“More than 20,000 new American jobs have just been sacrificed in the name of political expediency.”

Politics as usual for Obama.

We should not be surprised since Obama learned his politics in Chicago.

[Politics as usual for Obama.]

Yeah, Roy...having clean water to drink is so "political". Do you like clean drinking water, Roy? I'll venture a guess here and say yes. So does the RED STATE of Nebraska.

Maybe Boehner should concentrate on that "jobs" platform he and the other malcontents ran on in 2010?

Despite Transcanada making much of 'lots of union jobs', the Independent Cornell Global Labor Institute says the pipeline will produce:

"between 50 and 1400 temporary construction jobs....The operating costs for KXL are very minimal and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline,
the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US as few as 50".

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator/

Some of you are claiming victory or agonizing over defeat. This is neither as no decision has been made but only delayed. Both sides should be upset over this non-decision who knows what the ultimate outcome will be? Remember, this is the second pipeline. The first one terminated in Illinois.

Mickey, NY "Yeah, Roy...having clean water to drink is so "political". Do you like clean drinking water, Roy? I'll venture a guess here and say yes."

It's strange, but I don't recall multitudes of people dying from lack of clean water before Obama's record 81,000 pages of regulations for 2009.

Despite Transcanada making much of 'lots of union jobs', the Independent Cornell Global Labor Institute says the pipeline will produce:

"between 50 and 1400 temporary construction jobs....The operating costs for KXL are very minimal and based on the figures provided by TransCanada for the Canadian section of the pipeline,
the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US as few as 50".

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator/

Hey Noid, since we're paying attention now, maybe Harry Reid could start paying attention getting a budget done for a change.

Or does he get a pass from you.

maybe Harry Reid could start paying attention getting a budget

What good would that do wca? The Republicans would just filibuster it as recent history shows.

Da Noid,

Yes, Boehner has the gall to go there:

After the Norquistian GOPtp congressionals voted against 3 jobs bills earlier this year,

Besides that, over the last few weeks - they 100% voted No to the American Jobs Act.

Boehner and his colleagues JUST voted against millions of jobs for Americans THREE TIMES.

Did they vote against "jobs for America" or did they vote against an unnecessary increase in deficit spending which further harms our economy?

They voted against jobs for Americans.

The Bush tax cuts cost $11.6Million per hour, every hour of every day.

GOPtp might want to get serious about that kind of spending,

before cutting millions of jobs:

that WILL create the revenue in taxes and circulate the cash that will lift up our economy.

The revenue that Norquistians refuse to produce - that brings down the deficit.

The Bush Tax cuts when put into effect under George Bush were set to expire at the end of 2010 but a certain political party and president decided to extend them and it was not the republicans.

At the end of 2010 a 'certain political party' (GOPtp/Norquist/Koch?ALEC)

held us all hostage to the Bush tax cuts,

and threatened a shutdown (the first of 3)

just before Christmas.

The bargain made was in exchange for extending unemployment benefits set to expire on January 1st 2011.

The Bush Tax cuts when put into effect under George Bush were set to expire at the end of 2010 but a certain political party and president decided to extend them and it was not the republicans.

Do you know why they were extended?

Senator McConnell: "Knock-knock!"

President Obama: "Who's there?"

McConnell: "Phil!"

Obama: "Phil, who?"

McConnell: "Filibuster!"

-------------------------------------------------------------

If the Bush Tax Cuts are supposed to be so great why the Republicans who originally instituted them set a defined expiration date for them in the first place?

You need to check out the "Byrd" rule. During the Bush years unemployment dropped and maintained an average of 5.2%. What is the rate now even with the "Bush Tax " cut. It would lead some of us to come to the conclusion that the present administration would screw up an anvil with a rubber hammer. You liberals are supposedly taking the high road. You all don't give a rat's patooti about the poor, you are perfectly willing to sacrifice them to your political agenda.

