Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I completely agree with Biden's statement on this.
We'll I hate to inform you but both you and Biden are factually incorrect.
The "fund" will be paid into over a course of 3 years.
There is no immediate funding of 20 billion for all the needs of "the people."
I would be surprised if there is 20 billion of need right now, but its possible I guess.
However, as I understand it, the 20 billion is the low amount, if more is needed, than BP is going to have to pay more. So, my guess is that if they lowballed it, they will pay more than 20 billion over those three years or however long it ends up being.
Well to address this in the light of what is actually happening.
BP has already been paying claims, without the need of this fund.
BP has already been paying the clean up costs, without the need of this fund.
To add, BP controls the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Alaska.
Not to mention their other assets in the U.S. that would be at stake.
With so much to lose on their end, do you honestly think they won't pay the share of costs they are responsible for?
I don't know if they would or not honestly. Exxon is still fighting various things in court from the Valdez and I see no reason to believe BP would act any differently. Without a fund, my guess is that the alternative would be court battles or a class action lawsuit. I think this is probably a good move as it simplifies things and negates some of the need for lawyer for people who might not be able to afford them.
We'll I hate to inform you but both you and Biden are factually incorrect.
The "fund" will be paid into over a course of 3 years.
There is no immediate funding of 20 billion for all the needs of "the people."
There is a good reason many lawyers get involved, it's to weed out the fraudulent claims.
Again in context, there are perfectly legitimate reasons they fight this stuff in court.
Plaintiff's usually over blow their losses while the company underscores the losses, court serves a valuable purpose to come to a middle ground.
When you involve politically motivated individuals, there only care is to make voters happy, whether or not they are right.
Again BP is already paying claims to individuals, they're doing it right now, before any fund was set up.
It's in their best interest to do so.
"Immediate?" That's all you got?
One word. A slight overstatement. That's it?
Pretty weak, man...
Maybe, I am skeptical since court costs can exceed possible payable losses resulting in a new loss for legitimate claims. If going to court was free or paid for by BP, I might more readibly agree.
I see your point there, but I still think its different ways of achieving the same thing. In this case, I think the fund is probably more efficient and better for people who do not have enough money to afford a lawyer while their livelihood is suffering.
I guess one thing I keep seeing is people saying that whoever runs this thing is a political appointee. I am curious if there is even a mechanism to appoint someone without influence from either the government or BP? The way I see it, is if either the government or BP has influence on selecting the person to run this, than they will be vulnerable to claims of influence. Is it even possible to achieve this without being vulnerable to those claims?
BP honor's their liability to pay for remediation and continues to operate in the U.S. earning over 1 trillion in revenue or BP does not pay 60 billion (an extremely liberal estimate of the remediation costs) and loses over 1 trillion in revenue.
Over 1 trillion in revenue, over several years vs. 60 billion in the course of 3-10 years.
Which makes the most sense?
As we speak though, many of those claims are already being settled out of court, so for the moment the only loss to individuals is time.
Which of course can be big if it goes on to long.
The controller is currently the pay czar, hardly an independent appointee.
A better way would be to either try and recruit a BP competitor or appoint a dual panel of the Pay Czar and a BP employee, so that both sides are equally represented.
I don't think it is as simple as you are making it out to be. As soon as there is a new issue of the day, a lot of people will turn their attention from BP (face it, we have a short attention span) and BP will begin finding ways to wiggle out of its obligations. Another possibility is that after the November elections, more republicans are in congress to go to bat for BP. I think that without a formal arrangement now and some stuff set in stone, there is not a high chance of BP continuing to behave when their brand is in less danger of damage.
Payments being settled out of court could easily mean that people are accepting less than their due for the sake of expedience or lawyer costs. Resolution might be fair or it might not be.
I agree that a mixed committee would be good. I disagree with the idea of a competitor since they might use the post to seek market advantage.
For the former, that is exceedingly true.
Toyota anyone?
For the later, in these instances Republicans do love their oil dollars but at the same time if they allow their districts to be screwed by an oil company, they will loose their jobs.
Remember the areas being affected are largely Republican districts.
So when it relates to national politics, yea it will fall by the wayside as soon as Obama farts in public or something else nonsensical to draw away attention.
