Clearly, as a corporation, BP would like to minimize its costs – they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. Just as clearly, oil companies have quite some pull with members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans). As with any monied interest, it only makes sense to suspect – though not to conclude without proof – some shenanigans. The fact that (some) Republicans are, to some degree and perhaps indirectly, defending BP is the evidence.
With that said, I personally think it’s got little to do with “not wanting BP to pay” – which would be truly brazen – and almost everything to do with finding a politically acceptable way to hit Obama.
I feel your pain. Worked for Goldwater in '64, with a copy of St. Ayn’s screeds under my hormone-deranged arm. I got over it.
But I still think that some form of conservatism has a place in our politics, just as a car needs an engine, it also needs brakes. A wholly rational political philosophy, populated by wholly rational people, just isn’t human. Humans are loons, God bless us, and need opposition and argument to keep ourselves honest.
As a progressive, I think the path is the old-fashioned way: fight like hell for everything you can get, nail it down while promising never, ever to ask for anything more, and then start asking for more. I guess that’s somewhat dishonest. Oh, well.
Conservatives also offer a cop-out. Well, yes, of course, we would fully fund English as a second language program for gay whales, but those darned conservatives won’t let us! Curses!
Our conservatives now are in hysteria and denial, they sincerely believed that they had defeated history, that their star was in permanent ascendance. It will take them a while to calm down and get back to business. Its taking a lot longer than we thought, but still…
I was a Buckleyan, never a Randian. However my actual political philosophy is closer to pragmatism. Nixon was very pragmatic, Reagan was actually quite pragmatic with the added ability to cloud the minds of the true believers. This current crop sits in the shambles of the economy ruined on their watch and screech about the problem being was that someone didn’t exactly follow the holy writ. I think a lot of this is the fundamentalist religious influence, the same thing that led a large number of Republican presidential hopefuls from saying they don’t accept evolution. They don’t have to be biologists, but anyone who I’d want to be president should understand the argument for evolution and be flexible enough to accept it - and accept their religious beliefs also. I think the position that any of the Bible being wrong leads to moral anarchy is very similar to the position that the Laffer curve being wrong leads to economic chaos.
My “role” here is the same as everyone else’s but yours - to point out the lack of reality-based content in your posts. The gentle, implicit hint by each of us that you shape up has not, sadly, been effective.
This is not fantasy or witnessing. This is a discussion of what might have happened. We know that the president had a meeting with BP to discuss the formation of this $20B fund. Nobody knows what went on during that meeting except the people present…but that doesn’t stop speculation. As I’ve stated there are a number of possibilities and I have been trying to figure out which one makes sense based on the actions of the administration and BP.
I’ve actually suggested in this thread that BP may be getting much more than we are currently aware. If this is the case then it makes perfect sense for BP to take the deal. Why not point out that this opinion is not reality-based? Many here suggest that this deal, as-is, is good for BP’s future outlook. No word from you about reality. All of the opinions of all the posters in this thread who feel one way or another about the deal are expressing opinions based of very few facts.
And I certainly don’t need any advice on posting from one whose posts are mostly devoid of any relevent content.
Well then, I guess I should have said re-awakening. You took a sharp turn at precisely the wrong time…the Dems since Gore have taken a sharp turn to the left. Every statement in that paragraph could be a topic in Great Debates.
Nobody is suggesting that ineffective regulation excuses corporate malfeasance. The drilling industry is heavily regulated. The regulators were incompetent. BP cut corners to save money and/or time. MMS signed off on the rig construction proposal. There is a lot of blame to go around.
If something criminal took place I would want those responsible in BP to serve some time on top of the civil penalties and clean-up expenses. I just would not want those in authority using the potential to prosecute as a bargaining chip.
I’m sureElvisL1ves will be around soon to tell you that your argument has no basis in reality. Personally, I think your statement is just as bad and irresponsible as those that say Obama is in no rush to see the spill contained because he wants to push his energy legislation.
That last sentence is mighty slippery. No Republicans are defending BP. Barton was bitching about what he called extortion of the company by the administration. If Barton is correct then I agree with his statement. Trying to pin this on Obama is, unfortunately, business as usual for both parties on the Hill. I think you are confusing efforts to pin this on Obama with defending BP. They are not the same thing.
You don’t think so, but I think it’s fairly easy for some to view it as zero-sum (at least from a political perspective). I don’t quite see it that way, but I’m sure some do.
Category: DC - TPM – Talking Points Memo Actually Boehner and other repub said the tax payers should help BP with the cost of the spill. It was met with such derision that they backed down. But the message can not be missed. They don’t hold corporations solely responsible for the damages they cause. When it is the people against the corporations, you know what side the repubs are on.
Nonsense. In the last few elections it has been standard practice for some moron Pubbie Congresscritter to say the Democratic candidate is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. Anyone saying Obama is a radical leftist has lost touch with reality. Plus, anyone saying that recent candidates are more left wing than McGovern has a really poor sense of history.
I like to say that anything not worth doing is not worth doing well, and if regulators discover that their bosses think that regulation is a waste of time at best and damaging to the economy more likely, they are not going to rock the boat. Imagine the honest regulator who finds a problem, and then gets reamed out for making life tough for the oil companies (or the banks.) Plenty of rules get ignored, both in government and business. You seem to be ignoring that point. The blame for this goes to the top. You think Cheney would have supported a crackdown on BP.
But I do absolutely agree that most of the MMS should have been booted the day after the Inauguration. But they shouldn’t have had 8 years to fester either.
That may be illegal, and in any case there is no evidence any deals were made.
Don’t be naive. Remember Cheney’s secret meeting with the energy companies? Do you really think these accusations of extortion come from people who fervently want BP to pay every penny? They chat with the oil execs, not the shrimpers. Sure the Republicans will be all for BP paying something - but a small enough amount to not put their stock price or dividend at risk. For many of these companies fines are a cost of doing business, and supporting fines smaller than the profit they get from violating regulations is not being tough on the oil companies - or power companies, for that matter.
The thing that still seems to be missing from this discussion is the extent to which people are trying to defend BP from the Chicago style shakedown, while BP itself doesn’t seem to mind the settlement. As I alluded in post 48, BP’s stock went up on the news.
If the lady’s tucked under the covers with a big smile on her face it’s going to be hard to push the accusation of rape.
Your point is well taken but it goes back to the old problem of perception.
“Chicago style shakedown.” What a term. The old bogeyman, Chicago style politics. These hypocritical politicians trot that out to scare their voters. Fact is, Chicago is a better city than your city, whatever and wherever it is. (I don’t live in Chicago but I did live there for awhile and recently visited.)
The difference with Chicago, and Illinois, is that they have a history of airing their dirty laundry. The Tribune and the Sun Times actually worked at exposing corruption. The reason that the Daley’s stay in power is that they actually take care of the city first and then take care of their friends. That a better alternative to the greedy scum that are only in office to line their pockets (Hello, Detroit! Not you Dave, your predecessors).
So some guy from Texas, Alabama, Louisiana or wherever wants to dump on Chicago. Well, your local politics are the pits, it’s just that you and your corruption haven’t been exposed.