[jeffkrol]

This whole country has just gone bonkers...........
washingtonpost.com
And for those "tort reform" people.. take notice...don't join the "tea party".........

Former House majority leader and national "tea party" organizer Richard Armey rebuked President Obama on Wednesday for improperly assuming the authority to hold BP accountable for damages related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico............................................................
Armey, a former Dallas area congressman, is now a co-chairman of FreedomWorks, one of the leading national organizers of the small-government tea party movement.
"If I go park my truck on your yard, you don't call the mayor," Armey said. "You call your lawyer. You say, 'We'll settle this in the courts.' The point is, by what constitutional authority does the president of the United States say, 'I will decide what redress will be made to the victims of this catastrophe, by this firm,' and 'I will decide who are the victims, and who are not the victims'? The constitution doesn't give that authority to the executive branch."

Guess the exec branch should just "stand down" until the courts are finished in errr................. 2088

[Russell-Evans]

What good is an agreement when the agreement isn't legally enforceable? I'm sure BP's lawyers are already hard at work at saving that $20 Billion and the constitutionally of the President's powers is probably a good place to start. Don't confuse movement with progress.

Thank you
Russell

Isn't the max right now $75 million? And you can make any new law retroactive? How about pricing? I want to go back and charge a client another 3 grand for a wedding I did.

[Parallax]

Isn't the max right now $75 million? And you can make any new law retroactive? How about pricing? I want to go back and charge a client another 3 grand for a wedding I did.

If a law is passed there will be a court ruling that it can't be made retroactive. Any agreement made will be deemed unenforceable. Either way it isn't a problem for OBO. He can claim to have done all he could, but the laws in place from previous administrations got in his way. He skates as usual.

[jeffkrol]

What good is an agreement when the agreement isn't legally enforceable? I'm sure BP's lawyers are already hard at work at saving that $20 Billion and the constitutionally of the President's powers is probably a good place to start. Don't confuse movement with progress.

Thank you
Russell

The Washington Monthly
guess you all believe a man's word has no legal validity... sad to live in a society like that..

Legally, BP could have just waited for the lawsuits and drawn the whole thing out for years. As a lawyer, I find it a unique and mind-boggling accomplishment."

Personally I want BP held accountable. I don't however want the Obaminator to see them as just another cash cow like some local governments do with the tobacco industry. the Obaminator wants BP to pay for rig workers idled by his decision to stop certain offshore operations. Uh. Private enterprise paying unemployment because of a government decree? That's just wrong.

U.S.: BP should pay idled rig workers
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
06/12/2010

WASHINGTON — With the freeze on deep-water drilling drawing fire, the White House is pitching a novel plan for keeping idled rig workers in their homes: making BP pay the earnings they lose while the ban is in place.

The company has already paid more than $57 million to shrimpers, deckhands and other workers who have lost wages and business because crude gushing out of BP's leaking underwater well has shut down commercial fishing throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

But the administration's proposal — first suggested by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar — also would make the London-based oil giant cut checks to the workers, on-shore suppliers and others whose business is dwindling while drill rigs in the gulf remain offline.

[GeneV]

My wife had tuned to MSNBC for Obama's oil spill speech, and I caught a few minutes of the reaction by Olbermann and Mathews. Talk about darned if you do or don't.

Matthews starts by chiding Obama for saying he would dictate to BP that they would escrow money for compensation. He indicated in a mocking way that the president had no power to make BP do anything. "What is he going to do, file some kind of lawsuit?"

However, then Olbermann and Matthews together spent the rest of the short time I could tolerate them chiding Obama for not talking tougher about BP. So, these two wanted him to make more promises that they have already said he has no power to keep? What a couple of morons!

If MSNBC really wants to be the Fox of the left, they need to learn about circular firing squads.

[reeftool]

It was just about a week ago when many of the same critics were whining big time that Obama wasn't doing enough or as some said, nothing at all. Good title for the name of this thread.

I'm watching the hearings on TV as I type and one commentator has summed up the most important point being ignored and thats being "lets clean up this spill now!" There are too many people arguing about blame and grandstanding and little resources being devoted to containing and cleaning up this mess. It's tropical storm season and that crap could end up being ankle deep along the entire shoreline of the Gulf. If Obama wants to show some real leadership, he needs to get the cleanup effort coordinated across the entire gulf coast. This bullshit of different agencys fighting each other has to be put to a stop. Guys in hazmat suits on the beach? What a joke! The problem at hand is seal the leak and clean up the mess. There will be plenty of time afterwards to pass the blame around.

