AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
No pricetag has been put on the amount of damage caused by the spill because assessments are still ongoing. The suit is sure to ask for billions of dollars.I knew it....I read the headline and I just couldn't wait to see how many of you would rush to BP's defense. If this lawsuit ruins BP, then so be it. Let it be a lesson on cutting corners to rake in more profit. It will be interesting to see if BP will then go after Halliburton. As far as those British investors are concerned......sorry about your tough luck.
December 15 2010 at 9:54 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down ReplyI'll bet next time if we have any accident, no business will voluntarily put up billions ahead of time. Why should they? BP gave billions already to take care of this, and there is still money left in that pot. But now Obama sues for billions more? It's almost double jeopardy. Why even consider helping to start with if you know you'll get sued later anyway. Someone needs to tell Obama that he spent trillions and these billions he's now suing for won't even cover the interest on the money he's blown thru in 2 years.
December 15 2010 at 8:20 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down ReplyI'll bet next time, companies will think twice about blatantly cutting corners in basic safety in pursuit of an ever-larger profit margin. Which, by the way, is the ENTIRE point of our "market-based" regulatory regime--instead of making these actions outright illegal (as in most countries), we are supposed to have made them cost-prohibitive. If neglecting basic industry standards isn't criminal, and it isn't cost-prohibitive, what on earth will deter such behavior?
December 15 2010 at 9:21 PM Report abuse Permalink +4 rate up rate down ReplyBP gave billions? Am I missing something here? Wasn't it thier neglect and them cutting corners that created the catastrophy in the first place? How is it then that they have "given" anything? If someone destroys something are they not supposed to be held financially responsible? Attacking the president is really backwards on this one. BP is not footing the whole bill for this clean up and they certainly are not compensating those who make thier living in this region due to the fishing or tourist industries. The economy in that area has taken a devastating blow as a result of BP's actions and negligence. How do you figure they were helping? Since when do you destroy an economy and then "help" fix it. NO! "You" destroyed it, "you" fix it! Or you get sued! Either way you're going to fix it and that is as it should be!
Just My Humble Opinion,
JAZZEE
Let us not be displeased with the President, who didn't screw up his duties. Rather, let's point the finger at those who failed to live up to the standards of business for which they are most exceedingly highly paid. It's like turning the responsibility for the Catholic Church's huge child sex scandal away from the "overseers" (as bishops were once known) and then seeing to it that now of the Church's hierarchy are considered to be liable for failure to act in due course of their obligations. People tolerate a considerable amount of evil. Fix it. Hold those responsible who made the mistakes - not the victims.
December 15 2010 at 7:51 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down ReplyIf BP had know this was going to come down on them I wonder if they would have been so willing to put up all the money they already put up to clean up the mess and make good on many claims of those whose buisness was hurt by the spill.
December 15 2010 at 7:12 PM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyMatt: "harrassment"? You're joking ,right? Just because the gov't has "already gotten billions from BP" doesn't mean that BP has COVERED the costs of all damages it inflicted upon American taxpayers. Are you suggesting that American TAXPAYERS should be forced to pick up the tab for ANY PORTION of BP's unconscionable negligence??
December 15 2010 at 7:03 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down ReplyThe government's actions could ruin BP financially. It is a well known fact that British retirement funds are heavily invested in BP and if Obama's actions against BP causes damage to those retirement funds the Brits are going to be very very displeased with Obama.
December 15 2010 at 6:35 PM Report abuse Permalink -3 rate up rate down ReplyWell joe I guess that means you and I and our kids will have to pay for the cleanup.
December 15 2010 at 6:53 PM Report abuse Permalink +7 rate up rate down ReplyMac, BP has already said they will pay for the clean up. They have already set aside funds, this is a power and money grab from the Obama group.
December 15 2010 at 7:40 PM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyThe government has already gotten billions from BP. I do not understand the point of further harassment. I have seen this time and again, the government sues after some disaster and it just denies benefits from the families because it shrinks the pot.
December 15 2010 at 6:12 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyThe biggest mistake they made was trying to cheap out, if it was a realtive of yours that dies that day whats their life worth to you. Second mistake was the laxed regulations and procedures they did this well under thanks to the Bush period with a big helping hand from Chenney. People all got mad because Obama stopped the drilling but to allow this to go on with a high risk of this happening over and over again will hurt this Country in a lot of worse ways than higher pricies on fuel and even if you had the crude we don't have enough refinieries and they don't won't more because they use that to jump the price up and down all the time and we all know they have made record profitsfor several years now at the cost of driving our economy out the roof from the increase of all the products we ship which is pretty much everything we buy
December 15 2010 at 7:58 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down ReplyActually, the government hasn't gotten anything from BP; the individuals and businesses affected have. This isn't harassment, it is defense of the law. Why does that become harassing when the criminals involved are corporations?
December 15 2010 at 9:08 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down ReplyFollow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners







Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
10 Comments