Keystone Pipeline

[Tagger]

Why is this so important to our country ? It's not our pipeline . Even the pipe itself will be made in China . What do we get out of it . I suspect the leaks . Why is it the #1 concern ?

[spence]

It's a political football. That the GOP continues to push this while the fracking industry implodes is beyond me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Guess which Americans own the most contracts of the tar sand fields that will supply the pipeline and then guess who some of the largest political contributions to the GOP came from.

If you guessed the same for both you are correct!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

I don't htink the pipeline is a big deal, not going to make a big impact. Politically, it was probably a good move to force Obama to start vetoing the GOP's proposals, just so we can show that when Republicans block liberal proposals, they are called racist obstructionists, but when Obama does the same thing, he i ssticking to his principles.

I don't know that anyone considers the pipeline the #1 is "the #1 concern", but it was a quick way to paint Obama with the same "obstructionist" brush with whichj he has so gleefully painted Republicans for 6 years.

It isn't the #1 issue. I think the #1 issue is the demonstrably fake gender pay gap.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Guess which Americans own the most contracts of the tar sand fields that will supply the pipeline and then guess who some of the largest political contributions to the GOP came from.

If you guessed the same for both you are correct!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why did several Democrats vote for it?

Nebe, of course we all need to be cautious of too much influence-peddling. I don't like politicians selling themselves either. I don't like it when Republicans whore themselves out to business, nor do I like it when Democrats whore themselves out to labor unions. Both undermine the Democratic process. Correct? Here in my state, irreparable damage has been done because we essentially have one-party rule, and the legislature is owned by th eincredibly powerful labor unions, who have enriched themselves beyond imagination, while pushing the state to the brink of bankruptcy. Does that concern you at all? Or is it only problematic when Republicans sell influence?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think the pipeline is a big deal, not going to make a big impact.

that is a short sighted opinion i think JIM
because of the vulnerability of it
not to mention the environmental impact

already as we speakblog) the ONLY River with out a dam
in the USA that's running through Yellowstone National Park
has had a pipeline burst where it crosses over it dumping
crude into a semi frozen river making clean up impossible

[JohnR]

Why does Obama in his SOTU address take credit for US Energy Production and then veto the pipeline?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nebe, of course we all need to be cautious of too much influence-peddling. I don't like politicians selling themselves either. I don't like it when Republicans whore themselves out to business, nor do I like it when Democrats whore themselves out to labor unions. Both undermine the Democratic process.

Jim, to correct you a bit, the Democrats whore influence to BOTH business and the unions. Clearly, they represent everyone.

[Fishpart]

The oil is going to get to market regardless. It can go on Warren Buffet's trains.There was another crude train wreck and fire last week and several years ago an entire town in LacMegantic Canada was wiped out in a train fire. Or it can go by pipeline to the US refineries on the Gulf Coast. In turn, we benefit from constructing and maintaining the pipline and we profit from the value added in the refining process.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Guess which Americans own the most contracts of the tar sand fields that will supply the pipeline and then guess who some of the largest political contributions to the GOP came from.

If you guessed the same for both you are correct!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The owners of "contracts of the tar sand fields" will supply the oil derived from them no matter if the pipeline is built or not. Right now, without the pipeline, the oil is being shipped by rail. Which is environmentally more "dangerous" than the pipeline would be:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/02/2.../?subscriber=1

And the pipeline was already considered environmentally "safe" by the government study I mentioned to you in the how can I vote Republican thread:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/02/2.../?subscriber=1

So, the Koch Brothers will make their money from their tar sands investment with or without the pipeline. And they have no investment in the pipeline itself. And, as you said, they are American. Would you rather that some Chinese capitalist owned those investments?

Would you rather that some non-American who wouldn't pay the taxes or make the socially liberal charitable contributions that the Koch Brothers do? I understand that being the largest contributor to the GOP, on that point alone, would make the Koch Brothers bad people. And that they might actually be redeemed if they contributed that money to the Dems. But this nonsense about the pipeline is, in my opinion, just that.

The oil from the tar sands will be drawn and sold, with or without Koch Brothers investment. Someone would make money from the tar sands the Koch's invested in if they didn't. Nothing would essentially change, just the players, including the countries involved. Without U.S. involvement, China could be its replacement.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Why does Obama in his SOTU address take credit for US Energy Production and then veto the pipeline?



