More BP Fund Bullshit

[gatoraubrey2]

Wrong. In this type of claim, they are one and the same. Lost wages is not a seperate issue, it is central to the damages caused these fishermen and many others who work in the industry's tangents.

...

You are getting hung up on the terms and ignoring the reality of what these payments represent. This is NOT unemployement compensation. Unemployment compensation is an insurance program (essentially) run by states. When you work for a wage, you pay into a fund that, in turn, is then available to pay you a portion of your previous earned wages. It is insurance and the unemployment compensation is the insurance payout. So, yes, when you get a new job, it ends.

THIS, by contrast is nothing to do with insurance (except, perhaps from BP's liability end). In fact, fishermen, being mostly independent businessfolkd don't pay into the state unemployment claims.

You are correct that normally ANY payout would have to go through a jury. In this case, because BP is admitting guilt, because the situation is so dire and because, the potential for increased damage is so great were some monies not paid upfront, BP is not waiting for the judgement. They are putting forward a small percentage of what they will owe (no doubt with a fair amount of pressure from goverments), but specifically designating it for unemployment losses, to keep things simple. In essence, BP has said "OK, we know we are going to owe this part without a question and we can pretty well assess at least a good part of what the claim will entail, so we are going to go ahead and agree to pay this portion in advance of the judgement".

That they call it "unemployment payment" or whatever is irrelevant. It IS part of the liability claim

Not even close. How do you think judges and juries decide on an award amount, if the defendant is found liable? I'll tell you: they do it by breaking down the liability piece by piece, and analyzing the merits of the claims. This happens routinely in cases, where the plaintiff sues for all sorts of damages, and the judge strikes some of them and awards less than the original claim, while still finding in favor of the plaintiff.

In this case, there are only two major parts to the claim. One is the pain & suffering/punitive damages part. There will be debate about how much pain and suffering was really caused to the plaintiffs, and how badly BP deserves to be punished. Whatever amount is decided, will be decided across the board and split equally among the many plaintiffs.

The second part is lost wages, which will be taken on a case-by-case basis. The judge in this case will not allow for this part of the claim to be paid to those who cannot prove that they were not earning a living during the claimed period. This is the legal precedent of over 200 years, and it's not going to change now. So, the overall payout will vary person to person depending upon how much, if any, of this second claim is honored.

And, as you continually repeat, we all know that unemployment is a state-run insurance program. The reason that I'm even mentioning a lawsuit is precisely because these fishermen are not covered by this program. Guess what, if they were, any lost wages claim would be thrown out of court because the wages had been replaced. This is the first check in a long procedure to determine whether to honor lost-wage claims.

The fact that you are on a personal crusade to make BP pay as much as possible is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is, that legal precedent through the history of this country is that suits are broken down into their various components, one of which is lost wages. And lost wages claims are not upheld when the plaintiff has other employment. Period.

[PLAYER57832]

Wrong. In this type of claim, they are one and the same. Lost wages is not a seperate issue, it is central to the damages caused these fishermen and many others who work in the industry's tangents.

...

You are getting hung up on the terms and ignoring the reality of what these payments represent. This is NOT unemployement compensation. Unemployment compensation is an insurance program (essentially) run by states. When you work for a wage, you pay into a fund that, in turn, is then available to pay you a portion of your previous earned wages. It is insurance and the unemployment compensation is the insurance payout. So, yes, when you get a new job, it ends.

THIS, by contrast is nothing to do with insurance (except, perhaps from BP's liability end). In fact, fishermen, being mostly independent businessfolkd don't pay into the state unemployment claims.

You are correct that normally ANY payout would have to go through a jury. In this case, because BP is admitting guilt, because the situation is so dire and because, the potential for increased damage is so great were some monies not paid upfront, BP is not waiting for the judgement. They are putting forward a small percentage of what they will owe (no doubt with a fair amount of pressure from goverments), but specifically designating it for unemployment losses, to keep things simple. In essence, BP has said "OK, we know we are going to owe this part without a question and we can pretty well assess at least a good part of what the claim will entail, so we are going to go ahead and agree to pay this portion in advance of the judgement".

That they call it "unemployment payment" or whatever is irrelevant. It IS part of the liability claim

Not even close. How do you think judges and juries decide on an award amount, if the defendant is found liable? I'll tell you: they do it by breaking down the liability piece by piece, and analyzing the merits of the claims. This happens routinely in cases, where the plaintiff sues for all sorts of damages, and the judge strikes some of them and awards less than the original claim, while still finding in favor of the plaintiff.

