Anyone remember Deb Senn? NO limits on oil spill liability equals the same approach in P&C. Gas and Fuel oils, if you can find them will reach $20.00 per gallon. More unemployment and elderly freezing to death in the winter. Atta boy for the democrats and buck.
@ Speaking of finger pointing
There’s no free lunch. The consumer pays for everything in the end. Punishing big corporations with taxes, fines, fees… = higher prices for the end consumer.
How’s that for a start in plain english. Most of the posts here seem to think the cost will be born elsewhere, which is what the pols want the sheep to believe. It is great entertainment to watch.
I urge Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics???? Did he really say that outloud?
Perhaps the reason we shouldn’t increase their limit of liability is to enhance competition. Why doesn’t Obama consider this in relation to Big Pharmas deal to have their liability limited when killing and injuring Americans due to dangerous drugs and vaccinations – not just birds on a beach.
The Republican argument, as usual, is a red herring. Of course, they simply want maintain the status quo. This of course protects corporate and fat cat shareholder interests by tranferring the burden of catastrophic risk financing to the taxpayer.
Don’t you love the half truths (the worst kinds of lies) from pols? Removing the liability limit might shift some expense from the taxpayers per se. However, the cost would not shift to the oil companies and reduce their profits. The costs of such a change will merely be passed on to the end consumer. In this country nearly every taxpayer is a consumer of energy. The end result is a 0 sum game. The only winners are the pols in the polls as most of the population (populist outrage) is becoming anti big business.
I’ll take my chances with big business.
I’m wondering since I’m just a regular American citizen, that isn’t a risk for the most part, if the government will put a max on my liability pay out if I get sued for something. I’m thinking an amount around $1,000. That sounds like a fair cap to me and anything over that, you the American Taxpayer can pay for. If not, then I might have to quit my job and collect welfare because with me staying home there will be a lesser chance I cause harm. So either protect me or pay for me to live. Your choice.
“This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill,” Really, Obama? You care about taxpayers having to bail out a big corporation like BP? Really?
The real losers are the customers that require the oil to do basic needs and small businesses that will be impacted by the high price. Then there costs are transfered to consumers. So ultimately all consumers are the ones to pay the price.
Democrats need to keep on making their statements. Their hatred of business is seen by the American public, hence the ousting of Arlen Spector…
Sounds silly when individuals are given the same financial protections some businesses are, doesn’t it? The argument that the costs will merely be passed onto the consumer rather than the taxpayer is reasonable. However, when the price of energy goes up, people change their behaviors. When taxes go up, they just whine.
So your answer would be to have taxpayers foot the bill on this one? You did notice that BP self-insured for the whole thing? That being said, if they were gambling that this would never happen, or if it did happen they could either A) pay for fixing the problem within a reasonable time or B) pay for the cleanup themselves. Apparently neither of these assumptions was correct. Now BP should pay whatever it takes to clean it up with no caps.
I think we should lift the limit of liability for the President’s bad decisions and hold him and his assets responsible for the troubles fraught upon the nation.
Oh, huzzah, Mr. Vaughn! Let’s bankrupt all the BIG OIL baddies with unlimited liability dictated by environmental wackos and destroy the energy economy even further! Those devious little buggers who employ thousands of our fellow countrymen, they need to be STOPPED. Save my tax dollars for pregnant teenagers and criminal aliens, I say. As an ARM, I’m quite certain you’re aware of the purpose of liability caps. Shame, shame for purporting such ignorance.
William, I feel you are neglecting the other side of the argument here. It is hard to establish credibility if you only slam one side; it makes you seem biased and your argument less intelligent – just a thought.
At any rate, to vouch for the other side of the argument… if the cap is lifted on oil company liability, then only large companies will be able to afford insurance. This will eliminate any chance for smaller companies to compete.
Now I agree, more responsibility needs to be placed on the oil companies themselves. But how do we go about doing that without weakening competition?
We need oil. Those on the far left and those who support alternative energy sources still own phones, cars, and use everyday appliances and electricity. A majority of things are either made from oil or are powered by oil. Until we can eliminate this dependence, we need to drill. If we stop, prices will rise and we, the people, will suffer.
I whole-heartedly agree that BP should pay for it all. My point was, although apparently not very apparent, was that I find it odd that Obama would care what money comes out of the taxpayers pockets seeing as how he is inclined to bailing out other big corporations with taxpayer dollars.
Big Oil as will as smaller firms have to build probable cost of future catastrophes into their budget and pricing. If we pass the bill and eliminate the liability limit, jobs will be lost and the price of oil will go up. It probably will go up substantially.
In light of recent events, the evident self serving crookedness in both government and big business as well as the economic mess that we are in now, I’m not a fan of “big business” or government. However, we all need to consider the domino effects when we decide to spank big oil and others. Let’s take the emotion out of this and consider our own enlightened self interest as citizens of this great country.
All this fuss over something that occurs naturally in the environment. Last time I checked fish, sea gulls and sea turtles were a renewable resource. BP will clean this up just as Prince William Sound was made whole after the Valdez. Clean it up, send BP the bill, pay legitimate claims, deny claims to all those climbing on the bus after the accident and quit posturing. BP will not kill the golden goose by failing to comply with its legal and moral obligations just as Enron complied with theirs.
I’m not sure which is more entertaining, the pols and big business posturing and finger pointing or the lack of economic education of the average US citizen that is well demonstrated by the comments here.
Either way, I hope both continue as its the best entertainment going.
You are right on the money Brokette! Passing will hurt all oil business, big small and anyone who depends on oil employees for their livlihood. Everyone will pay. Make it harder to do business, and you kill competition. Kill competition and some companies will fold. Companies fold = more unemployment. Companies leave towns and other businesses who rely on their business fold. A giant domino effect.
TxLady, talk about job loss to the fishermen, shrimpers, and tourism workers in the Gulf area affected or to be affected by the spill.
Tired, I can’t believe your incredible arrogance “sea turtles, fish and sea gulls are a renewable resource.” Let bath you in the oil spill and see how renewable you are. UNBELIEVABLE
Since coming into office, we have seen Obama favor huge business interests over those of the taxpayer and small businesses. Too big to fail is a complete lie. The finance bill the leftists are trying to slam through is an anti-small-business gift to the largest banks and institutions (who also happen to have the democrats in their pockets – like the trial lawyers and unions).
