• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Fishstyx said:
Of course he rejected it. Its job creation that doesn't cost $1.5 million in federal spending for every $50-70k per year job. Gotta stay consistent here.
Click to expand...

Instead, he passified the environmentalist tree huggers for this election but pissed off the unions, who will support him regardless, he already paid them off with the Porkulus Bill.

The funniest thing is Obama said that extending unemployment benefits will create MORE jobs than the pipeline would have....

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I seem a little confused on this, but how is extending a payroll tax cut and extending unemployment benefits creating jobs?

The payroll tax cut is a 2% relief from payroll deductions NOT from the tax burden. They are only taking 2% less out of your check towards your income tax bill, not relieving you from the tax burden of those taxes, the full amount is still due when you file your return. For the average $400 a week paycheck, thats about $8 per week. Major job creator there huh?

Extending unemployment benefits is a job creator? How many job offers from unemployed people have you gotten? Dont know about you, but if my prospective employer was collecting unemployment, I would be worried.
 
Ockham said:
Thank goodness! What would we do with 20,000 jobs this year and an estimated 100,000 jobs by 2015? And why would we want to get oil from Canada - don't we have a deal with the Saudi's and the ME? And somehow I think they could find a route that would avoid the Eminent Domain issue - but that's just too much damned work. Let's just keep the status quo of sending our $100+ a barrel over to the ME.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ockham but it's more like 5,000 jobs. You can find the facts in this report.

Or there's one here, if you like.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Sorry Ockham but it's more like 5,000 jobs. You can find the facts in this report.

Or there's one here, if you like.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure the governmental report will downplay the number of jobs for obvious reasons. Here's one that sort of shows why the downplay would take place, as well as the criticism of the Perryman Groups study as well as the American Petroleum Institutes estimates. No shock there and given Obama's head nod a few weeks ago about the pipeline not going through, I'm actually surprised it's as high as 5,000.
 
Ockham said:
Yes I'm sure the governmental report will downplay the number of jobs for obvious reasons. Here's one that sort of shows why the downplay would take place, as well as the criticism of the Perryman Groups study as well as the American Petroleum Institutes estimates. No shock there and given Obama's head nod a few weeks ago about the pipeline not going through, I'm actually surprised it's as high as 5,000.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the industry written support will not overplay the number of jobs :roll:
 
Ockham said:
My point is they COULD do that.
Click to expand...

They could have, but chose not to.They gave property owners the middle finger and try to extort into selling. For that I do not want them being allowed to build anything in the US.
 
The question I have is, why would land that already has thousands of miles of pipeline on it, be so environmentally sensitive?

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
jamesrage said:
They could have, but chose not to.They gave property owners the middle finger and try to extort into selling. For that I do not want them being allowed to build anything in the US.
Click to expand...

I agree it's sad and there's not many things I hate more than eminent domain. It's a cancer of power. It's a shame people in government don't see it that way though.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Right, because shipping the oil overseas is better for the environment. Just because the fringe left in America doesn't want jobs doesn't mean Canada won't still drill, pipe, and now ship the oil. The only thing shutting this project down does is prevent jobs from coming to America.

Oh, and it gives Republicans a fantastic talking point going into the general election.
Click to expand...

You know, if jamesrage does not like the Keystone pipeline, then there must be something wrong with it. He is far right, but you know what? He researched the deal, and did not allow himself to be brainwashed by Republican talking points. It is this quality in jamesrage that makes him one of the most credible members of Debate Politics, and I have always had a lot of respect for him, even if I don't always agree with him. He is honest, and shoots from the hip.

For me, here is the deal:

1) I am not against the pipeline. I am actually in favor of it. However, in planning the route the pipeline is to take, you must follow the rules, and make an impact study. It has been this way for decades. What Republicans did was to make an impact study impossible, then to accuse Obama of being anti-energy. It was their plan all along, and it was transparent.

2) The correct solution would be to allow the impact study to occur, and plan the pipeline with that impact study as a guide. Obama said that the corporation can apply for the pipeline again, if they are willing to play by the rules, which means giving enough time for an impact study to be completed. This is the correct way to go.

