It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Promises Gulf Victims Uncapped Damages

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I want everyone to remember this statement, bookmark it, save it however you choose but this will not happen.

Send this to all your friends in the Gulf Region.

I understand politicians make promises they can't keep, but this is almost as silly as saying the seafood in the Gulf is safe to eat. Wait! he said that too. sigh! shakes head


Obama to seize control of BP claims process.





"This disaster has taken their ability to make a living away from them," he said. "We need to do this quickly, and we have to make sure that whatever money goes into that — that in no way caps what BP is responsible for. Whatever money they owe to anybody in the Gulf, they're going to have to pay regardless of the amount."




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I wonder if we can all claim mental distress and suffering?


I can't even imagine the scope of what the claims will be. I am certain they will have all kinds of restrictions and red tape for people to deal with. And only the people with really good lawyers will prevail.

BP needs to give up the last ten years of profits for this mess, in my opinion, and even that will not ever cover the "Priceless Mess" they have caused.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It doesn't say uncapped damages. It says whatever funds are put into it, is not putting a cap on BPs liability.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 



Let's read his quote again. "Whatever money they owe to anybody in the Gulf, they're going to have to pay regardless of the amount."

That means uncapped to me.





"This disaster has taken their ability to make a living away from them," he said. "We need to do this quickly, and we have to make sure that whatever money goes into that — that in no way caps what BP is responsible for. Whatever money they owe to anybody in the Gulf, they're going to have to pay regardless of the amount."



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I wonder how much compensation americas victims all over this world get, you guessed it. Nought.

Imagine how many innocent people have been tortured by americans for no reason other than americans can do what they want.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The hard truth....

If BP cannot pay for legitimate claims and the the economic consequences of thier actions....then they are in the wrong business and deserve to be driven to bankruptcy.

Anyone who is a fan of the free market should support this capitalistic truth.

They engaged in a campaign of cost-savings, by neglecting and avoiding safety measures wherever possible. It was cheaper to wine, dine, court and generally bribe the Mineral Management Services than it was to implement neccessary precautions.

The tactic they are currently employing is to go to fisherman and settle early and fast. "Sign this waiver saying you will never file a claim or sue BP and we will give you a check for $5,000...otherwise you can wait for a settlement and by then your family will likely be homeless and starving"

AND we will not employ you to clean up the spill unless you sign.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
They need to pay ALL LEGITMATE CLAIMS FULLY...NO CAPS....NO STRONG-ARM WAIVERS....JUST PAY FOR YOUR MISTAKES.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I wonder how much compensation americas victims all over this world get, you guessed it. Nought.

Imagine how many innocent people have been tortured by americans for no reason other than americans can do what they want.



So...

Anyone that has been unjustly injured etc. by American military or intelligence actions should file suit in thier local government or international courts...it happens often..and I will support them as well.

Are you saying that it is OK if the CIA nabs and tortures someone abroad that turns out to be innocent? ...so it is OK that BP doesn't pay for it's corruption and mistakes as well? They can reap the profits, but not bare the costs of thier actions?

Confused on how this is relevant.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I wonder what will be worse BP handling claims or the US government?


Who would you want to handle the claims?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
the US gov won't remove the cap

______beforeitsnews/story/46/601/Jackass_Republicans_Making_the_People_of_the_Gulf_Coast_Pay_for_BPs_Recklessness.html
Recently, the Republican Party showed its absolute contempt for the people of the Gulf Coast by blocking the effort to raise or eliminate the 75 million dollar cap.

But in a despicable display of political puppetry:

....Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma used procedural move to stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor, saying that raising the cap would hurt smaller drillers.

www.dailykos.com...
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) says he is skeptical that BP will make good on its pledge to pay for economic damages from its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, adding that CEO Tony Hayward would not commit to paying for any costs above its $75 million liability cap.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



Damn interesting!

What a load of crap politicians promise people in a time of crisis. $75 million won't pay for even toilet paper from all those people that will be affected.

Thanks for the info.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Remember this guy Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He oughta be impeached!!!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
This is merely setting the stage folks. Eliminating the cap on BP sends a clear message to the other companies operating on US soil in this industry. The message is simple. "Get Out or Shutter up your business!"

Say bye bye to the companies and the jobs that they provide because the risk will far outweigh the benefit.

This issue in the Gulf goes way above and beyond any dollar amount. Actually it goes beyond comprehension. The money will be worthless by the time this problem can be solved and a recovery can begin. Meanwhile, the oil is still pumping into the Gulf and another blow with a dull sword is struck upon this region.

