Greg Sargent:Pressure on Boehner pays off?

[cal04]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/pressure_on_boehner_pays_off.html?wprss=plum-line

As I've been noting here, Dems have been pressuring John Boehner to say what, specifically, he'd willing to support in order to hold BP liable for the cleanup and damages associated with the Gulf disaster. Now he's finally clarified: He supports lifting the liability cap on BP.

(snip)
"Absolutely," Boehner replied. "They should be held responsible for every dime of this cost."

(snip)
It's still unclear how this will play out in practice. How much much Republican support there will be for the specific Dem proposal in the House that would actually accomplish what Boehner wants by lifting the cap completely and hold BP liable retroactively? What about in the Senate, where Republicans have repeatedly blocked efforts to lift the cap?

But Boehner did flatly endorse holding BP responsible for "every dime," putting him generally in the right place on the issue. His announcement amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that public rage at BP, and the public's desire that lawmakers hold the company accountable, have left Republicans little maneuvering room. In other words, the insistence on holding BP fully accountable is, and will continue to be, a very potent political issue for Dems.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Shouldn't this be in the sex toys forum?? n/t

[lob1]

2. I don't understand why there are limits in the first place.

If you and I somehow cause damage, we get no cap. It's just a way to protect the rich.

[theoldman]

3. The purpose of any cap is to keep the lawyers from completely destroying a company.

Let me put it in a way you may understand. If someone successfully sues you for 100 million dollars you are broke forever. You can never recover.

[The Magistrate]

4. That, Sir, is Pure Barn-Yard Product

The purpose of liability caps is to insulate companies from the consequences of their negligence and malfeasance, guaranteeing that the costs of same will be borne by the public and not by share-holders and bond-holders of the company.

It is certainly possible for a company to do more damage than it can pay for and survive, and then it should not survive, and had no business being in operation in the first place.

[Doctor_J]

5. Oh for chrissakes

prevent lawyers from destroying a company?!?!?!

Let me put it in a way you may understand. If you do $250,000 damage to your neighbor's property through willful negligence and/or malevolence, you would be responsible for the entire amount. Unless you lobbied your legislature for a cap of $50, and then acted recklessly, knowing that if anything went wrong you would be fine.