Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."
I know how the left adores tyrants, but the United States is not a thugocracy, we are nation of laws and justice.
The president has a lot of power, he has the media cameras whenever he wants. With his power as the president, he can pick any private individual, business or corporation and go on TV and demonize them to destroy their credibility, sink their stocks and drive them into bankruptcy. He also has the power to threaten any individual, company or corporation to agree to perform some task, make some public statement or fork over $20 billion, or else he will destroy them.
Is this want we want in a president, any time he has a personal grudge or disagreement with an individual, business or corporation, that he derides them publicly, going so far as too summon them to the white house and seemingly coerce and threaten them into doing something against their will, out of fear that they will be the next to be financially ruined or see their reputation destroyed?
We have laws and regulations, and if someone violated these, then we take them to court and hold legally liable.
I want BP to compensate us for the clean up and damage they have caused, but I do not want a thug for a president.
Personal grudge or disagreement, thugs? BP just caused the biggest environmental disaster in history, do you think the critcism was unjustified?
BP didn't have to do anything but that there is little question they are responsible for at least civil damages if not criminal. They could have waited for this to travel through the courts for the next 10 years or more (unlike Exxon they are not based in this country). Meanwhile the government could have printed more money to bail out the fishermen and businesses in their own "slush fund".
At least the republican had the decency to admit that this was a poor choice of words by Barton .
“It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown,” said Barton, who called the money set aside “a slush fund.”
Provide a link? Give me a break. When the most powerful man in the world has been publicly trashing BP, claiming to have his boot on their neck, sending an army of DoJ lawyers to prosecute BP, demanding that they suspend paying dividends, and he keeps hammering away at them day after day, why would you think it has no effect.
People are speculating on BP going bankrupt after 0bama is done destroying them, I do not need a link to see that what the president has been saying and doing is having adverse affects on BPs stock.
BP's Stock was up at the close yesterday do you suppose investors saw the proposal as a positive?
"I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."
And had Obama let BP run the show, like he did with plugging the hole and relying on its expertise on recovery efforts... you would be singing a different tune. Well, same tune just completely out of phase. You've already demonstrated that.
It is government's responsibility to ensure funds are available and not being spent away elsewhere. People like him, and voters like you, are the prime reason I could NEVER support legislators who are nothing but corporate shills and anti-government. Government has a role, and this is definitely one of it. You can hate it, or I can help you pack too, if you would like to find a heaven run by corporations.
Obama did not have to "demand" restitution. He was posturing.
BP always said they would pay for cleanup, and for legitimate claims from residents. You can bet there will be plenty of opportunists (yes, legal US citizens are often opportunists) who will put in illegitimate claims. I don't blame the company for not wanting to stand on the corner passing out money to everyone.
Are you suggesting that we could see millions in fraudulent claims like we did after Katrina?
Are you also suggesting that a $20 billion fund run by an 0bama appointee will not really care how much of the money goes toward fraudulent claims because its BPs money, and if they need more they can just squeeze them for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
I think a fine point is being missed in this, and that is the way that Obama handled this - he "derides them publicly, going so far as too summon them to the white house and seemingly coerce and threaten them into doing something" that they were going to do anyway. (Good choice of words, Wapasha). Much like the way Republicans threatened and coerced Barton to retract (what he legitimately had a right to say). Politicians are such nasty people, and politics is a dirty business.
As for this exchange: We have laws and regulations, Which BP overrode
Let me point out this: Which the government inspectors ignored, preferring to play video games and watch porn instead of doing the job they were paid to do. Should they help pay restitution to the residents of the Gulf? Should the Federal Government share the responsibility? Remember all those windfall profits taxes they collected from the oil industry?
How about putting that into escrow too, and how about Obama returning the BP contribution by adding it to the escrow fund? Maybe he should think about how he looks to the rest of the world while he's posturing with his boot on the neck of a private company.
My question is how much destruction is being caused to wetlands, the environment and to lost businesses because of poor performance, poor cooperation, gross inaction and incompetence by our government?
How much oil would have not even made it ashore if we had accepted the help from foreign governments?
How much better would our response have been if the federal government taken control of this oil clean up and containment?
How much more efficient would the coordination between federal, state, local governments and between civilian contractors and businesses, if our government would have placed key personnel to coordinate all the clean up efforts, instead of letting a corporation run things?
How much worse have things gotten because none of the above was done?
I do not think BP will dare challenge this in court, because I'm sure 0bama made it clear, if BP tried to hold him accountable for making the oil disaster worse, through inaction and incompetence, that he would use the full power of the United States government to destroy their corporation.
It is government's responsibility to ensure funds are available and not being spent away elsewhere.
That's the quote of the century! Let's see now...where has the government ensured any such thing...
You must be some kind of comedian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