The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010, since otherwise they would fall under the Byrd Rule. Whether to renew the lowered rates and how became the subject of extended political debate, which was resolved during the presidency of Barack Obama by a two-year extension that was part of a larger tax and economic package, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

BTW, I guarantee that had the "Bush Tax Cuts" resulted in increased employment the Obama administration would have been more than willing to take credit but to end those cuts all that had to happen would be for someone like the Senate Majority leader to table a vote to extend them. This has worked out really well for the Obama administration because of the miles and miles of political capital that has been generated by liberals who use the label "Bush Tax Cuts" to lay blame on the previous administration.

Amy, that is a totally foolish comparison. The technolgy today makes pipelines safe. Yet zealots think we can get by with solar panels from Solyndra, subsidized with wasted billions.

President Obama claimed a "jobs emergency", calling for passing a big spending porkulus , after his first stimulus failed miserably.

Yet Obama votes "present" on a needed pipeline, already approved since 2008, that would give "shovel ready" jobs to 20,000 Americans, and lead us to energy independence from the Middle East .

This is insane, and shows his Administration is controlled by radical green environmental zealots. The pipeline may well be built instead to canada's west coats, to send the oil to China.

Bob lots of ###'s,

What planet are you on? Even Nebraska doesn't want it. I guess clean water to you is good enough for you, but for others(et. al Nebraskans), who cares, right? Selfishness and Greed. That's the downfall of this country!!!

"Yet Obama votes "present" on a needed pipeline,.."

He didn't. Tell me again, I forget: Is Obama in the House, or Senate?

Yeah, and nuclear energy is completely safe, tell that to the Japanese heroes, giving up their lives to protect those living near the melting reactors. And drilling in the ocean is completely safe, tell that to the families of the eleven men killed in the Gulf, and to the fishermen whose livlihoods were ruined when the oil killed the sealife. Then there is all that exciting fracking business, that turns people's water taps into firethrowers.

On the other hand, when an off shore windmill falls over....all you get is a big splash. When it clouds over...a solar heated house switches on it's stored energy. I swear, conservatives crave drama.

Amy,

windmills and solar energy CANNOT provide the energy needed for our economy. You may as well have said "pixie dust" and "unicorns" . Billions in subsidies, total failure!

Oil is needed; new technology has made pipelines safe. There are already many pipelines criscrossing the country.

20,000 American jobs and freedom form Mideast oil

Environmental zealotry is destroying jobs and the private sector economy. Suicide of a superpower, as Pat Buchanon put it.

Bob#####: please explain how the first stimulus failed. Did it keep alive an automobile industry in the US? Did it create at least a million new jobs and preserve several million more ?

When GDP declines by $7,500,000,000,000 how do you expect that adding only $ 850,000,000 would totally solve the problem ? The stimulus package which was enacted did exactly what it was expected to do, it prevented a total depression from overtaking the US economy. While it did not prevent unemployment from going over 8%, it did prevent it from going to 25% as it very likely would have without the stimulus (and the TARP.) The real issue with the stimulus was that it was big enough to impact the economy by prevention a total economic meltdown, but not large enough to immediately resolve the recession.

Bob-1887910

windmills and solar energy CANNOT provide the energy needed for our economy. You may as well have said "pixie dust" and "unicorns" . Billions in subsidies, total failure!

The oil companies get billions in subsidies for how many years now? That is total failure on the part of our politicians not to put an end to it.

And yes wind and solar CAN provide the energy needed if we fully invest in them. Which is the reason we should give these industries subsidies.

Let's not talk about the environmental issues right now and just talk about oil itself. It is finite; there is only so much oil to be had. What do you think we should do when it is gone? Should we wait until then to develop alternatives? Or when we are talking about the debt there is concern for our children and grandchildren and the future but no concern when we are talking about oil.

Now the environmental issues: Do you want your children and grandchildren to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, food grown in non-contaminated soil? Or once again do you only care about their future when it comes to the debt but not the actual quality of their lives?

Environmental zealotry is destroying jobs and the private sector economy.

