Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LISurfcaster

So let me get this straight...

Rate this topic

26 posts in this topic

...when the government provides a bailout to the banks and auto manufacturers it is an attempt by the government to take over those companies and take over those industries. But when we get a company to pay $20 billion to fund the cleanup for their oil spill when their legal obligation is only $75 million (Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government) the government is shaking down the company. (While most of the opening statements by members contained harsh criticisms of BP, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, accused the White House of conducting a "$20 billion shakedown" by requiring oil giant BP to establish a fund to compensate those hurt by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

 

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House" on Wednesday, said Barton, who has received at least $100,470 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, the second-highest amount among all the committee members.).

 

Ashamed??? Who exactly did Barton expect to pay for the cleanup? it's these types of gross tactical errors that may actually give the Democrats some hope in the Fall.

 

JOMO.

 

RS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Associated Press has published this list of how much money members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have received in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009

 

Only a couple guys on there in 6 figures, what's that tell you.

 

Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., none

John Barrow, D-Ga., $31,500

Joe Barton, R-Texas, $100,470

Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., $33,500

Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $133,100

Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., $5,750

Rick Boucher, D-Va., $36,000

Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, none

Michael Burgess, R-Texas, $39,350

G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., $19,500

Steve Buyer, R-Ind., $5,000

Lois Capps, D-Calif., none

Kathy Castor, D-Fla., none

Donna Christian-Christensen, D-Virgin Islands, $1,500

Nathan Deal, R-Ga., none

Diana DeGette, D-Colo., $2,250

John D Dingell, D-Mich., $7,000

Mike Doyle, D-Pa., $8,000

Eliot L Engel, D-N.Y., none

Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., none

Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., $20,500

Charlie A Gonzalez, D-Texas, $30,000

Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., $13,500

Gene Green, D-Texas, $43,500

Ralph M Hall, R-Texas, $31,250

Jane Harman, D-Calif., $3,000

Baron Hill, D-Ind., $2,000

Jay Inslee, D-Wash., none

Edward J Markey, D-Mass., $16,000

Jim Matheson, D-Utah, $47,750

Doris O Matsui, D-Calif., $7,500

Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., $3,000

Charles Melancon, D-La., $65,500

Chris Murphy, D-Conn., $6,800

Tim Murphy, R-Pa., $62,950

Sue Myrick, R-N.C., $11,500

Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., none

Joe Pitts, R-Pa., $18,000

George Radanovich, R-Calif., $14,000

Mike Rogers, R-Mich., $20,400

Mike Ross, D-Ark., $76,950

Bobby L Rush, D-Ill., $1,000

John Sarbanes, D-Md., $3,300

Steve Scalise, R-La., $44,335

Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., none

John Shadegg, R-Ariz., $13,400

John M Shimkus, R-Ill., $34,000

Zachary T Space, D-Ohio, $9,600

Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., $1,000

Bart Stupak, D-Mich., $12,000

John Sullivan, R-Okla., $65,250

Betty Sue Sutton, D-Ohio, $6,000

Lee Terry, R-Neb., $30,350

Fred Upton, R-Mich., $22,000

Greg Walden, R-Ore., $31,200

Henry A Waxman, D-Calif., $6,000

Anthony D Weiner, D-N.Y., none

Peter Welch, D-Vt., $10,000

Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., $20,500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post...when the government provides a bailout to the banks and auto manufacturers it is an attempt by the government to take over those companies and take over those industries. But when we get a company to pay $20 billion to fund the cleanup for their oil spill when their legal obligation is only $75 million (Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government) the government is shaking down the company. (While most of the opening statements by members contained harsh criticisms of BP, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, accused the White House of conducting a "$20 billion shakedown" by requiring oil giant BP to establish a fund to compensate those hurt by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

 

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House" on Wednesday, said Barton, who has received at least $100,470 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, the second-highest amount among all the committee members.).

 

Ashamed??? Who exactly did Barton expect to pay for the cleanup? it's these types of gross tactical errors that may actually give the Democrats some hope in the Fall.

 

JOMO.

 

RS

 

To me it has to do with control whether the money is going into a company or whether the money is being taken out from a company. It's too early for me to make up my mind on BP and the 20 Billion escrow. I don't think the details are out.

 

I suspect BP ad Obama have acknowledged their both taking on too much public image damage over the spill. The 20 billion gives Obama the impression he is in control and BP looks sincere and concerned for the little guy. It's a win win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostLock step as ever.

 

 

Ok, so you support the oil industry apologist? You have a problem with the $20 bil spill fund? Think we should give it back? You are embarassed too I suppose?

 

 

Anyway Joe's a career guy, $1.4 mil from oil and gas, $1.3 mil from electric utilities.

 

 

No, no. I hope BP gets slammed in law suits, class action, etc., etc. They screwed the pootch good and deserve whatever happens monetarily. I got no concern for BP at all.cwm27.gif

 

 

----

 

 

Maybe that's why he was so slow in reacting in the first place. He hasn't even waived the Jones Act to get more skimming ships etc. into the game. Bushie waved that right away.

