Keystone Pipeline

[krill]

Do you have any supporting facts dealing with how often a budget was even presented (let alone voted upon).........??

 

You caught me, I invented the whole story. I'm not going to spend hours digging through Thomas looking for committee votes.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._budget_process

 

tl;dr - The executive submits a budget request, and a lengthy process begins in congress for appropriation bills. Every appropriation is considered in committees, civil servants are summoned for testimonies concerning appropriation (i.e. this is why we need [x] dollars for project [y]), there's a great deal of wrangling, and it takes a long time for the whole process to play out for a draft budget. Then the house and senate have to harmonize their bills, which, not surprisingly can also be quite contentious. Congress as of late has been so consumed with trivial legislation and obstructionism that there's simply not the political will to even try to draft a budget. I shouldn't have to point this out but what Paul Ryan created was not a budget, it was a proposal, and not even a very detailed one at that. There's been other comical efforts by Republicans that were no more than a few pages, just to say they do in fact have a proposal.

[Comish]

Do you have any supporting facts dealing with how often a budget was even presented (let alone voted upon).........??

 

You caught me, I invented the whole story. I'm not going to spend hours digging through Thomas looking for committee votes.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._budget_process

 

tl;dr - The executive submits a budget request, and a lengthy process begins in congress for appropriation bills. Every appropriation is considered in committees, civil servants are summoned for testimonies concerning appropriation (i.e. this is why we need [x] dollars for project [y]), there's a great deal of wrangling, and it takes a long time for the whole process to play out for a draft budget. Then the house and senate have to harmonize their bills, which, not surprisingly can also be quite contentious. Congress as of late has been so consumed with trivial legislation and obstructionism that there's simply not the political will to even try to draft a budget. I shouldn't have to point this out but what Paul Ryan created was not a budget, it was a proposal, and not even a very detailed one at that. There's been other comical efforts by Republicans that were no more than a few pages, just to say they do in fact have a proposal.

 

My response wasn't a "gotcha" question..........simply wondering if you had any details.............certainly didn't expect you to go digging, I just thought your original info might have more depth........

 

I do recall Obama's "budget" getting voted down in the Senate by (iirc)................98-0.............................kinda of tough to blame that on the Pubs.........

[Sub-Husker]

There's always an excuse as to why oil spills or leaks.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/chevron-under-fire-over-size-brazil-oil-spill-031440479.html

[HuskerCarter]

To my understanding, the part of the aquifer in Eastern Nebraska (20 - 100 feet deep) is much shallower than the part in Western Nebraska (400 - 1200 feet deep). Obviously the part in the Sandhills hold a lot more water than the part in Eastern Nebraska, therefore a bigger risk.

 

Now i don't know much about the designs of the pipeline, but i do know that Nebraska is prone to seismic activity. So to what guarantee or reassurances do we have that given a strong quake that the pipeline won't rupture?

 

That is my concern on the matter.

[Sub-Husker]

BC First Nations Unite To Ban Export Of Tar Sands Oil

 

For the first time in Canadian history, First Nations, whose territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have publicly united to oppose the transport of tar sands crude oil through their land. Over 60 nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration, which bans tar sands oil pipelines throughout the Fraser River watershed, an area that was never ceded to the Canadian government, and therefore not legally under the government’s control.

 

http://www.care2.com...-sands-oil.html

[HSKR]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/17/politics/congress-payroll-tax-cut/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

It's up to Obama now. Environmentalists aren't going to like him because he will cave to the pressure and get this thing through. It's going to be an election year and there are more votes from business/unions/people who want cheaper gas then environmentalists against this. Obama will go where the votes are. The major environmental concern (Sandhills route) has been addressed. I'm glad to see the pipeline isn't going to take another 3 years before they can start.

 

Next step, get a refinery built in SD.

[carlfense]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

It's up to Obama now. Environmentalists aren't going to like him because he will cave to the pressure and get this thing through. It's going to be an election year and there are more votes from business/unions/people who want cheaper gas then environmentalists against this. Obama will go where the votes are. The major environmental concern (Sandhills route) has been addressed. I'm glad to see the pipeline isn't going to take another 3 years before they can start.

 

Next step, get a refinery built in SD.

Why would they build a refinery in SD? The pipeline (if built . . . and that is far from a guarantee) is to get the oil to international markets. It would have virtually no effect on US gas prices.

 

Not to mention that the major environmental concern is the tar sands production itself. Dirty, dirty.

 

Fascinating story though. The GOP finally found a tax cut it doesn't like . . . turns out that those tax cuts they are always begging for are only those that primarily benefit the rich. If the primary beneficiary is the middle class they will make demands for concessions so that they can tolerate a middle class tax break. I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the GOP is a party of and for the rich only. Shameless.

[HSKR]

To my understanding, the part of the aquifer in Eastern Nebraska (20 - 100 feet deep) is much shallower than the part in Western Nebraska (400 - 1200 feet deep). Obviously the part in the Sandhills hold a lot more water than the part in Eastern Nebraska, therefore a bigger risk.

 

Now i don't know much about the designs of the pipeline, but i do know that Nebraska is prone to seismic activity. So to what guarantee or reassurances do we have that given a strong quake that the pipeline won't rupture?

 

That is my concern on the matter.

It's never been about the depth of the aquifer and how much water it holds in a certain area but how close the pipeline would be to the aquifer itself and in what kind of soil. The problem with the Sandhills route was the pipeline was pretty much in the aquifer itself in many locations and as whole very close to the aquifer in sandy soil. Just this last week, we learned exactly why we need the pipeline out of the Sandhills and in better soil with the fuel pipeline spill in SE Nebraska. Even though the spill was relatively large and even made it to a small creek, the damage and cleanup will be small compared to if this had happened in the Sandhills with a high water table.

[HSKR]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

It's up to Obama now. Environmentalists aren't going to like him because he will cave to the pressure and get this thing through. It's going to be an election year and there are more votes from business/unions/people who want cheaper gas then environmentalists against this. Obama will go where the votes are. The major environmental concern (Sandhills route) has been addressed. I'm glad to see the pipeline isn't going to take another 3 years before they can start.

 

Next step, get a refinery built in SD.

Why would they build a refinery in SD? The pipeline (if built . . . and that is far from a guarantee) is to get the oil to international markets. It would have virtually no effect on US gas prices.

 

Not to mention that the major environmental concern is the tar sands production itself. Dirty, dirty.

 

Fascinating story though. The GOP finally found a tax cut it doesn't like . . . turns out that those tax cuts they are always begging for are only those that primarily benefit the rich. If the primary beneficiary is the middle class they will make demands for concessions so that they can tolerate a middle class tax break. I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the GOP is a party of and for the rich only. Shameless.

 

They would build it because there are already oil pipelines going through the Midwest. Refine it here, save us money, create jobs here. As far as the tar sands, I would much rather have them refined in the US then any other part of the world because we actually do have environmental standards, unlike places like China. If you truly want the planet as green as possible, you better hope every last drop of tar sand oil is refined in the US.

[HSKR]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

It's up to Obama now. Environmentalists aren't going to like him because he will cave to the pressure and get this thing through. It's going to be an election year and there are more votes from business/unions/people who want cheaper gas then environmentalists against this. Obama will go where the votes are. The major environmental concern (Sandhills route) has been addressed. I'm glad to see the pipeline isn't going to take another 3 years before they can start.

 

Next step, get a refinery built in SD.

Why would they build a refinery in SD? The pipeline (if built . . . and that is far from a guarantee) is to get the oil to international markets. It would have virtually no effect on US gas prices.

 

Not to mention that the major environmental concern is the tar sands production itself. Dirty, dirty.

 

Fascinating story though. The GOP finally found a tax cut it doesn't like . . . turns out that those tax cuts they are always begging for are only those that primarily benefit the rich. If the primary beneficiary is the middle class they will make demands for concessions so that they can tolerate a middle class tax break. I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the GOP is a party of and for the rich only. Shameless.

Didn't know the GOP had 89 seats in the Senate now.

[carlfense]

But they don't want to sell it here. The pipeline ends at a foreign trade zone for a reason. TC told investors that the oil is primarily marketed to Europe and Central America.

[carlfense]

Guess who wanted a clean bill (I.e. tax cuts only)?

 

Guess who demanded otherwise?

 

It doesn't take long to look this stuff up. You probably know that.

 

[HSKR]

But they don't want to sell it here. The pipeline ends at a foreign trade zone for a reason. TC told investors that the oil is primarily marketed to Europe and Central America.

You are going to have to provide some links to me then. The article I just posted says it is going to refineries in TX. You are saying they aren't going to refine it here but get the oil to international markets? Even at your worst case scenario that we get none of the oil refined for us, it's still jobs here and relief on the demand.

 

I should have been more clear on the SD thing. They have been trying for years to get that done way before tar sands. I wasn't saying it was necessarily to refine the tar sands oil but any oil, although I wouldn't have any problem if they did choose to refine tar sands in SD.

[HSKR]

Guess who wanted a clean bill (I.e. tax cuts only)?

 

Guess who demanded otherwise?

 

It doesn't take long to look this stuff up. You probably know that.

 

They must have not wanted it that bad, that's for sure. They could have stopped it easily but the reality is there are a lot of votes on the left that wanted this through as well. It's just too bad you can never point stuff like this out when it's the other way around. Hey I'd love to see them vote on only one thing at a time and never add on other provisions or pork but we know that is never going to happen. The difference with me is I'm not going to cry foul for political points on one side or another because this is the way it works.

 

Also think its' funny how the left is now GWB when it comes to tax cuts.

[Cactusboy]

Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

So what happens when the next Pub POTUS gets rid of the EPA and DOT? We leave it up to private biz to keep an eye on it?