Five amendments Dems will propose to Keystone XL bill

My biggest problem with the Keystone Pipeline is the use of eminent domain. There are many private parcels of land that the government will take away from the rightful owners in order to run the pipeline through them. You have a massive corporation building a pipeline--if they want to build it, they should pay whatever price the owners of the land are demanding.

Eminent domain is just another corporate subsidy in this case. Supporters of the pipeline say "if you want solar, install it on your own property" but are fine with forcing others to have a pipeline run through their property. A bit hypocritical, IMO.

 

So is their short-lived fondness for shovel-ready infrastructure projects and jobs...

 

Ayuh,.... I guess 100s of truck, 'n train crashes, dumpin' oil all over the landscape is a better alternative to the Op,...

I especially love that the Op couldn't even read the propaganda written, as her personal comments at the bottom suggest a completely different thought,...

 

Easy argument to win get government out of dictating how business need to run their business if democrats want to create all these conditions have them build the dam pipe line them selves but what do you expect you once again spewing you communist rhetoric and agenda just quit denying it your a communist and want government to run every dam thing

- - - Updated - - -

but you have no problem with the government stepping in and telling the land owner what they can and can not do with their own land for environmental reasons
the hypocrisy from the left never fails to amaze me

 

Not to mention all the exhaust that all those trucks are belching into the atmosphere...

 

Make a thread about it instead of hijacking this one with your delusions. There are over 250 million gasoline powered automobiles and countless other gasoline powered engines in the US. I would say that fossil fuels arent going anywhere in our lifetimes. Stop PRETENDING otherwise.

 

Ayuh,...... 'n still a fantasy at this point in time,...

 

1) Is just idiotic. Refineries get oil form a variety of sources both domestic and overseas. You can't magically separate one source of oil from another unless you want to dramatically slow down the refinery process.

2)Fine with it.

3)Load of crap. If the Democrats want more government spending on green jobs then they can put forth a bill just for that. This is why I believe that they should no longer be able to add amendments that are not directly related to the subject of a bill. If they want pork then they can have an annual "pork bill" that is reviewable by the public so that we all get to see just where every penny of pork spending goes. I bet that if the Republicans came back and said fine but only if its nuclear power the Dems would (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about that.

4)Fine with it.

 

Because we all know right wingers see the future through their oil smudged glasses in the rear view mirror.

Why fix the roads, when we can let everything fall down!

And why get off the oil tit???? Why innovate and pioneer the future when we can cling to the past!

 

So you don't use oil? You Amish?

There's already funding set up for roads. It's been that way for many years.

How did that Solyndra scam work out?

 

We, the taxpayer subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $37+ billion dollars a year. source If fossil fuels were sustainable they wouldn't need subsidies.

 

A tax write off for expenses incurred isnt a government subsidy.

 

Considering the oil is currently being transported by rail and existing pipelines I have no idea why anyone would consider it to affect the environment in any way. It will affect the Democratic contributor Warren Buffets bottom line though since his railroad will be one of the principle losers

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...g-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

 

OP lists amendments to Keystone. Rahrahs them merely because they are Democrat-originated and look all tingly green feely, with 0 substantive discussion of the actual amendments. Figures.

Four pages later, we have exactly -two- posters addressing the actual amendments, way2convey and reallybigjohnson. Most of the other posts equate to mouthbreathing out "Green energy...der- duh... SLUUURRRP... itth GOOD! ITTH VEWY VEWY GOOD!"

IMO all of the amendments are moronic, and reflect the diminished intellectual capacity of our fine Democrat Senators. In fact those amendments are a great primer in how BAD LAWS are drafted so frequently by ALL PARTIES in this country and to what end. All of them are broad, vague "feelygood" sops, impossible to enforce without mountains of additional expensive bureaucratic rulemaking, that just bloat regulations, confuse states and taxpayers, create litigation, require more specialized contractors, lawyers, accountants, cost us all to the benefit of the Complex. The last one is so poorly summarized I, as a lawyer, have no idea what it's getting at, even after reading some articles on the Nebraska case.

Will deal with that one first. Eminent domain is not a power that corporations of any type, foreign or otherwise, "invoke." They may benefit from it, lobby for it, offer consulting on it, plans for it, but they don't "invoke" it. It is a state power that in this case is claimed improperly delegated by the state legislature to the governor. So no idea what's really going on here, maybe someone is complaining that the Canadian company is getting rubberstamp eminent domain treatment from the gov office? and not going to read more trying to find out. OP certainly doesn't tell us. The "foreign corporation" issue is also unclear. ANY corporation that is not organized in a state yet licensed to do business there is a foreign corporation, doesn't matter whether it's in Georgia or Ghana. Surely the Dems are not confusing this fundamental element of corporate law. But again, no idea and not reading more. In any event, this is a matter for states, not the feds, and most importantly, no broad corporate law prohibitions should EVER be included in federal legislation, any such should be specifically applicable to this project alone, sunset immediately upon completion, and revert entirely back to state control.

