No He Did Not!

[MikesVikes]

Interesting you should mention that. Yes it certainly is public danger. It was a public danger in late April when we have about 13 nations offering us help to stop this monstrosity. But Barry didn't see it as a public danger then. He only smelled danger when the checkbook came out.

 

Thanks for reminding me.

 

You can thank Perch for this one. He didn't have that part highlited in his post.

[evil_gop_liars]

but it is NOT the executive's role to protect the country's shores and waters from an environmental catastrophe. we'll just let BP handle that on their own, we don't want to assume that responsibility. we'll just stand back and grandstand with our mad face on.

 

 

I agree we need more government control.

[MikesVikes]

And he will use this to get more money with his cap & tax, because his plan to save the world is to throw MORE of our money at black holes.

 

I'm reporting you to the NAACP. You can't say black holes.

[Perchoutofwater]

I guess the hazmat suits for cleanup are strictly for ornamental reasons? BTW, here is some actual debate on the legal issues of claims.

 

 

 

interesting stuff here . . . if there already is 1 billion dollar "trust fund" available, then why have a 20 billion dollar number thrown out there? Obviously expected claims will be far, far above that number. I like how this fund was designed to not run through the courts forever, but encourage settlements so that lawyers dont get the lions share.

 

You are really stretching it there, calling it a public danger. Sure the oil spill is a public danger, but not in the sense that was intended. It says in the service, this implies in the service of your country, which a corporation obviously is not. It means someone enlisted in the service of our country, specifically the militia, but also an army, navy, etc.. you could probably even stretch it to people that work for the government like the regulators that apparently didn't do their jobs, but I don't see how anyone could honestly say this applies to BP.

[Perchoutofwater]

You can thank Perch for this one. He didn't have that part highlited in his post.

 

The reason I didn't highlight it is it clearly doesn't apply since BP isn't in service to our country. Like I said you might could stretch and execute the regulators that took the bribes without a trial, but not BP.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

I agree we need more government control.

 

No, we just need the government to do what it is supposed to do under the law. It's no different than us not needing anymore immigration reform, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. The government already has the power, just not the leadership to use it correctly.

[MikesVikes]

The reason I didn't highlight it is it clearly doesn't apply since BP isn't in service to our country. Like I said you might could stretch and execute the regulators that took the bribes without a trial, but not BP.

 

You're right. I didn't read the full sentence.

[evil_gop_liars]

I'm sorry BP that America has greatly inconvenienced you.

[detlef]

Let us say you have a company. You have 6 investors and each of them are owed a quarterly draw on profits. One day a piece of something falls off of one of your trucks because it wasn't secured. This piece of something that fell of your truck hits a car, the car swerves off the road, hits a guard rail and the person is paralyzed from the waist down. Your insurance will cover up to 1 million dollars. The person is suing you for 50 million. Your company is profitable, no problem paying out the dividends that you owe to your owners. But, if that 50 million claim were to be awarded that would rended you penniless. So, prior to a trial even starting, the judge calls you into his quarters and says "I need you to take all of the cash you have on hand in your company and place it into escrow. I don't want you squandering it paying your investors, or potentially losing it on bad deals until we see if you really are liable to pay this guy 50 million." Well, since they put all of your operating revenue into escrow you can't make payroll, you can't pay your investors, hell, you can't pay yourself. You go out to find other investors to get more working capital, but you can't find any who are willing to give you the money because of pending litigation So your company basically closes the doors. Does this sound proper? This is basically what just happened to BP, except they won't have to close their doors, though, investors will be extremely wary of investing in the company while any litigation is pending.

