# Why would Republicans object to the $20 billion BP clean-up fund? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634 "2010-06-18T01:49:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/81 "2010-06-19T12:58:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But in this case, I’m pretty sure BP prefers this. They were gonna pay these claims anyway, and now the government takes all the blame for delay and denial of illegitimate claims. And the right-wing conspiracy theory that this was extorted by a promise not to bring a criminal action will be pretty well demolished when the inevitable criminal action is still brought. WRT the claims, that is legal decision on the part of BP. What they are doing is simply paying out any claim (with proper documentation) of less than $5000 (IIRC) within about 4-5 days. Which makes sense. $5000 is around the daily rate for a single attorney. Larger claims are processed differently. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/82 "2010-06-19T13:04:30Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > WRT the claims, that is legal decision on the part of BP. What they are doing is simply paying out any claim (with proper documentation) of less than $5000 (IIRC) within about 4-5 days. Which makes sense. $5000 is around the daily rate for a single attorney. Larger claims are processed differently. I’m certain that’s false. Someone has to make a decision about whether the claim is legitimate. They’re not just paying every documented claim of damage based on someone’s theory about how the spill harmed them. Some people will submit claims that are obviously legitimate, like people who own property directly damaged by oil or who work as shrimpers in damaged areas; some people will submit claims that are clearly illegitimate, like tourists who planned to visit the Gulf and had bought plane tickets and want a refund; and some will submit claims in the middle, like people who work on oil rigs owned by other companies who cannot work because of the moratorium. The claims processor has to decide which claims are legitimate, and which are illegitimate. And people with claims in the gray area who are denied will not like the decision. With this plan, they blame the government, instead of BP. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/83 "2010-06-19T13:28:52Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker;12594871t] he right-wing conspiracy theory that this was extorted by a promise not to bring a criminal action will be pretty well demolished when the inevitable criminal action is still brought. [/QUOTE] Nah, the anger on the right here looks to be in the same class as their anger over Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 before the 2003 invasion. That belief still isn’t dead. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/84 "2010-06-19T13:57:30Z")
The fund is good for BP. They are allowed to pretend they care about the damage they caused and hope to convince the people that they are going to make things right. Exxon showed how much they really care, as did Bhopal. The tax code allows BP to take off the costs as a business loss. They will be able to write it off . ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/85 "2010-06-19T14:32:18Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m certain that’s false. Someone has to make a decision about whether the claim is legitimate. They’re not just paying every documented claim of damage based on someone’s theory about how the spill harmed them. > > Some people will submit claims that are obviously legitimate, like people who own property directly damaged by oil or who work as shrimpers in damaged areas; some people will submit claims that are clearly illegitimate, like tourists who planned to visit the Gulf and had bought plane tickets and want a refund; and some will submit claims in the middle, like people who work on oil rigs owned by other companies who cannot work because of the moratorium. The claims processor has to decide which claims are legitimate, and which are illegitimate. And people with claims in the gray area who are denied will not like the decision. Of course they are evaluating each claim for legitimacy. Do a search for “ESIS”. They are the company BP has commissioned to handle the claims. You can find more specific info there. [Here is a link to BP’s claim site.](http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033791&contentId=7062345) > [@gonzomax](#): > > The fund is good for BP. They are allowed to pretend they care about the damage they caused and hope to convince the people that they are going to make things right. Exxon showed how much they really care, as did Bhopal. Is it important for you that they care? Or that they just pay for the clean-up? The Republican argument is that Obama’s administration is going beyond collecting legitimate damages from BP and expanding their attack on big business in general (particularly oil). They believe that this is ultimately bad for the country as it will destroy businesses and jobs and weaken the economy. Of course, as you eliminate private sector jobs, that means the government must support even more people which means higher taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/86 "2010-06-19T14:35:36Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Of course they are evaluating each claim for legitimacy. So then what was your point when you wrote, “What they are doing is simply paying out any claim (with proper documentation) of less than $5000 (IIRC) within about 4-5 days.” You seemed to be responding to my argument that the government-run fund is better for BP because any anger at denial of claims will be directed against the government. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/87 "2010-06-19T14:39:06Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > They believe that this is ultimately bad for the country as it will destroy businesses and jobs and weaken the economy. Of course, as you eliminate private sector jobs, that means the government must support even more people which means higher taxes. This argument doesn’t hold much water for me (no pun intended). That’s not to say I don’t feel bad for the workers, but sometimes businesses just go under. If they had followed the rules to begin with and followed the proper procedures BP wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in right now. And besides I didn’t see too many conservatives shedding a tear for the workers or associated small businesses when GM was in dire straights last year. In fact their attitude was quite the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/88 "2010-06-19T15:16:49Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I don’t think there is any evidence any of that happened. If BP expected a limit to liability, they would insist on having it in the agreement. Of course my statement is speculation. That’s why I used the word ‘assume’ ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/89 "2010-06-19T16:04:37Z")
