[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]You want to criminally charge people for a complete accident which none of them had any power to prevent? With great power comes greater responsability. If, say, you're responsible for a nuclear bomb going off by accident you should be held accountable because that accident is much more dire than any other accident so there should be a punishment equivalent to the damage you can do to make you more aware of the consequences of your actions. Even if the spill was an accident they had a lot of power in their hands and they knew the consequences of what could happen. They chose to drill offshore to make more money so yes they should be held accountable in an equivalent way to the damage they provoked.Me personally I'm all for seizing their assets and criminal charges against BP.
Ninja-Hippo
Mr. President: Don't get mad, get even.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes, because all conservatives are in Congress, and therefore you cannot possibly have incorrectly overlooked the opinions of MILLIONS of conservatives on the matter. :roll: Whatever helps you sleep at night man. BTW, holding BP accountable for their own actions is not at all a left-right issue.
coolbeans90
I agree that this is not a left-right issue, however this event has been polarized with those wanting to punish BP harshly residing mostly on the left and those wanting to avoid hurting their business (yes, yes, among other things)residing mostly on the right. You cannot be oblivious to that fact.
EVERYONE wishes this hadn't happened left or right, but when you look at the reaction from many conservatives looking to make President Obama take total ownership of this problem, it has to make you realize a few things.
The only thing I fault the President with is trusting that former executives make great regulators of their respective industries.
I agree that this is not a left-right issue, however this event has been polarized with those wanting to punish BP harshly residing mostly on the left and those wanting to avoid hurting their business (yes, yes, among other things)residing mostly on the right. You cannot be oblivious to that fact.
EVERYONE wishes this hadn't happened left or right, but when you look at the reaction from many conservatives looking to make President Obama take total ownership of this problem, it has to make you realize a few things.
The only thing I fault the President with is trusting that former executives make great regulators of their respective industries.
Ultimas_Blade
The issue for us conservatives isn't about their business. It's about the punishment. If it was an accident then how can they be punished so severely? If it was definitely their fault, it's another issue entirely.
Obviously they're going to pay regardless, but why should they be destroyed for something that could possibly not have been their fault? Last I checked, there's no conclusive evidence.
Also, if it IS BP's fault, how is raising the cap to punish everybody even remotely fair?
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Yes, because all conservatives are in Congress, and therefore you cannot possibly have incorrectly overlooked the opinions of MILLIONS of conservatives on the matter. :roll: Whatever helps you sleep at night man. BTW, holding BP accountable for their own actions is not at all a left-right issue.
Ultimas_Blade
I agree that this is not a left-right issue, however this event has been polarized with those wanting to punish BP harshly residing mostly on the left and those wanting to avoid hurting their business (yes, yes, among other things)residing mostly on the right. You cannot be oblivious to that fact.
EVERYONE wishes this hadn't happened left or right, but when you look at the reaction from many conservatives looking to make President Obama take total ownership of this problem, it has to make you realize a few things.
The only thing I fault the President with is trusting that former executives make great regulators of their respective industries.
The reason that they want to not punish BP, I least my initial suspicion would be, that the Democrats thought of the idea to remove the $75 million cap first. Or they made a gamble that it would not have amounted to a major spill, and were wrong. Seeing that it is along partisan line, I highly doubt it is about business.
I find it to be rather ridiculous for certain Republicans to pin this on the President. Keep in mind that it isn't all of them. Not by a long shot.
[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]
I agree that this is not a left-right issue, however this event has been polarized with those wanting to punish BP harshly residing mostly on the left and those wanting to avoid hurting their business (yes, yes, among other things)residing mostly on the right. You cannot be oblivious to that fact.
EVERYONE wishes this hadn't happened left or right, but when you look at the reaction from many conservatives looking to make President Obama take total ownership of this problem, it has to make you realize a few things.
The only thing I fault the President with is trusting that former executives make great regulators of their respective industries.
The issue for us conservatives isn't about their business. It's about the punishment. If it was an accident then how can they be punished so severely? If it was definitely their fault, it's another issue entirely.
Obviously they're going to pay regardless, but why should they be destroyed for something that could possibly not have been their fault? Last I checked, there's no conclusive evidence.
Also, if it IS BP's fault, how is raising the cap to punish everybody even remotely fair?
There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here.There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. mattbbpl
Sorry, we just have two very different opinions of government. I don't trust the government to fairly punish corporations. Especially not a liberal government.
