Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
I see I haven’t missed much being swamped at work this week. BP 24/7. The Hamptons and the steakhouses were a nice interlude though. DIBS, Arcaty, count me in for a Sparks gathering.
And DeLepp, make that TWO butterscotch sundaes, por favor, or at least whip me up some butterscotch pudding.
And, Dave, lol on your ET post. No word from her today so perhaps she had the bimbino.
Regarding Obama and manufactuirng, let me be more clear. Take notice of his emotions during his oval-office speech. When he spent the first 2/3rds speaking about the oil spill, he was pretty cool. When he spent the last 1/3rd pushing cap-and-trade, watch how animated he becomes. Go back to my original post: he is exploiting this crisi to push his agenda for cap and trade. WHAT does this oil spill have to do with imposing another tax on manufacturers in the midwest, who would bear the brunt of it?
He’s a disgrace. The man has no regard for our private industry, and it’s slowly sinking in on alot of folks.
You might as well all just read the law. The non-lawyers will presumably come to all kinds of incorrect conclusions about what it means, but here it is.
“If they invoked that law, what would the ramifications be? Worse than the deal they already got? It seems they were willing participants to the shakedown.”
Agreed, but that is the problem. In both the financial crisis and now this one, we are moving from the rule of law to rule by mob emotions. That is not a healthy thing.
“Part of Obama’s troubles with the public is that he’s been deferring to BP the whole time, error which got him in hot water.”
His problem has been a lack of leadership. Leadership means neither deferring to BP, nor making them a punching bag to satisfy emotions of the moment.
benson, the $75 million cap has several very important carve-outs (for example, gross negligence, violations of safety standards). Not sure how you concluded that BP would otherwise be entitled to limit its liability to that cap. I don’t know whether they would or not. I also don’t think either BP or the administration knows. Ultimately, only a judge can make that determination. In the meantime, the concern articulated by the administration is that BP could limit its liability through various means, all of which are legitimate in the strictly legal sense (bankruptcy of US and / or global entities, limiting liability to US entities, etc). The fund is intended to pre-empt these kinds of efforts.
benson, manufacturing hasn’t been in good shape in years, kinda seems like you’re implying Obama here. Should he do nothing?
Detroit has sucked for a decade or 2, and yes half of that can be pinned on DC. There is a reason unions(manufacturing) membership are a third of what they were 20 years ago.
I see I haven’t missed much being swamped at work this week. BP 24/7. The Hamptons and the steakhouses were a nice interlude though. DIBS, Arcaty, count me in for a Sparks gathering.
And DeLepp, make that TWO butterscotch sundaes, por favor, or at least whip me up some butterscotch pudding.
And, Dave, lol on your ET post. No word from her today so perhaps she had the bimbino.
Here is some BP humor for you guys…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM
To be really clear, I have no opinion on whether the fund is the right thing to do. I simply haven’t studied the issue enough to have an opinion.
DeLepp;
Regarding Obama and manufactuirng, let me be more clear. Take notice of his emotions during his oval-office speech. When he spent the first 2/3rds speaking about the oil spill, he was pretty cool. When he spent the last 1/3rd pushing cap-and-trade, watch how animated he becomes. Go back to my original post: he is exploiting this crisi to push his agenda for cap and trade. WHAT does this oil spill have to do with imposing another tax on manufacturers in the midwest, who would bear the brunt of it?
He’s a disgrace. The man has no regard for our private industry, and it’s slowly sinking in on alot of folks.
(virtual hugs to MM.)
You might as well all just read the law. The non-lawyers will presumably come to all kinds of incorrect conclusions about what it means, but here it is.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:5:./temp/~c1014nowgE:e26965:
“If they invoked that law, what would the ramifications be? Worse than the deal they already got? It seems they were willing participants to the shakedown.”
Agreed, but that is the problem. In both the financial crisis and now this one, we are moving from the rule of law to rule by mob emotions. That is not a healthy thing.
“Part of Obama’s troubles with the public is that he’s been deferring to BP the whole time, error which got him in hot water.”
His problem has been a lack of leadership. Leadership means neither deferring to BP, nor making them a punching bag to satisfy emotions of the moment.
benson, the $75 million cap has several very important carve-outs (for example, gross negligence, violations of safety standards). Not sure how you concluded that BP would otherwise be entitled to limit its liability to that cap. I don’t know whether they would or not. I also don’t think either BP or the administration knows. Ultimately, only a judge can make that determination. In the meantime, the concern articulated by the administration is that BP could limit its liability through various means, all of which are legitimate in the strictly legal sense (bankruptcy of US and / or global entities, limiting liability to US entities, etc). The fund is intended to pre-empt these kinds of efforts.
benson, manufacturing hasn’t been in good shape in years, kinda seems like you’re implying Obama here. Should he do nothing?
Detroit has sucked for a decade or 2, and yes half of that can be pinned on DC. There is a reason unions(manufacturing) membership are a third of what they were 20 years ago.