>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

"I don't like Pepsi.. but Coke is even worse. Sooo, I'll just let Pepsi rot out all my teeth until I find a different sugary soda drink, Mountain Dew perhaps. "
(It's at this point, I would walk up and point out the jug of water sitting on the counter.)
'You know, this is free. You can get it yourself, and it doesn't rot your teeth.'
i.e. something like voluntaryism.

So what are you suggesting I do exactly? Stop paying attention to politics? Stop voting? Vote for some other candidate? Declare myself a sovereign citizen and refuse to pay taxes or obey laws, and pretend like that's going to change anything?

Also keep in mind, I'm not at all interested in trying to implement some radical right-wing philosophy no matter which label you put on it.

Well, remember how we were talking about taxes? If we're going to play the fashionable game and tack dollar values of benefits onto people's salaries to pad the number for demagogic effect, then my effective tax rate is even smaller, more like 8% if you add the value of my health & retirement benefits to my income. You really need to consider doing your taxes yourself, clearly your CPA is doing something wrong.

So here's the thing, you say firefighters have such a sweet deal because of unions. I have an idea, how about instead of taking away unions from firefighters, why not get unions for everyone?

As for why you get flack from liberals for being a selfish fascist when you bitch about taxes, it's because you never give anyone a reason to think you're somehow being treated unfairly. There's one set of Federal tax laws, and most of us can fill out our 1040 or 1040EZ, grumble, and go on with life. You aren't running your business as a charity to help the unemployed, you're trying to make a buck. There's no blankfist tax, or anti-entrepreneurial tax. On the contrary, there are tax subsidies for small business all over the place, to the point where little middle class worker bees like me get fucking tired of hearing about it.

GE somehow paid zero taxes, and got a 3.2 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam. Instead of bitching about the insanity of that, all you want to do is fuck over all public sector employees all across the nation because you think they might be getting a slightly better deal than you.

Surely by now you've seen this:

A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”

That's what you're doing.

Oh, and by the way, student loans are subsidized by tax dollars. As was your K-12 education, I suspect. I bet you've also taken advantage of the services of countless thousands or millions of people who had their education paid for or subsidized by tax dollars. I bet the navy taught you some marketable job skills even (beyond the right way to use a glory hole). You were probably born in a hospital that was subsidized by tax dollars, and delivered by a doctor whose education was subsidized by tax dollars, and received vaccinations for childhood illness that were developed by research subsidized or wholly funded by tax dollars. You might even occasionally use this thing called the Internet, which is based on technology developed at DARPA as part of the defense budget.

Look, I have sympathy for anyone who's struggling to make ends meet, and I know running your own business is tough -- that's why I haven't tried it. But it's your philosophy that says people have to own their failures even if it's not really their fault. If you were working for, say, Blockbuster the last 15 years, did an excellent job, but then got laid off because traditional rentals got destroyed by Netflix, that's your fucking problem, and nobody else should have to help you out with your plight. That includes bailouts in the form of tax cuts.

Me, I want a safety net so that if you seriously fall flat on your face, you won't have to worry about having a place to sleep, and food to eat, and will still be able to go see a doctor for the STD you picked up from fucking farm animals. I think all life is precious, and that the markets are a fickle and harsh mistress, while the nanny state should always welcome you into her large, welcoming bosom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Okay, so LA has a problem. It's not a nationwide epidemic, the average pay for firefighters simply isn't that high. Members of congress get paid $174,000 a year, the President gets paid $400,000/yr. You probably shouldn't be paying the average firefighter more than a House freshman, and the Fire Chief more than the President.

As for your architect, I'm not surprised by that at all. If you want to tell that as a story about taxes, you're probably going to have to at least provide an example of how the math works out so that you make less owning your own business than working for someone else solely because of taxes. I bet it's mostly due to the fact that there's not really a big market for a mom & pop architect out there even in good times, and especially given the state of the real estate market right now. Running your own business isn't easy, and it's certainly not the way to get yourself a stable source of take home income in a depressed economy.

I'm of two minds about your last paragraph. Someday I think I'm going to write some big blog posts about my life, and how it shaped my political outlook. For now, I'll just say I did ultimately have a privileged life compared to most, but not by as much as you seem to assume. I'm no trust fund baby -- and I went to school with enough of those to know the difference. I have a shitload more in common with the poor working class people in the neighborhood I grew up in than I do with the trust fund set I went to school with.

The trust fund set generally felt like accumulation of wealth and status was the primary route to happiness. The more working class people in my neighborhood saw money as more of a means to an end. Happiness for them was being able to not have to worry about whether they could afford groceries, or worry about their car breaking down, or having to borrow to make rent/mortgage payments, or medicine for sick kids. They didn't really care about having the nicest clothes, a nice car, gourmet foods, or who had membership to the more prestigious country club. Those were things my rich friends talked about constantly.

I grew up constantly switching between class experiences. Over time it made me see pretty clearly that money isn't the key to real happiness. I saw lots of unhappy rich people, and lots of happy poor people. Their outlook on life had more to do with things other than money.

Anyways, it sounds like you think you're engaged in a class struggle to try to help the lower classes get a leg up on the rich. If so, great, you and I are on the same side then.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Dude, is it so hard to believe a public employee makes $12,000 a month? That's only $144,000 a year, not $1.4 million. It's possible. Especially since so many groups are unionized in this state.

[snip]

My CPA also told me a story of an architect who got tired of struggling as a small business and having to pay so much in taxes, so he quit the private sector to make more money working for the city. You wanna call BS on my apocryphal architect?

And I do care about the taxes I have to pay. I envy you that you don't. You must've had a great life as a lawyer's son. Always having more than you owe. I wish we all could come from there so we could also take the same sanctimonious positions you do. Only people of privilege seem to say things like, "money isn't everything." As if they scowl at the rest of us for wanting better for ourselves. Now excuse me while I go back to that mom of yours I was fucking when I told you this story.

@blankfist, since you're sick, I'll try to make my point directly. My overall argument is that you're already living in a "voluntaryist" society, and just don't like the implications of the contract you've agreed to. What I'm saying here isn't how I see the world, but how I think you should be looking at the world based on your own principles. I am, indirectly, trying to show you that your own principles bear reexamining, or at least the conclusions you're currently drawing from them.

Now, back to making my argument:

You don't need to sign things to give consent. In your last comment you agreed that there can even be unwritten implications inherent in all agreements that must be considered binding (i.e. that a rental agreement with the mother would naturally allow her permission to add a child). Now the only missing piece is that I think there's an open question about the kid's options are if the mother dies or merely decides to move out, and the kid wants to stay in my house. For the sake of argument, let's say he's an adult when this happens.

I say that since it's still my house, the son is still obligated to follow the house rules, and obligated to contribute the way his mom was. I decide that since he was born here, it's only fair that I consider him a signatory to the agreement mom signed, and entitled to the full range of rights and duties contained therein. If he decides he can't abide by that agreement, then he should know he can't live in the house anymore, since he only gets the right to live there via that agreement.

More broadly speaking though, if I allow guests into my home, they implicitly agree to abide by my rules in the house. If they don't want to follow those rules, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. If they don't, I'm within my rights to use force to remove them.

This is entirely the situation with the US (or any other nation, for that matter). The government of the country holds allodial title to the land within its borders. What citizens buy when they buy title to land is fee simple -- it's ours, but not in the sense that it becomes sovereign territory exempt from all US law.

In other words, I think if you want to be assiduous about property rights being the sole determinant of authority, you are essentially making the argument that the government has a legitimate authority to levy taxes and enforce laws. Taxation isn't theft, refusal to pay taxes is theft. Violence against police who enforce laws you disagree with isn't self-defense, it's a breach of contract, and willful destruction of property (namely the bodies of the cops you injure).

