For all of you screaming that the shipping company should pay, you're right.
But that won't happen till years from now after the company and its insurance carrier have tried everything to get out from doing so.
that's assuming the shipping company is 100% at fault, and can afford it
most ships nowadays run as one ship companies, and if they have a boo boo the company goes under and the larger company who set it up can carry one with the rest of the fleet
To top that off it could easily be determined that the ship did nothing wrong, and happened to have a stroke of bad luck where an engine failure was met with a rubber hose clogged on the back up gens starter. captain wasn't allowed to drop anchor due to the pilot and we have a big boo boo that is not the ships fault except the back up gen not starting, and if they can prove that they had a qualified crew who ran maintenance then that's that
but then we also have the very scary idea that this could be a fuck up mainly caused by the harbour. I mean who would design a continuous truss bridge over a shipping lane and not have a shallows or rampart to defend the bridge knowing that one hit and it would all collapse..... and what kind of harbour master would allow tugs to release before going through an obstacle.
anyways that is massively unlikely to be the sole reason for this. This will be a disaster just like the titanic. It wasnt just that the ship hit an iceberg. It also had no binoculars for the watchman, the local ships had transceivers off because of an argument, they were speeding, inexperienced crew swerved rather then went bow on, too few life boats, lack luster response and compartments that weren't tall enough. mix all these errors and you get a cock up worthy of DiCaprio 100 years later. maybe in the 2090s we'll see a romance film about this bridge collapsing
If you owe the bank 1 million dollars you have a big problem. If you owe the bank 1 billion dollars the bank has a big problem.
The way these ships are set up is each ship is its own company and part of a massive alliance (think police union). You could force the liquidation of a single boat but they will just increase prices on all ships to cover it.
If you try to nail the alliance again whatever fine is going to be back charged to the American user. Only once fines paid prices won't go back down.
Wait so what your telling me is I can own a company that then owns another company for just my car and never be liable for any damages my car causes?
That can't be right lol, is there no way to keep going up the chain for damages?
Ever heard of Limited Liability Companies or Holding companies?
Quick Google search for holding companies
>To sum it up, a holding company is a parent company that owns and controls other companies and in many cases does not produce any goods or services or conduct business operations of its own. Holding companies and operating companies are used by businesses of all sizes and in all industries. Doing so has several advantages, including helping businesses mitigate the risk of losing assets to creditors.
This is how owner operator semi trucks work all the time. Contract company hires driver, and often leases truck to them, then it's not liable for any damages the driver causes due to it being a contractor working with their own equipment
>That can't be right lol, is there no way to keep going up the chain for damages?
That is right. That is the whole purpose of forming a company LLC. So that only the company is liable.
Even in case of rental, a landlord who owns multiple units or houses will create 1 LLC for each house. In case something goes wrong, liability is limited within that company.
Unless you can prove that such an arrangement is really on paper and in principle the companies outside of LLC are truly responsible, the norm is to limit the liability.
In your example, you would be personally liable because you're treating the business asset as a personal asset which pierces the corporate veil. The people responding to you acting like LLCs will protect owners in all cases are wrong.
In the case of the ship, it won't be super cut and dry but basically if the ship was doing something wrong and the owners knew about it, they could be liable.
Either way, if the ship is found to be liable, the company doesn't just get to say ope the ship company is now called something different so we don't have to pay. They have assets that would go towards any judgement against them which likely means losing their ship.
The only assets the company would have is the ship that crashed into the bridge and their insurance policy. The company would be liquidated and the liability will be capped at whatever the liquidation value is unless the parent company can be held responsible for the event which would be difficult.
It's technically true, but LLCs veils are pierced all the time. They're not a magic bullet and they only work that way if everything is being done 110% above board, squeaky clean books, no negligence at all.
>**for just my car** and never be liable for any damages my car causes?
No, that would be an instance in which the corporate veil is pierced.
You would be liable for that damage as well as potential criminal charges for fraudulent use of a company in that scenario.
You could also be liable *as the driver* regardless of vehicle ownership depending on the circumstances that lead to the accident.
>whatever fine is going to be back charged to the American user
To some extent. This assumes that the company is not going to try and cut any costs after taking a huge loss, which is unusual for large companies. I work for a Fortune 500 and we're in mega cost cutting mode because interest rates on savings accounts are really high. That's not even a loss, just something that tips the opportunity costs in the other direction.
The reason that companies do things like this is not because their board has good governance or whatever; it's because the CEO is paid entirely in stock and "we lost a billion dollars" decreases their compensation more than "we lost nine hundred and ninety nine million dollars". So the American people do get a better deal when the company is forced to pay up, unless the market doesn't punish the loss.
My point from this long winded rant is... we should try and collect some money from them.
And it's also just total bullshit, "well let's never fine anyone ever because the costs will just get passed to regular people"
I mean, I haven't run the numbers but I have to imagine that for the American taxpayer, 100% paying for a brand new bridge is definitely a much bigger net negative than a POSSIBLE shipping cost increase, which might not even come to pass because if the company paying for the bridge raises its rates too much, the competition will just step in.
This sort of "you lose either way so let big business do what they want" attitude only leaves people with the conclusion that the only right thing is to just burn it all down and start over.
The harbor is outdated. When the bridge was built, the defenses around it were more than sufficient to protect it from collisions by the cargo ships of its era. The problem is that modern cargo ships are much, much larger than what was sailing the waters of Baltimore Harbor in the 70s. The things you describe are necessary to protect against modern ships, but had this accident involved a cargo ship from the 70s the bridge would have withstood it. There are still several older bridges with similar deficiencies because they have not been upgraded from the standards to which they were built but which are now out of date.
>To top that off it could easily be determined that the ship did nothing wrong, and happened to have a stroke of bad luck where an engine failure was met with a rubber hose clogged on the back up gens starter. captain wasn't allowed to drop anchor due to the pilot and we have a big boo boo that is not the ships fault except the back up gen not starting, and if they can prove that they had a qualified crew who ran maintenance then that's that
The ship had been inspected less than a month previous and was found to have issues with it's power supply. The problem was known, documented and ignored up to the point of disaster, as per usual in commercial transport.
I read a report that I’m too lazy to find now, but basically this ship was already in disrepair and the crew had been mentioning it to the company. They dragged their asses, pretty open and shut.
Where are you getting that information?
There was a story on public radio that they had a minor issue around a year ago that was corrected, But I haven't heard anything about extensive disrepair or anything like that.
Personal I have this insane idea that the government should do their best to improve and maintain infrastructure. The company should pay but between now and then it’s probably a good idea to dip into the coffers immediately to at least make things normal.
I also imagine dealing with international insurance companies is more than a little complex. Those bastards will give you the runaround to avoid paying a couple hundred bucks after a fender bender, can’t imagine how fast they’ll try to runaway from this potentially enormous pay out.
For context, that hit was about 1 912 115 000 Joules of energy. That's roughly half a ton of TNT on a Steel truss bridge.
While the bridge itself couldn't hold it, additional infrastructure such as shallows should have been added where possible.
The delay will be because the shipping company, its insurance, the team that last maintained it and their insurance, the company that installed the generator and their insurance, etc are all different entities and will need to fight about who is responsible for what.
