Shocker: GOPer Blocks Effort to Hold Oil Companies Accountable

[LonelyInVenice]

1) They didn't block the effort. They delayed it. If you'd read the article, you'd understand that.

2) Cite for your bailout contention.

1) Did the bill succeed? No. Did Murkowski & Co. let it pass? No. That's blocking.

2) Sen. Murkowski is lobbying to hold BP's liability at $10M. That's effectively 5 days worth of damage. . . leaving the balance for taxpayers to fund. THAT'S a bailout.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

If that's supposed to be a response to my post that you quoted, you should read the thread before typing.

It was absolutely a response to the quoted text. You were promoting that instead of a "number" cap that it should be a "formula." I'm saying that ANY artificial cap on liability is obscene. I'm liable for any misdeeds that I do. Likewise, you're liable for your misdoings. Why should corporations be any different?

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Why should a bank that did nothing wrong pay a tax to repay bailout money they didn't take? THAT is vindictive and THAT is an undue burden. Those companies didn't take any money, so why should they have to pay it back? Can you tell me, or do you just have more poorly thought-out comments to spew?

Why should you or I be taxed to pay for it? Banks received a much more direct benefit from the bailout than the average American citizen. The money must come from somewhere. . . why not those whose institutions were protected from the follout of their neighbor's collapse by the bailout?

Besides. . . It's a TAX, it's not described nor intended to be a "penalty."

I didn't benefit from the new school that was built in my neighborhood. . . but I'm taxed for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

It was absolutely a response to the quoted text. You were promoting that instead of a "number" cap that it should be a "formula." I'm saying that ANY artificial cap on liability is obscene. I'm liable for any misdeeds that I do. Likewise, you're liable for your misdoings. Why should corporations be any different?

So you haven't been paying attention to the thread -- that's what I thought.

I proposed no cap on liability; I explicitly said the opposite -- my view of liability, if you'd red, is extremely harsh; I believe I said something like 100% of estimated plus a bond posted for 50% more in case there was more, and if things went beyond that, and past what the corporation was worth, they could attach the wealth of the officers and then the stockholders, starting at the top.

I also said that if a jury does not make an award of damages, they would consider separately whether the plaintiffs should get court costs anyway, on the basis of whether they had a fair reason for believing the company was liable.

And that was just for starters...

 

[thewiz]

Having managed a Superfund site -- formerly a town city dump -- I am cautious when the government talks liability, legality, and lawyers. Superfund started out with good intentions: to clean up the environment following the Love Canal episode. However, its crafting meant that whenever someone wanted to perform work, to monitor a site, to change an existing ROD (Record of Decision) -- they had to return to court. My first-hand experience with Superfund is that it was just that: a superfund for the lawyers. It slowed down clean-ups because of the necessity for everything to go through the courts which required experts and attorneys from all sides to stake out a position that would be most favorable to their client. In the end, the small city that I managed paid...and paid...and is still paying (despite a finding of no significant impact years ago!)

I worry this same concept will make its way into any clean-up changes being proposed after this fiasco. Given the wealth (and power) of the oil companies on BOTH political parties, I am sure that "K Street" in DC is gearing up for a political fight of epic proportions.

There are several things that should happen:

1. If gross negligence is found in any similar or same incident, officers of the corporation should be liable both civilly and criminally for the actions. This is already within existing federal OSHA regulations and should apply to incidents such as this. Slam a big wig in prison a few years and watch the rats scramble.

2. More stringent safety mechanisms that are available and used in most other countries have not been required by the U.S. The excuse has been "cost." Bullshit. The oil companies have been raking in obscene profits for years and all existing wells as well as new should be mandated to install/retrofit to the latest technology and safety equipment. It should be inspected by an independent testing laboratory under the auspices of the federal government.

3. The liability caps should be removed. A doctor doesn't have liability caps; why should the oil companies? If there is a cap, it should be $75 to $100 billion and required regardless of company profits or size. You don't think profits will suddenly be underreported or moved into "capitalization/reserves" versus "profit" on a balance sheet? And cleanups don't respect balance sheets.

4. An arbitration panel or something similar should be used for persons injured as a result of these types of incidents. Minimize the attorneys and legal maneuvering and get the money to the people who are hurt by these actions. It should be speedy, swift, and just for all. Look what happened with the cigarette manufacturers -- they would often litigate and appeal until the plaintiff died. Companies that have billions can afford to appeal it to death; people such as those injured along the gulf cannot.

5. Small Business Association (SBA) loans are available for those injured by these incidents; the cost of repaying those loans should be born by the oil company.

6. One can already see the finger pointing lining up from recent congressional testimony. The party that gets the permit should be held liable. If they hire flunkies or idiots -- well, too bad for them. Their name is on the permit; they go to the courts to spread the cost not point the finger. I think Harry Truman said it best: "The buck stops here." Here, in this case, is the permit holder. Perhaps they will do a better job of oversight and holding accountable if they don't have the opportunity to wiggle.

All of these would be good starts but if this is anything like the health care bill, stimulus bill, and EDNA/DADT -- I won't hold my breath for I fear another clusterf***k coming from congress.....

 

[JB3]

1) Did the bill succeed? No. Did Murkowski & Co. let it pass? No. That's blocking.

2) Sen. Murkowski is lobbying to hold BP's liability at $10M. That's effectively 5 days worth of damage. . . leaving the balance for taxpayers to fund. THAT'S a bailout.

It is not dead so therefore it was not 'blocked'. Consideration of the bill was delayed using a procedural motion to allow more time for discussion.

As for your bailout 'citation'; well, now you're just making shit up. Nowhere has Murkowski suggested such a thing. Even if she had, how the hell do you figure that that's a bailout? You do understand that BP has already spent more than half a billion dollars, and will spend billions more, don't you?

 

[LonelyInVenice]

It is not dead so therefore it was not 'blocked'. Consideration of the bill was delayed using a procedural motion to allow more time for discussion.

Translation = "blocked, at least for the time being." Otherwise, why do it? Why not let it be debated & voted? "Justice delayed is justice denied." You expect us to believe Murkowski has some altruistic motive for the delay???

As for your bailout 'citation'; well, now you're just making shit up. Nowhere has Murkowski suggested such a thing. Even if she had, how the hell do you figure that that's a bailout? You do understand that BP has already spent more than half a billion dollars, and will spend billions more, don't you?

If the artificial cap of $10,000, currently in place, is allowed to remain, and considering that BP has already surpassed that, leaving the cap as it is allows BP to "walk away" at whatever point they decide most favorable to their long term survival and profitability. I suggest, considering their record and that of corporations in general, their decision will fall far short of the damage they have caused. Especially since the current law allows it.

Now, if a company is allowed to walk away from its liabilities based on too low of a "cap," that amounts to a tax payer funded bailout. Otherwise, who do you think pays for it?!?

 

[JB3]

Translation = "blocked, at least for the time being." Otherwise, why do it? Why not let it be debated & voted? "Justice delayed is justice denied." You expect us to believe Murkowski has some altruistic motive for the delay???



If the artificial cap of $10,000, currently in place, is allowed to remain, and considering that BP has already surpassed that, leaving the cap as it is allows BP to "walk away" at whatever point they decide most favorable to their long term survival and profitability. I suggest, considering their record and that of corporations in general, their decision will fall far short of the damage they have caused. Especially since the current law allows it.

Now, if a company is allowed to walk away from its liabilities based on too low of a "cap," that amounts to a tax payer funded bailout. Otherwise, who do you think pays for it?!?

Besides being completely devoid of any truth on the reality of the situation, I'm impressed at your contortions of logic to get to the point that some imaginary walkaway by BP will result in a bailout. As before, that contention is complete and utter horseshit, and I'm surprised you honestly think that such childish logic would work in an argument here.

 

[Joshua_me]

The saddest part of this situation - you know, aside from the 10's of thousands of people who will lose their livelihoods and the ability to support themselves and their families, and of course the unpleasant fact that the Gulf of Mexico may well be a "dead sea" for generations to come - is the fact that it is now being politicized. Turned into a weapon used to further both sides of the aisle.

Listen to you people. "Obama is the most horrible man ever... Every breath he takes is a mistake". "No, it's the Republicans that are to blame... the unbridled greed is unfathomable..."

Don't you folks get it ? The people that head BP and the leaders in Washington don't give a good God damn about you. They are in that "upper one percent" that you keep hearing about.

Do you think they care that you keep slinging arrows at one another ? They don't.

Just keep arguing amongst yourselves... It's Obama's fault ! It's the Obama nation ! (Or whatever it is you're so pissed about) It's Bush's fault ! Worst president ever !!

None of that matters.

This country was bought and sold years ago. All of your antics don't amount to a thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Besides being completely devoid of any truth on the reality of the situation, I'm impressed at your contortions of logic to get to the point that some imaginary walkaway by BP will result in a bailout. As before, that contention is complete and utter horseshit, and I'm surprised you honestly think that such childish logic would work in an argument here.

If it wouldn't become a de facto bailout, then just what do you think it would be? Corporate welfare?

 

[NickCole]

The saddest part of this situation - you know, aside from the 10's of thousands of people who will lose their livelihoods and the ability to support themselves and their families, and of course the unpleasant fact that the Gulf of Mexico may well be a "dead sea" for generations to come - is the fact that it is now being politicized. Turned into a weapon used to further both sides of the aisle.

Listen to you people. "Obama is the most horrible man ever... Every breath he takes is a mistake". "No, it's the Republicans that are to blame... the unbridled greed is unfathomable..."

Don't you folks get it ? The people that head BP and the leaders in Washington don't give a good God damn about you. They are in that "upper one percent" that you keep hearing about.

Do you think they care that you keep slinging arrows at one another ? They don't.

Just keep arguing amongst yourselves... It's Obama's fault ! It's the Obama nation ! (Or whatever it is you're so pissed about) It's Bush's fault ! Worst president ever !!

None of that matters.

This country was bought and sold years ago. All of your antics don't amount to a thing.

There were options besides Bush and Obama.

It would have been a different story with Al Gore rather than Bush and Hillary Clinton rather than Obama. Failing to realize that, failing to learn year after year after year makes voters like you just as responsible for what's happening in the Gulf as Bush and Obama.

BushRepublicans and ObamaNation cheers these cons and ridicules the opponents, and then when the Bushes and Obamas turn out to be what the opponents said they are, BushRepublicans and ObamaNation snarl at those who knew and pretend it had to be this way.

It's this way because of the way YOU voted and what YOU defended. Smarten up or the next time we have a choice you're going to make the same mistake.

 

[JB3]

If it wouldn't become a de facto bailout, then just what do you think it would be? Corporate welfare?

Subsidization/corporate welfare. A bailout implies that BP would have gone down without government assistance, which is absolutely not the case.