Democrats say NO to 1 year extension on payroll tax cut.

[bornright]

Does not the two month payroll tax cut claim to save the average low to medium tax payer 1,000? Is that 500 a month in savings? Or is it really 83.33 a month? I expect the latter is correct and it is just a political scam. Obama needs to come clean and tell the truth about his 2 month tax cut.....Political......Political......Political

 

[Ernie S.]

I've been waiting for about ten minutes. I'm not holding my breath though. people like he and bern just say shit and then squawk across the road thinking they brilliant or something.

They just make shit up without any viable evidence..... They read bizarre social justice sites then regurgitate what they read there here...

The cost of the pipeline and its maintenance will be passed on to customers in the form of higher oil prices. Those higher oil prices mean less money for consumers to spend which means job will be lost.

Econ 101 stuff here guys.

Econ 101? Consider moving 830,000 barrels of oil/day by truck. in gallons, thats roughly 35 million gallons. At 3,500 gallons / truck, 10,000 trucks that need to cover the distance twice, once loaded and once empty. Hmmm that's 2 and a half billion worth of trucks, 10,000 drivers with salaries and benefits, thousands of mechanics millions of gallons of fuel, requiring more trucks (and drivers and mechanics) Tires motor oil (more trucks to move it, more drivers, fuel, mechanics...) more traffic on the highway more emissions more pollution, more auto accidents (requiring more hearses, drivers fuel etc)

Al this versus a pipe line that cost little to operate maintain and power compared to the alternative.
Econ 102 stuff here, guy.

 

[kaz]

explain how it would result in a loss of jobs.. this should be interesting.

It's already been explained. But here, let me help you make yourself look like a fool once again by watching you insist that it doesn't make sense:

*pipeline capacity from Canada to the US already exceeds current demand

*When pipeline capacity goes unused, the companies (like Trans Canada) who own the pipelines increase prices per barrel per mile, so that they can continue to make a profit.

*These increases contribute to higher pump prices

*Higher pump prices lead to higher operating costs for companies

*Higher operating costs can lead directly to layoffs, and contribute to decreased consumer demand in the rest of the market, which can lead to additional layoffs

exceeds demand with or without our current dependence on Arab oil?

Or Venezuelan...

 

[Inthemiddle]

explain how it would result in a loss of jobs.. this should be interesting.

It's already been explained. But here, let me help you make yourself look like a fool once again by watching you insist that it doesn't make sense:

*pipeline capacity from Canada to the US already exceeds current demand

*When pipeline capacity goes unused, the companies (like Trans Canada) who own the pipelines increase prices per barrel per mile, so that they can continue to make a profit.

*These increases contribute to higher pump prices

*Higher pump prices lead to higher operating costs for companies

*Higher operating costs can lead directly to layoffs, and contribute to decreased consumer demand in the rest of the market, which can lead to additional layoffs

link to credible source for all that please???

You mean to tell me that you came to your position without even bothering to have the slightest clue as to the facts of the matter? Shame on you.

Keystone pipeline already driving up costs on oil companies

It said the final tolls for the Canadian segment of the pipeline were 145% higher than initially presented, while the tolls for the US segment were 92% higher. Consequently, CVR said, over the 10-year term of the contract, the company would incur $250 million of additionalcosts for shipping 25,000 barrels of oil per day through the line.


Experts predict that pipelines will run 50% empty if Keystone completed

Canadian crude producers have already tussled with pipeline companies after the triple-digit oil prices of several years ago fuelled a rush to build more oil transport capacity. After the crash of the last two years, some of that capacity may not be used for many years....It is the latest instance of painful fallout from the oil boom, which raised hopes of a great new flood of crude from Canada’s oil sands. Those hopes foundered when markets and oil prices collapsed. But the pipelines built to ferry away the promised new oil have been built. So much extra capacity now exists that analysts believe when TransCanada completes its Keystone XL line – an expansion of Keystone that has yet to be constructed, but is expected to begin accepting oil in early 2013 – oil pipelines to the U.S. will run nearly half-empty.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Econ 101? Consider moving 830,000 barrels of oil/day by truck. in gallons, thats roughly 35 million gallons. At 3,500 gallons / truck, 10,000 trucks that need to cover the distance twice, once loaded and once empty. Hmmm that's 2 and a half billion worth of trucks, 10,000 drivers with salaries and benefits, thousands of mechanics millions of gallons of fuel, requiring more trucks (and drivers and mechanics) Tires motor oil (more trucks to move it, more drivers, fuel, mechanics...) more traffic on the highway more emissions more pollution, more auto accidents (requiring more hearses, drivers fuel etc)

Al this versus a pipe line that cost little to operate maintain and power compared to the alternative.
Econ 102 stuff here, guy.

Econ 102? Is that where people start making up stuff to support their position? Here's a question: What happens when there is no need to transport more oil? What do you not understand about the fact that current pipeline capacity already EXCEEDS demand?

 

[Bern80]

Does not the two month payroll tax cut claim to save the average low to medium tax payer 1,000? Is that 500 a month in savings? Or is it really 83.33 a month? I expect the latter is correct and it is just a political scam. Obama needs to come clean and tell the truth about his 2 month tax cut.....Political......Political......Political

If it were over the course of a year it would be about $1000 in savings. Not $1000 over two months.

 

[Conservative]

Econ 101? Consider moving 830,000 barrels of oil/day by truck. in gallons, thats roughly 35 million gallons. At 3,500 gallons / truck, 10,000 trucks that need to cover the distance twice, once loaded and once empty. Hmmm that's 2 and a half billion worth of trucks, 10,000 drivers with salaries and benefits, thousands of mechanics millions of gallons of fuel, requiring more trucks (and drivers and mechanics) Tires motor oil (more trucks to move it, more drivers, fuel, mechanics...) more traffic on the highway more emissions more pollution, more auto accidents (requiring more hearses, drivers fuel etc)

Al this versus a pipe line that cost little to operate maintain and power compared to the alternative.
Econ 102 stuff here, guy.

Econ 102? Is that where people start making up stuff to support their position? Here's a question: What happens when there is no need to transport more oil? What do you not understand about the fact that current pipeline capacity already EXCEEDS demand?

exceeds demand in the US, not foreign demand. the pipeline oil will be refined and shipped to UK and Latin America.

 

[Conservative]

It's already been explained. But here, let me help you make yourself look like a fool once again by watching you insist that it doesn't make sense:

*pipeline capacity from Canada to the US already exceeds current demand

*When pipeline capacity goes unused, the companies (like Trans Canada) who own the pipelines increase prices per barrel per mile, so that they can continue to make a profit.

*These increases contribute to higher pump prices

*Higher pump prices lead to higher operating costs for companies

*Higher operating costs can lead directly to layoffs, and contribute to decreased consumer demand in the rest of the market, which can lead to additional layoffs

link to credible source for all that please???

You mean to tell me that you came to your position without even bothering to have the slightest clue as to the facts of the matter? Shame on you.

Keystone pipeline already driving up costs on oil companies

It said the final tolls for the Canadian segment of the pipeline were 145% higher than initially presented, while the tolls for the US segment were 92% higher. Consequently, CVR said, over the 10-year term of the contract, the company would incur $250 million of additionalcosts for shipping 25,000 barrels of oil per day through the line.


Experts predict that pipelines will run 50% empty if Keystone completed

Canadian crude producers have already tussled with pipeline companies after the triple-digit oil prices of several years ago fuelled a rush to build more oil transport capacity. After the crash of the last two years, some of that capacity may not be used for many years....It is the latest instance of painful fallout from the oil boom, which raised hopes of a great new flood of crude from Canada’s oil sands. Those hopes foundered when markets and oil prices collapsed. But the pipelines built to ferry away the promised new oil have been built. So much extra capacity now exists that analysts believe when TransCanada completes its Keystone XL line – an expansion of Keystone that has yet to be constructed, but is expected to begin accepting oil in early 2013 – oil pipelines to the U.S. will run nearly half-empty.

I asked a question. What 'position' did I take???

 

[Meister]

Creating jobs would get people independent again and not having to rely on government. That is not what the Dems want and they just proved it by refusing the payroll tax cut because the bill contained - gasp - something that would get people back to work.

Agreed: The Keystone pipeline--Obama threatened to veto if it was in the bill--well it was--and the 2 month extension they want--is so they can bring up class warfare in a couple of months again. REAL PRIVATE sector job growth is the enemy of this administrations agenda.

You're retarded. Both of you.

A sharp drop in UE would guarantee his re-election. How by any metric would that not be in his best interests?

Your thread title is disingenuous. Pubs shouldn't need to use this as a bargaining chip. They should be in favor of a tax cut to begin with.

If he signs the bill now he would lose the environuts votes. If he doesn't sign it now he loses the union votes. He wants to wait until after the elections to sign it. No votes lost, if he doesn't have to deal with the pipeline.
It really sounds like Obama is playing politics doesn't it?
Perhaps you are the one that is actually (your word) 'retarded', Cuyo

 

[Ernie S.]