In this case, there are only two major parts to the claim. One is the pain & suffering/punitive damages part. There will be debate about how much pain and suffering was really caused to the plaintiffs, and how badly BP deserves to be punished. Whatever amount is decided, will be decided across the board and split equally among the many plaintiffs.

The second part is lost wages, which will be taken on a case-by-case basis. The judge in this case will not allow for this part of the claim to be paid to those who cannot prove that they were not earning a living during the claimed period. This is the legal precedent of over 200 years, and it's not going to change now. So, the overall payout will vary person to person depending upon how much, if any, of this second claim is honored.

And, as you continually repeat, we all know that unemployment is a state-run insurance program. The reason that I'm even mentioning a lawsuit is precisely because these fishermen are not covered by this program. Guess what, if they were, any lost wages claim would be thrown out of court because the wages had been replaced. This is the first check in a long procedure to determine whether to honor lost-wage claims.

You are, not correct in this. Depending on the culpability, the wages may or may not be reduced by things like future employment and unemployment compensation. Those factors are most pertinent in disability type claims. Sometimes also, the individual person may not get that full amount, but the deducted amounts are paid back to the state by the person who committed the harm. (not always, but sometimes).

This is different. This is more like a harrassment claim. In that case, nothing will be deducted. In fact, you can often be awarded multiple times the lost wages, as compensation for those other factors you mentioned.. "pain and suffering", BUT, also just as a penalty for someone having done something truly agregious.

The fact that you are on a personal crusade to make BP pay as much as possible is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is, that legal precedent through the history of this country is that suits are broken down into their various components, one of which is lost wages. And lost wages claims are not upheld when the plaintiff has other employment. Period.

This has nothing to do with a "personal crusade" (my "crusade", as you call it is not against BP, it is against the whole system that allows people to do damage and leaves it up to us to PROVE it was done insteaad of requiring the person making the money to PROVE what they are doing is safe BEFORE anything is approved.).

This is a unique case, unprecedented. The way it is being handled is very much unusual and not something done before. THAT is my point. You want to see this as just another liability case (though, even in that, you have a few details incorrect), but it just isn't. If it were a normal liability claim, BP would not be paying a cent right now, except to those whom it hires.

[tzor]

I agree that more people/groups than BP led to this disaster, but in the end, it was BP that caused this. They ARE responsible. Perhaps not for every last bit of damage, no. However, the amounts they are paying out right now for lost income are a piddly portion of what will be their whole liability.

Define "piddly" please. (To me piddly would be like paying a penny when you owe a dollar; that's 1% or less.) I agree that they should be liable for more than they are now (again, blame the Federal government for caps on liability and the general notion that ex post facto laws are generally not well liked). But how much more? Twice as much? (That means 50% which isn't piddly by any means.) Ten times more? (That means they have given 10% of what we think they owe, again, not piddly.) Twenty times more? (Now we are down to 5%.)

The curerent escrow account is $20 billion. Should it be $40? $200? $400? $2 Trillion?

As of 2009, BP only reported $235 Billion on total assets with $134 Billion on liabilities, giving a total equity of $101 Billion. That's shareholder equity by the way. (Oh I forgot, people who buy stock are EVIL aren't they and thery deserved to be punished for the sins of the management.) You could cut it out of the net profits that go to dividends; that's roughly $10 billion per year. (So it's aready at two years dividends and you want it at what level?)

[PLAYER57832]

I agree that more people/groups than BP led to this disaster, but in the end, it was BP that caused this. They ARE responsible. Perhaps not for every last bit of damage, no. However, the amounts they are paying out right now for lost income are a piddly portion of what will be their whole liability.

Define "piddly" please. (To me piddly would be like paying a penny when you owe a dollar; that's 1% or less.) I agree that they should be liable for more than they are now (again, blame the Federal government for caps on liability and the general notion that ex post facto laws are generally not well liked). But how much more? Twice as much? (That means 50% which isn't piddly by any means.) Ten times more? (That means they have given 10% of what we think they owe, again, not piddly.) Twenty times more? (Now we are down to 5%.)

The curerent escrow account is $20 billion. Should it be $40? $200? $400? $2 Trillion?

As of 2009, BP only reported $235 Billion on total assets with $134 Billion on liabilities, giving a total equity of $101 Billion. That's shareholder equity by the way. (Oh I forgot, people who buy stock are EVIL aren't they and thery deserved to be punished for the sins of the management.) You could cut it out of the net profits that go to dividends; that's roughly $10 billion per year. (So it's aready at two years dividends and you want it at what level?)

I have no idea what the full liability will be, but it certainly will be over $20,000,000. At any rate, the "piddly amount" I mentioned referred to the amounts paid out and pending for employment compesation only. That is the part in question here, whether the wages for skimming should be deducted from the lost wages portion of the compensation.