Furthermore, in a disaster as great as this, how do you determine who is a victim and who is not? Who should be compensated more than the next person? What about all of those indirectly impacted? Who compensates the property owners for the billions of dollars in lost property value and equity? On and On it goes...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Obama just hates anything having to do with Great Britain. Obama hates America, founded by British men, he hates the Constitution written by British men, he hates the Queen who is German but still..., Obama just seems to have it our for those he feels are responsible for impeding global tyranny.

Killing America isn't enough for this maniac, he wants to kill the mother country that birthed us as well.

I think it is symbolism of the highest order appealing only to an elite few.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Nope. Removing the cap means telling those corporatists to be responsible for their activities. If the screw up by cutting corners, then they will have to pay the price for harming the nation and its people.

There are vast resources in US. And no one who loves earning money like the corporatists do would pass up even a single opportunity to do so. NOW, they have to be more responsible and not take americans for a ride they way they do to the rest of the world.

As for compensation, its not a difficult task. It takes only tabulations, a good lawyer and screw BP the way it screwed the gulf state people. No way must BP allowed any mercy, for it had showed none to the 11 dead on the rig and livelihood destroyed. It was no accident, but wilful negligence of the highest order.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
This is merely setting the stage folks. Eliminating the cap on BP sends a clear message to the other companies operating on US soil in this industry. The message is simple. "Get Out or Shutter up your business!"


Ummm. I think the message would be more like...Corporations that make 17 Billion in profits each year should not be limited to 75 Million when they Ef up (less than their average daily profits by the way)

Corporations which forgoe the expense of taking appropriate safety measures..who decide it is cheaper to buy-off the Mineral Management Services than implement safety measures...corporations who engage in campaigns of fraud and corruption to save a few dollars on safety...they should pay for when they *&^% up the lives of thousands of Americans.


Say bye bye to the companies and the jobs that they provide because the risk will far outweigh the benefit.


Yes...BP has done wonders for the employment status of the Fisherman, Restaurant owners, tourist industry et al. along the entire gulf coast.

Seriously wtf are you talking about?



Furthermore, in a disaster as great as this, how do you determine who is a victim and who is not? Who should be compensated more than the next person?


My first thought is tax returns and financials. What did a given Fisherman/restaurant owner etc. make pre-spill? post spill? plus clean-up costs, re-imburse taxpayer dollars for Coast Guard deployment etc.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by jibeho
This is merely setting the stage folks. Eliminating the cap on BP sends a clear message to the other companies operating on US soil in this industry. The message is simple. "Get Out or Shutter up your business!"


Ummm. I think the message would be more like...Corporations that make 17 Billion in profits each year should not be limited to 75 Million when they Ef up (less than their average daily profits by the way)

Corporations which forgoe the expense of taking appropriate safety measures..who decide it is cheaper to buy-off the Mineral Management Services than implement safety measures...corporations who engage in campaigns of fraud and corruption to save a few dollars on safety...they should pay for when they *&^% up the lives of thousands of Americans.


Say bye bye to the companies and the jobs that they provide because the risk will far outweigh the benefit.


Yes...BP has done wonders for the employment status of the Fisherman, Restaurant owners, tourist industry et al. along the entire gulf coast.

Seriously wtf are you talking about?



Furthermore, in a disaster as great as this, how do you determine who is a victim and who is not? Who should be compensated more than the next person?


My first thought is tax returns and financials. What did a given Fisherman/restaurant owner etc. make pre-spill? post spill? plus clean-up costs, re-imburse taxpayer dollars for Coast Guard deployment etc.



I am fully aware of the circumstances that those who live along the entire Gulf are facing. I have a friend in Gulf Shores AL who is poised to lose everything he invested in his business. This goes beyond comprehension like I stated in my earlier post. Understand that and don't buy into the simple act of demonizing of BP for simplicity sake. BP was allowed to function with virtually no oversight.

There has to be a limit somewhere. Granted 75 million is a very low number in the greater scheme of things. However, this disaster will go well beyond a simple dollar figure. It also goes way beyond trying to place full blame and accountability on BP like you would like to do.

Look into the MMS (Minerals Management Service) and their role in this mess as directed by the current administration.

The MMS has had its share of pathetic internal problems that were revealed and being corrected towards the end of Bush's term when the baton was passed to Obama.


