DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 18, 2012, 06:05:24 PM
-
How stupid does he think the electorate is?? He claims that his plan to extend UNEMPLOYMENT benefits, and pass more payroll tax cuts (read; decreased SS $$$'s) will create more jobs than an actual plan to build a pipeline, that would actually require the hiring of thousands of new workers
Oh, and that it's the Republican's fault he had to say "no" (http://nationaljournal.com/congress/obama-rejecting-pipeline-pokes-back-at-gop-20120118?mrefid=subhplead_1) to Keystone
----------------------------------------------------
President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension -- two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.
"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."
Frellin incredible.....and will the MSM take him to task on it? Don't hold your breath (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-more-jobs-jobless-benefits-keystone/244871)
-
Yeah, suppose he approves a pipeline over the Oglallah aquifer and it destroys millions of acres of good cropland for generations. This pipeline is about Big Oil, it is NOT about "jobs".
Pipelines require some labor to build and very few jobs to maintain.
Doesn't the fact that this pipeline is designed to carry Canadian oil OUT of the US tell you anything? Where is the logic in shipping oil 2000 miles to refine it?
-
It's called JOBS, its called EMPLOYMENT, it's called reaping the financial windfall from Canada & Mexico in using our lands, on an ongoing basis
Claiming that extending UNEMPLOYMENT benefits "creates" more jobs than an actual massive jobs project does is the height of idiocy
-
If this pipeline destroys cropland for generations, which could easily happen, it is not called "Jobs or "employment". it will be called "idiocy" even by clowns such as yourself.
-
naaa, idiocy is buying into the asanine notion that extending unemployment benefits, which is specifically going to those who are UNEMPLOYED, supposedly creates more jobs than an actual massive pipeline construction project
Idiocy is assuming some massive destruction of croplands, "for generations", when the greatest of effort would be made to minimize damage to any potential cropland.
-
Doesn't the fact that this pipeline is designed to carry Canadian oil OUT of the US tell you anything? Where is the logic in shipping oil 2000 miles to refine it?
Wow. I should have known, given Xo's track record, that he was wrong, but I didn't realize just how wrong he was. According to Wikipedia:
The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen ("dilbit") from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada
to
multiple destinations in the United States, which include refineries in Illinois, Cushing oil distribution hub in Oklahoma, and proposed connections to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas.
And, here's a kicker, A Canadien Union bloke by the name of Dave Coles, wanting to block it because "...will exclusively serve US markets" --> more U.S. JOBS --> more U.S. $$$$'s
And wasn't it Obama jumping up and down about "We can't wait"??
-
Politics of the pipeline denial
Obama’s jobs cheerleading rings hollow as project’s fate is pushed beyond the November election.
By denying a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline this week, President Barack Obama may succeed in delaying until after November's election the politically difficult decision of which loyal constituency to offend, big labor or environmental activists.
What is more certain is that the political maneuvering to deny a permit for the controversial 1,600-mile pipeline from Canadian wells to Texas refineries has an immediate, deleterious effect: It costs America thousands of jobs. The president's decision is contrary to consumer needs, ultimately contributing to higher energy prices, and misses an opportunity to reduce reliance on oil from unfriendly nations.
The president says TransCanada may reapply for a permit along an alternative route, bypassing the Nebraska Sandhills, which some environmentalists claim could (not would) be harmed by oil leaks. Although the firm is expected to reapply, the delay probably means a final decision won't be made until after the Nov. 6 election, according to the Washington Post.
Environmentalists allege the pipeline to transport crude extracted from Canadian oil sands would contribute to climate change, and could (not would) leak. Given current technology, leaks are unlikely, but certainly manageable if they occur, posing little ecological threat.
Climate change is the all-encompassing canard invoked to deny nearly any industrial activity on a presumption of dire atmospheric consequences, which are far from proven.
"The pipeline was proven to be environmentally safe," says Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. While environmental harm is debatable, the White House's rejection is certain (not could) to mean delay of thousands of new jobs. "The project was set to create 20,000 immediate jobs and 118,000 spinoff jobs in businesses of all sizes," Ms. Kerrigan said.
The president's claim that the pipeline was being rushed is a limp excuse. When it suits the White House, federal officials have little trouble hastily approving much more suspect projects, particularly when they involve Obama campaign donors, such as the ill-fated Solyndra solar panel plant that failed, despite $535 million in federal loan guarantees. Clearly, the president can expedite when it suits him.
We agree with Myron Ebell, of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who says that by blocking construction the president makes it clear "that when he says over and over again that 'we can't wait' to create jobs and economic growth, it is merely hypocritical political posturing. Contrary to his phony rhetoric, President Obama's real goals are to reduce energy supplies, raise energy prices for American consumers and destroy jobs."
Likewise, Business Roundtable President John Engler noted: "[T]he President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness declared it imperative that the United States adopt an 'all-in' approach toward energy development. One day later, the State Department walks away from a project that would (not could) create thousands of jobs, strengthen the economy and help America move toward energy security."