If they COULD punish fairly, I wouldn't oppose it. But they can't and they never will be able to.
The issue for us conservatives isn't about their business. It's about the punishment. If it was an accident then how can they be punished so severely? If it was definitely their fault, it's another issue entirely.
Obviously they're going to pay regardless, but why should they be destroyed for something that could possibly not have been their fault? Last I checked, there's no conclusive evidence.
airshocker
I understand all the points you are making, all very valid. However, what is the government to do about the small businesses and industries dependant on the Gulf that are going to be suffering in the imminent future? Many of the businesses are going to be lost and not able to return, so I'll pose this question: why are all the affected businesses allowed to 'die' while BP will be more or less preserved unscathed? Look at what they are doing now: trying to improve their image in the midst of a crisis. They'd improve their image greatly if the lent a helping hand to those affected.
A Bailout from BP to Gulf Coast residents is in order (okay I kid...partially).
[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]
I agree that this is not a left-right issue, however this event has been polarized with those wanting to punish BP harshly residing mostly on the left and those wanting to avoid hurting their business (yes, yes, among other things)residing mostly on the right. You cannot be oblivious to that fact.
EVERYONE wishes this hadn't happened left or right, but when you look at the reaction from many conservatives looking to make President Obama take total ownership of this problem, it has to make you realize a few things.
The only thing I fault the President with is trusting that former executives make great regulators of their respective industries.
The issue for us conservatives isn't about their business. It's about the punishment. If it was an accident then how can they be punished so severely? If it was definitely their fault, it's another issue entirely.
Obviously they're going to pay regardless, but why should they be destroyed for something that could possibly not have been their fault? Last I checked, there's no conclusive evidence.
Also, if it IS BP's fault, how is raising the cap to punish everybody even remotely fair?
There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. Guarantee the cost gets passed on to consumers. So either way...the people pay.;)[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. airshocker
Sorry, we just have two very different opinions of government. I don't trust the government to fairly punish corporations. Especially not a liberal government.
If they COULD punish fairly, I wouldn't oppose it. But they can't and they never will be able to.
Personally I don't trust government either but I also don't trust corporations. The goal of corporations is money so they have the people's rights, ethics and caring for the environment lower on their priority list. That alone makes my untrustiness alarm go off.I understand all the points you are making, all very valid. However, what is the government to do about thesmall businesses and industries dependant on the Gulfthat are going to be suffering in the imminent future? Many of the business are going to be lost and not able to return, so I'll pose this question: why are all the affected businesses allowed to 'die'while BP will be more or less preserved? Look at what they are doing now: trying to improve their image in the midst of a crisis. They'd improve their image greatly if the lended a helping hand to those affected.
A Bailout from BPto Gulf Coast residents is in order (okay I kid...partially).
Ultimas_Blade
Absolutely they should, and I think they have to some extent. But a rash piece of legislature isn't needed right now. I want investigations to see if they're at fault or not.
And then I want studies to see how much they actually should pay. Not just a lump sum of a trillion dollars because Congress says so.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. airshocker
Sorry, we just have two very different opinions of government. I don't trust the government to fairly punish corporations. Especially not a liberal government.
If they COULD punish fairly, I wouldn't oppose it. But they can't and they never will be able to.
But removing the cap isn't a punitive thing, it's a "you're responsible for the damages your actions caused." In other words, it's basically a civil liability thing. And most industries don't have such a cap, so if, say, a chemical plant has a disastrous spill into the groundwater of a city killing thousands of citizens and causing a bunch of damage to the water system and cleanup costs they can be held legally liable for all those costs. I don't see any good reason why the oil industry should be exempt from paying for damages they directly caused. I'm not advocating for the punishment of BP here, just financial responsibility.Personally I don't trust government either but I also don't trust corporations. The goal of corporations is money so they have the people's rights, ethics and caring for the environment lower on their priority list. That alone makes my untrustiness alarm go off.kuraimen
The government doesn't have our best interests at heart either. I think I'll go with the corporations on this one. They need their image. If they don't fix everything they broke, no one will ever buy from them again.
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. mattbbpl
Sorry, we just have two very different opinions of government. I don't trust the government to fairly punish corporations. Especially not a liberal government.
If they COULD punish fairly, I wouldn't oppose it. But they can't and they never will be able to.
