Gulf Oil Spill: Joe Barton's "Shakedown" Comment, Obama F'ing Up Again

[Lemur866]

You know, the right-wing talking point that the courts are the correct way to determine compensation for victims of the oil spill is pretty hard to believe.

Do right wingers believe that BP shouldn’t pay a nickel unless someone has an order from the court forcing BP to pay?

Let’s put it this way. When you get your electric bill, do you tell the power company that they’ll have to take you to court to get you to pay? Or do you pay your bill? When you order a meal in a restaurant, and the waiter presents you with the bill, do that he’ll have to sue you before you’ll pay? When you turn your head for a second and you smash your car into another vehicle, do you demand to go to court, or do you figure out the damage and settle?

Look, I should imagine a self-proclaimed libertarian wouldn’t require an order from the government before they pay their bills. BP caused billions of dollars worth of damage. They’re settling with the people they’ve damaged. This is called the free market. This is called taking responsibility. Or is responsibility only for the victims of damages, not corporations who cause damages?

Plus, blaming the government regulators for tricking BP into drilling in deep water when they couldn’t handle it is pretty sad. Sad, sad, sad. It means that the government is responsible for telling everyone when it’s safe to take an action, and if the government doesn’t forbid it, that means it’s the government’s fault when there’s a negative outcome. If the speed limit on the road is 50 mph, and you get into a crash, it’s the government’s fault for not lowering the speed limit. If the government doesn’t outlaw guns, it’s the government’s fault because you shot yourself in the foot. If the government doesn’t regulate deep water drilling strictly enough, it’s the government’s fault when an oil company fucks up and spills millions of barrels of oil into the water.

I guess bashing Obama is more important than ideological consistency.

[ElvisL1ves]

Right, these are people used to demonizing trial lawyers. Apparently it depends on who the lawyers are representing.

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

You know, the right-wing talking point that the courts are the correct way to determine compensation for victims of the oil spill is pretty hard to believe.

Do right wingers believe that BP shouldn’t pay a nickel unless someone has an order from the court forcing BP to pay?

Let’s put it this way. When you get your electric bill, do you tell the power company that they’ll have to take you to court to get you to pay? Or do you pay your bill? When you order a meal in a restaurant, and the waiter presents you with the bill, do that he’ll have to sue you before you’ll pay? When you turn your head for a second and you smash your car into another vehicle, do you demand to go to court, or do you figure out the damage and settle?

That’s not a very good analogy. I can’t just present BP with a “bill” for my lost income and expect them to pay. There has to be some kind of oversight, and that’s what Obama set up.

Whether or not Obama strong-armed BP into this system is something we’ll never know. It’s a distinct possibility, as is the possibility that he did BP a huge favor by offering their investors some certainty about the future.

[elucidator]

At most, the illusion thereof. We have no idea, nor does anyone, how all this is going to shake out. Will the relief wells work? Maybe, even probably, but what if no? My bet, based on my encompassing knowledge of just about everything: this will end up breaking BP, or it should. BP will deploy battalions of lawyers in an effort to stave off disaster, and if they win, we lose. And if they lose, we still lose.

The Pubbies are laying the groundwork to blame it all on Obama. BP goes broke, can’t pay, its Obama’s fault. BP goes to court, stalls forever, thats Obama’s fault too, for his hostile and uncooperative attitude. BP manages, by some magic, to seal the breach and pay off what needs be paid off? The Free Market works, despite every effort by Obama to sabotage it.

[wonky]

Obama, cut through the red tape and speed things up! But don’t do that when it comes to BP paying anything, you bully!

Obama, get things done! But don’t do that when it comes to BP paying anything. Why are you so hasty?

Obama, show some emotion! Why are you so full of anger at BP? Anger just makes you look weak.

Obama, don’t interfere! But don’t let us do things that end up hurting others! We have no control over our own behaviors! We are the masters of our destinies! We have no hope for success without you! Once you get involved we’re all doomed! The federal government is our only hope! The federal government is the one entity we can’t depend on! I have no idea what I’m saying! BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

This message brought to you by Palin-Bachmann '12.

[Revtim]

@jsgoddess

Obama, show some emotion! Why are you so full of anger at BP? Anger just makes you look weak.

Worse, it makes him the Angry Black Man!

Why Obama doesn't dare become the 'angry black man' - CNN.com

[elucidator]

@jsgoddess

…This message brought to you by Palin-Bachmann '12.

One hand: joy! No chance they’ll win! Other hand: fear. There’s no such thing as “no chance they’ll win”. Gripping hand: ambivalence. I live in MN, I can get over the Canadian border before they close it.

[Marley23]

This debate is getting overheated. I remind everybody here that slams of other posters don’t belong in this forum. Stick to the arguments rather than speculating about the motivations of other posters.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@jrodefeld

The $20 billion payout by BP for damages related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the result of a very controversial move by the Obama Administration, in which the White House effectively ignored established legal due process and assessed the extent of BP’s liability on its own, then ordered the company to pony up the cash.

Cite that the Obama administration “ordered” BP to, as you said, “pony up the cash”? I find it hard to believe you can back this up considering the next two sentences YOU wrote:

@jrodefeld

Obama succumbed to political pressure to “do something” and “show anger”. The meetings with BP were in private so we cannot know exactly what was said.

If the meetings were in private, and we cannot know exactly what was said, how do you know that Obama “ordered” BP to do anything at all?

My supposition: you were ------- — – ---- — when you made your first assertion, and can in no way legitimately back it up.

@jrodefeld

Webster’s dictionary defines “shakedown” as an extortion of money. Some others call it obtaining something of value from someone under duress and by threat.

Clearly, the word “shakedown” applies. Obama had threatened BP “to plug the $%# hole,” and had approved investigators from the Justice Department to begin looking at possible criminal charges arising out of the accident.

Cite please that Obama threatened BP. What did he threaten them with? Where did you get this information? Did it come from the private meetings, where we can’t know what was said? If so, how do you know what was said, even tho you said we couldn’t know what was said?

One would guess various threats, intimidation, and the like were utilized to extract the twenty billion dollars from BP.

Wait. Now you’re guessing? But you asserted earlier that Obama threatened BP, and that he “ordered” them to do something. You asserted that Obama DID do those things. Are you now, just a few sentences later, backing off those claims?

@jrodelfed

What is clear however, is that whether or not BP complied, it is still illegal.

What is illegal? In what way is it illegal? What laws were broken, and by whom?

@jrodefeld

It is also immoral in so many ways.

Please list them. Are there more than 3? Because your phrase there, “so many ways” seems to imply that there are many, many ways, perhaps more than 20 or 30. Could you please provide a list of all the ways that this is immoral?

@jrodefeld

So now the Federal Government has this “slush fund”. Do we really think that they will somehow justly compensate all the property owners and fishermen who’s lives and businesses have been ruined by the spill? Only a court could justly determine damages and compensate those who were hurt.

How is it a “slush fund”? A slush fund is a pool of money with no designated purpose. How do you think this $20 billion fund qualifies as a slush fund? Are you asserting that the reason given for it’s existence, to help pay for damages and claims due to the oil spill, is in fact, a lie? What source do you have for this?

Also, as many others have pointed out, the courts are in fact, a part of the federal government.

Also also, the government isn’t administering the fund, a private, independent 3rd party is.

@jrodefeld

The whole notion of this extortion of money from BP is ridiculous. First the Federal Government does nothing. Then when they finally act, they pull unconstitutional shenanigans like this. Its ridiculous.

I have yet to see you back up any of the assertions I’ve called into question, and as such, your conclusions are suspect, at the very least.

[Marley23]

@jrodefeld

So, the laws can be discarded when they are inconvenient? That is basically what you are saying.

Tell me what law I said should be discarded.

A lot of people will make claims to that money, even when they weren’t actually hurt by the crisis in any substantial way.

Doesn’t this happen anyway in class action lawsuits?

A lot of bureaucrats will take some off the top and the people who were hurt the most won’t get anything.

Since you’ve speculating based on nothing, I can’t disprove what you’re saying. You also can’t prove your statements here.

Since there is no legal way to determine damages if we leave the courts out of the situation

The courts won’t be left out.

Besides the critical issue now is stopping the flow of oil and cleaning up the gulf.

How does BP setting aside money prevent that from getting done?

I don’t think for a minute that it would take years to resolve the court cases.

You must be joking. Do you realize the Supreme Court handled a case related to damages from the Exxon Valdez spill in 2008? And that other courts were still dealing with it last year? I remind you that the spill happened in 1989.

But obviously the total damage cannot be estimated until the leak is fixed.

Granted, there won’t be a way to establish a final total. But that doesn’t mean the people down there should get no assistance until the leak is stopped. People whose businesses were shut down in April need help now, not in a few years or a couple of decades. That’s what the escrow fund is for. It’s not a perfect solution and I realize this kind of issue is typically handled through the courts. But you know what they say about the wheels of justice.

[wmfellows]

@jrodefeld

The point is there was a “shakedown” of BP which was illegal and inappropriate. Our courts are supposed to sort out these problems and provide just compensation to the victims of BP’s negligence. Do you dispute this?

I would dispute that every bloody thing has to go through a court system and I would say, mate, that it’s a particularly American disease to think that an economic actor is ‘shaken down’ if it is merely shamed and decides to make a monetary contribution to mitigate damage without the intermediation of bloody lawyers laying on millions more in fees.

Jaysus, people like you give free markets and enterprise a bad name.

BP fucked up right good and they know it. Out here, it is favourably seen if the said Co takes responsibility and steps up. Your blithering on about courts isn’t about free markets and enterprise, it’s about American obsessions and bad practice.

[Baboonanza]

I’d just like to point out that when the Escrow was announced BP’s share price WENT UP due to having some sort of liability agreement (though far from final). Surely that’s the definition of free-market action? It was in their best interest to agree, just as it is in their interest to fix the leak ASAP to limit their costs though whether they are competent to do so it anouther matter. So what the hell is the objection to that?

[jayjay]

@Baboonanza

So what the hell is the objection to that?

Obama might get some kind of credit for it. That’s the entire motivation of the Republicans at this point. Preventing Obama or the Democrats from getting anything done and then complaining that it was a bad thing when they do.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

Congressman Joe Barton, before he was in Congress, used to work for ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Oil & Gas Company), a subsidiary of BP; and, since 1989, he has taken more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the oil industry.

So, yeah, probably.

So you believe that a politician who receives large campaign contributions from BP can be assumed to have been corrupted thereby? And therefore all their decisions are suspect, is that what you believe?

I guess any politician who actually approved the exploratory drilling after receiving money from BP must be either corrupt, or incompetent, right?

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

When did Obama work for a division of BP, Shodan?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

This is what liberal ‘debate’ has turned into on this board:

Paraphrasing the responses, in order:
… The rest is snark, cheap shots, and personal attacks. No one has addressed most of the factual points in the OP.

Seems about par for the course.

WAAAAHHH People are making fun of Libertarians again.

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

So you believe that a politician who receives large campaign contributions from BP can be assumed to have been corrupted thereby?

Oooh, that sure is a scary headline you posted there, Shodan! How much money did Obama supposedly receive from BP?

@The Scary

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant

Oh. Hmm… not so scary, actually. And what that article *doesn’t *tell you is that the money came from BP employees, not from BP. Political contributors are required to list their employer- when I donated a hundred bucks to Obama’s campaign, that doesn’t mean that Sony Entertainment donated a hundred bucks- it just meant that an employee of Sony donated the money.

But then, you know this, right? I mean, you get reminded of it every time you try to trot out that old trick pony.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

You might want to reply to the substantive points of the post, which is focused the abysmal failure by this administration to respond appropriately to this disaster.

I dunno, what do you think mcCain and palin would be doing in this situation (or rand paul for that matter?)

A couple of clarifications from your original post.

“But there is a legal method of determining damages and sorting out who was wronged, how much should be paid and so forth. That is called the Court system.”

This is not a final determination of any sort. If you agree taht BP’s liability will exceed 20 billion dollars (and it appears BP agrees), then what is your objection to BP making a down payment so that the people whoa re suffering now can get swift relief?

“where you either support the Federal Government intimidating BP and forcing them to cough up twenty billion dollars”

Cite? And once again if they will owe at least 20 billion then what is the problem?

“How on earth is the federal government going to manage this process? Who is going to get this money now?”

The same fellow who manged the 9/11 fund is going to be managing this fund. It won’t be easy but by all accounts he did a pretty good job of running the 9/11 fund fairly and efficiently.

“Where do they get this authority? If you go take a look at that dusty old document called the Constitution which nobody reads anymore, it certainly isn’t there.”

The libertarian reading of the Constitution differs from the Supreme Court’s reading of the Constitution. If you want to go back and try and overturn Marbury v madison, then go right ahead, until then, your reading of the Constitution means squat.

[Marley23]

@Lightnin

And what that article *doesn’t *tell you is that the money came from BP employees, not from BP.

Can we get a cite on that? The Politico story says the $77K total includes " BP PAC and individual money."

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jrodefeld

You might want to reply to the substantive points of the post, which is focused the abysmal failure by this administration to respond appropriately to this disaster.

I dunno, what do you think mcCain and palin would be doing in this situation (or rand paul for that matter?)

A couple of clarifications from your original post.

“But there is a legal method of determining damages and sorting out who was wronged, how much should be paid and so forth. That is called the Court system.”

This is not a final determination of any sort. If you agree taht BP’s liability will exceed 20 billion dollars (and it appears BP agrees), then what is your objection to BP making a down payment so that the people whoa re suffering now can get swift relief?

“where you either support the Federal Government intimidating BP and forcing them to cough up twenty billion dollars”

Cite? And once again if they will owe at least 20 billion then what is the problem?

“How on earth is the federal government going to manage this process? Who is going to get this money now?”

The same fellow who manged the 9/11 fund is going to be managing this fund. It won’t be easy but by all accounts he did a pretty good job of running the 9/11 fund fairly and efficiently.

“Where do they get this authority? If you go take a look at that dusty old document called the Constitution which nobody reads anymore, it certainly isn’t there.”

The libertarian reading of the Constitution differs from the Supreme Court’s reading of the Constitution. If you want to go back and try and overturn Marbury v madison, then go right ahead, until then, your reading of the Constitution means squat.

“The government is, in large part responsible for this crisis”

Yes, the MMS was about as captive a regualtor as captive regulators get. This was supposed to cahgne under Obama but apparently not quickly enough. Do you know why there were efforts to open up oil leases at the tail end of teh Bush administration? The oil industry wanted to do two things, lock up large oil leases (not so they could exploit them but so that independent companies could not) and they wanted to negotiate fotr those rights with a Republican administration.

“Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal …”

…is running for president and is setting up a run for 2012.

“The environmental movement needs to be realistic, not hypocritical.”

Well duh.

“restore the Free Market in energy production and allow all competing alternatives to develop naturally”

They won’t develop naturally. Do you know how far any of these alternative energy technologies are from grid parity? The only folks who make the investment in basic research that might eventually lead to commercially exploitable technology is teh government (well, lucent might do some of this too).

" he doesn’t have one significant success story so far"

really?