Real World Event Discussions

Republicans want bailout for BP...?!!?!

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 18:52
VIEWED: 4314
PAGE 1 of 5

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:11 PM

Are they freaking KIDDING? Good old republican legislators; they can always be counted on...

Quote:
Republicans in the U.S. Senate want American taxpayers to foot most of the bill for the cleanup of the disastrous, ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In other words, they want us to bail out BP. Yep, I know, it’s just completely unbelievable, but the GOP senators want to bailout yet another major corporate screw-up — and a corporation that’s a relentless environmental polluter to boot. That’s what will happen if the Senate GOP’s tactics work and they successfully block a bill designed to make BP clean up its own mess (if a spill the size of the two Carolinas combined can be called a mere “mess”). GOP senators, led by Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Oklahoma’s James Inhofe, have repeatedly blocked a bill that would raise the cap on oil companies’ liability from $75 million to $10 billion.

So far, the cost of the cleanup has hit around $600 million and is going up every minute, so as of now (May 24, noon), the GOP’s idea for cleaning up BP’s mess would already cost American taxpayers $525 million. Experts estimate the total cost of the current spill cleanup could be anywhere from $1.5 billion to $14 billion; the latter figure includes payments to ruined businesses along the Gulf Coast.

As pointed out by True Majority, “BP makes over $3.9 million EVERY HOUR. In the 31 days since the rig exploded, they’ve earned over $2.8 billion.” The current spill is expected to wreck the Gulf Coast’s fishing and tourist industries, not to mention the untold damage to the Gulf’s already-threatened wetlands, but that’s apparently not a problem for the clueless millionaire’s club running the GOP caucus in the Senate. There are apparently no depths to which some oil company stooges in Congress won’t sink in order to appease their greasy overlords.

At least so far it's not going anywhere...anyone want to take bets?

Quote:
U.S. Senator David Vitter asked for unanimous consent to pass legislation that protect BP and other oil companies by limiting their financial liability for oil spills and potentially leaves taxpayers on the hook for the cost of cleaning up the damage. Vitter’s request was met with objection and did not pass.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/05/vitter-calls-for-bp-bailout-bill-
in-senate/

He didn't just fuck a woman or two, he wants to fuck US over!

Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor

...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:16 PM

Hello,

I don't understand the point of limiting liability. You are as liable as you are for the things you do. No more, no less. If the courts decide you are 100 dollars liable, what is the justice in artificially reducing that to 15 dollars?

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:41 PM

Silly man...we're talking about Republican legislators, remember? And you want logic when talking about their money overlords??

As for facts; the damages where oil spills is concerned was passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 by unanimous vote in both Houses after the Exxon Valdez. It's still there. It should be done away with; you're right: You are as liable as you are for the things you do. No more, no less."

But don't ask them to agree with that, no sirree:

Quote:
A bill to increase the liability cap for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion was defeated Thursday by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Bill S.3305, the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act" would cap BP's liability at $10 billion, even if damages from the gulf oil spill surpass that figure. The company already estimates that spill will cost $450 million to clean up.

Murkowski, a drilling supporter, has received almost $300,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. While Murkowski said that she supports raising the cap, she argued that the $10 billion figure would prohibit all but the biggest of oil companies from drilling oil offshore:
Quote:
It would be impossible or perhaps close to impossible for any energy company that is smaller than the supermajors, smaller than the national oil companies, to operate in the O.C.S.

$10 billion in strict liability would preclude their ability to obtain financing, to obtain the bonds, or insurance for any exploration. And look at who is producing in the offshore? It's the independents.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said Murkowski's argument didn't hold up. "The risk is what has to be calulated here. If you drill, you need to be able to pay for the damages," Menendez said.

Menendez derided Murkowski's characterization of "independent" oil and gas companies. "This isn't mom and pop in the grocery store around the corner.''

We all ready "bail" them out via subsidies, yet they want more to avoid the cost of their mistakes. The estimate is that Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Quote:
Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels:

•Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free

•Research-and-development programs at low or no cost

•Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead

•Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions

•Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire

•Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods

•Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally)

•The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

•Construction and protection of the nation's highway system

•Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?

•Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid

How much more does our government wanna give 'em, d'ya think?

Next time people start griping about Welfar, etc., let's talk about THIS giveaway...and the cost of the mess in the Gulf...

Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

http://i25.photobucket.co

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:50 PM

Unfortunately, they're right. That may not be why they're doing it, they might have their pockets lined, but they still have point.

The problem is that the law has to be well established before someone commits a crime, or you end up with a police state. You cant just retroactively make a law because someone did something you didn't like. Unless your china, of course.

But in this case, the liability cap was put in place before BP started mucking everything up. Thats the law, and it has to be upheld or the whole system collapses. It's pretty spin heavy to call it a bailout for BP.

That said, here's a clever trick they could pull: make a new law requiring consequence for new oil being spilled, rather than new spills, so if anyone might happen to have a leak which was spilling right now, they could start racking up the charges if they don't cap it. It's not retroactive justice, and it has the same basic affect.

Meanwhile, iirc vitter is busy masturbating in diapers and inhofe is complaining that we don't torture enough, so I'll grant they aren't the shining stars of conservative Christian morality ;)

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:53 PM

Here's another tack. They could just sue BP for damage to the gulf coast in the private sector. That would actually be a lot better. You wouldn't have the nasty legal precedent of retroactive justice, plus the money could go where it's needed, which almost certainly will not happen if it goes to the federal govt.

All coastal properties, townships, cities, counties and states should independently sue BP for damages to help with clean up.

NIKI2

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:56 PM

I agree. Would be nice to see it happen...hopefully it will! Of course, then you have to get them to actually PAY...which people in Alaska are still waiting for...

Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor

...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...

MALACHITE

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:59 PM

Republicans from Oklahoma and Alaska, eh? Isn't the oil industry (and lobby) going to be a huge influence in those states? I'm guessing the Republicans have to at least try to block things if they want to keep their jobs. I wonder if it is all just political manuverings, trying to make themselves look good for their constituents (which rely on the oil industry) but still knowing in their hearts that it is wrong to limit BPs liability and hoping that their attempt at a block is unsuccessful? Are there democratic senators from Oklahoma and Alaska? Are they with the republicans in this or are they taking a stand?

(ETA: I looked it up. Both senators from OK are republican, but only 1 senator from Alaska is)

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:07 PM

Nikita

The other oil companies can sue them, if they own gulf real estate, which they undiutedly do. I'm sure they know how to get the money. He'll, have 'em sue for ownership of the oil.

MALACHITE

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:10 PM

So, I just looked up the democrat from Alaska: Mark Begich. I didn't see anything about his stand on BP, but he seems to be pro-oil drilling based on his negative response to Obama's suspension of exploratory drilling.

Quote:
Begich Statement on Suspension of Arctic Exploratory Drilling
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Julie Hasquet, Press Secretary
May 26, 2010
(907) 258-9304 office
2010-107

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich released the following statement after learning the Obama Administration will announce tomorrow consideration of any applications for exploratory drilling in the Arctic is suspended until 2011:

"I am frustrated that this decision by the Obama Administration to halt offshore development for a year will cause more delays and higher costs for domestic oil and gas production to meet the nation's energy needs.

"The Gulf of Mexico tragedy has highlighted the need for much stronger oversight and accountability of oil companies working offshore, but Shell has updated its plans at the administration's request and made significant investments to address the concerns raised by the Gulf spill. They make an effective case that we can safely explore for oil and gas this summer in the Arctic.

"Another year of delay costs money and Alaska jobs. The nation also has to export more dollars and import more oil from some unfriendly places, jeopardizing our economic and national security.

"I still believe we can responsibly develop oil and gas resources in the Arctic. Over the next year, I'll work with Senator Murkowski and Secretary Salazar, as well as the Alaska operators, to ensure we're ready to go as soon as possible."

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:14 PM

Hello,

Yeah, repeal the law for new events moving forward.

Then increase taxes on oil extraction and use the tax to create a relief fund for people/communities impacted by these spills. Once the fund reaches a target goal... say 1 Trillion dollars, then the tax can be cut off until the fund dips below that again.

A security deposit for an industry that has shown a tendency for periodic disasters.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma