• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama declares 'reckless' BP will pay Gulf cleanup

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No failure of Obama to leave 13 countries waiting on the outside to help because he wont lift the jones act?


Really?

wow indeed,,,,
Click to expand...

Can you show me any evidence that even a single request to help from another country has been denied or not allowed because of the Jones Act?
 
Wonder when he will demand Exxon pay for the Valdez oil spill in full... like that will ever happen. If I were BP, I would say **** off we have a job to do, and come back to us when Exxon has paid in full with interest what they owe.
 
PeteEU said:
Wonder when he will demand Exxon pay for the Valdez oil spill in full... like that will ever happen. If I were BP, I would say **** off we have a job to do, and come back to us when Exxon has paid in full with interest what they owe.
Click to expand...

You made this false claim once already, and I pointed out your mistake in that thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-govt-liability-bp-source.html#post1058802120

Once again, Exxon has already paid the full $2b cost of cleaning up the spill. They also already paid $1.8b in economic damages that were awarded. The only thing that they were fighting over was punitive damages (and it turned out they were correct on the merits.)

Moreover, I believe that Exxon has already paid out most if not all of the punitive damages as well.


As of 2009:

Exxon Valdez actually owed a total of $507.5 million in the punitive award, and, so far, it has paid $383 million of that to those who sued.
Click to expand...

As of 2010:

Exxon paid more than $3.8 billion in cleanup and damage costs, plus about $500 million in punitive damages.
Click to expand...
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you show me any evidence that even a single request to help from another country has been denied or not allowed because of the Jones Act?
Click to expand...



Yes i can and i have. I am on the iphone so you are free to search it.


In fact the admin sent a letter to the dutch stating thanks but no thanks.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yes i can and i have. I am on the iphone so you are free to search it.


In fact the admin sent a letter to the dutch stating thanks but no thanks.
Click to expand...
They might have turned down some help when they feel it wouldn't be helpful, but at any point in that letter or anywhere else did anyone say it was because of the Jones Act? Do you have any proof that the Jones Act has prevented one single iota of help?
 
roughdraft274 said:
They might have turned down some help when they feel it wouldn't be helpful, but at any point in that letter or anywhere else did anyone say it was because of the Jones Act? Do you have any proof that the Jones Act has prevented one single iota of help?
Click to expand...





I dont need to be not on the iphone to simply /facepalm at this hackery.


13 countries offered help. The thing preventing them from helpong was obama not lifting the jones act. I posted on this as well.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I dont need to be not on the iphone to simply /facepalm at this hackery.


13 countries offered help. The thing preventing them from helpong was obama not lifting the jones act. I posted on this as well.
Click to expand...

Unified Command for the BP Oil Spill | Admiral Allen Provides Guidance to Ensure Expedited Jones Act Waiver Processing Should It Be Needed

Why did it prevent those instances but somehow we do have foreign ships in the gulf right now with no waivers of the Jones Act? This isn't hackery, it's a simple question. The administration has pointed out that they will waive the jones act any time that they need to. To suggest that there are ships sitting around ready to help us that were keeping out simply because Obama can't be troubled with waiving the Jones Act is silly at best.
 
Just in case you were wondering why BP had a rig where it did, and were looking to tie it to GWB...

In 1995, President Clinton signed the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act which exempted oil wells drilled deep in the Gulf from the normal royalty payments they would normally have owed the government for their oil. Usually, these payments amount to between 12% and 16% of their revenues, so exemption from this requirement did a great deal to catalyze drilling in deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the Administration action, deepwater oil production in the Gulf increased rapidly, growing from 42 million barrels annually in 1996 to 348 million in 2004. The latter figure represents about 6% of total United States oil consumption and about 15% of domestic production. Natural gas production from deepwater Gulf drilling increased tenfold during the same period.

Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995
 
megaprogman said:
Two things. Bush's tenure was when deregulation happened. In fact it was part of the agenda and stuff like this is a good example of why we need regulation. So, in that sense, it is Bush's fault. (It may seem like a tired old mantra to you, but to me it will never tire until it is no longer true)

It is also BP's fault because they knowingly cut corners.

It is a littlebit Obama's fault because he should have cleaned house, but I am going to give him somewhat of a pass since government is huge and there is no way he could possibly know every problem.

So in conclusion
Mostly BP's fault
Some Bush's fault
a little Obama's fault
Click to expand...
Didn't the Obama Administration give this specific rig a safety award last year?
Hasn't the Obama Administration been in office 18-months?
So eager were they, did they not start stepping on the Bush Administration's toes right after the election?
Didn't Obama campaign on "Change... You Can Believe In"?

What has Obama done?

In short:

He sent lawyers and a SWAT team from the EPA as his first move.
The Department of Homeland Security took more than a week to call the spill worthy of the highest level of federal action.
Obama doesn't know if his chief at the MMS was fired or quit!
It takes 3 weeks for Jindal to get an answer about sand bars. Why?
The administration engaged in debates for three weeks about the spill.
Over a dozen countries offering assistance were not taken up on their offer.
Plug the damn hole.
He goes on vacation.
He plays hoops.
He goes golfing.
It takes him forever to visit the region... when he does...
....he visits for a scant couple hours before going on vacation.
He send more lawyers.
His main main in a Nobel Prize winner.
He says he is responsible, then blames everyone else.
It takes what, 50+ days to talk to BP CEO.
It takes 60+ days to meet with BP chief execs.
And... to prove he is incompetent, in way over his head...

...he gives a political speech to the nation, when they claimed the nation would get one about the spill, its progress and how we are going to deal with it. This speech drives his even most die hard fans at MSNBC & NY Times nuts.

Obama is out of his league.

We needed and need someone with executive experience...
Someone that has run a state or businesses, not just the Harvard Law Review. Even a town the size of let's say... Wasilla. Not just a Saul Alinsky agitator that uses Alinsky's Rule #13 for every situation, and seeks every crisis as an excuse to expand the government.

We need someone that is a leader, or at least is surrounded by leaders instead of pin heads.

Palin for example. Someone from an oil state that has executive experience at the Governor level.

.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I see. So blatant violation of safety regulations is the fault of the regulator, not the violator?
Click to expand...

That idiot president of YOURS, is more worried about BP than the states he pledged to protect. Governor of LA is having to say **** your Obama, I'm moving forward with my plans to protect my coast.
 
Deuce said:
I see. So blatant violation of safety regulations is the fault of the regulator, not the violator?
Click to expand...

BP is to blame surely.
Obama has shown his ineptitude in dealing with a Disaster.
He has proven what happens when you have no executive experience.
When you only know how to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

That's not leadership, but it has been his MO since before taking office.
That and deflecting responsibility while claiming it.
Similar to what happened with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Johnston...
.
 
Let's not hang, draw, and quarter BP entirely, while the red mist is still around. If BP is talked into bankruptcy, there will be no payments for anybody.

" ... Of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon, only eight were BP employees. BP had a 65% share in the well, while a partner, Anadarko, had 25%. The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, Transocean. A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well.

BP was calling the shots on the project – and it is tempting to rush to judgement on the British firm, given its dismal US record. Neglect and lax safety oversight caused an explosion at BP's Texas City oil refinery in 2005, killing 15 workers. The following year, poor maintenance prompted BP's pipelines in Alaska to spring a leak, sending oil gushing into the Arctic wilderness.

There have been allegations, as yet unproven, that BP was cutting corners on the Deepwater rig – perhaps by filling the well with unstable water, rather than drilling mud. Nevertheless, there are plenty of questions outstanding. Just this week, a US congressional committee asked Transocean to explain apparent poor staffing on the rig on the night of the gulf disaster. There were 18 employees on shift that evening, the lowest number in a fortnight of records, and there were no engineers, electricians, mechanics or subsea supervisors ... "


Has US bloodlust for BP gone too far? | Andrew Clark | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So no failure of three administrations to outfit the 1994 plan as required by law? No failure of Obama to leave 13 countries waiting on the outside to help because he wont lift the jones act?
Click to expand...

Um...Just so you're better informed, they've started streamlining waivers.
 
First, let me refer folks who disagree with BP having to pay for the cleanup and damages from this oil spill to the Oil Pollution Act, specifically this thread where I've highlighted the appropriate sections that outline BP's financial liability and the President's authority to collect for said cleanup and damages.

Second, I'm so tired of hearing people whine about the President trying to bankrupt a private company when the law clearly states that this company is liable for the cleanup and damages it caused and is still causing! You sit back and say the government should stay out of the way of private business, then you bitch when that business is held liable for its complacency and negligence. And when the government has the authority to collect for damages AND is acting on behalf of those citizens and businesses (especially small businesses) that have been affected, suddenly the government is overstepping it's bounds? Give me a freakin' break!

Moreover, you complain about the deficit. Okay, then if BP - this private company some want so desperately to protect - doesn't pay, who will? WE WILL that's who! Ah, but wait...you complained about bailing out the banks and mortgage companies and GM. I suppose you'd rather the government bailout BP if it wasn't made to step up to its ongoing financial obligation here - a price tag NOBODY knows how much it will be when this disaster if finally over.

So, hell yeah! I'm glad the President forced BP's hand and made this multi-BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY pony up the money in an escrow account - an account that WILL accrue interest over time by the way...and at $20BILLION dollars that's alot of interest earned!!! BP will not go bankrupt. In fact, it's shares increased slightly in value upon the news that the escrow account had been established. (Read article here.) Why? Because shareholders were nervous about how stable BP would be while this oil spill continued and the company had to continue paying out the nose from it. Atleast the escrow account will ensure people that there's a pool of money the company will pull from to pay its liabilities and NOT a continuance from their dividens which shareholders seem to be fine with BP suspending for the time being (this year).

So, as far as I'm concerned, BP like Exxon-Mobile is getting what it deserves for it's recklessness. And unless you guys - my fellow taxpayers - would rather be put on the hook for another private company's stupidity once again you'd better wise the hell up!
 
Objective Voice said:
First, let me refer folks who disagree with BP having to pay for the cleanup and damages from this oil spill to the Oil Pollution Act, specifically this thread where I've highlighted the appropriate sections that outline BP's financial liability and the President's authority to collect for said cleanup and damages.

Second, I'm so tired of hearing people whine about the President trying to bankrupt a private company when the law clearly states that this company is liable for the cleanup and damages it caused and is still causing! You sit back and say the government should stay out of the way of private business, then you bitch when that business is held liable for its complacency and negligence. And when the government has the authority to collect for damages AND is acting on behalf of those citizens and businesses (especially small businesses) that have been affected, suddenly the government is overstepping it's bounds? Give me a freakin' break!

Moreover, you complain about the deficit. Okay, then if BP - this private company some want so desperately to protect - doesn't pay, who will? WE WILL that's who! Ah, but wait...you complained about bailing out the banks and mortgage companies and GM. I suppose you'd rather the government bailout BP if it wasn't made to step up to its ongoing financial obligation here - a price tag NOBODY knows how much it will be when this disaster if finally over.

So, hell yeah! I'm glad the President forced BP's hand and made this multi-BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY pony up the money in an escrow account - an account that WILL accrue interest over time by the way...and at $20BILLION dollars that's alot of interest earned!!! BP will not go bankrupt. In fact, it's shares increased slightly in value upon the news that the escrow account had been established. (Read article here.) Why? Because shareholders were nervous about how stable BP would be while this oil spill continued and the company had to continue paying out the nose from it. Atleast the escrow account will ensure people that there's a pool of money the company will pull from to pay its liabilities and NOT a continuance from their dividens which shareholders seem to be fine with BP suspending for the time being (this year).

So, as far as I'm concerned, BP like Exxon-Mobile is getting what it deserves for it's recklessness. And unless you guys - my fellow taxpayers - would rather be put on the hook for another private company's stupidity once again you'd better wise the hell up!
Click to expand...

First, there are laws.
Second, where does the president get the right to dictate what a private company can or should do?
For that there are laws and courts.

When asked, where the President gets this power, nobody can answer.

Last I knew this wasn't a dictatorship.

.
 
somepeoplesay said:
BP should pay for Gulf cleanup. You know why? Because it's their negligence that led to this disaster, they are responsible. I hope they go bankrupt in the process and maybe America will learn that "drill baby drill" wasn't the best option.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that ostensibly rational folk actually believe that by Bankrupting a Company that that Company will then be able to pay compensation and costs.

I was surprised that BP a Company that is being portrayed as greedy and manipulative did not simply state that they would abide with the Cap on costs, instead they have stepped up to the plate and have admitted responsibility and have repeatedly stated loudly and clearly that they will pay all legitimate costs assosciated with this disaster.
 
Last edited:
Zimmer,

Go to the thread I linked to and you'll find your answers. The law is on both the President's and the people's side here. BP is fully liable and should be held accountable for this mess - they and all of their partners - Haliberton, TransOcean and anyone else found to be at fault.

And again, I know the government is somewhat responsible for relaxing the rules or just being derelect in their duties, but it doesn't obsolved BP from taking the proper safety precausions. They were neglegent. They should pay. The escrow account helps to keep them solvent while also being a source from which to pay it's legal and moral obligations for this mess.
 
Objective Voice said:
Zimmer,

Go to the thread I linked to and you'll find your answers. The law is on both the President's and the people's side here. BP is fully liable and should be held accountable for this mess - they and all of their partners - Haliberton, TransOcean and anyone else found to be at fault.

And again, I know the government is somewhat responsible for relaxing the rules or just being derelect in their duties, but it doesn't obsolved BP from taking the proper safety precausions. They were neglegent. They should pay. The escrow account helps to keep them solvent while also being a source from which to pay it's legal and moral obligations for this mess.
Click to expand...

As Obama noted, BP is protected by law to pay a maximum of 75 million.
You could say the billions upon billions in taxes they have paid are an insurance against such happenings, held in escrow (LOL) by the government.
The representative could not answer where Obama gets this power to shake down private companies.

Private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch," said Bachmann. "It seems to me there’s a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion--and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/67800
Click to expand...

BTW... someone took a photo of Obama warming up before the speech.
It explains a lot.
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67111910-obama-bp-speech.jpg

I was wondering where Hillary has been hiding.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The following photo was provided courtesy of The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, USA.

For further inquiries, please contact the Zimmer Legal Division, Mississippi Delta Offices.

Our doors are always closed.

.
 
Last edited:
Zimmer,

Your partican hackery aside, go to the thread I referenced and review the specific articles mentioned from the Oil Pollution Act and you'll find the answers you seek. Otherwise, stop the spin and partican hatred for goodness sakes. It's really getting old.

JuJu,

BP will not go bankrupt. In fact, this escrow fund will help them to stay solvent by setting aside funds the does three things:

1) settles the anxieties of BPs shareholderes ensuring them that the company has the liquid assets to pay for the cleanup effort and it's legal liabilities to the areas and people/businesses affected by this disaster.

2) obsolves our government from having to pick up the tab for a private entitie's negligence.

3) provide funds to meet its legal liabilities now and very likely into the future.

So, relax. This multi-billion dollar company will be around for a long time. They'll take a financial hit, but like Exxon, they'll cut their loses where necessary but they will survive.

Rev Hell,

I've been reviewing the Jones Act as well. Here's the aspect of the law that deals with oil spill recovery assistance:

Jones Act, Chap. 121

Sect. 12117 - Oil spill response vessels

"(a) REQUIREMENTS.--A coastwise endorsement may be issued for a vessel that--
"(1) satisfies the requirements for a coastwise endorsement, except for the ownership requirement otherwise applicable without regard to this section;
"(2) is owned by a not-for-profit oil spill response cooperative or by members of such a cooperative that dedicate the vessel to use by the cooperative;
"(3) is at least 50 percent owned by individuals or entities described in section 12103(b) of this title; and
"(4) is to be used only for--
"(i) deploying equipment, supplies, and personnel to recover, contain, or transport oil discharged into the navigable waters of the United States or the exclusive economic zone; or
"(ii) training exercises to prepare to respond to such a discharge.
Click to expand...

The first question I had was, "What's a coastwise endorsement?"

12112. Coastwise endorsement

"(a) REQUIREMENTS.--A coastwise endorsement may be issued for a vessel that--
"(1) satisfies the requirements of section 12103 of this title;
"(2)(A) was built in the United States; or

"(b) if not built in the United States--
"(i) was captured in war by citizens of the United States and lawfully condemned as prize;
"(ii) was adjudged to be forfeited for a breach of the laws of the United States; or
"(iii) qualifies as a wrecked vessel under section 12107 of this title; and
"(3) otherwise qualifies under the laws of the United States to engage in the coastwise trade.

"(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY.--Subject to the laws of the United States regulating the coastwise trade, a vessel for which a coastwise endorsement is issued may engage in the coastwise trade.
Click to expand...

So, that answers that question. Now the bigger issue...how does sect. 12103 apply?

12103. General eligibility requirements

"(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as otherwise provided, a certificate of documentation for a vessel may be issued under this chapter only if the vessel is--
"(1) wholly owned by one or more individuals or entities described in subsection (b);
"(2) at least 5 net tons as measured under part J of this subtitle; and
"(3) not documented under the laws of a foreign country.

"(b) ELIGIBLE OWNERS.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1), the following are eligible owners:
"(1) An individual who is a citizen of the United States.
"(2) An association, trust, joint venture, or other entity if--
"(A) each of its members is a citizen of the United States; and
"(B) it is capable of holding title to a vessel under the laws of the United States or a State.
"(3) A partnership if--
"(A) each general partner is a citizen of the United States; and
"(B) the controlling interest in the partnership is owned by citizens of the United States.
"(4) A corporation if--
"(A) it is incorporated under the laws of the United States or a State;
"(B) its chief executive officer, by whatever title, and the chairman of its board of directors are citizens of the United States; and
"(C) no more of its directors are noncitizens than a minority of the number necessary to constitute a quorum.
"(5) The United States Government.
"(6) The government of a State.

"(c) TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES PRIOR TO MEASUREMENT.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary may issue a temporary certificate of documentation for a vessel before it is measured.
Click to expand...

The overall issue that affects foreign vessels operating in the navigation lanes in and around the oil spill area is the legality of injured maritime sailor/merchant marines onboard these foreign vessels. Who will pay if they get injured or the aid ship gets damaged? I think that's the biggest stumbling block surrounding why the Jones Act hasn't been waived.

Link to Jones Act
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
13 countries offered help. The thing preventing them from helpong was obama not lifting the jones act.
Click to expand...

The whole Jones Act thing is pretty lame... president says he will approve any waivers. coast guard says they will approve any waivers. Lost amongst it all is that no waivers are getting issued.

However, the Dutch skimmers were approved, have already made the journey to the Gulf, and are skimming oil as we speak. So at least a whopping 1 out of the 13 countries is being allowed to help.
 
It should be noted though that the "dutch skimmers" are just dutch arms attached to american boats.
 
Objective Voice said:
Zimmer,

Your partican hackery aside, go to the thread I referenced and review the specific articles mentioned from the Oil Pollution Act and you'll find the answers you seek. Otherwise, stop the spin and partican hatred for goodness sakes. It's really getting old.
Click to expand...
"Partisan hatred"... ROTFLOL... That's hilarious... never heard that one before...

What's wrong? Is it not possible to question or mock our Dear Leader.

I swear he's stoned. It explains why he's got little emotion, why he needs a teleprompteur incessantly, why he likes to party and golf, and why he's been slower than a chronic on the spill.

Morning Bell: An Offer BP Couldn’t Refuse | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Yesterday’s “voluntary” deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of President Barack Obama’s ongoing assault on the rule of law. Capitalism only succeeds if it is a profit and LOSS system. Well-managed firms should have every right to keep their profits, but mismanaged firms must be allowed to suffer losses. By all accounts of what transpired on the Deepwater Horizon, BP is a terribly mismanaged firm. If the damage they caused is great enough, they should be allowed to fail. Failure is a necessary component of capitalism. But this administration refuses to allow the rule of law to work. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.

Last night on CNN former Clinton Administration message man James Carville said: “It looks as if President Obama applied a little old-school Chicago persuasion to the oil executives.” Making “offers you can’t refuse” may be a great way to run the mob, but it is no way to run a country.
Click to expand...

Now we learn the administration flat out lied about drilling recommendations from industry experts.
As for Ms. Browner's claim that no one was "misrepresented," Mr. Brett disputes that. Several reviewers said they had, in fact, received "apology" notes from the Interior Department acknowledging the misrepresentation. "We did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deepwater drilling," read one.

All of this matters because it offers proof the moratorium was driven by politics, not safety. The drilling ban was not reviewed by experts, and was not necessary to satisfy most of the safety recommendations in Mr. Salazar's report. It was authored by political actors so Mr. Obama could look tough. A cynic might argue the ban was only added after review precisely because the Administration knew experts would refuse to endorse it.

A big reason why those experts would have balked is because they recognize that the moratorium is indeed a threat to safety. Mr. Arnold offers at least four reasons why.

Crude Politics - WSJ.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom