Biden's Day 1 & Beyond Executive orders

[DevoHusker]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I feel like, as long as they're not partisan hackery, legal challenges to these EOs are a healthy thing.

 

The stay is only for 14 days, and if they don't like the ruling either party can appeal.

 

Agreed.

[DevoHusker]

On 1/24/2021 at 9:17 AM, teachercd said:

I hope not, I hope this is quick and easy.  Because it should be.

 

 

@teachercdare you over or under this threshold?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/26/spending-stimulus-checks/

 

 

[teachercd]

4 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

@teachercdare you over or under this threshold?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/26/spending-stimulus-checks/

 

 

Uggg, great, I took an assistant speech coach gig at my school and that put me over!!!!

 

It was the best of times...it was the worst of times.

[Jason Sitoke]

7 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

...laying pipe by hand.

This is all I have to contribute.
 

I’ll see myself out. 

[mrandyk]

On 1/24/2021 at 10:37 AM, Archy1221 said:

Would be spectacular if those wizards of smart in Congress wouldn’t use 2019 tax returns to give assistance to people affected by a 2020 plague. 

Anyone who made $75,000 or less in 2019 gets the full amount, or $150,000 for married couples. $600 was never going to mean anything to the people who make more than that.

 

Go on spewing s#!t everywhere though.

[BigRedBuster]

18 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Building the pipeline would contribute around $3.4 billion to US gross domestic product, and would generate about 50 jobs when operational, the State Department report said.

50....f#&%ing....jobs.

 

This is ultimately what the argument is over.  50 jobs.

[Enhance]

18 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

He’s on pace for 1,500 E0’s this year 

In the same way a quarterback who throws six TD passes in the first game of the season is on pace to throw 72 TDs by year's end, but never does.

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

So do you know what else it would do?  It will kill thousands of jobs. 

 

That oil is shipped by truck right now...and truckers buy gas, stay at hotels, eat at restaurants...all while hauling that oil down America's highways by the thousands.  Imagine if suddenly, the pipeline shipped that oil...all of the lost revenue from all of the truckers hauling would be lost. 

 

I have no data backing this up...just thinking it out logically.

I think that most of the oil is currently being shipped by rail and that other pipelines have expanded in recent years to help accommodate, too. The industry has basically found a way to manage the lack of the Keystone pipeline. And now, the U.S. stands to gain less tangible benefits than it did back in 2005 when the U.S. had bigger supply/import concerns.

 

I think the reality of the situation now is that this process has dragged on for so long that the U.S. stands to gain far fewer tangible benefits than they once did.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I think that most of the oil is currently being shipped by rail and that other pipelines have expanded in recent years to help accommodate, too. The industry has basically found a way to manage the lack of the Keystone pipeline. And now, the U.S. stands to gain less tangible benefits than it did back in 2005 when the U.S. had bigger supply/import concerns.

 

I think the reality of the situation now is that this process has dragged on for so long that the U.S. stands to gain far fewer tangible benefits than they once did.

 

What benefits were those in the first place? This kind of oil is too high in carbon to be used in America, so whatever was piped to our refineries was going to have to leave by boat to countries that will use it. 

 

 

[Enhance]

14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

What benefits were those in the first place? This kind of oil is too high in carbon to be used in America, so whatever was piped to our refineries was going to have to leave by boat to countries that will use it. 

Based on what I've read, the bolded is inaccurate. Or, at the very least, too blanket of a statement. The U.S. had a more significant need for Canadian produced oil in the past, but technological improvements (and industry changes as a result of the stalled pipeline) have reduced America's dependency on foreign oil imports. The U.S. would've absolutely used it and probably would still, to some degree, if the Keystone pipeline were to be completed. They just don't really need to anymore.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Based on what I've read, the bolded is inaccurate. Or, at the very least, too blanket of a statement. The U.S. had a more significant need for Canadian produced oil in the past, but technological improvements (and industry changes as a result of the stalled pipeline) have reduced America's dependency on foreign oil imports. The U.S. would've absolutely used it and probably would still, to some degree, if the Keystone pipeline were to be completed. They just don't really need to anymore.

 

I haven't heard that the Bush-era prohibitions on such oil were repealed. 

[Enhance]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

I haven't heard that the Bush-era prohibitions on such oil were repealed. 

I think the U.S. currently relies on Canada for more than half of its imported oil already.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

In the same way a quarterback who throws six TD passes in the first game of the season is on pace to throw 72 TDs by year's end, but never does.

That would be correct, but some of them get above 50 TD’s for the year. 

[knapplc]

Just now, Enhance said:

I think the U.S. currently relies on Canada for more than half of its imported oil already.

 

Right, but not the oil sands stuff that would have been transported via Keystone XL. Canada has recently (last decade-ish) begun digging into those lesser-quality sources of oil. Before, they mostly shipped light sweet crude. This stuff is heavy in bitumen, and the carbon footprint is much higher to refine - I've seen estimates up to 30% higher. 

 

If Canada refined their own oil & shipped the refined product, they'd be one of the worst polluters in the world. Instead, they ship most of their crude here and we bear the brunt of the carbon emissions. Pretty sneaky and shady of them, actually. 

[Archy1221]

11 hours ago, mrandyk said:

Anyone who made $75,000 or less in 2019 gets the full amount, or $150,000 for married couples. $600 was never going to mean anything to the people who make more than that.

 

Go on spewing s#!t everywhere though.

Is this the standard you are going with?

 

 Does a one time $600 payment really mean a lot to married couples making $100,000?  Or a single person making $50k?  is that going to be the life changing money they were looking for?
 

does a couple who makes $150,000 in NYC, or Omaha, or KC, or Memphis or wherever you want to talk about in 2019 but were out of a job for 4 months in 2020 not need a little help?   Or because they made an arbitrary number the year before a pandemic means they are perfectly fine during the pandemic with no job?  
 

what do you always say at the end of your posts....go on spewing s#!t everywhere though.