Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 265

Thread: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

  1. #231
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,837

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    What they won't talk about with Louisiana is that it is sinking at an alarming rate.
    One football field of square area every 48 minutes.
    Rising Gulf waters--Land subsidence due to drilling--canals dug out by oil companies.
    Poor folks stuck between an ocean and an oil field .
    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    The real question is, is it worth the tradeoff.
    Physics is Phun

  2. #232
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    What they won't talk about with Louisiana is that it is sinking at an alarming rate.
    One football field of square area every 48 minutes.
    Rising Gulf waters--Land subsidence due to drilling--canals dug out by oil companies.
    Poor folks stuck between an ocean and an oil field .
    Wait NIMBY, do I have this right that you blame the oil industry for New Orleans being devoloped on sinking land, or for people continuing to live in precarious places?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #233
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,386

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    So the Democrats in the Senate, in a procedural vote, effectively prevent a bill that President Obama was likely going to veto anyway from reaching his desk. I'm not clear why they would take the hit instead of forcing Obama to veto something.

    Regardless of the topic, I find that disgusting. In researching, I see that President Obama has vetoed only 2 bills President Veto Counts. This collusion between the Congress and the President is probably what disgusts me the most about the Federal Government.

  4. #234
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    So the Democrats in the Senate, in a procedural vote, effectively prevent a bill that President Obama was likely going to veto anyway from reaching his desk. I'm not clear why they would take the hit instead of forcing Obama to veto something.

    Regardless of the topic, I find that disgusting. In researching, I see that President Obama has vetoed only 2 bills President Veto Counts. This collusion between the Congress and the President is probably what disgusts me the most about the Federal Government.
    I'd be interested to know if you were ever this discouraged when this same type of "collusion" was tried with each prior President who either had a majority in Congress or his party was in the minority and a hot button issue hit the Capital floor on either side of Congress with the party leader in the White House was for or against said issue.

    My point is this happens all the time. It's nothing new; it's merely a power play on the one hand and a insulation (protective) issue on the other (protecting the President from having to deal with the fallout).

    Republicans may get a Keystone XL Pipeline bill passed and placed on the President's desk once they takeover the Senate in January 2015, but the President will likely veto it whether it's part of a spending bill or a tax reform bill or whatever. And after that, Congress will have to muster the 2/3 majority to override his veto. That's how I see this issue playing out, but we'll see...

    Frankly, I'm not for the bill on three grounds:

    1) Jobs...not enough IMO.

    2) Revenue...not nearly enough goes to the U.S. Treasury.

    3) Oil import...most will be exported, not imported into the U.S. either for our use or re-export.

    IMHO and the environmental issues aside, I just don't see the upside to this project.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #235
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,386

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'd be interested to know if you were ever this discouraged when this same type of "collusion" was tried with each prior President who either had a majority in Congress or his party was in the minority and a hot button issue hit the Capital floor on either side of Congress with the party leader in the White House was for or against said issue.

    My point is this happens all the time. It's nothing new; it's merely a power play on the one hand and a insulation (protective) issue on the other (protecting the President from having to deal with the fallout).

    Republicans may get a Keystone XL Pipeline bill passed and placed on the President's desk once they takeover the Senate in January 2015, but the President will likely veto it whether it's part of a spending bill or a tax reform bill or whatever. And after that, Congress will have to muster the 2/3 majority to override his veto. That's how I see this issue playing out, but we'll see...

    Frankly, I'm not for the bill on three grounds:

    1) Jobs...not enough IMO.

    2) Revenue...not nearly enough goes to the U.S. Treasury.

    3) Oil import...most will be exported, not imported into the U.S. either for our use or re-export.

    IMHO and the environmental issues aside, I just don't see the upside to this project.
    I'll have to do some more research into the Garfield administration since that is the last time a president had fewer vetoes. As you somewhat observe, the President will veto this anyway, so why not let him have some of the grief directly instead of the Democratic Senate taking the "political bullet" for him? It happens all the time is a poor excuse for acceptance. 2 vetoes in 6 years and 1 of them was about a system of notarization across the states.

    As for your 3 issues:

    1. So what, this is a private company seeking to build the pipeline, not some jobs bill. As long as they conform to regulatory requirements, then let 'em build.
    2. Why should any go to the Treasury? The jobs involved will be taxed, the company getting revenue from the pipeline will pay corporate tax, and I would assume there will be plenty of other taxes and fees that the regulatory requirements will incur.
    3. There is one oil market and that is the price regardless of where it is sold. The difference is the transportation costs and the refining costs. The costs of transporting oil through a pipeline are dramatically cheaper than by truck or rail.

    As for any upside, upside for whom?

  6. #236
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,843

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    I'll have to do some more research into the Garfield administration since that is the last time a president had fewer vetoes. As you somewhat observe, the President will veto this anyway, so why not let him have some of the grief directly instead of the Democratic Senate taking the "political bullet" for him? It happens all the time is a poor excuse for acceptance. 2 vetoes in 6 years and 1 of them was about a system of notarization across the states.
    Well, you could research the last couple of Congresses to know one reason why that's the case - the GOP has shattered all time records for filibusters, and so hardly anything has passed....

    Furthermore, I'd think most democrats in the Senate don't see it as taking a 'political bullet' any more than a GOPer voting against gun control is a political bullet. Not voting for crap like Keystone is why they were elected.

    As for your 3 issues:

    1. So what, this is a private company seeking to build the pipeline, not some jobs bill. As long as they conform to regulatory requirements, then let 'em build.
    I might have been OK with that if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company the eminent domain powers of government to build their pipeline to export refined product to China.

    2. Why should any go to the Treasury? The jobs involved will be taxed, the company getting revenue from the pipeline will pay corporate tax, and I would assume there will be plenty of other taxes and fees that the regulatory requirements will incur.
    Again, if the company is getting massive taxpayer subsidies, then plenty should come back to the treasury in exchange for those subsidies.

    3. There is one oil market and that is the price regardless of where it is sold. The difference is the transportation costs and the refining costs. The costs of transporting oil through a pipeline are dramatically cheaper than by truck or rail.

    As for any upside, upside for whom?
    That's partly true, but the major problems are two - one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all. Second, the vast majority of the benefits are going to flow to the Canadian oil companies shipping dirty sludge to Texas for refining, and the refineries in Texas. I just see no reason for the U.S. to subsidize that. Build a pipeline to a Canadian port and we're all happy.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,878

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all.
    I'm not really interested in jumping into your "I hate Keystone" brouhaha, but I read this part that I've quoted...and the first thing that came to mind is a President who once said, "If you like your....etc.". Even though a majority of the people knew that was a lie, told him it was a lie and shellacked his Party when he jammed a turd down their throats anyway, why are you complaining? You should be used to this kind of stuff, eh?


    btw, I'm thinking you don't understand the international oil market, how it works and what causes gas prices to rise and fall.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  8. #238
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,386

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Well, you could research the last couple of Congresses to know one reason why that's the case - the GOP has shattered all time records for filibusters, and so hardly anything has passed....

    Furthermore, I'd think most democrats in the Senate don't see it as taking a 'political bullet' any more than a GOPer voting against gun control is a political bullet. Not voting for crap like Keystone is why they were elected.



    I might have been OK with that if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company the eminent domain powers of government to build their pipeline to export refined product to China.



    Again, if the company is getting massive taxpayer subsidies, then plenty should come back to the treasury in exchange for those subsidies.



    That's partly true, but the major problems are two - one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all. Second, the vast majority of the benefits are going to flow to the Canadian oil companies shipping dirty sludge to Texas for refining, and the refineries in Texas. I just see no reason for the U.S. to subsidize that. Build a pipeline to a Canadian port and we're all happy.
    The way you phrase your argument has two much straw to contest:

    "one reason why that's the case" could be applied to a snowstorm or hurricane Sandy for why Congress acts the way it has. Counting the number of bills is as useless as counting the number of executive orders. The count is irrelevant, it is the content which is key.

    "if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company". Did we? I can't find anything to indicate that is the case, but perhaps I just didn't look in the right place. Companies are not given eminent domain powers and the creation and use of right-of-ways has a long history. Is it eminent domain, probably is, but it is for limited purpose and scope.

    "massive taxpayer subsidies". Again, couldn't find this, could you point me to where I can find that?

    "one way Keystone was sold". Again, the "one way" argument. Sold by whom and to whom? "shipping dirty sludge" sounds like propaganda to me, all oil is dirty to some degree.

    As for the vast majority of benefits going to the Keystone company, well, they are putting up most of the money.

    I have no stake in the Keystone argument one way or the other. If it dies, it dies. If it goes through, it isn't near me. I'm real close to the national Natural gas grid which goes along the edge of a national park. It is government land in there wasn't any debate of it going through. In fact, there are pipelines all over this country not even counting water and sewage. Somehow they manage to stay out of the news.

  9. #239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,843

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I'm not really interested in jumping into your "I hate Keystone" brouhaha, but I read this part that I've quoted...and the first thing that came to mind is a President who once said, "If you like your....etc.". Even though a majority of the people knew that was a lie, told him it was a lie and shellacked his Party when he jammed a turd down their throats anyway, why are you complaining? You should be used to this kind of stuff, eh?
    There are other threads on the ACA.

    btw, I'm thinking you don't understand the international oil market, how it works and what causes gas prices to rise and fall.
    What's to understand - it's supply and demand of a commodity, and changes in either have a predictable effect on prices. If I missed something, point out what exactly. The quoted statement is simple enough - more supply will, all else equal ==> lower prices. If your point is oil and refined product is controlled to a large extent by (colluding) cartels who will limit supply to maintain prices, I understand that. It's a big reason why Canadian oil isn't likely to have an effect on domestic gasoline prices no matter how much flows through that pipeline, contrary to the claims of supporters of Keystone. In fact one big benefit of the pipeline was to drain excess supply from the midwest where prices for oil and (arguably) gasoline were persistently lower than the nationwide/worldwide average. So if anything Keystone would INcrease domestic gasoline prices in that region.

  10. #240
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,878

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    There are other threads on the ACA.
    WHOOOSH!! Right over your head!

    I wasn't talking about Obamacare. I was talking about accepting lies.

    What's to understand - it's supply and demand of a commodity, and changes in either have a predictable effect on prices. If I missed something, point out what exactly. The quoted statement is simple enough - more supply will, all else equal ==> lower prices. If your point is oil and refined product is controlled to a large extent by (colluding) cartels who will limit supply to maintain prices, I understand that. It's a big reason why Canadian oil isn't likely to have an effect on domestic gasoline prices no matter how much flows through that pipeline, contrary to the claims of supporters of Keystone. In fact one big benefit of the pipeline was to drain excess supply from the midwest where prices for oil and (arguably) gasoline were persistently lower than the nationwide/worldwide average. So if anything Keystone would INcrease domestic gasoline prices in that region.
    Gas prices are affected by the world supply of oil. Do you think that Canadian oil is NOT part of the world supply of oil?
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •