QUESTION: Why is it OK that Obama BAILOUT ANOTHER multibillion $ company (BP) by cleanin THEIR mess?

[uponit7771]

Jus sayin, seems like the same folk complaining about the bailing out wall street would be the SAME folk complaining about Obama bailing out BP if he ran there to help them in any way.

The guy can't win for losing round these parts no?

P.S. - "Payin us back" is the SAME THING we asked the banks to do from THEIR bail out so payback doesn't mean it'll be right away it could be generations from now when we'll see the money even with interest.

[Captain Hilts]

1. We clean it up and send BP the bill. nt

[jaxx]

4. Who says they'll ever pay it?

If the payroll comes from them to start with, then they are paying NOW. According to this the Exxon Valdez is still in court 20 years later. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/court-orders-5075-million_n_215832.html

[uponit7771]

9. Yeap, I just made the point before reading your post that "payback" could take generations

[Captain Hilts]

12. It HAS to be cleaned up and BP's not up to doing it. Clean up is the 1st priority. nt

[uponit7771]

15. Unnn, I'd think stoppin the spillage would be first priorty before cleaning up no?

[Captain Hilts]

40. Yes, that's what I meant to say. Thanks. nt

[jaxx]

16. Of course it does, no one disputes that.

Clean up is priority along with getting it stopped. Which unless that happens clean up goes on forever. Preventing it from coming ashore is the thing right now.

[uponit7771]

5. That's the same thing we're doing with banks, what's the difference?!

[Clio the Leo]

34. The banks were in receivership. NT

[kirby]

36. No they weren't...

Many of the banks, including Bank of America, that received TARP bailout money were not in receivership, nor being directed by either the Bush or Obama administration.

[WhiteTara]

2. we can fine them for the bill

we need to take over. There are many countries and companies and individuals who have more interest in the cleanup than BP. They are trying to save the oil for their bottom line. We need to take that bottom line to 0.

[uponit7771]

6. Again, that's the SAME THING we're doing with the banks...they're payin us back SLOWLY but surely

[WhiteTara]

41. wouldn't this be slightly different

in that it is not a loan, but a fine and the gov can seize assets to pay for the fines. :shrug:

[xchrom]

3. We're the 'landlords' - and we can bill them

For a job they apparently can't do.

Lastly the size of this mess really requires attention
from the highest quarters down.

[tekisui]

7. Jeezus. No one wants Obama to bail out BP. We want the leak

stopped, and clearly BP is incapable. They are still liable and should pay for the fix and the clean-up. But, they have proven they are unable to do the job.

[uponit7771]

8. They are VERY capable they could've top killed this thing weeks ago but didn't

[tekisui]

10. OK. They are either incapable or unwilling. Either way, they should be

dismissed.

[uponit7771]

14. I'll give you unwilling but having the US governent save ANOTHER multibillion dollar company would..

...be something else folk could complain about.

[tekisui]

19. It is about saving the Gulf of Mexico. Not BP.

No one is suggesting they get a hand out or be let off the hook. Just for them to get the fuck out of the way.

[uponit7771]

26. MY point is about the heat Obama takes from the left on ANYTHING he does

[tekisui]

35. You should have just said that in your OP.

Instead of building straw men.

[phleshdef]

38. Top kill is a longshot and has a greater chance of failing than working.

[depakid]

11. That's about the shallowest take I've seen yet

:eyes:

[uponit7771]

13. ....yet, like you, no one has answered it except to say "bill them" as if that worked with the banks

[depakid]

20. What would you have the administration do?

I'm not wholly critical of much of the response- because in a complex situation of this magnitude, with the engineering and logistic problems that are involved, there are going to be missteps and mistakes- lots of them.

Does there need to be better coordination and command and control? Yep. But putting that together on the fly, without appropriate contingency plans in place beforehand is a nightmare that few of us (who aren't professionally involved or "on the ground") can really second guess.

[uponit7771]

27. Make BP Clean up EVERYTHING and define "legitimate" for them afterwards

[depakid]

33. Apparently, BP isn't capable of doing that safely and effectively

at least, according to quite a number of professionals and others working "on the ground."

[lunatica]

17. Did I miss something? Is the government now cleaning it up?

All I've seen all weekend are people screaming about how they want the government to take over! WTF!

[uponit7771]

18. No, it's folk on the right and left wanting the government to bail out BP so they can bitch about it

...later

[Lil Missy]

21. FAIL

:thumbsdown:

[Dr Morbius]

22. The trouble is that though this is "BP's mess" in one sense, it is our mess in another sense.

It's in our back yard, so to speak. Stopping the gusher is the absolute top priority now for BP, or so they say; stopping the gusher should be the top priority for all of us. I'm for doing whatever it takes to seal the well, and cleaning up the mess. If the President decides to put government on the cleanup (I think he should), and then BP refuses to pay, apply a tax on all oil producers. Whether we the people ever see renumeration from BP is a matter of will; unfortunately, I suspect the GOP and the blue-dog Democrats will oppose it. But politically, any who would oppose such a bill would face an uphill battle; if enough of the people support a tax on oil companies to pay for the cleanup, it will pass.

Until the oil is cleaned up, the Gulf of Mexico - American territorial waters - and the wetlands and the marshes and the delta will all suffer. Americans will suffer, ordinary Americans, too, not just business interests. And as a liberal, I don't want government to hold back and simply allow the suffering to go on, when it is possible to implement a solution.

As for stopping the gusher itself, BP could have implemented this sludge-concrete thing weeks ago but were more concerned with trying to reap some of the oil for sale. BP was ordered to stop using the toxic dispersant, and refused. BP was ordered to release certain records about this disaster, and have refused. "Trusting" BP is out of the question. Unfortunately, it looks like we have little choice in allowing them to proceed, but I'd advocate the government be involved in the decision process. It doesn't look like that is what has happened so far.

[ljm2002]

23. First of all, taking charge does not mean bailing BP out...

...since they are obliged to pay for the cleanup.

Secondly, is that really what this is all about for you? If you thought that the government could take charge and have it under control in one week (now admittedly, this is a hypothetical question and none of us thinks that) -- IF that were the case, would you still be against it because it might mean that we paid for it instead of BP? So in that case you would still want BP to be out there calling the shots and we all wait another 3 months or whatever?

This is a catastrophe, we all agree on that. The effects will be felt for years if not generations to come, in one of the richest areas in the world in terms of sea life -- and it affects sea life and birds not just there but in many parts of the world. I don't see the question of who pays for cleanup as being the most urgent matter, frankly. But with that said, I don't see how the government asserting its authority here means that BP is off the hook from a financial perspective, either.

[uponit7771]

32. The banks are "obliged" to pay us back also, what differences does the company make if they

...actions are the same?

"Secondly, is that really what this is all about for you? If you thought that the government could take charge and have it under control in one week (now admittedly, this is a hypothetical question and none of us thinks that) -- IF that were the case, would you still be against it because it might mean that we paid for it instead of BP? So in that case you would still want BP to be out there calling the shots and we all wait another 3 months or whatever?"

No, it's not what it's about for me...I was making a case against the constant Obama bashers not against doing the right thing which I DO think from what I know it'll take a lot more than a weak.

"This is a catastrophe, we all agree on that. The effects will be felt for years if not generations to come, in one of the richest areas in the world in terms of sea life -- and it affects sea life and birds not just there but in many parts of the world. I don't see the question of who pays for cleanup as being the most urgent matter, frankly..."

It's not, again my point is against the constant no win bashing that the Obama admin gets from the left and the right.

"...But with that said, I don't see how the government asserting its authority here means that BP is off the hook from a financial perspective, either..."

The government, IMHO, would have to do MORE than 'assert' they'd have to step in, do the job BP was supposed to do and then bill them later....like the government did with the banks.

[RubyDuby in GA]

24. They made over $60 billion in profit last quarter alone.

I'd like to know why we can't fine them $1 billion a day that they don't get this capped.

[uponit7771]

29. AMEN!! Good thinking

[gravity]

25. The bailout is for the environment

BP doesn't need money from the government to survive so it isn't a bailout for them.

Chances are that they are going to get fined lots of money, so that they will fund the bailout of the gulf.

[proudohioan]

28. Thank you!

I don't love the idea of shelling out beaucoup bucks either, but it's more important to get this thing stopped and cleaned up than to bicker about a 'bailout' for BP. It IS a 'bailout' for the environment.

[uponit7771]

30. It doesn't need the money but it needs government "help" that'll take money to give and that kinda..

...money aint in the 100's of thousands either.

[mkultra]

31. They are saving the Gulf, and they saved our jobs last time.

thats why we have a government. To protect us. Sometimes, assholes get benefit along the way.

[kirby]

37. It is not OK...

The US Gov't does not own the Oil/Gas industry and we are incapable of operating at such depths. Politicians love to take credit for stuff. In this case, Obama knows damn well that there is nothing he can do but rely on the Oil/Gas sector to fix the mess they created. For Obama to take ownership of something he has little control over would be a bad idea.

[donco6]

39. We're going to "rush in" regardless.

Salazar as much as admitted it yesterday. But that doesn't let BP off the hook in any way. They'll still be liable. However, the other thing we'll do is pass a bill limiting their liability (already introduced by Republicans, and no doubt the Dems will wimp out and pile on.) So, any way you slice it, we're going to be holding this bill - BP isn't going to have the money, and we don't have the will to bankrupt them. So, if we're going to be paying for this with our money, shouldn't we have some say in it at some point?