No Bob, private sector greed and apathy are destroying the planet, the air, the water plus the entire economy!!!

Building new refineries in the US runs into even more environmental lawsuits than this pipeline is running into, so the idea of building refineries in the Dakotas doens't make any sense, there could be pretty sizable delays.

And building the pipeline to Texas is partly because this oil isn't going to be the "light sweet crude" that you get from most wells in the Middle East. The oil coming out of Alberta is likely to be much closer to the "black gold" most people think of. This thick black oil is much more difficult to refine and not every refinery has the equipment and expertise to do it well. The established refineries in Texas have been refining this kind of oil for decades and are going to be able to do the best job of refining the Alberta oil.

that's why people want the pipeline to Texas. Its the best way to get the oil to already established refiniries that have the proper equipment to refine this oil. It makes more sense than fighting a new battle to build a new refinery; something that has not been done in the US in over 30 years thanks to EPA regulations and the zealousness of the environmentalists.

OK, if the oil is in Canada, why don't the oil companies build the refineries in Canada, then ship it anywhere they want ?

I know, an oil refinery is a BIG investment, however, so are the pipe lines.

Gotta be some kind of solution which does not require damage to our potable water.

Dirp -

I suspec t that part of the refining process will include cutting the think Alberta oil with either "Light Sweet Crude" or another grade of raw oil. That is what the Texas refiniries specialize in. They also already have the facilities to receive and hold the other forms of oil, and a ready source for those grades both from Texas and from some of the wells in the Gulf (Not all as some of the oil from the Gulf has a lot of sulphur and is extremely hard to refine.) A new refineries in Canada would have to have the other kinds of oil brought to it, and at the volumes a refinery goes through, you either need a pipeline or a tanker ship. Raw oil isn't something you bring in by truck.

The choice for the Alberta oil is either Texas or China right now, there are really no other places with the money, facilities and expertise to refine this oil. new refinieries sound like a solution, but the logisitcal issues really prevent it. Do you really thing Canada wouldn't put in the refiniery if they could. Refined oil is worth a lot more than raw crude so they'd get the economic benefit as well as more jobs.

And how much is this going to cost the American public?? The GOP won't agree with Obama's Jobs Plan, because he wants the rich to help pay for it, but is this pipeline requiring money from the government?? Or is it being funded by BIG OIL companies??

On the environment side. How many times has the Alaska pipeline been broken? If they say not many, look at were it is located, Alaska, very few people. This pipeline is going straight thought the center of the USA, and how many people live here, millions. Then again how easy would it be for a terrorist or even a local nut, to blow up this pipeline???Will we need to patrol the pipeline, daily, with who, troops, police, citizens??

You all need to be VERY, VERY aware that there is already a Keystone pipeline that terminates in Illinois.

Rick,

there are thousands of miles of pipeline crossing the nation in all directions. I've seen some of the maps and once you'd seen that you have to wonder just how this one new pipeline can really be an environmental risk.

but look at the main argument. Those posting here against hte pipeline are often saying that drinking water will be contaminated just by the pipeline passing over the aquafers. The are assuming that the pipeline will leak immediately.

Or in the case of Derf, he's assuming that some nut will rush out to blow up the pipeline. The fact that there are already hundreds and thousands of miles of pipeline that those same nuts could go after isn't even a consideration. Well, except when people like Derf try to force their removal based on the same hysterical arguments.

@mvargus

Read your thoughtful respones this morning.

My point is that the Keystone pipeline delay until 2013 , to look at the alternative routes by bypassing the aquifer in Nebraska, would be beneficial in the long run. Nebraska governor was very pleased with this announcement.

My other point was about building refineries in the Dakotas. North Dakota is the new "gold rush " state with their own sand oil riches.

South Dakota is proceeding forward to build a new refinery that will process this oil closer to its source.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/south-dakota-board-approves-hyperion-oil-refinery-permi

I believe the environmental concerns are real. An oil spill from another Keystone pipeline happened this year in Montana and its cleanup was mismanaged.