[Russell-Evans]

guess you all believe a man's word has no legal validity... sad to live in a society like that..

BP isn't a man, it is a company and company's only responsibility is to the stockholders. If you haven't noticed, the agreement stopped BP stock from sliding further and actually caused some gain. Like a sign on an aircraft carrier said, Mission Accomplished!

Thank you
Russell

---------- Post added 06-17-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------

It was just about a week ago when many of the same critics were whining big time that Obama wasn't doing enough or as some said, nothing at all.

Don't confuse movement with progress.

Thank you
Russell

[GeneV]

Frankly, I'm not all that worked up over BP or Obama. BP could have done a lot of things better, but they are drilling in miles of water and earth, and there are about a million things that can go wrong with this even if you do the best you can. My reaction is a bit like the reaction of Dr. Malcom in Jurassic Park: Some things are just so complex that the question is when they will go wrong and how much damage will result.

30 years ago, an unpopular president put into place measures that would have had the U.S. much, much further off oil than we are. America elected (overwhelmingly) successors from both parties who ditched those measures, and we've had a great big party drunk on oil ever since. If we, especially in the US, don't wake up to the real cost of our energy, this will keep happening as oil gets harder and harder to find. Oil isn't really as cheap as it seems.

If it isn't oil pollution, it is air pollution or nuclear waste or something else that is complex, dangerous and put in the hands of fallible people and organizations. I'm tired of the demonization of BP. Yes, they blew it, but it is ludicrous to hear Exxon of drunk tanker captain fame blaming BP as if this is the problem of one bad company. And it is not just corporate greed; the last time this happened on a scale anything like this, it was a socialized state-owned company at fault. Finding a villain is an easy way to avoid a tough problem. Whoever manages these rigs will make decisions about costs and benefits that have huge consequences.

My hugely unpopular solution for the future would be that we need to see that the entire cost of this cleanup and all costs associated with oil (including its defense) are reflected in the cost of oil. Bonds for damage should be required before a rig operates, not after a spill. As long as oil looks like a cheaper energy alternative to wind, waves, solar, conservation, etc., we will keep going further and further out on a limb to get it or protect it, and other less harmful sources of energy will never be ecomically viable.

[reeftool]

The cost of this cleanup is going to result in higher prices. A higher gasoline tax is already being proposed. Worldwide demand is not going down and the current dip in prices won't last long. I think there is an effort in the oil industry overall to hold prices down to avoid any more bad press. It isn't going to last. I'm buying my heating fuel for next winter now.

[GeneV]

The cost of this cleanup is going to result in higher prices. A higher gasoline tax is already being proposed. Worldwide demand is not going down and the current dip in prices won't last long. I think there is an effort in the oil industry overall to hold prices down to avoid any more bad press. It isn't going to last. I'm buying my heating fuel for next winter now.

That will be true to some extent, but I would say we should take steps to make sure that these sources of oil reflect their true costs from the outset. We might put one company out of business with this spill (or they might just bankrupt a subsidiary), but this danger exists for all deep water rigs operated by all companies.

[Parallax]

The cost of this cleanup is going to result in higher prices. A higher gasoline tax is already being proposed. Worldwide demand is not going down and the current dip in prices won't last long. I think there is an effort in the oil industry overall to hold prices down to avoid any more bad press. It isn't going to last. I'm buying my heating fuel for next winter now.

This brings up another question. If OBO is going to make sure Bungled Petroleum is going to pay the entire cost; why is a higher tax needed?

[GeneV]

This brings up another question. If OBO is going to make sure Bungled Petroleum is going to pay the entire cost; why is a higher tax needed?

Because the danger exists for all of these rigs, and that cost needs to be reflected in the commodity. Someone will make a mistake and this will happen again no matter how careful they try to be.

[Parallax]

...........but this danger exists for all deep water rigs operated by all companies.

This particular type of danger is preventable. This wasn't a case of unforeseen event (hurricane, etc), or a geological anomaly that couldn't be detected. It was caused by deliberate corner-cutting.
There are two problems there. One is there will always be people trying to get around the system; and two, it is especially easy to do with this particular system because as far as oversight is concerned, we put the fox in charge of the hen house.

Because the danger exists for all of these rigs, and that cost needs to be reflected in the commodity. Someone will make a mistake and this will happen again no matter how careful they try to be.

No, it doesn't need to be reflected in the commodity. It needs to come out of the pockets of the people who make the mistake. They know the risk when they choose to drill, and they get the rewards when everything goes right. They need to bear the burden when it doesn't. A tax makes means they still get the rewards; risk free.