 

 

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The almighty Barak Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm WANTED the oil to hit the beaches, it plays right into his plan for cap and trade. There's no other logical reason for the federal govt. to decline foreign aid to help the cleanup! F the Jones act and do something you jackass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThe almighty Barak Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm WANTED the oil to hit the beaches, it plays right into his plan for cap and trade. There's no other logical reason for the federal govt. to decline foreign aid to help the cleanup! F the Jones act and do something you jackass!

 

Makes a lot of sense.Jones act was created by heavy lobbying by suppliers and shippers in Seattle long ago to protect their shipping and trade with Alaska before they became a state but it's use has became widespread and should be appealed.

Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to Barton's ENTIRE statement. It seemed pretty clear and easy to understand that his concern was with a "shakedown" INSTEAD OF due process and his feelings that this was setting a dangerous precedent for a nation ruled by law. He did a very good job of stating in no uncertain terms that he considers them liable for all the damages and that they are responsible for the financial burden of the cleanup and damages. It was plain English, clear and not at all ambiguous. Whenever you see "news" that paraphrases what someone said and reports only a few cherrypicked phrases instead of ALL that was said you can make book on the fact that it's biased spin and not factual reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostNo, no. I hope BP gets slammed in law suits, class action, etc., etc. They screwed the pootch good and deserve whatever happens monetarily. I got no concern for BP at all.cwm27.gif

 

----

 

Maybe that's why he was so slow in reacting in the first place. He hasn't even waived the Jones Act to get more skimming ships etc. into the game. Bushie waved that right away.

 

---

 

 

There's nothing good about the spill. I'm not making an arguement that anyone has responded well in this. I wouldn't want to see 20 years of Exxon Valdez type litigation so if it's a shake down I'm fine with it. I'm sure I'll disagree with how they dole some of it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostTo me it has to do with control whether the money is going into a company or whether the money is being taken out from a company. It's too early for me to make up my mind on BP and the 20 Billion escrow. I don't think the details are out.

 

I suspect BP ad Obama have acknowledged their both taking on too much public image damage over the spill. The 20 billion gives Obama the impression he is in control and BP looks sincere and concerned for the little guy. It's a win win.

 

 

This is probably the most accurate of all the speculation. The obama administration and the oil company will do what is best for themselves first and foremost. It's all about THEIR image first.

 

If this has produced something good for the gulf states and its' people, it is a by-product of what the deal really was meant to do (make the administration and the oil company look better in the face of this disaster).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThere's nothing good about the spill. I'm not making an arguement that anyone has responded well in this. I wouldn't want to see 20 years of Exxon Valdez type litigation so if it's a shake down I'm fine with it. I'm sure I'll disagree with how they dole some of it out.

 

Take the money, no day in court? You good with that? What if it happened to you? Im not good with it. I was taught to respect the law.

With this measure the Obamaministration has turned a serious corner from "not so good guys" to gangsters on a an absolute par with any of the most sinister gangsters this nation ever produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....would the country be better served, in your opinion, if the $75 million were to be awarded as the maximum damages allowed by law, after the usual decade in the courts? The balance being paid by the taxpayer, as a part of disaster recovery, as it inevitably would?

 

Laser8 is correct that this represents a calculated effort by BP and the White House to control the issue. BP has to be desperate to get control of this issue before the collapse of market value permits the firm to be acquired on the (relative) cheap. BP management is doubtless mapping a gathering storm of shareholder unhappiness, and wondering if Wal-Mart might hire any of them as branch managers, after the inevitable consequences.

 

Capping a gusher a mile under the water is first and foremost an engineering problem. I doubt the government has the expertise to do a better job then BP. There is no quicker way to get it done then to let BP do it. The President used his bully pulpit to get money up front for the people whose livelihoods are ended now, with the threat of no more oil leases for BP. I'm OK with that, albeit the details aren't there yet. It serves his interests; it serves the Gulf Coast victims a heck of a lot better then they'd be served by litigation, and it serves the taxpayer a hell of a lot better then footing the bill ourselves. Representative Barton's concern for due process would be more impressive if he represented a coastal district and were less dependent on oil money for his existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can go a little further with this. I translate Representative Barton's concern for due process as meaning that BP shouldn't have to pay more then $75 million. (It's the taxpayer's obligation to pick up the rest.) And that $75 million should be paid only after the appropriate lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The escrow amount means NOTHING! If it was 20 billion or 100 trillion, BP's liability will be determined by an independant third party that is totally out of the control of BP or Obama. Any escrowed funds in excessof BP's ultimate liability will be returned to them and it could well turn out to be only 75 million. This whole escrow thing is political cover cooked up by Obama and BP for their mutual self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.