Shocker: GOPer Blocks Effort to Hold Oil Companies Accountable

[White Eagle]

Why are Republicans so screwed up. Here is a Senator from Alaska, who knows what an oil spill can do to a state, and she does not want to raise the liability cap.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy...-accountable-for-economic-damage-from-spills/

Posted by jedlewison at 2:27 pm
May 13, 2010


Shocker: GOP Blocks Effort to Hold Oil Companies Accountable for Economic Damage from Spills

This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.

I’m sure you’ll be shocked by this: acting on behalf of her Republican colleagues (and some oil-friendly Democrats like Mary Landrieu), Alaska’s Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski today blocked legislation that would have lifted the $75 million liability cap protecting big oil companies like BP from paying for economic damage caused by their oil spills.

 

[NickCole]

The way this thread is framed is a fine example of how Obama and ObamaNation have made divisiveness and partisan rancor worse rather than their promise of improving the situation.

As the article you linked reports, "some oil-friendly Democrats like Mary Landrieu" support Murkowski in this.

Further:

... The debate over liability in Congress may not necessarily divide along party lines. Four Republican senators from Gulf Coast states — David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Robert Wicker of Mississippi and George LeMieux of Florida — introduced a bill Thursday that could push liability even higher than $10 billion in some cases. ...

Murkowski and fellow Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, have proposed increasing the size of a federal spill response fund by raising the tax per barrel of oil by a penny, from 8 to 9 cents. Murkowski also said the Senate should consider raising the liability cap for individual accidents, "but we need to be careful about unintended consequences."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

 

[PrivateTimm]

Why are Republicans so screwed up. Here is a Senator from Alaska, who knows what an oil spill can do to a state, and she does not want to raise the liability cap.

What Nick said...... how about posting from credible, not foaming at the mouth leftie blogs.

How about this quote from the L.A. Times story.

The legislation would raise the cap to "the last four quarters of a responsible party's profits or double the current limit, whichever is greater." In BP's case, that would mean the company's liability could reach $20 billion. But smaller, less profitable companies could be on the hook for far less than $10 billion in the event of a spill.

Murkowski and fellow Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, have proposed increasing the size of a federal spill response fund by raising the tax per barrel of oil by a penny, from 8 to 9 cents. Murkowski also said the Senate should consider raising the liability cap for individual accidents, "but we need to be careful about unintended consequences."

So the current bill being pushed quickly through would be based on on the amount of damage, but on profits, how does that make sense?

Gulf Coast senators want no limit.

Murkowski has said slow down (what a concept for a politician) and think about the bill, consequences, etc. as opposed to jumping on a populist band wagon while passions are high to push another bad bill through.

And how about this quote, also from the L.A. Times article.

The debate over liability in Congress may not necessarily divide along party lines. Four Republican senators from Gulf Coast states — David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Robert Wicker of Mississippi and George LeMieux of Florida — introduced a bill Thursday that could push liability even higher than $10 billion in some cases.

So why aren't you posting, "wow, here is what great about Republicans, they really want to stick it to big oil here for this spill"?

You would be less confused if you wouldn't read leftie blogs as gospel truth.

 

[White Eagle]

As far as my cite being left sided, your cite LA Times is a joke. There is nothing wrong with my thread. It says "GOPer" meaning one GOP Member. Y'all need a life.

 

[NickCole]

As far as my cite being left sided, your cite LA Times is a joke. There is nothing wrong with my thread. It says "GOPer" meaning one GOP Member.

And the first line of your OP is "Why are Republicans so screwed up."

Y'all need a life.

You need a dose of truth serum or Kool Aid antidote.

 

[bike10]

Oil and Republicans mix well together.

 

[NickCole]

Oil and Republicans mix well together.

And then there's Obama.

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ​

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0nvEvkr9r ​

 

[Kulindahr]

So the current bill being pushed quickly through would be based on on the amount of damage, but on profits, how does that make sense?

I'd say it's based on the notion that they pay for what they can afford, so they don't go put of business. Maybe the idea is partly that we don't want small companies to go under, so there will be competition.

As far as my cite being left sided, your cite LA Times is a joke. There is nothing wrong with my thread. It says "GOPer" meaning one GOP Member. Y'all need a life.

The thread title suggests that one single person in the GOP is holding back all of Congress from getting something useful done. When someone looks more closely at the issue, neither assertion holds up.

 

[White Eagle]

Sorry, that's what it looked like to me

 

[Ambrocious]

One of the BEST ways in the world, if your sick of both parties, is to visit Infowars.com or Prisonplanet.com where the news is nonpartisan and straight forward. You will hear about real issues there, not injected fermented issues that project you into a falsified point of view. This effectively breaks the left/right paradigm and shows you that BOTH sides are in cahoots with each other and are just as corrupt as any other politician. Don't place your hope in the left or the right...you will be crushed. But being crushed is part of the plan as well.