The madoff-care health bill scam was nothing more than a gift to trail lawyers and large insurance carriers (what other industry’s product is every American forced by law to purchase?), at the expense of EVERY taxpayer in the country (now only around 50% of the population).
The auto bailout was nothing more than a gift to unions, to keep them from losing power should a new investment group come in, buy the assets, and begin a company with no union thugs involved, at the expense of every taxpayer and car consumer.
When are people going to wake up? What we are seeing is the leftists actually taking over big business, and moving government into concert with the market. In other words, we are seeing a governmental takeover of the marketplace, piece by piece.
To this there can be absolutely no argument, as the facts confirm it certainly: The national social democrats are forcing the marriage of big business and government. The feds control money (banks and finance), manufacturing (unions, auto companies), healthcare (through mass control over carriers and doctors), and, given their track record, most likely the oil companies…soon. And, what is it called when the government controls the levers of capital again? (hint: it begins with “social” and ends with “ism”)
The collapse of the Soviet Union and most communist countries gave lie to the leftists. Now, we see the true party of big business is the leftist, national social democrat party. They are the party that is throwing the taxpayers and individuals down the drain for money. This is greed at its worst.
Here’s a definition we all should review. Pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd definitions:
trea·son   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
—noun
1.the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
The national social democrats, with their actions over the past few years, clearly meet definitions 2 & 3.
I totally see your point. Why, just the other day, the news reported that 13 birds had been covered with oil. THIRTEEN! Horrors!! Now while I’m sympathetic to those birds’ avian parents, I don’t think they’re lives are worth bankrupting an entire company/industry. Further, the shrimpers, fisherman, et al. can prove their damages in court. Also, if you’ll Google archive stories on the clean up efforts after the Exxon Valdez incident, I do believe you’ll find that the environmentalists and their bottles of Dawn did more long-term damage to that eco-system that the spill.
You’ll also see that Exxon never fully indemnified the people of Alaska – They stalled the payments by going to court for 20 years – Many people in Alaska died before receiving the money they were owed.
Sahre holders gain when the company is a good corporate citizen and plays by the laws – Doing the right thing is often good for business……youve got some learnin’ to do Brook
Yes, there should be unlimited liability and the cost of such liability should be passed onto the consumers of petroleum products (i.e., every American consumer) and shareholders of the companies involved in drilling. This ain’t just oil companies. Cameron isn’t an oil company.
However, what gov’t should do is define liability to exclude/eliminate any awards for non-economic damages and punitive damages. This would eliminate phony environmental claims for loss of enjoyment of the environment and the lawyers’ welfare fund, aka, punitive damage awards.
But it’s appropriate that the cost be borne by consumers of petroleum products (via paying a higher price for such products) and shareholder of companies that are in any involved in the drilling for oil (via lower dividends and/or capital appreciation). So, the law shouldn’t address only oil companies. See my above-cited Cameron example.
There are no free lunches, so either way, someone pays. Why not let the market decide (i.e., consumers/shareholder) who pays what and when.
MIAMI, May 3 (Reuters) – BP Plc (BP.L) is ready to pay all legitimate claims tied to the oil spill caused by the accident at its Gulf of Mexico undersea well, Chief Executive Tony Hayward told National Public Radio on Monday.
“We’ve made it clear that where legitimate claims are made, we will be good for them,” Hayward said.
“We have the claims process set up, small claims today that are being paid instantly … bigger claims we clearly have a process to run through,” the BP chief executive added.
He said the London-based company fully accepted responsibility for the spill and would pay for the cleanup operation.
The problem for BP will come when the definition of “clean up” is established and by who. What constitutes “clean up” of a substance that occurs in nature?
“The closed area now represents 45,728 square miles, which is slightly less than 19 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than 81 percent of Gulf federal waters—or nearly 195,000 square miles—still available for fishing. The closure will be effective at 6 p.m. EDT. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The newly closed area is more than 150 miles from the nearest port and primarily in deep water used by pelagic longline fisheries that target highly migratory species, such as tuna and swordfish. Coastal fisheries, such as grouper, snapper and shrimp, will not be affected by the expansion of the closed area.”
Just 2 thoughts: It doesn’t add up to me that there are “small” wildcatters in the gulf. the very idea of drilling on the sea bed would seem to be very expensive. If not, where are all the mom-and-pop outfits? This ain’t like comparing a supermarket with the corner store. And why is it that the discussions start with insurance and end up as a platform for all you stumpers out there who probably don’t vote but splash your anonymous opinions all over the internet? I’d like to see a real forum, a physical location, where you have to state your case, provide your arguments and back them up with evidence instead of this he-said, she said, assertions without any critical, logical thought behind a pronouncement. OR to put it bluntly, put your money where your mouth is and SHOW me how your position is well-thought out and sensible, not the bigotted slanted mud that is easy to throw when you don’t have to be accountable for it. Republicans and Democrats are not all bad so stop painting everyone with the same brush; nor is government the great evil that some say it is. Our government is US, and look at how that instrument has helped America to become what it is. People spout this crap because they don’t understand the issues and are just afraid. I wish we could keep it on insurance instead of politics.
Your comment about Obama ”
is inclined to bailing out other big corporations with taxpayer dollars”, what are you talking about? the TARP program was not from his administration; and the automaker bail-out? Half of America depends on that industry; do you think it was a bad idea to help it when banking/credit was failing? You are not very knowledgeable about commercial paper are you? What other industry did Obama bail out? And if these bail outs were so one-sided, tell me what you would have done and let the secret out so all of us can share it. If your ideas are so great, America will be a path to your door to get in on your wisdom.
Isn’t the cap on liability just another example of the government intruding on business. If we follow the path of the free market in this example it should, theoretically, go like this:
1. BP pays all damages, clean up and economic losses, with no cap.
2. They loose billions of dollars.
3. They raise their prices to make up for the losses.
4. Their competitiors can charge less for their oil than BP.
5. BP decides the eat the losses, lower their prices to match the market and pay a smaller dividend to investors or go out of business.
6. Taxpayers are not involved in paying for any of the clean up or economic losses.
7. Free marketers are happy.
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, Ron…you missed all the lobbyist and lawyers in the back corridors of cCongress that will seek to mitigate what is an “economic loss” via legislation or interpretation.