Jim, to correct you a bit, the Democrats whore influence to BOTH business and the unions. Clearly, they represent everyone.

Thanks for straightening me out there...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raven

that is a short sighted opinion i think JIM
because of the vulnerability of it
not to mention the environmental impact

already as we speakblog) the ONLY River with out a dam
in the USA that's running through Yellowstone National Park
has had a pipeline burst where it crosses over it dumping
crude into a semi frozen river making clean up impossible

Actually, I meant the pipeline likely wouldn't have a big imapct on jobs or gas prices, etc.

We need some kind of balance between helping people and protecting the environment. We can't deny all technological advances that could conceivably hurt the environment. And we should be able to make it safe with curret technology. When did they build the Alaska pipeline, the 1970's? All the concerns were raised about the environment, and other than maybe being an eyesore to the 0.00001% of Americans who will ever set eyes upon it, it has done no harm (the Exxon Valdez is another story, but that wasn't the fault of the pipeline) while generating jillions of dollars that have been used to build schools and medical clinics in remote areas of Alaska.

[Jim in CT]

It's also ironic that the administration just got done telling us that the key to eliminating Islamic violent terrorism is creating jobs, then they proceed to kybosh a proposal which would have created thousands of oh the hell with it...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a political football. That the GOP continues to push this while the fracking industry implodes is beyond me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the fracking industry in the U.S., which was a main contributor to the big fall in gas prices, is imploding, why not help the fracking industry in Canada in order to maintain some good influence on prices, while creating some jobs here, and helping our partner in the north to stay in our sphere of influence rather than going elsewhere like China.

And, oh, BTW . . . you can ease Nebe down from his fear that the Koch Brothers would make lotsa money from their tar sands investment, since the fracking industry is imploding. And, because the Koch Brothers will lose money on the deal, Nebe can now be satisfied that they will not be able to donate as much money to the GOP which it then would not be able to siphon off to Christians.

[Nebe]

Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Tagger]

Didn't mean to flip pipeline into a Dem, Liberal thing . Asking why it's so important GOP keeps harping on it , then it's the first thing they address . Don't we have other problems more pressing ? Our Veterans , Our borders , Jobs , Isis ,

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Tagger

Didn't mean to flip pipeline into a Dem, Liberal thing . Asking why it's so important GOP keeps harping on it , then it's the first thing they address . Don't we have other problems more pressing ? Our Veterans , Our borders , Jobs , Isis ,

Well . . . wondering why the GOP keeps harping on it elicits the flip side--why do the Dems keep opposing it? So, inadvertently, it becomes a Dem, Liberal thing as well.

And the pipeline issue can't simply be put on some back shelf since the oil is at the moment being extracted, and has been for some time, and needs to be shipped somewhere, and another country, WHICH IS WILLING TO PAY FOR THE PIPELINE, is involved.

And Congress is not harping on it. It has done its job. It has approved it. And the House has been approving it over and over for some time. It is the President who refuses to sign on to the work that Congress has already done. It is not harping--the legislation is done. The President is doing the obstructing and harping.

And as for this "Don't we have other problems more pressing," if the politicians are so inept, as they well may be, that they can't do the job they are mandated to do, they should resign and let more competent people who are able to walk and chew gum at the same time handle the job.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Actually, I meant the pipeline likely wouldn't have a big imapct on jobs or gas prices, etc.

as was Tagger's original ASSESSMENT

we have such abundant natural gas but were not utilizing it ENOUGH

if the government would pull their collective heads out of their
azz's and reschedule hemp as a non threatening PLANT
the by product would be thousands of JOBS, ending of farm subsidies
and a creation of perfect OIL for diesels "seeds" by the trillions.

makes me laugh when trucks drive around on used french fry's oil

[The Dad Fisherman]

This might help Ed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the fracking industry in the U.S., which was a main contributor to the big fall in gas prices, is imploding, why not help the fracking industry in Canada in order to maintain some good influence on prices, while creating some jobs here, and helping our partner in the north to stay in our sphere of influence rather than going elsewhere like China.

Right now the domestic producers are shutting down rigs and laying off tens of thousands. How does more oil into the market help?

A few bigger factors here. Fracked and tar sands production is expensive and was made possible by cheap credit. The Saudis by contrast have more efficient production and continue to flood the market.