Again, this is not how I see the world. I reject the notion that property imbues its owner with absolute authority, and I reject the notion that all contracts are inviolate.

^blankfist:
1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act.

So is choosing a country of residence.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun.

You're not forced to live in the US at the barrel of a gun.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied.

There are plenty of countries to choose from. Multiple have no taxes (or government for that matter).

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

Lots of people have no problem moving to another country regardless of where they were born. Changing citizenship requires more paperwork and more moving expense, but you are certainly free to do so. No one is pointing a gun at you saying you have to stay (though a landlord might end up pointing a gun at you if you refuse to pay).

If I don't like my rent, I move. If I don't like my taxes, I move. How is that absurd? I know there are taxes in the country I choose to reside within... that is not theft.

>> ^Yogi:

I hate all the things that make me want to play this stupid game!


I refuse to pay for it.

@NetRunner

I guess the point I was trying to make was that I have personally seen the system fail in the last 6 months. My brother was a fucked up mess mentally, and to this day is still irrational to the point that it's like trying to talk to a wall on many topics......especially topics that landed him in the court system. He's not quite as irate as he was, since he got the shit kicked out of him so bad in prison holding (contempt of court charge and was held until his trial could be completed and him sentenced, got probation). He was beaten by 5-8 guys, which they've only charged 2.....broke his shoulder bad enough that they thought he'd need surgery to repair it for the first couple days after it happened. He now has a virtually unusable arm, he can't lift it even as high as his should and there for awhile he couldn't grip anything or raise it beyond his waist. He was also knocked unconcious and had his head split open. And the kicker here was that prior to this they kept him in solitary due to his outbursts related to his mental condition. Within 24 hours of being put into the public areas of the prison, this happened to him. And they didn't press charges until he brought it up with his probation officer and they had no record of it when he mentioned it. They also withheld pain medications....and have now refused to pay medical expenses for what happened in jail...they've even billed him for the trip to and from the hospital for treatment.

Now....this incident could have been prevented a minimum of 3 months ago when they sent him to a mental facility in another city ...for evaluation. They told my parents he was going to be evaluated for a mental disorder (because this happened in the past and even though he went to months of treatment they never corrected it, just covered it). It turned out, the only thing he was being evaluated for was mental competency....does he know right from wrong. That's it. They didn't confirm if he was bipolar like previous diagnosed, or borderline personality disorder like previous diagnosed....or schizophrenic like they thought he was before bipolar was the diagnosis. So they took someone who had previously been diagnosed with a mental disorder, tested him for competency, held him in jail and on house arrest due to the mental disorder, and put then him on trial untreated for his mental disorder. He was put back into jail when he failed to take medications while on house arrest. What sane, rational thinking person would refuse to take a pill a day so he could stay in a house where he can eat regular food, sleep in a bed, take showers regularly..etc? And for that matter, what sane rational thinking person would chew out a judge and then refuse to take a piss test and land himself in jail in the first place when they were going to let him go bail free?

There was ONE, just ONE sheriff in the whole court building that took it upon himself seeing that my brother was not thinking properly...to try to get him in and out of the building without arresting him. All of the others wanted to take him down as soon as he left the court room...he told them no and that he would take responsibility for it. And from there on, everything else was an utter failure. The court system that could force treatment on him to get him back to normal didn't do it, and they are the only ones who can unless you get power of attorney over someone through a lengthy 6+ month process that costs a nice chunk of change.

There's just a near complete lack of division for criminals aside from the worst crimes such as rape, child crimes, and murder...after that..everyone is a criminal whether they truly understand their guilt or not or whether they can be "cured" or not. Personally after seeing what my brother has had happen to him, I think I'd rather be dead than go to prison on any charge......they don't foster anything but breakdown physical, mental, or emotional in those places.