Look at Exxon Valdez…20 years….could you live 20 years without income replacement if you were a fisherman?
Refer to Rons post – Look at Exxon’s profits. The most of any corp in history. Just because a business has a loss doesnt mean it gets passed on to the consumers. The profit margin will just decrease.
Sue Smiths theory assume price fixing and collusion, which may exist, but are illegal if we truly have a market economy.
If I get sued for $1mill do I pass this on to my customers? Nope, they would just go elsewhere.
So as long as there is not collusion and price fixing, BP can go out of business and we can all do business elsewhere with companies who are more responsible.
What Sue Smith is talking about is bull, and its pro-corporation propaganda.
Support the big corps no matter what they do, otherwise they will pass all the costs onto us?? Thats exactly what the big corps want you to believe!!
Mark, you make a great sheep. You allow your prejudice against big business blind you to what I wrote.
1. How did you arrive at the conclusion I am pro business? I never expressed my personal opinion about gov fining, taxing etc big business. I said the cost would be born by the end user. It always is. Your theory is great in a classroom but has little application in the real world.
2. When the rules of business change, for example, removing a liability cap it will apply to all oil producers, not just BP. How did you arrive at the foolish notion that “So as long as there is not collusion and price fixing, BP can go out of business and we can all do business elsewhere with companies who are more responsible.”? BP will have to clean up this one, but all oil producers will have to provision for future unlimited liability losses.
3. Is BP even responsible? How do you know, with such smug certainty no less? Maybe it will turn out to be one of the suppliers of equipment that is the negligent party. Will an unlimited liability put them out of business? Would you cheer that also?
For the record, I am not pro government or business. I am pro common sense and truth telling both of which are in very short supply in American society today. Sad and maybe fatal for our society.
Ron
You missed the entire point. The bills in Congress would have no impact on this spill, only future spills. All oil producers would be impacted, not just BP. Each would need to provision for unlimited liability through various funding vehicles. Self insurance, re-insurance, bonds, a cornucopia of options are available. all will add to the cost of oil and will be passed on to the end consumer of oil based energy and products. You know, plastics, fertilizer etc. Nearly everything the US consumes is dependent on oil to make it and/or move it.
The argument can be made that the consumer of products and energy derived from oil should pay. It is a convincing argument. My issue is the silly idea that the oil companies will suffer as a result. They may actually benefit by adding a few percentage points more than the the estimate just in case.
To jump to the conclusion that the oil producers will absorb the cost and the end consumer will see no increase is silly and naive.
PS. This will increase the cost of AMERICAN oil, not middle east, Venezuela, etc.
In your rush to pull down big business you may be killing the golden goose that has produced the lifstyle you enjoy. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
RIGHT ON! Let’s bring back crucifixions!! Is there no middle ground? Yes, hold BP responsible but can we limit it to ACTUAL damages rather than some imaginary environmental catastrophe trumped up by the global “climate change” alarmists? And if any fisherman sat around for 20 years waiting for Exxon to make them whole, then they’re not the standards of machismo we’ve been led to believe. When you find a boulder in the roadway, do you sit and freeze overnight or do you find a different route? And don’t give me the apples and oranges retort. It’s called an analogy.
Mie N…what are you talking about? You have the right church but wrong pew….how can you put big business and democrats together when they are anathma to one another…it is the RIGHT that has been in bed with Big Business…and Big Business is not an advocate of leftist/socialistic policy…you are WAAAAYY off the mark. And Obamn is in bed with health insurers? It was the exact opposite; they were and still are against any “liberalization” of insurance. I am not a fan of big government but I do not have a PAC or a lobby on K street to push my lower income agenda on the hill but banks and oil companies do. And you say they are in collusion with Obama? where do you get your news and opinion, from Rush Limbaugh? Oh, no, I forgot, he is just an entertainer, not some buffoon spilling tripe, all the while doctor shopping and enriching himself, which is, by the way, the American way: even criminals can keep their ill-gotten gains, so long as no one can “prove” how the get them…or can pay off the establishment. I think you got it all backwards. AMEN!
By limiting the liability for an oil spill, those responsible are given the information and the license they need to calculate the MINIMUM effort they must expend to preventing an oil spill. By knowing this maximum exposure, they simply calculate the odds of the event happening and build that cost into their pricing model. And then they can ignore all safety measures that they deem too burdensome knowing that they cannot be held financially responsible. This is a recipe for disaster. Holding the negligent parties responsible for ALL damages caused by their careless behavior is the ONLY way to ensure they will take all available steps to prevent spills from occurring. What will it take before this country wakes up and start holding EVERYBODY accountable for their own actions instead of dumping the costs, again, onto the backs of the taxpayers?
You got it right….that’s why there is something called sovereign immunity…otherwise known as governmental immunity. Not even the government is willing to accept full price for their negligence!!! They are capped in the dollar amount. Talk about setting the bar low. There are all sorts of caps and immunities which serve as legal defenses to people, business and government, presumably under the theory that those activities would not be undertaken if full liability were required, and that is in the people’s best interest.
If you’d like to ditch all the immunities, I’d like to ditch the one available to our President.
Since we are all a part of our government (Federal Republic or Democracy if you prefer,) limiting the liability of government is appropriate. BP is not a sovereign.
They probably are not even the most culpable in terms of relative negligence. I would look more closely at that Swiss company, TransOcean and that Dubai Company, Halliburton. (What, they can’t handle their fare share of US taxes?)
If the costs increase to the consumers based on the loss then so be it. If all oil companies share the increase then it is time to do that T. Roosevelt Republican thing and consider enforcing the Sherman anti-trust act. Did it once before with Standard oil as I recall (although slightly before my time).
My biggest gripe is we have all these people running around saying I want the Govt to take care of the spill. Where is the Govt on this? blah blah blah. Same folks for the most part are the ones saying reduce my taxes. Wipe me. AND reduce my taxes. (Which are at the lowest rates since 1950.)
Cannot understand the hypocracy unless it is related to the diminished mental abilities of some, or, dare I say it(?) good old racism blinding the thought processes of some?
Just because I disagree with the policies and actions of a black President, does not mean I am racist. Those assertions are where blacks lose credibility. On the contrary, many of Obama’s policies are racist towards whites. The democrat controlled Congress is not black. I still don’t like them.