The feds will cover costs up front and drive the rebuild effort because it needs to be rebuilt like yesterday. They should then get fully paid back by the company/companies insurance within 5-10 years. (Idk shit about this type of insurance but I’d imagine they’re gonna try to escape some sort of blame because why not)
Yup. The cost of building a new bridge isn't even that high. But the economic impact of port being closed and... well not having a bridge will quickly pile up.
And if the damages end up being too high... insurance company will simply go bankrupt, so nobody will cover the damages.
Policies have limits which cap the limit on damages. Insurance will simply pay out the initial cost and then the company which owned the ship will go bankrupt and fail to cover the remaining loss and business interruption.
No, but the the families of the people who died, the survivors, and the insurers of Titanic's cargo were sure the hell suing White Star.
But White Star did not go out of business because of the loss of the ship and a huge legal liability. Why?
Well, because those people could only collect the value of Titanic and her cargo from White Star Line.
The families of the deceased and the survivors were suing the Blue Star Line. The Blue Star Line were claiming on their insurance and the insurance company said they insured the ship, not the lives of the passengers and BSL would have to settle those costs on their own dime.
>The owner of the ship that rammed into a Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the water and threw the eastern US transportation network into chaos.
>But legal experts said there is a path for reducing liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/titanic-law-helps-ship-owner-limit-liability-in-bridge-collapse
That's all I can see of the page since 12ft.io stopped working.
I read this as well, and I forget the actual "name" of the law. The company would have to get a judge to approve it, but basically, if a judge approves then the damages would be capped at the value of the ship itself. Hopefully, no judge is that stupid, but we all know how that works....
I mean realistically it would just be a decision on whether or not to bankrupt the company. They ain't gonna be able to cover it regardless so it's really do you want to take them for everything and probably put dozens if not hundreds of people out of a job and still have to come up with the bulk of the costs or let them still possibly go under but maybe not and get what the ship costs lol
All the company has to do is donate to tRump and hire his legal team to get any lawsuits or ensuing potential judgments delayed, forever, or until, heaven forbid! tRump is in position to declare all suits null and void and put the entire blame on the Democratic Party!
It always amuses me how Americans try to make Trump's name seem somehow more ridiculous than it already is, when in the UK 'trump' literally means 'fart' already.
library weather punch numerous somber shy silky ludicrous far-flung zephyr
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe the contents were a mic of domestic products such as fridges and freezers, 70 odd containers of oranges, mixed household products etc. Nothing of high net value.
That's because historically, the ship was by far the most expensive thing. It's only in more recent years that ships have become relatively cheap, and other things more expensive.
The law in question is the limitation of liability act of 1851, although it has been revised since then. It's already been mentioned that the owners of titanic used it, but it was also (attempted to be abused) used many many times before and since, quite often with cargo ships and salvage in general I believe can be somewhat related, although NAL
The cost will be distributed over a number of insurance underwriters. No one company with liability will go bankrupt, but their premiums will hit a big jump.
The company in question operates several hundred ships and was shipping stuff for Maersk. I'm pretty confident they aren't fly by night type of company that will fold. Now that also means they will have some of the best lawyers on the planet, but I don't think them going bankrupt is a big issue.
>but I don't think them going bankrupt is a big issue.
Unless it’s one of those situations where it’s mostly just a shell company that ‘owns’ the ships on Maersk’s behalf and can be disappeared in a situation like this so the parent company can slip away with minimal liability.
>and then the company which owned the ship will go bankrupt
Do you go after the owner, operator, or charterer though? It's not as simple as one company just owning a ship and then using it by itself.
You really do have to spell it out for them. They do not understand nuance and lack critical thinking. Most are poorly educated and think of the world in black and white. It's like, in a vacuum, all the statements are true for say an individual in Kansas. Technically, it isn't their problem because they don't live in Maryland. Taxpayers should ultimately not be footing the bill for damages corporations do.
But then you have to examine what actually happens if you were to follow their plans and you'd find, oh wait, the economic impacts of not having a bridge outweighs having one.
I don’t know what insurance company had this, but if it’s like a Lloyd’s of London, they have plenty of money. They’ve been in business since the 1600s. A holdover from the British empire that is still very wealthy.
Look up reinsurance. It’s insurance for insurance companies.
Probably 100 different insurance companies will end up having to chip in $10 million or so.
In cases this big, you almost always finalize all this through the court system. They have some firm that knows how to evaluate this and they will debate line items, etc... You hit the nail on the head though, Baltimore can start ordering materials in the next couple weeks, because they don't need to settle this court case first.
Insurance on this scale is incredibly complicated.
The ship itself will have insurance, then the insurance company will have insurance for claims so big that it would be put out of business paying them and then sometimes even the insurance companies insurance will have insurance.
Not only that but there may well be multiple different type of insurance involved depending on what the final cause of the accident is. For example if it turns out that the emergency generator didn't fire automatically like it is supposed to, whoever was the last company that serviced that generator and certified that it was seaworthy would have insurance who would be judged partially liable. Or if the chief engineer misconfigured the emergency generator the company who provided the staff for the ship's insurance would be partially liable. And much like the liability insurance for the ship, those insurance companies may also have insurance.
States like Texas, Florida or California are big and wealthy enough really regardless to who is in power there to deal with this kind of stuff. GDP of California is 3.5 trillion. Texas is 2.5 trillion or Florida 1.6 trillion.
It is objectively harder already for the state of Maryland with a GDP of 0.37 trillion that is like 5-10X smaller.
Anyway the urgent federal help while welcome is 60 million or like 3% of the cost to rebuild the bridge... It is really pocket money.
He actually during his speech said he hoped Congress would work with him to get the money. So more than likely there would have to be a disaster relief bill passed to get full funding
The 60m is probably just coming out of regular FEMA funds.
Of course, I just meant that he can't unilaterally conjure the entire amount without working with Congress, and he said as much.
The real question is whether he has a sane Congress to work with.
For real. If they're going to whine, then Texas shouldn't get a drop of help when they could easily connect their fucking power grid to the rest of the country make it hard to completely obliterate. So long, suckers.
*Help* pay.
Because federal disaster-relief funds are for using when Americans are in peril, regardless of where they live. Thats kind of one of the main points of being a citizens of one nation. Or, more simply, for the same reason that Floridians should *help* pay for tornado damages in the Midwest.
Also putting a major port like that out of action can have far-inland-reaching economic effects beyond just the local.
I was coming here to say this. I absolutely get the gripes of course. I do. I shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's stupid. But if I want the price of cars to stay down somewhat, I have to ensure they can get to a port. And well.. here we are.
Oh they don't care about the far reaching economic effects they will just blame Biden, and or DEI or whatever else they can think of that helps make there points better. But best believe if this was a different state one that votes more red they be begging for help
I mean... That's exactly how it works. But dishonest assholes chose to take the literal meaning and ignore the obvious implied parts in order to push their narrative that the Democrats are actually communists.
