Obama said he's informing BP that they must surrender money to be put under government administration. On what Constitutional Authority? Where are the due process rights of the BP shareholders.

Obama doesn't crave totalitarian power? I guess we're starting to put that naive notion to rest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67814

Sounds like what you get in a plea-bargain. In this case (based on what little I've heard) the deal is "you start with a $20B fund and we won't seize your company and throw you in jail".

Originally Posted by djplong

Sounds like what you get in a plea-bargain. In this case (based on what little I've heard) the deal is "you start with a $20B fund and we won't seize your company and throw you in jail".

It'll be great to be bailed out by forcing the senior citizens in the UK to pay for this and who depend on their pension checks, that will be drastically reduced because of this deal. What's the immense hardship on the elderly compared to making people think Obama, or the "Ass Kicker In-Chief", is actually doing something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ensioners.html

Riddle me this: Let's just forget for a moment that Obama and his administration strong-armed BP executives into setting up an open ended $20 billion slush fund without a judge, jury or any proof of what went wrong or how to fix it. Why is it okay for BP to withhold dividend payments to shareholders, risk the investment portfolios of investors worldwide which, by the way, includes teachers' unions in Texas while it was unacceptable for the auto industry and/or the banking industry to tighten their belts or file bankruptcy?

To the seniors in the UK I'd ask - who forced you to invest in a company that (let's use some demagoguery for effect here) is destroying the planet? Was it your pursuit of the almighty Pound Sterling and you didn't care about the effects since you're going to be dead soon anyway?

I heard this argument used against the tobacco company settlements and why 'pensioners' should pay for the settlement with reduced dividends.

So at best, the pensioners might be innocent if the PENSION FUND MANAGERS are the ones who made the decisions.

Sorry, trotting out little old ladies and pleading for sympathy is blackmail.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the auto industry DID file for bankruptcy (though not quite the way it normally happens). The banking industry (this is what boggles me) had "too big to fail" firms MERGE to become even BIGGER! But in neither of those cases were there crimes committed (though it appears some mortgage brokers might be going to jail eventually).

Comparing an accident from gross and willful negligence that results in an environmental catastrophe and wipes out the living of an entire region... Well, go ahead and compare the effect of this on a shrimp boater compared to a pensioner in the UK where ONE of their companies won't be making payments. Remember, it's not like they ALL get their retirement from ONLY BP dividends.

Okay, djplong, here is what confuses me. You said, and I've heard many others say similar things about BP, "gross and willful negligence." When was their trial or the investigation that found these legal findings?

BK,are you defending BP?

I'm just asking a question. Can you answer it?

The Kool-Aid has been drunk. I know when it's hopeless to continue a discussion. May this usurping of power be everything you hope it will me.

Has anyone watched any of the testimony by BP CEO before Congress on the oil spill?

Here's a blog that updates what is happening. I'm ashamed to be associated with these idiots questioning Tony Hayward. Is there one single person in this committee that understands that Tony Hayward was not on the rig? That Tony Hayward is an executive with a large corporation. I've heard them ask him no less than five times in an hour if he was on the rig or aware of certain things happening on the rig the second they happened. And when he says he wasn't on the rig, they act like that is a disgrace.

This is what happens when you have people in Congress with absolutely no, none, not one bit of experience in the real working world.

One woman now is rebuking Hayward for not being sad enough about the deaths of BP employees. Hayward very slowly explained that he was very upset about the deaths and had expressed that to the families, BUT Hayward corrected her, the 11 killed were not employees of BP.

Here's another example from the blog:

"7.51pm: Hayward says he'd be "very surprised" if his chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, or head of exploration and production, Andy Inglis, were involved in decisions about the design of the leaking Macondo oil well.

"The BP boss is playing a dangerous game by declaiming all responsibility for what went on at the rig. He's not exactly inspiring confidence in his senior leadership team.

"Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, reminds Hayward that he's not running a department store, he's running an oil company with "life or death" decisions. Doyle remarks that he's wondering if he could run an oil company, it pays better than being a Congressman and doesn't seem to involve much work: "Those of you at the top don't seem to have a clue what was going on at this rig."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/a...ress-live-blog

BP officials are much smarter than Obama and his regime members.

Thinking that BP will put 20 billion dallars upfront in slush fund is naive
and indicates a lack of understanding of a powerful global company.

It will be a long time possibly years before all that money is extracted from this company.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Obama said he's informing BP that they must surrender money to be put under government administration. On what Constitutional Authority? Where are the due process rights of the BP shareholders.

Obama doesn't crave totalitarian power? I guess we're starting to put that naive notion to rest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67814

Dick Armey....LOL

My understanding, cashman, is that BP will put $5 billion a year for the next five years into a fund. They will reduce spending and sell some "$10 billion in assets over the next month" to raise money according to an article in the
New York Times. Wonder what they'll sell? Do you think Transocean will pay for anything in the near future. They apparently already settled with the insurance company who insured the rig that exploded to the tune of $401 million.

From the article: "The fund will be created over four years, at $5 billion a year. It is backed by the collateral of $20 billion in company assets in the United States. Though it is a significant hit for any company, the phase-in is intended give BP enough breathing space to manage its cash flow. BP said it would raise money by reducing spending programs and selling $10 billion in assets over the next month. Last year, BP generated profits of $17 billion.

"Mr. Feinberg will segue into his new role as the fund administrator, perhaps setting up shop in Louisiana, just as he is nearing the end of his stint as the government’s 'pay czar' overseeing executive compensation at the nation’s biggest banks, a post created in response to public outrage at bankers’ bonuses after the financial bailouts of recent years. Besides serving as special master for the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, he helped in cases involving compensation for victims of illnesses related to asbestos and to Agent Orange chemical poisoning, among many others.

"The claims process will be independent of BP and the government. Claimants who are rejected will be able to appeal to a three-person panel. BP can appeal only claims exceeding $500,000, unless Mr. Feinberg decides otherwise, said Carol M. Browner, a White House energy official."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/us...l?pagewanted=2

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6992073.html

Originally Posted by cologal

Dick Armey....LOL

???????

Originally Posted by RichieLion

???????

Right Wing Spin Machine in full force:


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...spill-response