Shocker: GOPer Blocks Effort to Hold Oil Companies Accountable

[Kulindahr]

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.

I agree that there should be limits, but I have yet to see a politician craft a bill that shows a grasp of reality. For example, any sensible bill would begin by granting court costs plus, say $100/hr per plaintiff for time spent on the suit (why should just lawyers get paid?), before even looking at caps.

But you have a faulty view of the free market system: in a free market, by definition everyone involved in an exchange comes out ahead.

You're basically right about the end, though: those with the biggest profits write the laws. That became inevitable the moment government started regulating everything in sight.

 

[NickCole]

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.

I don't mind lawsuits but mostly I want those in power dealing in the best possible way with a problem, which is not what's happening. BP won't do it on their own (sociopathic greed) and Obama won't force them to (sociopathic narcissism). And they won't be held accountable because of the prevailing attitude in America that second-best, third-best, full-out-crappy, is acceptable as long as good spin creates the perception it's cool or some way desirable even if it's just disgusting. People become bedazzled and defend those who don't deserve it, and think they're wonderful for doing so and that those who don't do it are mean and bitter and hateful.

What's happening with the oil spill is typical of ObamaNation and of Bush & Co before it, which is why I realized from the start that this would be another Katrina. Obama is consumed by his narcissism, and it is literally impossible for a narcissist as advanced as he to be concerned about how others are effected by what happened. All he cares about is how it effects hiim, so his efforts are all about PR and what others will think of him -- and there is no way a person in charge, with that at his core, will get the job done right. His decision making is directed in the wrong direction, so he will not competently address what needs to be taken care of. It's like a vain woman sitting on a sofa smoking a cigarette, her drapes catch fire and singe her hair, she runs to a bathroom to attend to her hair while the fire spreads and kills her children and pets. A narcissist can be fun and charming at a party but when there's a fire you need someone who'll run for a fire extinquisher, not a mirror.

Citizens and voters and consumers in a Democracy and capitalist system have all the power we need to make the right things happen but if we don't take our responsibility seriously then we elect people like Bush and Obama who make us feel good but screw up the important stuff. Americans today don't recognize that the seductive charming likable guy everybody at the party wants to stand next to and maybe even go home and mess up the sheets with is usually not the guy who'll be the best husband.

Obama and Obama loyalists are ruining this country just as surely as Bush and his loyalists did. The response to the economy and financial industry resulting in higher unemployment and foreclosures and richer bankers, health care "reform" resulting in higher costs and richer insurance and pharma and no greater benefit for most of us, this oil spill, etc etc, it's all the same if you break it down. Obama should be thrown out of office in 2012 and replaced with someone who'll do the job rather than adore his own reflection in his teleprompter -- but that won't happen because even if enough Americans figure out what a disaster he is, as they did Bush, if they replace him it'll probably be with someone else who hoodwinks them. That's where we are because too many Americans dismiss authenticity and happily pay themselves into debt for razzle dazzle.

 

[NickCole]

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..

Every investigation is not as you describe. A sober mature investigation finds out what happened, why it happened, and can provide answers to fixing a problem and going forward in a better way.

Not that I think today's Congress or White House can do that.

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.

It's not just that term. We have, in the past 30 years or so, devolved into a childish, or at best high schoolish culture. It's evident in our dress and behavior and language, and ultimately in our important decision making like how to handle off-shore drilling and now how to handle this disaster.

Immaturity is fun and cool but half-baked decisions tend to create problems; it takes maturity to solve problems.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I agree that there should be limits, but I have yet to see a politician craft a bill that shows a grasp of reality. For example, any sensible bill would begin by granting court costs plus, say $100/hr per plaintiff for time spent on the suit (why should just lawyers get paid?), before even looking at caps.

But you have a faulty view of the free market system: in a free market, by definition everyone involved in an exchange comes out ahead.

You're basically right about the end, though: those with the biggest profits write the laws. That became inevitable the moment government started regulating everything in sight.

So you feel the government should regulate how much a company can be sued for?

And, in the free market system, I still assert, if one is to profit, another must lose. And government regulation has nothing to do with it. What you're proposing is that regulation should be a club to use on people rather than on companies. The companies have too much power as it is. Look at the package big insurance bought for itself in HCR.

If a company does $100,000,000,000 in damages, that company should be responsible for at least $100,000,000,000 in reparations. Limiting its liability forces its responsibility upon the taxpayers. Do you, Kuli, want to pay for the cleanup in the Gulf? I didn't think so.

 

[JB3]

Seems to be an "assumption" in there somewhere.

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

No assumption. Just look at how he reacted further up the page.

And FYI; I've never watched Fox news for more than five minutes. I can't stand it, just like I can't stand MSNBC or CNN.

 

[JB3]

So you feel the government should regulate how much a company can be sued for?

And, in the free market system, I still assert, if one is to profit, another must lose. And government regulation has nothing to do with it. What you're proposing is that regulation should be a club to use on people rather than on companies. The companies have too much power as it is. Look at the package big insurance bought for itself in HCR.

If a company does $100,000,000,000 in damages, that company should be responsible for at least $100,000,000,000 in reparations. Limiting its liability forces its responsibility upon the taxpayers. Do you, Kuli, want to pay for the cleanup in the Gulf? I didn't think so.

Nowhere did I see Kuli advocating limiting liability below the cost of the incident. That's an assumption you made. What I DID see him advocating against is congress passing an arbitrary law allowing the government to punish these companies by requiring them to pay an amount significantly more than the cost of the incident.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Nowhere did I see Kuli advocating limiting liability below the cost of the incident. That's an assumption you made. What I DID see him advocating against is congress passing an arbitrary law allowing the government to punish these companies by requiring them to pay an amount significantly more than the cost of the incident.

Any time someone starts saying that "too much government regulation" is the root of evil, they're advocating that business should be given a free hand. And business will NOT accept responsibility for ANYTHING if it bears potential of cutting into their almighty profits.

Where did anyone advocate punishing companies beyond their fair share? They need to be held accountable for what they've done. If they don't readily accept the responsibility for themselves, then, yes, "punitive damages" are called for. Congress is making no attempt to punish the companies beyond their responsibility, Congress is trying to eliminate the artificial limits of corporate liability.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you feel the government should regulate how much a company can be sued for?

Yes, to keep the lawyers in check. Those parasites will sue anyone for any reason if they think they can get a jury to go for it, with no regard for truth or common sense.

And, in the free market system, I still assert, if one is to profit, another must lose.

So your contention is that the country is getting steadily poorer.

That's the result of your position, which requires that in every transaction in which there is a profit, the total amount of wealth either decreases or remains even. If that's the case, then the average individual wealth should decline steadily as the population rises.

And government regulation has nothing to do with it. What you're proposing is that regulation should be a club to use on people rather than on companies. The companies have too much power as it is. Look at the package big insurance bought for itself in HCR.

Regulation already is a club to be used on people. It stifles new businesses, drives people out of their homes and keeps others from getting homes, raises costs on all sorts of things, trapping people in a cycle of poverty and/or forcing them into the corporate treadmill.

And lawsuits have nothing to do with HCR... yet.

If a company does $100,000,000,000 in damages, that company should be responsible for at least $100,000,000,000 in reparations. Limiting its liability forces its responsibility upon the taxpayers. Do you, Kuli, want to pay for the cleanup in the Gulf? I didn't think so.

Who said anything about limiting liability? I was talking about limits on awards.

But limits have to take into account actual responsibility -- that's why I started with making sure the plaintiff gets court costs and time invested in the suit covered. Next would be actual damages, to which there can be no limit -- in fact my version would add 30% to actual damages, that amount to be posted as a bond under control of a neutral entity in case the actual damages turn out to be more than the court/jury decided.

Limits have to come in punitive damages, which I've seen get absolutely ridiculous. But I'd limit lawyer fees as well; I've read where plaintiffs actually end up owing the attorneys after an award. That's covered, I think, in the inclusion of court costs. At the very least, attorneys should get no portion of the award consisting of court costs and actual damages, since those are supposed to be for the plaintiff. If they can't convince the jury there should be punitive damages, their fee would be the regular billing rates, period.

Now in a case of a hundred billion in damages, such as with this spill, we're not just talking individuals -- states are getting in on the act, too. That's a tangle I'm not going to touch. But limiting it to individuals, were I judge and jury, the company would be paying $100 billion in damages, plus $30 billion bond, plus all actual expenses and time compensation for all the people who property got damaged, plus the cost of all the lawyers and investigators and whoever to assess and document the damage, and since I've experiences just how gross some escaped crude can make a person's waterfront, I'd award everyone whose waterfront was dirtied by the stuff another $10k for pain and suffering, plus another $5k for every month it takes to clean the stuff up.

On the other side of the coin, I'd want an investigation into the actions of all the people involved in government approval of that lease and of the platform design, etc.

And if a coin has a third side... and if it was within the power of a judge... I'd have the Coast Guard and Navy offering their services to get the damned thing plugged.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nowhere did I see Kuli advocating limiting liability below the cost of the incident. That's an assumption you made. What I DID see him advocating against is congress passing an arbitrary law allowing the government to punish these companies by requiring them to pay an amount significantly more than the cost of the incident.

Something like that.

See above for further thoughts. But Congress should definitely not be in the vengeance business.

 

[JB3]

Any time someone starts saying that "too much government regulation" is the root of evil, they're advocating that business should be given a free hand. And business will NOT accept responsibility for ANYTHING if it bears potential of cutting into their almighty profits.

Where did anyone advocate punishing companies beyond their fair share? They need to be held accountable for what they've done. If they don't readily accept the responsibility for themselves, then, yes, "punitive damages" are called for. Congress is making no attempt to punish the companies beyond their responsibility, Congress is trying to eliminate the artificial limits of corporate liability.

BP readily admits that its their responsibility to pay for it, so you have no argument there.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Yes, to keep the lawyers in check. Those parasites will sue anyone for any reason if they think they can get a jury to go for it, with no regard for truth or common sense.

Sorry old friend. That's why we have a judicial system. It's the COURT'S job to regulate what's fair compensation in a lawsuit. It's not the place of government to decide. When did libertarians lose sight of this fact? They want smaller government, but they want government to dictate how much people are worth. Makes no sense to me.

So your contention is that the country is getting steadily poorer.

No, the wealth is constantly shifting from those of us who are poor and middle class toward those who are wealthy and corporations. The gap is ever broadening with no end in sight.

That's the result of your position, which requires that in every transaction in which there is a profit, the total amount of wealth either decreases or remains even. If that's the case, then the average individual wealth should decline steadily as the population rises.

Yes, in every transaction in which there is a profit, wealth shifts from buyer to seller. And yes, individual wealth, adjusted for inflation, is lower for the poor and middle classes today than in the past. At the same time corporations and the wealthy are richer than ever.

Regulation already is a club to be used on people. It stifles new businesses, drives people out of their homes and keeps others from getting homes, raises costs on all sorts of things, trapping people in a cycle of poverty and/or forcing them into the corporate treadmill.

I beg to differ. Regulation has been gradually and systematically dismantled by the moderates and the right. That's why we had the housing bubble. That's why our financial system melted down. Wall Street bankers, oil companies, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, for example, have been having a field day merrily exploiting the un-regulated/under-regulated business climate for years, and that's why we have the problems we have today.

And lawsuits have nothing to do with HCR... yet.

Oh, come now, Kuli. HCR opponents have been crying "tort reform" for years now. They insist that that's going to be some magic bullet to lower the cost of healthcare. To that I politely say "bullshit." Tort reform is just another way for government to regulate the consumer rather than regulating business, which is what's REALLY needed.

Who said anything about limiting liability? I was talking about limits on awards.

Why should there be a limit on awards? How can the government arbitrarily decide what punitive damages should be? That's what our legal system is for.

But limits have to take into account actual responsibility -- that's why I started with making sure the plaintiff gets court costs and time invested in the suit covered. Next would be actual damages, to which there can be no limit -- in fact my version would add 30% to actual damages, that amount to be posted as a bond under control of a neutral entity in case the actual damages turn out to be more than the court/jury decided.