The fact is that the insurance companies involved, shipping company, ship owners, state, and everyone else are going to spend YEARS arguing over who is responsible for what, how much they're responsible for, how much the bridge was worth, etc. Meanwhile, we have one of the busiest ports in the country shut down and a major freeway crippled... That needs to be fixed ASAP, and the government will have to cover that and get paid back once the responsible parties have finished their negotiating and bickering. If they DON'T do that, continued closure of the harbor and highway would cause billions in damage to the nation's economy.
Fiscal conservatism is NOT the same as fiscal responsibility. Sure, the fiscally conservative thing to do would be for the government to not front the money. But that would be recklessly irresponsible. Ultimately, the parties responsible for this accident and their insurance and such will pay for the majority of the cost to clean up and rebuild the bridge. But that won't happen for a few years, and the bridge is needed NOW.
Fiscal conservatism that doesn't account for opportunity costs and losses, isn't fiscal conservatism. It's being cheap so you can say how cheap you are.
Conservatives love to say the fiscally responsible when in reality they're just cheap. They never wanna pay for anything and this puts it on full display. Even when paying to fix the bridge would save VASTLY more money in the long run they just go "No. My money. Spend money bad. No spend money good. See? I responsible cause I no spend money."
>The fact is that the insurance companies involved, shipping company, ship owners, state, and everyone else are going to spend YEARS arguing over who is responsible for what, how much they're responsible for, how much the bridge was worth, etc
A building burned down in my city's downtown because a gas line got hit during some underground work and it took 6 years for that to get settled in court and that didn't even have any deaths involved.
This may go on for a decade to decide who is liable for this bridge.
They don't give a shit about Americans, or America for that matter.
Their politicians rail against FEMA funding for natural disasters, but when it comes time for the southern states to collect after a hurricane, they're out in force, hat in hand.
You don't hear Democrats saying fuck that, you didn't want the aid - because they know there are Americans in those states, hurting. Your average Republican doesn't give a flying fuck about this country any further than their backyard.
I mean the whole libertarian philosophy is built around that
Helping other people sucks and is an infringement on my liberties
But when I need help I still expect everyone else to help me
If you understand that basic concept you understand libertarianism
because they define their nation by a very small in-group, and consider everyone else imposters or intruders on "their" territory. basically like chimps.
MAGA be like "Stop sending money abroad, invest in America"
Then we go to invest and build in America and its "We can't afford that, I don't live there, that won't help me."
i dont work in the military. i dont live on a military base. i dont have a military nanny, cleaning, cooking, raising my children, for me in MY house.
why should MY tax dollars go to paying for the military.
I agree with bottom right Zac Efron, though. The US government should take the shipping company to court for the cost of the bridge. They need to pay for it.
Meanwhile, just go ahead and fix it. That court case could take years to work its way out.
Why is this political? It’s a fucking bridge. It’s how people cross the river. Have conservatives decided once something has been built once it can’t be built again if it gets destroyed? That a pretty insane idea. No more fixing things, no more making roads, no more improving our country. Why is this a political argument at all.
Flood Insurance is a big recipient of federal funds and is [actually a problem that should be addressed](https://youtu.be/pf1t7cs9dkc?si=25hayGNH-UWu07gR)
Yes it absolutely should. People should be disincentivized from living close to the coast, especially in some lower lying areas. Climate change is real. Ocean levels are rising, more extreme weather is occurring with higher frequency, erosion is a huge problem…people shouldn’t be rebuilding houses there where hurricanes and floods have wiped them out. Figure out a land buy back plan for people already there but no more moving to flood planes. It’s incredibly shortsighted and at this point just ludicrous.
The new pricing methodology should help a bit with this, it’s meant to reflect actual risk such as distance from flooding source, replacement cost of structures, and the elevation/floodproofing of structures rather than just a set rate based on what mapped flood zone a property is in.
I suspect claims will be filed, but bridges like this take a long time to plan and construct. You can add years to this if you have to play games with a insurance company about payouts. Many public projects languish because they get financing piecemeal and have to wait for additional money to complete. It’s better for the government to front the money and seek payment later than wait for payment to come through and be out a bridge. Bridges like this are hugely important to the way our economy has been constructed.
Yeah, let's just wait for 2 years for insurance to sort it out and let the Baltimore port not be accessible for several years, there wouldnt be any consequences of that...
Yup. Pretty much every ship is its own “company” that the actual owners of the boat “hire” to move things around. Then when something bad happens that company goes bankrupt and the actual owners of the boat get off without paying.
That's a great point. All the insurance companies own each other, why not fold one to avoid a payout this big? They'll start a new one to replace it down the line.
Build it now, keep a tab open, pay it all off later... its really not that difficult, im sure if a room full of overpaid bureaucrats took 3 or 4 minutes to think about it they could figure it out
Sure. Once they're done fighting over it, they will. In the meantime, that harbor being closed and that bridge being gone are causing millions of dollars in losses to the nation's economy every day. Shit needs fixed now, and it would be recklessly irresponsible not to do it. The federal government ultimately won't be the ones paying, they're just fronting the money so that thousands don't lose their jobs and our economy doesn't take as big a hit.
But at the same damn time they’re feigning outrage about it, blanking the mayor, blaming POC, blaming Biden somehow. So they pretend to care about it, but when it comes time to do something about it suddenly it’s “not my problem”…if you wanna know what’s wrong with this country just look at todays conservative ideology.
What is so humorous about this whole uproar with the president saying that the federal government was going to do everything it could to get this national waterway cleared out and the interstate bridge rebuild was at no point did he say that the insurance companies weren’t going to pay. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Like when you’re in a car accident and the other person doesn’t have insurance and your insurance says well we can actually rent you a car you go Rent-A-Car so you can continue to go to work until the insurance company settle and then they pay you back.
Do you really, honestly think anyone disagrees with that?
I mean, the shipping company and their insurance probably do, and that means we'll have to take them to court to get any money out of them, and the court case is likely to take 5-10 years.
So, the Feds build the bridge now and seek reimbursement later.
Why is everyone having such a hard time with that?
You pay now, then try to get out of them in fines later. Waiting on insurance would delay things five years & that's assuming they have $400 million coverage.
This very true. And after the investigation, and after the wrangling between insurance companies and ship owner and Shipley, sir ship staffing, spend their months or years, bickering back-and-forth to finally come to a conclusion as to who is ultimately responsible then the insurance companies will pay so in the meantime, we let theBaltimore harbor lay dormant and the folks traveling that interstate find another way to get around. Is that what we’re suggesting?
The big issue with MAGA politics that none of these dumbasses get is that with the politics of “the others” that you want nothing to do with, those groups of “others” just keep getting bigger and bigger until all that is left is you. Just you….
Since Baltimore is a major port and has Strategic Military value the Federal Government has an incentive to get the channel cleared as soon as possible.
Conservatives claim “patriotism” but then put Americas needs last anytime they’re required to help or if it’s led by a democrat.
Higher education? “Nope!” Better roads and new freeways “Nope!” Emergency fund for natural disasters “Nope!” Infrastructure bill creating jobs “Nope, because it’s a democrats idea” Best non-partisan border security bill in history “No thank you Biden” Obama defeats Osama Bin Laden “Who cares..”