Once your will is broken and your trust in either the left or the right is crushed, you are more easily mentally herded like animals to capitulate (go along with) anything that the current leader tells you to do or suggests that you think. This happens when you lose hope in your party but there is seemingly no other way to go. There IS another way to go!

I stand for the restoration of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States which have been destroyed almost completely over many years now. We need a restoration of true freedom and liberty in neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans will usher in any great change.

We must peacefully take back the system and ignite liberty into the minds of the people because some have never even seen what true freedom is and I think it's past time to see it. Engage in the infowar against the lies and deception which is spreading globally and has already poisoned the majority of the people's minds and hearts.

I don't come here to JUB to spew crazy speech that has no grounds in the truth; I am seeking the truth and along the way, inviting others to come along too. We cannot allow people to tell us that we are crazy when we know the truth and we can't be cowards either.

 

[SuperPsyze]

This is why I watch the Daily Show/Colbert Report. Despite being a parody news cast with comedic overtones, they still call out idiots from any corner of the political spectrum. The standard news networks are so bloated with nonsense these days (oh, the irony...).

 

[PrivateTimm]

As far as my cite being left sided, your cite LA Times is a joke. There is nothing wrong with my thread. It says "GOPer" meaning one GOP Member. Y'all need a life.

Sorry chief, alternet is a leftie blog. I'll give you that the L.A. Times is a leftie MSM newspaper, but at lest they can get quotes correct and do a credible job.

You were the one who posted "Why are Republicans (that is plural) so screwed up", why did you leave off that her Democrat colleague was supporting her legislation, why did you leave out that FOUR Republicans were pushing for even higher limits than Martinez's bill?

Because it doesn't fit your narrow view that Republicans are evil and Democrats are saints and going to save you some how. How is that hopey changey thing working out on DOMA and DADT?

 

[IllgetyouHackman]

How about we clean up the spill and drop the blame game?

 

[NickCole]

How about we clean up the spill

Good idea. It's not getting done.

and drop the blame game?

Since Obama wants to open up huge swaths of our shoreline to off-shore drilling, figuring out who did what wrong is vital.

And phrases like "the blame game" are childish. It really is time American adults behave and speak like mature human beings again. This isn't little league with do-overs and trophies and "good job!" even though you screw up. It's appropriate to examine what happened, assign responsibility to those who screwed up and hold them accountable.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

And phrases like "the blame game" are childish. It really is time American adults behave and speak like mature human beings again. This isn't little league with do-overs and trophies and "good job!" even though you screw up. It's appropriate to examine what happened, assign responsibility to those who screwed up and hold them accountable.

The last word there is the key. "Accountable." As it is, there's a limit to the liability of any of the companies involved. Without full accountability for actions, corporate America is free to rape and pillage without recrimination beyond the proverbial wrist slap. Corporations are protected by an American political system that is "for sale" to the highest bidder. And that includes both parties in power. The Democrats are as indebted to corporations as Republicans. They only tread a little less softly in debating the subject.

Medical providers have a limit to liability for their actions.
Manufacturers have limits to the liability of the products they make.

And lawmakers want to impose more/lower limits on the amounts that people can sue for, supposedly to reduce "frivolous lawsuits." The truth is, they want to limit corporate accountabilities to protect profits. It's all profit driven. Therein lies the inherent flaw of the "free market system." In order for someone to profit, someone else must lose. And those with the profits write the laws.

 

[IllgetyouHackman]

Childish? perhaps having committees sit around and crucify these companies for doing what THEY wanted them to do is childish, its like sticking your dog's nose in rabbit shit and just not cleaning it up, that is childish..

Add: and how is a childish phrase inappropriate here? When they want to act like adults I will give them big words to deal with, right now they can't handle it.

 

[JB3]

Sorry, that's what it looked like to me

When you read blogs that cater to your myopic world view, you're not going to get anything resembling an accurate picture. So while you saw 'evil republicans block higher fines, blah blah blah' from the heavily biased alternet, the rest of us saw 'Lawmakers cautious about expanding fines and liability amounts higher'.

 

[Centexfarmer]

When you read blogs that cater to your myopic world view, you're not going to get anything resembling an accurate picture. So while you saw 'evil republicans block higher fines, blah blah blah' from the heavily biased alternet, the rest of us saw 'Lawmakers cautious about expanding fines and liability amounts higher'.

Becky, puhleeze!

I spent all afternoon watching FOX News.

To talk about "myopic world view" would be a discredit to those of us who know what that really means.

 

[JB3]

Becky, puhleeze!

I spent all afternoon watching FOX News.

To talk about "myopic world view" would be a discredit to those of us who know what that really means.

Hey, what he posted is the definition of a myopic world view. He only viewed that one source, and then when presented with the truth he became defensive and denied it.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Hey, what he posted is the definition of a myopic world view. He only viewed that one source, and then when presented with the truth he became defensive and denied it.

Seems to be an "assumption" in there somewhere.

Let me guess, you're a big fan of FauxNews, right?