But removing the cap isn't a punitive thing, it's a "you're responsible for the damages your actions caused." In other words, it's basically a civil liability thing. And most industries don't have such a cap, so if, say, a chemical plant has a disastrous spill into the groundwater of a city killing thousands of citizens and causing a bunch of damage to the water system and cleanup costs they can be held legally liable for all those costs. I don't see any good reason why the oil industry should be exempt from paying for damages they directly caused. I'm not advocating for the punishment of BP here, just financial responsibility.But the government is part of the problem in regard to regulations as to where they drill. If they didn't have to drill so deeply....it wouldn't cost as much. So I think government is just as responsible as BP.But removing the cap isn't a punitive thing, it's a "you're responsible for the damages your actions caused." In other words, it's basically a civil liability thing. And most industries don't have such a cap, so if, say, a chemical plant has a disastrous spill into the groundwater of a city killing thousands of citizens and causing a bunch of damage to the water system and cleanup costs they can be held legally liable for all those costs. I don't see any good reason why the oil industry should be exempt from paying for damages they directly caused.I'm not advocating for the punishment of BP here, just financial responsibility.mattbbpl
But what happens when it's time to find out what they should be held liable for? I don't trust the government to fairly investigate such claims, especially investigators from an administration that is an enemy to big business.
When they can impartially determine what BP should pay, I will agree with it. A good way to go about easing my fears is by telling Eric Holder to go screw himself. =]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Personally I don't trust government either but I also don't trust corporations. The goal of corporations is money so they have the people's rights, ethics and caring for the environment lower on their priority list. That alone makes my untrustiness alarm go off.airshocker
The government doesn't have our best interests at heart either. I think I'll go with the corporations on this one. They need their image. If they don't fix everything they broke, no one will ever buy from them again.
The same can be said for the government, in a democratic soceity if they don't do their job people would vote them out but reality is different. Corporations have ways to lie themselves out of trouble and deceive the public, things are not so simple. I don't trust either and I think BP should be held responsible to the last consequences. By whom? I don't care but in no way they should remain unscathed.[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Personally I don't trust government either but I also don't trust corporations. The goal of corporations is money so they have the people's rights, ethics and caring for the environment lower on their priority list. That alone makes my untrustiness alarm go off.kuraimen
The government doesn't have our best interests at heart either. I think I'll go with the corporations on this one. They need their image. If they don't fix everything they broke, no one will ever buy from them again.
The same can be said for the government, in a democratic soceity if they don't do their job people would vote them out but reality is different. Corporations have ways to lie themselves out of trouble and deceive the public, things are not so simple. I don't trust either and I think BP should be held responsible to the last consequences. By whom? I don't care but in no way they should remain unscathed.In the US most people don't vote....sad but true.The same can be said for the government, in a democratic soceity if they don't do their job people would vote them out but reality is different. Corporations have ways to lie themselves out of trouble and deceive the public, things are not so simple. I don't trust either and I think BP should be held responsible to the last consequences. By whom? I don't care but in no way they should remain unscathed.kuraimen
No, they absolutely need to be held accountable and liable. But I want the amount to be determined by a nonpartisan agency.
I don't want EVERYONE to be punished because of what happened with one oil company.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="airshocker"]There shouldn't be a cap. It pushes financial liabilities of copmanies onto the taxpayers. If I hit someone with my car, the amount of damages I have to pay them isn't capped and it shoudn't be. The same principle applies here. Guarantee the cost gets passed on to consumers. So either way...the people pay.;) Yeah, yeah, yeah, costs getting pushed onto consumers and all that jazz. I'm well aware of that argument and the reality of it, but that's not a reason to immediately push it off to the taxpayers. For one, if BP pushes it onto consumers then they'll have higher prices than their competitors and I'll have other places to turn to for more reasonably priced petroleum products (assuming a competitive market place with no collusion, obviously, which is the foundation upon which the free market and all of it's ideologies is founded). BP would still "pay" with some lost revenue/market share (they probably have already) as well as the likelihood of reduced profit by not being able to pass on all the costs immediately due to competitive market pressures. But, again, it's not really about punishment so much as accountability.The issue for us conservatives isn't about their business. It's about the punishment. If it was an accident then how can they be punished so severely? If it was definitely their fault, it's another issue entirely.
Obviously they're going to pay regardless, but why should they be destroyed for something that could possibly not have been their fault? Last I checked, there's no conclusive evidence.