Listen, if we're going to have this discussion, we need to agree to actually talk about what is going on. I give a rationale for why they would want to freeze dividends and now you're talking about pulling out all the cash on hand up to and including operating capital. Big difference. Don't you think that, if BP actually needed any of that $20 bil to pay its bills we'd be hearing about it? Because you don't distribute money you think you might need. I know this because I operate two businesses as the managing member of the LLC. Distributions are done on a quarterly basis AT MY DISCRETION. Meaning, if we've got cash laying around but I'm not certain we won't need it in the coming months, we don't distribute. Now, if we had some looming thing like this? Something that might be big enough to take us down and that cash on hand was a lot of jack? Why wouldn't I just say, "to hell with it" and push it all out to the investors and then declare bankruptcy when the poopy hit the fan?

 

Also, what happened to BP isn't one person going for some ungodly amount of punitive damages. What happened to BP is that they destroyed an entire gulf and the livelihoods of 1000s upon 1000s of people. This is one of those times when you need the president to "overstep his bounds". Because this is not one random act effing up one random family and that family looking for a payday (regardless of whether or not they absolutely deserve one). This is looking out for a ton of US citizens all at once.

 

Again, imagine the fall out if BP was able to piss away all it's cash on hand in the name of distribution at the expense of taking care of it's debt to the people of the gulf. Listen, I'm on record as being pissed Obama isn't doing enough in terms of the gulf. But you can't have it both ways.

 

And if this diminishes BPs ability to court new investors? Well sucks for them.

[Perchoutofwater]

Listen, if we're going to have this discussion, we need to agree to actually talk about what is going on. I give a rationale for why they would want to freeze dividends and now you're talking about pulling out all the cash on hand up to and including operating capital. Big difference. Don't you think that, if BP actually needed any of that $20 bil to pay its bills we'd be hearing about it? Because you don't distribute money you think you might need. I know this because I operate two businesses as the managing member of the LLC. Distributions are done on a quarterly basis AT MY DISCRETION. Meaning, if we've got cash laying around but I'm not certain we won't need it in the coming months, we don't distribute. Now, if we had some looming thing like this? Something that might be big enough to take us down and that cash on hand was a lot of jack? Why wouldn't I just say, "to hell with it" and push it all out to the investors and then declare bankruptcy when the poopy hit the fan?

 

Also, what happened to BP isn't one person going for some ungodly amount of punitive damages. What happened to BP is that they destroyed an entire gulf and the livelihoods of 1000s upon 1000s of people. This is one of those times when you need the president to "overstep his bounds". Because this is not one random act effing up one random family and that family looking for a payday (regardless of whether or not they absolutely deserve one). This is looking out for a ton of US citizens all at once.

 

Again, imagine the fall out if BP was able to piss away all it's cash on hand in the name of distribution at the expense of taking care of it's debt to the people of the gulf. Listen, I'm on record as being pissed Obama isn't doing enough in terms of the gulf. But you can't have it both ways.

 

And if this diminishes BPs ability to court new investors? Well sucks for them.

 

I actually agree with most of what you say here, BP should not be paying dividends if it needs that money to pay for it's liabilities. At the same time if it doesn't need that money to pay for it's liabilities then I have no problem with them paying dividends, and neither should anyone else unless they just want to punish the stockholders. The only portion I disagree with, is that "we need the president to overstep his bounds", we never need that to happen nor should we allow it to happen. I would also say that BP isn't on the hook for the 10,000 jobs lost because of Obama's knee jerk reaction to shut down all deep water drilling. Maybe Obama should put the earnings on his books in escrow to pay their unemployment benefits.

[MikesVikes]

Is holding BP responsible for it's actions setting a precedent?

 

Here's a case involving manslaughter and negligence.

[detlef]

I actually agree with most of what you say here, BP should not be paying dividends if it needs that money to pay for it's liabilities. At the same time if it doesn't need that money to pay for it's liabilities then I have no problem with them paying dividends, and neither should anyone else unless they just want to punish the stockholders. The only portion I disagree with, is that "we need the president to overstep his bounds", we never need that to happen nor should we allow it to happen. I would also say that BP isn't on the hook for the 10,000 jobs lost because of Obama's knee jerk reaction to shut down all deep water drilling. Maybe Obama should put the earnings on his books in escrow to pay their unemployment benefits.