@blankfist sorry about your teeth. When I had dental insurance, it was so shit all I could afford to have done was regular cleanings (I'm not even sure why I continued to pay for the insurance), I couldn't afford to fix any cavities. Now I don't have dental insurance and still can not afford to have 2 cavities filled. I just found out that there is a dental college in Dallas where I can go have dental work done on the cheap, So I'm going to call them after we get through Christmas.

Also, my son was born without any enamel on his teeth, he also has asthma and his medications cause tooth decay, so that poor baby's teeth were all fucked up for years. The dentist my insurance would pay for kept trying to sell me some coating for his teeth that was going to cost $1800 when it was all over and my insurance refused to pay. Needless to say, I was never able to afford it and his teeth got worse. I got laid off last year and lost my insurance so my kids now have medicaid. I took him to a new dentist, he ended up having to have oral surgery and the coating the other dentists were trying to sell me... apparently, it would not have fixed the problem but would have only made it worse. Also, the only problem I've had with medicaid in the year my kids have had it were the nightmarish bureaucratic issues.

Yes, it's expected but not okay.

~~
1. It's... to be expected because our two party political system is structured so that whomever has more money in a better drawn district gets re-elected.

Re-election = Power
Power = Money
Money = Re-election

The Citizens United ruling allows for multi-million dollar contributions from anonymous donors which means Big Corporation has only further entrenched itself within the Branches of Government.


2. There's... no accountability [*Mark Stevens notes at 16:20] because Congressmen don't actually represent their so-called "constituents".

No Politician or Government Official has an obligation to answer for the laws they enact or the policy actions they take.

They don't have to respond to your angry phone calls or letters.
They don't have to fear being replaced for years.
They simply pass the problem on and "step down" to become lobbyists.


3. If... you disagree, that's fine. However..

Refuse to pay, you'll be met with violence.
Resist that violence, you'll be imprisoned or murdered.
~~

The Power Elite: Politicians, Bankers, Administrators, Military run the show.

You can't expect them to provide We the People with what we want..
..because it's in direct conflict with what they need to do to retain their power.


* http://www.videosift.com/video/Incredible-Talk-with-Marc-Stevens-on-the-Legal-System

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^Yogi:
That's how elections work in this country.
You say this like it's expected and OK. That kind of complacency and expectancy is what's wrong here.
Why is it that I always read about people saying "oh this is just how it works" even though the people I end up talking with about it don't agree with it at all? Who the hell does the actual voting, then?
Granted this is all purely anecdotal evidence and obviously people from other parts of the country that I'm never going to meet are going to have these views but, I mean, is there NO accountability/responsibility anymore?

Why shouldn't he be able to give them the $75 when they arrive at the property to put out the fire? Because he hasn't paid in the past? What difference does that make?

Because it costs more than $75 per fire. It costs $75 per home to put out the fires that happen in a year. There's gotta be less than 1 in 100 homes that catch fire in a year, so even on the low-end the cost is $7500 minimum. The real cost per fire is probably upward of $10k.

What do you figure the odds are that the FD is gonna be able to collect upwards of $10k from a guy who just lost his home, and before that refused to pay $75? You can't charge for fire service after the fact because of the huge number of people that would, again, refuse to pay after the fire was out.

Normal market forces don't apply when the customer is under duress. You don't have time to shop around for the cheapest emergency room, so they charge whatever extortionate rate they want. The same thing would happen if we had a private fire department. They would charge you $10k for less than 2 man hours of actual work putting out your fire.

This is why every decent civilized country in the world has some form of national health service. The USA is not a decent civilized country.

But the guy in the video should have gone to a private practice GP instead of a hospital because it would be a lot cheaper.