3) There is also the point that jamesrage brought up, which is using the legal system to bully the little guy. Why can't it run the pipeline AROUND the property of the owners who don't want to sell their land off? Surely, their must be a solution, or even a compromise, someplace. But the corporation doesn't want to compromise. They believe that they can do whatever the hell they want, and the people affected can go jump in a lake. I have one word for this - Unmitigated arrogance. OK, OK, make that two words.

Bottom line is that I believe a pipeline from the tar sands to Houston would be a great thing, but let's not bully property owners to get it done, and let's play by the rules, and have that impact study, and make plans with the results of that study in mind. Finally, let us not break the rules, and then attempt to pin the blame on others, in an attempt to get political gain out of it. What is more important? Political hackery or America? You be the judge.
 
Last edited:
Imnukingfutz said:
Instead, he passified the environmentalist tree huggers for this election but pissed off the unions, who will support him regardless, he already paid them off with the Porkulus Bill.

The funniest thing is Obama said that extending unemployment benefits will create MORE jobs than the pipeline would have....

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 |
Washington Examiner


Excuse me if I seem a little confused on this, but how is extending a payroll tax cut and extending unemployment benefits creating jobs?

The payroll tax cut is a 2% relief from payroll deductions NOT from the tax burden. They are only taking 2% less out of your check towards your income tax bill, not relieving you from the tax burden of those taxes, the full amount is still due when you file your return. For the average $400 a week paycheck, thats about $8 per week. Major job creator there huh?

Extending unemployment benefits is a job creator? How many job offers from unemployed people have you gotten? Dont know about you, but if my prospective employer was collecting unemployment, I would be worried.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that spending=growth and the money from unemployment benefit and the payroll cut are 100% SPENT. That's what creates or saves jobs... spending money in the economy.

The real estimates for jobs from the pipeline are 4500 to 5000 temporary contruction jobs, the steel is already purchased from a Russian Steel firm in Canada, the states don't want it, it's a enviromental disaster in the making and worst of all..... ALL THE OIL FROM THE PIPELINE IS GOING TO BE EXPORTED. Much of it after it has been refined into gasoline, polluting our air and not doing a thing for gas prices.
May it rest in peace.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Bottom line is that I believe a pipeline from the tar sands to Houston would be a great thing, but let's not bully property owners to get it done, and let's play by the rules, and have that impact study, and make plans with the results of that study in mind. Finally, let us not break the rules, and then attempt to pin the blame on others, in an attempt to get political gain out of it. What is more important? Political hackery or America? You be the judge.
Click to expand...

I think you totally nailed this one. I've been reading a lot about this and I think the pipeline, overall, is a good thing. Even if the real job count is just 5,000. But building it over an aquifer is just flat out dumb. So just build around it and the people who won't give up their land. Bodda bing bodda boom, problem solved. Put the political bull**** games away. We've got important things to accomplish (as a nation) and this sort of brinksmanship is slowing things down.
 
jamesrage said:
They could have, but chose not to.They gave property owners the middle finger and try to extort into selling. For that I do not want them being allowed to build anything in the US.
Click to expand...

The freaking pipe is only 48" in diameter and will be buried 4 feet underground. How much eminent domain will be taken ????

When I was a kid, a similar pipe was built in the soybean field next to our house. The next year there were soybeans planted over it. It looked the same as it did before the pipe was installed.

This will cost Obama at least 500,000 votes, so in one sense this was a good decision. In one fail swoop, he killed jobs, hurt our energy dependence, and pissed off our closest neighbor and ally.

This on top of a new tariff he imposed on Canadians visiting the U.S. last month. The funniest part on the tariff is that he's blaming it on the the new free trade agreement with Columbia.
 
EagleAye said:
I think you totally nailed this one. I've been reading a lot about this and I think the pipeline, overall, is a good thing. Even if the real job count is just 5,000. But building it over an aquifer is just flat out dumb. So just build around it and the people who won't give up their land. Bodda bing bodda boom, problem solved. Put the political bull**** games away. We've got important things to accomplish (as a nation) and this sort of brinksmanship is slowing things down.
Click to expand...

The state of Nebraska and TransCanada agreed to move the pipeline away from the aquifer back in November, so that is a non issue and has been for over two months. Nebraska was for the pipeline as long as it could be rerouted, which it was.
 