So, you agree that they shouldn't be paying out dividends if they need the money (an amount that we don't actually know right now) but you don't agree with making sure they don't? Because that's the part where the president is "overstepping his bounds". Saying that they need to put a bunch of jack aside until this thing is settled.

 

So, are you simply saying that you agree that it is the right thing to do for BP to take care of business? What if they don't? Do we then get to mock the president for putting on his mad face?

 

ETA: Another thing about freezing dividend dispersal. What is the percentage of stockholders that would actually get hurt? If it turns out they don't need all the money, it's not like it went anywhere. it will all be there the next time they kick out dividends. No more, no less. So, the only people who would actually be hurt are those who are relying on dividends for immediate income and have no other holdings also kicking out money to tie them over until BP can start giving out money again. Nobody is taking away any money that BP doesn't owe anyone. The vast majority are either guys who don't need the money or people like, say someone in my shoes who is just investing towards retirement and would likely just roll the dividends into more stock anyway. Something I could just as easily do once the meter starts running again. (BTW, I don't own BP stock). Now, compare that to the 1000s of people who would be hosed if we let BP slither away without taking care of business.

Edited June 17, 2010 by detlef

[MikesVikes]

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits the liability of parties responsible for offshore oil spills to cleanup costs plus $75 million. But with millions of gallons of oil still spilling into the Gulf, the full economic impact of the spill to commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, property values, and other economic sectors has yet to be calculated, with some experts estimating the final cost may be as high as $37 billion. Carnahan is cosponsoring H.R. 5355, which would eliminate the liability caps, ensuring that BP - not the American taxpayers - are held responsible for all economic damages.

 

 

"BP can promise all day long that they will cover all the costs, but the stakes are far too high to just take them at their word," said Carnahan. "How can we possibly set an arbitrary dollar amount on what they should pay when we don't yet know how much it's going to cost?"

 

 

Carnahan pointed to the historical precedent of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, previously the largest in U.S. history at 11 million gallons - compared to 600,000 to 1.2 million gallons per day leaking in the 6 week-old Deepwater Horizon spill. Exxon spent 19 years fighting an assessment of $5 billion in damages, even as some fisheries continue to struggle and oil still coats rocks along the Alaskan shoreline more than 2 decades after the spill.

 

 

Carnahan pushes legislation

[SEC=UGA]

Listen, if we're going to have this discussion, we need to agree to actually talk about what is going on. I give a rationale for why they would want to freeze dividends and now you're talking about pulling out all the cash on hand up to and including operating capital. Big difference. Don't you think that, if BP actually needed any of that $20 bil to pay its bills we'd be hearing about it? Because you don't distribute money you think you might need. I know this because I operate two businesses as the managing member of the LLC. Distributions are done on a quarterly basis AT MY DISCRETION. Meaning, if we've got cash laying around but I'm not certain we won't need it in the coming months, we don't distribute. Now, if we had some looming thing like this? Something that might be big enough to take us down and that cash on hand was a lot of jack? Why wouldn't I just say, "to hell with it" and push it all out to the investors and then declare bankruptcy when the poopy hit the fan?

 

Also, what happened to BP isn't one person going for some ungodly amount of punitive damages. What happened to BP is that they destroyed an entire gulf and the livelihoods of 1000s upon 1000s of people. This is one of those times when you need the president to "overstep his bounds". Because this is not one random act effing up one random family and that family looking for a payday (regardless of whether or not they absolutely deserve one). This is looking out for a ton of US citizens all at once.

 

Again, imagine the fall out if BP was able to piss away all it's cash on hand in the name of distribution at the expense of taking care of it's debt to the people of the gulf. Listen, I'm on record as being pissed Obama isn't doing enough in terms of the gulf. But you can't have it both ways.

 

And if this diminishes BPs ability to court new investors? Well sucks for them.

