Exactly. That’s the impression I got. If they had really wanted to, BP could have told Obama to fuck off. Of course that would have resulted in even more bad PR and probably obliterated whatever reputation they had left, but they were well within their rights to do that.
Now, of course their main motivation here was trying to fend threats of lawsuits, government meddling and the aforementioned negative PR, but to that I say tough shit.
Well a couple of things. As you say, that BP is is responsible is not in doubt. This is the equivalent of a plea bargain. “We have your bloody finger prints on the gun! Sign this confession and maybe we’ll knock a few years off”. BP could refuse but the government could come down on them like a ton of bricks through the courts, legal, and other channels such as purchesses. Further this deal is in the clear public interest of trying to make the victims of BP’s incompetence whole again with as minimal disruption to their lives as possible.
Good Devil’s advocate, though.
The GOP objection to this is that it makes (or might make) Obama look good, and that is a very bad thing.
They don’t need a reason. The GOBP will attack anything Obama says or does. If Obama gives the same speech that Ronald Reagan once made, they will call him a communist. The Democrats do much of the same.
Amazing and wrong take again. The fund will be administered by an arbitrator who also oversaw the 911 funds. Obama will not be involved.
In America you get the justice you can afford. Exxon got their damages dropped over and over until it was 10 percent of the original reward. They could afford the best lawyers and could go to court forever if needed. The Valdez people got about 15 thou apiece.It took 2 decades. In Bhopal the perpetrators got away with even less. We do not have a nice little justice system. You get all the justice you can pay for. BP can afford to buy the best.
Discussed in quite some depth on this very forum, over the previous decade, nonetheless.
None. It’s something they’ve agreed to do under political pressure.
Then you shouldn’t have used the word “arbitrarily” to describe their being held to that responsibility in your very next sentence.
Based on the reaction of BP’s share holders, it doesn’t look like too much of a shake down. BP’s stocks rose with the announcement. So it looks like it may have been a win/win. People hurt by the spill get money, BP gets some degree of stability.
Then I would argue that the government should not be able to take your assets simply because it’s politically desirable to do so.
You do understand that there is a difference between “everyone knows someone is responsible” and actually legal responsibility?
Oh, that’d only be true if before this they were complaining that he wasn’t doing enough.
Oh, wait…!
-Joe
Did you miss the “voluntary” part, even though under pressure?
You do understand that legal responsibility is not a consideration here?
Are you acting as devil’s advocate here, or Limbaugh’s? :dubious:
FWIW, Barton retracted his apology to BP yesterday:
I don’t believe that Barton’s comment ever had majority support among Republicans, despite Bachman, Tom Price, Limbaugh, et al. Anyone who did side with Barton definitely got a white-hot spotlight shone upon them … that probably gave the illusion of actual numbers.
That’s nice, now where’s my refund for that stupid Iraq conquest Republicans thought would result in a permanent conservative majority in the house and senate?
Wait… what’s the difference again?
The Repub position is purely political. If the fund starts helping the locals get on their feet, it would help Obama. They can not allow that. They have Rush, the liar in chief, talking as if there is no problem. Oil leaks into the ocean naturally ,therefore this is not much different. I suppose he does not actually have eyes. If he did ,what is happening to the innocent people of the gulf would by obvious.
Ben Stein was on last night repeating over and over that Obama’s actions are unconstitutional. Since the constitution does not specifically address the creation of a fund, it is not allowed.
And I would argue that we have taxes and only the most diehard libertarian would argue all taxes are wrong. What I think you meant was the government shouldn’t be able to seize an entity’s assets without proving harm through due process in court?
However even that point doesn’t apply in this case. BP was completely free to take it to court ad not pay a dime until court ordered. They would have lost and lost hard, and they know it, but they’re free to.
And that’s why this was a great devil’s advocate. It probes the conflict inherent in democracy of the rights of the individual verses the tyranny of the majority. BP can’t be arbitrarily legally punished without proving a crime in court, even if everyone hates them and thinks they smell funny.
However the government can use the threat of court. If it has a weak case the threat has fee teeth, but how many teeth does a public trial have for BP in this case?
About 100 lbs and a drug habbit.
The Tao’s Revenge - That’s correct. I wasn’t including taxes as they are part of “legal due process”. Regardless of your stance on the issue of taxes, there is at least a tax code that tells you how much you owe each year. The government doesn’t just say “you are too rich” and just take all your money.
ElvisL1ves - If I threaten you with financial ruin if you don’t pay me a lot of money, is that really “voluntary”?
What threat was made?
And, assuming you can find out what that was, how does holding them to the responsibility you already acknowledge they have constitute a “threat”?
And, for that matter, who is getting paid the “lot of money” here?
When come back, bring argument.
Obamanation?
There are some who are scared witless by that.
I’ll ask this again: why is it that almost everyone (and especially the Righties - see Rand Rover’s first post) is ignoring the word “escrow” in this deal?