| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| GOP blocks oil liability bill | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 13 2010, 04:56 PM (540 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | May 13 2010, 04:56 PM Post #1 |
|
Cheers
|
I'm shocked. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37207.html |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 13 2010, 05:24 PM Post #2 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Why? Exxon or Chevron might be able to absorb that sort of liability, which could be 25% or 33% of its net profits for the year on a really good year, but there are a whole lot of smaller companies that would be destroyed. Last year BP's replacement cost profit was $14B. They could absorb it, but it would hurt. I am not opposed to them being responsible even if it hurts for the damage they produce, but the Left already blames them for making profit to begin with -- which way do you want it? They can either not factor into their costs the risk they must assume, or they do and we all pay higher prices which will show on their balance sheets as even more profit. Are you in favor of weeding out the industry and limiting competition? Or are you in favor of raising the stakes for insurance companies to grow into underwriting on that sort of level, so that they get to be bailed out by the Government when something actually does happen again? The cost to date for the Gulf spill is *only* $450M -- why the $10B tag? Maybe it was just a typical knee jerk and grandstanding bill (like the TARP -- "we don't known what it will cost so let's just set a really high price and act like we know") so that the Dems can look like they are doing something. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 13 2010, 06:31 PM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Would you be open to capping the liability as a percentage of the culprit's revenue or profit? If so, do tell what percentage do you would be appropriate. |
![]() |
|
| apple | May 13 2010, 06:44 PM Post #4 |
|
one of the angels
|
in the real world, when you file a claim, the insurance company drops you |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 13 2010, 07:11 PM Post #5 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I think something like that might be possible or a sliding scale for instance. But I think you are missing the point -- the question of a cap per se must first be looked at. The bottom line for me is "if you broke it you fix it". I don't see the $10B cap as being the least bit in proportion to that, do you? Whoever cleans it up send the bill to the company who made the mess. The company pays it, or goes out of business. Companies that can't handle the risk and do what is reasonable to protect the public good should not be players -- that is no different for an oil company or a home builder -- which is why this is properly a regulated industry. I suppose the cap can be justified since there are great economic benefits to everyone to have companies assume great risk and expense in drilling. We all benefit from lower oil prices. The lower the cap the more we benefit. But we also need responsible and safe drilling. That is also obviously in the interest of oil companies since disasters like this or the Exxon Valdez hurt profits, reputations, stock values, etc. To brand them "culprits" seems unduly inflammatory unless you can show how they were intentionally being reckless. The person who crashes into your car accidentally is not a culprit, even if they are culpable. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 13 2010, 07:21 PM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So ... do you oppose having a liability cap at all, or do you think having a cap is a good idea? ![]() Assuming the later, I will remove the word "culprit" and rephrase: Would you be open to capping the liability as a percentage of the culpable party's revenue or profit? If so, do tell what percentage you believe would be appropriate. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 13 2010, 10:29 PM Post #7 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am not convinced the cap (assuming it should exist) should be tied to a percentage of profits -- that is your issue, not mine. My point was simply that massive corporations like BP, Exxon, Shell can absorb even massive caps up to $10B where they would bankrupt smaller oil companies. The cap as the Dems want it to seem to be just a big made up number, like the TARP $750B. No bearing on the reality of the issue. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 14 2010, 02:50 AM Post #8 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I believe it is window dressing, made for public consumption in November with no well-considered impact on reality. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 14 2010, 03:25 AM Post #9 |
|
Cheers
|
Depends on whether it includes this spill. If you lost your livelihood in this spill, as many no doubt will, you'd probably not consider the issue to be 'window dressing'. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 14 2010, 09:49 AM Post #10 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
How do you reconcile the $10B proposed cap with the reality that number is about 20X the reported costs? How again does the economic damage (those who lost livelihood minus those who get work from the cleanup) justify this sort of legislation? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | May 14 2010, 09:52 AM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Who exactly has lost their livelihood because of this? |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| John Galt | May 14 2010, 09:57 AM Post #12 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
The fishermen and shrimpers, at least for now. |
| Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 14 2010, 09:57 AM Post #13 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
A few people died. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 14 2010, 10:01 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So where do you stand with the liability issue? Are you for or against setting a cap, any cap, at all? If you're for setting a cap, how would you set it? Having read your posts, you don't seem to like to $10B cap idea, but I can't find any alternate idea in your posts either.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 14 2010, 11:16 PM Post #15 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is very clear where I stand with the liability issue. What part of that did you miss? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2010, 04:28 AM Post #16 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ah, OK. You're against having a liability cap. Thanks for clarifying. On this, we agree. I would support the the legislation to raise the cap to $10B for the simple reason that a $10B cap is a lot closer to "no cap" than the current $75m cap is. Though my preference is to have "no cap" at all. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 15 2010, 04:45 AM Post #17 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. The civil courts and tort law exists exactly to address these injustices. And do you know that the cap applies to ALL damages caused by a spill, even lost livelihoods? Exxon ended up paying $1.28 billion, well above the current $75 million cap. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 15 2010, 05:01 AM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The $75m liability cap was established after the Exxon Valdez spill. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 15 2010, 08:34 AM Post #19 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension, Ax. I am not against the idea of a cap. In fact, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would see I made a possible case for having one. The stupidity of the Dem's proposed legislation is that it raises the bar so high as to preferentially favor only the largest companies that could afford it -- even while it is about 20X the cost to date of the current clean up. I don't like unreasonable legislation -- which the Dems proposed here. There are many sorts of reasonable ways to accomplish the protection of the public goods while allowing competition and development in the oil industry -- a cap could be one among other solutions. However the actual legislation gets worked out is a matter of prudence and judgment -- which is ostensibly lacking among the Democratic authors of that bill that make up some really big number so that they look like they are doing something really important and really meaningful when actually they are crippling the future of the market and competition. I assume that is what they really want to do, but they are too cowardly to simply say so. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 16 2010, 04:41 AM Post #20 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, are you for setting a cap, then?
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2010, 08:56 AM Post #21 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That would depend on the mechanism and the details. The idea of a cap is ethically neutral. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 16 2010, 12:49 PM Post #22 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Just because IT - or anyone - does not necessarily oppose a cap, it does not imply they should support this particular cap legislation. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2010, 12:52 PM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is sad that such obvious things actually need to be said. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 16 2010, 01:05 PM Post #24 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Well, instead of an honest discussion, he's just been trying - unsuccessfully - to push you into a corner that doesn't even exist. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 16 2010, 01:23 PM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I did not ask him to support "this particular cap legislation." Given the exchanges up to my last post, I asked him whether he supports setting a cap, at all. Given his qualification of "it depends," naturally, the following question would be "what sort of cap would you [IT] rather impose?" So ... what sort of cap would you rather impose? Heck, I might as well ask you, Mik, the same questions: 1. Do you support having a liability cap at all? 2. If so, what sort of cap would you rather impose? It's an open canvas. I am not limiting the solution space for you at all (i.e., not painting you into any corner). Assuming you support the idea of having some sort of liability cap, please tell me how you would structure it. We can discuss from there. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








4:33 PM Jul 10