(Not a shot at Obama but about the stupid **** people get upset over)
Local politics though is a different story, if people and states are still waiting after a year of stalling.
Things will get ugly.
Lcoal politicians have less power to make companies behave vs national ones. In the states most effected, there is a need for those oil jobs and it gives BP a bargaining chip to use to their favor. Nationally, BP has a lot more to lose and fewer chips as their contribution to the economy is a smaller %
Let me guess..... you're free associating, right?
I was thinking in terms of Republican house members and senators.
The Democrats would absolutely love to have those guys on board the "punish big oil" machine.
Or to use them as an example why Republicans are bad and why the locals need to elect Democrats.
I was thinking of politicians of any ideology. BP is in a good position to threaten the local guys and wiggle out of their obligations, but I think republican politicians are more likely to go along with whatever BP wants in the name of being pro business.
However, in this case, whether you view it as punishment or not, the response to the spill is legitimate. BP screwed up, BP should fix it.
I don't really think of either as pro business but rather "pro business that pays us the campaign dollars."
No I mean punishment beyond the remediation costs.
Full disclosure, I am a BP shareholder and even I want them to pay for the entire cost of clean up, along with lost wages and direct damages other businesses beyond the $75 million cap.
Karma pays dividends when you do the right thing but I don't want them to be undeservedly punished because it popular to hate them.
Somewhat. In general, republicans tend to believe the fewer restrictions, hassles, regulations, etc for business, the better the economy and the nation. So while they do tend to be corrupt, they also have an ideological motive.
I agree with that. They should pay for what they did and not a dime more. However, I would add health issues that are related to the oil spill to that list (provided that it is a legit claim, of course).
However, I guess it depends on what you view as punishment. In the case of the idea of removal of tax benefits are not a punishment, at least in my view, because those tax benefits should never have been given in the first place, it is correcting a wrong done by an earlier congress.
I think is largely trends towards prefered industries.
Democrats trend towards "green" energy which can be, arguably, as polluting as non green sources, through production.
Republicans trend towards obviously polluting industries.
To me it's all a game of who is more gullible.
I have no problems with either, as long as the latter is equally applied to all oil companies.
It is a shakedown. WTF are those sanctimonious asswipes doing but pandering to populist idiocy? THe government was negligent in not inspecting that rig properly. All this grandstanding does nothing. And as a lawyer I can tell you it is an extremely serious ethics violation for a government lawyer to threaten criminal sanctions while pushing for a civil settlement.
Politicians make me wanna puke. this dog and pony show accomplishes NOTHING
turtle's position is a clueless one. he is unable to articulate any rule of law which has been violatedA lot of throat clearing and jerking off, but nobody has addressed Turtle Dude's analysis with anything resembling substance.
Rule of law?
Or... as we have today...
... Ruse of law.
.
turtle's position is a clueless one. he is unable to articulate any rule of law which has been violated
there is no legal analysis. there is unfounded, ridiculous opinion
one would think an attorney seeking prosecution could identify what laws have been broken
but he cannot
The ones in that little piece of paper we call the Constitution.
Everyone is entitled to their day in court prior to declaring guilt. You, I, and everyone on this forum may believe that BP is liable for damages, but it is not legal nor ethical for individuals or our government to be making deals when negligence or illegality has not been established. If the federal government wants to insure that losses will be covered for those who will be losing income, then they should set aside funding for that, just as they funded the losses in hurricane Katrina. They should also have had the foresight to increase liability caps on businesses to keep up with current monetary rates of inflation and cost of living. BP or any other business in the oil industry is legally liable for 75 million dollars plus the costs of clean-up until negligence or breaking regulatory standards has been legally established.
Well to address this in the light of what is actually happening.
BP has already been paying claims, without the need of this fund.
Their reputation precedes them. If those people had to wait for the courts to decide on things many of them would lose their businesses, their homes and probably go bankrupt. It seems none of you rightees care about that. But, you're more than ready to take arms to defend every legal right of the responsible party here. Whose ****ing side are you on anyway? :roll:With so much to lose on their end, do you honestly think they won't pay the share of costs they are responsible for?
The laws will be broken when the money goes everywhere, but where it's supposed to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?