Really, unless the global economy creates a surge in demand and raises prices back, more oil is just going to continue to crush US energy employment.

Get ready Texas, the party is over.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Right now the domestic producers are shutting down rigs and laying off tens of thousands. How does more oil into the market help?

More oil into the market brings the price of oil down. What is the point of keeping the cost of energy high? Doesn't lower energy cost translate into lowering the cost of all things that depend on energy? Wouldn't lowering overall costs help to "stimulate" the "economy" and make cheaper goods available to those who cannot afford the higher prices? Isn't that sort of pumping a better, freer, way to redistribute wealth, rather than pumping inflationary fiat money into the hands of the already wealthy who therefor have no incentive to redistribute into the rest of our hands?

A few bigger factors here. Fracked and tar sands production is expensive and was made possible by cheap credit. The Saudis by contrast have more efficient production and continue to flood the market.

Hurray for cheap credit! You got something against cheap credit? Do you prefer your credit to be expensive? And we Americans have this stupid way of making our labor and production more costly by stifling free market forces, thus depending on other countries with lower costs to produce for us those things we could produce for ourselves--and for the rests of the world as well.

The Saudis can produce oil at lower costs than us because the government (the Saud family) doesn't regulate itself out of the market and doesn't hamper itself with labor disputes. It doesn't allow disputes. And it floods the market only to keep the price low enough to make a stupid American self-imposed, over-regulated, expensive anti-market system too expensive. Once the unnecessarily expensive fracking is shut down due to uncompetitive cost, the Saudi oil will rise to needlessly inflated costs, and energy will be more expensive, and the economy will shrink or stagnate in comparison to what it would be with lower energy costs.

But, as long as the potential for fracking exists, the Saudis can only go so far. So fracking is, at least in potential, a constraint on Saudi price. And if Canada's production is not shut down, that is another bit of constraint. So, it would seem to me, we should support the Canadian enterprise.

That we have become, at least temporarily, the leading oil producer, has created the necessary competition to bring prices down. If we remove that competition, we revert to the monopolies we supposedly hate. And most of those monopolies are not as friendly to us as is Canada.

Really, unless the global economy creates a surge in demand and raises prices back, more oil is just going to continue to crush US energy employment.

Get ready Texas, the party is over.

If there is no demand for oil, that, in itself is enough to crush oil based energy employment here. And if the price of oil rises in conjunction with less demand (which is an economic contradiction), then the demand will shrink even more. And, gee, isn't that sort of exactly what the green movement wants? Why hide behind an economic smoke screen. Isn't the object to totally shut down oil production?

And, do I detect a sort of glee in your declaration that the Texas party is over? But isn't Texas drawing other businesses to it with economically friendlier policies?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

More oil into the market brings the price of oil down. What is the point of keeping the cost of energy high? Doesn't lower energy cost translate into lowering the cost of all things that depend on energy? Wouldn't lowering overall costs help to "stimulate" the "economy" and make cheaper goods available to those who cannot afford the higher prices? Isn't that sort of pumping a better, freer, way to redistribute wealth, rather than pumping inflationary fiat money into the hands of the already wealthy who therefor have no incentive to redistribute into the rest of our hands?

If energy prices are too low the producers can't continue to compete with foreign interests given higher production costs.

Hurray for cheap credit! You got something against cheap credit? Do you prefer your credit to be expensive? And we Americans have this stupid way of making our labor and production more costly by stifling free market forces, thus depending on other countries with lower costs to produce for us those things we could produce for ourselves--and for the rests of the world as well.

I see, now you're all behind the fed monetary policy.

The Saudis can produce oil at lower costs than us because the government (the Saud family) doesn't regulate itself out of the market and doesn't hamper itself with labor disputes. It doesn't allow disputes. And it floods the market only to keep the price low enough to make a stupid American self-imposed, over-regulated, expensive anti-market system too expensive. Once the unnecessarily expensive fracking is shut down due to uncompetitive cost, the Saudi oil will rise to needlessly inflated costs, and energy will be more expensive, and the economy will shrink or stagnate in comparison to what it would be with lower energy costs.

It has less to do with regulation and more to do with the production methods. Saudi oil is easy to pump and easy to process. They can do it cheaper mostly because it's less work. They don't set the price of their oil either, it's a global market, though their margins may be better. All they can do it adjust output and influence the supply which they certainly do.

