• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP House fights for the Canadian economy

Tombstone1881

Tombstone1881

Senior member
Josh Green joked the other day that it’s “kind of nuts” that congressional Republicans decided to start 2015 by “fighting for the Canadian economy.” That sounds about right, but here we are anyway.
House Republicans passed one of their top legislative priorities Friday – a bill to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline. While passage wasn’t in question as the Republican-led House has now passed the measure ten times, it now heads to the new Republican-controlled Senate where for the first time the measure is likely to reach President Barack Obama’s desk and face his veto pen.
​
The final vote was 266 to 153, with 28 Democrats voting with the Republican majority. Zero GOP lawmakers voted against it, though Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted “present” (for reasons that apparently get a little complicated).

That’s a comfortable margin of victory for the pipeline’s proponents, but it’s worth emphasizing that with this bill facing an inevitable veto from President Obama, the 266 supporters will not be enough to override the veto.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-overlooks-policy-reality-passes-keystone-bill
 
Canada will sell the oil regardless. Claiming the Keystone pipeline is “fighting for the Canadian economy" is clearly partisan bullshit.
 
Haven't even read into this one but seems funny if the GOP is supporting the "draft dodgers" in Canada from long ago after starting to slip on the base in the US.

Anything for a possible vote I guess.

:sneaky:
 
ivwshane said:
Yes or no, will a completed pipeline do anything for the US economy?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Besides the jobs supporting the pipeline, the stabilization of energy prices would be a very positive thing. Not to mention the money from those temp jobs could be the difference between a family going into poverty and thriving.
 
Tombstone1881 said:
Josh Green joked the other day that it’s “kind of nuts” that congressional Republicans decided to start 2015 by “fighting for the Canadian economy.” That sounds about right, but here we are anyway.
House Republicans passed one of their top legislative priorities Friday – a bill to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline. While passage wasn’t in question as the Republican-led House has now passed the measure ten times, it now heads to the new Republican-controlled Senate where for the first time the measure is likely to reach President Barack Obama’s desk and face his veto pen.
​
The final vote was 266 to 153, with 28 Democrats voting with the Republican majority. Zero GOP lawmakers voted against it, though Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted “present” (for reasons that apparently get a little complicated).

That’s a comfortable margin of victory for the pipeline’s proponents, but it’s worth emphasizing that with this bill facing an inevitable veto from President Obama, the 266 supporters will not be enough to override the veto.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-overlooks-policy-reality-passes-keystone-bill
Click to expand...

What I thought was hilarious was (I think it was) Joni Ernst calling it the "Keystone jobs bill". Democrats tried to insert amendments that would require the steel used for the pipeline be made in the USA, which would keep the money here and provide jobs in our industry.

The Republicans shot it down.
 
rudeguy said:
Yes.

Besides the jobs supporting the pipeline, the stabilization of energy prices would be a very positive thing. Not to mention the money from those temp jobs could be the difference between a family going into poverty and thriving.
Click to expand...

The pipeline makes it cheaper for canada to export oil it already exports through other means. You thinking it will stabilize energy prices is completely baseless as predicting energy prices isn't a sure thing.

Do you support the American jobs act proposed by Obama?
 
ivwshane said:
The pipeline makes it cheaper for canada to export oil it already exports through other means. You thinking it will stabilize energy prices is completely baseless as predicting energy prices isn't a sure thing.

Do you support the American jobs act proposed by Obama?
Click to expand...

I don't believe a word Obama says. We already spent a huge amount of money on jobs bills that not only didn't work, they were never supposed to work.
 
What is a single pipeline? Not much...

But our energy sector is the totality of such decisions. It makes no sense to attack American energy.
 
What does the US get out of the pipeline being built over US land?

Costs and Benefits.

One clear cost are the leaks that will happen, because pipelines always leak.

One clear benefit are the jobs created, temporarily and permanently, inside the US.

Whether this is a net benefit or net cost won't be known until after it is built and has performed its job. Until then, you can offer Costs and Benefits, or it can be used as another way for Democrats and Republicans to call each other stupid.

Use the thread accordingly.
 
I think Chris Matthews put it best.
And another MSNBC host, fyi...

"Republicans are obsessed on building a pipeline that may create 3 or 4 temporary jobs.
while resisting repairing our infrastructure and building high speed rail that would create thousands of permanent jobs. Go figure."
Chris Matthews

It's going to take a woman to set them straight. Hillary being that woman.
(me)
 
rudeguy said:
Except the thousands of jobs it would create and the stability to the energy supply.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...tone-pipeline-would-create-thousands-of-jobs/


And yes I trust Forbes over Maddow.
Click to expand...
Why do you guys so consistently fail to understand the difference between a fact-based, nominally objective article and an intentionally slanted op-ed? (It wasn't even a Forbes editorial; it was a guest column.) It's not even like this is somehow hidden from readers. It says "Opinion" in a big blue box right at the top of the piece, the URL contains "realspin" in its path, and this disclaimer is printed at the bottom:
"Albert Huber is the president of Patterson Pump Company. Peter Bowe is the president of Ellicott Dredges, LLC. Both companies would stand to benefit economically if the Keystone XL pipeline were built."
​
Do you suppose, just maybe, they might have an agenda that clouds their objectivity? But it told you what you wanted to hear, and that's all that mattered.
 
ivwshane said:
The pipeline makes it cheaper for canada to export oil it already exports through other means. You thinking it will stabilize energy prices is completely baseless as predicting energy prices isn't a sure thing.

Do you support the American jobs act proposed by Obama?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the one thing the Keystone supporters seem to consistently ignore: the pipeline does not deliver oil for U.S. consumption. It simply makes it less expensive to export the oil via the Gulf. If anything, it seems it could increase prices in the upper Midwest by making it even more profitable to export Canadian shale oil instead of selling some of it more locally.
 
This pipeline is such a farce. Veto away Obama.

GOP and it's supporters are still acting like they have some kind of credibility with this whole 'seeing into the future' act of theirs. Strange.

Pity they can't get this worked up over good ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top