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.

 

Is Fed Gov out of line on 20bn BP? Dictator Obama?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It is now being asked..."what is the legal justification for the 20bn demand? Is Obama being a dictator?"


Its 20 bn or the Fed will start legal moves. People do this every day from small firms and up in all maner of negotiations to forgo many types of fallout...like massive legal fees and a good beating in the press.

BP is not being forced into anything but facing the fact that they would lose on so many fronts if they bucked Obama or anyone else. Why? They have no way of winning here.

I know around here and many other places not only can a judge shut down small bussinesses on the spot for any number of enivironmentally irresponsible actions but many types of operations must carry insurance or post a bond to show at least abiltiy to compensate in case of an accident.

Look at this....


This $20bn does not include civil penalties, where BP is liable for up to $4,300 for every barrel spilt if it is found to have acted negligently. If 40,000 barrels per day keeps flowing until August, when a relief well is hopefully completed plugging the leak for good, and BP does not improve on its current collection rate, this could add a further $14bn to the bill.t


Look at the way they already have a set amount per barrel....as if they can argue in court that thats all they are liable for....even if cost ends up being so much more. And in our currnet case this is based of spec!

They are actually getting off easy here as they will certainly use this payment as a sort hands up "oh we paid" over the years when the lawsuits hit the fan.


But it is not in Obama's interests for the company to go bust; he will want it to remain a cash cow – not for its shareholders, but to make good the damage which has been done – however much or however long it takes.


This may end up costing so much that the gov may have to step in and pay in advance whiel BP will pay back into the fund over time rather than going bankrupt. But do we really need to hear about this over the years in prolonged court battles? We have seen how many have used the system to avoid settling fairly over and over again. Why should we expect anything different here if the gov doesnt step in?

News UK




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
BP should be bankrupted and its assets liquidated to pay for the clean up costs.

Every available asset of BP should be sold at auction.

Of course, that will never happen.

Not while criminals run our government.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
BP is now using words like shake down! In reality its the tax payer and private citizens that have been getting the shake down....as tax money has been used for years to pay for cleanups of all types...whiel the guilty party just files bankrupsy or some other dodge.


This fund was exhausted by the end of FY2003; since that time funding for these orphan shares has been appropriated by Congress out of general revenues.[15]


Superfund

It seems that big capital just makes it hard on itself and gives the stateists all the amo they need and have infact given them impetus as fed money has been paying anyway! So what are you crying about?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Well out here in the real world that and other things is just what would happen. But BP should be kept alive so they can pay over time if they must.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
newsbusters.org...

MSNBC's Schultz Asks When Obama Will 'Become a Dictator' on Gulf Cleanup

"Dictator' on Gulf Cleanup
By Matt Hadro (Bio | Archive)
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 17:47 ET

When asked what President Obama needs to do to prove to Americans that his administration is on top of the Gulf cleanup, Ed Schultz pressed that the President needs to call the shots and go "dictator" in his dealings with BP.

"I think the President has to make it very clear to the American people tonight, Chris, that we're not going to be stuck with the bill on this," Schultz said about the BP oil spill.

"When does the President become a dictator on this?" Schultz asked in an outburst. "When does the President start really calling the shots and saying 'This is the number. This is what you're going to pay. We're not going to let you off the hook.'?"

He sternly warned that BP will do its level best to escape having to pay the full cost of the oil spill cleanup, and implored the President to be frank with BP in demanding that they pay full restitution."


"Why are Woody Allen & MSNBC Chris Matthews calling for making Obama Dictator (just for a little while)?

answers.yahoo.com...

Woody Allen declared that Obama is doing cool things and needs some time as dictator to get the things done without the interference of the Republicans - So you pesky people who want democratic rule and not a king with dictatorial power get lost is what Woody Allen is saying.

Chris Matthews was going off about the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and called for the execution of the BP management and for Obama to take over dictatorial powers like Hugo Chavez would have because the oil spill is a national problem. - He went on to say all Oil Companies should be nationalized."


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



Yea this is all very much out of hand. Obama or whatever agencies that deal with these problems dont really have to go dictator. What a mess.

The EPA could go heavy on this. Obama sould avoid looking like a dictator here as well already have ways of taking care of this problem.

Why couldnt dumba## Chris just say Teddy Roosevelt? Or something!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
When a president is elected by a majority of the voters he is not considered a dictator. This thread is one of many that have a misleading and wrong title, ment to spread misinformation. Now Bush was almost a dictator. Notice how BP put up no resistance? Do you think there was some secret threats to BP?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
When a president is elected by a majority of the voters he is not considered a dictator. This thread is one of many that have a misleading and wrong title, ment to spread misinformation. Now Bush was almost a dictator. Notice how BP put up no resistance? Do you think there was some secret threats to BP?


