Rep. Joe Barton apologizes to Tony Hayward

[elchivito]

For the white house's insistence on the 20B dollar recovery fund. He's "ASHAMED"?? WTF??
Wonder how many oil dollars this TX good old boy's got in his own slush fund?

[Emmerich]

Barton may agree with the concept of a fund, the problem is if Obama is trying to "force" it, that is illegal. And it is really stupid to try and piss off the company/people that will most likely fix the problem.

Originally Posted by elchivito

For the white house's insistence on the 20B dollar recovery fund. He's "ASHAMED"?? WTF??
Wonder how many oil dollars this TX good old boy's got in his own slush fund?

[JollyRoger]

Joe Barton is the biggest whore in Texas politics, BP and Exxon own his sorry ass like the ***** that he is.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Barton may agree with the concept of a fund, the problem is if Obama is trying to "force" it, that is illegal. And it is really stupid to try and piss off the company/people that will most likely fix the problem.

Tell that to the people in LA who have found it impossible to get it from BP. And he didn't "force" it, he probably told them that their alternative was for them to be prosecuted, which tends to focus the mind.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Barton may agree with the concept of a fund, the problem is if Obama is trying to "force" it, that is illegal. And it is really stupid to try and piss off the company/people that will most likely fix the problem.

Illegal? BP does quite well leasing drilling rights from the US govt. Our govt. should not be required to rely on the good graces of a multi-national corp, particularly one that benefits by association with it so well as BP does.

The unconscionable string of cost-cutting decisions BP made leading up to this event strikes me as sufficient grounds to seize assets, and more aggressively than was done at this point, if that had been needed.

Otherwise, large corps have become rogue nations, essentially, and we're heading too much that direction anyway.

[Jorn]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Barton may agree with the concept of a fund, the problem is if Obama is trying to "force" it, that is illegal. And it is really stupid to try and piss off the company/people that will most likely fix the problem.

With emphases on "Most likely"...It's how many weeks now?

[MS Fowler]

What about "due process" and an executive branch that administers the laws passed by the legislative branch?
The President is acting autocratic; is that a good thing?

[dynalow]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

And it is really stupid to try and piss off the company/people that will most likely fix the problem.

Didya hear the LA HR member basically told BP boss the other day that his ancestors would be given a knife and they would know what to do.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/big_oil_goes_to_washington/index.htm

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

What about "due process" and an executive branch that administers the laws passed by the legislative branch?
The President is acting autocratic; is that a good thing?

How is he acting illegally? He asked, and they complied. Perhaps BP should have went to court instead, I bet they didn't think of that. Perhaps the judge would have seen how unjust it all is to have that poor oil company shell out.

[kknudson]

Basically I agree with Barton, BP was strong armed.
Not even for good reasons, but for political reasons.

I do believe they owe, I think any attempt to weasel out should result in a takeover, at least of US assets of BP.

Notice though it isn't 20b, it 5b a year for 4 years so OB gets the "political" goddie goodie but it isn't really what it appears.


Of course then my favorite part was Engel (not Charlie) stating that Hayward was insulting their intelligence.
Sorry can't insult what you don't have !!!!!

It was all a big dog and pony show with the politicians trying to act like they were getting tough on BP, of course with their hands out to the Oil industry for contributions.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by dynalow

Didya hear the LA HR member basically told BP boss the other day that his ancestors would be given a knife and they would know what to do.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/big_oil_goes_to_washington/index.htm

That was weak. Just embarrassing.

[450slcguy]

Originally Posted by kknudson

Basically I agree with Barton, BP was strong armed.
Not even for good reasons, but for political reasons.

Tell that to the people on the Gulf coast and see what it gets you.

I think the reasons and whatever tactics used were more than justified. What you call strong arming I call justice and leadership on Obama's part. 20 billion is just a drop in the bucket compared to the current and future costs are going to be.

[JollyRoger]

The more the GOP apologizes to BP, the more their high hopes for November evaporate, so I hope they keep it up. Barton, with one gum flap, destroys the entire case that the GOP would some how be better at managing this huge environmental crisis by showing just whose bread they would be buttering if they were in charge.

[mgburg]

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Tell that to the people on the Gulf coast and see what it gets you. ... I think the reasons and whatever tactics used were more than justified. What you call strong arming I call justice and leadership on Obama's part. 20 billion is just a drop in the bucket compared to the current and future costs are going to be.

Are you kidding? The future costs are this...

Who cares what the price/barrel is/will be. BP will charge a little bit more to recoup that dollars they pay out to anyone, if at all.

It's the consumer of the BP products that will be paying the costs.

That's how it works in the private sector.

If it didn't, BP would no longer exist and then, guess what?

Who else is at fault and is still standing?

If BP folds, all the money being promised is nothing more than a politians' promise...and we all know what those are worth.

Anyway you look at it, that hole in the bottom of the ocean is costing us ... and will continue to cost us for a LONNNNNNNGGGGGG TIME.

Buying property along the Gulf Coast is not a good idea...and will remain that way for an even longer time.

I can't even begin to imagine what the shoreline, let alone 20 miles or more inland, will look/smell like if even one hurricane makes landfall anywhere between NO and the west coast of Florida.

Anyone run that scenario, yet?

[450slcguy]

Originally Posted by mgburg

Are you kidding? The future costs are this...

Who cares what the price/barrel is/will be. BP will charge a little bit more to recoup that dollars they pay out to anyone, if at all.

It's the consumer of the BP products that will be paying the costs.

That's how it works in the private sector.

If it didn't, BP would no longer exist and then, guess what?

Who else is at fault and is still standing?

If BP folds, all the money being promised is nothing more than a politians' promise...and we all know what those are worth.

Anyway you look at it, that hole in the bottom of the ocean is costing us ... and will continue to cost us for a LONNNNNNNGGGGGG TIME.

Buying property along the Gulf Coast is not a good idea...and will remain that way for an even longer time.

I can't even begin to imagine what the shoreline, let alone 20 miles or more inland, will look/smell like if even one hurricane makes landfall anywhere between NO and the west coast of Florida.

Anyone run that scenario, yet?

So what you're saying is that BP should not be held accountable for the costs of the disaster they created? Should we relay on BP's benevolence are let them decide what to pay for?

Who is it that you think should pay the the costs of the cleanup if it isn't BP?

I agree, you are very confused.