Prohibiting export is absurd and unnecessary. We aren't given any rationale for why in OP so I won't give any here, it's simply dumb on its face, an obvious graft amendment for someone's constituents somewhere.

You know what, not going further into the individual amendments, all five of them are pure hokum and transparent graft, but here's the real story on this:

http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/schumer-dems-have-enough-votes-to-thwart-keystone-oil-pipeline/

1. Dems attach obviously crappy, inane amendments. 2. GOP won't accept any of them. 3. Dems can accuse GOP of intransigence and lack of compromise as rationale for voting against Keystone. 4. Both sides of their constituents can be appeased in this cheesy "well I woulda voted for it but they wouldn't add my (insert inanity) amendment!" That's what it is, none of those amendments are sincere, just waffly politics as usual. 5. Obama can then veto with the same "didn't compromise" BS hot air, and then go on and on about Congress freezing his party out, which he absolutely will be doing LOTS of.

Schumer has said he won't vote for the bill whether the amendments pass or not, and HE is the one forwarding them. Does that smell as rotten and transparent to you as it does to me?

 

Though prices are lower, they're nowhere near 1999-2001 levels. I'd love to bring us back there, if possible. Just because the economy expands(and it hasn't expanded for the working class) doesn't mean that you can automatically hike prices(well, you 'can' but if it wasn't the oil industry, you wouldn't be competitive for long in the market.) Because Oil is a monopoly(and a necessity), I'd argue that government should subsidize oil to keep prices artificially low, which will increase demand and profitability.

An even trade out, compared to the lose-lose model we have now.

 

Since the Republik of Kalifornia requires 33% electricity generation to be from renewable's by 2020, my electric rates have nearly doubled from $0.08 a kWh to $0.15 a kWh. The subsidies for "renewable's" are coming out of my wallet.

 

Yes but the push to get the oil flowing was when oil prices was high and production up. Once prices go down, a lot of wells will be capped and exploration will not be as lucrative as it was.

 

I wouldn't worry about that too much. As gas prices march upward toward over $4.00 a gallon again, the Democrats will receive the brunt of the low information public's IRE. It will hurt them real bad in the 2016 election.

 

Please explain how my criticism of a government-forced takeover of land is "communist rhetoric." This should be interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest you respond to my actual argument, not the mindless partisan assumptions you have in your head.

 

Jeez.... I don't even know where to begin with posts like this. "Get off the oil tit"? Anyone who says something like that is extremely ignorant about the realities in this world.

"Fix the roads"? Mister, less than 10% of the oil we use ever sees a road. The vast majority of it goes into things like: cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, rubbers, all kinds of synthetic plastics....

If you converted every single car over to electricity today you wouldn't even make a dent in the oil equation.

And somehow there are misguided and ignorant liberals who keep pushing us to "get off oil".

Well, that's not gonna happen. During your lifetime or mine, anyway.

If you wanna be a rocket scientist and solve the world's problems, you could begin with synthetic formulas that don't require hydrocarbons. Imagine.... no facial cream, no hair color, no lipstick or nail polish? How long do you think that could last?

 

Another "infrastructure stimulus" would just result in another big ripoff of the taxpayers. Obama and the Democrats touted the 2009 $trillion$ dollar stimulus as an efforts to repair our crumbling roads and bridges then spent a whopping 3% on doing just that. Just another BIG FAT DEMOCRAT LIE.

 

lol atchu thinking the GOP is gonna play nice after 8 years of democrats holding America hostage.

HAHAHAHAHHAA

 

You just made that 10% figure up. 45% of all oil goes to finished gasoline. Roughly another 30% goes to diesel and jet fuels that power commercial transportation and personal travel. Add those together and you get 75%...not 10%.

 

Really? An official gubmint link? Wow, I'm impressed. Too bad they don't tell you that more than half of that is exported, and a substantial fraction of the remainder is associated with preexisting long term energy contracts (like the state of CA, which bought its gasoline for all those state vehicles up front).

No, if you look at how much of our oil ends up on our roads, it's considerably less than 40%. If it weren't, there would be a more direct linkage between the price of a barrel and the price at the pump.

 

first of all the first part of my post wasn't a reply to you it was to another poster pay attention
second do you disagree with government telling land owners what they can and can not do with their land for environmental reasons? if not im not assuming anything just stating a fact