No one knows whose culpable yet…..and rightly so…….everyone has taken a defensive posture, as you would expect. There will be alot of investigations and eventually there will be a better understanding of who the primary screw up was with the oil spill. Could be 10 yrs.
As to private companies not being appropriate for caps and immunities, this takes place every day all over the country depending on state statute…..statutory limits on punitive damages and caps for non-economic loss are prime examples.
Sue as far as I know, the cap has never been used – It wasnt in place until after the Exxon Valdez, so that kills most of your point.
As far as who is at fault? Well, its BPs operation, just because they have subcontractors doesn’t mean that BP is not responsible.
What if it comes down to a faulty bolt that broke, and the bolt was made by a small company.
Are you telling me that BP is off the hook, and that the small bolt maker will be liable for the 10 billion in clean up cost and then just go out of business?
Sorry, but there are already laws in place that you should aquint yourself with.
Think about it, Exxon has been more profitable than any co. in history, are you telling me they NEED this 75 mill cap that has never been used? Thats propaganda.
BP is responsible…no matter what. Otherwise, we wouldn’t let them drill there.
If the tax payers are truly on the hook, then there should be a government oil company –
Screw capitalism and private enterprise if every time they screw up we bail them out, yet we never share in the profits.
Once again Sue, ill leave you with this example: if Target gets sued for a billion $$ because of a faulty product, and then tries to pass on the costs to the customers, the consumers go to Walmart.
Sue,
Everything I have read and heard indicates Congress wants to make this bill retroactive to include this event. Maybe to keep BP at their word.
You missed the most effective way for a company to approach risk management and that is loss control. This would be where the free market would really work. Who ever implements the best loss controls would see the least amount of liability costs and be able to pass those savings to their consumers, theoretically. Would they actually do that or just pay out higher dividends? You would need to answer that question.
I fully understand how end consumers are impacted when companies are held accountable for their liabilities, but isn’t that how the free market works? You cannot say govt interference is bad until it benefits you.
If you were a CEO of a company and had to decide whether to either absorb costs in or to be competitive or price yourself out of the market and go out of business, what would you do. I would like to see you explain to the shareholders that it is better business to go out of business than take a short term hit on profits and their dividend.
I am not pulling down big business, but why should taxpayers be on the hook for their liabilities when the company keeps all of their profits? If you remove all corporate tax loopholes, especially writing off losses, then we can talk about keeping the cap.
I’m not sure what the point of this posting is. I don’t think there is anyone posting here that doesn’t believe that BP bears 100% responsibility for this situation. It’s their rig and the nature of their operations imply strict liability. I question the clearly anti-business sentiment that seems to want to destroy a company and define “clean up” as an ocean without salt. I’m with Sue. We need to let calmer heads prevail and dial down the rhetoric to a common sense level. Politicians looking to rise on the backs of BP should be silenced and let the scientists solve the problem.
You’re not in the claim department (which is what this is). Nothing ever “implies strict liability” Strict liability is a legal concept and evidently there ISN’T strict liability for oil spills, like there is for other things such as airlines (which is capped at 25K per passenger I might add)
Just because it’s “their operation” does not mean it’s their negligence. Could be the fault of a bolt maker in Kokomo or a welder in Houston.
What you are saying is similar to “I fell there on your property so it’s your fault”. Nope. Wouldn’t need all these claims people if it were that simple.
Hey Hooray! I’m in Cali where the courts blame everything on the other guy. You are right. Ultimately, they may find that it was a component part of the rig that failed. My point was that it serves no good purpose to destroy a company because somebody “feels” they “deserve” it. Our citizenry has become vindictive in the extreme and one day it may by they who are at the effect of nonsensical rhetoric. Going after BP before we know all of the facts is nothing but destructive.
Brokette,
The point I was trying to make is that those who are against govt intervention into business and believe in the free market also want to leave the current cap on damages in place. The way I see it, if you are responsible, pay for the clean up and economic damages (not necessarily punitive damages or pain & suffering unless there is gross negligence). If that causes your company to go bankrupt, so be it. Maybe other companies would institute better loss control measures to keep this from happening again. Unless you have a better way to encourage these companies that profit BILLIONS QUARTERLY, I don’t think a $75 Million cap will change their culture. I know BP has pledged to pay all legitimate claims, and I have no reason not to believe them, but it is not in writing.
And as all you super duper risk managers know, companies will not innovate if the risk is too high. We keep up with anti-business rhetoric and all of our jobs will go elsewhere as companies conclude that our system is openly hostile to their interests. I don’t understand why but some people seem to want that.
Ron, do your homework – There is ample reason not to believe BP – There was an article in IJ just last week about one of their spills where they created a phantom company to shield them from liability – AND IT ACTUALLY WORKED
Bringing profanity into the mix doesn’t make your case, Mr. Seagal. Keep eroding businesses and there will be none to insure. Perhaps you’re all retirment age and don’t care. I’ve never said that we shouldn’t hold BP at all responsible. I’m saying that we shouldn’t let the over-emotional tree-huggers dictate the agenda.
“Eroding business?” “Tree Huggers?” give me a break!
How much do you want to bet we find out (at some specified later date) that BP could have shut the flow off but that they were instead trying to recover or maintain the usefulness of that well and prevent their own “economic loss?”
I’D RATHER HUG A TREE ANY DAY THAN DRINK OIL AND DISPERSANT WITH MY MORNING JAVA.
The fact that our Congress is deadlocked is due to various and several reasons, but one large one is the dollars spent for lobbyists to get congressional results that are often against the common good…by big interests, primarily including Big Oil.
Thank you for making my point about over-emotional tree huggers. As I said days ago, let’s bring back crucifixions. Although sadly, we’d have to cut down Cassandra’s favorite bed buddy to make the cross.
Anyone remember Deb Senn? NO limits on oil spill liability equals the same approach in P&C. Gas and Fuel oils, if you can find them will reach $20.00 per gallon. More unemployment and elderly freezing to death in the winter. Atta boy for the democrats and buck.
@ Speaking of finger pointing
There’s no free lunch. The consumer pays for everything in the end. Punishing big corporations with taxes, fines, fees… = higher prices for the end consumer.