As for the rest of your argument, the amount set aside is not and was not intended to be the full liability. It was merely a "set-aside" to ensure that the fishermen and Gulf people are not left hanging while they whole mess of who is liable, etc is mired in court. Exxon Valdese is STILL fighting some claims, was only just ordered to pay out some monies this year. This is just too big to allow that kind of a backlog hold up the entire payment. (it did not hold up the entire payment in the case of the Valdese, but money was not paid out as promptly as it is being paid now).

As I said, in part, this partial payout benefits BP to a point as well, because the fishermen who have money can go back to buying groceries and other necessities, thus meaning that at least the grocers and such are not additional claimants in this suit.

As for BP not being able to bear this liability.. well, first of all, if they could not, then they should not have drilled. Even so,
BP's profit for on quarter last year was over $50 billion, so BP is hardly in the poor house from this. I feel for the shareholders, but guess what... stock means owning a company. We like to forget that and simply see them as "money machines" sometimes, but they are not. And, ownership means responsibility. They bought the stock, they benefitted from years of profit. Now, they have to pay. That is how it works.

[Woodruff]

I am complete fed up with this hand washing bullshit that the disaster in the gulf is the result of one single entity.

Absolutely I agree with this. Particularly, in my mind, are the inspectors that didn't do their jobs.

That being said, BP is still primarily responsible, with the other parties' being secondarily responsible. Which doesn't alleviate the responsibility from those secondaries, but it does mitigate it some in relation to the primary, in my opinion.

[PLAYER57832]

I am complete fed up with this hand washing bullshit that the disaster in the gulf is the result of one single entity.

Absolutely I agree with this. Particularly, in my mind, are the inspectors that didn't do their jobs.

That being said, BP is still primarily responsible, with the other parties' being secondarily responsible. Which doesn't alleviate the responsibility from those secondaries, but it does mitigate it some in relation to the primary, in my opinion.

I agree with that. In this case, though, paying out the immediate lost fishing income to these fishermen won't even begin to tap the full compensation BP (alone) owes these people... other payments and debate over the full liability can come later.

[gatoraubrey2]

In fact, you can often be awarded multiple times the lost wages, as compensation for those other factors you mentioned.. "pain and suffering", BUT, also just as a penalty for someone having done something truly agregious.

If you believe this will happen, then why have we been fighting for the last several days about a tiny fraction of that money being deducted? If they're already going to receive a payment for multiple times what they lost, it seems like they're coming out on top by any standard, yours included. So what if they work all summer and have it deducted from a settlement that will equal years of their income combined? Seems like a small price to pay to have a windfall of wealth fall into your lap for doing nothing more than being nearby when someone else screwed up.

[Woodruff]

In fact, you can often be awarded multiple times the lost wages, as compensation for those other factors you mentioned.. "pain and suffering", BUT, also just as a penalty for someone having done something truly agregious.

If you believe this will happen, then why have we been fighting for the last several days about a tiny fraction of that money being deducted? If they're already going to receive a payment for multiple times what they lost, it seems like they're coming out on top by any standard, yours included. So what if they work all summer and have it deducted from a settlement that will equal years of their income combined? Seems like a small price to pay to have a windfall of wealth fall into your lap for doing nothing more than being nearby when someone else screwed up.

That's all that happened in your view? That "nothing more than being nearby when someone else screwed up"? That explains a lot, really.

[PLAYER57832]

In fact, you can often be awarded multiple times the lost wages, as compensation for those other factors you mentioned.. "pain and suffering", BUT, also just as a penalty for someone having done something truly agregious.

If you believe this will happen, then why have we been fighting for the last several days about a tiny fraction of that money being deducted? If they're already going to receive a payment for multiple times what they lost, it seems like they're coming out on top by any standard, yours included.

As I already said, IF this is the case, IF the monies are only deducted from the immediate payment and not the full award, then yes, I think the ruling is OK. ONLY because it is an unprecedented pre-judgement award and therefore should be strictly the minimum unquestioned allocation, enough to get people reasonably by until the full award can come in. (this actually is not utterly unprecedented, sometimes undisputed portions are paid initially.. because, as I pointed out, they can prevent the guilty person/entity from encurring further damages, as well as other reasons to many to get into here).

I don't know for sure that this is the case. At any rate, what should happen and what will happen and the length of time it will take to happen are all very different. I would say that by rights, the initial payments should be allocated within a year, with follow-up payments based on the levels of continued damages to the fisheries, etc. (that "etc" covers a lot .. just too much detail for this thread). What I think truly WILL happen is that, despite all of BP's claims of admitted guilt, etc, little beyond the 20,000,000 set aside already will truly be allocated in anything like a timely manner. Anything else will drag on for decades and perhaps never be paid.