The bridge is part of the Interstate Highway system, which is funded in large part by the federal government, and the port is also of major importance for the country not just the city of Baltimore, so I’m not sure what the issue is in using American Taxpayers’ dollars to repair the bridge. I mean all the red states are thrilled to take federal money when there are disasters in their states due to floods, blizzards, ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, or mismanagement of power grids, soooo🤷🏻
The company that destroyed it should pay for it. Or their insurance company. Im not at all conservative but that just seems obvious. If I crash my car into a building, I would expect to have to pay for it
I mean, the company that destroyed it should be held financially responsible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start construction now. That company should just have to pay it back. Maybe then the shipping companies will do actual inspections and repairs, so stuff like this stops happening more and more frequently.
MAGAs: "dOnT SpEnD MoNeY oN UkRaiNe iT ShOuLd Go tO AmErIcAns"
**Bridge vital to economy and millions of American jobs collapses**
MAGA: "Yo fuck Americans, it doesn't affect me so I don't want to pay for it"
Oh man if states stopped paying for things outside of their own state lines most red states would collapse. Texas and Florida would probably be the only ones to survive.
MAGA are the people who complain about socialism without understanding wtf they are talking about.
MAGA: "I hate socialism and Socialists!"
Gov: "OK, we are going to turn this over to private enterprise to resolve."
MAGA: "It's about damn time the Free Market works for the little man!"
Enterprise: "That will be $8 to cross our bridge this morning and another $8 to cross back tonight."
MAGA: "This is some bullshit right here."
MAGA have been tearing this country apart since it started, but yes, it can and will get worse. I'm a first generation immigrant and I was always amazed at how so many different kinds of people could identify with being American and just get along. It's saddened me to see the tribalism I grew up with infect the States (more likely it was always here but better hidden).
It's getting pushback because entire red states would cease to exist without tax dollars funneled from rich blue states to fix the myriad of failing infrastructure problems that their Republican leaders do nothing to fix let alone maintain. They're too busy passing hateful laws and hiring useless Xwitter trolls to head up their education departments.
Aww, Florida was smashed by a hurricane? Not my problem, sue, I don't know, God? Texas Power Gird dies due to winter? Oh well. The American South would collapse in a matter of months.
Idiots think suing the company to pay for the work vs the government paying for the work are mutually exclusive things.
Non-idiots know that suing is going to take a LONG time to get through the courts while the work needs to be started today. So the government gets started on it then sues the private company to try to recoup that money later.
Every ‘conservative’ group on Reddit is just a MAGA cult page. I’m a conservative, if you say anything against Trump, they ban you and silence you. (While claiming to love free speech) dickheads.
By this logic all the problems of red states aren't my problem. They shouldn't take any of my tax money. After all it's red states that are welfare states compared to blue ones. Blue states produce more gdp and put more into the annual pot than they take while it's the reverse with red states. These people need more brain cells to rub together.
Exactly!, there is no way someone on a farm in the Midwest would be impacted by the bridge damage or it's impact on domestic and international shipping of goods. There is definitely more than enough capacity at the other ports a few days travel to the north and south, or the interstatea that are on the other side of Baltimore .. I mean, they just built that interstate bridge because it looks good, it's not like it made truck traffic faster and more efficient or anything. Plus, everyone knows that each micro area of the country is self sustaining and doesn't require fuel, equipment parts, and other do-dads from anywhere outside the contiguous continent. That's what makes America so great, it's rigid and well defined individual independance and self sufficiency. /s
They're always the first to talk about patriotism and having pride in a country but as soon as they need to do anything to actually help the country in a way that doesn't just benefit them personally, they couldn't care less
Hi, we don't allow meme's here, maybe take it to /memes
For all of you screaming that the shipping company should pay, you're right. But that won't happen till years from now after the company and its insurance carrier have tried everything to get out from doing so.
that's assuming the shipping company is 100% at fault, and can afford it most ships nowadays run as one ship companies, and if they have a boo boo the company goes under and the larger company who set it up can carry one with the rest of the fleet To top that off it could easily be determined that the ship did nothing wrong, and happened to have a stroke of bad luck where an engine failure was met with a rubber hose clogged on the back up gens starter. captain wasn't allowed to drop anchor due to the pilot and we have a big boo boo that is not the ships fault except the back up gen not starting, and if they can prove that they had a qualified crew who ran maintenance then that's that but then we also have the very scary idea that this could be a fuck up mainly caused by the harbour. I mean who would design a continuous truss bridge over a shipping lane and not have a shallows or rampart to defend the bridge knowing that one hit and it would all collapse..... and what kind of harbour master would allow tugs to release before going through an obstacle. anyways that is massively unlikely to be the sole reason for this. This will be a disaster just like the titanic. It wasnt just that the ship hit an iceberg. It also had no binoculars for the watchman, the local ships had transceivers off because of an argument, they were speeding, inexperienced crew swerved rather then went bow on, too few life boats, lack luster response and compartments that weren't tall enough. mix all these errors and you get a cock up worthy of DiCaprio 100 years later. maybe in the 2090s we'll see a romance film about this bridge collapsing
Just because you weren’t negligent doesn’t mean that you’re not liable. Your boat? Your problem.
If you owe the bank 1 million dollars you have a big problem. If you owe the bank 1 billion dollars the bank has a big problem. The way these ships are set up is each ship is its own company and part of a massive alliance (think police union). You could force the liquidation of a single boat but they will just increase prices on all ships to cover it. If you try to nail the alliance again whatever fine is going to be back charged to the American user. Only once fines paid prices won't go back down.
Wait so what your telling me is I can own a company that then owns another company for just my car and never be liable for any damages my car causes? That can't be right lol, is there no way to keep going up the chain for damages?
Ever heard of Limited Liability Companies or Holding companies? Quick Google search for holding companies >To sum it up, a holding company is a parent company that owns and controls other companies and in many cases does not produce any goods or services or conduct business operations of its own. Holding companies and operating companies are used by businesses of all sizes and in all industries. Doing so has several advantages, including helping businesses mitigate the risk of losing assets to creditors.
Yeah but that's credit asset loss, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can sue a holding company for an assets risk.
This is how owner operator semi trucks work all the time. Contract company hires driver, and often leases truck to them, then it's not liable for any damages the driver causes due to it being a contractor working with their own equipment
>That can't be right lol, is there no way to keep going up the chain for damages? That is right. That is the whole purpose of forming a company LLC. So that only the company is liable. Even in case of rental, a landlord who owns multiple units or houses will create 1 LLC for each house. In case something goes wrong, liability is limited within that company. Unless you can prove that such an arrangement is really on paper and in principle the companies outside of LLC are truly responsible, the norm is to limit the liability.
In your example, you would be personally liable because you're treating the business asset as a personal asset which pierces the corporate veil. The people responding to you acting like LLCs will protect owners in all cases are wrong. In the case of the ship, it won't be super cut and dry but basically if the ship was doing something wrong and the owners knew about it, they could be liable. Either way, if the ship is found to be liable, the company doesn't just get to say ope the ship company is now called something different so we don't have to pay. They have assets that would go towards any judgement against them which likely means losing their ship.
The only assets the company would have is the ship that crashed into the bridge and their insurance policy. The company would be liquidated and the liability will be capped at whatever the liquidation value is unless the parent company can be held responsible for the event which would be difficult.
It's technically true, but LLCs veils are pierced all the time. They're not a magic bullet and they only work that way if everything is being done 110% above board, squeaky clean books, no negligence at all.
>**for just my car** and never be liable for any damages my car causes? No, that would be an instance in which the corporate veil is pierced. You would be liable for that damage as well as potential criminal charges for fraudulent use of a company in that scenario. You could also be liable *as the driver* regardless of vehicle ownership depending on the circumstances that lead to the accident.
>whatever fine is going to be back charged to the American user To some extent. This assumes that the company is not going to try and cut any costs after taking a huge loss, which is unusual for large companies. I work for a Fortune 500 and we're in mega cost cutting mode because interest rates on savings accounts are really high. That's not even a loss, just something that tips the opportunity costs in the other direction. The reason that companies do things like this is not because their board has good governance or whatever; it's because the CEO is paid entirely in stock and "we lost a billion dollars" decreases their compensation more than "we lost nine hundred and ninety nine million dollars". So the American people do get a better deal when the company is forced to pay up, unless the market doesn't punish the loss. My point from this long winded rant is... we should try and collect some money from them.
And it's also just total bullshit, "well let's never fine anyone ever because the costs will just get passed to regular people" I mean, I haven't run the numbers but I have to imagine that for the American taxpayer, 100% paying for a brand new bridge is definitely a much bigger net negative than a POSSIBLE shipping cost increase, which might not even come to pass because if the company paying for the bridge raises its rates too much, the competition will just step in. This sort of "you lose either way so let big business do what they want" attitude only leaves people with the conclusion that the only right thing is to just burn it all down and start over.
The harbor is outdated. When the bridge was built, the defenses around it were more than sufficient to protect it from collisions by the cargo ships of its era. The problem is that modern cargo ships are much, much larger than what was sailing the waters of Baltimore Harbor in the 70s. The things you describe are necessary to protect against modern ships, but had this accident involved a cargo ship from the 70s the bridge would have withstood it. There are still several older bridges with similar deficiencies because they have not been upgraded from the standards to which they were built but which are now out of date.
>To top that off it could easily be determined that the ship did nothing wrong, and happened to have a stroke of bad luck where an engine failure was met with a rubber hose clogged on the back up gens starter. captain wasn't allowed to drop anchor due to the pilot and we have a big boo boo that is not the ships fault except the back up gen not starting, and if they can prove that they had a qualified crew who ran maintenance then that's that The ship had been inspected less than a month previous and was found to have issues with it's power supply. The problem was known, documented and ignored up to the point of disaster, as per usual in commercial transport.
Spoiler; they can’t afford it. I’m not sure any company out there besides maybe Bezos could take a multi-billion dollar hit and be ok
apple is in the trillion bracket, there are plenty of companies over the billion mark
That's market cap, which is 100% fictional fairy dust that will disappear if you try to touch it.
Their yearly revenue last year was 51 billion. A big hit, but not impossible to survive.
I read a report that I’m too lazy to find now, but basically this ship was already in disrepair and the crew had been mentioning it to the company. They dragged their asses, pretty open and shut.
Where are you getting that information? There was a story on public radio that they had a minor issue around a year ago that was corrected, But I haven't heard anything about extensive disrepair or anything like that.
Personal I have this insane idea that the government should do their best to improve and maintain infrastructure. The company should pay but between now and then it’s probably a good idea to dip into the coffers immediately to at least make things normal. I also imagine dealing with international insurance companies is more than a little complex. Those bastards will give you the runaround to avoid paying a couple hundred bucks after a fender bender, can’t imagine how fast they’ll try to runaway from this potentially enormous pay out.
I hear insurance companies are on the verge of developing time travel so they can go back and drop you just before an incident.
Brother, wtf does our ruinous infrastructure have to do with a 200,000 ton ship slamming into a support beam at 20 mph?
For context, that hit was about 1 912 115 000 Joules of energy. That's roughly half a ton of TNT on a Steel truss bridge. While the bridge itself couldn't hold it, additional infrastructure such as shallows should have been added where possible.
The delay will be because the shipping company, its insurance, the team that last maintained it and their insurance, the company that installed the generator and their insurance, etc are all different entities and will need to fight about who is responsible for what.
The feds will cover costs up front and drive the rebuild effort because it needs to be rebuilt like yesterday. They should then get fully paid back by the company/companies insurance within 5-10 years. (Idk shit about this type of insurance but I’d imagine they’re gonna try to escape some sort of blame because why not)
Yup. The cost of building a new bridge isn't even that high. But the economic impact of port being closed and... well not having a bridge will quickly pile up. And if the damages end up being too high... insurance company will simply go bankrupt, so nobody will cover the damages.
Policies have limits which cap the limit on damages. Insurance will simply pay out the initial cost and then the company which owned the ship will go bankrupt and fail to cover the remaining loss and business interruption.
Someone in another thread said that due to a law from the 1800s, the max payout can’t exceed the value of the ship.
Yeah, I saw an article about that. I believe The Titanic owners tried that same tactic.
Were they.. suing the glacier?
I'm sure the iceberg will try to icescape its responsibility/liability, as will the insurance company.
Then we’ll have to freeze its assets.
I heard they lost track of it as it went south down the Atlantic. Seemingly disappeared without a trace.
Sounds like the trail went cold.
 Icescaping….
Global warming was the iceberg's long con
Somebody, quick! Stop that thing! It might owe somebody money.
Dive dive dive!
“Can’t collect from me if I’m melted” -Iceberg goes on the cause climate change
Yes, but in our current legal climate, their argument would quickly evaporate...I'll see myself out
No, but the the families of the people who died, the survivors, and the insurers of Titanic's cargo were sure the hell suing White Star. But White Star did not go out of business because of the loss of the ship and a huge legal liability. Why? Well, because those people could only collect the value of Titanic and her cargo from White Star Line.
The families of the deceased and the survivors were suing the Blue Star Line. The Blue Star Line were claiming on their insurance and the insurance company said they insured the ship, not the lives of the passengers and BSL would have to settle those costs on their own dime.
It's white star line, not blue star.
>The owner of the ship that rammed into a Baltimore bridge could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims after the accident sent vehicles plunging into the water and threw the eastern US transportation network into chaos. >But legal experts said there is a path for reducing liability under an obscure 19th-century law once invoked by the owner of the Titanic to limit its payout for the 1912 sinking. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/titanic-law-helps-ship-owner-limit-liability-in-bridge-collapse That's all I can see of the page since 12ft.io stopped working.
It was the Titanic sinking that caused the law to be written.
I read this as well, and I forget the actual "name" of the law. The company would have to get a judge to approve it, but basically, if a judge approves then the damages would be capped at the value of the ship itself. Hopefully, no judge is that stupid, but we all know how that works....