Another thing, for most medical services, there is an apalling lack of diclosure of what things will cost before they're bought. Even if you ask a doctor, they don't even know. Now, IANAL, but forming a contract requires the actual informed consent of both sides. You can't become obligated to pay them jack shit unless you sign something agreeing to pay all the as-yet-unspecified costs, which is like handing them a blank check so they can pull ridiculous numbers out of their ass and make you pay it. Such a contract is not really enforceable; you are only obligated to pay the reasonable market costs of the serviced rendered. In a perfect world you shouldn't have any obligation to pay anything unless you are informed of the exact cost before purchasing the service. Unexpected complication costs should be amortized so that there is a clear up-front price that enables competition to exist properly. In addition, there is a strong argument that contracts of adhesion in the context of obtaining urgent medical care are signed under duress and therefore invalid. The guy in the video could just refuse to pay and see if the bastards try to take him to court to get their money. I bet they won't.

Sometimes blankfist, I think you are obtuse on purpose, just to aggravate me. Lately though, I think you just lack the mental capacity to have rational conversations.

@NetRunner, your cognitive dissonance shows every time you make an ad hom attack. This is progress!

What's completely and utterly false is the assertion that all types of intervention will always raises costs. What's also utterly false is that our medical cost inflation is a result of government intervention.

Well, Captain Contradiction, I'd agree that it's false that "all types of intervention" will raise costs. I never asserted that. In fact, here's my quote: "It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up." And it's true. 100% correct for the medical industry.

And you know how I know you know it's true? Do you? Because when I wrote "By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up." You responded with "Increases costs...but also increases the number of people alive at the end of the day, no?"

See that? That's affirmation of my statement. So you both agreed and disagreed that government intervention in the medical industry raises costs. Now, who's being obtuse? You're holding two belief systems, NR.

>> ^blankfist:

I know we're all largely atheists on here, but the predominant number of hospitals tend to be created by churches. Why? Because as much as we may despise dogma, these followers do sometimes hold the belief of taking care of their fellowman. This includes people with life-threatening illnesses.

Churches can do good works. I love the things they usually have to say about social justice, even if I have a fairly skeptical view of the type of reasoning they use to conclude there's a moral obligation for it.

That's why I want the nation I live in to set up a system that formalizes that universal moral obligation to provide care for those who need it.

It's why I'm happy the nation I live in has gotten 90% of the way there.

>> ^blankfist:

It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up.

Utterly and completely false. Virtually every country everywhere has a much higher degree of government intervention into the health care market, and literally every single country in the world's health care costs are less than ours per capita.

The kind of intervention matters a lot.

>> ^blankfist:
By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up. That's fact.

Increases costs...but also increases the number of people alive at the end of the day, no?

Let's look at this situation another way, and see if you don't understand it better. Should paying patients have a right to choose between paying full price, and getting a discount on their treatment, so long as they give the doctor permission to let a poor person die?

Of course, the smart thing to do here would be for everyone to have insurance, and feel free to see doctors for a small co-pay when they first get sick and get a simple, cheap treatment rather than wait (because they can't afford an appointment with the doctor) until they're at death's door and need radical and costly treatment to save their life.

>> ^blankfist:
If you ordered food at a restaurant, then refused to pay, would it be fair for the government to stop that restaurant from refusing service to you?


If food cost thousands of dollars, and could only be prepared by a small number of highly-educated people, and someone came into a restaurant already unconscious and minutes away from death...yeah, I think it'd be fair to say that restaurateurs have a legal responsibility to save a life first, and haggle over payment later.

>> ^NetRunner:

But here's the thing, unless you're prepared to tell doctors not to treat people with life-threatening illnesses if they can't immediately pay for their own care, you're going to wind up having your tax dollars going to cover the care of people who can't pay their medical bills when they have heart attacks or diabetic shocks (or end-stage lung cancer). Alternatively you're just going to make all healthcare more expensive so providers can cover losses.


Speculation and leading arguments. I'm not prepared to tell doctors anything, and neither should any one of us. I know we're all largely atheists on here, but the predominant number of hospitals tend to be created by churches. Why? Because as much as we may despise dogma, these followers do sometimes hold the belief of taking care of their fellowman. This includes people with life-threatening illnesses.

In fact, currently, hospices are free. When my grandmother passed away recently they didn't charge her a penny for their amazing services. They exist on charitable donations as far as I know.

