House Passes Keystone Legislation; goes to Senate

How is this form of corporate welfare any better than welfare for the least wealthy?

Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment.

 

Pipelines are infrastructure. I thought the democrats were all about new infrastructure jobs....guess not.

 

not at all; it is merely the right that doesn't have a clue or a Cause regarding what terms, "to raise money for the general welfare", really means.

Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment.

 

So the highest level issue to the Cons is Not passing a viable National Budget which would greatly improve the economy but instead is the need to pass a Bill allowing another Nation to pipe their oil over our Nation so that they can sell it to someone else and in the process create few if any permanent jobs for the US. Noted. I hope the President makes the Cons give up something good in return for him not vetoing the Bill.

 

They are all about hypocrisy, if you understand that you can make sense of this. My understanding is that the supposed environmental concerns have been debunked. There aren't many and they pale in comparison to offshore and shipping in oil, which we are currently doing.

 

Promoting the general welfare means infrastructure that can meet the exigencies of our republic, not just better privileges and immunities for the wealthiist (capitalists) in our republic. Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment. Pipelines are welfare for that sector of the economy, not the economic welfare of the People, generally.

 

But I thought Democrats claimed infrastructure jobs were the answer? More hypocrisy.

 

We get nothing for the pipeline hence it does nothing for the general welfare.

- - - Updated - - -

No real jobs will be created, I see Cons are still willing to lie to support their masters, nothing new there.

 

Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment. Pipelines are welfare for that sector of the economy, not the economic welfare of the People, generally.

Fixing Standards is what our elected representatives should be doing; not, micromanaging anything other than their Districts.

 

That's funny when you consider the number of years the most transparent adminsitration ever didn't bother to even have a budget.

 

Very few jobs will be created by the Keystone pipeline... Maybe 35 to monitor the pipeline.

 

IF that many, the odds are most will be already employees of Keystone and simple work down here. The US does not get anything, but some CEO's are going to get very rich.

 

We should have mass transit connecting the several States with the general government and likewise State governments with county governments. There is no reason not to include capacity for potable and waste water management and even industrual transportation and waste management. Such infrastructure could require production runs as long as our warfare-State regime, wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, combined--only a welfare-State can do that.

 

An unsupported opinion is hardly convincing. Mass transport only works in large urban areas, but most of our nation does not fit that description, so the pipeline is in the best interest of our nation's citizens, contrary to your unsupported notion.

- - - Updated - - -

Very few will be created by any infrastructure upgrade, and all are short term jobs, so you seem to be admitting the short sightedness of the Democrats overall, encouraging!

 

Mass transit works where there is a profit to be made. Simply saving the private sector some money through infrastructure, can lower our tax burden.

 

And...there is never a profit to be made in a rural area, hence my assertion that it is not the singular transportation focus of a govt who wishes to look out for the welfare of its citizens. I agree with your assertion about infrastructure though. Lefties just don't get that society needs the private sector to thrive n order for the citizenry to thrive.

 

There is a profit to made in mass transit of goods and services. Mass transit works where there is a profit to be made. Simply saving the private sector some money through infrastructure, can lower our tax burden.

Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment. Pipelines are welfare for that sector of the economy, not the economic welfare of the People, generally.

Fixing Standards is what our elected representatives should be doing; not, micromanaging anything other than their Districts.

 

Um...yeah, I already conceded that.

I would argue that you simply cannot separate the two, mass transit will not meet all of the needs of the citizenry; therefore, solely providing for mass transit falls short of looking out for the whole of the citizenry.

I am not really sure what point you are trying to make, or even if we disagree.

 

Mass transit for goods and services must meet the needs of the citizenry via Commerce. Providing for the general welfare should involve cost effective mass transist, potentially, maglev capable and in a vacuum environment. Pipelines are welfare for that sector of the economy, not the economic welfare of the People, generally.

 

Not true, as I have already shown. Regurgitating prior posts does not further your argument.

 

You haven't shown any thing. Mass transit for goods and services must meet the needs of the citizenry via Commerce.

 

you have shown nothing. And we go round and round.

 

Bluesguy wrote: “They [TransCanada] have no means of doing so and certainly no obligation to do so. What exactly do you have against the thousands of jobs that will be created? … The fact of the matter is you have no rational reason to oppose it do you.”

TransCanada has been afforded the privilege to use the big megaphone in an attempt to shape public opinion & policy that will affect thousands, if not millions of lives, as well as the environment. They even have politicians, that clearly influence you, do their bidding. I think most would agree they certainly should be obligated to back their claims! Why are you so adamantly opposed to them being held to account? I’m not opposed to jobs being created, but these are the wrong jobs. We need clean jobs that take us in the complete opposite direction that we’re headed. But my point went beyond their jobs claim. As others have asked, will TransCanada assume responsibility in the event of a spill?

These three articles ultimately lead back to the same source, the Nebraska Farmers Union. The first one, from several years ago, is like a press release, exposing grave concern over the legal process to that point. The second cites farmers linked in some way to the union, stating that TransCanada has pressured them into surrendering land through eminent domain. The last quote, in a presentation by the union’s attorney, again, focuses on the legal & legislative process.

I find much of the union’s contentions to be rather disturbing. So accordingly, TransCanada is not bound by state law to pay damages should a spill occur! Note in the 2nd paragraph that the state’s environmental agency was tasked with reviewing the pipeline’s route apparently, but they outsourced the job to a company that had contracted with TransCanada in the past.

For some readers, this is nothing new. At the highest levels, this is how capital behaves! Like thugs with complete impunity. Where’s the state, the federal government? This last source features a number of videos. The first one is a presentation by the union’s attorney. Highly recommend.

That’s just unbelievable. Absolute unwarranted influence over the state, glaringly lopsided.

 

not at all; you have already failed, the first time, to provide a cogent and sound line of reasoning to rebutt this assertion:

Mass transit for goods and services must meet the needs of the citizenry via Commerce.

 

No need to refute it, I have never disagreed with it, I only pointed out that it is only one thing Govt should support in meeting the needs of commerce and the citizenry. Mass transit is not the only need in the transportation realm. Seems you have been chasing your own tail.