holy shit...

this AND OBAMA throwing out thousands of people out of work on oil rigs..

Only when one assumes, as the feds do, that all earnings (and wages) belong to the State.

And let's not foreget that Obama extorted $20 billion out of BP for a relief fund. I'm not so sure if the victims are seeing that money.

This article is very slanted. Look at this paragraph:

"Robert Yetman, associate professor for the University of California at Davis Graduate School of Management, said the critical question is whether the discussion between Obama and Hayward constitutes a "settlement."

Obama was extremely clear that the 20B fund was not a cap on their liability and that no settlement of damages had even been discussed because there was no telling how much the damages would amount to.

The amount of the fine for spilled oil has not yet been determined because it is dependent upon an estimate of the amount of oil spilled, if BP intends to take this 10B tax credit that's just fine but gee whiz...there was more oil spilled than we first thought. The fine is going to be about 10B higher.

"And let's not foreget that Obama extorted $20 billion out of BP for a relief fund. I'm not so sure if the victims are seeing that money."

Always cracks me up to see someone play the violin for poor BP.

$20 billion is fraction of the damage they've done. 100% of their US assetts should have been seized.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2010-07-28 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag

Don't forget, if the bill goes higher, the credit will go higher. Who do you think is going to pay that credit? Oh yeah, us, because it is less money that goes into their payment for the disaster.

BP is simply doing what corporations already do all the time - turn losses into $. I don't like it either, but I've never liked any corporation being able to do it.

Aflakofacts,

"this AND OBAMA throwing out thousands of people out of work on oil rigs.."

Link Please, not about "throwing out thousands of people", we have become accustomed to your pathetic immigrantesque grammar, Mr. proud example of Texas educational system, but about the thousands of jobs.

Please show your source for this ridiculous claim.

Isn't this just BP writing off the expenses relating to the clean up, just like any other business would do? If I own a business, and have a lawsuit and spend money defending or paying damage, why wouldn't I get to write that off? If what they are doing is within the tax code, what is wrong with it?

old..you HAVE to be fuckin around...you cant be serious to think that I just made that up...

puuulease...

BP is simply doing what corporations already do all the time - turn losses into $. I don't like it either, but I've never liked any corporation being able to do it.

#7 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

So.......... Who do you suppose gave them the tax credit? My guess is the US government. What do you think?

#11. wouldn't surprise me if most DRs support a retroactive amendment to the law to specifically take this away from BP, ab initio. Mob fucking rule.

"Don't forget, if the bill goes higher, the credit will go higher."

They can write off expenses but I'm not sure that a fine can be expensed. Where is TAxman???

#13. Has a fine even been levied yet?

So.......... Who do you suppose gave them the tax credit? My guess is the US government. What do you think?

#11 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-07-29 12:34 PM

I'm thinking, wow, that's a great guess. Nice work!

"Mob fucking rule."

As if an oligarchy is any more legitimate than mob rule.

So.......... Who do you suppose gave them the tax credit? My guess is the US government. What do you think?

#11 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Of course it was the government. The government who is bought and owned by huge corporations. The government that no longer functions to serve the interests of the electorate, and now exclusively serves the corps and oligarchs. The government who allows corps to write their own tax laws and cheat the rest of us. The government you love when repubs are in power, but hate when dems are in change. THAT government.

British Petroleum dipping back into the American taxpayer cookie jar!!?

Cut off their hands - this is ridiculous!!

and, uh, criminal charges? You know, for, like, crimes? Jail and bail and all that stuff?

Doesn't apply here (or Wall Street, for that matter)?

Someone in the US please test this theory for me: go do an oil change on your car at noontime in the middle of the street where everyone can see you. Drain the old oil right onto the road, drop the old filter on the sidewalk. And report what happens. Thanks in advance.

Thanks der. I worked long and hard on that one.

It's hilarious to watch all the libtards act as though BP should just give up a tax deduction it is entitled to under the law simply out of good will. The sole purpose of a corporation is to generate money - and anyone who thinks BP or any other company would forego a $9.9B tax break because they "feel bad" or are afraid of whiners has no absolutely no concept of what it means to run a business.

So you think taxpayers should be paying for BP's negligence, Joe? Thank goodness Obama got $20 billion from them. Republicans would have BP pay next to nothing.

So you think taxpayers should be paying for BP's negligence, Joe?

No. They aren't. Unless you consider every time a business makes a bad decision that results in a loss they claim on their tax return to be "taxpayers paying for the business's negligence." If so, you've got a lot of complaining to do.