Candidate Obama may have misjudged the political fallout. The Laborers' International Union of North America called his decision "politics at its worst." The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said the union remained hopeful the delay is temporary, but condemned "political deadlock" delaying
- creation of 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs,
- $585 million in state and local taxes,
- $5 billion in property taxes
- and reduced energy dependence.
Obama is indeed losing it (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/president-336466-jobs-energy.html)
-
Keystone Madness
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and -- beyond the symbolism -- won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.
Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.
Now consider how Obama's decision hurts the United States.
For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder.
Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.
Finally, Obama's decision forgoes all the project's jobs. There's some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to "job years," meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it's in the thousands and important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.
The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There's no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil's natural market is the United States.
There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy.
First, we're going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that American oil consumption will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.
The more oil we produce domestically and import from neighbors, the more we're insulated from dramatic interruptions of global supplies. After the United States, Canada is the most dependable source of oil -- or was until Obama's decision.
Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America's CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035. (The EIA is updating its projections, but the main trends aren't likely to change dramatically.) Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were that possible, wouldn't affect these emissions.
Finally, even if -- as Keystone critics argue -- some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.
By law, Obama's decision was supposed to reflect "the national interest." His standard was his political interest. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline's route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 -- after the election.
Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route -- already being negotiated -- might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary.
The cynicism is breathtaking. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/20/keystone_madness__112829.html)
-
Why not bring it south by rail?
-
Exponentially less volume, not to mention a fraction of the jobs it could create, not to mention all the trucks that would be needed (burning fuel, and "polluting the air") in having to then simply transport the oil from the train hubs
That's just a start
-
So it is better to deliver to vancouver for shipment to China?
-
??? Oil is coming IN to the U.S. and its refineries, via the pipeline. Not out to Vancouver
-
What pipeline. is it built yet? is the alternative to sell it elsewhere? Canada seems to think so.
-
What pipeline?? The one that Obama just rejected in its being built, that would have not only amounted to thousands of newly created U.S. jobs, for a long period of time, but by improving our own national security, with a much closer supply of oil, vs relying more on the volatility of ME oil.
What's your tact here, Bt? Are you trying to defend Obama's decision??
-
If there is no pipeline and the oil must be taken to the refinery, which is now the case, how does it get there?
It is trucked, barged or sent by rail.
In each case, there are more jobs performed more often than there would be if it were sent by pipeline.
It is MORE likely to be refined at the closest point (Sugar Creek in MO is one such place) and consumed in the US than it would be if it were piped all the way to the Gulf.'
-
Wrong on SO MANY levels.
-
What pipeline?? The one that Obama just rejected in its being built, that would have not only amounted to thousands of newly created U.S. jobs, for a long period of time, but by improving our own national security, with a much closer supply of oil, vs relying more on the volatility of ME oil.
What's your tact here, Bt? Are you trying to defend Obama's decision??
So if there is no pipeline as of the moment, Oil isn't coming IN to the U.S. and its refineries, via the pipeline.
so why not truck it until the pipeline issue is sorted out?
Not sure what is so hard about that question.
-
What pipeline?? The one that Obama just rejected in its being built, that would have not only amounted to thousands of newly created U.S. jobs, for a long period of time, but by improving our own national security, with a much closer supply of oil, vs relying more on the volatility of ME oil.
What's your tact here, Bt? Are you trying to defend Obama's decision??
So if there is no pipeline as of the moment...
Yet that is the issue, at hand, at this moment. A plan to do exactly what Obama keeps supposedly harping on, jobs, jobs, jobs, yada, blah, etc. Trucking does nothing but turn any incoming oil into a mere trickle, doing prescious little but putting more gas guzzling big rigs on the road, with a far higher probability of accidents and overturning of their loads, and prescious little as it relates to jobs
So, are you actually defending Obama's decision? This is not an issue that "needs sorted out", especially in placing it AFTER the ELECTION. It already has been...3years review, State Dept all set to approve it. This is pure politics, and noting to do with the president looking out for this country. He's looking out for his job, and noting more, with this decision
-
Yet that is the issue, at hand, at this moment.
So you agree that it would be smart for the oil producing country to line up other potential customers since Obama has decided the Keystone pipeline needs to be put off until after the election. But in the meantime i don't see the oil producing country halting production, so what happens to the shale oil now? How is it being delivered to refineries and where are they located? And is trucking a viable short term option?
And no i don't agree with Obama's decision . it shows extreme cowardice and hypocrisy. But that doesn't matter, because he's a short termer anyways and this congress can override his decision, all they need is enough senate votes to do it.
-
Yet that is the issue, at hand, at this moment.
So you agree that it would be smart for the oil producing country to line up other potential customers since Obama has decided the Keystone pipeline needs to be put off until after the election.
Absolutely
But in the meantime i don't see the oil producing country halting production, so what happens to the shale oil now?
On deck, China
And no i don't agree with Obama's decision . it shows extreme cowardice and hypocrisy.
