Five amendments Dems will propose to Keystone XL bill

Here's the problem with this one, please tell me how to enforce it and make rational rules? WHO enforces it? Also, do you have any idea of the amount of separate warehousing, accounting, invoicing, cataloging, and other expenses involved with this? So let's say the inspector shows up and makes you produce a paper trail for all the materials onsite, threatening shutdown if you don't. How much does -that- cost in delays and red tape? Finally, WTH are "manufactured goods," umbrellas, raincoats, hardhats, FOOD, etcetcetc. ?? This one is one of the best examples I've seen of wasteful, needless regulations that cost all of us without getting any benefit, together with the utter ignorance of business realities in the Democratic Party. It will result in hundreds of pages of rules, maybe a whole new bureaucracy, and compliance will be a costly nightmare.

Please explain what this means? I am a lawyer and can't figure it out after reading three articles on it and not reading any more. Corporate law is entirely state law, and there may be national ramifications. Why is it not limited to THIS project? Why is it not sunset? Believe me, as a corporate lawyer when I tell you that if this requires change in all 50 states' corporate law, it will cost untold billions of dollars. Not saying it does that because it's so unclear and poorly worded, but the last thing we need is the federal government stepping into the state domain of corporate statutes.

Rest I agree with, nutter, and number 4 is just an entitlement expansion. I don't like those, but if you do fine.

 

Seems as if some here are not familiar with the legislative process. here is how it goes - The House passes a clean bill, The Senate passes their version of the bill. The Bills go to the Conference Committee who work out a compromise if the bills differ. The Conference Committee prepares a report which goes back to each chamber who vote on the report. Once both chambers agree and pass the report the bill then goes to the Presidents desk. If the President vetoes it the house that originated the bill has to pass it again with a 2/3rds majority. If they can't then need to start all over or forget it

What is going on is how government is supposed work versus how Harry Reid ran it. What the article refers to is not the final bill that the President may or may not ever see depending on how the wheels turn in Conference.

 

We give them all sorts of subsidies. First, on public lands the royalty paid by the oil and coal companies is a fraction of what they pay for royalties on private land. They get massive deductions and tax breaks. If you end all subsidies for everyone then you have a level playing field. The reason we have subsidized alternative sources is be cause we subsidize fossil fuels.

 

All crude oil from whatever source, is refined, it is pretty useless otherwise. A refinery is basically a still, very similar to one used to produce alcohol. The wiki article on refineries gives a pretty good crash course on the subject.

 

I have every intention of continuing to "cluck" about conservatives until the day they look to the future and adopt policies that support getting the US off its dangerous dependence on fossil fuels.

As long as conservatives cow tow to big oil, they are not acting in the bests interests of this country.

How do I know I sat in gas lines twice, because we were dangerously dependent on imported oil, and I watched the country go to war TWICE over oil.

If you think alternative energy is expensive, compare it to what we've paid for our oil wars.

 

What makes you think it is only conservatives who want oil?

Everyone uses oil including you lefties.

The manufactured 'oil crisis' of the 70's. How gullible can one get?

And the lies about war for oil. I always hear the left throw that canard around but they can never explain it.

No one is stopping you from buying an electric car. And when the world is ready for it the market will demand it. It will not be forced down people's throats by some narcissistic POTUS and his minions.

 

You cant even make a consistent argument. You complain about sitting in gas lines, dependence on foreign oil, and oil wars....yet you dont support North American oil production??? That makes ZERO sense.

"Big Oil" is directly responsible for about 9 million jobs in the US alone....how is hindering their expansion, efficiency, and safety in the best interests of this country?

 

What then Senate Majority Leader Reid did was to pigeonhole House legislation that had zero chance of passing the Senate but would have taken a lot of time to process. Given that Senate Republicans were using every rule in the book to delay the smooth functioning of the Senate, adding useless debates over what amounted to poison pill bills was considered a stretch too far. If the Republican led Senate now wants to have debates on reasonable legislation, even allowing votes on proposed amendments, that's just fine with me even if said legislation tilts to the right (which I'm sure it will).

Now, back to the OP - I'm not sure whether or not the proposed amendments really are good (which they appear to be) or somehow aren't. There have been some comments on why some of them could cause problems, but I still haven't seen anything that would indicate a poison pill on the order of some of the House bills in the last Congress.

 

They're all terrible except the last one prohibiting eminent domain, but that doesn't really require Federal interference. Its internal state policy that doesn't affect the rest.

The main provision should be that they won't be arrested and caged if they attempt to build the pipeline, but not a cent of tax money will go towards the project. Seems simple enough to me. You want your pipeline? You build it.