You just had a knee jerk reaction. Not calling Obama a dictator here just addressing the question.

BP gave no resistance becouse there is none! And yes they probably were presented with the ugly alternative. You dont think BP would love to fight this in the traditional meathod? Like they are some poor firm that just had a spate of bad luck and so now must "protect" themselves in court.

Bull crap!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
There were a lot of posts complaining about the Government not doing enough about the situation and complaining that the Government was letting BP get away with it.

Now something finally comes up and we have people complaint about it being out of line or too harsh?

That's the problem with America. We've had so many rights that now everybody goes in diffrerent directions.

Maybe the government should become a police state for a couple of yrs so that WE ALL (myself included) could see all the crap that we take for granted.

People complain about Obama.

Besides rumors that people post on here with half baked evidence I still haven't seen anything really solid to make me an Obama hater.

I will admit that at first I was pissed that Obama had one b/c ifthe rumors that "we Americans" started about gun control. "We" raised the price on guns and ammo and then cried about it.

"We" start rumors on websites like this and the start going crazy with all the "what ifs".

I hav nothing against this website. I actually love coming on here. There are a lot of important factual stuff on here but the other side, you people post some off the wall crap quoting what the friend of a friend's friend's third cousin told your brother-in-law's uncle which he heard from his sister's friend while she was getting her hair done and actually make it sound official lime it came out of the horses mouth.

Sorry, I'm obviously venting and went really off subject with this but please please stop complaining about onething the when some kind of "resolution" finally comes thru then we go and complain about that too.

That's why we're slowly losing our freedom.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


perhaps you missed all the vote fraud convictions ohio and florida?
the voting machine fiasco
here watch this
www.youtube.com...
Roberts: 'AIPAC purchases US elections'
he was a serious official under Reagan



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Tnewguy
 



None of that is going on with this thread. Not kissing his a## either.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by earthdude
 


perhaps you missed all the vote fraud convictions ohio and florida?
the voting machine fiasco
here watch this
www.youtube.com...
Roberts: 'AIPAC purchases US elections'
he was a serious official under Reagan


There we no convictions in Ohio....I lived a block from the said voting station and know all about it and it was myth trust me.

The complaint was not enough mechines for the large turn out....thats all it ended up being. But there were the same number of mechines there as ther always way and I know becouse I voted there before and was in the room on the day in question.

They have sence opened up another station about 3 blocks from that one.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Logarock]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


are you talking of the same cases?
if we are I"ll stand corrected
if we aren't I had ment during the bush Kerry election -point being
a concrete example of the vote system being untrustable
ergo dictator installed

Ill take yor word for it either way after all you were on the ground

" be Questioned by Special Prosecutor Before Sentencing to Learn if Higher Ups Involved
RELATED: Kerry Drops Out of 2008 Race. In Advance This Time.
From AP..."
www.bradblog.com...
"CLEVELAND (AP) — Two election workers in the state's most populous county were convicted Wednesday of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.

A third employee who had been charged was acquitted on all counts.

Jacqueline Maiden, the elections' coordinator who was the board's third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee.

Maiden and Dreamer also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty.

Golly. We're shocked. We wish we would have paid closer attention to that whole 2004 Ohio Presidential Election scam thing instead of ignoring it all these years.

Oh, wait, that was just about everyone else other than The BRAD BLOG, across the near-entirety of both the MSM and the bulk of the Progressive blogosphere.

That aside...as pointed out in the article, the two who were convicted in Cuyahoga County were still pretty small fish...

[Special prosecutor Kevin] Baxter said he intends to speak with Maiden and Dreamer before their scheduled sentencing on Feb. 26 to see if they wish to make any statements that might influence the sentence.

"We'd like to listen to them if they had anything to say, if anyone else was involved with this. We still haven't been able to determine that," he said.

A message was left Wednesday with elections board director Michael Vu.

By way of reminder, the recount --- the one that was rigged by Ohio Elections Officials --- came by way of the Green and Libertarian Party candidates, not by way of the Democrats or John Kerry. As well, the money to pay for the gamed recount was raised by folks on the Internet, not paid for out of the $15 million or so that Kerry reportedly had left in his campaign war chest after the "Election" in Ohio.

All of that, despite Kerry's continued and then broken promise to "Count Every Vote" in 2004.