The rush to judgement about political motives of Obama or Nebraska Republican governor by partisans on both sides are not helpful to understand the various points of view of all stakeholders in this pipeline project.

Focused like a laser on jobs and the economy

That's what the tea people GOP republicans ran on in 2010 1Hiram. Instead the only legislation they've worked on is women's issues and other bills that have noting to do with jobs. Name one jobs bill they have passed. Their hole agenda is to filibuster every jobs bill proposed. The tea people GOP republicans are laser focused on winning the white house and keeping their jobs.

That was Pelosi and Obama's line from 2008...2009.....2010...2011.....and probably next year also......

They have sent over 15 jobs bills passed by the House to the Senate this year alone.......Harry Reid will not consider them or vote on them. We have lost over 2.5 million jobs since Obama took office.......If the GOP House had not stopped cap and trade and card check and limited Obamacare........we would have $5 gas, electric bills doubled, and well over 10% unemployment. GOP saved Obama from killing even more jobs by blocking his toxic policies.

Here is your list of the “15 jobs bills on Harry Reid’s desk”. Just for fun, see if you can guess which on this list are purposed for job production, and which are agenda driven.

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations.

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act
The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

H. J. Res. 37, Disapproval of FCC’s Net Neutrality Act
H.J. Res 37 would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet providers.

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards.

H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act
This bill is will amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act
The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance.

H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation
The TRAIN Act would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

H.R. 2681, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act
The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect which would place burdensome regulations on the cement industry.

H.R. 2250, EPA Regulatory Relief Act
The bill would help to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators.

H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
The bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard.

H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act
The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) would establish statutory deadlines for sales of certain oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf.

H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act
The bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico.

H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act
The bill would reverse President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act and amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources.

H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
The bill would eliminate permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska.

H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act
The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011.

All are agenda driven.......the agenda being "To create Jobs" something the DNC can not seem to figure out since Obama took office. Even Bill Clinton is trying to give him some advice on cutting taxes and regulations.

I can't stop laughing at 1Hiram SamNETN. Kind of like how everybody was laughing at the tea people GOP republican candidates at the debate. I have to hand it to 1Hiram he's redefining uninformed voter.

And again where are the words JOB CREATION. The word Jobs was used once in HR 2021 and that was for opportunities off the coast of ALASKA. So where are the job coming from? Off shore drilling, cutting back on regulations. The government can't agree on a budget, you expect them to agree on cutting back on regulations? And if they could, how long will this take, weeeks, months, or next year. People need job now not next year.

........ya'll have another 12 months to laugh it up and drink your kool-aid.

2.5 million jobs lost and growing.......glad the DNC is hard at work.......

Didn't you hear the latest unemployment numbers, we are growing more jobs, NO thanks to the GOP and TEA PARTY

1Hiram... I hoped to spur responses other than "yeah, but the DNC" as a reflexive reaction, but thanks for your time.

Hi Hiram I think I know you! Yes now they have red cool aid instead of blue.....they need some of Jim Jones cool aid for their blatant lack of intelligence.

Two straight weeks of new joblless claims below 400,000......is nothing to get excited over.

Obama will be the first President since WWII to have negative job growth over a 4 tear term.

Some posters are demanding that the Obama's jobs bill be passed now because it will develop jobs now. Ok, that is a great point. But they complain that what jobs bills the republicans are proposing are ineffective because they may create jobs sometime in the future. Spin it anyway you way but the objection that the republicans are voicing is that the "jobs bill" adds to an already burgeoning debt. There could be a solution. Since the republicans jobs bills that have a dark future are undesirable then we could divert funds from programs like HCR, green energy and Obama's electric train set to pay for his jobs bill. If what the democrats are saying about the jobs bill is true then we would have increased revenue to fund HCR, green energy and Obama's electric train set at some time in the not too distant future. Otherwise it would be safe to assume that it is all about political expediency rather than actually helping the country out of its present economic woes.