So what if they work all summer and have it deducted from a settlement that will equal years of their income combined? Seems like a small price to pay to have a windfall of wealth fall into your lap for doing nothing more than being nearby when someone else screwed up.

I see, so you think that BP really did not do any damage to these fishermen and that the damage they did to the Gulf is merely a sidestep, in consequential.

Woodruff put it well, but you REALLY need to educate yourself a bit more. That you can even begin to believe this means you are not well educated by ANY stretch of the imagination. Sorry, but that is the truth.

[gatoraubrey2]

If anyone gets compensated more money that what they would have earned for an accident that they had nothing to do with, they come out on top. If they were being compensated exactly what they would have earned, then you could say that they earned it by having worked in the past and by being willing to work in the future. If they get compensated "multiple times" their losses, that means they were lucky enough to be in the right place and the right time, and to capitalize off of the damage to the Gulf. Sorry, but paying them a ton of money doesn't fix the damage done. It just makes them rich when they otherwise wouldn't have been.

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but paying them a ton of money doesn't fix the damage done. It just makes them rich when they otherwise wouldn't have been.

THIS is the key point and WHY they might be paid many times what they might have otherwise earned. You might get a pretty big payout if you lose a loved one, but would you really trade a million dollars for their life?

Its not just money these folks lost.

[gatoraubrey2]

They didn't lose loved ones either. That is a completely misleading statement.

And no, Woodruff, that's not all I think happened. But I don't think making these people rich for no reason changes things. If you care about the damage done, don't give all this punitive money to the citizens. Use it to clean up the mess. All either one of you is pushing for is a punishment for BP, without regard for whether it has any impact on remedying the situation. It's all about "not letting a crisis go to waste." Hate corporate America? Find every excuse to regulate, tax, fine, levy, and now sue them, until they can't exist. Then claim the "failure of the free market" and regulate some more. Placing the environment over the needs of mankind is bad enough, but pretending to care about the environment just to bring down a corporation is lower than I thought even liberals could go.

[King Doctor]

They didn't lose loved ones either. That is a completely misleading statement

What if they loved the sea? Or the fishes in it? Didn't the lose loved ones then?

[PLAYER57832]

Player, that's an awful lot of text.


Do you think that you could produce a quick summary for those of us who aren't 'working from home'?

summary STEAL FROM THE RICH GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK!

People who DO DAMAGE, PAY FOR THAT DAMAGE.. period!

[PLAYER57832]

They didn't lose loved ones either. That is a completely misleading statement.

An exaggeration, true, but not "misleading". Some did lose lives and not just those on the rig. (terrible as those losses were, they are irrelevant to this particular debate) I mean that one who suicided, etc. Also, many have suffered ill health.
Loss of a livelihood and lifestyle is far more than just the money one earns. No, the loss of a livelihood is not equivalent to losing a loved one, but it is far, far, FAR more than just money. THAT is the part you fail to grasp.

As for the rest.. BP absolutely SHOULD pay for cleanup.
As for "not letting a crisis go to waste", what SHOULD happen is a move toward what should have been the rule all along, that these companies, that ANY company, ANY person wanting to do something has to prove it is reasonably safe before they even are allowed to begin AND they need to show that they have the ability to deal with even "worst case" disasters. However, when the scope of potential damage is this large, "dealing with a worst case" doesn't mean each and every individual company should have their own skimmers, etc. (they should absolute have some!), but that they need to contribute to a joint, independent or governmental agency that has those facilities. WE should not pay for these things directly (of course, the cost will be added to gas, etc.). They need to come out of profits.

The biggest problem here is that conservatives have had the clamp on biology. Attending to the environment, paying for consequences has somehow become a strictly liberal concern .. and, this is backed up by a complete and utter failure to support any and all contrary research.

[Woodruff]

And no, Woodruff, that's not all I think happened. But I don't think making these people rich for no reason changes things. If you care about the damage done, don't give all this punitive money to the citizens. Use it to clean up the mess. All either one of you is pushing for is a punishment for BP, without regard for whether it has any impact on remedying the situation. It's all about "not letting a crisis go to waste." Hate corporate America? Find every excuse to regulate, tax, fine, levy, and now sue them, until they can't exist. Then claim the "failure of the free market" and regulate some more. Placing the environment over the needs of mankind is bad enough, but pretending to care about the environment just to bring down a corporation is lower than I thought even liberals could go.

Yes, the only reason that anyone cares about the environment is so they can bring down big corporations...you're right. You're also a prime example of a box of rocks.