How’s that for a start in plain english. Most of the posts here seem to think the cost will be born elsewhere, which is what the pols want the sheep to believe. It is great entertainment to watch.
I urge Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics???? Did he really say that outloud?
Perhaps the reason we shouldn’t increase their limit of liability is to enhance competition. Why doesn’t Obama consider this in relation to Big Pharmas deal to have their liability limited when killing and injuring Americans due to dangerous drugs and vaccinations – not just birds on a beach.
The Republican argument, as usual, is a red herring. Of course, they simply want maintain the status quo. This of course protects corporate and fat cat shareholder interests by tranferring the burden of catastrophic risk financing to the taxpayer.
Don’t you love the half truths (the worst kinds of lies) from pols? Removing the liability limit might shift some expense from the taxpayers per se. However, the cost would not shift to the oil companies and reduce their profits. The costs of such a change will merely be passed on to the end consumer. In this country nearly every taxpayer is a consumer of energy. The end result is a 0 sum game. The only winners are the pols in the polls as most of the population (populist outrage) is becoming anti big business.
I’ll take my chances with big business.
I’m wondering since I’m just a regular American citizen, that isn’t a risk for the most part, if the government will put a max on my liability pay out if I get sued for something. I’m thinking an amount around $1,000. That sounds like a fair cap to me and anything over that, you the American Taxpayer can pay for. If not, then I might have to quit my job and collect welfare because with me staying home there will be a lesser chance I cause harm. So either protect me or pay for me to live. Your choice.
“This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill,” Really, Obama? You care about taxpayers having to bail out a big corporation like BP? Really?
The real losers are the customers that require the oil to do basic needs and small businesses that will be impacted by the high price. Then there costs are transfered to consumers. So ultimately all consumers are the ones to pay the price.
Democrats need to keep on making their statements. Their hatred of business is seen by the American public, hence the ousting of Arlen Spector…
Sounds silly when individuals are given the same financial protections some businesses are, doesn’t it? The argument that the costs will merely be passed onto the consumer rather than the taxpayer is reasonable. However, when the price of energy goes up, people change their behaviors. When taxes go up, they just whine.
So your answer would be to have taxpayers foot the bill on this one? You did notice that BP self-insured for the whole thing? That being said, if they were gambling that this would never happen, or if it did happen they could either A) pay for fixing the problem within a reasonable time or B) pay for the cleanup themselves. Apparently neither of these assumptions was correct. Now BP should pay whatever it takes to clean it up with no caps.
I think we should lift the limit of liability for the President’s bad decisions and hold him and his assets responsible for the troubles fraught upon the nation.
Oh, huzzah, Mr. Vaughn! Let’s bankrupt all the BIG OIL baddies with unlimited liability dictated by environmental wackos and destroy the energy economy even further! Those devious little buggers who employ thousands of our fellow countrymen, they need to be STOPPED. Save my tax dollars for pregnant teenagers and criminal aliens, I say. As an ARM, I’m quite certain you’re aware of the purpose of liability caps. Shame, shame for purporting such ignorance.
William, I feel you are neglecting the other side of the argument here. It is hard to establish credibility if you only slam one side; it makes you seem biased and your argument less intelligent – just a thought.
At any rate, to vouch for the other side of the argument… if the cap is lifted on oil company liability, then only large companies will be able to afford insurance. This will eliminate any chance for smaller companies to compete.
Now I agree, more responsibility needs to be placed on the oil companies themselves. But how do we go about doing that without weakening competition?
We need oil. Those on the far left and those who support alternative energy sources still own phones, cars, and use everyday appliances and electricity. A majority of things are either made from oil or are powered by oil. Until we can eliminate this dependence, we need to drill. If we stop, prices will rise and we, the people, will suffer.
I whole-heartedly agree that BP should pay for it all. My point was, although apparently not very apparent, was that I find it odd that Obama would care what money comes out of the taxpayers pockets seeing as how he is inclined to bailing out other big corporations with taxpayer dollars.
Big Oil as will as smaller firms have to build probable cost of future catastrophes into their budget and pricing. If we pass the bill and eliminate the liability limit, jobs will be lost and the price of oil will go up. It probably will go up substantially.
In light of recent events, the evident self serving crookedness in both government and big business as well as the economic mess that we are in now, I’m not a fan of “big business” or government. However, we all need to consider the domino effects when we decide to spank big oil and others. Let’s take the emotion out of this and consider our own enlightened self interest as citizens of this great country.
All this fuss over something that occurs naturally in the environment. Last time I checked fish, sea gulls and sea turtles were a renewable resource. BP will clean this up just as Prince William Sound was made whole after the Valdez. Clean it up, send BP the bill, pay legitimate claims, deny claims to all those climbing on the bus after the accident and quit posturing. BP will not kill the golden goose by failing to comply with its legal and moral obligations just as Enron complied with theirs.
I’m not sure which is more entertaining, the pols and big business posturing and finger pointing or the lack of economic education of the average US citizen that is well demonstrated by the comments here.
Either way, I hope both continue as its the best entertainment going.
Let’s hear your explanation… since we are all in need of an economics lesson.
You are right on the money Brokette! Passing will hurt all oil business, big small and anyone who depends on oil employees for their livlihood. Everyone will pay. Make it harder to do business, and you kill competition. Kill competition and some companies will fold. Companies fold = more unemployment. Companies leave towns and other businesses who rely on their business fold. A giant domino effect.
TxLady, talk about job loss to the fishermen, shrimpers, and tourism workers in the Gulf area affected or to be affected by the spill.
Tired, I can’t believe your incredible arrogance “sea turtles, fish and sea gulls are a renewable resource.” Let bath you in the oil spill and see how renewable you are. UNBELIEVABLE
Since coming into office, we have seen Obama favor huge business interests over those of the taxpayer and small businesses. Too big to fail is a complete lie. The finance bill the leftists are trying to slam through is an anti-small-business gift to the largest banks and institutions (who also happen to have the democrats in their pockets – like the trial lawyers and unions).
The madoff-care health bill scam was nothing more than a gift to trail lawyers and large insurance carriers (what other industry’s product is every American forced by law to purchase?), at the expense of EVERY taxpayer in the country (now only around 50% of the population).
