Defund BP?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    I heard an interesting argument regarding BP. In light of what may have been criminal negligence, recklessness or worse, should BP be defunded similarly to Acorn?

    BP has been lying to the government for years in its required registrations, license applications, and today during this spill. They have failed to meet safety standards, have a terrible safety record, and are responsible for a massive environmental disaster.

    Should the Federal Government continue to have 50+ billion dollars worth of contracts with that company? Should the Feds and States immediately defund BP? Cancel all contracts, cancel all licenses and registrations, and immediately defund BP?
     
  2. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #2

    And in doing so what would the fall out BP.

    BP is currently the largest developer of wind energy. They are one of the largest developers for alternative energy. Those numbers are in the amount spent and the amount produced.

    So cut off BP like that it would mean the wind energy in the US would go back to being trap in pockets. BP has been using its money to built the transmission lines to the good wind locations.

    And lets not forget the huge number of jobs that would be loss.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Certainly there would be all sorts of ramifications, but we defunded ACORN over less than what BP did.
     
  4. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #4
    I would not try to cancel current contracts, the Feds would lose in court and end up costing us more. I would not be against more stringent rules to be applied to future contracts.

    Still, any new hurdle applied to BP should be applied to all, if any. BP will be paying out quite a bit for their problem and you damn well know that other companies are sure to try their best to prevent similar occurrences because no one likes to lose money.
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    but the ramifications from ACORN defunding were minor at best.

    BP would translated in to 10,000's of jobs. It would turn entire cities into new Detroits thanks to 100% the government. Not because of the industry.

    Alternative energy in the US would be set back years to even decades by taking out the largest player like that. They are the largest player in Wind Energy just counting the wind Energy part. They are using the Oil money and influence to push it even harder.
    I am not sure if they sold off their solar energy part but they were one of the big players their.
    As I said the ramification would be huge. But hey you can pay all those people salaries that are going to loss their jobs over that. The higher ups who really pushed all this issues will just get their moneys but the everyday people get screwed. All their engineers would loss their jobs. The people of the line get screwed and who is going to pay those salary.
    Unemployment befits to those people would not even be 1/3 of what they were making.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Umm...weren't you the same person arguing against auto and bank bailouts because of bad business practices? When others brought up job losses, you didn't seem too concerned about job losses then. ;) And this IS the result of bad business practices.
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    ACORN didn't provide the US with anything of substance. BP gives us energy, ACORN gives us voter fraud attempts.
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    BP also gives you black tarred beaches, destroyed industries and a massive heap of dead wildlife. When it comes to who's worst ACORN aren't even in the same league.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    No this would be the result of politics. Plus as some one else pointed out they would sue and more than likely win in court. This just means money for the higher up but still they will let people go (line workers) because they do not need them. Instead it just lines the people at the tops pockets.

    Do I think BP needs to be look very closely at for it safety record and see how it rates compare to others in the industry. Rate is accidents put 100k man hours. Is BP has a lot of faults. Oil industry (BP included) is insane at the rules they have on safety compared to other industries because of the risk factor. BP has done some really bad things and needs to be look at closely but defunding them would be nothing more than politics at its best.
     
  10. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #10
    .... BP has also directly enabled hundreds of millions to get to work, pick their kids up from school, transport goods, etc.

    Lets ease up on the demonization. They did not do this on purpose.
    Acorn DID purposely break the law.

    Why are we even comparing the two? Totally different, incomparable.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Defunding them would be letting them sink or swim on their own. Ya know, like most businesses. Let's see them make it on their own without government. It should be possible, right? And any entity, even the government, has the right to choose who they do business with.

    Wrong- certain individuals within ACORN broke the law, not the entire organization.

    And you're going to tell me that BP wasn't skirting regulations on purpose?
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    No defunding them is canceling all government contracts lleases BP has already paid for.

    They competed for those contracts so the government would be ripping it out from under them. In the long run we the people have to pay more because of less competition for those same things.

    In this case defunding them is canceling contracts BP competed to get. Plus there would be billions more than likely in termination clauses the government would have to pay and that money would only go line the people at the top.

    Remember most of the places to drill for oil in the US are on federal land. The rules to drill and get contracts to drill there must be the same for everyone. They can not single out a individual or company from getting access to it.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Yes, and I'd say they've broken said contracts. We should not be locked into a contract with any company that does this much damage. The longer this goes on, the more people are going to demand accountability.
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #14
    Ok then you can pay the billions in termination fees. I do not want one CENT of my taxes dollars to pay for something that be nothing more than a political move.

    If you feel so strongly about it raise the money to pay for those termination fees and pay for all the people who will be put out of work.

    That means salary and benefits.
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    If the contracts are terminated a new operator will be appointed. The new operator will require staff to perform exactly the same tasks. Total net change in employment = 0.
     
  16. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    If this were to happen, why would any oil company risk their very existence by working in or around the USA?
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    Minus the 6-12 months it would take for the change over and as making entire cities new detroits.

    Also what about alternative energy. BP is the biggest player in that market.
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    Very true. It sets bad precedents for any company any industry.

    If the political winds change you can loss you business due to the government coming in and killing it for pure politics
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    Corporate assets change hands millions of times a year, staff included. It does not lead to any layoffs. All that would happen here is that an interim management structure would be set up to maintain operation of the assets until the new owners take charge.

    If the worst happened and no new owner was found maybe it would be time for the Amoco brand to reappear.
     
  20. robotmonkey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #20
    Big industry is a must for the free-market, but big-industry and big-government in bed together is not. It is crap like this and the liability caps that are to blame for the oil spill.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Oh please. How is it a political move? And no- I don't owe the employees of any company that caused something like this one damn cent, Neither do you or the government.
     
  22. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #22
    The Supreme Court did rule that - at least in terms of campaign contributions - that business entities are entitled to the same rights as people. So if that's the case, couldn't we sentence BP to the death penalty?

    Wishful thinking on my part.

    Personally, I think the ramifications of defunding a private organization would reach far beyond what anyone could imagine.
     
  23. #23
    You're right, ACORN are far worse, they're pure thugs. Community organizers are some of the worst thugs in the entire country.

    They've changed their name now, but they're not fooling anybody!

    California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment[96] and New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change

    And in related news, the KKK has started a new public relations campaign and they've now changed their name to Concerned White Community Organizers for Change and a Better Tomorrow.
    :D
     
  24. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #24
    and the termination fees the government would have to pay.

    BP will sue and win for all that money. So instead the government is out double money.
    And it would be pure politics. Right now there is a lot of hate at BP for one reason and ONE reason only and that is the oil spill in the gulf. No other reason. From there they go digging up everything from the past. BP shaped up a lot after the explosion in Texas City and still doing things from that mess.

    The pushing to go faster. I am pretty sure other big players push for things to go faster. The Higher ups who do not know the ins and out of the little details but do know how long something should take tend to start complaining and pushing when things get behind schedule and that is the same at ANY company in ANY industry. It would be one thing to think about it if there was not so much hate but right now there is just anger and hate at BP so it is punish them farther than they should be.

    Also as some one pointed out it would set VERY bad precedents in this country and other companies would not want to do business here for fear of being turn against any second.
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    How could BP possibly win given the damage they've done? A contract does not give you the right to severely damage the property of your client.
     

Share This Page