Keystone XL pipeline is back in the news, as the pub house is tying it to their approval of the payroll tax extension, actually just requiring a decision, not a positive ruling from Obama. Reid and Obama are refusing to yield on that, so they're at an impasse. Reid reportedly also threatening to block omnibus spending approval (meaning govt shutdown). Reading what's out there on the situation, it's hard to tell what's NOT mostly politics. That said, it's not like Keystone would be much of a detriment to Obama, regardless of how he decides, and it would be a job-creation feather in his cap if he votes yea. I have some ideas, but what's your best guess as to why Obama so steadfastly refuses to move on this till post-election?
Campaign contributions.
He gets money from greens advocating for no pipeline.
He gets money from oil guys and unions (jobs) trying to get approval.
Duh.
I think this time the Pubs have painted Reid into a corner. They’ve passed the bill, now they can go home. Reid doesn’t pass the bill, or Obama vetos it like he claims he will, then it’s the Dems who are opposed to cutting the payroll tax.
I don’t get Obama telling Reid to hold up the spending bill either, what is there for the Dems to gain from getting the blame for shutting down the govt?
What does an oil pipeline have to do with payroll tax cuts?! That’s the only legitimate question.
What does an oil pipeline have to do with payroll tax cuts?! That’s the only legitimate question.
They’re both about the economy. The tax cut is more short-term, and is the income stream that is supposed to be funding SS/medicare, so there is long term pain associated with the decision. IMO If they wanted a middle class cut, it should have been to the top income tax rates that the middle class actually pays.
What does an oil pipeline have to do with payroll tax cuts?! That’s the only legitimate question.
In theory the payroll tax cut was supposed to help create jobs (it hasn’t). The oil pipeline would create jobs, not McDonalds $8/hour jobs either. Why are the Dems against creating jobs, and this is even labor union jobs?
What does an oil pipeline have to do with payroll tax cuts?! That’s the only legitimate question.
They’re both about the economy. The tax cut is more short-term, and is the income stream that is supposed to be funding SS/medicare, so there is long term pain associated with the decision.
This is exactly my point. If the threshold for cramming two pieces of legislation together is that they both impact the American economy, then I have a laundry list of pet projects that I could very easily sandwich in there.
This is one of the most prominent examples of government existing for the sole purpose of ensuring government’s existence (and growth).
The tax cut is more short-term, and is the income stream that is supposed to be funding SS/medicare, so there is long term pain associated with the decision.
So the plan is to continue the plundering of trust funds that are going broke. Aren’t these the trust funds that 100’s of millions of Americans are relying on for their survival when they retire?
Sounds good to me! On with the plundering!
At what point do we change the name "trust fund’?
Campaign contributions.
He gets money from greens advocating for no pipeline.
He gets money from oil guys and unions (jobs) trying to get approval.
Duh.
This
Campaign contributions.
He gets money from greens advocating for no pipeline.
He gets money from oil guys and unions (jobs) trying to get approval.
Duh.
This
Well, there’s also the need to make/keep costs of traditional energy expensive, in order to give the green options a chance.
This is exactly my point. If the threshold for cramming two pieces of legislation together is that they both impact the American economy, then I have a laundry list of pet projects that I could very easily sandwich in there.
This is one of the most prominent examples of government existing for the sole purpose of ensuring government’s existence (and growth).
Could just be politics, because pubs think they have a winner on the keystone issue. My observation though, is that pubs have been better in the last couple years at offering plans that include some real long-term help and growth for the economy, while Obama/dems have repeatedly offered temporary bump, or stop-gap measures, that seem designed mostly to maintain the status quo till after 2012 elections. So I guess I see this as including something real for the economy going forward, along with some stimulus for the short term.
“electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket…”
.
What does an oil pipeline have to do with payroll tax cuts?! That’s the only legitimate question.
They’re both about the economy. The tax cut is more short-term, and is the income stream that is supposed to be funding SS/medicare, so there is long term pain associated with the decision. IMO If they wanted a middle class cut, it should have been to the top income tax rates that the middle class actually pays.
The oil pipeline is about the Canadian economy. Outside of the “stimulus” of building it (don’t tell the GOP I used that work about their project:), there isn’t that much of an impact to the US economy. Now, there’s some potential security issues that it helps (i.e. if Iran shuts down the Gulf, helps to have more from North America). But it’s not really an economic thing for us. Helps the Canadians because they don’t have to pipe it to the coast and then ship it elsewhere. Much easier and cheaper for them to sell it to us.
All true, but a couple years of good jobs, increased energy security, improved relations with our hated neighbors to the north...not much in the way of down-sides, especially when you add that unions are very much behind approval of the project.
Yah, I like the pipeline, assuming it’s sited in the right places. If Canada wants to tear up their countryside to develop the stuff and sell it to us, I have no problem with that. The major pollution and environmental damage stays in their country:).
And while I believe in global warming I’m not too concerned with the greenhouse gas side (oil sands are more GHG intense though) because the world outside of Europe has basically said they don’t give a shit about that. Oil sands aren’t that much worse than regular oil on that issue anyway. And either way it’s getting produced. The demand for oil is obviously huge. It’d just be exported somewhere else.
So I’d like to say approve the pipeline. I don’t really believe the hold up by Obama is entirely political. You think a bunch of environmentalists are going to vote for Newt or Romney because Obama approved this pipeline? I don’t think so! I think there is some legitimate community concern (aka… small ocal government that republicans love!) regarding where the pipeline is sited. And rushing that is dumb.
“electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket…”
Ive always been shocked that Satan Bush said that.
The downside, from a green perspective, is that it encourages consumption (and thus increased production) of one of the dirtiest (and most carbon intensive) sources of oil on the planet.
The downside, from a green perspective, is that it encourages consumption (and thus increased production) of one of the dirtiest (and most carbon intensive) sources of oil on the planet.
My guess is that you don’t work in the energy sector - namely the green energy sector. I agree with your point regarding the impact on consumption, but if you think that any form of green energy is more efficient or more effective than burning fossil fuels, you need an education. Green energy operates in the red, and is only viable from an incentivized economic standpoint. Fossil fuels may be dirty, but they’re the cleanest option we have.
- I do work in energy. And I have quite a nice education thank you. 2) the vast majority of green energy is not in competition with oil. At least not yet. And I don’t consider ethanol green. The point is that most of our renewable resources are not yet powering transportation. Which is what oil is for. The cleanest fuel we’ve got for transport is natural gas, right now.
So yeah, for the moment we have to burn oil. But the tar sands oil is between 15 and 25% more carbon intensive than the average barrel of oil consumed in the US. They were talking about building a nuclear reactor to generate the heat necessary to extract that oil–that’s how much energy it takes to get that stuff out of “sand” and into “oil” form. So it’d be better if we got our oil elsewhere.
Payroll tax, pipeline, abortion, affairs…all distractions from the real problem which is the fact that we are spending 30-50% more than we are making.
Oh yeah, save the middle class 2% on there payroll taxes…all the while we are taking in less money in SS tax than we are paying out, makes complete sense.
“Save the planet”, I’m not sure anyone will give a shit about the planet when 50% of them are wondering where their next meal is going to come from.
~Matt