GOP Representative to BP exec: "I apologize"

#26
#26
volinbham said:
If it weren't an Obama trend (see previous actions without prior authority) I be less concerned about it.
Click to expand...
:rock:

droski said:
on the scale of things to get outraged about this is a 2 or 3. the gm screwjob to the bondholders was a 10+ in my book.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

MG1968 said:
why protect the bondholders when there's a proletariat out there that needs to be protected from the ravages of the capitalist leviathan?
Click to expand...
:eek:k:
 
#28
#28
joevol320 said:
who do think is getting screwed by this? the bp stockholders.
Click to expand...

but they should get a part of the money in escrow acct since their dividends had to be suspended because of the spill. Their income was directly affected the same as a the rest. Wonder if that will happen?
 
#29
#29
joevol320 said:
who do think is getting screwed by this? the bp stockholders. when bp goes bankrupt, who's going to take it over. 'THE MUSLIM'S' government, they'll get BP and the stockholders will be screwed again. i would say this will be close to a 10+ too. a shakedown and a take over, gotta the thug left.
Click to expand...

the stock actually has gone up since the announcement. $20 bil is chump change and BP would have owed the money either way so it's all politics. now i wouldn't put it beyond obama to force bp into reogranization. particurally if he continues with his "i want you to pay for every stupid thing i've done that has cost jobs" agenda.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
I didn't say I thought the escrow fund was a good idea or a bad one. I'm just saying politically it makes a lot of sense for both Obama and BP.







You are just beyond help at this point.





I wouldn't fall out of my chair if it was BPs idea in the first place.
Click to expand...

gator, if you don't think they are being shakendown, then you are truley naive. but you know it was a shakedown. there are laws in place to make BP responsible, hussein just ignores them.

it is you who is beyond help
 
#31
#31
utvolpj said:
but they should get a part of the money in escrow acct since their dividends had to be suspended because of the spill. Their income was directly affected the same as a the rest. Wonder if that will happen?
Click to expand...

bp had to cut the dividend. if anything to accumulate cash to pay for the cleanup. i'm sure even without obama that would have happened. the funny part is that bp was talking about cutting it when oil was $40 and no one complained about the british old farts when that was suggested.
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
How do you think it was worked out? Before or after the speech is irrelevant. The question is how voluntary the action was.

If it weren't an Obama trend (see previous actions without prior authority) I be less concerned about it.
Click to expand...

I think this was likely voluntary, since it's almost wholly symbolic. The day our president tries to exercise political authority over those funds without a full legal process, we should all begin to worry in a very big way. It would begin to approach the stupidity with which he crammed down bondholders in favor of unions.
 
#33
#33
droski said:
bp had to cut the dividend. if anything to accumulate cash to pay for the cleanup. i'm sure even without obama that would have happened. the funny part is that bp was talking about cutting it when oil was $40 and no one complained about the british old farts when that was suggested.
Click to expand...

I get why it was done but can also see them saying the oil spill directly took away from their income. I mean if we're just giving away money might as well give it all away
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
I think this was likely voluntary, since it's almost wholly symbolic. The day our president tries to exercise political authority over those funds without a full legal process, we should all begin to worry in a very big way. It would begin to approach the stupidity with which he crammed down bondholders in favor of unions.
Click to expand...

the tide is already turning for this. during hte bp ceo's testimony many democrats grilled him as to who decides what is a legitimate claim. obama et all clearly wants the gov't to decide that which is absurd. the lawyers will get rich of this crap.
 
#35
#35
#36
#36
utvolpj said:
I get why it was done but can also see them saying the oil spill directly took away from their income. I mean if we're just giving away money might as well give it all away
Click to expand...

hell citibank buying 100 bil in mortgages took my income away too. investing has risks. i don't have any sympathy for these people who rely on bp for income. diversify and this doesn't happen.
 
#37
#37
orangeblooded2 said:
Well maybe he can... I know President Truman seized the steel mills in the 50's.

BP is a foreign entity that is in essence destroying and effect the environment and economy of the United States.




National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

it's a foreign corporation. He can make them, via legal means, cease and desist, but he can't take their freaking money. He can fine them, via legal means, and take money that way. He cannot mandate an escrow fund and take the money to use at his whim.

As an aside, how does this fit with his excuse making about not being able to do "everything", like using a straw to suck up the oil?
 
#38
#38
orangeblooded2 said:
Well maybe he can... I know President Truman seized the steel mills in the 50's.

BP is a foreign entity that is in essence destroying and effect the environment and economy of the United States.




National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


if he can prove criminal negligence he might have some legal precident, but proving that is going to be extremely problematic. obama arguing that bp doesn't want this all to end is idiocy. they'd gladly spend billions if it ment stopping this leak. best thing obama could do is not hurt bps future earnings because they'll need every cent to pay for this crap.
 
#39
#39
droski said:
hell citibank buying 100 bil in mortgages took my income away too. investing has risks. i don't have any sympathy for these people who rely on bp for income. diversify and this doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

risks are involved working on an oil rig, commercial fishing, owning a beach rental, etc so what makes stock risk any different? Again, I get your point but anyone who has ever bought a coke from a BP station is going to be going after this cash. Lawyers are now chasing BP tankers instead of ambulances
 
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
risks are involved working on an oil rig, commercial fishing, owning a beach rental, etc so what makes stock risk any different? Again, I get your point but anyone who has ever bought a coke from a BP station is going to be going after this cash. Lawyers are now chasing BP tankers instead of ambulances
Click to expand...

because by law i am not owed any $$$ if a stock goes down unless you can prove fraud.
 
#42
#42
droski said:
from everything i've read obama will have no control as to where the $20 bil goes.
Click to expand...

legally, at this point, that has to be correct. If he invokes emergency powers to take control of this money, he will get crucified for sitting on his can for so long when he could have intervened. Would be stupid political move. At least for the moment he can roll with the Pontius Pilate route.
 
#43
#43
Its not like he's going to cut himself a check to go buy a new car. And, didn't he appoint the guy who ran the 9/11 fund to run this one?

I don't know, I guess I just think that under the circumstances criticism of Obama about this idea is going to fall flat
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Its not like he's going to cut himself a check to go buy a new car. And, didn't he appoint the guy who ran the 9/11 fund to run this one?

I don't know, I guess I just think that under the circumstances criticism of Obama about this idea is going to fall flat
Click to expand...

subtle use of your obvious tie to Joe Sixpack isn't helping your argument. Obama has no right whatsoever to oversee private funds without a legal ruling.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
Its not like he's going to cut himself a check to go buy a new car. And, didn't he appoint the guy who ran the 9/11 fund to run this one?
Click to expand...

The issue gets complicated if money is doled out in anyway that can be construed as politically motivated - e.g. favoring particular entities (unions, ACORN type local agencies that will "help", etc.)
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Its not like he's going to cut himself a check to go buy a new car. And, didn't he appoint the guy who ran the 9/11 fund to run this one?

I don't know, I guess I just think that under the circumstances criticism of Obama about this idea is going to fall flat
Click to expand...

he already wants bp to pay for people whose jobs are going to be lost because of obama's oil drill ban . why in the world woudl you assume he wouldn't give money to any group asking for it? it isn't his.
 
#47
#47
volinbham said:
The issue gets complicated if money is doled out in anyway that can be construed as politically motivated - e.g. favoring particular entities (unions, ACORN type local agencies that will "help", etc.)
Click to expand...

sort of like a large portion of the stimulus money going to states that supported Obama
 
#48
#48
droski said:
the tide is already turning for this. during hte bp ceo's testimony many democrats grilled him as to who decides what is a legitimate claim. obama et all clearly wants the gov't to decide that which is absurd. the lawyers will get rich of this crap.
Click to expand...

Didn't Obama put his Pay Czar in charge of the fund?
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Its not like he's going to cut himself a check to go buy a new car. And, didn't he appoint the guy who ran the 9/11 fund to run this one?

I don't know, I guess I just think that under the circumstances criticism of Obama about this idea is going to fall flat
Click to expand...

I think your partisan point of view on this may be causing you to miss the big picture. Obama's whimsical seizure of private property is setting a very bad precedent in our Constitutional Republic.

How will you feel if the next Republican elected to the Presidency continues this unconstitutional behavior and decides to start seizing property from unions, or from media outlets (too keep them from "failing"), etc.?

A federal government unconstrained by the Constitution is nothing more than a tyranny, and eventually, they will get around to taking a piece of everybody.
 
#50
#50
I think there's a bigger picture here. This is just another example of Obama's view of government and what powers it does/should have.

Scary stuff.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top