> [@](#): > > The Republican argument is that Obama’s administration is going beyond collecting legitimate damages from BP and expanding their attack on big business in general (particularly oil). They believe that this is ultimately bad for the country as it will destroy businesses and jobs and weaken the economy. Of course, as you eliminate private sector jobs, that means the government must support even more people which means higher taxes. So we should be taking any measures necessary to prevent those small businesses, like shrimp boats and the many facets of the tourism industry, from failing through no fault of their own. If we don’t get money up front from BP, then all of those wonderful magical private sector employers won’t have enough money to tide them through until the cleanup is complete, they’ll all fail, and they’ll take America down with them. So from the Republican point of view, this fund is clearly essential, and must be expedited in every way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/90 "2010-06-19T20:46:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > See, how it works here in the USA is that when we think someone is responsible for a major fuckup, we hold series of legal precedings to determine a) if they were in fact responsible That is not in question. You’ve stipulated so yourself.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > and b) what the actual amount of damages are. Certainly well in excess of $20B, making this fund a down payment on money that BP will surely pay, and without having to divert much if any to the lawyers. > [@](#): > > The government usually doesn’t just point it’s finger and say “YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!! BEGIN PAYING MONEY UNTIL WE SAY STOP!!” And they aren’t doing so now, no matter what Rush tells you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/91 "2010-06-20T01:49:41Z")
I’d like to know how in the living hell Obama could force an escrow account into being? He might be able to negotiate one, for the good of US citizens but negotiation doesn’t equal force. Did he threaten BP with a midnight visit from the boys from Chicago? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/92 "2010-06-20T02:29:04Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Are you saying you want more government protectionism in the market place?:dubious: > The whole point of lawsuits is to make those wronged or injured by another party as close to whole as possible. Consider this: > > Let’s say you T-bone me and do severe damage to my car. We start arguing how much it’s gonna cost. I want the money up front because I need to get my car running again as quick as possible for my livelihood, but you’re worried I’m over charging you. we both know it won’t go well for you in court. Anyway Obama and **Ogre** walk up. Obama is like “you know **Ogre** here is pretty trust worthy. How about you let him as a trusted 3rd party handle the money? You can give him a fund, say $2,000 and he can see to it that’s only used to pay the repair bills and return any left over, but if it isn’t enough you pay the rest later”. Well you agree. Later the bill comes back, and it’s $2,150. **Ogre** pays $2,000 of it from the available fund you gave him. Leaving me $150 still in the hole. > > Being the dastardly smooth criminal I am I decide to sue you for $2,150, instead of the $150 you still owe. You get the receipts off **Ogre** showing you already paid $2,000, and show the judge. Judge orders you to pay the $150, not $2,150 because you’ve already paid $2,000. > This is pretty much what’s going on with BP. They are not increasing or decreasing how much they’ll have to pay out. They’re simply paying part of it up front without tying it up in court for years while their victims become impoverished due to the losses. I realize this is probably the best thing for those directly affected. No question they will get their hands on some money much quicker this way (I assume…I read that BP was handing out money but the process was complicated). Nonetheless, once the money is in the escrow account BP has no say who gets what or how much. AND their liability is not limited by what was paid from the fund. I get your point that any claim in court would subtract any funds already received but I still don’t see what BP gets from this type of arrangement. The ONLY advantage I can imagine is BP can’t be blamed if the distribution of funds is delayed or screwed up. Now, that being said, I understand that there is a corporate cap on economic liability of $75 million in the event of a spill. I’m not clear if this is the total amount that BP is required to pay out for all economic damage or for the total environmental damage. Nonetheless the number is very low and it appears it would benefit BP to demand to only be held responsible for this amount, but hand out money to those affected for goodwill. BP would not risk bankruptcy and would probably be perceived as equally good or bad as they will be following Obama’s plan. So, this makes me wonder whether BP was threatened with criminal liability, or civil liability that could result in bankruptcy, if they did not place the $20B in the escrow account. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/93 "2010-06-20T02:47:16Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I realize this is probably the best thing for those directly affected. No question they will get their hands on some money much quicker this way (I assume…I read that BP was handing out money but the process was complicated). Nonetheless, once the money is in the escrow account BP has no say who gets what or how much. AND their liability is not limited by what was paid from the fund. I get your point that any claim in court would subtract any funds already received but I still don’t see what BP gets from this type of arrangement. The ONLY advantage I can imagine is BP can’t be blamed if the distribution of funds is delayed or screwed up. What makes you think BP would get no say? They can agree to the types of allowable claims to be paid out of the fund. If there’s ultimately a lawsuit to resolve their liability, they can point to money paid out of the fund to reduce or eliminate certain claims against them, and they could make counterclaims to recoup any money that was paid out that shouldn’t have been. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/94 "2010-06-20T03:10:40Z")
I read that they kick in 5 billion immediately, then 1 .25 bill per quarter until they reach 20. There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama threatened BP or could do so. I tire of those who pretend that he did. It is so Rushian to make such unsubstantiated claims. Obama does not have anything to threaten BP with. He has the power of the office to get them to sit down. Then he has to convince them it is in their interests. In case you have not noticed, BP is the focus of a lot of hate. This package would go a long way toward softening their image. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/95 "2010-06-20T04:01:23Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I read that they kick in 5 billion immediately, then 1 .25 bill per quarter until they reach 20. > There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama threatened BP or could do so. I tire of those who pretend that he did. It is so Rushian to make such unsubstantiated claims. Obama does not have anything to threaten BP with. He has the power of the office to get them to sit down. Then he has to convince them it is in their interests. In case you have not noticed, BP is the focus of a lot of hate. This package would go a long way toward softening their image. I don’t claim that there is any evidence. But, having Holder threaten criminal or civil action makes me wonder if that was held over their head. BP could have distributed the money without government involvement so I don’t see an advantage as far as public image is concerned. Just to be clear…if government legal action is taken then my argument has no basis. Alternatively, if no action is taken then it could not be proven that the government decided against it due to BP setting up the account. There is no way to prove that the government threatened BP. But, it seems that the creation of the fund is a win for the administration and BP seems to get nothing in return if no threat or no offer not to take action was made. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/96 "2010-06-20T04:03:10Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > What makes you think BP would get no say? They can agree to the types of allowable claims to be paid out of the fund. If there’s ultimately a lawsuit to resolve their liability, they can point to money paid out of the fund to reduce or eliminate certain claims against them, and they could make counterclaims to recoup any money that was paid out that shouldn’t have been. You may very well be correct but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that BP has any say concerning the funds once they are deposited into the escrow account. If anyone has seen something concerning this please post a link. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/97 "2010-06-20T15:35:26Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I don’t think BP even gets goodwill. It appears that Obama demanded the money from BP so I don’t see how they look better to the public How do you know he demanded the money? That is just a repub talking point. If he did ,they could say no and put it out that the prez was strong arming them and try to achieve some measure of sympathy. This fund is the best PR that BP could get. They already admitted the spill was their fault and they were totally responsible. What defense could they mount with that out in the public? So far, it is the only mitigating PR they have had. BP has handled every thing clumsily and have tried to shield the oil soaked animals and beaches from the public. They hired guards to keep people and reporters away. They have failed to stop the flow. In congress last week ,the other oil companies left them on their own by saying BP acted recklessly and did things they would never do.BP needed this fund. Then their exec jetted off to a yachting race. BP does not understand PR. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/98 "2010-06-20T15:44:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What do you call teh RSC, Limbaugh, Bachman, palin? I don’t know if you realize this yet (and maybe the Republican party has walked away from you without you even realizing it) but that is the face of the Republican party. Truth to tell, I’ve probably walked away from it. The Republicans used to be the voice of conservatism. Now they are just a hollow shell at best. They should never have abandoned conservative principles, and they should NEVER have gotten in bed with the religious whackos. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/99 "2010-06-20T16:50:20Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > How do you know he demanded the money? That is just a repub talking point. If he did ,they could say no and put it out that the prez was strong arming them and try to achieve some measure of sympathy. > This fund is the best PR that BP could get. They already admitted the spill was their fault and they were totally responsible. What defense could they mount with that out in the public? > So far, it is the only mitigating PR they have had. BP has handled every thing clumsily and have tried to shield the oil soaked animals and beaches from the public. They hired guards to keep people and reporters away. They have failed to stop the flow. In congress last week ,the other oil companies left them on their own by saying BP acted recklessly and did things they would never do.BP needed this fund. Then their exec jetted off to a yachting race. BP does not understand PR. No. What I was trying to say is that, to the public, the appearance is Obama telling BP to set up the fund. Most people have no clue that the President cannot demand this. So, Obama looks strong publicly and BP looks like they are being told what to do by the administration. I don’t see how that appearance helps BP’s image one bit. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634/100 "2010-06-20T17:42:09Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Most people have no clue that the President cannot demand this. So, Obama looks strong publicly… Won’t someone please think of the **DUMMIES**? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-republicans-object-to-the-20-billion-bp-clean-up-fund/543634.md?page=6)