 

We're going to simply have to agree to disagree on this. I really don't see a difference in a judge tying up a company's money and the fed gove tying up a company's money. The scale doesn't matter, IMO. It is just flat out wrong. And I think it is even more wrong for the government to do so at the expense of people who invested money in the company.

 

On a seperate, but linked topic, times like these are why oil companies need to make such huge profits in the first place, so that they can pay for and remedy mistakes such as this. Imagine if they fed gove had have taken more money from these companies a couple of years ago when the gasoline/oil prices were so high, the oil companies may be unable to rectify this situation, leaving the US taxpayer with the bill.

[bpwallace49]

And this is our "environmental" president in action. He turns down help from other nations because he is an egotistical prick, but his ears perk up when the money is at stake. And he will use this to get more money with his cap & tax, because his plan to save the world is to throw MORE of our money at black holes and dreams.

 

I'm sorry but this is all a huge farce. Political games are costing us our planet. What have we done?

\

I especially like how you just keep quoting your own posts. Kinda like you are just having a conversation with yourself . . .

[rattsass]

So, you agree that they shouldn't be paying out dividends if they need the money (an amount that we don't actually know right now) but you don't agree with making sure they don't? Because that's the part where the president is "overstepping his bounds". Saying that they need to put a bunch of jack aside until this thing is settled.

 

So, are you simply saying that you agree that it is the right thing to do for BP to take care of business? What if they don't? Do we then get to mock the president for putting on his mad face?

My problem is that at least in the financial realm BP ACTUALLY WAS doing pretty well working the claims. It is the age old argument, who do you trust more, big business, or your government who is in the pocket of big business. Tough call I have to agree.

[rattsass]

\

I especially like how you just keep quoting your own posts. Kinda like you are just having a conversation with yourself . . .

I was til you butted in.

[Perchoutofwater]

Is holding BP responsible for it's actions setting a precedent?

 

Here's a case involving manslaughter and negligence.

 

I agree with everything but the last sentence. We need to wait until the damned hole is plugged, some of the very same people working to plug it are likely to be drawn into the investigation. I want there attention fully on the task at hand. We've seen how well the president can do two things at once, I don't want the people trying to stop the flow to mishandle that as badly as he has mishandled this situation.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I would also say that BP isn't on the hook for the 10,000 jobs lost because of Obama's knee jerk reaction to shut down all deep water drilling.

 

Do you really think we should continue drilling when it has been proven that a leak at a depth of 5000 ft cannot be stopped? Or before we've had a chance to determine what really went wrong here?

 

Or is it just a numbers game where we say that the chances of this happening again are so remote that we can take the risk?

[detlef]

We're going to simply have to agree to disagree on this. I really don't see a difference in a judge tying up a company's money and the fed gove tying up a company's money. The scale doesn't matter, IMO. It is just flat out wrong. And I think it is even more wrong for the government to do so at the expense of people who invested money in the company.

 

On a seperate, but linked topic, times like these are why oil companies need to make such huge profits in the first place, so that they can pay for and remedy mistakes such as this. Imagine if they fed gove had have taken more money from these companies a couple of years ago when the gasoline/oil prices were so high, the oil companies may be unable to rectify this situation, leaving the US taxpayer with the bill.

Man, I love the logic in that last paragraph. They need to make massive profits so they can afford to distribute massive profits to their shareholders and still have enough left over to pay for their mistakes. After all, if they only made somewhat massive profits, then the very same people who pay enough at the pumps to insure that there's both enough money to make them rich and cover their ass would be stuck holding the bill if and when they screw up.

[Perchoutofwater]

So, you agree that they shouldn't be paying out dividends if they need the money (an amount that we don't actually know right now) but you don't agree with making sure they don't? Because that's the part where the president is "overstepping his bounds". Saying that they need to put a bunch of jack aside until this thing is settled.

 

So, are you simply saying that you agree that it is the right thing to do for BP to take care of business? What if they don't? Do we then get to mock the president for putting on his mad face?

 

ETA: Another thing about freezing dividend dispersal. What is the percentage of stockholders that would actually get hurt? If it turns out they don't need all the money, it's not like it went anywhere. it will all be there the next time they kick out dividends. No more, no less. So, the only people who would actually be hurt are those who are relying on dividends for immediate income and have no other holdings also kicking out money to tie them over until BP can start giving out money again. Nobody is taking away any money that BP doesn't owe anyone. The vast majority are either guys who don't need the money or people like, say someone in my shoes who is just investing towards retirement and would likely just roll the dividends into more stock anyway. Something I could just as easily do once the meter starts running again. (BTW, I don't own BP stock). Now, compare that to the 1000s of people who would be hosed if we let BP slither away without taking care of business.

 

Honestly I haven't looked at BP's financial statement, so I don't know the answer to your question. I doubt Barry does either. You have to think that the board is going to do what is in the long term financial interest of the company. If that is withholding dividends they will do that. The last thing they want is to pay dividends as usual and then not have the money to cover their debts, their stockholders don't want that either. The point being they have future profits to help offset these unknown liabilities. They also have assets to be sold of if need be, which will piss of stockholders a lot more than a few withheld dividends. I don't think the government needs to overstep it's bounds here.

 

With regard to your edit, if BP typically pays a hefty dividend they are not a growth stock, but an income stock. Who typically invests in income stocks? I'll answer that for you, people in or near retirement.

[Perchoutofwater]

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits the liability of parties responsible for offshore oil spills to cleanup costs plus $75 million. But with millions of gallons of oil still spilling into the Gulf, the full economic impact of the spill to commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, property values, and other economic sectors has yet to be calculated, with some experts estimating the final cost may be as high as $37 billion. Carnahan is cosponsoring H.R. 5355, which would eliminate the liability caps, ensuring that BP - not the American taxpayers - are held responsible for all economic damages.

 

 

"BP can promise all day long that they will cover all the costs, but the stakes are far too high to just take them at their word," said Carnahan. "How can we possibly set an arbitrary dollar amount on what they should pay when we don't yet know how much it's going to cost?"

 

 

Carnahan pointed to the historical precedent of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, previously the largest in U.S. history at 11 million gallons - compared to 600,000 to 1.2 million gallons per day leaking in the 6 week-old Deepwater Horizon spill. Exxon spent 19 years fighting an assessment of $5 billion in damages, even as some fisheries continue to struggle and oil still coats rocks along the Alaskan shoreline more than 2 decades after the spill.

 

 

Carnahan pushes legislation

 

I would support legislation such as that though it would need to be tied to actual identifiable damages, and not punitive. I would have a problem with it being retroactive, as I disagree with any and all retroactive law no matter how good the law is.

[Duchess Jack]

At the same time if it doesn't need that money to pay for it's liabilities then I have no problem with them paying dividends, and neither should anyone else unless they just want to punish the stockholders.

 

Did the stock holders make money off of this rig? If the accident didn't happen would the have made money off of it? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[SEC=UGA]

Man, I love the logic in that last paragraph. They need to make massive profits so they can afford to distribute massive profits to their shareholders and still have enough left over to pay for their mistakes. After all, if they only made somewhat massive profits, then the very same people who pay enough at the pumps to insure that there's both enough money to make them rich and cover their ass would be stuck holding the bill if and when they screw up.

 

I told you we were going to have to agree to disagree.

Many companies do it, it is called a risk factor. Banks have one built into interest rates for defaults, construction companies have a factor built in for structural failure/warranty items, Insurance providers have one built in for actuarial anomalies, etc...

[Perchoutofwater]

On a seperate, but linked topic, times like these are why oil companies need to make such huge profits in the first place, so that they can pay for and remedy mistakes such as this. Imagine if they fed gove had have taken more money from these companies a couple of years ago when the gasoline/oil prices were so high, the oil companies may be unable to rectify this situation, leaving the US taxpayer with the bill.

 

This is a great point.