[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

First off, when exactly did they coax money out of BP? Please answer that. The only thing I know about is giving the federal gov't giving BP a bill for what the government has done so far, and asking BP to set aside $20 billion to pay for future claims. To be clear, that is money set aside for future claims, not going directly to any government coffers. Is that big evil government, trying to get some assurance that the good angel of a private industry company will pay for the disaster it wrought upon all of us?

I never said it was evil, I said government has no place doing it, and essentially using the threat of government investigations to do so. I also never said BP was an angel. What I said was that the legal system is set up to sort these things out through civil actions. It is not the federal government's place to extort a private company to pay out billions. It is the place of the court system to decide settlements.

And secondly, would BP pay anyway? Really? Do you think they're just itching to pay for all the problems they caused? You don't think BP's not interested in paying as little as possible, and wouldn't much rather keep this whole thing mum and out of the media so everyone can forget about it?

1) To be fair, BP was paying out money before the gov ever got involved

2) They would have always paid through the nose, because there would be about 800,000 civil suits filed against them. Do you think they would get away without paying them? Hardly.

I think it's perfectly ok for the government to use its influence to put pressure on a company that just wreaked an interstate disaster to the environment and economy across four Gulf states and beyond. It's not like they're pressuring some McDonald's in Bumfuck, Ohio to make sure they pay up for spilling some oil behind their restaurant. The more pressure the better, so BP can't just dust all of this under the rug nearly as easily.

Ok, well then you don't believe in a constitutional separation of powers. Glad we could clarify the situation.

Honestly, BP creates an interstate disaster, and people get pissed at the government for actually doing something against that company. The thought process is astounding to me.

So we can get angry at BP for breaking the rules when it comes to oil extraction, but we can't be concerned about the government breaking its own rules in response? Why am I only allowed to be unhappy with one of the two parties involved?

And here, in the very next paragraph, you want the federal government to do more! (And, I presume the feds should do all that and just sue for it later?)

I want the government to do the job of the government, which is leadership and organization in the face of crisis. They have failed to do so. My main concern is that they've purposely failed to take the reins because they would rather have someone to blame for the disaster than take control and risk even more fault in the eyes of potential voters.

If they spill had taken place in waters closer to shore, I would have thought states would be more in control, but the distance and location of the spill rules out their ability to handle it.

Some of this is factually wrong. All I've heard from day one is that other oil companies have been involved.

I know they have been involved in round-table discussions, but I am unaware of any resources that have been spent to help clean. Mainly I am pissed that BP was in control of the clean-up for so long. Our shores are not BP properties or resources.

Also, I believe some of the clean-up should have been made available to private industry outside of that organized by BP. Private industry tends to be FAR more agile than government control. You put a price of $0.50 a gallon of oil skimmed from the water and you would see an armada of rednecks in canoes with wet-dry vacs in the middle of the gulf sucking up sludge.

I haven't heard about other countries trying to help, so don't know about that. And the Bush comparison sounds like more political blustering to me. How exactly do you quantify "every tool at our country's disposal"?

1) 22 countries have offered assistance. At a price, true, but ok... seriously... pay it and sue BP to be reimbursed if need be. You'll win.

http://calamities.gaeatimes.com/2010...erosity-31116/

2) For one example the president can temporarily repeal the Jones Act allowing foreign ships in American waters, presumably to help with the spill. Bushed temporarily repealed the act within days of Katrina.

It shouldn't be stopped, but to me it's another wake-up-call to what an oil hungry populace such as ourselves does to pollute the earth.

Point taken. I'd love to be off oil myself, but it is a hard reality right now, and so far there isn't a real replacement. In the mean time we obviously need to develop safer methods of extraction.