Also, if it IS BP's fault, how is raising the cap to punish everybody even remotely fair?
LJS9502_basic
The reason that they want to not punish BP, I least my initial suspicion would be, that the Democrats thought of the idea to remove the $75 million cap first. Or they made a gamble that it would not have amounted to a major spill, and were wrong. Seeing that it is along partisan line, I highly doubt it is about business.
I find it to be rather ridiculous for certain Republicans to pin this on the President. Keep in mind that it isn't all of them. Not by a long shot.
coolbeans90
Definitely isn't all of them.
Raising the cap (not removing it) to $10 Billion was a great idea. Just because the cap is high doesn't mean every punishment dealt will hit the cap. The problem with the $75M cap is that when the cost of the disaster is far past that marker, BP's lawyers will seize the opportunity to say that they "spent $85M and have paid their debt to soceity." Yes that is speculation, but in court that would definitely hold with a low limit like $75M
$10B is chump change to a corporation like BP anyway.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]The same can be said for the government, in a democratic soceity if they don't do their job people would vote them out but reality is different. Corporations have ways to lie themselves out of trouble and deceive the public, things are not so simple. I don't trust either and I think BP should be held responsible to the last consequences. By whom? I don't care but in no way they should remain unscathed.In the US most people don't vote....sad but true.The government doesn't have our best interests at heart either. I think I'll go with the corporations on this one. They need their image. If they don't fix everything they broke, no one will ever buy from them again.
LJS9502_basic
In most countries most people don't vote and most of those who vote do it greatly uninformed. That's one of the reasons why I think democracy is only good in name but in practice it fails enormously. Sadly it is the best we can do it seems.
In case you hadn't noticed...in the US the price is pretty steady across all petroleum companies. So if one raises the price....the others follow.Yeah, yeah, yeah, costs getting pushed onto consumers and all that jazz. I'm well aware of that argument and the reality of it, but that's not a reason to immediately push it off to the taxpayers. For one, if BP pushes it onto consumers then they'll have higher prices than their competitors and I'll have other places to turn to for more reasonably priced petroleum products (assuming a competitive market place with no collusion, obviously, which is the foundation upon which the free market and all of it's ideologies is founded). BP would still "pay" with some lost revenue/market share (they probably have already) as well as the likelihood of reduced profit by not being able to pass on all the costs immediately due to competitive market pressures. But, again, it's not really about punishment so much as accountability.
mattbbpl
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]But removing the cap isn't a punitive thing, it's a "you're responsible for the damages your actions caused." In other words, it's basically a civil liability thing. And most industries don't have such a cap, so if, say, a chemical plant has a disastrous spill into the groundwater of a city killing thousands of citizens and causing a bunch of damage to the water system and cleanup costs they can be held legally liable for all those costs. I don't see any good reason why the oil industry should be exempt from paying for damages they directly caused.
I'm not advocating for the punishment of BP here, just financial responsibility.
But what happens when it's time to find out what they should be held liable for? I don't trust the government to fairly investigate such claims, especially investigators from an administration that is an enemy to big business.
When they can impartially determine what BP should pay, I will agree with it. A good way to go about easing my fears is by telling Eric Holder to go screw himself. =]
Not that I'm big on trusting a large government, but implementing such a cap and thereby removing most of the corporate accountability out of fears of the government inflating reported costs seems rather irresponsible. I'm actually quite perplexed as to why you're so quick to dismiss BP's financial responsibility in this matter. As an aside, considering the relatively tame actions of the administration up to this point, I find labeling it as an enemy to big business rather dubious.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, costs getting pushed onto consumers and all that jazz. I'm well aware of that argument and the reality of it, but that's not a reason to immediately push it off to the taxpayers. For one, if BP pushes it onto consumers then they'll have higher prices than their competitors and I'll have other places to turn to for more reasonably priced petroleum products (assuming a competitive market place with no collusion, obviously, which is the foundation upon which the free market and all of it's ideologies is founded). BP would still "pay" with some lost revenue/market share (they probably have already) as well as the likelihood of reduced profit by not being able to pass on all the costs immediately due to competitive market pressures. But, again, it's not really about punishment so much as accountability.