[gatoraubrey2]

Yes, the only reason that anyone cares about the environment is so they can bring down big corporations...you're right. You're also a prime example of a box of rocks.

Then I'll say it again:

If you care about the damage done, don't give all this punitive money to the citizens. Use it to clean up the mess. All either one of you is pushing for is a punishment for BP, without regard for whether it has any impact on remedying the situation.

Paying fishermen extra money doesn't clean anything up. It's a waste of resources. When BP declares bankruptcy and stops paying for the cleanup, how are you going to get that money back from the fishermen?

[PLAYER57832]

If you care about the damage done, don't give all this punitive money to the citizens. Use it to clean up the mess. All either one of you is pushing for is a punishment for BP, without regard for whether it has any impact on remedying the situation.
Paying fishermen extra money doesn't clean anything up. It's a waste of resources. When BP declares bankruptcy and stops paying for the cleanup, how are you going to get that money back from the fishermen?

Baloney, on several fronts. First, it is not.. I repeat NOT "extra money" we are talking about, it is actually less than, by rights, they should get.. that is, less than it would really take to pay them back. BUT, and this is important, they are not going to get but a very small portion of what they are owed in any kind of timely fashion.

Second, BP's profits for a quarter last year were around 50 billion.

I expect they will still try to cry "poorhouse", but it is the fishermen who will wind up getting shorted.

[gatoraubrey2]

Baloney, on several fronts. First, it is not.. I repeat NOT "extra money" we are talking about, it is actually less than, by rights, they should get.. that is, less than it would really take to pay them back. BUT, and this is important, they are not going to get but a very small portion of what they are owed in any kind of timely fashion.

Second, BP's profits for a quarter last year were around 50 billion.

I expect they will still try to cry "poorhouse", but it is the fishermen who will wind up getting shorted.

It is not less than they should get. You yourself have stated that in these types of cases, workers can be compensated "multiple times" the lost wages. Your words, not mine.

And I'm not saying they can't afford to pay it. I'm saying that your priorities are backwards for an environmentalist. You should be getting cleanup money while the getting's good, before BP finds a way to shield themselves from further liability (for example, by declaring bankruptcy in their US divisions).

[PLAYER57832]

Baloney, on several fronts. First, it is not.. I repeat NOT "extra money" we are talking about, it is actually less than, by rights, they should get.. that is, less than it would really take to pay them back. BUT, and this is important, they are not going to get but a very small portion of what they are owed in any kind of timely fashion.

Second, BP's profits for a quarter last year were around 50 billion.

I expect they will still try to cry "poorhouse", but it is the fishermen who will wind up getting shorted.

It is not less than they should get. You yourself have stated that in these types of cases, workers can be compensated "multiple times" the lost wages. Your words, not mine.

Yes, but #1 those "extra monies" are NOT what is being debated here, only whether they can get their rightful wages and their lost income for their lost occupation both.

And.. sorry, but your idea of "just compensation" and WHY it is applied as it is is just wrong.

And I'm not saying they can't afford to pay it. I'm saying that your priorities are backwards for an environmentalist. You should be getting cleanup money while the getting's good, before BP finds a way to shield themselves from further liability (for example, by declaring bankruptcy in their US divisions).

No such thing.

It's like saying is this child or that child "more important". They are ALL important... and, the likelihood is that NONE will truly get what they deserve, in this case. BUT, taking from one to pay the other won't help, it will only make one side more angry and, in this case, the economy of the Gulf needs fishermen who have money in their pockets daily, not just in 20 years when ... maybe they might see the greatest portion of what they will be owed.


FURTHERMORE, just looking at BP cleaning this up as "the solution" is bass-ackwards. If they clean it and we go right back to the old system, we have gained nothing. We need to learn from this and establish new regulations, new requirements on ALL companies so that such things are not even allowed the potential to happen. Its no longer just the Gulf or we in the U.S. who cannot afford another such incident (or anything close), it is the WORLD.

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

[gatoraubrey2]

Yes, but #1 those "extra monies" are NOT what is being debated here, only whether they can get their rightful wages and their lost income for their lost occupation both.

And.. sorry, but your idea of "just compensation" and WHY it is applied as it is is just wrong.

I suppose it's too much to ask for you to follow the course of an argument for more than one page. They can't get their "rightful wages" and their "lost income" because they are mutually exclusive. That means they can't exist together. If they are working, they haven't lost income. I don't get to claim "lost income" from my last job because now I have a new one. It's really quite simple.

Also, what is your definition of "just compensation?" Or, for that matter, what is mine, and why is it wrong? That's a pretty broad statement to make, that I am "just wrong," when I don't believe that you even have an understanding of what I believe.

