Quote
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - A Texas Republican apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward on Thursday for having to set aside $20 billion for Gulf of Mexico damage claims, drawing ridicule from Democrats and embarrassing Republicans.
Quote
Barton stuck to his position. "I just think it is very un-American to have the president of the United States demand $20 billion and have a company agree without being able to exercise all its rights under our system of laws and precedents," he told Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1721590120100617
What, exactly, is unamerican about asking someone to do something voluntarily? How does that prevent them from going to the courts (unless they agreed to contract away their rights). Speaking of which, if Joe Barton is so against choosing not to exercise one's rights, why again is he on the side of big business, most of which require us to contract away our rights if we want just about any sort of service?
The $20 bln is all theatrics to start with. They are not making a $20bln cash deposit this week. My understanding is that they will also encumber assets such as oil leases.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 17, 2010, 02:26:57 PM
The $20 bln is all theatrics to start with. They are not making a $20bln cash deposit this week. My understanding is that they will also encumber assets such as oil leases.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "all" theatrics, as it should result in a more fair claims process if the guy Obama appointed to oversee the fund is as good as he's been said to be. It is true that they're not fully funding the escrow account immediately, but in chunks over the next couple of years. I don't think BP would have done this voluntarily if Obama had asked for $20 billion up front, since they don't have that much cash on hand and their credit rating downgrade is making it expensive for them to borrow at the moment. Even if they had been willing, I think it's better if we don't drive them out of business.
A lot of it is about perception, however.
$20 bln is an impressive number, though not as impressive as it once sounded 20 years ago. The government loves to let people know it's spending billions on their behalf. I still recall VP Biden, freshly off his journey calling for $1 bln in aid to war-torn Georgia when he was still a Senator. How did he quantify that they needed $1 bln? Why not $356 million or $1.9 bln?
It's a PR matter with politicians.
Barton's an idiot for apologizing to BP. This $20b will have no affect on them. It will simply be shifted from investors. 39% of those are American workers. 40% are British workers.
This money ultimately comes from people who own stock or mutual funds with energy stocks in them. If BP was a privately held company this would be a victory.
I think it was clever PR for BP who for years has positioned themselves as the Green Energy Company. BP uses the PR firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. This is their style.
Unfortunately I think they were hoping for a better reaction from the sheep, and if The President had done a better job in his address, I think it would have had more impact.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it will provide some relief, but don't think BP is being fleeced.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 17, 2010, 02:57:32 PM
$20 bln is an impressive number, though not as impressive as it once sounded 20 years ago.
$20 billion is more than the State of Oklahoma's entire budget in 2001.
Gaspar, this $20 billion isn't extra, they would have had to pay it anyway. It doesn't change anything for the shareholders. I don't get what your point is about where the money is coming from, unless you're trying to say BP shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up its mess, which I don't think you're saying.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2010, 03:02:36 PM
$20 billion is more than the State of Oklahoma's entire budget in 2001.
It doesn't change anything for the shareholders.
Oh, yes it does. It means around 22%.
. . . and I do think they should be responsible, but this is merely a game of grab-a$$ between the admin and BP.
They publicized this as Obama playing hardball. BP came to the table with this. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is already churning out ads that you should be hearing about ever 20 minutes on radio and TV.
BP, contrary to current events, is typically a very environmental focused company, because it's profitable for them. They are huge fans of the Cap and Trade bill because they have significant control over some of the best natural gas reserves available. They've spend over $15 million over the last year lobbying for Obama's energy policy.
This is one hand slapping the other and investors (who had nothing to do with the spill) get to pick up the check.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2010, 02:59:37 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it will provide some relief, but don't think BP is being fleeced.
Agreed. If BP is willing to pony up $20bil as a PR sop, they obviously believe that the potential damage must be far more than that.
Quote from: we vs us on June 17, 2010, 04:16:44 PM
Agreed. If BP is willing to pony up $20bil as a PR sop, they obviously believe that the potential damage must be far more than that.
Far far more!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2010, 04:01:52 PM
Oh, yes it does. It means around 22%.
Please explain how it makes one lick of difference to the shareholders whether some of the claims are paid by way of the escrow account rather than paying it directly out of cash. Your contention is nonsensical. It's not like BP is paying an
extra $20 billion.
Ultimately, purchasers of BP products will pay the bill. (Unless BP has access to our money printing presses.) Trying to boycott them or run them out of business is not in our best interest. Well, at least until the mess is cleaned up and the Gulf shores are back to normal. Good luck with that.
Same BP that bungled the Exxon Valdez spill and only had to pay about $4 billion to cleanup the sound. Which is still a mess...kind of like a waste land. Give it another 80 to 100 years and it will be ok.
Hey, I got an idea! How about requiring them to adhere to environmental and safety laws?? Remember the 750+ serious violations they have accrued? Versus 6 or 8 for Shell, Conoco/Phillips, Sunoco.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 18, 2010, 01:11:45 AM
Hey, I got an idea! How about requiring them to adhere to environmental and safety laws?? Remember the 750+ serious violations they have accrued? Versus 6 or 8 for Shell, Conoco/Phillips, Sunoco.
Great idea! Too bad it took something like this to make that happen. BP has been a very close buddy of the DNC over the past 15+ years as a stratagem to impact environmental law in their favor, and they don't deny this. They have been instrumental in the election of many Dems that are now decision makers on environmental policy. They wanted Obama's energy policies to pass because it would put them in the drivers seat for natural gas.
In fact, they share the same marketing group, PR firm (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, mentioned above) and through that 3rd party they provide huge perks to Dems responsible for making environmental policy. This helped BP to slip by when other energy companies got squeezed. In the marketing world the term "Greenwashing" was coined in response to Greenberg's actions.
They even provided Rahm with a ritzy Washington townhouse in 2006. The major partner in the group, Greenberg, works for the DNC as a pollster, and his wife is a Connecticut Congresswoman.
BP is Greenberg's largest client and the source of most of their income. Financed by BP, Greenberg partnered with James Carville and advised the campaigns of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Kerry was their greatest hope to steer environmental policy in their favor, until his loss, but he has continued to work for them in making policy that has been adopted by the Obama Administration.
Some are beginning to think that this quick 20 Billion pledge was to avoid a backlash of investigation that would uncover ties to the administration that both the White House and BP would rather not answer questions about.
Things are really getting interesting now. . .
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 07:59:37 AM
Great idea! Too bad it took something like this to make that happen. BP has been a very close buddy of the DNC over the past 15+ years as a stratagem to impact environmental law in their favor, and they don't deny this. They have been instrumental in the election of many Dems that are now decision makers on environmental policy. They wanted Obama's energy policies to pass because it would put them in the drivers seat for natural gas.
In fact, they share the same marketing group, PR firm (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, mentioned above) and through that 3rd party they provide huge perks to Dems responsible for making environmental policy. This helped BP to slip by when other energy companies got squeezed. In the marketing world the term "Greenwashing" was coined in response to Greenberg's actions.
They even provided Rahm with a ritzy Washington townhouse in 2006. The major partner in the group, Greenberg, works for the DNC as a pollster, and his wife is a Connecticut Congresswoman.
BP is Greenberg's largest client and the source of most of their income. Financed by BP, Greenberg partnered with James Carville and advised the campaigns of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Kerry was their greatest hope to steer environmental policy in their favor, until his loss, but he has continued to work for them in making policy that has been adopted by the Obama Administration.
Some are beginning to think that this quick 20 Billion pledge was to avoid a backlash of investigation that would uncover ties to the administration that both the White House and BP would rather not answer questions about.
Things are really getting interesting now. . .
Since you don't like to source your allegations, I took the liberty of doing some googling and found out that the font of this convoluted Rahm Emmanuel conspiracy theory (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=163281) is none other than Mr. Jerome Corsi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi) author of "Obama Nation" and, my personal favorite, "Unfit for Command." In other words, this comes straight from the disgusting maw of the guy who invented swiftboating.
So, maybe we should just go ahead and disregard, hm?
Quote from: we vs us on June 18, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Since you don't like to source your allegations, I took the liberty of doing some googling and found out that the font of this convoluted Rahm Emmanuel conspiracy theory (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=163281) is none other than Mr. Jerome Corsi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi) author of "Obama Nation" and, my personal favorite, "Unfit for Command." In other words, this comes straight from the disgusting maw of the guy who invented swiftboating.
So, maybe we should just go ahead and disregard, hm?
