Make or Break Time for the Middle Class says Obama

[we vs us]

I don't care what Gingrich or Romney is offering at this point, they are candidates and they want votes.  They have no power to act on any promises.

This president still has to try and lead for one more year.  He's been in charge for nearly three years now and he's squandered many opportunities   to bring corporate criminals to justice and to reign in traders and trading practices which affect us all (like the high oil prices we've lived with for going on four years), he's breaking bread with them.  He's a failure but you want to deflect that by making the point that two un-elected candidates for office have nothing to offer either.  Have you simply forgiven Obama of having any sort of responsibility as a leader?  How could you possibly want to re-elect this guy?

Whoa there.  Not sure where you're getting the superFAIL out of this.  Obama's not done everything I'd like and has missed some opportunities but that's a far far cry from him being a danger to the Republic.  I want to re-elect the guy because he generally shares my concerns and political bent (generally) and the alternative -- whether Romney or Gingrich -- actually will be a danger to the Republic. 

How can you gloss over the ramifications of electing a Republican president at this point?  No matter who gets the primary nod, the core crazies in the GOP will push for policies that roll back our safety nets, will at best enshrine the current economic inequality as a normal state of affairs and at worst speed it up exponentially in a futile attempt to prove to the "job creators" just how much we'll be willing to give away if they'd just start hiring.  Whatever austerity measures they'll be able to cobble together will undoubtedly impoverish more seniors, more of the unemployed, more of the ill and/or crazy, more immigrants, and more of the working poor.  They will also be unable or unwilling to fund our crumbling infrastructure, any sort of education reform, and will entirely roll back Obamacare which -- irony of ironies -- will increase our projected budget deficit by tens of $B's. 

If there's one thing I trust in our politics, it's that the current GOP will absolutely try to get everything on their platform passed and will succeed on doing a lot of those things.  If they do one thing well, it's execute.  The sad fact is that most of those things will dismantle what's left of our country as we know it. 

[AquaMan]

Which presidential candidate was it that got so much mileage out of "Not the time to change horses in midstream"?

[Red Arrow]

Which presidential candidate was it that got so much mileage out of "Not the time to change horses in midstream"?

The one that led to our current economic condition?  Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes?

[Red Arrow]

How can you gloss over the ramifications of electing a Republican president at this point?  No matter who gets the primary nod, the core crazies in the GOP will push for policies that roll back our safety nets, will at best enshrine the current economic inequality as a normal state of affairs and at worst speed it up exponentially in a futile attempt to prove to the "job creators" just how much we'll be willing to give away if they'd just start hiring.  Whatever austerity measures they'll be able to cobble together will undoubtedly impoverish more seniors, more of the unemployed, more of the ill and/or crazy, more immigrants, and more of the working poor.  They will also be unable or unwilling to fund our crumbling infrastructure, any sort of education reform, and will entirely roll back Obamacare which -- irony of ironies -- will increase our projected budget deficit by tens of $B's. 

You forgot kicking puppies.......

[Townsend]

You forgot kicking puppies.......

Goes without saying

[AquaMan]

The one that led to our current economic condition?  Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes?

I was commenting on how well the phrase works for incumbents. They always use that in one form or another. And it usually works.

And no, we never learn from our mistakes. Thats why Gingrich is doing so well.

[Red Arrow]

And no, we never learn from our mistakes.

Then I guess Obama is a shoo-in.


Edit:
Checked shoe-in vs. shoo-in.  The above won.

[we vs us]

You forgot kicking puppies.......

Does any of that sounds wrong to you?

[Gaspar]

Looks like the bill will pass without the permanent tax hike, and the president will sign it, except the Republicans intend to add a section removing the ban on the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.  In which case the president will not sign the bill.  

The pipeline will add 200,000 new jobs, and that's good, but it is also expected to reduce the speculative price of gasoline indefinitely, which would threaten the presidents support from green initiatives.  It is expected that he will lift the ban after the election, and of course if he is not elected the next president will most certainly lift the ban.

Currently we are shipping that oil by tanker to refineries in Huston, as well as through multiple lateral pipelines.  The Keystone will represent the first dedicated line from Canada, reducing the cost and increasing the safety of transport significantly.  