It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up. By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up. That's fact.

If you ordered food at a restaurant, then refused to pay, would it be fair for the government to stop that restaurant from refusing service to you?

The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

The only ‘silencing of dissent’ is on the left side of the aisle. And how nice it all sounds… ‘Net Neutrality’, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Academic Fairness’… The left is the side that engages in the systematic suppression of dissent – not the right. I have a longer memory span than 5 minutes, and there is nothing BUT ‘dissent’ when the GOP is in the White House. Dissent was ‘patriotic’ during Bush, but now is ‘the party of NO’ during Obama, right? But of course good little left-wing zombies have no problem with that.

If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

If you break my stuff (and refuse to pay for it) then YES I 100% have to go through the courts to get compensation. You’ve proven my point. I don’t go to Obama’s pay czar. Court is where I go, and failing that, I call my congressman and let him know the courts aren't doing their job. I do NOT go to the Executive branch except to write a whiny letter.

I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.

This is patently untrue. You do have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response to wet yourself with fear whenever the word ‘government’ comes into play and ‘conservative’ is involved. The blind, unthinking, slavish trust only applies when a left wing radical is in charge. I believe it was Lenin (another leftist) who called these kinds of fanbois “useful idiots”. People who aren’t critical of government at all times and in all things are fools. The price of freedom is vigilance, and the only good government is LIMITED government.

I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this

Oh – well – that ignores history, facts, and precedent - but as long as you're SURE... You aren’t picking up what I’m putting down. I don’t care if Obama is distilled perfection made of unicorn hairs and angel feathers… It doesn’t matter if BP ‘volunteers’ (yeah right – then why the closed door meeting?). This is not something the Executive branch is allowed to do for ANY reason. Ever. Period. It has no authority to do this, and government isn’t allowed to just ‘assume’ authority over whatever they want no matter how munificent they may think they are.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

No – I’m defining ‘responsible’. BP isn’t responsible for lost business. Tourism down? Is that BP’s fault? Maybe partly. But you can also blame the media, the government, the economy, and a whole host of other parties for that. BP is responsible for damage and cleanup. That's it. I see no need for them to pay for ancillary issues that may or may not be related.

Everyone is answerable.

To who? When? You say ‘answerable’ but one of the main problems with federal government is that NO ONE is ever held responsible for anything. They never go to jail for breaking the law. They never pay damages for the consequences of their bad politics. So they ‘lose an election’? Awwwwwww – how terrible for them. They still keep getting money & payola. They still get political back-patting. They still get put on unaccountable ‘blue ribbon’ panels for exorbitant payoffs. They keep getting on TV shows and money for speeches, commentary and books. They still are put on cabinet positions, or other unelected unaccountable political jobs where they still effect policy and get away with murder.

See, when you really get down to the brass tacks the political class is in NO WAY ever ‘answerable’ for their bad behavior and terrible decisions. They just get a brief – all too toothless – wet noodling and then skate off clean while everyone else has to pay for them to keep on partying. Clinton. Impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Did he lose his office? No. Did he go to jail? No. Did he have to pay millions in damages? No. He got a tiny slap on the wrist and then the left circled the wagons around him and set him up for life so he’d specifically NEVER have to be truly culpable for his high crime. He should be in jail, or living in a cardboard shack, penniless and shunned to the end of his days. Instead he’s living high on the hog courtesy of constant political payola. And you call that ‘answerable’?

So what happens WHEN (not IF) Obama’s pay czar starts mis-handling the BP funds? Exactly HOW is he going to be ‘answerable’? To whom will he pay millions in damages? What jail will he go to? How will he be banned from politics for life afterwards? And how is Obama ‘answerable’ for unconstitutionally claiming money in the first place? But I don’t hear anyone making him ‘answerable’ for his unconstitutional, illegal act. All I see are left-wing zombies defending the illegal, and GOP cowards who don't have to guts to stand up for the constitution anymore.