Republicans vote today, Democrats vote tomorrow
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
They flipped back and forth prior to the 2000 election.
Ross Perot was green, incidentally.
Probably, because up here in Soviet Canuckistan, and in not-as-Great Britain, red is for the Liberals, blue is for the Conservatives.
GasBandit
Staff member
McConnell and Boehner have started laying out plans for quick votes on legislation that had been languishing on Reid's desk.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...305bf2-6518-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html
First up will be approval for the Keystone XL pipeline, repealing the medical devices tax, and passing an actual budget for god damn once. Their long game after that will be trade agreements and tax reform... with undermining Obamacare "in the background."
We'll see if Ted Cruz plays ball. He's already grumbling that taking down the ACA should be one of the top priorities.[DOUBLEPOST=1415302901,1415302702][/DOUBLEPOST]They're up to the politics as usual though, there's already talks of using the reconciliation loophole, yet another federal debt limit increase, etc etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...305bf2-6518-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html
First up will be approval for the Keystone XL pipeline, repealing the medical devices tax, and passing an actual budget for god damn once. Their long game after that will be trade agreements and tax reform... with undermining Obamacare "in the background."
We'll see if Ted Cruz plays ball. He's already grumbling that taking down the ACA should be one of the top priorities.[DOUBLEPOST=1415302901,1415302702][/DOUBLEPOST]They're up to the politics as usual though, there's already talks of using the reconciliation loophole, yet another federal debt limit increase, etc etc.
Would you rather continue to buy oil from states that murder homosexuals for the crime of... being homosexual? Among other charming habits I hardly imagine I have to elaborate on. The Keystone pipeline benefits both of our countries, and rightly spits at OPEC in the process. Besides, at the moment, much of the oil we ship comes through pipelines in Canada, then gets on a rail system, crosses the border, and is put into another pipeline: an expensive (and more dangerous) method than just leaving it in one contiguous pipeline.
Dave
Staff member
In states where Medicare was expanded and the bill was embraced costs are not rising, people are getting insured and it's saving lives.
The pipeline was NEVER going to bring oil to the US. It was always slated for China and other points. We'd get no benefit other than about 30 jobs and an environmental nightmare.
The pipeline was NEVER going to bring oil to the US. It was always slated for China and other points. We'd get no benefit other than about 30 jobs and an environmental nightmare.
No, it goes to the refineries you guys have on the Gulf. Then you sell it domestically as that, or ship it off if that's more profitable. In "interesting" times, you'll be glad to have that nice safe NATO source. You guys already get more oil from Canada than anywhere else outside your country (your domestic production is also considerable). And everything that Chad said too.
Those refinery jobs are not just "30" of them either. Nor the construction in the meantime. And about 100 different other reasons why you SHOULD be building this, and it's a good idea.
Dave
Staff member
True that there will be temporary jobs during the construction process, but they were talking about a couple thousand permanent jobs, and that's just not true. I did just get done reading that manufacturing areas are thinking this is a godsend so I'm backing off my opposition a bit, but the claims they made still aren't standing up to scrutiny.
GasBandit
Staff member
Except not, and not.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-failing-cost-control-1413758684
Costs are hemmorhaging.
http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-kl-...s-california-new-york-tom-steyer-transcanada/
It makes no sense to claim Keystone XL, which runs to the gulf, is about exporting oil to china. It's on the wrong side of the continent, and there's already a siberian pipeline.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-failing-cost-control-1413758684
Costs are hemmorhaging.
http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-kl-...s-california-new-york-tom-steyer-transcanada/
It makes no sense to claim Keystone XL, which runs to the gulf, is about exporting oil to china. It's on the wrong side of the continent, and there's already a siberian pipeline.
This is patently untrue.
Dave
Staff member
You post the stats from the WSJ like they are gospel, but it's got a right-wing bias. I was going to post things from other sites that say exactly the opposite, but realized that they were from the other end of the ideological spectrum. Sites like Washington Post, ThinkProgress, or Mother Jones. Sorry, but your site is just as suspect as mine would have been and for the same reasons.
I'm admitting defeat on the XL thing. Being from Nebraska I get bombarded with stuff about it from both sides and it's so much white noise after a while. I still am not convinced it's necessarily good for my state, but will admit a certain level of ignorance about the whole thing.