The auto bailout was nothing more than a gift to unions, to keep them from losing power should a new investment group come in, buy the assets, and begin a company with no union thugs involved, at the expense of every taxpayer and car consumer.
When are people going to wake up? What we are seeing is the leftists actually taking over big business, and moving government into concert with the market. In other words, we are seeing a governmental takeover of the marketplace, piece by piece.
To this there can be absolutely no argument, as the facts confirm it certainly: The national social democrats are forcing the marriage of big business and government. The feds control money (banks and finance), manufacturing (unions, auto companies), healthcare (through mass control over carriers and doctors), and, given their track record, most likely the oil companies…soon. And, what is it called when the government controls the levers of capital again? (hint: it begins with “social” and ends with “ism”)
The collapse of the Soviet Union and most communist countries gave lie to the leftists. Now, we see the true party of big business is the leftist, national social democrat party. They are the party that is throwing the taxpayers and individuals down the drain for money. This is greed at its worst.
Here’s a definition we all should review. Pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd definitions:
trea·son   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
—noun
1.the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
The national social democrats, with their actions over the past few years, clearly meet definitions 2 & 3.
I totally see your point. Why, just the other day, the news reported that 13 birds had been covered with oil. THIRTEEN! Horrors!! Now while I’m sympathetic to those birds’ avian parents, I don’t think they’re lives are worth bankrupting an entire company/industry. Further, the shrimpers, fisherman, et al. can prove their damages in court. Also, if you’ll Google archive stories on the clean up efforts after the Exxon Valdez incident, I do believe you’ll find that the environmentalists and their bottles of Dawn did more long-term damage to that eco-system that the spill.
You’ll also see that Exxon never fully indemnified the people of Alaska – They stalled the payments by going to court for 20 years – Many people in Alaska died before receiving the money they were owed.
What do you think their shareholders would have done if they behaved otherwise? Write much D & O, Mark?
Sahre holders gain when the company is a good corporate citizen and plays by the laws – Doing the right thing is often good for business……youve got some learnin’ to do Brook
Yes, there should be unlimited liability and the cost of such liability should be passed onto the consumers of petroleum products (i.e., every American consumer) and shareholders of the companies involved in drilling. This ain’t just oil companies. Cameron isn’t an oil company.
However, what gov’t should do is define liability to exclude/eliminate any awards for non-economic damages and punitive damages. This would eliminate phony environmental claims for loss of enjoyment of the environment and the lawyers’ welfare fund, aka, punitive damage awards.
But it’s appropriate that the cost be borne by consumers of petroleum products (via paying a higher price for such products) and shareholder of companies that are in any involved in the drilling for oil (via lower dividends and/or capital appreciation). So, the law shouldn’t address only oil companies. See my above-cited Cameron example.
There are no free lunches, so either way, someone pays. Why not let the market decide (i.e., consumers/shareholder) who pays what and when.
That’s it.
Look what they did now.
From Reuters:
MIAMI, May 3 (Reuters) – BP Plc (BP.L) is ready to pay all legitimate claims tied to the oil spill caused by the accident at its Gulf of Mexico undersea well, Chief Executive Tony Hayward told National Public Radio on Monday.
“We’ve made it clear that where legitimate claims are made, we will be good for them,” Hayward said.
“We have the claims process set up, small claims today that are being paid instantly … bigger claims we clearly have a process to run through,” the BP chief executive added.
He said the London-based company fully accepted responsibility for the spill and would pay for the cleanup operation.
I bet there are some auto company bondholders who would beg to differ on that whole “good corporate citizen” thing.
The problem for BP will come when the definition of “clean up” is established and by who. What constitutes “clean up” of a substance that occurs in nature?
“The closed area now represents 45,728 square miles, which is slightly less than 19 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than 81 percent of Gulf federal waters—or nearly 195,000 square miles—still available for fishing. The closure will be effective at 6 p.m. EDT. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
The newly closed area is more than 150 miles from the nearest port and primarily in deep water used by pelagic longline fisheries that target highly migratory species, such as tuna and swordfish. Coastal fisheries, such as grouper, snapper and shrimp, will not be affected by the expansion of the closed area.”
Just 2 thoughts: It doesn’t add up to me that there are “small” wildcatters in the gulf. the very idea of drilling on the sea bed would seem to be very expensive. If not, where are all the mom-and-pop outfits? This ain’t like comparing a supermarket with the corner store. And why is it that the discussions start with insurance and end up as a platform for all you stumpers out there who probably don’t vote but splash your anonymous opinions all over the internet? I’d like to see a real forum, a physical location, where you have to state your case, provide your arguments and back them up with evidence instead of this he-said, she said, assertions without any critical, logical thought behind a pronouncement. OR to put it bluntly, put your money where your mouth is and SHOW me how your position is well-thought out and sensible, not the bigotted slanted mud that is easy to throw when you don’t have to be accountable for it. Republicans and Democrats are not all bad so stop painting everyone with the same brush; nor is government the great evil that some say it is. Our government is US, and look at how that instrument has helped America to become what it is. People spout this crap because they don’t understand the issues and are just afraid. I wish we could keep it on insurance instead of politics.
Your comment about Obama ”
is inclined to bailing out other big corporations with taxpayer dollars”, what are you talking about? the TARP program was not from his administration; and the automaker bail-out? Half of America depends on that industry; do you think it was a bad idea to help it when banking/credit was failing? You are not very knowledgeable about commercial paper are you? What other industry did Obama bail out? And if these bail outs were so one-sided, tell me what you would have done and let the secret out so all of us can share it. If your ideas are so great, America will be a path to your door to get in on your wisdom.
Isn’t the cap on liability just another example of the government intruding on business. If we follow the path of the free market in this example it should, theoretically, go like this:
1. BP pays all damages, clean up and economic losses, with no cap.
2. They loose billions of dollars.
3. They raise their prices to make up for the losses.
4. Their competitiors can charge less for their oil than BP.
5. BP decides the eat the losses, lower their prices to match the market and pay a smaller dividend to investors or go out of business.
6. Taxpayers are not involved in paying for any of the clean up or economic losses.
7. Free marketers are happy.
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, Ron…you missed all the lobbyist and lawyers in the back corridors of cCongress that will seek to mitigate what is an “economic loss” via legislation or interpretation.
Look at Exxon Valdez…20 years….could you live 20 years without income replacement if you were a fisherman?
Refer to Rons post – Look at Exxon’s profits. The most of any corp in history. Just because a business has a loss doesnt mean it gets passed on to the consumers. The profit margin will just decrease.
Sue Smiths theory assume price fixing and collusion, which may exist, but are illegal if we truly have a market economy.
If I get sued for $1mill do I pass this on to my customers? Nope, they would just go elsewhere.
So as long as there is not collusion and price fixing, BP can go out of business and we can all do business elsewhere with companies who are more responsible.
What Sue Smith is talking about is bull, and its pro-corporation propaganda.
Support the big corps no matter what they do, otherwise they will pass all the costs onto us?? Thats exactly what the big corps want you to believe!!
Mark, you make a great sheep. You allow your prejudice against big business blind you to what I wrote.
1. How did you arrive at the conclusion I am pro business? I never expressed my personal opinion about gov fining, taxing etc big business. I said the cost would be born by the end user. It always is. Your theory is great in a classroom but has little application in the real world.
2. When the rules of business change, for example, removing a liability cap it will apply to all oil producers, not just BP. How did you arrive at the foolish notion that “So as long as there is not collusion and price fixing, BP can go out of business and we can all do business elsewhere with companies who are more responsible.”? BP will have to clean up this one, but all oil producers will have to provision for future unlimited liability losses.
3. Is BP even responsible? How do you know, with such smug certainty no less? Maybe it will turn out to be one of the suppliers of equipment that is the negligent party. Will an unlimited liability put them out of business? Would you cheer that also?
For the record, I am not pro government or business. I am pro common sense and truth telling both of which are in very short supply in American society today. Sad and maybe fatal for our society.
Ron
You missed the entire point. The bills in Congress would have no impact on this spill, only future spills. All oil producers would be impacted, not just BP. Each would need to provision for unlimited liability through various funding vehicles. Self insurance, re-insurance, bonds, a cornucopia of options are available. all will add to the cost of oil and will be passed on to the end consumer of oil based energy and products. You know, plastics, fertilizer etc. Nearly everything the US consumes is dependent on oil to make it and/or move it.
The argument can be made that the consumer of products and energy derived from oil should pay. It is a convincing argument. My issue is the silly idea that the oil companies will suffer as a result. They may actually benefit by adding a few percentage points more than the the estimate just in case.
To jump to the conclusion that the oil producers will absorb the cost and the end consumer will see no increase is silly and naive.
PS. This will increase the cost of AMERICAN oil, not middle east, Venezuela, etc.
In your rush to pull down big business you may be killing the golden goose that has produced the lifstyle you enjoy. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
RIGHT ON! Let’s bring back crucifixions!! Is there no middle ground? Yes, hold BP responsible but can we limit it to ACTUAL damages rather than some imaginary environmental catastrophe trumped up by the global “climate change” alarmists? And if any fisherman sat around for 20 years waiting for Exxon to make them whole, then they’re not the standards of machismo we’ve been led to believe. When you find a boulder in the roadway, do you sit and freeze overnight or do you find a different route? And don’t give me the apples and oranges retort. It’s called an analogy.
Mie N…what are you talking about? You have the right church but wrong pew….how can you put big business and democrats together when they are anathma to one another…it is the RIGHT that has been in bed with Big Business…and Big Business is not an advocate of leftist/socialistic policy…you are WAAAAYY off the mark. And Obamn is in bed with health insurers? It was the exact opposite; they were and still are against any “liberalization” of insurance. I am not a fan of big government but I do not have a PAC or a lobby on K street to push my lower income agenda on the hill but banks and oil companies do. And you say they are in collusion with Obama? where do you get your news and opinion, from Rush Limbaugh? Oh, no, I forgot, he is just an entertainer, not some buffoon spilling tripe, all the while doctor shopping and enriching himself, which is, by the way, the American way: even criminals can keep their ill-gotten gains, so long as no one can “prove” how the get them…or can pay off the establishment. I think you got it all backwards. AMEN!
By limiting the liability for an oil spill, those responsible are given the information and the license they need to calculate the MINIMUM effort they must expend to preventing an oil spill. By knowing this maximum exposure, they simply calculate the odds of the event happening and build that cost into their pricing model. And then they can ignore all safety measures that they deem too burdensome knowing that they cannot be held financially responsible. This is a recipe for disaster. Holding the negligent parties responsible for ALL damages caused by their careless behavior is the ONLY way to ensure they will take all available steps to prevent spills from occurring. What will it take before this country wakes up and start holding EVERYBODY accountable for their own actions instead of dumping the costs, again, onto the backs of the taxpayers?
Mark….
You got it right….that’s why there is something called sovereign immunity…otherwise known as governmental immunity. Not even the government is willing to accept full price for their negligence!!! They are capped in the dollar amount. Talk about setting the bar low. There are all sorts of caps and immunities which serve as legal defenses to people, business and government, presumably under the theory that those activities would not be undertaken if full liability were required, and that is in the people’s best interest.
If you’d like to ditch all the immunities, I’d like to ditch the one available to our President.
Since we are all a part of our government (Federal Republic or Democracy if you prefer,) limiting the liability of government is appropriate. BP is not a sovereign.
They probably are not even the most culpable in terms of relative negligence. I would look more closely at that Swiss company, TransOcean and that Dubai Company, Halliburton. (What, they can’t handle their fare share of US taxes?)
If the costs increase to the consumers based on the loss then so be it. If all oil companies share the increase then it is time to do that T. Roosevelt Republican thing and consider enforcing the Sherman anti-trust act. Did it once before with Standard oil as I recall (although slightly before my time).
My biggest gripe is we have all these people running around saying I want the Govt to take care of the spill. Where is the Govt on this? blah blah blah. Same folks for the most part are the ones saying reduce my taxes. Wipe me. AND reduce my taxes. (Which are at the lowest rates since 1950.)
Cannot understand the hypocracy unless it is related to the diminished mental abilities of some, or, dare I say it(?) good old racism blinding the thought processes of some?
Either way, you can’t have it BOTH ways . . .
Just because I disagree with the policies and actions of a black President, does not mean I am racist. Those assertions are where blacks lose credibility. On the contrary, many of Obama’s policies are racist towards whites. The democrat controlled Congress is not black. I still don’t like them.
