Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace--i don't know how you did it, but you've somehow managed to convince yourself that my interpretation of the regulatory regime is almost the opposite of what it is.
if for some reason you find yourself interested in what i've actually been putting together about the regulatory set-up and the relation between that set-up and this disaster is, read the thread. it's all here.
=============
rather than keep this to a useless post refuting a non-position, i found this business from texas rep. joe barton kinda amusing, in a pathetic-to-craven kinda way.
washingtonpost.com
the article itself is hotlinked.
no comment seems needed.
live stream of the hearings:
C-SPAN3 Live Stream - C-SPAN |
From the very beginning BP, government and other experts knew that it would take about 90 days to drill relief wells, the ultimate solution to the leak. Within the first week, I am certain, that the CEO of BP had "best case", "worst case" and "expected" projections of the costs. The pubic became aware of the $20 billion number weeks ago - and BP made clear that they would pay legitimate claims. Our government made the choice to rely on BP to cap the well, be involved in containment/clean-up and claims approvals/payments. The $20 billion fund is smoke and mirrors, purely political. BP can not defend itself against the power of the Federal government - Obama knows it, BP knows it, and almost everyone else with a pulse knows it. This diversionary tactic has nothing to do with stopping the leak, contaiment/clean-up or making people whole. Obama has his boot on the throat of BP and he needs BP to be available to take more of the anger than he does.
Oh, and a news flash....A for profit company makes decisions to increase profits...
Another news flash...A for profit company takes actions to improve public opinion...
Another news flash...A for profit company takes actions to minimize the perception of damages...
BP failed, but there was evidence of BP's failings long before this event, but "we" took no action. According to many BP failed/lied/etc. after the accident, but "we" took no action.
So...
how many links or references do you need to understand this? So, my questions focus on the broader issue of what are the regulatory changes you expect, and why? You make vague references to what you want and take shots at capitalism and I simply seek elaboration.
Barton is 100% correct what Obama did is a shake-down. This is obvious.
{added} On the $20 billion number look at my post#318 on 6/7. I think the $20 billion number was there "expected" cost.