It's hilarious to watch all the libtards act as though BP should just give up a tax deduction it is entitled to under the law simply out of good will. The sole purpose of a corporation is to generate money - and anyone who thinks BP or any other company would forego a $9.9B tax break because they "feel bad" or are afraid of whiners has no absolutely no concept of what it means to run a business.
#21 | Posted by JOE at 2010-07-29 06:04 PM

Corporate "realism" means facing the obvious fact that any corporation viewed as an entity is obsessively self-interested and entirely without compassion, lacking all human qualities such as humility, ie FASCIST.

Thanks for your frank input.

Hmmm... Here is an idea for corporate person hood. We allow them to represent their stock holders ok well then the stock holders already have their representative and no longer get to vote.

Or get rid of corporate person hood they are already represented by their owners, employees and customers. They get no say in what the government does.

Seriously, who do you think pays the fines levied on big business? It's the consumer. Duh. It all gets passed on down as a cost of doing business.

Oh, and by the way.... Welcome to America.

Corporate "realism" means facing the obvious fact that any corporation viewed as an entity is obsessively self-interested and entirely without compassion, lacking all human qualities such as humility, ie FASCIST.
Thanks for your frank input.

#24 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT AT 2010-07-29 08:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I think all persons are obsessively self-interested. Also, some corporations do act compassionately and with humility. Some don't. They are, in fact, just like people. You have your rich, greedy scumbags of the world. Then, you have the ones who are concerned with humanity, provide shelter and a means of living to others. Well, corporations do the same thing.

They are wonderful creatures that have birthdates, and they all eventually die. During their life, they provide for people and create goods and services. They pay taxes, and pay employees who use that money to pay more taxes. They allow investors to put money into them with the hope that such money will grow and cause prosperity.

You should take it easy. Breathe deeply, and accept it, or not. Your choice.

So you think taxpayers should be paying for BP's negligence, Joe? Thank goodness Obama got $20 billion from them. Republicans would have BP pay next to nothing.

#22 | POSTED BY DEREK_WILDSTAR AT 2010-07-29 06:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Not true. I'm a Republican, and think that they should pay for all the damage, without any kind of cap. But, if the snivelers in Washington put caps on liability, then I think BP should pay what they are legally obligated to pay. If there was no legitimate reason for the cap (which there might have been), then every Congressman who voted for it should be responsible at the polls.

GOP's Oil-Spill Liability Bill Would Have BP Only Paying $150 Million

Under the leading Republican plan for BP's post-spill economic liability, those affected would receive potentially as little as $150 million due to the oil giant's expected record loss in this latest quarter.

On Monday evening, BP announced that, in the wake of the massive spill in the Gulf, it would report $17 billion in losses for the past quarter.

Under current law, the economic liability for a company responsible for a spill is $75 million. Democrats have, since the BP crisis began, tried to lift that amount, first to ten billion dollars and then, simply, by removing the cap altogether.

Instead, the GOP has rallied around a counter-proposal, authored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would cap an oil company's liability at an amount equal to its profits of the last four quarters. If the company had not made a profit in the past four quarters, it would be liable for $150 million (or twice the current cap).

Seriously, who do you think pays the fines levied on big business? It's the consumer. Duh. It all gets passed on down as a cost of doing business.

Oh, and by the way.... Welcome to America.

#26 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-07-29 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's the long and short of it. Too bad lefty socialist, hope to be commies can't get that through their thick skull.

Who are the wealthy in a soicalistic/communistic coutnry? Oh that's right, the politicians. I almost forgot.

Who are the wealthy in a soicalistic/communistic coutnry? Oh that's right, the politicians. I almost forgot.
#30 | Posted by Washboard at 2010-07-29 11:24 PM | Reply

Would Germany count as one of your socialistic/communistic countries? I'd really like to know. France? Some other countries you can actually name (you don't have to be able to find them on a map, don't worry) that would fit into your fantasy?

imo, the US is becoming communistic (sic) the way China is - they're going around the bend and meeting at the other side, something akin to the heyday of the Industrial Revolution, but without all the Goodwill this time.

#29 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2010-07-29 11:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Except the HuffPo is intentionally being misleading in this case. Note that the liability would have been the amount of profit for the last 4 quarters. BP's profit over the last 4 quarters BEFORE the spill was something like $27B. HuffPo, in all it's retardedness, ignored this little tidbit and intentially stated the lower number which is not based on...anything.

Not to say that the GOP proposal isn't crap - the rule should be, you break it, you pay for it with NO cap in place.

On topic...the law says you get to write off losses/expenses. You don't like it, change the law. Unless BP is breaking some sort of tax law, there's nothing we can do about this.

Then how can BP be posting a loss and receiving a tax break? Either way, the Republicans would love to limit BP's liability to $150 million and you know it. Exxon is only paying $150 million for their Valdez disaster because Republicans wouldn't hold them accountable.