Extreme, is putting it nicely
-
So your hope is that Canada signs huge contracts with China just so you have material to bop Obama over the head with?
He nixed the pipeline, now what? anyone?
-
So your hope is that Canada signs huge contracts with China just so you have material to bop Obama over the head with?
Yea, that has to be it. ::)
He nixed the pipeline, now what? anyone?
New President....Nov can't come fast enough
-
Obama will win.
Give it up.
Stop whining about some stupid pipeline that will never affect ever the teensiest part of your miserable existence.
-
Hope that cool-aide tasted good at least
-
How would that pipeline affect you? Tell us.
-
Leave it to Xo to make the parameters one that can only directly effect me personally, to proclaim how good an idea it is for this country
It personally effects me in how it can stimulate an increase in both the job market, increased revenues coming into the country, and a lesser reliance to the up/down volatility of middle east oil....which in turn, personally makes me feel much better about this country and a president, who would be looking out for the people of this country, vs his job
-
So you want to risk poisoning the Oglalla aquifer so you can "feel good"?
Why not just give yourself a massage?
-
Risk is mininal. You can continue to fester in he world of maybe, while I keep focused on the world of would & will
-
That pipeline is not going to be built where it can endanger that aquifer.
Since Alberta Tar Sands oil is currently shipped out for refining, it is being done by train, truck and barge, which ALL involve more jobs than shipping via pipeline. So this is not about jobs.
It is about favors for a potentially dangerous foreign oil company.
Why you join the herd of oil company cheerleaders when no one has so much as issued you a single pom-pom seems baffling.
-
That pipeline is not going to be built where it can endanger that aquifer.
What aquifier?, and how would it be "at risk"??
Since Alberta Tar Sands oil is currently shipped out for refining, it is being done by train, truck and barge, which ALL involve more jobs than shipping via pipeline. So this is not about jobs.
WRONG.....while all the other methods continue, who the hell do you think is going to build & maintain it?? ITS ALL ABOUT JOBS
It is about favors for a potentially dangerous foreign oil company.
What the frell?? Potentially?? Canada is now a dangerous foreign nation?? I realize the mere term "oil" is like a horrible term, but gads, talk about desperately grasping for straws :o
Why you join the herd of oil company cheerleaders when no one has so much as issued you a single pom-pom seems baffling.
WRONG, I joined the herd that cares about America, its security, and the current Obamabyss the current WH resident is sending us into. And my pom poms are the American Flag and Constitution, thank you very much
-
You are seriously delusional.
-
Naaa......that'd be your buddy Obama. And nice to see how well you addressed the questions posed. One can always tell when Xo has been ko'd in debate.....he drops all efforts at debate and runs to his 3rd grade insults manual
-
Yet that is the issue, at hand, at this moment.
So you agree that it would be smart for the oil producing country to line up other potential customers since Obama has decided the Keystone pipeline needs to be put off until after the election.
Absolutely
But in the meantime i don't see the oil producing country halting production, so what happens to the shale oil now?
On deck, China
And no i don't agree with Obama's decision . it shows extreme cowardice and hypocrisy.
Extreme, is putting it nicely
Good News: China and Canada 'Deepening Economic Relations' After Keystone Fail
The internal watchdog at the State Department released an audit today clearing -- the State Department -- of any impropriety in reviewing the permit for the Keystone Pipeline project. Whew! Well, that's a relief! Wait...
In a report released to Congress, the department's inspector general said it found no evidence that State Department employees were improperly influenced by the company asking to build the pipeline, TransCanada, when they selected the third-party contractor to conduct the environmental analysis, as opponents of the project had charged. The inspector general also concluded that no conflict of interest existed between the contractor, Cardno Entrix, and the State Department, TransCanada and other federal agencies the company had worked for. ...
Two lawmakers, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., had asked for the internal probe and pressed President Barack Obama to delay any decision on the pipeline until it was complete. But that demand became moot when Obama, at the suggestion of the State Department, rejected the pipeline in January. Republicans had attempted to force his hand to get an approval, and environmentalists had waged protests to block the $7 billion project.
The point is, indeed, a moot one, since the Keystone Pipeline has been put off yet again (as well as the wealth, jobs, and free trade that would come with its construction), and Canada surely isn't going to hold off on profiting from their resources just for funsies:
The development came as China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached "a new level" following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower.
The two countries have agreed that a joint economic study being conducted will be completed by May 2012, "after which Canada and China will proceed to exploratory discussions on deepening trade and economic relations."
China's political leaders say they're interested in exploring the feasibility of a full free-trade agreement. But Canadian officials accompanying Harper weren't going that far just yet, stressing instead that the ultimate goal is to deepen trade in key markets.
So, not only are we declining on Canada's oil, but we're also encouraging a relationship in which China can acquire more uranium -- because uranium is good for all kinds of things, like peaceful energy production, right? (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2012/02/09/good_news_china_and_canada_deepening_economic_relations_after_keystone_fail)