This particular objection has me puzzled, so I thank our tighty whitey righty posters for enlightening me. I expect the opposition to oppose for the sake of opposing and offering suggestions on how things can be done better. But Barton and Bachmann seem to me to be missing the point of considered opposition. Even Sarah the Moose seems to have done better on this one.
So much for populism.
Even Mississippi’s governor was bitching about the fund, supposedly because having that money tied it up in escrow will make it harder for BP to dig new wells and remain profitable, thus endangering their ability to pay damages. Of course, if the money is held in escrow, then they won’t have to worry about where the money will come from, because it will have been saved. Which is the entire point of establishing an escrow…errrrrRRRRAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGH!!!
BLEEDS FROM EYES
I’m beginning to think that Republicans aren’t interested in governing, at least for now. It’s a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize everything Obama does than it is to try to find solutions to the problems of today. Besides, scaring the bejeezus out of your voters is quite profitable. Better to be one of a minority raking in campaign contributions than to be in the majority and actually have to do some work.
I think you have answered your own question. You can’t think of any reason why it might not be good to confiscate $20 bn from a corporation. You can hold their feet to the fire! People have been damaged! Clean up fund = good!
The problem is your lack of comprehension that there are even alternatives. That is why a thinking politician might worry that it might be a bad idea. Though foolish to say so out loud, I agree.
Analogy: the Tsar is bad! Overthrow the Tsar! Nothing can go wrong!
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying it is a bad idea, I’m saying that it is not self-evident that it must be better than confiscating $18 billion, but with different strings attached.
I see nothing in your cite that supports the notion that the $20 billion fund limits BP liability. The agreement reached with the White House specifically states this is only a down payment, and in no way limits total liability:
No.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
And BP’s liability certainly isn’t limited to this 20 billion dollars. This is just for starters.
As for the contention that this was a “shakedown”, what the fuck? BP has to clean up the fucking oil spill, right? They are obligated to compensate people who’s businesses have been destroyed by this oil spill, right?
Capitalism does not mean private profit and public risk. BP drilled the hole, the hole broke, oil gushed out, now BP is responsible. This is Libertarianism 101, people. This is called taking responsibility. If I go over to your house and dump 500 tons of rotting garbage, do you shrug and clean it up yourself? Or do you ask me to clean it up? And if I refuse to clean it up, you take me to court.
It’s ludicrious that a conservative would think that BP should do nothing to compensate victims of the oil spill without a court judgement. Companies pay their bills all the time without being ordered to by a court. This is called capitalism. If no company paid their bills unless a judge ordered them to, capitalism would be impossible. Any lawyer in the world would advise a client to try to settle a claim before going to court. And that’s what this 20 billion dollar fund is–a fund to settle claims. If you settle with BP you don’t have to litigate, which is a win for you, a win for BP, and a win for the court system.
All the complaints do is reveal that Republicans today don’t give a shit about “capitalism”, they care about protecting big business. And if that means shafting everyone else, they’re all for it.
You’re trying very hard to ignore the Republican Study Committee nowdays, aren’t you?
The GOP is not what you think it is.
I think its the same guy that ran the 9/11 fund.
Which treason are we talking about? Cuz I was called a traitor a few times for objecting to the invasionof Iraq and I don’t think I was being treasonous but a couple of guys in a bar did.
That’s speculation based on sh1t corporations got away with under a Republican administration and Republican congress…
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.
I find this whole trend disturbing. We clearly set a precedent where if companies screw up and cause a calamity that has far reaching devastation for lots of people, the government gives them money. This is a complete reverse of how it’s supposed to work.
In the end, of course, The taxpayers can take care of the mess! That’s how the free market works, you know!
I suppose one could argue that they oppose this from a free market ideological standpoint, i.e. the government shouldn’t be “strongarming” corporations into doing anything. But let’s be honest, their main motivation here is that it gives them another excuse to attack Obama.
As I said in another thread, if these douchebags felt they could score a few points against Obama by taking a dump on the American flag, they’d be dropping their drawers at lightning speed.
Let me put this as simply as possible: Pos proof of actions cl;early meeting the Constitutional definition of treason. Or retract this post, ith appropriate apologies.
There are certain things that are still across the line in civil discourse. Blatant accusations of actual treason is one of them.
No - don’t retract the post. In fact let me say that outing a CIA agent is treason in any reasonable interpretation of the term. And the more times these scum are called traitors to their faces and the faces of their apologists the better.
I wish Brooker would stop deputising Little League Lawyers to Watch Bush’s Back when he’s not around to.
From here.
If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment.
By what legal mechanism has the government mandated that BP pay $20 billion? Was there a lawsuit I missed? Is the $20 billion part of some sort of prior contract or agreement?
That BP is responsible is not in doubt. The question is what gives the government the right to arbitrarily confiscate a companies assets with no legal due process. And if they can do it with BP, what is to stop them from doing it to any other business based on populism or simple convenience?
Motörhead, really? 
I don’t think this is accurate. I thought BP was ‘voluntarily’ putting the money into escrow to be managed by a 3rd party. Granted, it was suggested by the government, but as far as I can tell, no one is ‘confiscating’ money from BP.