These convictions occurred in Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold of some 600,000 voters. Kerry "lost" the state of Ohio, according to the history books anyway, by just 118,000 out of some 5.5 million votes cast in the Buckeye State."



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The president's #1 job is to protect the nation. Period. What BP has done is akin to an attack without firing a shot. Yes, it was unintentional, but the gulf economy will be devastated, the wildlife damages will be unheralded (possibly on a worldwide scale), and there is a potential for loss of human life thanks to the chemicals.

Accidents happen, I am not discounting that this was NOT intentional... but the end result is the same.

When I heard Neil Boortz today on the radio bellyaching about how Obama has "overstepped his authority" in mandating that BP put aside the $20bn, it boils my blood. The Prez has EVERY authority to do what he has done, and then some. The Shore Protection Act of 1988 alone gives him the power and right to hold their feet to the fire.

A Republican president would have trusted BP to investigate claims and hand out settlements on their own. Yeah.. And allowing corporations to have control has worked so well in healthcare, hasn't it? They're GREAT at handling claims and making payments. They're REAL even handed!

Give me a break.

Obama did this because he is looking out for his people and doesn't trust BP to make decisions based on the welfare of the United States citizens. The people he swore to protect.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Dude - can we stay on-topic? If you want to debate the outcome of the election, start another thread. I guarantee you'll get some stars and flags...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



Apparently not talking about the same cases.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I was utterly flabbergasted about the *demand* from President Obama that BP fund a 20 billion dollar escrow account.

America is a nation of Laws not a nation where our government "just makes it up as it goes along." This is every bit as an egregious affront to the Constitution as Padilla being imprisoned w/o a trial.

Sorry to disagree with the popular [and populist] sentiment in this thread but this country has LAWS that deal with the issues of the BP oil well disaster. BP was paying the claims. BP had admitted full financial liability. BP was paying the bills presented to it by the US government. No behavior on BP's part warranted Obama's demand.

Thuggery in the Oval Office. Plain and simple.

In one meeting President Obama tossed the Constitution right down the crapper and we have the majority of folk in this country *cheering*.

It's a sad day in America. A day of mourning. And people are cheering.

[edit on 17/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
So why would you want BP to put money in a fund for the oil spill?
Maybe because there stocks went down and investors wanted BP to payout all there money to there investors so there would be no money for the oil spill in the US. The same way the banks payed out all there bonuses to there people when the banks were broke. And we know how the bank thing worked out. BP is probly already reworking there business structure to separate there global presence into smaller regional bp branches in order to limit there liability to only losing assets in a region that had problems. Leak in the gulf would lead to possibly filing bankruptcy in a gulf region and only losing assets in that gulf region while every thing else runs as normal. If this fund didn't get created the funds would be gone befor a court date could be set to even think about getting money from them. President Obama did what he should have. He protected the American citizens from a BP bailout. Not to mention he got money for the people effected by the spill and didn't let it get tied up in court for twenty years.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Ya know, if I thought it would do any good I'd explain about the US laws *against* just "cutting checks" without proper documentation and such. If I thought it would do any good I would explain about Sarbanes-Oxley. If I thought it would do any good I would explain about the Rule of Law.

I don't think it would do any good because you don't even know the difference between "there" and "their" as *consistently* demonstrated in that woefully demonstrative paragraph. Geeze!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
I was utterly flabbergasted about the *demand* from President Obama that BP fund a 20 billion dollar escrow account.

America is a nation of Laws not a nation where our government "just makes it up as it goes along." This is every bit as an egregious affront to the Constitution as Padilla being imprisoned w/o a trial.

Sorry to disagree with the popular [and populist] sentiment in this thread but this country has LAWS that deal with the issues of the BP oil well disaster. BP was paying the claims. BP had admitted full financial liability. BP was paying the bills presented to it by the US government. No behavior on BP's part warranted Obama's demand.

Thuggery in the Oval Office. Plain and simple.

In one meeting President Obama tossed the Constitution right down the crapper and we have the majority of folk in this country *cheering*.

It's a sad day in America. A day of mourning. And people are cheering.

[edit on 17/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



This type of thing is rather common in many forms. In many states you cant even drive untill you post funds to the AG of the state or show proof of insurance.

Even if BP were taking care of its civil liabilities the fed has the power under the Laws passed and amended to demand that BP put money into the Superfund. Reagan added to the feds power durring his term.

Now how that money is spent is another issue but one would think it would be spent on this problem alone.

Many didnt like the Superfund idea because they had to pay in to pay for others that made messes and split. But you dont hear them crying when tax money is used.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Logarock]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join