Thanks! Actually that's not where I found the info at all. It was from a few Washington Examiner stores but this is great.
After reading it, I think he did a better job of putting it all together than anyone else has. It's getting some play now, and I anticipate it will get deeper.
Nothing here is refutable, it's all documented and the players haven't denied any of it. If I was a Liberal this would make me even more upset. I am not, so it just makes me disappointed. :(
Quote from: we vs us on June 18, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Since you don't like to source your allegations, I took the liberty of doing some googling and found out that the font of this convoluted Rahm Emmanuel conspiracy theory (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=163281) is none other than Mr. Jerome Corsi, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi) author of "Obama Nation" and, my personal favorite, "Unfit for Command." In other words, this comes straight from the disgusting maw of the guy who invented swiftboating.
So, maybe we should just go ahead and disregard, hm?
"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics...."
"During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records."
An Obama spokesman rejected the notion that the president took big oil money.
"President Obama didn't accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign," spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0rDd43C9K
Okay, his "spokesman" is flat out lying or is off in la-la land.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000091&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2008
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
Thanks! Actually that's not where I found the info at all. It was from a few Washington Examiner stores but this is great.
After reading it, I think he did a better job of putting it all together than anyone else has. It's getting some play now, and I anticipate it will get deeper.
Nothing here is refutable, it's all documented and the players haven't denied any of it. If I was a Liberal this would make me even more upset. I am not, so it just makes me disappointed. :(
I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist. It explains a lot...
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2010, 02:22:34 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1721590120100617
What, exactly, is unamerican about asking someone to do something voluntarily? How does that prevent them from going to the courts (unless they agreed to contract away their rights). Speaking of which, if Joe Barton is so against choosing not to exercise one's rights, why again is he on the side of big business, most of which require us to contract away our rights if we want just about any sort of service?
I am shocked, shocked I say that you did not even attempt to interpret, clarify, or state what Barton really meant to say.
(http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/louis-renault-is-shocked-shocked-just-like-mitt-romney.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on June 18, 2010, 11:37:48 AM
I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist. It explains a lot...
Hey now, just because 90% of conspiracy theories are nuts does not mean that conspiracies don't exist.
Quote from: custosnox on June 18, 2010, 12:18:41 PM
Hey now, just because 90% of conspiracy theories are nuts does not mean that conspiracies don't exist.
True. I'm pretty sure my Toms are trying to frame me for murder. I hear them whispering to the tie rack.
Barton received over 1.5 million from energy companies (not BP that I can tell) so there is no doubt where he is coming from. Like Inhofe, who brags about how much he has received from big oil (over 1 million) and says that isn't enough.
These guy rub your noses in it and you just love the stink.
Quote from: guido911 on June 18, 2010, 12:13:50 PM
I am shocked, shocked I say that you did not even attempt to interpret, clarify, or state what Barton really meant to say.
(http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/louis-renault-is-shocked-shocked-just-like-mitt-romney.jpg)
I only do that when there are reasonable alternative meanings other than the plain meaning of the words.
Sort of like the BP Chairman who said "little people," which I'm sure has a much different connotation in Swedish (or Finnish or whatever he is).
Anyway, trying to paint the Democrats as being on BP's side after Mr. Barton engaged his verbal diarrhea seems like a tough row to hoe. Unfortunately, his attempt to align himself with the tea partiers failed miserably. You can say crap like that if you're Michelle Bachmann since everybody already knows you're insane. Unfortunate for the Republicans that the same statement was also made (in writing) by one or another of their groups of which 2/3rds of the House are members. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 18, 2010, 12:36:35 PM
Barton received over 1.5 million from energy companies (not BP that I can tell) so there is no doubt where he is coming from. Like Inhofe, who brags about how much he has received from big oil (over 1 million) and says that isn't enough.
These guy rub your noses in it and you just love the stink.
It's next to impossible to find a DC politician who doesn't have a little oil under their fingernails.
Every politician is on the side of the "little guy" when it comes to rhetoric. Foreigner not understanding American slang? No surprise there. Stupid to react to his mis-speak.
They all have a lot of oil money. Big oil, banks, corporate America in general hedges its bets and places some down on all sides. Would be very stupid not to.
What is the biggest shame is that they are allowed to put any money at all into the process. That is not 'freedom of speech'.