I was sent the following:
I could understand an objection if it was thought that the amount was too small and that Obama “sold out”. How can there be an objection to the Administration holding BP’s feet to the fire to get compensation for those that were damaged?
If the quote is lacking in fact, please clarify. Otherwise, explain how forcing BP to agree to a clean-up fund is in any way against the interests of the United States.
Pure political spin grasping at straws to nail Obama on something, anything. Fortunately, those stupid enough and partisan enough to believe them will never vote for a Democrat anyway.
I have my misgivings about changing laws retroactively even though the limit applied after the Valdez was far too low for what appears to be egregious indifference to danger, but I’m not going to listen to any Republican’s opinion on financial corruption with regards to corporations.
It also isn’t so much that it’s being done but in how it will be administered. But that remains to be seen.
Those silly lefties and righties are always going at each other. Like little annoying yipping dogs.
In Joe Barton’s particular case, he is probably objecting because, before he was in Congress, he 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.
To be fair a lot of Republicans have been critical of Barton’s statement. However, he didn’t come up with the idea out of thin air. He was repeating stuff he got from his leadership and folks like Limbaugh and Bachman so if you want to be accurate I think you would have to say that he was echoing THEM.
You are talking about a party that has decided that it is so important to the future of the country for THEM to be in charge that they have decided the patriotic thing to do is to be Republican first and American second (at least until they retake control of government), that is why you hear this sort of stuff.
To be fair, the notion of putting ideology before country is not unique to the right but the radical lefties don’t wrap themselves in flags when they put ideology before country, the radical righties do.
It is not a clean up fund. It is suppose to pay off people whose businesses were destroyed. That is shrimpers, canners and various fisherman who are no longer able to make a living because BP dumped oil everywhere. The fund will be distributed by a neutral party.
The fund is basically a hand-out from BP to the US federal government. Obama will oversee how it is spent, so it is effectively his money. Those in Obama’s favor will get more than will those not in his favor. That is very objectionable, in my view.
We have already set up a nice little justice system here that is more than capable of deciding claims brought by people against other people. There’s no need to private businesses with lots of claimants to hand a bunch of money over to politicians for them to distribute as they see fit.
What neutral party would that be?
Republican Study Committee calls the fund a Chicago-Style Political Shakedown
Two thirds of Republican house members belong to the RSC caucus.
Apparently they all feel there’s something wrong with asking a business to help out with a problem it’s caused, instead of fighting tooth and nail up to the Supreme court of the United States.
Boehner et al may have forced Barton to retract his use of the term ‘shake down’ but the RSC is standing behind that characterization, which suggests that Barton’s apology was nothing more than a tactical retreat so as to make it less obvious to the public where the GOP stands on BP vs the little guys.
And even then, judging by the Bush years.
Says the man who ignored outright treason from his side of the idle during those selfsame years.
You probably mean “his side of the aisle”. Still, kinda cute.
:rolleyes: This word, “treason,” it does not mean what you think it does. In fact, it means rather the reverse of what you think it does.
Its a set up. They are positioning themselves for advantage if BP comes unglued. Which it very well might, nobody knows how much this is going to cost because the catastrophe is redoubling itself every few days.
The obvious ploy is the Exxon Manuever: take it to court and keep it there forever, deploy battallions of lawyers to delay proceedings until depositions are taken from every human being on the face of the Earth. (On a related note, the court trial for the Bhopal Horror has finally been rendered, they were found guilty. Fined a few thousand dollars, IIRC. Its on appeal…)
But if this won’t do it, and BP gets picked clean and can’t come up with enough money, the Pubbies can claim that Obama drove BP into bankruptcy, and that’s why we end up paying for it all.
What, they can’t sell that horseshit? Maybe not, but they sure as shit gonna try.
Of course, you have no way of knowing that.
That sounds reasonable on its face – but, judging from the post-Exxon-Valdez experience, no, that’s probably not the best way to handle it. To put it mildly.
BP gives 20B.
It limits its liability to that and no more.
It’s a good BP move.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/06/did-obama-save-bp.html
This. The Republicans don’t care or not if something is a good idea; if Obama supports it, they oppose it and will do everything they can to make it fail to make him look bad.
Would you consider outing a CIA agent out of political revenge to be treason?
**Why would Republicans object to the $20 billion BP clean-up fund?
**
Republicans don’t. Barton is a flake and doesn’t speak for all of us.
Bullshit! Mark Foley wasn’t a CIA agent! Some Congressmen would go to bed with a whole book, he was content with just a page.