 

enough of the revisionist history, the old jackass is out of his office now. The DNC propaganda tactics are worthless anyway. Last November was the swan song for the Democratic partry



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ess-is-the-least-productive-ever-is-he-right/

 

It is nice to see the Democrats coming out of the closet as obstructionists. They've been able to hide behind Sen. Harry Reid for far too long.

 

Ayuh,.... I guess that's why ole Harry couldn't debate, much less pass a constitutionally required annual Budget for 5 Years,..??..??

 

What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Thanks to no LWer on the planet, this RWer has personally invested his own money in thorium power technologies and consultation services.

You caught that part about personal investment, didn't you? Unlike LWers who are all too fond of spending and investing other people's money, I willingly and voluntarily invested my own money in that innovative energy technology so we all can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

In other words, he was the OBSTRUCTIONIST, not the GOP as he laughably accused them of being as they passed bill after bill after bill in the House.

 

Well, there's one good thing about having a Republican-controlled Congress. We'll actually see a budget for the first time in years.

 

This childish nonsense about "everyone using oil" as a substitution assertion that everyone supports big oil is so transparantly false that it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can read.

Stick to your fantasy world, because explanations are wasted on your ilk.

If you don't think that both wars in Iraq weren't primarily about oil, the you're in a very small minority on this planet. Of course, almost all of that minority includes the sort of people who think they learn something from AM right wing talk radio in the US.

 

Why would that be?

The President submits the budget, and Congress acts on it. No President has ever signed a budget that originated in the House, and none ever will.

 

Ayuh,.... But Obama Never submitted a budget to the Democratic Congress, 'n Reid never let a budget bill onto the Senate floor,....

 

So everyone doesn't use oil? Who's the child now?

And if you think that the wars were about oil and can't prove it, you have no argument.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what a nincompoop Obama is when it comes to his budgets...............


Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote | TheHill
thehill.com/.../227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vot...
The Hill
May 16, 2012 - A budget resolution based on President Obama's 2012 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.
House kills Obama budget 2-413 | TheHill
thehill.com/.../votes/203134-house-kills-obama-budget-0-xxx
The Hill
Apr 9, 2014 - It was defeated 2-413, following a pattern seen in recent years in House votes to overwhelmingly reject Obama's budget proposals. Today's ...
Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-budget-def...
The Washington Times
May 16, 2012 - President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat on Wednesday when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Obama budget defeated 413-2; plans are unpopular on both ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-budget-def...
The Washington Times
Apr 9, 2014 - Two brave Democrats voted for President Obama's budget on Wednesday, preventing another unanimous defeat for their party leader.

 

Well, I guess if you stand on your head, that's one way to look at it. Now then, how many bills passed by the Republican controlled House had to do with eliminating all of the ACA or effective gutting it? What was it - 40? 50? And you want to claim with a straight face that refusing to "debate" crap like that is proof that Reid is an ... obstructionist?

 

Herp derp...let me know when you have an actual argument.

 

Crude oil is refined into fuel. That is where the process starts. Crude oil is also refined into various other petroleum products. Some of those petroleum products are then further refined/used to create plastics. Crude oil itself is never an ingredient in plastic manufacturing--it must first be refined.

As to how much oil ends up as gasoline? Here is another source (that includes jet fuel):
http://www.vox.com/2014/12/16/7401705/oil-prices-falling

The answer according to them is that 87 percent of crude oil consumed in the U.S. is turned into fuel for cars, trucks, and airplanes. A far cry from the 10% nonsense touted by ballantine.

 

If you follow the actual conversation, Sanskrit was confused because I had a chart showing crude oil refinery yields by type (such as gasoline, etc.) but plastic was not shown as a refinery yield. He did not understand why plastic was not shown in the chart. I then explained that plastic did not show up in the refinery yield chart because plastic is not a product of the crude oil refining process. Crude oil itself is never an ingredient in plastic manufacturing--it must first be refined. Do you understand the point now?

 

Ayuh,... I understood it in the 1st place,....

Did You read the post I quoted, 'n replied too,..??

The Point is,.... Plastics are derived from crude oil,.....

 

— Ban the export of oil transported through the pipeline, language that Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has frequently floated in both chambers of Congress;

— Require U.S.-produced iron, steel and manufactured goods “to be used for the pipeline construction, connection, operation, and maintenance.” It’s another familiar measure that senators like Markey and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have offered.

— Require “that for every job created by the pipeline, an equal or greater amount of jobs is created through clean energy investments.” Schumer and Stabenow highlight legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would cut the price of home solar units through rebates.


This is nothing more than soft tyranny. Fascist at their finest.