But, as long as the potential for fracking exists, the Saudis can only go so far. So fracking is, at least in potential, a constraint on Saudi price. And if Canada's production is not shut down, that is another bit of constraint. So, it would seem to me, we should support the Canadian enterprise.

This really is only the case if the Saudi supply dries up. We're likely going through a cycle and US output needs to peak to drive prices back up.

That we have become, at least temporarily, the leading oil producer, has created the necessary competition to bring prices down. If we remove that competition, we revert to the monopolies we supposedly hate. And most of those monopolies are not as friendly to us as is Canada.If there is no demand for oil, that, in itself is enough to crush oil based energy employment here. And if the price of oil rises in conjunction with less demand (which is an economic contradiction), then the demand will shrink even more. And, gee, isn't that sort of exactly what the green movement wants? Why hide behind an economic smoke screen. Isn't the object to totally shut down oil production?

The economics aren't a smoke screen, they're economics. For all the blabbering about Obama trying to destroy the industry it's flourished under his tenure, perhaps a bit too much.

And, do I detect a sort of glee in your declaration that the Texas party is over? But isn't Texas drawing other businesses to it with economically friendlier policies?

Not glee, just reality. We'll see how those friendlier policies fair if the global demand doesn't pick up and keep the cash flowing.

Or, perhaps they could do what Minnesota did?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g...b_6737786.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If energy prices are too low the producers can't continue to compete with foreign interests given higher production costs.

The production, of U.S and Canadian oil, or threat of it if price drops are too severe, would keep oil from being priced at economically high destructive levels.

I see, now you're all behind the fed monetary policy.

Sometimes the fed policy is good. I like cheap credit, personally.

It has less to do with regulation and more to do with the production methods. Saudi oil is easy to pump and easy to process. They can do it cheaper mostly because it's less work. They don't set the price of their oil either, it's a global market, though their margins may be better. All they can do it adjust output and influence the supply which they certainly do.

Regulation is preventing conventional oil drilling, as in ANWR, outer continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, or any exploration on Federal land. And regulations restrict the number of refineries. And labor regulations create inflated labor costs in general, which affects, indirectly the cost of producing anything here compared to Saudi Arabia. The global market cannot sustain artificially high prices if oil production is high enough. As is demonstrated by the Saudis recent dramatic rise in production, lowering even further the cost of oil, in order to make unconventional production such as fracking or shale recovery less economically attractive. On the other hand, because of the advancing technology in unconventional drilling, the Saudis won't be able to let prices rise to more than $60/barrel or thereabouts. And the existing unconventional drilling is already in place so start up costs are not part of the equation. And Canada is shipping oil from its reserves to our refineries.

The economics aren't a smoke screen, they're economics. For all the blabbering about Obama trying to destroy the industry it's flourished under his tenure, perhaps a bit too much.

His tenure has nothing to do with the flourishing. It has happened in spite of him.

Not glee, just reality. We'll see how those friendlier policies fair if the global demand doesn't pick up and keep the cash flowing.

Which is why I said Texas is drawing businesses (other than oil, obviously) with friendlier policies.

Or, perhaps they could do what Minnesota did?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g...b_6737786.html

Minnesota's unemployment rate was already recovering from the recession before Dayton was elected. And it's rate under Pawlenty, before the recession, varied from the same current rate under Dayton, and even lower at 3.5%, to its high point in the national economic collapse in 2008. With the exception of a spike in 2011, Minnesota's rank in terms of unemployment improved every year, and the trend continued under Dayton. Of course, the actual comparisons would have to include the declining rate of labor force participation. So the actual rate is higher. How much it was so due to the same factor during the previous administration might tell a different story. But, in fact, labor participation rates in Minnesota compared to the rest of the country has been well above the national average long before Dayton came to power. But the state has seen little improvement in underemployment since the recession. And Minnesota passed it's "neighbor in the east" in per capita income as far back as the 1960's and grew every year since then, including under Pawlenty, and the trend continued under Dayton rather than being something that he started.

As for the raising of taxes on upper incomes, that didn't occur till last year, not "during his first four years in office" as the article states, implying a connection which may not be sustainable. It is a well known economic phenomena that a raise in taxes used for governmental infusion of money into its spending will boost the economy initially, but a lag time of about two years or more, if I recall, is required to tell what the lasting impact might be. High tax rates which have existed in other states for longer than the lag time don't show the same dramatic results. California, for example.