No one knows whose culpable yet…..and rightly so…….everyone has taken a defensive posture, as you would expect. There will be alot of investigations and eventually there will be a better understanding of who the primary screw up was with the oil spill. Could be 10 yrs.
As to private companies not being appropriate for caps and immunities, this takes place every day all over the country depending on state statute…..statutory limits on punitive damages and caps for non-economic loss are prime examples.
Sue as far as I know, the cap has never been used – It wasnt in place until after the Exxon Valdez, so that kills most of your point.
As far as who is at fault? Well, its BPs operation, just because they have subcontractors doesn’t mean that BP is not responsible.
What if it comes down to a faulty bolt that broke, and the bolt was made by a small company.
Are you telling me that BP is off the hook, and that the small bolt maker will be liable for the 10 billion in clean up cost and then just go out of business?
Sorry, but there are already laws in place that you should aquint yourself with.
Think about it, Exxon has been more profitable than any co. in history, are you telling me they NEED this 75 mill cap that has never been used? Thats propaganda.
BP is responsible…no matter what. Otherwise, we wouldn’t let them drill there.
If the tax payers are truly on the hook, then there should be a government oil company –
Screw capitalism and private enterprise if every time they screw up we bail them out, yet we never share in the profits.
Once again Sue, ill leave you with this example: if Target gets sued for a billion $$ because of a faulty product, and then tries to pass on the costs to the customers, the consumers go to Walmart.
Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.
Sue,
Everything I have read and heard indicates Congress wants to make this bill retroactive to include this event. Maybe to keep BP at their word.
You missed the most effective way for a company to approach risk management and that is loss control. This would be where the free market would really work. Who ever implements the best loss controls would see the least amount of liability costs and be able to pass those savings to their consumers, theoretically. Would they actually do that or just pay out higher dividends? You would need to answer that question.
I fully understand how end consumers are impacted when companies are held accountable for their liabilities, but isn’t that how the free market works? You cannot say govt interference is bad until it benefits you.
If you were a CEO of a company and had to decide whether to either absorb costs in or to be competitive or price yourself out of the market and go out of business, what would you do. I would like to see you explain to the shareholders that it is better business to go out of business than take a short term hit on profits and their dividend.
I am not pulling down big business, but why should taxpayers be on the hook for their liabilities when the company keeps all of their profits? If you remove all corporate tax loopholes, especially writing off losses, then we can talk about keeping the cap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/bp-smoking-gun-oil-giant_n_583590.html
I’m not sure what the point of this posting is. I don’t think there is anyone posting here that doesn’t believe that BP bears 100% responsibility for this situation. It’s their rig and the nature of their operations imply strict liability. I question the clearly anti-business sentiment that seems to want to destroy a company and define “clean up” as an ocean without salt. I’m with Sue. We need to let calmer heads prevail and dial down the rhetoric to a common sense level. Politicians looking to rise on the backs of BP should be silenced and let the scientists solve the problem.
You’re not in the claim department (which is what this is). Nothing ever “implies strict liability” Strict liability is a legal concept and evidently there ISN’T strict liability for oil spills, like there is for other things such as airlines (which is capped at 25K per passenger I might add)
Just because it’s “their operation” does not mean it’s their negligence. Could be the fault of a bolt maker in Kokomo or a welder in Houston.
What you are saying is similar to “I fell there on your property so it’s your fault”. Nope. Wouldn’t need all these claims people if it were that simple.
Hey Hooray! I’m in Cali where the courts blame everything on the other guy. You are right. Ultimately, they may find that it was a component part of the rig that failed. My point was that it serves no good purpose to destroy a company because somebody “feels” they “deserve” it. Our citizenry has become vindictive in the extreme and one day it may by they who are at the effect of nonsensical rhetoric. Going after BP before we know all of the facts is nothing but destructive.
Brokette, i want to cover you with some of that BP oil and do some dirty things to you – Are you single?
Your mother must be soooo proud.
Brokette,
The point I was trying to make is that those who are against govt intervention into business and believe in the free market also want to leave the current cap on damages in place. The way I see it, if you are responsible, pay for the clean up and economic damages (not necessarily punitive damages or pain & suffering unless there is gross negligence). If that causes your company to go bankrupt, so be it. Maybe other companies would institute better loss control measures to keep this from happening again. Unless you have a better way to encourage these companies that profit BILLIONS QUARTERLY, I don’t think a $75 Million cap will change their culture. I know BP has pledged to pay all legitimate claims, and I have no reason not to believe them, but it is not in writing.
And as all you super duper risk managers know, companies will not innovate if the risk is too high. We keep up with anti-business rhetoric and all of our jobs will go elsewhere as companies conclude that our system is openly hostile to their interests. I don’t understand why but some people seem to want that.
Ron, do your homework – There is ample reason not to believe BP – There was an article in IJ just last week about one of their spills where they created a phantom company to shield them from liability – AND IT ACTUALLY WORKED
Really Brook? We ate going to lose oil rig jobs if we make them accountable for the clean up??
Really Brook?
Did you really just say that?
They are begging are buying off congress in order to get a chance to drill everywhere around the US.
I dont think they need the cap, and they sure as heck do not create that many jobs.
Im starting to agree with the guy that wants to cover you with oil.
Bringing profanity into the mix doesn’t make your case, Mr. Seagal. Keep eroding businesses and there will be none to insure. Perhaps you’re all retirment age and don’t care. I’ve never said that we shouldn’t hold BP at all responsible. I’m saying that we shouldn’t let the over-emotional tree-huggers dictate the agenda.
“Eroding business?” “Tree Huggers?” give me a break!
How much do you want to bet we find out (at some specified later date) that BP could have shut the flow off but that they were instead trying to recover or maintain the usefulness of that well and prevent their own “economic loss?”
I’D RATHER HUG A TREE ANY DAY THAN DRINK OIL AND DISPERSANT WITH MY MORNING JAVA.
The fact that our Congress is deadlocked is due to various and several reasons, but one large one is the dollars spent for lobbyists to get congressional results that are often against the common good…by big interests, primarily including Big Oil.
Thank you for making my point about over-emotional tree huggers. As I said days ago, let’s bring back crucifixions. Although sadly, we’d have to cut down Cassandra’s favorite bed buddy to make the cross.