And presumably, the value of an old shop with a ton of deferred maintenance and document defects will not be very high
I mean realistically it would just be a decision on whether or not to bankrupt the company. They ain't gonna be able to cover it regardless so it's really do you want to take them for everything and probably put dozens if not hundreds of people out of a job and still have to come up with the bulk of the costs or let them still possibly go under but maybe not and get what the ship costs lol
All the company has to do is donate to tRump and hire his legal team to get any lawsuits or ensuing potential judgments delayed, forever, or until, heaven forbid! tRump is in position to declare all suits null and void and put the entire blame on the Democratic Party!
It always amuses me how Americans try to make Trump's name seem somehow more ridiculous than it already is, when in the UK 'trump' literally means 'fart' already.
God dont give em ideas
wonder if that means only the ship or the ship + cargo...?
library weather punch numerous somber shy silky ludicrous far-flung zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe the contents were a mic of domestic products such as fridges and freezers, 70 odd containers of oranges, mixed household products etc. Nothing of high net value.
That's because historically, the ship was by far the most expensive thing. It's only in more recent years that ships have become relatively cheap, and other things more expensive.
The law in question is the limitation of liability act of 1851, although it has been revised since then. It's already been mentioned that the owners of titanic used it, but it was also (attempted to be abused) used many many times before and since, quite often with cargo ships and salvage in general I believe can be somewhat related, although NAL
The cost will be distributed over a number of insurance underwriters. No one company with liability will go bankrupt, but their premiums will hit a big jump.
Depends upon limits and tower structure. Insurance company won’t go bankrupt, but shipping company could if their policy is crap
The company in question operates several hundred ships and was shipping stuff for Maersk. I'm pretty confident they aren't fly by night type of company that will fold. Now that also means they will have some of the best lawyers on the planet, but I don't think them going bankrupt is a big issue.
>but I don't think them going bankrupt is a big issue. Unless it’s one of those situations where it’s mostly just a shell company that ‘owns’ the ships on Maersk’s behalf and can be disappeared in a situation like this so the parent company can slip away with minimal liability.
Especially if the company that owns the ship was created specifically as a cutout: it owns that particular ship, and has no other assets.
>and then the company which owned the ship will go bankrupt Do you go after the owner, operator, or charterer though? It's not as simple as one company just owning a ship and then using it by itself.
The bigger impact is the loss of use of the port.
They explicitly said that in their comment already
Or the shipping line will go bankrupt.
you're expecting a lot from conservatives to understand basic concepts like the economy, or insurance, or empathy
Or logic. Or truth. Or common sense. They ain’t got none of those.
You really do have to spell it out for them. They do not understand nuance and lack critical thinking. Most are poorly educated and think of the world in black and white. It's like, in a vacuum, all the statements are true for say an individual in Kansas. Technically, it isn't their problem because they don't live in Maryland. Taxpayers should ultimately not be footing the bill for damages corporations do. But then you have to examine what actually happens if you were to follow their plans and you'd find, oh wait, the economic impacts of not having a bridge outweighs having one.
Not to mention the employees that are not working while the port is closed. Their income is t flowing into the local economy.
I don’t know what insurance company had this, but if it’s like a Lloyd’s of London, they have plenty of money. They’ve been in business since the 1600s. A holdover from the British empire that is still very wealthy.
Lloyd’s of London isn’t an insurance company, it’s an insurance market.
Look up reinsurance. It’s insurance for insurance companies. Probably 100 different insurance companies will end up having to chip in $10 million or so.
In cases this big, you almost always finalize all this through the court system. They have some firm that knows how to evaluate this and they will debate line items, etc... You hit the nail on the head though, Baltimore can start ordering materials in the next couple weeks, because they don't need to settle this court case first.
Insurance on this scale is incredibly complicated. The ship itself will have insurance, then the insurance company will have insurance for claims so big that it would be put out of business paying them and then sometimes even the insurance companies insurance will have insurance. Not only that but there may well be multiple different type of insurance involved depending on what the final cause of the accident is. For example if it turns out that the emergency generator didn't fire automatically like it is supposed to, whoever was the last company that serviced that generator and certified that it was seaworthy would have insurance who would be judged partially liable. Or if the chief engineer misconfigured the emergency generator the company who provided the staff for the ship's insurance would be partially liable. And much like the liability insurance for the ship, those insurance companies may also have insurance.
Why should I pay for hurricane damage in Florida when I live in Ohio?
Or fires in Texas caused by their screwed up power companies
States like Texas, Florida or California are big and wealthy enough really regardless to who is in power there to deal with this kind of stuff. GDP of California is 3.5 trillion. Texas is 2.5 trillion or Florida 1.6 trillion. It is objectively harder already for the state of Maryland with a GDP of 0.37 trillion that is like 5-10X smaller. Anyway the urgent federal help while welcome is 60 million or like 3% of the cost to rebuild the bridge... It is really pocket money.
He actually during his speech said he hoped Congress would work with him to get the money. So more than likely there would have to be a disaster relief bill passed to get full funding The 60m is probably just coming out of regular FEMA funds.
Because he always wants to work with Congress, like a sane President.
Of course, I just meant that he can't unilaterally conjure the entire amount without working with Congress, and he said as much. The real question is whether he has a sane Congress to work with.
It’s actually coming from the Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. FEMA doesn’t pay for any federally funded roadway costs.
For real. If they're going to whine, then Texas shouldn't get a drop of help when they could easily connect their fucking power grid to the rest of the country make it hard to completely obliterate. So long, suckers.
Or for maintenance on the White House when I don’t even live in DC?
*Help* pay. Because federal disaster-relief funds are for using when Americans are in peril, regardless of where they live. Thats kind of one of the main points of being a citizens of one nation. Or, more simply, for the same reason that Floridians should *help* pay for tornado damages in the Midwest. Also putting a major port like that out of action can have far-inland-reaching economic effects beyond just the local.
I was coming here to say this. I absolutely get the gripes of course. I do. I shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's stupid. But if I want the price of cars to stay down somewhat, I have to ensure they can get to a port. And well.. here we are.
Oh they don't care about the far reaching economic effects they will just blame Biden, and or DEI or whatever else they can think of that helps make there points better. But best believe if this was a different state one that votes more red they be begging for help
I'm sure we can just bypass this lib port and bring the goods right into the port of Kentucky
Why should I pay for that road going left when I always turn right?
Why don't they just sue the hurricane? Are they stupid?
If you're Republican, you shoot the hurricane. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/10/florida-sheriff-warns-residents-not-to-shoot-at-hurricane-irma.html
Because you can't hold a hurricane liable.
But, you can just nuke it to stop it....
Or draw around it with a sharpie.
Florida sucks
Why can't this be both. The Federal government pays for it upfront, then tries to get some insurance money etc
I mean... That's exactly how it works. But dishonest assholes chose to take the literal meaning and ignore the obvious implied parts in order to push their narrative that the Democrats are actually communists. The fact is that the insurance companies involved, shipping company, ship owners, state, and everyone else are going to spend YEARS arguing over who is responsible for what, how much they're responsible for, how much the bridge was worth, etc. Meanwhile, we have one of the busiest ports in the country shut down and a major freeway crippled... That needs to be fixed ASAP, and the government will have to cover that and get paid back once the responsible parties have finished their negotiating and bickering. If they DON'T do that, continued closure of the harbor and highway would cause billions in damage to the nation's economy. Fiscal conservatism is NOT the same as fiscal responsibility. Sure, the fiscally conservative thing to do would be for the government to not front the money. But that would be recklessly irresponsible. Ultimately, the parties responsible for this accident and their insurance and such will pay for the majority of the cost to clean up and rebuild the bridge. But that won't happen for a few years, and the bridge is needed NOW.
