Re: A lot of truth in this

[Leon]

> "No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even > though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already > knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of > equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you > don't know a thing about how working people make a living - or about > cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. ... > > Now give me back my dog.

Oh the irony.... Does any one else see the irony in the govvernment going after BP for spilling oil while no is going after the government for loosing $11,000,000,000,000.00. Talk about the fox watching over the hen house...

[Han]

"Leon" wrote in news:hcKdnb3gbNGD5IbRnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

That is comparing apples to oranges. Congress is legislating expenditures and taxes. No congresscritter wanting to be reelected is going to impose taxes, at least not yet. "They" will have to do that because expenditures are too large, and while some can be cut, many cannot for reasons good and bad.

[Swingman]

I think the point Leon was making is that reckless behavior, in many cases unethical and downright criminal, is a common denominator in both his examples.

[Leon]

Well sort'a but not totally.

What I see is government going after a company that probably has more expertise in solving the problem than itself. The government seems to be wanting to "take down" the company that hopefully will be the one to solve the problem, if they can survive the government's actions.

I see the government's actions causing BP to disappear long before BP can solve and clean up the problem, and guess who covers the cost then.

The government needs to focus more on balancing it's budget than putting on a show that will be detrimental to all of us if it's actions causes BP to fall.

If the government properly takes care of business many will suffer. If the government does not take care of business "EVERY ONE" will suffer. There will be suffering because of the government's reckless ways, that is a fact.

[Han]

"Leon" wrote in news:xuadne0eRtrEe4HRnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

I see your point, but disagree. This is not a case of the governemnt taking over the doing of the spill containment, but rather the government pushing BP to set aside enough money to take care of its (ethical) obligations. Discussions have been had over whether it would be "better" for BP to declare bankruptcy and letting the courts and lawyers take a cut of what's left before there is a payoff of legitimate claims. I happen to believe that it is right to let BP clean up the mess, no matter what it costs, including paying for damages caused indirectly by the oil fouling just about everything. If BP North America and whoever owns/operates the equipment that blew up do not have enough money, BP worldwide should pay.

My opinion doesn't count, I know. It also is not helpful in making sure that everyone, including the governor of Louisiana and President Obama, do indeed all that should be done.

[Mark & Juanita]

The difference is that reckless behavior on the part of the government results in bigger government and the people who engaged in the reckless behavior getting even more power (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd for example) while such behavior in the private sector gets prosecuted and people get fired or go to jail.