DB: GOP Senator Blocks Bill to Make BP Pay

[Madison Redskin]

Is this the same bill that will raise the pricew of fuel and will appearing to raise the calamity costs the extra costs go to help BP pay for the cleanup?

BP doesn't have a monopoly on oil or gasoline. If BP significantly raises the price on gasoline, what do you think will happen to its customer base?

Also, do you think that every corporation that sells goods or services to consumers should be immune from lawsuits, government fines, etc. because those costs will ultimately be born by consumers?

I love it when conservatives (i.e., those who preach about responsibility and rail against government intrusiveness) support government efforts to immunize corporations from liabilities that they incurred as a result of irresponsible behavior. Why was TARP so bad again?

[chipwhich]

BP doesn't have a monopoly on oil or gasoline. If BP significantly raises the price on gasoline, what do you think will happen to its customer base?

Uhhh BP is the fourth largest company in the world and supplies gas to more than just BP labeled gas stations.

Don't let the loss of facts blind you to reality.

[Madison Redskin]

Uhhh BP is the fourth largest company in the world and supplies gas to more than just BP labeled gas stations.

As large as they might be, they will not be able to send the price of gas skyrocketing to offset any hit they take as a result of being forced to pay for the true costs of the spill. But, if it makes ya feel better to think otherwise, go for it.

[chipwhich]

As large as they might be, they will not be able to send the price of gas skyrocketing to offset any hit they take as a result of being forced to pay for the true costs of the spill. But, if it makes ya feel better to think otherwise, go for it.

Doesn't make me feel better. They will file for bankruptcy protection and screw us all. If that makes you get the point better.

[twa]

Raising the cap is for ALL producers...and yes it will be included in production costs.

Why stop at 10 billion,wouldn't 100 billion be better?

[JimboDaMan]

Raising the cap is for ALL producers...and yes it will be included in production costs.

Why stop at 10 billion,wouldn't 100 billion be better?

Certainly, if that's what the costs of drilling are. Why would that be silly?

If "drill baby drill" only works with everybody else picking up the risk, then "drill baby drill" doesn't work.

[JimboDaMan]

Doesn't make me feel better. They will file for bankruptcy protection and screw us all. If that makes you get the point better.

Ahh. They are "too big to fail"?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Raising the cap is for ALL producers...and yes it will be included in production costs.

Why stop at 10 billion,wouldn't 100 billion be better?

Sure, why not? Drill safe, and then I guess they won't need to worry about it.

What you neglected to realize is that the cap only comes into play IF they have an accident, and since I don't ever recall an oil spill that was caused by each of the big oil companies at the same time then the costs will simply be swallowed by the oil company that caused the spill, because if they raise their prices then they will lose business, unless of course you're going to make the case that the oil companies are in collusion with price setting.

So my question to you twa is this, if there was a spill that cost 100 billion in economic damages that was the fault of a company like BP, should they not be required to pay compensation for the damages they caused?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Doesn't make me feel better. They will file for bankruptcy protection and screw us all. If that makes you get the point better.

I don't think you can file bankruptcy on fines, they're kinda like student loans.:pfft:

[Bang]

the oil companies are in collusion with price setting.

After the last decade or so I would think that this is undsiputed reality.

Some of the reasons given for BP not paying through the nose to somewhat make up for this absolute calamity they caused thru their own negligence sounds like the same threats wife beaters use to keep their victims quiet.

Don't like it? Well maybe you'll like THIS! >Pow!< You think that was something to cry about? I'll give you something cry about!

I'd like to see this bankrupt BP, I'd like to see them thrown out of this country and never be allowed to do business here again.

Their willful and egregious contempt for safety is well documented, and it so far exceeds the problems of other oil companies doing business in the US that it is as obvious as anything you can think of that they just don't CARE whether or not anyone gets hurt, so long as it doesn't affect their bottom line. They couldn't care LESS about any of our regulations what-so-ever.

It's as if they laugh in the face of our regulations, and then stuff money into the pockets of people to look the other way while they do it.

As an American, doesn't that just piss you off? We get mad at foreginers to come here to work, but we suck up to foreigners who have walked in and TRASHED our house.

You ever see a crackhead getting abused by his dealer? They do it because the crackhead will allow any, and I mean ANY degradation so long as he gets his rock.

Looks very similar to this.

~Bang

[MEANDWARF]

Think this argument is mute. BP is going to end up declaring bankruptcy and therefore we will be the one's paying for it.:mad:

[Veretax]

Here's what I don't get. Isn't this sort of thing in essence a Bill of Attainder and illegal by the constitution? Not to mention it would be Ex Post Facto, another thing the Constitution is supposed to forbid.

That being said sounds like she wants all the idiots on record for election time so they can say hey look at so and so they voted to increase your fuel prices.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wouldnt the simplest solution be to raise the cap once they know the true cost and only up to that amount? The initial amount in the fund hasn't even begun to be tapped yet has it? Lets get through the already appropriated money first and then think about what the cap should be. I think BP has already agreed to pay whatever the costs were going to be anyway.

[twa]

Sure, why not? Drill safe, and then I guess they won't need to worry about it.

What you neglected to realize is that the cap only comes into play IF they have an accident, and since I don't ever recall an oil spill that was caused by each of the big oil companies at the same time then the costs will simply be swallowed by the oil company that caused the spill, because if they raise their prices then they will lose business, unless of course you're going to make the case that the oil companies are in collusion with price setting.

So my question to you twa is this, if there was a spill that cost 100 billion in economic damages that was the fault of a company like BP, should they not be required to pay compensation for the damages they caused?

A short answer to your question...No,by virtue of present law

Retroactive changes to such events is a very bad thing(as well as probably against the law:silly:) and creates a very bad environment for any investment

I have no problem with them setting a new cap (or even removing it)for future events,though some thought should go into the consequences(a little open debate would be wise as well):beatdeadhorse:

Producers(and all associated contractors and suppliers) carry ins that is predicated on assumed liabilities...in such a small pool,this event will have major cost increases w/o even changing present cap or a new spill.

A few questions for you

Should BP be liable for economic damages to the other drillers/workers and suppliers that are being effected by the govts response to this event?

Should they be made to pay for higher energy costs that are going to result?

Just what criteria do you use to define 'economic' damage?

[Larry]

Here's what I don't get. Isn't this sort of thing in essence a Bill of Attainder and illegal by the constitution? Not to mention it would be Ex Post Facto, another thing the Constitution is supposed to forbid.

There's been so much spin in this thread, I don't know if the proposed law actually pronounces BP to be guilty without a trial. So, no, IMO, it's not a Bill of Attainder.

But yeah, I do think it's Ex Post Facto. (Although I'm not 100% certain. I could see somebody trying to argue that lifting the cap on civil litigation, on a suit that hasn't been filed, yet, isn't the same as creating a crime where there was no crime before.)

But my opinion is that yeah, it shouldn't be allowed in this case.

[Larry]

BTW, really admiring the number of people announcing that the government should never, ever, in any way do anything which in any way increases the costs of any business, because "they're too powerful! They'll destroy us all if you anger them!!"

And who don't think there's anything wrong with this picture.

[twa]

BTW, really admiring the number of people announcing that the government should never, ever, in any way do anything which in any way increases the costs of any business, because "they're too powerful! They'll destroy us all if you anger them!!"

And who don't think there's anything wrong with this picture.

And who would that be?

[Madison Redskin]

And who would that be?

Larry's post was close enough. Essentially, most conservatives in this thread are saying, "Look, I don't give a **** if some fishermen down in the South lose their jobs, their homes, etc., I don't want BP to be responsible for the costs of their bad decisions because I might end up paying an extra 3 cents per gallon at the gas pump."

Conservatives railed against TARP and the auto industry bailout because of "moral hazard." They said that business decisions should be calculated based on the true risks, and if the government reduces or eliminates those risks, businesses will begin engaging in unduly risky behavior. Well what the hell do those conservatives think the $75M cap is doing here?

[chipwhich]

Larry's post was close enough. Essentially, most conservatives in this thread are saying, "Look, I don't give a **** if some fishermen down in the South lose their jobs, their homes, etc., I don't want BP to be responsible for the costs of their bad decisions because I might end up paying an extra 3 cents per gallon at the gas pump."

Hey all I was saying is you squeeze them too much with fines, then they claim bankruptcy and we all lose.

You want to punish them and make them feel it without them running and claiming bankruptcy.

And Asbury, I know the fines are "protected" and not covered under bankruptcy...however they pay the fines, hence can't pay their other bills claim bankruptcy...then lawyers play their games. I promise you the fines wont get paid.

[twa]

Larry's post was close enough. Essentially, most conservatives in this thread are saying, "Look, I don't give a **** if some fishermen down in the South lose their jobs, their homes, etc., I don't want BP to be responsible for the costs of their bad decisions because I might end up paying an extra 3 cents per gallon at the gas pump."

Conservatives railed against TARP and the auto industry bailout because of "moral hazard." They said that business decisions should be calculated based on the true risks, and if the government reduces or eliminates those risks, businesses will begin engaging in unduly risky behavior. Well what the hell do those conservatives think the $75M cap is doing here?

You believe the 75M economic cap led to this spill?

I don't think you understand just what this is gonna cost BP( or us )

[Bang]

Don't beat me massa BP! Please don't beat me! I's so happy you gives me this leaky roof ova my heads in exchange for my 18 hours of works every day!

Jus' don't beat me no mo! I sho'niff don't want to be experiencin' no hardships, no SUH! I's jus' much easia to roll ova and ask fo yo' mercy!

~Bang

[Burgold]

This thread really wants me to buy an elephant just so I can lead it into y'all's china shop. I really suspect if I did so and jabbed its rump with a really painful needle leading to a berserk charge you would find not only a reason not to charge me for destroying all your inventory, you'd bend over backwards to find a way to reimburse me for any cuts my elephant endured.

[chipwhich]

This thread really wants me to buy an elephant just so I can lead it into y'all's china shop. I really suspect if I did so and jabbed its rump with a really painful needle leading to a berserk charge you would find not only a reason not to charge me for destroying all your inventory, you'd bend over backwards to find a way to reimburse me for any cuts my elephant endured.

Different situation.

If everyone boycotts the company then they can't pay the fines No revenue equals no money to pay the bills.

A better example is you and your wife get a divorce. You pay her $1500 a month in alimony and child support. She wishes you die. You do, now she can't get the $1500 child support and she goes on welfare. The government and the people pay the tab.

Well that's the situation here folks. You kill the revenue stream, then expect them to pay the fines, which they can't...and in the end...we pay for it. :cool:

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip folks.

[Burgold]

depends on your point of view. Lousiana's shoreline and waters are the chinashop in my scenario. Many seem not to want to make the guy bringing the elephant into the room and being negligent with it pay.

[mistertim]

Think this argument is mute. BP is going to end up declaring bankruptcy and therefore we will be the one's paying for it.:mad:

Moot. Moot. Seriously, it is moot. Sorry, but I see this so much. MOOT point.