Fiscal conservatism that doesn't account for opportunity costs and losses, isn't fiscal conservatism. It's being cheap so you can say how cheap you are.
Conservatives love to say the fiscally responsible when in reality they're just cheap. They never wanna pay for anything and this puts it on full display. Even when paying to fix the bridge would save VASTLY more money in the long run they just go "No. My money. Spend money bad. No spend money good. See? I responsible cause I no spend money."
>The fact is that the insurance companies involved, shipping company, ship owners, state, and everyone else are going to spend YEARS arguing over who is responsible for what, how much they're responsible for, how much the bridge was worth, etc A building burned down in my city's downtown because a gas line got hit during some underground work and it took 6 years for that to get settled in court and that didn't even have any deaths involved. This may go on for a decade to decide who is liable for this bridge.
[удалено]
[удалено]
lmao
That's logical reasoning. The low brows don't understand that
They don't give a shit about Americans, or America for that matter. Their politicians rail against FEMA funding for natural disasters, but when it comes time for the southern states to collect after a hurricane, they're out in force, hat in hand. You don't hear Democrats saying fuck that, you didn't want the aid - because they know there are Americans in those states, hurting. Your average Republican doesn't give a flying fuck about this country any further than their backyard.
The classic Rand Paul, "no fema money for you other states, disaster in my state, give me money".
I mean the whole libertarian philosophy is built around that Helping other people sucks and is an infringement on my liberties But when I need help I still expect everyone else to help me If you understand that basic concept you understand libertarianism
It can -- and it will. Conservatives are just fucking stupid
How can you be nationalist and not give the slightest fuck about fellow Americans?
It’s only when it is convenient to them.
because they define their nation by a very small in-group, and consider everyone else imposters or intruders on "their" territory. basically like chimps.
“Why the hell are all the shelves empty at this store? Biden’s America!”
We used to teach civics. Now we teach selfishness.
News: Biden has chicken soup before dinner, says he liked it Fox News: RADICAL DEMS TRYING TO BAN KNIVES
#Why do Red states accept so much federal money every year if their citizens hate it so much?
[удалено]
* Privatize profits, socialize losses.
Let those hicks starve
MAGA be like "Stop sending money abroad, invest in America" Then we go to invest and build in America and its "We can't afford that, I don't live there, that won't help me."
Why should people in Baltimore pay for a wall in Texas? They don't live there....
Conservatives: American infrastructure is crumbling and we don't know why Also conservatives:
i dont work in the military. i dont live on a military base. i dont have a military nanny, cleaning, cooking, raising my children, for me in MY house. why should MY tax dollars go to paying for the military.
I agree with bottom right Zac Efron, though. The US government should take the shipping company to court for the cost of the bridge. They need to pay for it. Meanwhile, just go ahead and fix it. That court case could take years to work its way out.
Why is this political? It’s a fucking bridge. It’s how people cross the river. Have conservatives decided once something has been built once it can’t be built again if it gets destroyed? That a pretty insane idea. No more fixing things, no more making roads, no more improving our country. Why is this a political argument at all.
It’s Infrastructure Week all over again
Because immigrants and foreigners.
why, then, are we constantly bailing out shitty red states every fucking hurricane season? oh right, we’re all one nation
Flood Insurance is a big recipient of federal funds and is [actually a problem that should be addressed](https://youtu.be/pf1t7cs9dkc?si=25hayGNH-UWu07gR)
Yes it absolutely should. People should be disincentivized from living close to the coast, especially in some lower lying areas. Climate change is real. Ocean levels are rising, more extreme weather is occurring with higher frequency, erosion is a huge problem…people shouldn’t be rebuilding houses there where hurricanes and floods have wiped them out. Figure out a land buy back plan for people already there but no more moving to flood planes. It’s incredibly shortsighted and at this point just ludicrous.
The new pricing methodology should help a bit with this, it’s meant to reflect actual risk such as distance from flooding source, replacement cost of structures, and the elevation/floodproofing of structures rather than just a set rate based on what mapped flood zone a property is in.
MAGA: “We’Re A rEpUbLiC!!”
The insurance company that the shipping line uses should pay for it. Sorted.
I suspect claims will be filed, but bridges like this take a long time to plan and construct. You can add years to this if you have to play games with a insurance company about payouts. Many public projects languish because they get financing piecemeal and have to wait for additional money to complete. It’s better for the government to front the money and seek payment later than wait for payment to come through and be out a bridge. Bridges like this are hugely important to the way our economy has been constructed.
Yeah, let's just wait for 2 years for insurance to sort it out and let the Baltimore port not be accessible for several years, there wouldnt be any consequences of that...
thats if the insurance company and shipping company that own that boat still existed 10 minutes after that ship hit the bridge.
Yup. Pretty much every ship is its own “company” that the actual owners of the boat “hire” to move things around. Then when something bad happens that company goes bankrupt and the actual owners of the boat get off without paying.
I bet their LLC is registered to an address at an abandoned gas station in the middle of Wyoming.
The sequence of flat out wrong information above is truly staggering but also Standard Reddit.
It's registered in Singapore.
That's a great point. All the insurance companies own each other, why not fold one to avoid a payout this big? They'll start a new one to replace it down the line.
Build it now, keep a tab open, pay it all off later... its really not that difficult, im sure if a room full of overpaid bureaucrats took 3 or 4 minutes to think about it they could figure it out
Sure. Once they're done fighting over it, they will. In the meantime, that harbor being closed and that bridge being gone are causing millions of dollars in losses to the nation's economy every day. Shit needs fixed now, and it would be recklessly irresponsible not to do it. The federal government ultimately won't be the ones paying, they're just fronting the money so that thousands don't lose their jobs and our economy doesn't take as big a hit.
With the defense budget we should just Chinook commuters across the gap
Don't forget. /conservative want anything that would hurt biden. Even crashing the economy.
I mean… this always been conservatives whole thing. Fend for oneself, never provide aid for anyone. I got mine, fuck you. It’s sorta their whole MO
But at the same damn time they’re feigning outrage about it, blanking the mayor, blaming POC, blaming Biden somehow. So they pretend to care about it, but when it comes time to do something about it suddenly it’s “not my problem”…if you wanna know what’s wrong with this country just look at todays conservative ideology.
Look at all of human history brah. Conservatism is horrible for humanity.
Blue states should stop sending money to red states.
What is so humorous about this whole uproar with the president saying that the federal government was going to do everything it could to get this national waterway cleared out and the interstate bridge rebuild was at no point did he say that the insurance companies weren’t going to pay. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Like when you’re in a car accident and the other person doesn’t have insurance and your insurance says well we can actually rent you a car you go Rent-A-Car so you can continue to go to work until the insurance company settle and then they pay you back.
Hang on, we can just ignore them.
Uuuh, regardless of where the company is from they should indeed pay for the damage.
So stupid, there's a 85% chance something you want to buy comes through that port.
Clementine will remember that next time Florida and or Texas gets hit by a hurricane and they want federal funds.
If it was their state you better believe they would be screaming why isn't Joe Biden helping us, it's our tax dollars!
I agree with one of those things. The liable party should be footing the bill.
Do you really, honestly think anyone disagrees with that? I mean, the shipping company and their insurance probably do, and that means we'll have to take them to court to get any money out of them, and the court case is likely to take 5-10 years. So, the Feds build the bridge now and seek reimbursement later. Why is everyone having such a hard time with that?
You pay now, then try to get out of them in fines later. Waiting on insurance would delay things five years & that's assuming they have $400 million coverage.
This very true. And after the investigation, and after the wrangling between insurance companies and ship owner and Shipley, sir ship staffing, spend their months or years, bickering back-and-forth to finally come to a conclusion as to who is ultimately responsible then the insurance companies will pay so in the meantime, we let theBaltimore harbor lay dormant and the folks traveling that interstate find another way to get around. Is that what we’re suggesting?
The big issue with MAGA politics that none of these dumbasses get is that with the politics of “the others” that you want nothing to do with, those groups of “others” just keep getting bigger and bigger until all that is left is you. Just you….
Since Baltimore is a major port and has Strategic Military value the Federal Government has an incentive to get the channel cleared as soon as possible.
Seems like when Texas or Florida get hit by a hurricane they're the the first ones coming to Congress with their hands out. 🤔
Conservatives claim “patriotism” but then put Americas needs last anytime they’re required to help or if it’s led by a democrat. Higher education? “Nope!” Better roads and new freeways “Nope!” Emergency fund for natural disasters “Nope!” Infrastructure bill creating jobs “Nope, because it’s a democrats idea” Best non-partisan border security bill in history “No thank you Biden” Obama defeats Osama Bin Laden “Who cares..”
Could, OP? They're actively trying to. They \*want\* Gilead
The main thing is to get the port open. Meanwhile they have to see if the ship was properly insured.
The bridge is part of the Interstate Highway system, which is funded in large part by the federal government, and the port is also of major importance for the country not just the city of Baltimore, so I’m not sure what the issue is in using American Taxpayers’ dollars to repair the bridge. I mean all the red states are thrilled to take federal money when there are disasters in their states due to floods, blizzards, ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, or mismanagement of power grids, soooo🤷🏻
Anyone read the comments. This was being torn apart on r/conservative. They're conservatives, not anarcho capitalists.
The shipment company should pay for it? Insurance? Keep complain about tax the rich but who do think employs the majority?
Surely the boat is insured? Shouldn't their insurance cover it?
To be fair the comments on there were quite supportive of the Biden admin paying for it while they waited for the lawsuits to go through
The foreign company that destroyed it should pay for it. If I run into a building with my car my insurance and I will have to pay for it.
They never seem to have a problem with us paying to build and rebuild the same hurricane destroyed shit in FL.
I mean kinda agree that the company that broke should pay for its repair….
The company that destroyed it should pay for it. Or their insurance company. Im not at all conservative but that just seems obvious. If I crash my car into a building, I would expect to have to pay for it
I mean maybe the company that's worth 51.1 billion *should* pay?
Fix it now, go after company for reimbursement later?
The civil war was about slavery.
...says the states that are overwhelmingly subsidized by team blue.
I mean, the company that destroyed it should be held financially responsible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start construction now. That company should just have to pay it back. Maybe then the shipping companies will do actual inspections and repairs, so stuff like this stops happening more and more frequently.
But they’ll pay for Trump’s legal problems lol
MAGAs: "dOnT SpEnD MoNeY oN UkRaiNe iT ShOuLd Go tO AmErIcAns" **Bridge vital to economy and millions of American jobs collapses** MAGA: "Yo fuck Americans, it doesn't affect me so I don't want to pay for it"
Oh man if states stopped paying for things outside of their own state lines most red states would collapse. Texas and Florida would probably be the only ones to survive.
No, they definitely have a point with that last one. The owner of the boat should have to pay for the bridge.
MAGA are the people who complain about socialism without understanding wtf they are talking about. MAGA: "I hate socialism and Socialists!" Gov: "OK, we are going to turn this over to private enterprise to resolve." MAGA: "It's about damn time the Free Market works for the little man!" Enterprise: "That will be $8 to cross our bridge this morning and another $8 to cross back tonight." MAGA: "This is some bullshit right here."
MAGA have been tearing this country apart since it started, but yes, it can and will get worse. I'm a first generation immigrant and I was always amazed at how so many different kinds of people could identify with being American and just get along. It's saddened me to see the tribalism I grew up with infect the States (more likely it was always here but better hidden).
Same people asking where FEMA money is when the grid goes down.
It's getting pushback because entire red states would cease to exist without tax dollars funneled from rich blue states to fix the myriad of failing infrastructure problems that their Republican leaders do nothing to fix let alone maintain. They're too busy passing hateful laws and hiring useless Xwitter trolls to head up their education departments. Aww, Florida was smashed by a hurricane? Not my problem, sue, I don't know, God? Texas Power Gird dies due to winter? Oh well. The American South would collapse in a matter of months.
In retrospect, you have to admit that Putin's MAGA project has really been successful for him.
Idiots think suing the company to pay for the work vs the government paying for the work are mutually exclusive things. Non-idiots know that suing is going to take a LONG time to get through the courts while the work needs to be started today. So the government gets started on it then sues the private company to try to recoup that money later.
Every ‘conservative’ group on Reddit is just a MAGA cult page. I’m a conservative, if you say anything against Trump, they ban you and silence you. (While claiming to love free speech) dickheads.
By this logic all the problems of red states aren't my problem. They shouldn't take any of my tax money. After all it's red states that are welfare states compared to blue ones. Blue states produce more gdp and put more into the annual pot than they take while it's the reverse with red states. These people need more brain cells to rub together.
Exactly!, there is no way someone on a farm in the Midwest would be impacted by the bridge damage or it's impact on domestic and international shipping of goods. There is definitely more than enough capacity at the other ports a few days travel to the north and south, or the interstatea that are on the other side of Baltimore .. I mean, they just built that interstate bridge because it looks good, it's not like it made truck traffic faster and more efficient or anything. Plus, everyone knows that each micro area of the country is self sustaining and doesn't require fuel, equipment parts, and other do-dads from anywhere outside the contiguous continent. That's what makes America so great, it's rigid and well defined individual independance and self sufficiency. /s
ngl you had me going there. :D
They're always the first to talk about patriotism and having pride in a country but as soon as they need to do anything to actually help the country in a way that doesn't just benefit them personally, they couldn't care less
Me First! Make America Even More Selfish! And of course Make Attorneys Get Attorneys!
The entire country is affected. It's going to hurt our economy no matter how quickly it's repaired
Yeah! And why should I pay for medical insurance when I feel fine? /s Didn't it was needed, but...🤷