Replies

Did you call me a shill?

Ha! Now that’s funny.

There are Conspiracys, of course, and then there are Conspiracy Theories, which are unproved conjectures about what may have happened.

There is no hard evidence offered here, only a wild-ass conjecture that it someehow might have helped BP to blow up their own well (which has cost them billions in bad publicity, billions in clean-up costs, billions in lost revenue from the ruined well, etc.)

In summary: I am not a shill, but you and anyone else who thinks this was intentional are delusional.

Have a great weekend. I’m leaving on vacation now (with my vast oil-company payoffs for defusing the crack investigators on FR who have discovered our terrible secret!! ha ha ha ha)

There are Conspiracys, of course, and then there are Conspiracy Theories, which are unproved conjectures about what may have happened.

Until the conspiracies were proven, discussions about them were conspiracy theories. That didn't make them foolish then either. Without a hypothesis, one doesn't know what to measure.

There is no hard evidence offered here, only a wild-ass conjecture that it someehow might have helped BP to blow up their own well (which has cost them billions in bad publicity, billions in clean-up costs, billions in lost revenue from the ruined well, etc.)

And stands to pay off in hundreds of billions (if not trillions) via exclusions and cap and trade. Nice try.

I was asked to speculate about what might be BP's motives. So I did.

In summary: I am not a shill, but you and anyone else who thinks this was intentional are delusional.

With a proof like that you are certifiable. You clearly did not avail yourself of one of those articles which are all fully documented with historical references to original sources. There is good reason to be suspicious here, which is all I offered, per request.

There is no hard evidence offered here, only a wild-ass conjecture that it someehow might have helped BP to blow up their own well (which has cost them billions in bad publicity, billions in clean-up costs, billions in lost revenue from the ruined well, etc.)

I just received this by email, but it sums up BP's cash flow situation nicely, shill.

ACCOUNTING 101

It seems like a miracle that our leader was able to convince BP to establish a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate those hurt by the ongoing oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, he had no constitutional power to force them to do so.

Let us take a closer look at the effect on BP's 2010 finances:

BP will establish a $20 billion fund, but will pay only $7 billion into it during 2010.
BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity in the US.
By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), BP must book the entire $20 billion expense in the year accrued, i.e., year the liability is incurred. Therefore, they will book a $20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their US tax liability by $7 billion.
Our anointed leader also convinced this massive corporation to show their concern for the "small people" by withholding dividends to their shareholders for the last 3 quarters of 2010. This reduces their outward cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40% of that amount to US citizens. Assuming that the Bush tax cuts will survive through the end of 2010, the US Treasury will lose another $450 million in taxes on that amount. We won't even discuss the effect on the US economy.

Let us put the results into a table easily understood by the "little" people:

BP Cash Flow:

- Escrow funding ($7 billion)
- Dividend saving $7.5 billion
- Tax savings $7 billion
- Net favorable cash flow for 2010 to BP : $7.5 billion

U S Treasury Tax Receipts/Reductions:

- BP Corporate income tax (-$7.5 billion)
- BP Shareholders (-$0.45 billion)
- Net unfavorable tax receipts ($7.95 billion)

I guess we really should expect this. After all, our anointed leader is the most inexperienced man in any room he enters.

Scorecard:

BP Corporate Bean Counters - 1
Washington Tax Smart Guys - 0
American People - We Get BP (Bean Poop)

This isn't so hard to understand - BP made their largest political contributions to Obama's campaign. Obama plays politics acting tough on BP, and we pay.

Frankly, I admire BP for their deal making ability. They must have brought their accountants to the table. After all, BP is not a fly-by-night operation and Obama thought he and his minimal business experience tax people and accountants could take on BP.

I depart with the author that Obama had any intention of "taking on BP." He's a crook through-and-through.

This is not to mention the profits BP will make on the resulting shortages made without investing a dime in production.

I really get tired of useless idiots like you, Jack Black, but you serve a purpose. I get to show people how brain-dead the "all private enterprise is good" meme can be, because this isn't it. This is fascism, writ so large few can see it. Now, maybe you'll go back and peruse those links I posted for your benefit, eh sirrah?