No such thing.

It's like saying is this child or that child "more important". They are ALL important... and, the likelihood is that NONE will truly get what they deserve, in this case. BUT, taking from one to pay the other won't help, it will only make one side more angry and, in this case, the economy of the Gulf needs fishermen who have money in their pockets daily, not just in 20 years when ... maybe they might see the greatest portion of what they will be owed.

They have the money in their pockets. The article said that the money would later be deducted from the final settlement.

FURTHERMORE, just looking at BP cleaning this up as "the solution" is bass-ackwards. If they clean it and we go right back to the old system, we have gained nothing. We need to learn from this and establish new regulations, new requirements on ALL companies so that such things are not even allowed the potential to happen. Its no longer just the Gulf or we in the U.S. who cannot afford another such incident (or anything close), it is the WORLD.

I thought we were debating about fishermen's wages. Now, yet again, you've gone off on an environmentalist rant advocating big government in a country whose structure of government requires it to remain small. You claim to care so much for the fishermen, but your first priority is political. Cleaning up is the most immediate aspect of the solution, and your eagerness to skip over it entirely and move to the political ramifications shadows the President's desire to "know whose ass to kick" while people were contemplating and committing suicide along the Gulf Coast. Fix the immediate problem first, THEN find a way to prevent it from happening again. Cart before horse, people.

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

Already? Don't act like offshore drilling is a new thing. The industry started in the late 1800's, and entered the Gulf region prior to 1920. In that time, how many massive oil spills have you seen?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but #1 those "extra monies" are NOT what is being debated here, only whether they can get their rightful wages and their lost income for their lost occupation both.

And.. sorry, but your idea of "just compensation" and WHY it is applied as it is is just wrong.

I suppose it's too much to ask for you to follow the course of an argument for more than one page. They can't get their "rightful wages" and their "lost income" because they are mutually exclusive. That means they can't exist together. If they are working, they haven't lost income. I don't get to claim "lost income" from my last job because now I have a new one. It's really quite simple.

Also, what is your definition of "just compensation?" Or, for that matter, what is mine, and why is it wrong? That's a pretty broad statement to make, that I am "just wrong," when I don't believe that you even have an understanding of what I believe.

Well, when you make statements about fishermen becoming millionaires because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time".. its rather revealing.

And no to the first part. I already said that IF the reason for not paying the fishermen immediately was because it was just a small part of the overall claim.. OK. BUT, then you went on to this garbage (and that is what it is) about fishermen becoming millionaires, cleanup versus paying fishermen, etc.

Really, what you show is that you have a tad bit of knowledge about how lawsuits function (but not a lot), absolutely NO knowledge of most of real life and consequences down in the Gulf.

No such thing.

It's like saying is this child or that child "more important". They are ALL important... and, the likelihood is that NONE will truly get what they deserve, in this case. BUT, taking from one to pay the other won't help, it will only make one side more angry and, in this case, the economy of the Gulf needs fishermen who have money in their pockets daily, not just in 20 years when ... maybe they might see the greatest portion of what they will be owed.

They have the money in their pockets. The article said that the money would later be deducted from the final settlement.

Then it is bull, and wrong.

FURTHERMORE, just looking at BP cleaning this up as "the solution" is bass-ackwards. If they clean it and we go right back to the old system, we have gained nothing. We need to learn from this and establish new regulations, new requirements on ALL companies so that such things are not even allowed the potential to happen. Its no longer just the Gulf or we in the U.S. who cannot afford another such incident (or anything close), it is the WORLD.

I thought we were debating about fishermen's wages.

We were, up until you brought up the clean-up as some kind of "trade-off" and the claim that If I "were an environmentalist...." garbage.

Now, yet again, you've gone off on an environmentalist rant advocating big government in a country whose structure of government requires it to remain small. You claim to care so much for the fishermen, but your first priority is political. Cleaning up is the most immediate aspect of the solution, and your eagerness to skip over it entirely and move to the political ramifications shadows the President's desire to "know whose ass to kick" while people were contemplating and committing suicide along the Gulf Coast. Fix the immediate problem first, THEN find a way to prevent it from happening again. Cart before horse, people.

For the record, you are the one who brought up the environment and what I "ought to think"/support.

All you want to do is criticize, without any real understanding. THAT is what you have made abundantly clear!

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

Already? Don't act like offshore drilling is a new thing. The industry started in the late 1800's, and entered the Gulf region prior to 1920. In that time, how many massive oil spills have you seen?

Oh please! Tell me something I DON'T already know!