Econ 101? Consider moving 830,000 barrels of oil/day by truck. in gallons, thats roughly 35 million gallons. At 3,500 gallons / truck, 10,000 trucks that need to cover the distance twice, once loaded and once empty. Hmmm that's 2 and a half billion worth of trucks, 10,000 drivers with salaries and benefits, thousands of mechanics millions of gallons of fuel, requiring more trucks (and drivers and mechanics) Tires motor oil (more trucks to move it, more drivers, fuel, mechanics...) more traffic on the highway more emissions more pollution, more auto accidents (requiring more hearses, drivers fuel etc)

Al this versus a pipe line that cost little to operate maintain and power compared to the alternative.
Econ 102 stuff here, guy.

Econ 102? Is that where people start making up stuff to support their position? Here's a question: What happens when there is no need to transport more oil? What do you not understand about the fact that current pipeline capacity already EXCEEDS demand?

Existing pipelines are pumping as much oil as is supplied to them. If new oil is not located at the pipeline head, it needs to be moved there, or a new pipeline needs to be built. Can you grasp that Urkel?
Transportation is a major factor in per barrel cost of oil. Transporting it by tanker from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is very costly. Shipping by pipeline is very cheap by comparison.
Tell me! If your house catches fire, do you want a dozen guys with one gallon buckets or a hose hooked up to a hydrant?

 

[Ernie S.]

Econ 101? Consider moving 830,000 barrels of oil/day by truck. in gallons, thats roughly 35 million gallons. At 3,500 gallons / truck, 10,000 trucks that need to cover the distance twice, once loaded and once empty. Hmmm that's 2 and a half billion worth of trucks, 10,000 drivers with salaries and benefits, thousands of mechanics millions of gallons of fuel, requiring more trucks (and drivers and mechanics) Tires motor oil (more trucks to move it, more drivers, fuel, mechanics...) more traffic on the highway more emissions more pollution, more auto accidents (requiring more hearses, drivers fuel etc)

Al this versus a pipe line that cost little to operate maintain and power compared to the alternative.
Econ 102 stuff here, guy.

Econ 102? Is that where people start making up stuff to support their position? Here's a question: What happens when there is no need to transport more oil? What do you not understand about the fact that current pipeline capacity already EXCEEDS demand?

exceeds demand in the US, not foreign demand. the pipeline oil will be refined and shipped to UK and Latin America.

generating taxable profit, providing jobs, lowering the cost of oil and helping our trade imbalance, none of which Urkel thinks is a positive result.

 

[JDzBrain]

What part of "current demand" do you not understand? The pipelines that bring Canadian oil to the US already are going unused. If the Keystone project is completed it's expected that usage will be down to about 50% of capacity.

Dude, I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but US refineries are producing at about 110% of capacity and have been for the last 8-10 years.

There are LITERALLY hundreds of applications for expansion of capacity by existing refiners AND applications for new refining facilities laying on desk in Washington that have been there FOR YEARS awaiting approval. Approval that has bee blocked by the same NUT JOB environmentalist that make those ridiculous claims about a surplus and pipe lines laying fallow!

You doubt it? Look at the unemployment rate in South Dakota. 1 percent!!

Right now there are about 4-5 thousand new wells in that state. Over the next 10 years they expect that number to be OVER 20 thousand new wells and they can not find enough people to do the work there. Let me ask you a pretty simple question. If there is no demand for the oil we have now...why in the HELL would private companies spend BILLIONS to drill for more? A little common sense...PLEASE?!

It just ain't true! The ONLY reason that any oil resources aren't being utilized at all in this country is because activist inside our federal government are blocking the expansion of our domestic refining capacity...PERIOD!

If the fed would get out of the freakin' way, gas would be a buck fifty in less than 2 years!

Hell, if we just suspended the boutique and those INSANE ethanol standards, gas would be a dollar and a half in 2 WEEKS!

THAT is a FACT!

 

[Meister]

What part of "current demand" do you not understand? The pipelines that bring Canadian oil to the US already are going unused. If the Keystone project is completed it's expected that usage will be down to about 50% of capacity.

Dude, I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but US refineries are producing at about 110% of capacity and have been for the last 8-10 years.

There are LITERALLY hundreds of applications for expansion of capacity by existing refiners AND applications for new refining facilities laying on desk in Washington that have been there FOR YEARS awaiting approval. Approval that has bee blocked by the same NUT JOB environmentalist that make those ridiculous claims about a surplus and pipe lines laying fallow!

You doubt it? Look at the unemployment rate in South Dakota. 1 percent!!

Right now there are about 4-5 thousand new wells in that state. Over the next 10 years they expect that number to be OVER 20 thousand new wells and they can not find enough people to do the work there. Let me ask you a pretty simple question. If there is no demand for the oil we have now...why in the HELL would private companies spend BILLIONS to drill for more? A little common sense...PLEASE?!

It just ain't true! The ONLY reason that any oil resources aren't being utilized at all in this country is because activist inside our federal government are blocking the expansion of our domestic refining capacity...PERIOD!

If the fed would get out of the freakin' way, gas would be a buck fifty in less than 2 years!

Hell, if we just suspended the boutique and those INSANE ethanol standards, gas would be a dollar and a half in 2 WEEKS!

THAT is a FACT!

True, a lot of the unemployed in my state of Idaho are traveling over to South Dakota to find work with the oil companies.

 

[RDD_1210]

you don't have the ability to think critically. You should give up trying and take your now gratification and be happy.

since i am an objective person, i am more than willing to listen and keep and open mind about anything about the above you feel is unobjective and/or wrong.

you'll need to re read this thread and re think your position before i go any furthur. I've laid out my position and it's pretty clear to everyone but you.

lol

 

[Inthemiddle]

the main problem with all that is, the vast majority of the oil through the pipeline will go to refineries, who will refine the oil and sell it in Europe and Latin America.

So, while I completely agree it will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil, it will also not increase prices in the US, increase operating costs in the US, lead to layoffs in the US. It will, in fact, create jobs in the US.

You are looking at this from too small a frame. We're not talking just about the oil coming through the Keystone. We're talking about all the oil coming through all the pipelines between the US and Canada.

Also, the notion that this pipeline would create jobs remains to be dubious, at best. There will be very few jobs that would be created. The construction of the pipeline would be less than a year. That would leave only a very small number of new jobs that would remain after, for maintenance. Even if it were true that the effects would be confined to only those companies doing business directly through the Keystone, those companies would still be faced with increased operating costs for demand no greater than current. That would by itself lead to direct layoffs.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So you prefer to

a) Not plan ahead because when the economy rebounds and oil usage goes up we can just build the pipleline in a few weeks.
b) Continue to fund "bad" governments and ship oil across the ocean because we know that never leads to accidents.

Good ideas...

Again, what part of DEMAND do you not understand? Current pipeline capacity won't be fully utilized for several years. THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR INCREASED PIPELINES. Why can't you grasp this? It has nothing to do with the US importing oil from other countries. The Keystone will not do anything to curb that. If it was simply a matter of having enough pipeline capacity, WE ALREADY HAVE THE CAPACITY WELL IN EXCESS.

The economy is in bad shape. It's entirely irresponsible to approve a project from a foreign company when there is significant concern that the project will cause even greater unemployment during weak economic times.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Existing pipelines are pumping as much oil as is supplied to them. If new oil is not located at the pipeline head, it needs to be moved there, or a new pipeline needs to be built.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. CAPACITY exceeds DEMAND!!! There is well more than enough pipeline capacity to move all the oil that the market is consuming. It has nothing to do with the oil not being available, it has to do with the oil not being needed.

Transportation is a major factor in per barrel cost of oil. Transporting it by tanker from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is very costly. Shipping by pipeline is very cheap by comparison.

Completely irrelevant. The fact still remains that the demand for pipeline capacity isn't going to approach available capacity for several years. Adding more pipeline capacity is only going to drive costs per barrel traveling from Canada to the US even more.

Tell me! If your house catches fire, do you want a dozen guys with one gallon buckets or a hose hooked up to a hydrant?

Another completely irrelevant point. What the Hell does a house fire have to do with anything?

 

[Inthemiddle]

generating taxable profit

IN CANADA!

providing jobs

CREATING LAYOFFS!

lowering the cost of oil

INCREASING THE COST OF OIL COMING INTO THE US FROM CANADA!

and helping our trade imbalance

What? Importing oil is helping our trade imbalance?

none of which Urkel thinks is a positive result.

The problem is that they are FALSE results.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Dude, I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but US refineries are producing at about 110% of capacity and have been for the last 8-10 years.

Dude, I don't know what subject you're on, but we're not talking about refinery capacity. We're talking about pipeline capacity, by which the oil moves from Canada to the US. Current capacity exceeds demand, and demand to ship oil won't meet current capacity for several years.

There are LITERALLY hundreds of applications for expansion of capacity by existing refiners

Nobody is talking about refinery capacity. Get with the program. It's nice to see that you don't even know what subject you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

So you prefer to

a) Not plan ahead because when the economy rebounds and oil usage goes up we can just build the pipleline in a few weeks.
b) Continue to fund "bad" governments and ship oil across the ocean because we know that never leads to accidents.

Good ideas...

Again, what part of DEMAND do you not understand?

You quoted my points, what about addressing them? They actually do address "demand." Planning ahead and replacing oil we buy from bad governments.