I am sorry for not explaining what is happening here more clearly.
Obama is setting a precedent and making an example.
Any corporation that wants its wells back online will have to pay. BP’s just an excuse. The singleton example that allows a very bad reaction to become practical law.
If someone’s car loses the oil drain plug along my property, and dumps the oil along my property, I may or may not ask for damages — I certainly would have a claim if I did so. Still, my first concern would be helping them get out of their difficulty.
Yet when someone’s car leaks accidentally onto a would be dictator’s “property”, he then issues a seizing of everyone’s car and forces all to install special drain plugs and drain plug loss detection equipment that his biddy buddy Mr. Chicagoland makes. Then everyone has to pay a release fee to get their car back, and a new fee for a “trust fund” every year.
But he doesn’t stop there. The seizing sets an precedent. Before, no magistrate could seize a car because of “possible danger” — the danger had to be actual. Now every thing any one owns is subject to seizure by some made-up whimsy of a possible danger.
You were comparing asking the parents to pay for the rescue with asking BP to pay for the cleanup. But they you make it not about asking BP to pay for the cleanup but Obama’s extortion of BP. Then you compare asking the parents to pay for the rescue to the Obama’s extortion and implying that people who want the parents to pay are no different from Obama trying to extort BP.
Just stick to the issue and stop bringing Obama into it. This has nothing to do with him and his extortion.
This is about holding people accountable for their actions so that we can have a society of responsible people, without responsible people, freedom is not possible.