[Wpin]

I wonder if you have considered the culpability of the US government in this matter?

President Obama had many opportunities to reduce or even prevent the oil from reaching shore and he chose each and every time to say NO. The government was lax in their regulatory responsibilities.

The government told BP to drill there if they wanted to drill the the Gulf, our government prevented them from drilling in less risky shallow water and on land. The government perceived that the risk (given the liability limit) justified the higher risk and danger.

There are other companies involved other than BP...where is their share?

By law, BP was only responsible for 75 million dollars...they volunteered early on to forego that. Personally, I think it is a mistake.

Our government has insulted horribly our dearest ally and if you bother to read the headlines in Britain you will see many that are saying BP Pensioners Being Forced To Pay Cleanup and such.

Our government has let all business know that when it can it will gut them...it has no regard for the good companies do this nation...it will gut them live when they have the opportunity.

Think about these things a little bit...

[Old Badger]

What we have here is a shuck-n-jive-n shakedown artist of the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton caliber ....... nothing more and nothing less. That's what community activist do! Take advantage of unfortunate situations to benefit themselves and not victims or others.

This 20 billion slush fund will be used to benefit his affirmative action goals .....wait and see!

[Pharsalus]

Indeed, I have considered the culpability of the federal government. They certainly deserve a large part of the blame for blocking drilling in shallow waters and in Alaska... And yes, the regulatory scheme could be improved. However, when we blame the federal government, we blame ourselves. Despite these failings, the fact remains that BP chose to engage in this business, despite the increased dangers of deep water drilling, and should be held liable for the damages that result from their actions. Now, if there is some other entity that is partially responsible, BP has recourse to mitigate their damages in court.

The 75M is a cap that is in effect only if there is no negligence or not a violation of the law. If BP had received advice from their lawyers that they would not be found to be at least negligent, they would not be so generous.

I do read the headlines, and the articles for that matter, coming from Britain. Yes, those who invested in BP are taking a hit. I don’t understand why that is unreasonable. If you invest in a company and they mess up, you share in their losses. (Unless, of course, you invest financial institution which “cannot fail”).