The cleanup had already begun in the last months of the Bush administration, but President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still had their work cut out for them. Not only did they have to enforce ethics rules, they had to ensure responsible management of the offshore oil platforms that are a key part of the MMS portfolio, a huge contributor to the national economy, and a continuing environmental risk.

The problem was, Obama and Salazar were more interested in pursuing their vision of a clean energy future. Under Obama, the Minerals Management Service, driven by a strongly ideological commitment to green energy sources such as wind and solar power, chose to stress "renewables" while de-emphasizing the tough and dirty work of managing the nation's existing offshore oil wells.

"What they did essentially was divert the attention of the agency away from regulating offshore drilling and focus it on the expansion of offshore renewables," says one well-informed Republican House aide.

It started early in the new administration. Salazar's first departmentwide order, issued March 11, 2009, was to declare "facilitating the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy top priorities for the Department."

Salazar chose Elizabeth Birnbaum to head the MMS in large part because of her record of environmental and green-energy advocacy. "We have changed the direction of MMS," Salazar told the Senate last month, "by balancing its ocean energy portfolio to include offshore wind and renewable energy production." Given the considerable size of the existing offshore oil industry, "balancing" the MMS portfolio meant putting a heavy emphasis on new offshore wind projects. "They were more into renewables offshore than they were into oil and gas," says a GOP Senate aide who works in the area.

Birnbaum, who is so far the only Obama administration official to lose a job over the Gulf oil spill, spent an enormous amount of time working on the controversial Cape Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts. After years of regulatory wrangling, it was approved April 29 -- nine days after the oil-rig explosion that set off the Gulf spill.

Birnbaum came in for heavy criticism of MMS' handling of the Deepwater Horizon/BP Gulf oil project. The general tone of the critique was that MMS had not paid enough attention to regulating such environmentally sensitive undertakings. What received less attention was why that attention wasn't paid, and that was because Interior and MMS were busy pushing offshore renewable energy projects.

Shortly after Birnbaum was fired, her defenders told the trade publication Environment and Energy Daily that "she had not been ordered to clean house at the scandal-stained agency, but to promote renewable energy." When Salazar paid half-hearted tribute to Birnbaum the day she left, all he could come up with was that she had helped Interior deal with "the very difficult issues on standing up offshore wind in the Atlantic."


The focus was on Green clean energy NOT OIL ever since this admin. took over. It has been about the advancement of a bizarre AGENDA since day one


Wind, not oil, was the MMS offshore energy priority. Even when MMS addressed oil industry problems, it seemed only half interested. For example, on June 17, 2009, MMS began a procedure for coming up with new rules that would "require operators to develop and implement a safety and environmental management system for their oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf." Nothing came of it.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers were fighting the last war. After the sex, drugs and influence scandal that rocked MMS in September 2008, senators and representatives came up with plans to reform the agency. They proposed to turn the director of MMS -- currently appointed by the secretary of the interior with no input from Congress -- into a position nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Other proposals involved cleaning up the way MMS handles the enormous amounts of revenue it collects from oil companies.

All were good ideas and would have improved MMS had they been enacted. But they would not have addressed the problems that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. And they would not have awakened an administration that, dazzled by the dream of renewable energy, neglected the dull but crucial work of keeping watch over the nation's offshore oil industry.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


Furthermore, The Deep Water Horizon was flagged under the Marshall Islands not the United States.

Oil Spill Surprise: Who's in charge of BP's oil rig safety? Not the USA



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
dont worry about the damages payment, just give these people back their quality of life before the spill.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


BP will be bankrupt very soon. Lets see them compensate then.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Sorry to burst the bubble here but the truth is that BP is now paying for damages to the gulf coast people and those that were injured in the accident, the fisherman and businesses that are losing with the spill out of their own good will.

But when BP goes into litigation, they will stop paying anything.

Why? because our on laws, regulations, caps on injuries and accidents are going to be used against us on this.

See, the US president can not force BP to pay for anything but the clean up efforts to a point.

As soon the government takes over BP clean up the pay outs will end, tax payer will foot the bill.

Is our own laws working against us.

Right now Obama can say anything he wants but the truth is that he can not tell BP to do anything.

Do not blame the President for the disaster or the way things are working with the spill, blame those that came before him that passed the laws and regulations that now he is bind to it

US Can't Force BP to Cut Dividends: Giuliani

www.cnbc.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why doesnt Obama change the law, he does it for everytjing else that suits him



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join