Some Republicans consider BP deal a U.S. "shakedown"

[dahunan]

Not the default conservative position?:

– PAT BUCHANAN: “Barton made a very courageous statement in my judgment. … To have anyone stand up and even indirectly defend [BP] and say that they were a victim of a shakedown shows some political courage.”

– INGRAHAM: “I think Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point.”

– GINGRICH: “The president is directly engaged in extorting money from a company.”

TP
l

WALL OF SHAME

and Proof there is not a God. If I was God, I would have removed Pat Buchanan long ago

 

[shadow9d9]

Would you leftwing nuts stop using the small government argument about this oil spill. It sure gets old... pay attention: The feds gave the permit to BP, It is an multiple state disaster, the Unites States Code tasks the president with being responsible for the response. This is not the same thing as wanting the government to wipe your ass in the morning.

Look, you need to make the United States conducive to operating a business that will grow. You cannot have Obama's socialist utopia without a stong capitalistic foundation to support it all. Jobs cannot be created with stimulus money... they will not last and will cost way more in the long run. The ONLY way SUSTAINABLE jobs are created is when businesses NEED new employees. Having the government pay for companies to hire people only boosts numbers short term.

Strong economy equals better tax revenues to run the fiscally conservative government which we do not have.

Socialist agenda? Right out of the insane talking points.. Nutjobs calling others nutjobs. Typical.

 

[shadow9d9]

Uhh... whatever - everyone with more than 2 functioning brain cells knows that if BP didn't pony up the $ that BHO and his moron lib mobs would be screeching all over the place. Blackmail by PR... yeah... no shakedown alright

The crackpots are out in full force. If only we could have you morons on video to show in political campaigns, your kind would be buried forever.

 

[dahunan]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudder View Post Would you leftwing nuts stop using the small government argument about this oil spill. It sure gets old... pay attention: The feds gave the permit to BP, It is an multiple state disaster, the Unites States Code tasks the president with being responsible for the response. This is not the same thing as wanting the government to wipe your ass in the morning. Look, you need to make the United States conducive to operating a business that will grow. You cannot have Obama's socialist utopia without a stong capitalistic foundation to support it all. Jobs cannot be created with stimulus money... they will not last and will cost way more in the long run. The ONLY way SUSTAINABLE jobs are created is when businesses NEED new employees. Having the government pay for companies to hire people only boosts numbers short term. Strong economy equals better tax revenues to run the fiscally conservative government which we do not have. Socialist agenda? Right out of the insane talking points.. Nutjobs calling others nutjobs. Typical.

LMAO.. sounds like they are asking for tax breaks already for BP and others so they can force you and me to pay for the cleanup

 

[manlymatt83]

http://www.numberofbarrels.com/

 

[Jhhnn]

No big surprise that you couldn't understand my post - logic seems to be lost you your types. You can keep trying to whine about dragging it out and courts but that isn't an argument as it's not happened yet in this case. You can think they would do it(and I might not disagree) but it has exactly zero to do with what I've posted. You should try to address what I post instead of trotting out the liberal talking points that do nothing but divert. The FACT of the matter is - the Feds have exactly ZERO authority to have a pay czar meter out corporate monies. We have systems in place for people to recover damages that doesn't involve the Fed gov't having control of corporate monies.

I recognize platitudinous vacuity quite readily, CSG, which is what you've offered, stroking the "everything this country was founded on" fluffery for all it's worth. It's a totally lame appeal to nebulous authority.

BP entered into a voluntary agreement with the govt, who'll essentially be acting as their agent in the disbursement of funds. The notion that the govt doesn't have the authority to act in such a capacity is absurd, and is not supported either in law or in the Constitution. If you'd care to claim otherwise, cite the documentation.

One of the things this country *wasn't* founded on is petroleum, the current use of which was beyond the experience or comprehension of the founders. The stuff wasn't even extracted from the ground in commercial quantities until the 1850's. They never had the foggiest notion that such a thing was even possible, let alone that it would transform the world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I recognize platitudinous vacuity quite readily, CSG, which is what you've offered, stroking the "everything this country was founded on" fluffery for all it's worth. It's a totally lame appeal to nebulous authority.

BP entered into a voluntary agreement with the govt, who'll essentially be acting as their agent in the disbursement of funds. The notion that the govt doesn't have the authority to act in such a capacity is absurd, and is not supported either in law or in the Constitution. If you'd care to claim otherwise, cite the documentation.