I'm admitting defeat on the XL thing. Being from Nebraska I get bombarded with stuff about it from both sides and it's so much white noise after a while. I still am not convinced it's necessarily good for my state, but will admit a certain level of ignorance about the whole thing.
Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.
When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.
In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing.
When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.
In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing.
[citation needed]
Dave
Staff member
Yup. That's the way it is in most places that have it. The problem is that the republicans want to mess with many of the parts that actually pay for the coverage, like the Durable Medical Goods tax and the employer mandates. They cut those and no shit the thing will lose money, which is exactly what they want.They want it to fail and who gives a shit about who it hurts in the process.
Wait, I thought that was all politicians.Not enough votes to override a veto or stop a filibuster. The GOP is just fapping to the sound of it's own voice again.
Thanks to talk radio, cable news, and the internet, the GOP tends to make more of the mess.
So... this guy is usually pretty well-referenced. What say people?
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know anything about him. I would point out, though, that the way the bill was written, the bennies are doled out years before the bill comes due.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/03/after-one-year-obamacares-biggest-achievement-hiding-its-cost/
Some of my most liberal friends in healthcare are against the bill. Since I want to go into medicine, I can only hope since I wasn't there before the ACA, I have nothing to compare it to. I hope. That being said, the US healthcare system has been screwed up for a long ass time. Something had to be done.
Most liberals dislike it because it doesn't do what they wanted it to do- allow for a national program people could join run by the national government. This was opposed by health insurance companies because they feared (rightly) people would want the healthcare the government would offer at a much cheaper rate since it would have numbers to support it. President Obama made it sound like that was what he wanted to do during his campaign, but it turned out he never really wanted that as a program and quickly lost footing negotiating with Republicans because he started at a position of weakness by stating what he actually wanted with the program right off the bat. Thus, the watered down legislation we got.
Still, like every bill that gets passed there are good things in there. There's just a ton of crap thrown in to make it more difficult for people to take advantage of, too. Especially on the state level.
I'm really not sure if Poe's Law is in effect here.
Going by my previous post. Transcanada is looking to make their money abroad, and not in selling their petrol products to the U.S.
Basically this. A train spill can usually be cleaned up, but a burst pipe generally ruins an area beyond repair and the company involved will usually get a slap on the wrist for it. So the actual results of doing the pipeline are...
- No decrease in gas prices, because domestically refined gas is sold in FTZs where the oil companies can charge more for it.
- About 350 jobs, which will likely be filled by H1B1s.
- A likelihood that any town the line runs through could experience a spill, destroying it's economy, if not making it almost completely uninhabitable.
- A likelihood that the US government will be stuck with the bill for cleaning it up, which means the rest of us pay for it.
- Billions in oil money that go straight into the pockets of government officials and oil barons that will use that money to undermine the democratic system in ours and other countries.
Why exactly should we do this again? Why isn't Canada building their own refineries instead? Every year they hope and pray for this is a year they could be building the capability to do it themselves instead.
Umm... no. There are valves every so often (every mile? Half mile? If somebody knows, please say) that shut the flow as soon as a leak (or catastrophic failure, a "burst" as you say) is detected. Sure the volume between two valves will spill out, but that's it. Unlike with a trian, where it's not like 1 car goes off the rails.
And where do you get that the entire area is ruined beyond repair? This sounds like a lot of hyperbole and FUD.
Did you not read that article Krisken posted? Even if they COULD successfully clean up the mess, would you want to live on the site of a former oil spill and risk cancer and god knows what? Would you even want to live close to it? That town is completely fucked.
"On average, U.S. pipelines spilled over 3.1 million gallons a year between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As for the Keystone project,Public Citizen released a report this month documenting over 125 patches, dents, and other worrisome anomalies in its southern half."
The neat thing about reading an article is you get to examine the evidence and come to an informed conclusion before making a declarative statement which will sound foolish.
The neat thing about reading an article is you get to examine the evidence and come to an informed conclusion before making a declarative statement which will sound foolish.
It's a shit ton when it's in your backyard. Of course, if it isn't going through your yard, of course you won't care or can easily brush it off.