Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Was it a shakedown??

WASHINGTON – A leading House Republican accused the White House Thursday of a "$20 billion shakedown" of oil giant BP by requiring the company to establish a huge fund to compensate those hurt by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Rep. Joe Barton made the assertion at the outset of a House hearing where BP's chief executive officer, Tony Hayward, was appearing for the first time before Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_20_billion_fund

 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 10:47 AM on Jun. 17, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (34)
  • Asking someone to take financial responsibility for an accident the caused is not a shake down. If I crash my car into your house, causing serious damage and you demand that I pay including (but not limited to) showing that I have the financial means to do so, is that a shake down? No, that's just good sense. Silly right wing smear machine.

    SRiveroC

    Answer by SRiveroC at 2:23 PM on Jun. 18, 2010

  • BP had already said they would pay, and have shown willingness to do so. There is no need for the government to force the issue.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 10:54 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • BP had already said they would pay, and have shown willingness to do so. There is no need for the government to force the issue.


    Saying it and doing it are not the same thing

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 11:07 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • And assuming the government will use the money correctly is only that, an assumption.

    As you said, saying it and doing it are not the same thing.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:11 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • Considering the spending habits of the current administration, the money BP set aside is likely to be borrowed to pay for other things. Like financing the ever-lasting war.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:14 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • I just don't think the government has any business forcing a private company to do something. If the company is breaking the law, then authorities should step in. But the government has no business stepping in here. True, it would be GREAT if BP did this on their own. Hey, maybe it would make people very supportive of them and help business, seeing them take responsibility in this way - but the government needs to stay out!
    micheledo

    Answer by micheledo at 11:35 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • Who is overseeing the escrow account? It's not the government, is it? If it's an independent third party I think it makes sense because there is such a high likelihood for fraudulent claims. It's better to protect the funds for those that are truly impacted and also for BP, so that they can stay in business. If they go under, where do you think the funds to clean up the mess and take care of those effected will come from? Here is a hint, they pay for everything else the government screws up. So, if it's a third party and the government isn't involved then I am fine with it. If govt. can get their hands on it, then it was definitely a shakedown, IMO.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 11:39 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • it's a fecking escrow account, not a pallate of money like the Bush clusterfu . . .er administration, shipped of to Iraq.

    autodidact

    Answer by autodidact at 11:39 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • it's a fecking escrow account, not a pallate of money like the Bush clusterfu . . .er administration, shipped of to Iraq.


    Remember, he is not allowed to be spoken of....he is the thing that we dare not speak! LOL

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 11:44 AM on Jun. 17, 2010

  • QM, That is my understanding ..a third party noy the gov

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 11:44 AM on Jun. 17, 2010