Sam.....too funny ....nice try........no responses from you on the miserable jobs performance from Obama and the DNC......as expected.

put your glasses on also......never said or implied the word BUT.....

I think you are as stupid as we think! Have you been awake for the last four years?

To independent thinking atheist

And I think you are neither independent OR thinking....

Reading through your posts it is apparent to me that all you do is spout the RNC spin and talkikng points, and dis other posters who state positions at variance with the RNC.

Someone who does that on this board is called a troll.

Looks to me like that shoe fits you well.

So now we each know where the other stands. Thank msnbc for the "ignore" button!

Yes you are.......

A while back our president proposed a package that would according to him cut 4 trillion from the debt. What many of you never mention is that Boehner agreed to it but after the two shook hands on the deal the president came back and demanded another 4 billion in increased taxes which Boehner could in no way sell to his congress members.

The US hasn't built a new refinery in more than 30 years. EPA regulations and the environmental lobby have effectively banned the construction of new refineries.

Tell me again how we are supposed to do the work in the Dakotas in some not yet built refinery that will see its construction fought by every environmental lobby in the nation?

mvargus,

"Whaaa! It's so hard to move and process oil safely that we, the oil companies, refuse to do so and we want the President to let us have our way. WHAAA!"

Interesting. I like the projection although I'm more than a bit confused by it. The only thing I said was that the idea of a refinery in the Dakotas was a non-starter due to the environmental regulation issues.

I actually have little interest in the Keystone pipeline overall. It doesn't matter what Obama decides because it will be tied up in legal actions for another decade even if he does allow it. I do believe that the fears of many are far overblown. THere is some danger from any pipeline, but when you consider the volumes of oil that do pass through pipelines every day of every year, the amount spilled is uncalculably small. It would be like trying to find 2 Gobstoppers in an Olympic size swimming pool.

And I'm not going to argue that there would be absolutely no environmental damage. Even one drop of oil in the wrong place can cause harm. But I will ask if you have the priorities correct. After all the oil promises to provide energy that can be used for a vast number of projects and possibilies. We have to balance that against the potential environmental damage. I know that you probably feel that any environmental damage is too much. I'm a bit less militant and will accept some damage if the long term economic benefits are high enough.

mvargus, I would suggest then you have never been involved in or close enough to any hazmat contamination. See that is what oil is a hazardous material. It can cost millions to clean up. It can totally ruin an area. how would you feel if it was your land that was contaminated or perhaps your water supply. Perhaps then you would be a little more militant.

Besides the long term economic benefits are only high enough for the oil companies making the profit off the oil.

Andie,

I've had several family members affected by problems originating from the Benicia refineryt facility in California. And I've worked in places that deal in hazardous chemicals most of my life. Cleanups are messy and annoying, but proper handling of items has meant that I've never been personally involved in a hazmat situation that resulted in permanent damage to anyone's life or health. Not that I've ever understood why so many liberals are militant about oil and the environment when they ignore the quality of life for prisoners, drug users, the inner city, etc. I figure its less about the environment than about power and control of people.

And if you think that only the oil companies benefit from oil than you have absolutely no understanding of how business works. I'd tell you to try to find an economics call and take it, but most likely you'll take a class from one of the liberal economic demagogues like Krugman. They go out of their way to avoid explaining just how important profits are to a modern society. A more sensible economist such as Milton Friedman is hard to find, even though his writings and predictions are far more accurate than any from the type of economist you listen to.

It is good that you properly handle hazmat. However not all contamination is caused by human error. Equipment failure, where no one is at fault, can cause plenty of damage. I am not against oil as I work for a home heating oil company. I have seen how an underground oil storage tank leak can cause so much damage that clean up costs more than the house is worth. Where that same contamination leaks onto the neighbors property, that will now also need to remediate. If it gets into the water supply, forget about it, clean up can run into the millions!!! So maybe it can be contained and cleaned up; you know "messy and annoying" in the big picture but on a smaller scale it can be devastating to many individuals.