One of the things this country *wasn't* founded on is petroleum, the current use of which was beyond the experience or comprehension of the founders. The stuff wasn't even extracted from the ground in commercial quantities until the 1850's. They never had the foggiest notion that such a thing was even possible, let alone that it would transform the world.

ah right - you're one of the people that think the gov't is good and altruistic... so it's pointless to try to discuss how this is a shakedown. BP was wrong to let the gov't distribute their monies - the gov't was wrong to demand such a thing from a corporation. It's unAmerican and sets a deadly precedent - now the gov't can demand XYZ from any corporation during a crisis/accident/ect using PR as leverage. It's plain wrong - and there is no doubt it's against the principles our nation was founded upon.

 

[HomerJS]

Hey Cad

We already know from history (cough...cough...Exxon...cough) if left to the courts high prices lawyers will drag it out for 20 years. its your assertion the Fed should not compel BP to put money in escrow so families and small business along the gulf coast can be paid in a timely fashion.

What's your solution in getting money to these familes before they die off?

 

[HomerJS]

For those of you who consider the escrow account funded by BP "a tragedy of the first proportion", I guess the actual spill would be...let's say...4th??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Hey Cad

We already know from history (cough...cough...Exxon...cough) if left to the courts high prices lawyers will drag it out for 20 years. its your assertion the Fed should not compel BP to put money in escrow so families and small business along the gulf coast can be paid in a timely fashion.

What's your solution in getting money to these familes before they die off?

Nice try but that's not even close to what I've said. I'm asserting that it sets bad precedent and goes against all that is American for the gov't to demand a corporation put the money aside and demand that the gov't be the one to meter the money out. So please stick to what I post instead of your asinine ASSumptions and liberal talking points.

 

[Siddhartha]

Would you leftwing nuts stop using the small government argument about this oil spill. It sure gets old... pay attention: The feds gave the permit to BP, It is an multiple state disaster, the Unites States Code tasks the president with being responsible for the response. This is not the same thing as wanting the government to wipe your ass in the morning.


Look, you need to make the United States conducive to operating a business that will grow. You cannot have Obama's socialist utopia without a stong capitalistic foundation to support it all. Jobs cannot be created with stimulus money... they will not last and will cost way more in the long run. The ONLY way SUSTAINABLE jobs are created is when businesses NEED new employees. Having the government pay for companies to hire people only boosts numbers short term.

Strong economy equals better tax revenues to run the fiscally conservative government which we do not have.

Filtering out the lame insults and red scare cliches, you agree with my observations about what the GOP is saying now they are out of power.

 

[Jhhnn]

ah right - you're one of the people that think the gov't is good and altruistic... so it's pointless to try to discuss how this is a shakedown. BP was wrong to let the gov't distribute their monies - the gov't was wrong to demand such a thing from a corporation. It's unAmerican and sets a deadly precedent - now the gov't can demand XYZ from any corporation during a crisis/accident/ect using PR as leverage. It's plain wrong - and there is no doubt it's against the principles our nation was founded upon.

Heh. Repeating and rephrasing a lame appeal to imaginary authority doesn't change the nature of the assertion in the slightest. But you already know that- you're just trying to "win"- something, anything, doesn't matter what...

 

[spittledip]

How anyone could consider BP to be "shaken down" by Obama is a mystery to me. BP did something dreadfully wrong and is now having to compensate people for their losses.

The grand irony is that generally Republicans are the great "responsibility" party- they think that all people should be responsible for themselves and held responsible for all their actions. I am not sure why any of them would differ in this matter. It is despicable. As if this tragedy isn't bad enough, we have some horrible hellions trying to make it so that people who are suffering are denied even the little they would get from BP. Even if everyone is compensated financially from BP, things will not be the same for the effected areas for a long time to come. BP does not have the resources to pay for all the damage they have done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Heh. Repeating and rephrasing a lame appeal to imaginary authority doesn't change the nature of the assertion in the slightest. But you already know that- you're just trying to "win"- something, anything, doesn't matter what...

Nope, just trying to help you people who don't understand the argument. You can keep trying to twist it into something it's not, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How anyone could consider BP to be "shaken down" by Obama is a mystery to me. BP did something dreadfully wrong and is now having to compensate people for their losses.