And the minimum wage hike referred to in the article won't be accomplished till 2018. So it is unknown, at best, what the impact of it will be. The vast majority of economists, of various schools, agree that raising minimum wage has a negative effect.

And the legislation guaranteeing equal pay for women sounds like an election ploy, since federal law already mandates that.

And, as the article says, median income has fallen from $10,000 above the national average to $8,000 above it. In fact, Minnesota ranked 8th in median income in 2007 during Pawlenty's administration, to 11th in 2013 under Dayton.

[detbuch]

Not only are articles like the one Spence cited from Huff post misleading because so many variables are left out, but most bare statistics are merely a part of a much larger mix of factors, many of which are not even known. Bare statistics can be part of, usually a small part, of the explanation for a larger picture. But they can also mislead if not applied correctly. And "correct" is, in the end, often not so correct. Too often, probably usually in political persuasion, the statistics are intentionally used to mislead.

For instance, "income inequality" is a mantra talking point in liberal/progressive speak. It is, supposedly, by wonks from the left, one of those unfair inequities imposed on society by "conservative" capitalistic doctrine. Yet, how explain that the top three states with the highest income inequality, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (plus D.C. to make four) are among the most liberal/progressive ones. But the least unequal, that is the most equal in distribution, Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming, are "conservative"? Are we to attribute greater income equality to conservative policies, and less equality to progressive policies?

And, to another liberal/progressive talking point--racial equality. In general, states with the highest percent of blacks, are among the lowest in per capita income, and score lower on other "measures" of success. As well, in those states where blacks are less of a percentage of population they still measure lower than other races. Are we to attribute a racial inferiority to blacks because of such statistics?

We might look to other raw statistics, such as the comparison of financial success of "gays" which compares very well to other sexual demographics. Does that, in itself, put a lie to their supposedly oppressed status?

How about the oppression of women in this country? Does the statistic that over 50% of the wealth here is in the hands of women give a lie to that liberal nostrum?

The point, for me, is not about arguments framed by questions and supported by partial statistics, but what is the "end game"? Is the goal top-down authoritarian government, or bottom up self-government? Is the goal government micromanagement of a one size fits all monolithic and uniform society tending toward static stagnation, or a diverse mix of individuals contributing to a dynamic evolution? Is the goal, ultimately, freedom or tyranny?

When we hunker down to arguments about this statistic over that one, and someone persuades us of a "proof" that the statistic has a powerful bearing on our life, and that we must bend the direction and power of government to rectify some inequity that the statistic is supposed to represent, we are reduced, like death by a thousand cuts, to insignificance by a thousand stats.

How important is your individual life? Are you just a meaningless cog meshing into some grand movement guided by masterminds who profess to know what is best for you? Or is there at least the seed of a desire to be left to your own devices?

Do you want some basic freedom, which government cannot touch, to live your own life? Or would you rather the comfort of a professed benevolent government deciding, in your own best interest, what you are allowed?

If you live in a state with supposedly worse "statistics" than Minnesota, would you prefer to transform your state into one with the abundance of variables, including ethnic, religious, climatic, agronomic, technical, and other miniscule and unknowable factors which produce those statistics and define that state? Don't most people carry their own internal baggage and acclimate to a place in relation to how that baggage weighs them down or gives them freedom? Would any two of us perceive life in Minnesota in exactly the same way? Or would we all react uniformly in relation to the state's "statistics"?

God bless Minnesota. Or, universal accident bless it. And bless Utah as well. Amazing how we have supposedly evolved from pure accident toward efforts at total design. But I prefer to live somewhere in the middle of the accident and the ultimate pictograph. It seems that in that middle lies the possibility of escape from chaos at one end and the tyranny of total regulation on the other.

Perhaps we have reached a point in the continuum of history where freedom is an anachronistic and overrated idea. One which stands in the way of our eventual destination of a designed existence. Maybe statistics are more real and relevant than "freedom," and we are on the verge of loading the massive compendium of statistics into super computers programmed to concoct the perfect design for sustaining life and controlling the environment, even beyond earth. And any divergence by anyone from that design would have to be eliminated.

Then we won't have to compare Minnesota's to Wisconsin's statistics.