It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

Seems his state wants to know more about what hes doing besides playing to the cameras.

The Governor is paid with taxpayers money. He holds a public office. For all we know Jindal could be at home eating a ham sandwich on most days and nobody would know it. I'm not sure his exact salary but it must be in the six figure range. That's a pretty big perk.

The current law keeps secret Jindal's schedule, intraoffice communication and any documents related to his "deliberative process" or security. And there is no requirement that the governor keep records and turn them over to the state when he leaves office, something the White House must do under the federal Presidential Records Act.

Last time this issue came up these legislatures were in favor of it.

Sens. Don Claitor, R-Baton Rouge; Lydia Jackson, D-Shreveport; Rob Marionneaux, D-Livonia; and Ed Murray, D-New Orleans. State Rep. Ernest Wooton, R-Belle Chasse, attempted to amend the legislation earlier in the week onto another bill that was up for final passage.

Six figures and nobody knows where you're at. Jindal plays it like a pro. Kick back most days then every now and then give a speech about accountability and incompetence.

. or-transparency-on-oil-spill

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

As to his "hard time putting together coherent sentences..." that's actually funny given his demonstrated innate intelligence, to say nothing of his academic record.

You obviously missed his speech in reaction to the Democratic Address last year. My toenails would have come across as having more personality and depth than he did. Academic record? Really? So that's what it takes to placate the masses...

There's trouble brewing in Jindork's waters and it has nothing to do with BP.

I am not a Democrat, btw.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by atlguy]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

A very wise man once said:

For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views.

I'll leave it at that. Well, with the additional comment that I can't help but think "Ben" would find a kindred spirit with "Bobby."

[edit on 18/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by atlguy

Yes, I missed it. I'd not heard of Gov. Jindal prior to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Or, if I had heard of him in some passing fashion it in no manner registered. Heck, as I said previously, I was under a misapprehension as to his party affiliation which also speaks to my unfamiliarity with him. [shrug]

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Cry me a river! Give me a break!

People complain because Obama doesn't do enough and now they complain because he's doing something. Make up your mind!

You mean like his brilliant idea to slap a moratorium on offshore drilling?:shk:

Oh, and if this wasn't a shakedown, then why was Holder at the meeting?

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:32 PM
Hello, i am new to the site, and stumbled upon it while doing some research on the British Petroleum incident. Now, if i am correct, which if I'm not please correct me, but after the Exxon Valdez incident there was a limitation made on the amount of liability charges, $75 million if my memory from U.S. History class serves me right. I'm just curious how the fed is justifying the charging of $20 billion. I'm sure somebody will reply with "To compensate for damages to businesses and private lands, and to reimburse shareholders" or something to that extent. I may be a Sophomore in High School, but even i can tell you that its not the governments part to take control of that. Plus their lack of carelessness is just pathetic. You would think being one of the biggest environmental disasters this nation has faced, there would be a lot more focus on it. Instead its on the Green Energy bill that is pretty much the Communist Manifesto thrown into a psuedo-Democratic form. It amazes me how people are being threatened jail time for taking action in Florida. Those people that are doing so, should be the ones running for congress. But back to my original purpose of this message, if someone could please explain how the fed is justifying their bullying of private businesses, it would be highly appreciated. Especially since they are the ones who told BP to drill there. I'm not an anarchist, but i believe our government is a disgrace to our founding fathers. People need to start caring.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by vector21

Welcome to the community Vector.

Yes, the law on the books limits legal liability to 75 million but had BP claimed that, or even attempted to claim that limit it would have cost them *everything*. I believe even as expensive as the cleanup and ancillary things are going to be, which my guess is in the neighborhood of 100 billion by the time it's all said and done, will be *far* *cheaper* than that *everything* cost. And I assume BP knows that even better than I.

Besides they have a moral and ethical obligation to clean up their mess irrespective of what the *law* is. I would state that even if the incident was caused by completely natural events with no human error or malfeasance involved. And despite what the anti-capitalists would state on this forum, corporations do not wish to have their reputations shredded.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by vector21

Another point to consider:

The federal government had no legal right to demand the fund, however, BP [it's the name of the company - not "British Petroleum] comes out better with the feds in charge of paying the claims.

Yes, I was appalled by the demand because there is no Constitutional or legal president to support it, but the administrators of the fund will have a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to manage the fund ethically and within generally accepted standards. Their is a "special" responsibility when one is placed in "guardianship" of someone else's money.

IF.. and that's an "if" that has yet to be established... if any claims are denied it will NOT be BP who is made out the "bad guy" or "Evil Corporate Heartless Swine." Of note, the statement of "*legitimate* claims will be paid" spoken by Mr. Hayward awhile back has a genuine backstory to it. There were all sorts of illegitimate claims made to the 9/11 fund. People who where not even in NY at the time, or my personal favorite, a man who claimed his wife had been killed and she hadn't and in fact, she was a co-conspirator to the fraud. It happens. But since BP will not be doing the claims denials they won't have to deal with that bit of nightmare PR... they already have enough of that.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:40 PM
This is a yes/no situation. Mind you that I think that this is the first time that President is taking more of a leadership role in this case. And here is how I view the entire gulf oil problems.
1) BP did not want to take responsiblity initially, doing the blame game.
2) The federal government is equally responsbile for failing to do the job that they were suppose to be doing.
3) There are safety protacals that were not followed or regulated.
4) Instead of asking for help, they have tried to handle it, even when it was out of control.
5) They have ignored regulatory policies.
6) They are paying for PR and damage control.
7) Now living in a state that is heavy on environmental controls over policies, out in California, if a person causes a diseaster, they are financially responsible for all things to put it under control.
After giving this great thought, I would say that BP should be responsible for the financial aspects of this spill.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:07 AM
On one hand, the easy answer is none. There are no legal justifications for the Federal Government to demand that a private company hand over 20 billion without due process.