Okay, so you injure me, and I have $100,000 in medical expenses, plus I'm permanently disabled, never to work again. So, you're being very generous getting me compensated for my costs involved in bringing suit, but what's my future worth? I'll never be able to win that Nobel prize I was working toward. I'll never be able to father the 62nd President of the United States. I'll never be able to buy that private island I've had my heart set on. I won't be able to send my kid to Princeton.

Who decides what my future is worth? The government, for crying out loud? I think not.

Limits have to come in punitive damages, which I've seen get absolutely ridiculous. But I'd limit lawyer fees as well; I've read where plaintiffs actually end up owing the attorneys after an award. That's covered, I think, in the inclusion of court costs. At the very least, attorneys should get no portion of the award consisting of court costs and actual damages, since those are supposed to be for the plaintiff. If they can't convince the jury there should be punitive damages, their fee would be the regular billing rates, period.

Now in a case of a hundred billion in damages, such as with this spill, we're not just talking individuals -- states are getting in on the act, too. That's a tangle I'm not going to touch. But limiting it to individuals, were I judge and jury, the company would be paying $100 billion in damages, plus $30 billion bond, plus all actual expenses and time compensation for all the people who property got damaged, plus the cost of all the lawyers and investigators and whoever to assess and document the damage, and since I've experiences just how gross some escaped crude can make a person's waterfront, I'd award everyone whose waterfront was dirtied by the stuff another $10k for pain and suffering, plus another $5k for every month it takes to clean the stuff up.

On the other side of the coin, I'd want an investigation into the actions of all the people involved in government approval of that lease and of the platform design, etc.

And if a coin has a third side... and if it was within the power of a judge... I'd have the Coast Guard and Navy offering their services to get the damned thing plugged.

Who decides what it costs the shrimpers and fishermen in future income? Is that to be decided by some arbitrary limit? Who decides what the damage to the ecosystem is worth? We're looking at the potential for devastation of the entire Gulf Coast for generations to come! What about the damage to the tourism industry? What's that worth???? Should BP, Halliburton and TransOcean be able to walk away from this horrific disaster for just the price of cleaning up the oil (which ain't gonna happen anyway. . . that genie's out of the bottle)?

 

[Kulindahr]

Any time someone starts saying that "too much government regulation" is the root of evil, they're advocating that business should be given a free hand. And business will NOT accept responsibility for ANYTHING if it bears potential of cutting into their almighty profits.

Except that all too often, the boards set up to regulate industries end up populated by major stockholders in those industries, and the regulators serve to establish the existing companies as a de facto monopoly with government protection against competition.

And I call government regulation a great evil because it keeps people poor, in crappy housing, unable to use their own land to make a living even though it could set them up well. It causes crime and aids criminals, it stifles innovation and creativity.

And it provides massive amounts of work for a parasite class.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Something like that.

See above for further thoughts. But Congress should definitely not be in the vengeance business.

And, Congress is NOT attempting top get into "the vengeance business." They're seeking to raise the artificial cap on liability, so that the companies involved can be held accountable for the damages they do. Nobody is seeking to penalize the companies beyond what's just and fair. If the costs of the disaster add up to ten-Trillion dollars, then the companies should be held accountable for it!

Talk about rash mis-characterization. . . sheesh!

 

[Jack Springer]

ATTEN: You have entered another liberal circle jerk.

 

[JB3]

And, Congress is NOT attempting top get into "the vengeance business." They're seeking to raise the artificial cap on liability, so that the companies involved can be held accountable for the damages they do. Nobody is seeking to penalize the companies beyond what's just and fair. If the costs of the disaster add up to ten-Trillion dollars, then the companies should be held accountable for it!

Talk about rash mis-characterization. . . sheesh!

Except they are trying to get into the vengeance business. They would intentionally be pushing the caps to the highest level possible with the biggest companies, regardless of the actual damage involved. With our wonderful government bureaucracy, raising the cap in that manner is an invitation to abuse of the system. (the larger the company is, the more likely it becomes that someone will try and exploit the system)

The suggestions by those legislators that oppose this are wise; instead of tying it to profit, how about tying it to each individual incident? Instead of continuing to peg it artificially, why not peg it to the incident actually at hand?

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Except they are trying to get into the vengeance business. They would intentionally be pushing the caps to the highest level possible with the biggest companies, regardless of the actual damage involved. With our wonderful government bureaucracy, raising the cap in that manner is an invitation to abuse of the system. (the larger the company is, the more likely it becomes that someone will try and exploit the system)

The suggestions by those legislators that oppose this are wise; instead of tying it to profit, how about tying it to each individual incident? Instead of continuing to peg it artificially, why not peg it to the incident actually at hand?

Now here you go espousing opinion without any substance to back it up. Raising the caps is about keeping the corporations from shirking their responsibilities. Address the concerns I listed. Why shouldn't the companies be responsible for the lives that are left in financial ruin because of corporate negligence? The current "caps" prevent people from being compensated for having worked hard to share in the American Dream only to have the dream pulled-out from under them by this catastrophe.

So, do you own a piece of BP, Halliburton or TransOcean that is somehow threatened by people being justly compensated? No? Then stop defending the corporations and think about the HUMAN LIVES that are being destroyed by the oil spill.

The "exloit(ation)" that you're so concerned about is what the companies are doing to people. . . not what people might do to those "poor, defenseless corporate monoliths."

 

[Zu-Mendel]

BP readily admits that its their responsibility to pay for it, so you have no argument there.

I will freely admit to being wrong if proved so, but where did BP's CEO say that the company will write a blank cheque for the purpose of cleaning the spill up? He has long since admitted to the drop-in-the-bucket 75 million dollar limit, but the rest of the billions of dollars to clean this up will be placed on the tab of the American taxpayer.

Quite frankly I don't care if the liability puts them out of business, plenty of other companies will buy up their operation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I will freely admit to being wrong if proved so, but where did BP's CEO say that the company will write a blank cheque for the purpose of cleaning the spill up? He has long since admitted to the drop-in-the-bucket 75 million dollar limit, but the rest of the billions of dollars to clean this up will be placed on the tab of the American taxpayer.

Quite frankly I don't care if the liability puts them out of business, plenty of other companies will buy up their operation.

That would be worth pinning down. CEO statements are about as slippery as those of Congress-critters.

 

[JB3]

I will freely admit to being wrong if proved so, but where did BP's CEO say that the company will write a blank cheque for the purpose of cleaning the spill up? He has long since admitted to the drop-in-the-bucket 75 million dollar limit, but the rest of the billions of dollars to clean this up will be placed on the tab of the American taxpayer.

Quite frankly I don't care if the liability puts them out of business, plenty of other companies will buy up their operation.

Actually, he has said that the $75 million cap is not relevant in this case and that BP assumes all responsibility for clean-up costs. The company has already given $25 million each to Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama to implement each state's oil spill contingency plan, separate from other funds. They make sure to note that that funding will not count against any of the states for future claims.

Here is a link to a PDF published by BP where they state that they will pay for all clean-up costs and all verifiable loss/damage claims.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/537711/

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Actually, he has said that the $75 million cap is not relevant in this case and that BP assumes all responsibility for clean-up costs. The company has already given $25 million each to Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama to implement each state's oil spill contingency plan, separate from other funds. They make sure to note that that funding will not count against any of the states for future claims.

Here is a link to a PDF published by BP where they state that they will pay for all clean-up costs and all verifiable loss/damage claims.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/537711/

Oh, yeah. . . and BP is such a beneficent company that they're going to restore financial security to all those people along the gulf coast whose lives balance on a knife edge right now. They've already begun to use chemical dispersants, which have been proven to do more harm than good, just because they make the oil spill "look" better. When the shrimp and oysters disappear for the next generation or two, BP will be right there to stand by the families that depend on them. When sea trutles balance onthe edge of extinction due to BP, Halliburton and TransOcean's colossal negligence, those companies will fund the efforts of marine biologists to save this vital species.

You cannot count on corporations to be altruistic. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. . . no one else.