Next week the Republicans will cave on the Keystone initiative and the bill will be signed.  The strategy is to get the president to reiterate the reasons behind holding up the Keystone to use as further examples of his dedication to his donor base over economic recovery and job creation.  

[Townsend]

The pipeline will add 200,000 new jobs, and that's good, but it is also expected to reduce the speculative price of gasoline indefinitely, which would threaten the presidents support from green initiatives.  It is expected that he will lift the ban after the election, and of course if he is not elected the next president will most certainly lift the ban.

Currently we are shipping that oil by tanker to refineries in Huston, as well as through multiple lateral pipelines.  The Keystone will represent the first dedicated line from Canada, reducing the cost and increasing the safety of transport significantly.    

An NPR story about this pipeline said it'd solve the glut of oil problem we have here in the area (Cushing).  This would significantly raise our gas prices in Oklahoma.  So OK environmentalists should be pleased about the pipeline if you're right.

[Gaspar]

An NPR story about this pipeline said it'd solve the glut of oil problem we have here in the area (Cushing).  This would significantly raise our gas prices in Oklahoma.  So OK environmentalists should be pleased about the pipeline if you're right.

Environmentalists should also be pleased because it would reduce the need to load tankers coming from northern British Columbia, through the Panama Canal and up the gulf to turn around and do it again, and again, and again, burning millions of tons of diesel.

Environmentalists wil not be happy though.  If they were happy, we wouldn't' call them environmentalists.

[RecycleMichael]

Why do you always feel the need to speak for others?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Environmentalists should also be pleased because it would reduce the need to load tankers coming from northern British Columbia, through the Panama Canal and up the gulf to turn around and do it again, and again, and again, burning millions of tons of diesel.

Environmentalists wil not be happy though.  If they were happy, we wouldn't' call them environmentalists.

Costs about $1.05 to move a barrel of oil from Houston to New York harbor by pipeline.
http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000391720.cfm

Costs around .90 to 1.25 to transport a barrel by tanker ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

Pretty competitive either way.  Can be really bad news for either the ocean or the Ogallala aquifer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

But we wouldn't expect you to care about that at all.

[Gaspar]

Costs about $1.05 to move a barrel of oil from Houston to New York harbor by pipeline.
http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000391720.cfm

Costs around .90 to 1.25 to transport a barrel by tanker ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

Pretty competitive either way.  Can be really bad news for either the ocean or the Ogallala aquifer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

But we wouldn't expect you to care about that at all.

We already have several aging pipelines that cross the aquifer.  My neighbor is a pilot who gets paid to fly them all the time (as required by law) to spot leaks,seeps, encroachments, damage, and other dangers. Construction of the Keystone would make several of these "grey."  The unused lines would then be sold to telecommunications companies for fibre.

There is currently no environmental argument beyond what the green lobby sees as a threat to the cost of wind and solar initiatives.  Any effort that will make conventional energy cheaper will make alternative energy less competitive. The project will not gain support from the left, even if the construction of the pipeline increases the overall safety of our energy production system.

The overall goal (of the green lobby) is to make the production of fossil fuel more expensive or at least as expensive as alternative and future energy sources.  I would like to see a day, and it will come, when solar, wind, and hydro are less expensive than archaic fossil fuel sources, but to artificially manipulate that negatively affects our economy, and threatens our safety.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We already have several aging pipelines that cross the aquifer.  My neighbor is a pilot who gets paid to fly them all the time (as required by law) to spot leaks,seeps, encroachments, damage, and other dangers. Construction of the Keystone would make several of these "grey."  The unused lines would then be sold to telecommunications companies for fibre.

That map shows a very small subset of all the pipelines running through the area.  There are many more.

And don't forget the motivator here that if they know there is gonna be a new pipeline, that means they don't have to worry about maintaining the old ones as much.  The industry has a well entrenched and strongly motivated "don't ask, don't tell" policy of it's own with respect to inspection and maintenance of pipelines - and even related to inspection upon installation of new gas pipelines (the plastic ones).  If they don't run a pig and check it out, then they can say they didn't know....after it blows up and tears up some countryside.  It's what 'plausible deniability' is all about.