Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no, actually he is vetoing the poison pills the wingnuts inserted into the bill. if a gop prez was faced with a dem bill offering a middle class tax cut coupled with a 25% increase on the taxes for the uber wealthy what would you wish him or her to do?"
lol, "independence for middle east oil?" just off the top of my head without checking, but I think that we no longer import very much oil from the middle east. Most of our oil comes from north and south America.
tell me, just why are we building this pipeline? to bring finish product into this country or to bring crude down to be refined here? if it is the later, just why is it they cannot refine the oil sand up there, why are we taking on the liability and pollution involved with refining their resources?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You mean fast tracking of the Canadian oil pipeline?
OMG!! Just imagine, an oil pipeline that would give us more independence from Mid East oil, create thousands of jobs for decades... all without 0bama spending taxpayer money. Creating jobs in America without gub'ment money.... that's unpossible!!!
That's your assumption but facts get in the way. Oil companies currently export U.S. oil to other countries. The reason why they do that is to find the best price.
Oil companies are not going to pump oil in the U.S. just to lower our prices while higher prices exist in Europe. They are going to transport it to wherever they can maximize profit.
There are also very good environment reasons against this pipeline.
Exactly how do we get Alaskan crude to the refineries in Houston?
Rather than the huge expense of routing tankers around the Cape of Magellan (approximately 20,000 miles) wouldn't it be a better idea of exporting that oil to Japan (3,500 miles) and replacing it with oil purchased from South America saving the considerable expense of shipping?
Exactly how do we get Alaskan crude to the refineries in Houston?
Rather than the huge expense of routing tankers around the Cape of Magellan (approximately 20,000 miles) wouldn't it be a better idea of exporting that oil to Japan (3,500 miles) and replacing it with oil purchased from South America saving the considerable expense of shipping?
The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project could create 6,500 construction jobs annually, most of them temporary.
The State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, also estimates 6,500 temporary jobs. And the only independent study, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that it may generate no more than 50 permanent jobs when the work is done.
Contrary to another favorite Republican argument, the pipeline will also do little to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Though it would provide a steady source of crude for Gulf Coast refineries, existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export.
House Speaker John A. Boehner said Friday that his chamber will not sign off on an extension of the payroll tax cut sought by President Obama without including a provision to force a quick decision on construction of an oil pipeline, which Obama has opposed.
There are at least four Democratic Senators who publicly have come out in favor of the pipeline (Baucus & Tester of Montana, Conrad of North Dakota, and Landrieu of Lousiana); this means that Reid would lose a regular vote 51/49. Worse, the GOP is claiming at least nine more Democratic Senators support it (Begich, Casey, Hagen, Manchin, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Stabenow, and Warner). If true, that puts the total up to 60, which is not coincidentally the number that you need to win a cloture vote.
Obama is more interested in his re-election than actual shovel ready good paying jobs.
Who thinks he'll cave and try to sabotage the jobs later?
After last night, where he was beautifully beotch-slapped by the GOP candidates, the country KNOWS this guy couldn't care less about jobs.
who said that tar sand needs to go to Houston. Let them build refineries in Canada, let them have the pollution and toxic waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
Exactly how do we get Alaskan crude to the refineries in Houston?
Rather than the huge expense of routing tankers around the Cape of Magellan (approximately 20,000 miles) wouldn't it be a better idea of exporting that oil to Japan (3,500 miles) and replacing it with oil purchased from South America saving the considerable expense of shipping?
lol, "independence for middle east oil?" just off the top of my head without checking, but I think that we no longer import very much oil from the middle east. Most of our oil comes from north and south America.
tell me, just why are we building this pipeline? to bring finish product into this country or to bring crude down to be refined here? if it is the later, just why is it they cannot refine the oil sand up there, why are we taking on the liability and pollution involved with refining their resources?
Shhh, don't tell the wingnuts that. They think by crapping on america and giving big oil the pipeline, they will "share the love" and bring back $2.00 a gallon gas
but I think that we no longer import very much oil from the middle east.
15-20% I believe.
Obama is in a pickle - he keeps complaining about creating jobs, yet he killed at least 20,000 direct and even more indirect US jobs...all because the enviros told him if he approved the project, he can forget about their support. So his decision was purely a political one, sacrificing jobs and the good of the country.
Also, the unions want this project to go forward as well.
Oh...and looks like a LOT of dems in the Senate would support the bill.
“I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest. It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said Thursday the pipeline has more support among Democrats than her leaders acknowledge.
Ouch! Read this article. Everyone is FOR it, except the job killer.
Sierra Club president Michael Brune put it even more bluntly: “This is bulls–t,” he said. “This is no way to run a government.” Brune also hinted earlier this year that his group could shift money from the presidential race to congressional races if he’s not pleased with the president.
On that we can agree.
Quote:
Henry Waxman’s confident that if the provision passes, O will turn around and cancel it on grounds that Congress didn’t give him enough time to study the environmental effects.
GOP has given him a slight out on this - he will have to decide within 60 days to cancel or go ahead with the project - won't that be a lovely thought for obama. In a depressed obama economy, in an election year, to cancel a project worth tens of thousands of US jobs.
Obama is more interested in his re-election than actual shovel ready good paying jobs.
Who thinks he'll cave and try to sabotage the jobs later?
After last night, where he was beautifully beotch-slapped by the GOP candidates, the country KNOWS this guy couldn't care less about jobs.
And the GOP think nothing of elections in 2012.
Take the blinders off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