Like I said I am not against oil, but I am realistic; A) Oil is finite B) it is hazardous and because of these facts I recognize the need to explore other ways to power not just the United States but the entire planet.

I have found that it is mostly liberals that care about the quality of life of prisoners, drug users and the inner city.

A lot of conservatives only care about an individual before they are born. Once born if they are incarcerated they say kill 'em (death penalty); or it's too expensive to try to rehabilitate so let's just keep them locked up in a small place and not prepare them to reintegrate society and then complain about how many ex cons re violate. Then they say let's privatize the prison system (so they can make money off it) where it usually ends up costing more money.

Again, I have found that conservatives don't care about drug users--they feel we should lock them all up. It is the liberals that want treatment for drug abusers rather than prison. It is liberals that want to legalize marijuana which would do many things for prisoners (less of them), drug users (not make them criminals) and the inner city as well as the economy and manufacturing.

As with the others, I believe that liberals are the only ones trying to help the inner cities. I don't think it is conservatives that fight for affordable housing, rent control laws, etc.

So when you say liberals ignore these other things I don't know what you mean.

I do know how business works and how profits effect a modern society do you? You said:

I know that you probably feel that any environmental damage is too much. I'm a bit less militant and will accept some damage if the long term economic benefits are high enough.

and I said:

the long term economic benefits are only high enough for the oil companies making the profit off the oil

If you made your living fishing in the Gulf of Mexico would there be any long term economic benefits to you for BP's environmental damage to the gulf? No and then there are all the other people and industries affected, is the damage done worth it to them?

Business practices and what they do with the profits effects everything and everyone somehow. When the CEO's wealth increases exponentially and the workers wages are stagnate then the profits are not doing anything for society. When a business raises prices not based on need but only to squeeze a few million for bonuses for the top and nothing for the workers - How does that benefit society?

D Soldier,

I hate to tell you this, but the economic reality you rely on as the foundation for all of the polcies pushed by Obama, Reid and Pelosi is no longer the reality we face.

Not that the GOP understands it any better.

The truth is that neither party is acting in a way that will be good for the nation as far as the economics are concerned and that both parties are listening to and beholden to groups who's wants and needs are in complete opposition to the long term survival of the economic middle class.

But continue to believe that your side is not at fault. May it give you comfort in the dark times ahead.

mvargus, while the democrats have not been the best, you can not judge their economic policies because none of them have been enacted without the republicans bastardizing them so much that they are unrecognizable.

mvargus

You can take a medicine dropper and put one drop of a pesticide into an olympic size swimming pool and since 2000 the technology exists to actually detect the presence of that miniscule amount of pesticide. At that dilution you would have to drink gallons and gallons of that water for 50 years to maybe, just maybe be affected by it. That is the problem, technology has outpaced reason These folks want to take us back a few thousand years for the purity that existed then but they don't want to deal with the problems it would cause.

In 1972 I accepted a job as a field engineer in the industrial pollution control industry. At that time allowed emissions per the EPA were 0.02 grains per standard cubic foot or 20% opacity which is clear stack conditions. i.e. there would appear to be no emissions coming from the smoke stack. I became unemployed after the high interest rates of the Carter administration made it much too expensive to finance new equipment. When that crisis past I got an other job but became unemployed after over regulation in California made it financially and technologically impossible to build new equipment . After the state of California made up the difference in lost new generation by buying electricity from other states which effectively just shifted the problem to another part of the country I went back to work but lost that job because the industry focus shifted to paper mills but then lost that one after the country went on a paperless binge.

Rick,

I think I pointed out something similar to your eyedrop in a swimming pool comment in one of my comments.

I especially like how those who are against oil and gas overblow the effects of pollution. In California we keep hearing how our current air quality is the cause of increased asthma and respiratory problems. I lived in the LA Basin back in 1975-1978 and I remember how you couldn't see mountains that were 5 miles away due to the smog.

Now the air isn't crystal clear today , but its considerably cleaner, but somehow this cleaner air is causing people to have difficulty breathing.

