• 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!

Taxpayers to pay for Gulf Oil Clean Up?

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and House Majority Leader both say this may have to be the case as we bear some of the responsibility.

The head of the United States Chamber of Commerce said Friday that his group is not yet lobbying against legislative efforts to raise BP’s liability cap, viewing the issue as not yet "ripe."

He signaled, however, that his group would figure out a way to get the government to share in the cost of cleaning up the Gulf Coast.

“It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game,” said Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “. . . Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that.
When it comes to risk and liability, it's amazing how fast the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seems to embrace the idea of socialism. You would think that they would want the fed to just do their jobs and strictly monitor the clean up while collecting fees for any use of state or federal resources.

I don't mind the U.S. Government helping with clean up, as long as they send the bill to BP.

In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he believes taxpayers should help pick up the tab for the clean up.

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.
By 'federal government', did he mean the American taxpayers should pay for the clean up effort?

So today I asked Boehner, "Do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?" The shorter answer is yes.
Maybe he should rethink that statement and have someone on his staff clarify his position:

Late update: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel emails to say "Boehner made a general statement about who is responsible for the spill, and the federal government oversight was clearly lacking, but he has said repeatedly that BP is responsible for the cost of the cleanup."
That was a close one, for a minute there, I thought Boehner was saying we're all going to have to foot part of the bill.

I get the feeling this is not going to end well for the American Taxpayer.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,194
Reaction score
32,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Didn't Ron Paul introduce a bill that would drastically limit BP's liability? Is there anyone in congress who oil companies haven't bought out yet?
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Didn't Ron Paul introduce a bill that would drastically limit BP's liability? Is there anyone in congress who oil companies haven't bought out yet?
Yeah, but they brought out their heavy hitters first - Jim Inhofe and Lisa Murkowski were the firs to shoot it down.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Under the law as it stands, BP is obligated to pay the entire cost of cleanup. This has been undisputed for months. What people are continually confusing is the cost of cleanup and the responsibility for secondary economic damages (loss of revenue due to tourism, etc.)

Under the law as it stands, this amount was limited to $75m, meaning that everyone who lost money would be on their own. There would be no public "bailout" unless Congress decided to step in and offer one.

However, most members of Congress are doing everything they can to essentially shame BP into agreeing to take responsibility for all of these secondary costs, despite the fact that BP bears no responsibility for them under the statute in question.

Democrats have proposed a bill that would raise that $75m cap and retroactively apply that to BP. Such a law would almost certainly be unconstitutional, which is why they're relying so heavily on the public relations front of it.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Democrats have proposed a bill that would raise that $75m cap and retroactively apply that to BP. Such a law would almost certainly be unconstitutional, which is why they're relying so heavily on the public relations front of it.
Unfortunately, that law would not be unconstitutional. Typically the ex post facto law would apply in criminal matters, and not in regards to civil liabilities. Unless there is something else to stop it, which it does not seem that there is, if Congress passed this law, I would bet a lot that it would be upheld.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Unfortunately, that law would not be unconstitutional. Typically the ex post facto law would apply in criminal matters, and not in regards to civil liabilities. Unless there is something else to stop it, which it does not seem that there is, if Congress passed this law, I would bet a lot that it would be upheld.
I was a bit over the top in saying that it would almost certainly be upheld, but there have been non-criminal laws that have been held to violate the ex post facto clause (or other provisions of the constitution) in cases where the effect of the law is punitive. Either way, I don't think this will become an issue, as BP will probably accept responsibility on its own.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,743
Reaction score
27,893
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under the law as it stands, BP is obligated to pay the entire cost of cleanup. This has been undisputed for months. What people are continually confusing is the cost of cleanup and the responsibility for secondary economic damages (loss of revenue due to tourism, etc.)

Under the law as it stands, this amount was limited to $75m, meaning that everyone who lost money would be on their own. There would be no public "bailout" unless Congress decided to step in and offer one.

However, most members of Congress are doing everything they can to essentially shame BP into agreeing to take responsibility for all of these secondary costs, despite the fact that BP bears no responsibility for them under the statute in question.

Democrats have proposed a bill that would raise that $75m cap and retroactively apply that to BP. Such a law would almost certainly be unconstitutional, which is why they're relying so heavily on the public relations front of it.
Of course Obama had no problem requesting a bailout for teachers, who happen to belong to a union.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
BP should, that's why Obama is a fool for trying to bankrupt them because if they go bankrupt, we pay. :doh
 
Top Bottom