Five amendments Dems will propose to Keystone XL bill

Am I to assume that you are using the term "free" in LibSpeak where it means someone else pays your bills for you?

While I greatly admire the men who wrote the Constitution, they erred badly in underestimating how evil people seeking power could be and giving them the "general welfare" clause to abuse.

 

Exactly. Also, those that say that the pipeline will not result in a net gain of jobs, seems to forget the fact that the oil from the pipeline will be refined here in the USA into diesel, gas and home heating oil for export, thereby lowering our trade deficit.

Temporary shovel ready jobs seemed to be very important when the Stimulus Package was passed in 2008, as it should be. Temporary shovel ready construction jobs building this pipeline should be just as important in 2015.

 

The right doesn't seem to apply it equally when it comes to wealth under our form of capitalism. It is almost as if the right understands we won the Cold War on a platform of we get what we pay for instead of the best Things in life are "free".

 

I wasn't saying it was the Teamsters. I was suggesting that the Bakers needed to follow the Teamster's lead.

 

Why should labor sacrifice for golden parachutes for management? Maybe they just need to create open interest in some kind of insurance.

 

Ah yes. Class warfare. The Teamsters reworked their contracts? Why do you think they did that? Because the Teamsters understood that Hostess wasn't bluffing this time. The Union Heads of the Baker's Union should have followed their lead. Instead they told their people that management would cave. So instead of their members having jobs at a slightly reduced rate, they had nothing. Good job Baker's Union!

 

Like management had nothing to do with it.

 

In other words, the Teamsters cut management some slack, and they still were only able to pull an "Enron".

 

And the landowners WANT it to go through their land as they collect rent for it doing so.

 

The land is NOT taken away, the landowners do not lose ownership of the land and they get justly compensated for the use of the right of ways and access.

 

I try to keep class warfare to class warfare threads. There, i usually just advocate simply goading the wealthiest to insist Their public servants simple and merely, purchase the finest solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

And how exactly are they subsidized to the tune of $37+ billions a year? What direct payments is the government making to the tune of $37+ billion a year?

 

this is just a "show" bill designed to paint Obama as an obstructionist. Nothing would be gained or lost regardless of whether it is approved or not. I find it is amusing that so many are so polarized over a nothing bill.

Approved = some construction jobs and the accompanying ripple effect

Vetoed = existing pipelines and railroads continue to haul the tar sands oil

much ado about nothing and no effect other than a partisan pillow fight in the media

 

not everyone wants the hassle; and, conduits to markets established by the public sector should preserve green space whenever possible.

 

Your rail transport is greener than a pipeline argument is fallacious, even the far left rag Mother Jones considers pipeline transport safer than rail transport

When the State Department issued its long-awaited environmental-impact statement on the Keystone XL project earlier this month, one of its key findings was that if the controversial pipeline weren't built, oil-laden rail cars would pick up the slack. "Rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed," it argued. As we noted recently, that rail transit is already underway. ​According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), crude oil traveling by rail increased from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to an estimated 400,000 in 2013. Recently, an ExxonMobil official said the company had already begun to use trains to haul oil out of the Canadian tar sands, and the company plans to move up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day from a new terminal by 2015. In other words, tar sands will be developed one way or another, according to the State Department, with or without the $5.4 billion pipeline that would eventually link Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

The AAR argues carrying crude by tanker car is safe, citing a statistic that 99.9977 percent of dangerous chemical shipments by rail reached their destination without incident through 2010, making it safer than other forms of transport. But as crude by rail in the United States is increasing—the AAR says shipments have shot up 443 percent since 2005—so too are the spills. An analysis of the data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration​ shows that in the US, 7 of the worst 10 railroad oil spills of the past decade happened in the last three years. This number doesn't include the catastrophic accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last July, which decimated the town and killed 47 people.

In fact, at over 1.2 million gallons spilled in total, more crude oil was spilled from trains last year than every other year since 1971 combined. The 10 worst spills together cost nearly $2 million in damages. The worst was in Aliceville, Alabama, on November 8, when nearly 750,000 gallons spilled from a 90-car train after it derailed, setting off a series of explosions. In Casselton, North Dakota, nearly a half-million gallons spilled on December 30, after a grain train derailed in front of a BNSF train filled with crude oil, igniting an inferno that forced the town to evacuate.

​The severity of the Lac-Megantic incident forced the National Transportation Safety Board, in conjunction with the Canadians (where crude by rail is also booming), to issue a 15-page document recommending increased safely measures. The report finds that "railroad accidents involving crude oil have a potential for disastrous consequences and environmental contamination equal to that of the worst on-shore pipeline accidents." Despite the urgency, the report says not enough has been done to properly equip US railways to face the increasing demands: "Although railroad accidents involving large numbers of crude oil tank cars can have similar outcomes [to pipeline spills], oil spill response planning requirements for rail transportation of oil/petroleum products are practically nonexistent compared with other modes of transportation."

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/map-railway-oil-spills

 

underground, conduits to markets, could be safer still and provide for maglev capability in vacuum environments.

 

and increase tio the cost of transportation and delay to the where it would be cheaper for Democratic donor Warren Buffet to continue to make money transporting the oil on his railroad which is the only reason the keystone is being delayed. Stop attempting to paint this as a safety issue as long as Warren is raking in millions shipping the oil on his BNSF railroad which destroyed a town becasue of the lack of safety measures

 

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.

 

The landowners are forced to grant right of way and access. They are forced to accommodate the construction of a pipeline running through their land. Say you have a laptop that I like. I want to use it. Can I force you to allow me to use it if I tell you "hey, $1 per hour to use your laptop is just compensation"? Of course not.

What is being taken away are property rights. Use of land is just as important as the land itself. The oil company must pay whatever price the landowner demands. If the land owner refuses under any circumstance, then the pipeline must go somewhere else.

 

Here is a link to a good article on the subject http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year

 

I believe State and federal Standards regarding at which depth infrastructure should be, could solve this dilemma while preserving green space.

 

If the standards say a landowner must grant right of way or any type of use of the land against his will, even if the state pays him for it, that is a problem.

 

What if, for example, State infrastructure had to be at least fifty feet deep and federal infrastructure had to be one hundred feet deep?

 

Not quite, but keep believing the bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You mean the Teamsters didn't cut management some fiscal slack, and they still got "Enron-ed"?