <rolling eyes...where have all the smilies gone?>
 
Top Bottom