In case you hadn't noticed...in the US the price is pretty steady across all petroleum companies. So if one raises the price....the others follow. I know... Which is, as much as it pains me to say it, an argument for investigations/tighter regulations. The industry has long been suspected of widespread collusion. Regardless, I fail to see how that can, in any way, be construed as an argument for the dismissal of corporate responsibility.Not that I'm big on trusting a large government, but implementing such a cap and thereby removing most of the corporate accountability out of fears of the government inflating reported costs seems rather irresponsible. I'm actually quite perplexed as to why you're so quick to dismiss BP's financial responsibility in this matter.As an aside, considering the relatively tame actions of the administration up to this point, I find labeling it as an enemy to big business rather dubious.mattbbpl
I'm not dismissing their financial responsibility. They should pay for every damage they caused, regardless of it's an accident or not. Those damages should be estimated, however, by a nonpartisan agency, which the Federal government isn't. And then, instead of dealing with caps that might or might not cover everything, they can charge the amount that is needed. Let the public decide if BP did a good job or not, afterwards.
And the administration is absolutely an enemy to big business. Cap and trade won't hurt anybody...
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
The reason that they want to not punish BP, I least my initial suspicion would be, that the Democrats thought of the idea to remove the $75 million cap first. Or they made a gamble that it would not have amounted to a major spill, and were wrong. Seeing that it is along partisan line, I highly doubt it is about business.
I find it to be rather ridiculous for certain Republicans to pin this on the President. Keep in mind that it isn't all of them. Not by a long shot.
Ultimas_Blade
Definitely isn't all of them.
Raising the cap (not removing it) to $10 Billion was a great idea. Just because the cap is high doesn't mean every punishment dealt will hit the cap. The problem with the $75M cap is that when the cost of the disaster is far past that marker, BP's lawyers will seize the opportunity to say that they "spent $85M and have paid their debt to soceity." Yes that is speculation, but in court that would definitely hold with a low limit like $75M
$10B is chump change to a corporation like BP anyway.
In all honesty, I don't believe in putting a cap at all as long as compensations for actual damages are accurate.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Not that I'm big on trusting a large government, but implementing such a cap and thereby removing most of the corporate accountability out of fears of the government inflating reported costs seems rather irresponsible. I'm actually quite perplexed as to why you're so quick to dismiss BP's financial responsibility in this matter.
As an aside, considering the relatively tame actions of the administration up to this point, I find labeling it as an enemy to big business rather dubious.
I'm not dismissing their financial responsibility. They should pay for every damage they caused, regardless of it's an accident or not. Those damages should be estimated, however, by a nonpartisan agency, which the Federal government isn't.
And the administration is absolutely an enemy to big business. Cap and trade won't hurt anybody...
We'll see how Cap and Trade turns out. If it's anything like the healthcare reform it's bark will be worse than it's bite.We'll see how Cap and Trade turns out. If it's anything like the healthcare reform it's bark will be worse than it's bite.mattbbpl
I abhor that mentality. It's the principle of it that I'm most concerned with. The government serves us. Businesses and citizens do not serve it.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, costs getting pushed onto consumers and all that jazz. I'm well aware of that argument and the reality of it, but that's not a reason to immediately push it off to the taxpayers. For one, if BP pushes it onto consumers then they'll have higher prices than their competitors and I'll have other places to turn to for more reasonably priced petroleum products (assuming a competitive market place with no collusion, obviously, which is the foundation upon which the free market and all of it's ideologies is founded). BP would still "pay" with some lost revenue/market share (they probably have already) as well as the likelihood of reduced profit by not being able to pass on all the costs immediately due to competitive market pressures. But, again, it's not really about punishment so much as accountability.
In case you hadn't noticed...in the US the price is pretty steady across all petroleum companies. So if one raises the price....the others follow. I know... Which is, as much as it pains me to say it, an argument for investigations/tighter regulations. The industry has long been suspected of widespread collusion. Regardless, I fail to see how that can, in any way, be construed as an argument for the dismissal of corporate responsibility.I wasn't aware I made any argument dismissing corporate responsibility. In fact...I know I haven't. What I said was the government is just as responsible for the increased cost to stop the spill because government regulations put the drilling at a much harder place to fix quickly. Shared blame is the way to go.....[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In case you hadn't noticed...in the US the price is pretty steady across all petroleum companies. So if one raises the price....the others follow.I know... Which is, as much as it pains me to say it, an argument for investigations/tighter regulations. The industry has long been suspected of widespread collusion.LJS9502_basic
Regardless, I fail to see how that can, in any way, be construed as an argument for the dismissal of corporate responsibility.