The more you go on, the more evident it is that you know extremely little and could care less about educating yourself. Either educate yourself or quite trying to criticize people who actually DO understand things.

[gatoraubrey2]

Well, when you make statements about fishermen becoming millionaires because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time".. its rather revealing.

And no to the first part. I already said that IF the reason for not paying the fishermen immediately was because it was just a small part of the overall claim.. OK. BUT, then you went on to this garbage (and that is what it is) about fishermen becoming millionaires, cleanup versus paying fishermen, etc.

Really, what you show is that you have a tad bit of knowledge about how lawsuits function (but not a lot), absolutely NO knowledge of most of real life and consequences down in the Gulf.

They will make more money than they would have made, without having done anything to earn it. I feel like I'm talking to a mud fence. You don't dispute that they're going to get more than what they would have made on their own, so what are you even arguing about?

And they ARE being paid immediately. We're how many pages into this thread now? It's obvious that you never even read the article that is the subject of this debate.

No such thing.

It's like saying is this child or that child "more important". They are ALL important... and, the likelihood is that NONE will truly get what they deserve, in this case. BUT, taking from one to pay the other won't help, it will only make one side more angry and, in this case, the economy of the Gulf needs fishermen who have money in their pockets daily, not just in 20 years when ... maybe they might see the greatest portion of what they will be owed.

They have the money in their pockets. The article said that the money would later be deducted from the final settlement.

Then it is bull, and wrong.

That's the issue that's up for debate here, but you're not even aware that they are being paid up front for their cleanup services, so it's abundantly clear that you're not even sure what we're discussing.

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

Already? Don't act like offshore drilling is a new thing. The industry started in the late 1800's, and entered the Gulf region prior to 1920. In that time, how many massive oil spills have you seen?

Oh please! Tell me something I DON'T already know!

The more you go on, the more evident it is that you know extremely little and could care less about educating yourself. Either educate yourself or quite trying to criticize people who actually DO understand things.

If you know this, then stop implying that disasters are happening left and right, to convince people that offshore drilling is a bad thing. Your use of the word "already" has a clear implication, and it is misleading. Stop trying to push your own agenda by using fallacious/inaccurate/misleading/"I'm not even sure what we're arguing about" statements and maybe people will start to agree with you.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, when you make statements about fishermen becoming millionaires because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time".. its rather revealing.

And no to the first part. I already said that IF the reason for not paying the fishermen immediately was because it was just a small part of the overall claim.. OK. BUT, then you went on to this garbage (and that is what it is) about fishermen becoming millionaires, cleanup versus paying fishermen, etc.

Really, what you show is that you have a tad bit of knowledge about how lawsuits function (but not a lot), absolutely NO knowledge of most of real life and consequences down in the Gulf.

They will make more money than they would have made, without having done anything to earn it.

IF they get more money, then there is a reason for it, as in these fishermen have lost more than just their incomes. That is why I brought up the bit about a lost loved one, a house, etc.. but you decided to dismiss any such reference. Apparently to you, an occupation is just about money. Sad.

I feel like I'm talking to a mud fence. You don't dispute that they're going to get more than what they would have made on their own, so what are you even arguing about?

your explanations, mostly, which show what you don't understand.

And they ARE being paid immediately. We're how many pages into this thread now? It's obvious that you never even read the article that is the subject of this debate.

No such thing.

It's like saying is this child or that child "more important". They are ALL important... and, the likelihood is that NONE will truly get what they deserve, in this case. BUT, taking from one to pay the other won't help, it will only make one side more angry and, in this case, the economy of the Gulf needs fishermen who have money in their pockets daily, not just in 20 years when ... maybe they might see the greatest portion of what they will be owed.

They have the money in their pockets. The article said that the money would later be deducted from the final settlement.

Then it is bull, and wrong.

That's the issue that's up for debate here, but you're not even aware that they are being paid up front for their cleanup services, so it's abundantly clear that you're not even sure what we're discussing.

.[/quote]
Why do you assume I don't know that. The Baloney part is them having to pay it all back, which was what I have said from the start. If a guy burns down your house, he pays to rebuild it. That you might happen to be a contractor is irrelevant unless you somehow contributed to the arson. BP did this to the fishermen, that's why they will owe the fishermen

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

Already? Don't act like offshore drilling is a new thing. The industry started in the late 1800's, and entered the Gulf region prior to 1920. In that time, how many massive oil spills have you seen?

Oh please! Tell me something I DON'T already know!

The more you go on, the more evident it is that you know extremely little and could care less about educating yourself. Either educate yourself or quite trying to criticize people who actually DO understand things.

If you know this, then stop implying that disasters are happening left and right, to convince people that offshore drilling is a bad thing. Your use of the word "already" has a clear implication, and it is misleading. Stop trying to push your own agenda by using fallacious/inaccurate/misleading/"I'm not even sure what we're arguing about" statements and maybe people will start to agree with you.

Oh get off it. You are the one starting with this idea that I am on some kind of rampage against BP. You read maybe 1/10 of what I have written and assume you have to know more of this, but have not bothered to follow up on even what I have said, to ask me why or how I come to my conclusions.. nothing.

This disaster IS due to BP. I DID see it coming because I used to work in the Gulf. But, I don't single out BP in that. In fact, I blame more the Bush administration for the lack of regulation and lack of funding for studies. All that is fact, real and true.

The acceptable level of risk depends directly on the damage something is likely to cause. The problem with offshore oil is not that they have 100 accidents a year, it is that they have the potential to cause so much damage and yet face very little real and true control, investigation and requirements. If I am doing fireworks, I have to have fire personnel in attendance. If you want to drill, you need to have skimmers and such around.

You wish to minimize this simply because you don't like what I am saying. Too bad. I speak the truth. Go out and see what is happening. I have. THAT is why I am refuting you so soundly. You want to blast me without any real and true understanding of this situation. You feel YOU have a right to judge, but you won't be bothered to even try and understand. THAT is what is wrong right now, with so many things.

[gatoraubrey2]

IF they get more money, then there is a reason for it, as in these fishermen have lost more than just their incomes. That is why I brought up the bit about a lost loved one, a house, etc.. but you decided to dismiss any such reference. Apparently to you, an occupation is just about money. Sad.

They didn't lose loved ones, or houses. There's no precedent for making the case that "I liked my job, and I don't like my new one, so you owe me for the fact that I now work at a crappy job." If the pay was lower, they would be compensated. If they don't lose pay, they'll never be compensated for their emotional withdrawal from fishing. That's absurd.

And they ARE being paid immediately. We're how many pages into this thread now? It's obvious that you never even read the article that is the subject of this debate.

Why do you assume I don't know that. The Baloney part is them having to pay it all back, which was what I have said from the start. If a guy burns down your house, he pays to rebuild it. That you might happen to be a contractor is irrelevant unless you somehow contributed to the arson. BP did this to the fishermen, that's why they will owe the fishermen.

I assume you don't know that because you just said, a few posts up

I already said that IF the reason for not paying the fishermen immediately was because it was just a small part of the overall claim..

You're saying they're not being paid immediately for the cleanup. They are.

(P.S. seems a similar disaster has just happened off China .. already!).

Already? Don't act like offshore drilling is a new thing. The industry started in the late 1800's, and entered the Gulf region prior to 1920. In that time, how many massive oil spills have you seen?

Oh please! Tell me something I DON'T already know!

The more you go on, the more evident it is that you know extremely little and could care less about educating yourself. Either educate yourself or quite trying to criticize people who actually DO understand things.

If you know this, then stop implying that disasters are happening left and right, to convince people that offshore drilling is a bad thing. Your use of the word "already" has a clear implication, and it is misleading. Stop trying to push your own agenda by using fallacious/inaccurate/misleading/"I'm not even sure what we're arguing about" statements and maybe people will start to agree with you.

Oh get off it. You are the one starting with this idea that I am on some kind of rampage against BP. You read maybe 1/10 of what I have written and assume you have to know more of this, but have not bothered to follow up on even what I have said, to ask me why or how I come to my conclusions.. nothing.

I've read every word of what you've written. And you still have not managed to justify why lost wages claims are not mutually exclusive with earning wages. Your posts show that you don't understand what we're debating, or simply choose to ignore it. Your preachy posts are not only annoying, but rarely address the topic at hand.

This disaster IS due to BP. I DID see it coming because I used to work in the Gulf. But, I don't single out BP in that. In fact, I blame more the Bush administration for the lack of regulation and lack of funding for studies. All that is fact, real and true.

You wish to minimize this simply because you don't like what I am saying. Too bad. I speak the truth. Go out and see what is happening. I have. THAT is why I am refuting you so soundly. You want to blast me without any real and true understanding of this situation. You feel YOU have a right to judge, but you won't be bothered to even try and understand. THAT is what is wrong right now, with so many things.

No one cares how you feel about the disaster. This is what you don't understand. This thread is for one purpose and one purpose only: whether BP should be allowed to deduct cleanup wages from the overall settlement. You are opposed, but can't explain why. Every post you make degenerates into a paraphrase of every environmental group in the world's stance on this issue. You haven't refuted anything, because generally you don't address the topic at all. If you can't manage to do so, you should stop posting in this thread.