Walküre
Member
    
Posts: 1270
Nothing beats a 6-pack!
Oxford, Indiana
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2010, 09:57:01 AM » |
|
Takes me a while, but it sinks in, eventually...
Obama does a "shake-down" of BP, for a $20B escrow, to cover initial damages, from possibly the worst disaster in US history. Even though a huge percentage feel BP should pay damages. Even though the cap was established in 1990, at 75M dollars. So, everyone wants BP to pay, but will criticize the President, for asking, and putting pressure on BP to ensure it pays.
Now, would those that criticize, want it the other way? Either a large amount of people forced out of work, by the disaster, starving to death, with NO income, or should the government step in, and give them money, thus increasing the debt? Leading to MORE criticism of the President...
Hey, it's a lose/lose situation, exactly what the Anti-President crowd like the best - cursed if you do, cursed if you don't. Or, as they like to say, just plain cursed!
Against the Constitution? Where in the Constitution, does it say you can make "retroactive" laws, to change the liability cap of $75 million? BP drilled the well, under a $75M cap. Now, they want to change the law, after the fact? How is THAT right in any way?
We went to war, to kill a man and his sons - granted, the world's a better place without him, but he was no threat to America, as it stood. Yet, the disaster in the Gulf, has the potential to destroy millions and millions of American's lives, yet, we bitch when the company that brought on this disaster, is made to pay?
I don't understand this at all. 12%+ of the payouts for existing claims have been paid so far. Those that oppose the fund, should we take back those payouts? Ask the people that are surviving on those payouts, to give it back?
|