The grand irony is that generally Republicans are the great "responsibility" party- they think that all people should be responsible for themselves and held responsible for all their actions. I am not sure why any of them would differ in this matter. It is despicable. As if this tragedy isn't bad enough, we have some horrible hellions trying to make it so that people who are suffering are denied even the little they would get from BP. Even if everyone is compensated financially from BP, things will not be the same for the effected areas for a long time to come. BP does not have the resources to pay for all the damage they have done.

Uhh... are you really that clueless? Are you, like so many libs here, overlooking the fact that the gov't is metering out a corporation's monies? Some gov't czar gets to decide compensation? Boy, you people sure do seem to like the gov't in charge of everything.

...get it yet?

 

[spittledip]

I am not a liberal nor am I for having the govt control everything. I am for BP compensating everyone for the damages done. I am for holding BP responsible for the mess they made. If the govt is the entity that has to pass out the money, then so be it. Who else is going to pass out the money to make sure it gets to the right place?

Are you saying that the people who lost their livelihoods should not be compensated by BP? Are you saying that BP should not be the ones financing the cleanup?

 

[Dekasa]

Uhh... are you really that clueless? Are you, like so many libs here, overlooking the fact that the gov't is metering out a corporation's monies? Some gov't czar gets to decide compensation? Boy, you people sure do seem to like the gov't in charge of everything.

...get it yet?

I'm very curious, who would you have decide compensation? You trust BP to do it, themselves? Or would you rather the courts spend ~20 years on this, while people go broke, lose housing, etc.?

As opposed to a large number of posters, I'm open to suggestion, I just don't see any acceptable alternatives.

 

[theeedude]

Uhh... are you really that clueless? Are you, like so many libs here, overlooking the fact that the gov't is metering out a corporation's monies? Some gov't czar gets to decide compensation? Boy, you people sure do seem to like the gov't in charge of everything.

...get it yet?

Still better than govt metering out taxpayer money to clean up a corporation's mess. Do you want BP deciding how much it wants to compensate its victims?

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope, just trying to help you people who don't understand the argument. You can keep trying to twist it into something it's not, but it doesn't change the facts.

You're right, it doesn't change the facts. Too bad you haven't offered any. "Un American", "plain wrong", "against the principles our nation was founded on", "the Feds have exactly zero authority" and so forth are *your* efforts to stroke the common touchstones and erroneous zones of your fellow travelers on the Right. What you claim to be "facts" are merely your opinion asserted as "facts".

You appeal to authority and then refuse to cite any when challenged to do so, even ignore the fact that corporate personhood came into being only after the civil war, and in what seems to be a pretty shady fashion- Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad being the culmination of such efforts by the robber barons of the era...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I am not a liberal nor am I for having the govt control everything. I am for BP compensating everyone for the damages done. I am for holding BP responsible for the mess they made. If the govt is the entity that has to pass out the money, then so be it. Who else is going to pass out the money to make sure it gets to the right place?

Are you saying that the people who lost their livelihoods should not be compensated by BP? Are you saying that BP should not be the ones financing the cleanup?

Nowhere have I said BP shouldn't compensate those affected. It's really not that hard here people. Nowhere have I said they shouldn't be held responsible - however - there is no authority for the gov't to be deciding and passing out a corporations monies. The Constitution does not allow for this in any way shape or form. I wish more people would wake up to this abuse by the fed gov't. The problem is too many sheep only see the big bad corporation and want to nail 'em. It's foolhardy - just wait until they decide to come for what's yours when others want to nail ya.

I'd really like for people to stop trying to say - "are you saying...." it's stupid. Just read what I've posted. You people are worse than my kids with their "what if" BS. My position is solid - you people just can't handle the fact that I'm pointing out the fact that the gov't has no authority to do such a thing and that this constitutes a shakedown with monumental consequences. Blackmail by PR. It's sad so many people here don't see this for what it is...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm very curious, who would you have decide compensation? You trust BP to do it, themselves? Or would you rather the courts spend ~20 years on this, while people go broke, lose housing, etc.?

As opposed to a large number of posters, I'm open to suggestion, I just don't see any acceptable alternatives.

Still better than govt metering out taxpayer money to clean up a corporation's mess. Do you want BP deciding how much it wants to compensate its victims?

You're right, it doesn't change the facts. Too bad you haven't offered any. "Un American", "plain wrong", "against the principles our nation was founded on", "the Feds have exactly zero authority" and so forth are *your* efforts to stroke the common touchstones and erroneous zones of your fellow travelers on the Right. What you claim to be "facts" are merely your opinion asserted as "facts".

You appeal to authority and then refuse to cite any when challenged to do so, even ignore the fact that corporate personhood came into being only after the civil war, and in what seems to be a pretty shady fashion- Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad being the culmination of such efforts by the robber barons of the era...

See my above post - it covers all the nonsense.

The only thing I'll address singularly is the "it's better than" comment. No it's not. Both are wrong so don't even attempt to trot that false choice out again.

 

[spittledip]

Nowhere have I said BP shouldn't compensate those affected. It's really not that hard here people. Nowhere have I said they shouldn't be held responsible - however - there is no authority for the gov't to be deciding and passing out a corporations monies. The Constitution does not allow for this in any way shape or form. I wish more people would wake up to this abuse by the fed gov't. The problem is too many sheep only see the big bad corporation and want to nail 'em. It's foolhardy - just wait until they decide to come for what's yours when others want to nail ya.

I'd really like for people to stop trying to say - "are you saying...." it's stupid. Just read what I've posted. You people are worse than my kids with their "what if" BS. My position is solid - you people just can't handle the fact that I'm pointing out the fact that the gov't has no authority to do such a thing and that this constitutes a shakedown with monumental consequences. Blackmail by PR. It's sad so many people here don't see this for what it is...

Ok, after reading this post I assumed that you had posted somewhere in this thread about how the money should be handled for reparations and cleanup.. the only thing you said in this entire thread was how not to hand out money. You mentioned that there are "systems" in place, but you don't explain what the systems are. What are these systems? Also, you really shouldn't berate people for not understanding what you did not write.

You should also consider that your position very much sounds like you don't think BP should be paying reparations b/c you only talk about how the money shouldn't be handled.

I also hope you treat your children to be more respectful to people than you are, even though it would be somewhat hypocritical.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADsortaGUY

You keep talking about BP's money. It seems to me that they realized that people they affected were entitled to some compensation without needing a court to tell them. Once this realization occurred, they knew some of the money they held was no longer theirs, but belonged to those affected people. They agreed to an amount to no longer be considered theirs, and agreed to allow the government to assume the role of dispersing it, also palming off all of the inevitable flak that will come with the dispersal.

It doesn't take any mental gymnastics to see that BP made the assumption that they had created a debt, and the funds to pay it would no longer be considered "theirs".

 

[Jhhnn]

you people just can't handle the fact that I'm pointing out the fact that the gov't has no authority to do such a thing and that this constitutes a shakedown with monumental consequences.

Go ahead, keep claiming that your opinion is "fact", when it's no such thing. While you're at it, cite the statute or constitutional provision for your opinion that the govt lacks the authority to do this. This is the third time I've offered you that opportunity, thinking that maybe there is some basis for your claims. Apparently not.

Hell, you defended the govt's supposed authority to lock people up indefinitely w/o charge, but think that a mere matter of money, of an agreement freely entered, is somehow worthy of raving outrage...

If BP had considered this agreement to be to their detriment, they probably wouldn't have entered into it. They get to burnish their image a little bit by being responsible, and they show good faith wrt the govt in doing so. If anything, the Obama Admin has offered them a way to make the best out of a bad situation, and they took it. They're probably grateful to have it, all things considered, given that theyir orientation is more practical than ideological...

 

[Zebo]

Hey Cad

We already know from history (cough...cough...Exxon...cough) if left to the courts high prices lawyers will drag it out for 20 years. its your assertion the Fed should not compel BP to put money in escrow so families and small business along the gulf coast can be paid in a timely fashion.

What's your solution in getting money to these familes before they die off?

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We are a nation of laws. You need to change the constitution if you don't like the slow process with division of powers. We are not a banana republic where el presidente can seize assets on a whim. Granted in this case BP's actions are voluntary but they certainly were pushed into y Congress and Obama it which goes against spirit of the law.

Edit: I meant we should not be a Banana repulic... with assassination orders on US citizens, no habeus corpus, illegal seizing of freddy and fannie and GM and banks we are well on our way.