Gill said:
The freaking pipe is only 48" in diameter and will be buried 4 feet underground. How much eminent domain will be taken ????

When I was a kid, a similar pipe was built in the soybean field next to our house. The next year there were soybeans planted over it. It looked the same as it did before the pipe was installed.

This will cost Obama at least 500,000 votes, so in one sense this was a good decision. In one fail swoop, he killed jobs, hurt our energy dependence, and pissed off our closest neighbor and ally.

This on top of a new tariff he imposed on Canadians visiting the U.S. last month. The funniest part on the tariff is that he's blaming it on the the new free trade agreement with Columbia.
Click to expand...

Usually utilities force land owners to sell a small portion of their land where it crosses or, they pay the land owner a flat fee for putting on their land, such things. My family farm had high tension electric lines going through it and the State came to my father and told him what they were going to do and he didn't want any part of it. When he said no, they told him he didn't have a choice and that they would pay him a certain amount of money for the loss of crops due to the dimensions of the tower and compensation for the trucks and workmen that had to come on his land and build the thing. I don't know how much he was paid but it wasn't much. Now I think that pretty much would have to happen here and if the pipeline had to go through someone's house, I don't see a reason why it couldn't go around the house. It's not like these pipelines aren't already everywhere in every state. Gas lines, water lines, pipelines, underground telephone, sewer lines.... common people... this is no big deal and no ecological travesty of any sort.
 
You guys should see the city this pipeline comes from. Thousands of brand new homes, no hotel rooms available for months, restaurants packed every night of the week. Now, that money is going to stay there. WTG Obama.
 
It would appear when Obama made the deal he had his fingers crossed with no intention of keeping it.

The energy policies and actions (or rather inactions) of our government are as irresponsible, arrogant and incompetent as it gets.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You guys should see the city this pipeline comes from. Thousands of brand new homes, no hotel rooms available for months, restaurants packed every night of the week. Now, that money is going to stay there. WTG Obama.
Click to expand...

Yep, I've heard its the same in North Dakota due to the oil boom there. When I was in northeast Ohio a few weeks ago, they were saying they expected a similar boom from natural gas drilling.
 
Eminent domain is standard practice for the routing of pipelines. Just as it is with power transmission lines.

Secondly, oil pipelines are uber-safe. Even when built "over aquifers". :roll:
Click here to see the abundance of pipelines already built over the Ogallala Aquifer.

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/ogallala_aquifer_map.pdf

This is pure Obama and his tree-huggers. Time to throw the former out on his useless ass and compel the latter to suck a root.
 
joko104 said:
It would appear when Obama made the deal he had his fingers crossed with no intention of keeping it.
Click to expand...

No, the deal made was that Obama would make a decision. He did.
 
Obama cannot afford to completely lose the greens even at the expense of the economy, relations with neighbors and energy self-sufficiency. He's probably counting on a Repub third-party bleeding and doesn't want a green candidate hurting him. He's running around invading, regime toppling, nation building and droning the sht outta half the world. Think of the War Crime! The last thing he needs is an oil pipeline. What's next, Cheney VP?


ps. Who's running Green?
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
The freaking pipe is only 48" in diameter and will be buried 4 feet underground. How much eminent domain will be taken ????
Click to expand...

They threatened to use eminent domain to acquire 20% property of one guys property.So I imagine they probably want close to that with other properties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Randy Thompson, a cattle buyer in Nebraska, was informed that if he did not grant pipeline access to 80 of the 400 acres left to him by his mother along the Platte River, “Keystone will use eminent domain to acquire the easement.”
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Sometimes I think obama is actually trying to destroy our economy. In an era of high unemployment and high gas prices which stifle economic growth he does this? "The enemy is within the gates".
Click to expand...

Yes, he is! He hates us.
 
Amigo said:
Do you approve of Obama's actions of rejecting jobs? How is that Hope and Change?
Click to expand...

I approve of him rejecting Republicans for not giving him enough time for impact studies to be done.

I know cons like yourself don't care about the environment, eminent domain being used against people, or proper studies being done. It's ok, we are used to that from ignorant people and Obama just said no to those ignorant people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom