More BP Fund Bullshit

[Woodruff]

I will say it again...the fishermen now have an award that is to be paid to them. This is a done deal.

Aside from that, these fishermen would LIKE to be able to help with the cleanup process, but if they do so, they are required to do so without any pay for having done so (as they would be essentially just giving up part of that award already owed). What kind of motivation are most fishermen going to have to assist with the cleanup, given that situation? Only their own pride. Keeping in mind that these same fishermen have skills that would be useful in the cleanup and you begin to see the problem I have with this situation.

It is precisely like the broken American welfare system in which someone can take a job but make less money at that job than they do on welfare...they likewise have no motivation other than pride for taking the job.

[InkL0sed]

Gatoraubrey, when I pay you to do a job for me, it is a TRADE. It is beneficial for both of us.

When I pay you because I did something to you, I am simply paying you. It is a negative for me.

Next topic for the class: long division.

[gatoraubrey2]

I will say it again...the fishermen now have an award that is to be paid to them. This is a done deal.

Aside from that, these fishermen would LIKE to be able to help with the cleanup process, but if they do so, they are required to do so without any pay for having done so (as they would be essentially just giving up part of that award already owed). What kind of motivation are most fishermen going to have to assist with the cleanup, given that situation? Only their own pride. Keeping in mind that these same fishermen have skills that would be useful in the cleanup and you begin to see the problem I have with this situation.

It is precisely like the broken American welfare system in which someone can take a job but make less money at that job than they do on welfare...they likewise have no motivation other than pride for taking the job.

They will not have motivation. And they have the right not to work, in this case, because the award will come one way or another.

Your point is valid that the system doesn't really put us in the best position for cleanup, since we are paying the most qualified people not to work (this reminds me of agriculture in this country, as well).

I think the problem stems from the fact that, as you say, there is a pre-determined award amount that will be paid regardless. I think that it should have been structured the way that unemployment is structured: you get a set time period (3 months, 6 months, whatever) and then can only continue to collect if you can prove that other work is unavailable. It's the premise that we should pay such large amounts without justification that lies at the root of this problem.

Out of curiosity, to the point that PLAYER has been so poorly discussing, do you believe, in a vacuum situation, without considering any other factors, that it is wrong to deduct these wages from the overall award?

Gatoraubrey, when I pay you to do a job for me, it is a TRADE. It is beneficial for both of us.

When I pay you because I did something to you, I am simply paying you. It is a negative for me.

Next topic for the class: long division.

You like math?

DidSomething = CausedLossofWages

If they're not losing wages, they shouldn't be paid for having lost wages.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

No, I made a goof because I have been distracted by a series of tornado warnings.. the only reason I was sitting here by the computer.

I know they have been paid. Some, NOT all, have gotten some settlement money from BP. This article is saying that they may not get future monies if they got both.

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.

I have, Woodruff has.. you decided already that there is no justification, and are not just insulted because the rest of us don't agree.

Your preachy posts are not only annoying, but rarely address the topic at hand.

Yet, you keep reading and responding.... reading part, anyway.

[Woodruff]

Out of curiosity, to the point that PLAYER has been so poorly discussing, do you believe, in a vacuum situation, without considering any other factors, that it is wrong to deduct these wages from the overall award?

Of course I do. The two are separate entities. The award stands apart from the work/wages (which go together).

[gatoraubrey2]

No, I made a goof because I have been distracted by a series of tornado warnings.. the only reason I was sitting here by the computer.

I know they have been paid. Some, NOT all, have gotten some settlement money from BP. This article is saying that they may not get future monies if they got both.

The same kind of goof that you made when you were arguing with Woodruff, even though he's making your points for you? And he had to ask you multiple times to read the article and his posts before responding again? The kind of error where you don't even read a thread before replying?

And no, that's not what the article says. It says that these wages will be deducted from future payments. Since you have said multiple times that you believe those awards will be incredibly large, it's safe to assume that they will still receive something.

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.

I have, Woodruff has.. you decided already that there is no justification, and are not just insulted because the rest of us don't agree.

No, you have not. You have even gone so far as to argue that what is being paid out is not lost wages compensation. You have continued to avoid the issue and muddy the waters. And, actually, there seem to be plenty of people on this board who do agree with me. Certainly, if they don't agree with me, it's not as a result of your "arguments."

Your preachy posts are not only annoying, but rarely address the topic at hand.

Yet, you keep reading and responding.... reading part, anyway.

I've been expecting that someone who claims to be so reasonable and intelligent could demonstrate either quality. I'm rapidly learning that either you can't, or you aren't.

One more time:
Why should residents of the Gulf Coast be paid any monies to cover lost income, if they have replacement income?

Answer only that question. No more lectures about how evil the government or BP is. No more sob stories about how the fishermen won't get to enjoy the wind on their faces. No more tornadoes. No more of your repeated avoidance of the issue at hand.

Why should residents of the Gulf Coast be paid any monies to cover lost income, if they have replacement income?

[Woodruff]

And no, that's not what the article says. It says that these wages will be deducted from future payments. Since you have said multiple times that you believe those awards will be incredibly large, it's safe to assume that they will still receive something.

As an aside and this is not a reply to your point here...but I DO worry that BP may try to pull the "well, you accepted what we already gave you, so that means you accepted that it was enough" claptrap. Nothing to do with this part of the discussion...it just reminded me of it.

[gatoraubrey2]

And no, that's not what the article says. It says that these wages will be deducted from future payments. Since you have said multiple times that you believe those awards will be incredibly large, it's safe to assume that they will still receive something.

As an aside and this is not a reply to your point here...but I DO worry that BP may try to pull the "well, you accepted what we already gave you, so that means you accepted that it was enough" claptrap. Nothing to do with this part of the discussion...it just reminded me of it.

Certainly possible. In the media climate, though, I would say unlikely. They've already taken a lot of heat, and there have been the talks of boycott. If they were to do something so underhanded, I think the backlash would be extreme. I would say that a move like that is the only thing that could legitimately drive them out of business.

[Woodruff]

And no, that's not what the article says. It says that these wages will be deducted from future payments. Since you have said multiple times that you believe those awards will be incredibly large, it's safe to assume that they will still receive something.

As an aside and this is not a reply to your point here...but I DO worry that BP may try to pull the "well, you accepted what we already gave you, so that means you accepted that it was enough" claptrap. Nothing to do with this part of the discussion...it just reminded me of it.

Certainly possible. In the media climate, though, I would say unlikely. They've already taken a lot of heat, and there have been the talks of boycott. If they were to do something so underhanded, I think the backlash would be extreme.

Yes, I do agree with that. Just something in the back of my mind.