On the other, it was quite the brilliant populous political move. The 'demanding' that BP hand over 20 billion to the Federal Government will further solidify to the public that corporations are bad, government is benevolent.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
On one hand, the easy answer is none. There are no legal justifications for the Federal Government to demand that a private company hand over 20 billion without due process.

On the other, it was quite the brilliant populous political move. The 'demanding' that BP hand over 20 billion to the Federal Government will further solidify to the public that corporations are bad, government is benevolent.

Well the actual legal justifications are one thing....but really now its playing to a populous idea for BP to at lest look like they are going to be responsible?

The real scoop here may be that it would cost them more in litigation fees as under the Clean Water Act BP would have to pay legal fees of complaintants. So they will be looking to settle as much as they can out of court, as they are doing.

Although its an interesting function I dont know that its illegal or uncivil if all parties agree for BP to give money to the fed and then allow them to hear claims agaist those funds by private citizens. At that there will be litagation enough for years anyway.

Really whats BP is doing here is waving the need to establish in court that something bad happened and that they are responsable.

What we need is the opinion say from Bill Handel and what he thinks about all this. Questions about legality, oversight of funds ect.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

On the other, it was quite the brilliant populous political move. The 'demanding' that BP hand over 20 billion to the Federal Government will further solidify to the public that corporations are bad, government is benevolent.

Really the stories are legend as to what corporations will do to save thier ass and much of the time it comes down to who is big enough to fight them for years in court. Is this really about anyones benevolence? Are we not getting a bit smarter than that as a society? Looks to me like both parties are trying to appear benevolent.

Also remember that the Fed is subject to litigation from private citizens under the Clean Water Act for any part they may have had in poor oversight here. In that respect one could see this as BP and the Gov covering each others asses.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by atlguy

DUDE when you have fraudulent "elections" you have a dictator

there is no debate on the elections being fraudulent
between the vote machine assesments and the fraud convictions.

If Obama doesn't do 110 percent for the people he's just an other Mussolini
It doesn't look like he is being much help for the people

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:56 AM
People have said that this 20bln escrow account set up by BP is nothing for the Petroleum Behemoth, but I think many are wrong here? The reason being, I see this company squirming already. This disaster can bring this company into insolvency before its over. For example, BP has suspended their dividends for the time being in response to this 20bln escrow account.

BP Rebounds on Agreement to Phase Oil Spill Payments (Update1)

BP scrapped dividends and pledged asset sales yesterday to meet President Barack Obama’s demand to set up the fund in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Its shares have slumped 45 percent since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, wiping about 55 billion pounds ($81 billion) off the London-based company’s value.

So now not only people along the Gulf Coast are feeling the scourge of this disaster, but so are the pensioners and stock holders who depend on this dividend for their incomes. This thing has got to be handled tactfully and as equitably as possible for all involved. Is the disaster serious and diabolical? Yes, it appears to be one for the ages, and on the scale of Bhopal Disaster and Chernobyl disaster. I would consider BP lucky, if they are able to walk away from this one without going bankrupt?

Still, this gesture by the President appears to be a heck of a lot like a Chicago Style shakedown. We must remember, the President and his band of merry men from the City of Wind who are often giddy about mountains of cash on hand. Here is a recent example from the President's home state of Illinois, about billions set aside for job creation that have been collecting dust for years.

I-Team Report: My Money Is Where?

The I-Team has found billions of state dollars gathering dust, even as Illinois claims to be broke and has one of the nation's highest jobless rates.

The billions in unused funds - $2.5 billion - are part of a massive, year-old Illinois Jobs Now! Program. The I-Team's findings may lead you to ask: "My money is where?"

It is money that the state budget office tells the I-Team could put people to work on projects that have already been approved, but money that government agencies haven't bothered to pick up.

Could this BP Fund meet the same fate of the funds set aside for people of Illinois? The story above should be looked upon as a reference, and to highlight the environment the President came up in politically and the entourage he has around him. It seems he is using his office, the Justice Department, and every other asset at his disposal to lean and threaten this company to pay or else?

Let me think for a moment? Another group uses the same tactics for their extortion rackets. Organized crime organizations call it protection money, pay them and they will leave you unharmed. How are we certain that this money is going to actually reach the people affected to begin with? We know how the government treats other trust funds? They go into it and spend money on other things, rather than its intended purpose. A fine example would be Social Security, that fund has been pilfered and pillaged for years since its inception. However, that is for another thread and another time. Now, there is mention of transparency, third party administration of the fund, and on and on. Same old broken record. Show me the proof that people's lives along the Gulf are going to be any better from this money, the oil is going to stop gushing, and everyone will have bountiful takes from the sea. When that happens it is a good thing, this I am afraid is just throwing more money at the problem, and when the money is all gone more will be needed. It will turn into a cash cow for the politicians.

I hope the money reaches the people duly affected by this crisis, and this money is not wasted or pilfered by the politicians. However, as it stands now it is only wishful thinking, because we know what politicians do and do best when they find their pockets bulging with cash. They spend it, and often times on things other than what the money is intended for? Hopefully, my cynicism is over the top on this one, but from previous forays by government to mingle and mettle into private industry and the markets, in the long run it has left an unsavory aftertaste for the American people.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Jakes51]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in