I wasn't aware I made any argument dismissing corporate responsibility. In fact...I know I haven't. What I said was the government is just as responsible for the increased cost to stop the spill because government regulations put the drilling at a much harder place to fix quickly. Shared blame is the way to go..... That's the point I was arguing when you jumped in...I guess we have nothing further to discuss then.
I wasn't aware I made any argument dismissing corporate responsibility. In fact...I know I haven't. What I said was the government is just as responsible for the increased cost to stop the spill because government regulations put the drilling at a much harder place to fix quickly. Shared blame is the way to go..... That's the point I was arguing when you jumped in...[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] I know... Which is, as much as it pains me to say it, an argument for investigations/tighter regulations. The industry has long been suspected of widespread collusion.
Regardless, I fail to see how that can, in any way, be construed as an argument for the dismissal of corporate responsibility.mattbbpl
I guess we have nothing further to discuss then.
You seemed.....and still do seem...to be blaming the business.This is the problem I have with the government. Rather than brainstorming and trying to find solutions to the spill, ways to clean it up, ways to prevent future accidents, they focus all their attention on assessing blame. Sure, it's good PR, but it's not going to change a thing. Way to go, adminstration. Take that high road :roll:
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]We'll see how Cap and Trade turns out. If it's anything like the healthcare reform it's bark will be worse than it's bite.airshocker
I abhor that mentality. It's the principle of it that I'm most concerned with. The government serves us. Businesses and citizens do not serve it.
What I'm saying is that I don't see it coming to fruition in anything resembling it's original plan. The primary concept itself has been largely dropped already as we can see by Kerry's global warming legislation. The current economic state and industry opposition has taken all of the wind out of it's sails... thankfully.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]We'll see how Cap and Trade turns out. If it's anything like the healthcare reform it's bark will be worse than it's bite.airshocker
I abhor that mentality. It's the principle of it that I'm most concerned with. The government serves us. Businesses and citizens do not serve it.
Businesses serve themselves. Cap and trade is trying to fix a problem using the same means it was created in the first place. I don't buy that.What I'm saying is that I don't see it coming to fruition in anything resembling it's original plan. The primary concept itself has been largely dropped already as we can see by Kerry's global warming legislation. The current economic state and industry opposition has taken all of the wind out of it's sails... thankfully. mattbbpl
Thankfully indeed.
Perhaps enemy was too strong of a word. Obama has that Robin Hood syndrome when it comes to corporations. Instead of helping them create jobs in America and lower costs for the entire country, he's more focussed on getting them to pay for his social reforms. That's abhorrent, to me.
I wasn't aware I made any argument dismissing corporate responsibility. In fact...I know I haven't. What I said was the government is just as responsible for the increased cost to stop the spill because government regulations put the drilling at a much harder place to fix quickly. Shared blame is the way to go.....LJS9502_basicThat's the point I was arguing when you jumped in...
I guess we have nothing further to discuss then.
You seemed.....and still do seem...to be blaming the business. How so? I'm simply saying that businesses (as well as citizens) are legally responsible for financial damages that result from accidents caused by their normal business operations. Oil companies shouldn't be exempt from that.Businesses serve themselves. Cap and trade is trying to fix a problem using the same means it was created in the first place. I don't buy that.kuraimen
Businesses should be serving themselves. What's the POINT in having a business if it can't be profitable?
Cap and trade will do NOTHING except raise prices dramatically for the American people and cause big business to bring their jobs elsewhere. I mean, it'll make liberals feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but that's about all the good that will come out of it.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] That's the point I was arguing when you jumped in...You seemed.....and still do seem...to be blaming the business. How so? I'm simply saying that businesses (as well as citizens) are legally responsible for financial damages that result from accidents caused by their normal business operations. Oil companies shouldn't be exempt from that.No...but those that create regulations that exacerbate the problem should be held accountable as well. Not just the one party....I guess we have nothing further to discuss then.
mattbbpl
See thats kinda what im saying. They are too concerned with pointing the fingers, and trying to look innocent. Priorities are misplacedThis is the problem I have with the government. Rather than brainstorming and trying to find solutions to the spill, ways to clean it up, ways to prevent future accidents, they focus all their attention on assessing blame. Sure, it's good PR, but it's not going to change a thing. Way to go, adminstration. Take that high road :roll:
sonicare
How so? I'm simply saying that businesses (as well as citizens) are legally responsible for financial damages that result from accidents caused by their normal business operations. Oil companies shouldn't be exempt from that.No...but those that create regulations that exacerbate the problem should be held accountable as well. Not just the one party.... You're referring to the taxpayers?[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You seemed.....and still do seem...to be blaming the business.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Businesses serve themselves. Cap and trade is trying to fix a problem using the same means it was created in the first place. I don't buy that.airshocker
Businesses should be serving themselves. What's the POINT in having a business if it can't be profitable?
Cap and trade will do NOTHING except raise prices dramatically for the American people and cause big business to bring their jobs elsewhere. I mean, it'll make liberals feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but that's about all the good that will come out of it.
I actually think it will make things worse. I agree is a make-feel-good solution not a real one.
And one of the main reasons I think it won't work is because corporations would find ways to bypass it, take advantage of it and buy their way out of trouble. It's a non-solution.
Obama shifts the blame to anyone but himself, constantly blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong. If it happens under his reign, just like Bush, it's his fault.
Snipes_2
Enough said. :P
I actually think it will make things worse. I agree is a make-feel-good solution not a real one.
And one of the main reasons I think it won't work is because corporations would find ways to bypass it, take advantage of it and buy their way out of trouble. It's a non-solution.
kuraimen
Agreed with your first point.
And if I was a big business I'd try and bypass it like it was the plague, too!
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No...but those that create regulations that exacerbate the problem should be held accountable as well. Not just the one party.... You're referring to the taxpayers? Oh either way the people will pay......but if you tie a companies hands...and cause added expense....is it fair to make them pay all the costs?[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] How so? I'm simply saying that businesses (as well as citizens) are legally responsible for financial damages that result from accidents caused by their normal business operations. Oil companies shouldn't be exempt from that.mattbbpl
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No...but those that create regulations that exacerbate the problem should be held accountable as well. Not just the one party....You're referring to the taxpayers? Oh either way the people will pay......but if you tie a companies hands...and cause added expense....is it fair to make them pay all the costs? Companies need to operate within the parameters of the regulations set forth. There are a variety of precautions BP could have taken to prevent the current issue, and they simply weren't followed. Holding them fully accountable, even if all regulations were followed, is the same standard other companies in other industries must follow.LJS9502_basic
Please name them.There are a variety of precautions BP could have taken to prevent the current issue, and they simply weren't followed.
mattbbpl
Oh either way the people will pay......but if you tie a companies hands...and cause added expense....is it fair to make them pay all the costs?LJS9502_basicHeck yeah it's fair! If the company (and the industry at large really) had not meddled the way they did with regulators and cutting corners this event could have been smaller/non-existent. All involved parties (BP, TransOcean, Halliburton, and negligent federal regulators) need to get a serious gut check (hefty fines and firings) to ensure this does not occur again. They should be reasonsible for every single dime lost because of their negligence and the federal government should slap a hefty fine on them. Heads need to roll over this, after the proper investigations of course. Also, there needs to be a government wide cleansing of these industry leaders who land these cushy regulator jobs and subsequently roll over like good lapdogs.
There are a variety of precautions BP could have taken to prevent the current issue, and they simply weren't followed.
Please name them. A relief well, for one, which from what I understand many other countries actually require. A second blowout preventer would have likely sufficed as well which I understand is also relatively common. Most other companies in similar situations have disaster prearedness plans if everthing goes to heck in a hand-basket (my company, for one, has several based on several different scenarios).However, that's not really the point. The point is that the same standard of paying for damages caused by business operations should be applied here as well.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Oh either way the people will pay......but if you tie a companies hands...and cause added expense....is it fair to make them pay all the costs?Ultimas_BladeHeck yeah it's fair! If the company (and the industry at large really) had not meddled the way they did with regulators and cutting corners this event could have been smaller/non-existent. All involved parties (BP, TransOcean, Halliburton, and negligent federal regulators) need to get a serious gut check (hefty fines and firings) to ensure this does not occur again. They should be reasonsible for every single dime lost because of their negligence and the federal government should slap a hefty fine on them. Heads need to roll over this, after the proper investigations of course. Also, there needs to be a government wide cleansing of these industry leaders who land these cushy regulator jobs and subsequently roll over like good lapdogs. It would have been smaller....less costly if they didn't have to drill so far down.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment