QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Perhaps raising the cap on the income FICA is paid on... to maybe $500,000 instead of $115,000? Do you think the GOP would go for that? That would make SS and Medicare solvent FOREVER...
First Day of the 114th.. First Veto!
- Thread starter QuickSilver
- Start date
Perhaps raising the cap on the income FICA is paid on... to maybe $500,000 instead of $115,000? Do you think the GOP would go for that? That would make SS and Medicare solvent FOREVER...
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
"That Oil is going to China". Perhaps, but if so, that is one of the VERY Few things that we are exporting that might help balance our debt with other nations. Someone is going to process that oil, and far better that our refineries do so, than shipping it to China and letting them pollute the planet even more, with refineries that aren't well equipped to handle it.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
OR it could be left in the ground... why is Canada not refining it themselves.. and shipping it off THEIR West Coast? Too dirty and dangerous for them?
ok so your from Chicago
all kinds a links. why should I show em to a far left lug nut like you??? just stay in line with all the other ducks
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
Raising the CAP on SS funding is far and away the Most Sensible Solution for the long term solvency of SS. As we have more and more Seniors every year, any attempt to dismantle SS would be political suicide for any politician who hoped to dismantle that system...BUT ONLY if Seniors are paying attention, and voicing their concern about any such attempts.
SS is the most Stable of our entitlements, and its funding is the most secure...so far. Long before SS gets into trouble SSDI and Medicare will become major problems. How our government handles SSDI, and how Obamacare affects our current health care system will give us a good clue as to what SS will look like years from now.
SS is the most Stable of our entitlements, and its funding is the most secure...so far. Long before SS gets into trouble SSDI and Medicare will become major problems. How our government handles SSDI, and how Obamacare affects our current health care system will give us a good clue as to what SS will look like years from now.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
ok so your from Chicago
all kinds a links. why should I show em to a far left lug nut like you??? just stay in line with all the other ducks
In other words.... Ya got nuttin' lol!!! YOU'RE a hoot!
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
As I said before, our Texas refineries are some of the very few, globally, which are equipped to handle the Heavy Crude from Canada. I suppose the Canadians could spend billions, and take years, to build their own refineries, but since we already have the capability, it only makes good financial sense....for both nations...to ship it here and refine it. Then, if it IS exported, at least we get back some of the 10's of billions our people spend every year on "Made in China".
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
So let me get this straight... You are fine with risking OUR land and aquifer to move the filthiest of ALL oil across it so Canada can be spared the expense of building a refinery and profit from the export? IT'S NOT OUR OIL! Canada will make all the profit... we will take all the risk. It's not going to benefit us at all.. either economically.. OR at the pump.
and you got nuttin' to give
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
OK...let me address a couple of your concerns. First, the current proposed route for the XL Pipeline has been moved North and East of the original proposals...so as to give the Ogallala Aquifer a wide berth, in the unlikely event that a major break might occur. Such a pipeline would be a Far Safer means of moving this oil than trying to move it along our rapidly aging rail lines. Besides, as an example, the Alaskan Pipeline has been in use for many years, and I am not aware of any problems with that pipeline. Further, the Ogallala Aquifer is being so rapidly depleted that the present corn and wheat fields it supports in Nebraska and Kansas may well be history in another 10 or 20 years...just think of what THAT is going to do to grocery prices.
Insofar as Profit going all to Canada....I doubt very seriously that our refineries are processing this oil for Free. This oil processing is making good money for our refineries, and the people who work there. Heaven knows...in this current economy we need all the good jobs and high wages we can come up with.
I like most people, am always concerned about the environment...but the application of good common sense can usually come up with a means of sustaining our nations needs, while doing minimal damage to our surroundings.
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
I agree Don. Another plus that we really need now is the good jobs building the pipeline.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
I hope, one day, we will see a high priority being placed on rebuilding our infrastructure, and putting people to work in good, high paying construction jobs...rather than just extending Unemployment benefits.
rkunsaw
Well-known Member
- Location
- Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
The money we borrow to give to our enemies would build a lot of bridges.
or the oil fields in ND, need a job?? start at 6 figures. more jobs than people. there's enough oil under this country to last until the rapture.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
I agree... however, the Keystone XL will not do that.. It will provide about 42,000 TEMPORARY jobs during construction and only about 35 permanent ones. Better to put the money into roads and bridges and high speed rail... forget the pipeline... It's not worth anything to us... just Canada. that has been documented over and over... WHY you don't believe it is beyond me.. You prefer some talking point put out that has been proven to be false.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
How sad.... I'm going to the store... Want me to restock you Kool aid?
only libs drink it. get me a bottle of jack Daniel's
I'm in favor of the KeystonePipeline, I think it would be good for the American workers and the economy. There has to be some give and take on both parties, not everything is black and white. I understand the oil is coming here anyway by railroad, but we're not getting the benefits of putting our middle class citizens to work.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...peline-report/
The State Department just came out with its latest report on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The report finds that the pipeline’s construction would create almost 2,000 jobs that last for two years and would support more than 40,000 jobs.
The report further finds that the pipeline likely would not harm the environment when considered relative to what will happen if the pipeline is not built. Yet, even given these clear facts in favor of green lighting the pipeline, don’t expect an approval in the near future.
The State Department deserves considerable praise for such a fair and unbiased report. Essentially the report focuses on three aspects: jobs, environmental impacts from the pipeline, and what would happen if the pipeline were not built. The findings, taken together, make clear to anybody with an open mind that the pipeline should be approved.
On the jobs front, the report estimates the pipeline’s construction would result in 3,900 jobs over two years. The additional spending on construction material would push the job gains up to about 42,000 counting jobs building the pipeline, selling materials for the pipeline, and those supported by the spending of people in the first two categories.
Considering how the president claims that jobs are his top priority, a project that would create 42,000 jobs according to the administration’s own study while using no government money would seem to be a good deal.
keystone pipeline(Photo credit: shannonpatrick17)
The environmental risks from the pipeline were deemed to be minimal by a fair reading of the report. The route of the pipeline has been shifted since the initial application was filed and now avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska that had raised concerns from many environmentalists.
There are still risks of spills from the pipeline, but the report puts those in perspective relative to other ways to transport the oil. A similar approach is taken to the impact of the pipeline on climate change.
When environmentalists first tried to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, their goal in blocking the pipeline was to have the oil stay deep in the Canadian tar sands where it lies now.
In the five years of dithering over the pipeline by the Obama Administration, that goal has not been fulfilled. Instead, the Canadians moved full speed ahead on bringing up the oil. For now, a lot of the oil is moved by rail.
In the future, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, it appears likely that a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and rail cars will send the same amount of oil to a mix of U.S. refineries and China.
With the State Department correctly admitting that the oil will be mined and refined regardless of whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the impact of the pipeline on climate change due to emissions from using these fossil fuels becomes negligible.
If anything, emissions should be somewhat lower if the oil is refined and used in the U.S. with our environmental regulation than if it travels to China.
The State Department just came out with its latest report on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The report finds that the pipeline’s construction would create almost 2,000 jobs that last for two years and would support more than 40,000 jobs.
The report further finds that the pipeline likely would not harm the environment when considered relative to what will happen if the pipeline is not built. Yet, even given these clear facts in favor of green lighting the pipeline, don’t expect an approval in the near future.
The State Department deserves considerable praise for such a fair and unbiased report. Essentially the report focuses on three aspects: jobs, environmental impacts from the pipeline, and what would happen if the pipeline were not built. The findings, taken together, make clear to anybody with an open mind that the pipeline should be approved.
On the jobs front, the report estimates the pipeline’s construction would result in 3,900 jobs over two years. The additional spending on construction material would push the job gains up to about 42,000 counting jobs building the pipeline, selling materials for the pipeline, and those supported by the spending of people in the first two categories.
Considering how the president claims that jobs are his top priority, a project that would create 42,000 jobs according to the administration’s own study while using no government money would seem to be a good deal.
The environmental risks from the pipeline were deemed to be minimal by a fair reading of the report. The route of the pipeline has been shifted since the initial application was filed and now avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska that had raised concerns from many environmentalists.
There are still risks of spills from the pipeline, but the report puts those in perspective relative to other ways to transport the oil. A similar approach is taken to the impact of the pipeline on climate change.
When environmentalists first tried to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, their goal in blocking the pipeline was to have the oil stay deep in the Canadian tar sands where it lies now.
In the five years of dithering over the pipeline by the Obama Administration, that goal has not been fulfilled. Instead, the Canadians moved full speed ahead on bringing up the oil. For now, a lot of the oil is moved by rail.
In the future, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, it appears likely that a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and rail cars will send the same amount of oil to a mix of U.S. refineries and China.
With the State Department correctly admitting that the oil will be mined and refined regardless of whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the impact of the pipeline on climate change due to emissions from using these fossil fuels becomes negligible.
If anything, emissions should be somewhat lower if the oil is refined and used in the U.S. with our environmental regulation than if it travels to China.
AZ Jim
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- SURPRISE, ARIZONA
Shut down? Anyone think THAT will help GOP?
I'm in favor of the KeystonePipeline, I think it would be good for the American workers and the economy. There has to be some give and take on both parties, not everything is black and white. I understand the oil is coming here anyway by railroad, but we're not getting the benefits of putting our middle class citizens to work.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...peline-report/
The State Department just came out with its latest report on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The report finds that the pipeline’s construction would create almost 2,000 jobs that last for two years and would support more than 40,000 jobs.
The report further finds that the pipeline likely would not harm the environment when considered relative to what will happen if the pipeline is not built. Yet, even given these clear facts in favor of green lighting the pipeline, don’t expect an approval in the near future.
The State Department deserves considerable praise for such a fair and unbiased report. Essentially the report focuses on three aspects: jobs, environmental impacts from the pipeline, and what would happen if the pipeline were not built. The findings, taken together, make clear to anybody with an open mind that the pipeline should be approved.
On the jobs front, the report estimates the pipeline’s construction would result in 3,900 jobs over two years. The additional spending on construction material would push the job gains up to about 42,000 counting jobs building the pipeline, selling materials for the pipeline, and those supported by the spending of people in the first two categories.
Considering how the president claims that jobs are his top priority, a project that would create 42,000 jobs according to the administration’s own study while using no government money would seem to be a good deal.
keystone pipeline(Photo credit: shannonpatrick17)
The environmental risks from the pipeline were deemed to be minimal by a fair reading of the report. The route of the pipeline has been shifted since the initial application was filed and now avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska that had raised concerns from many environmentalists.
There are still risks of spills from the pipeline, but the report puts those in perspective relative to other ways to transport the oil. A similar approach is taken to the impact of the pipeline on climate change.
When environmentalists first tried to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, their goal in blocking the pipeline was to have the oil stay deep in the Canadian tar sands where it lies now.
In the five years of dithering over the pipeline by the Obama Administration, that goal has not been fulfilled. Instead, the Canadians moved full speed ahead on bringing up the oil. For now, a lot of the oil is moved by rail.
In the future, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, it appears likely that a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and rail cars will send the same amount of oil to a mix of U.S. refineries and China.
With the State Department correctly admitting that the oil will be mined and refined regardless of whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the impact of the pipeline on climate change due to emissions from using these fossil fuels becomes negligible.
If anything, emissions should be somewhat lower if the oil is refined and used in the U.S. with our environmental regulation than if it travels to China.
the GOP wants it to flow. but the dems hate oil