The Evil Genius Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 WTH are you arguing about Cowboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 No, I haven't. Must be some government conspiracy then. I've actually heard this line of thinking: the government was purposefully negligent with BP, so that the well could explode, so that it could eff up the gulf, so that they could get money from BP for the victims, so that they could tax it. I am speaking to the relief money that BP is paying out to people who are out of work. Apparently, the Government is trying to tax the people who receive these emergency funds as if it were earned income. I've never heard of that on emergency funds. However, your tin foil theories are also very entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I am speaking to the relief money that BP is paying out to people who are out of work. Apparently, the Government is trying to tax the people who receive these emergency funds as if it were earned income. I've never heard of that on emergency funds. However, your tin foil theories are also very entertaining. Well they did it in 2005. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=17162 However, the website does note that “unemployment assistance payments under the act are taxable unemployment compensation.” I suspect the paying of those people for lost wages while the rigs are shut down is the same as "unemployment assistance payments". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 WTH are you arguing about Cowboy? I don't know if this is a question put to me or not. I am actually not arguing. I am trying to learn exactly how this stuff works. I don't know about the Fox report but I have been reading this link. A great deal of info here. More then I can present in a post or 5. Interesting info here. You may wish to read it, I don't know. Here is the link. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2005/offshore/offshore.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Well they did it in 2005.http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=17162 I suspect the paying of those people for lost wages while the rigs are shut down is the same as "unemployment assistance payments". Was not aware of that but it seems stupid to do that. There may be a good reason for it but I don't what it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 100 m ain't gonna last long ,certainly not 6 months(and from all appearances it will be longer than that) Weak shot block attempt twa, because you know very well that the 100 million is not a cap, but just the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Weak shot block attempt twa, because you know very well that the 100 million is not a cap, but just the start. But you still don't know how long. We don't know if it's just 6 months. There is the possability that it could be longer then that. The flexability is their to extend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Weak shot block attempt twa, because you know very well that the 100 million is not a cap, but just the start. You're confusing the liability fund with the special set a side for oil hands(which is not a legal liability). Destino...feel free to doubt my credibility,BUT that link is referring to the panel Obama's people put together...not the oil company:ols: added Speaking of credibility ...it seems it is in short supply... for the administration:evilg: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/22/judge-halts-obamas-oil-drilling-ban/ He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban. "Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 If anyone is interested a pdf of the Judge's decision http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/GENERAL/Notices/10-1663_doc67.pdf He doesn't seem too impressed with the govt's effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Given the BP leak continues to get bigger and has no signs of being stopped, you could make the argument that the low risk of another leak is worth the risk given the gulf is ****ed anyway. How much worse would another leak be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 I am speaking to the relief money that BP is paying out to people who are out of work. Apparently, the Government is trying to tax the people who receive these emergency funds as if it were earned income. I've never heard of that on emergency funds. However, your tin foil theories are also very entertaining. Why wouldn't it be income? I thought BP was paying for lost income.... it would make sense that it be treated like income wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Why wouldn't it be income? I thought BP was paying for lost income.... it would make sense that it be treated like income wouldn't it? Makes perfect sense to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Destino...feel free to doubt my credibility,BUT that link is referring to the panel Obama's people put together...not the oil company:ols: added Speaking of credibility ...it seems it is in short supply... for the administration:evilg: Big business = big government. Where do you think energy experts come from other than energy companies? Just like the financial industry was monitored by industry insiders with regulation being written largely by lobbyists. Also spare me "the administration" stuff. The GOP is just dying to pin this on Obama but I'd be willing to bet some deregulation affecting this area happened under Bush. In the end it's not Bush or Obama's fault. It's everyone in government that decided industry should write it's own regulation, provide the people that will be overseeing said regulation, and believe that business will regulate themselves. I strongly doubt anyone believes that will work but they'll sell it to the stupid segments of the voting public because it benefits them to do so. Many democrats were in on that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Salazar to write new order for another moratorium with more justifications. And hopefully no distortions this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 So I was listening to NPR last night. Any one want to guess where the judge who made the ruling invests his money? I'll grant you we are not talking millions of dollars. It's just: "According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business." The article goes on to say more than half the federal judges have stocks with ties to the oil and gas industry. OK, so how about we get a judge without those ties to make a ruling? Don't get me wrong. I don't know what the correct ruling should be, but recusing oneself from a case where you stand to benefit financially from your decision seems the right choice. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 Salazar to write new order for another moratorium with more justifications.And hopefully no distortions this time And as I expected it was going to be a quick response. The Obama Admin apparently needs the rigs to relocate and have gas prices rise to the point that their green agenda is embraced. Unfortunately it is the best way to get rid of offshore drilling without trying to pass a law that would be DOA after November elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 So I was listening to NPR last night. Any one want to guess where the judge who made the ruling invests his money? Good luck finding some w/o stock in funds that invest in oil.:pfft: If he is respected enough to be a FISA judge I would be careful of making rash allegations. Perhaps O needs to recuse himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Good luck finding some w/o stock in funds that invest in oil.:pfft: Nice try, but swing and a miss. Read his financial disclosure report, he's not invested in funds that have Transocean stock, he's directly invested into Transocean as well as several other oil companies; $15,000 to $50,000 worth of direct stock in oil companies around the Gulf Coast. I guess he wanted his dividend check. http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldman_Martin_L_C/2008.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Id say we were focusing on Shale in the Rockies, and bakken in the dakota's. And doing away with the 5000ft deep impossible to fix 30 or so rigs? would probably make quite a few people happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 added It is interesting we supposedly;) do not know what caused it yet BP is castigated daily they still dont know what caused it? sounds like another reason to castigate them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Nice try, but swing and a miss.Read his financial disclosure report, he's not invested in funds that have Transocean stock, he's directly invested into Transocean as well as several other oil companies; $15,000 to $50,000 worth of direct stock in oil companies around the Gulf Coast. I guess he wanted his dividend check. http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldman_Martin_L_C/2008.pdf Can't fault his reasoning so attempt to question his character?:evilg: We will see what the 5th circuit says...maybe the govt will present a better case then:ols: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Can't fault his reasoning so attempt to question his character?:evilg: Agree with his reasoning so dismiss conflicts of interest. I see how this is done now.:pfft: We will see what the 5th circuit says...maybe the govt will present a better case then:ols: All for naught because the gov't is just going to issue a new moratorium which will take about 60 more days to get to this point, so then if that one gets overturned too then they just have to issue one more and viola a 6 month moratorium! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Can't fault his reasoning so attempt to question his character?:evilg:We will see what the 5th circuit says...maybe the govt will present a better case then:ols: When there are "theories" floating around that the Obama admin caused this mess and then exacerbated it so they could profit from it, I don't think I'd be so quick to laugh about a guy who directly profits from making this ruling. Course, we could just post smiley faces and pretend he's above reproach, but what if he's not? What if his motivations are purely self profit driven? In reading your posts on this spill, it would seem you believe the oil companies and their henchmen can do no wrong. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Course, we could just post smiley faces and pretend he's above reproach, but what if he's not? If he was above reproach he would have recused himself from the case due to conflicts of interest. It's really amazing to me that some are ready and willing to give him a pass on this whereas if the roles were reversed and the judge was heavily invested in green tech and ruled against the oil companies and in favor of the moratorium then the Right's heads would have collectively imploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 When there are "theories" floating around that the Obama admin caused this mess and then exacerbated it so they could profit from it, I don't think I'd be so quick to laugh about a guy who directly profits from making this ruling.Course, we could just post smiley faces and pretend he's above reproach, but what if he's not? What if his motivations are purely self profit driven? In reading your posts on this spill, it would seem you believe the oil companies and their henchmen can do no wrong. ~Bang Looking at his portfolio it seems rather diverse and hardly a issue imo,but there are remedies and safeguards in place if their is any evidence of conflict of interest. Feel free to overlook the obvious facts of the case. Henchmen?...and just who is biased?:pfft: I've ripped BP plenty of times...when they deserved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.