I even remember how Clinton changed a rule just at the end of his time in office to reduce the maximum levels of arsenic allowed in ground water. The problem was that the new standard was below the naturally occuring levels found in many streams. This level was actually more pure than water that had been drunk for decades or even centuries. But we had the technology to detect it, so the environmentalists wanted it cleaned up.

It's like the large number of environmentalists at the big "green" convention in Mexico who were talked into signing a paper against the environmental scource... Water. The men getting them and even filming them signing this used water's scientific name while describing all the ways water can hurt a human if handled improperly. They got hundreds of signatures before letting people know that they had been signing a petition to ban water from human life.

But studies show that human blood causes cancer in labratory rats. I'm still waiting to hear environmentalists attempting to ban that. (Sure, it needs to be massive quantities of blood before the cancer occurs, but its still an environmental hazard, even before you consider the "bloodborne pathogens" situation.)

Andie, you claimed

mvargus, while the democrats have not been the best, you can not judge their economic policies because none of them have been enacted without the republicans bastardizing them so much that they are unrecognizable.

--------

Sorry you just flunked economic history.,

The policies that are being pushed at this time by liberals are near perfect matches for the policies that have brought Greece and Italy to the brink of bankruptcy. They also are surprisingly similar to policies that existed in Rome after the 1st century AD and were a huge part of the decline of the Roman Empire. There are even more than a few similarities to policies that were established in Russia after World War I and which took a rising empire and brought famine and want to a land with a wealth of natural resources.

They even are a close fit to policies that "Tricky Dick" Richard M. Nixon pushed during his time in the White House. Back then the result was runaway inflation, a shortage of oil, and an economy that bogged down even more completely than what we have now.

And we don't have the same economy we had bad then, nor some of the excuses for the deficit spending.

The truth is that liberals tend to blindly follow the economic idiocy of John Maynard Keynes. I'll admit that what Keynes theorized makes a lot of sense, and if you like the idea of government spending being able to help an economy he's the man you want to canonize as a saint, but the more I have studied Economics the more I've seen that his entire theory falls apart once it has to be applied ot the real world. he made assumptions about how people and businesses would react to business spending that do not match how people react in real life.

And Keynes never envisioned a world where currencies and goods can easily cross national borders. Most people don't realize that he made his name as a currency trader, as he was brilliant at picking which economies were going up or down at any particular moment. the idea of instant information transfers, along with the transportation and shipping network we have today would certainly have changed his theories.

Unfortunately, we are only just now starting to see economists admitting that Keynesian stimulus no longer works. It will likely be 2-3 more generations before politicians understand and accept the same truth.

I only took two quarters of economics. Macro and Micro but while I don't remember a lot I do remember it was enough to turn me against Keynesian economics.

Definition of PARANOIA

A tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

Reality -

I don't think its so much paranoia as confusion and despair. For most of the current US population there never really has been a situation where the government couldn't fix the problem with a little directed spending or action. Right now that action not only isn't occuring thanks to the Rethugican resistance in congress, but when it has passes as in the 2009 stimulus, it failed.

And that is why I have tried to point out that the economic reality has changed. Too many of the "experts" on the economy don't look back past the Great Depression, and that has resulted in them believing that the economy of 1950-1970 was a norm. The problem is that 1950-1970 was veyr much an exception. Post WW2 the world's entire economy was having to rebuild and only had the US industry intact. the US became the most prosperous nation not because of any great government policy, but because there were no other options. And back then it would have been basically impossible for the government to do anything that caused real harm at the time.

Of course, the government did manage to plant many poison seeds and now the seeds are providing a bitter harvest as the economy no longer responds to the same stimuli. the 2009 stimulus bill was a classic Keynesian stimulus as were the Cash-for-Clunkers and the multiple Home mortgage adjustment plans. None has had a provable effect where they actually generated growth. The best argument of their supporters has been "The economy would have been worse withour plan" which is impossible to verify. Some of the economists who pushed the plan have tried to claim it was too small (Krugman) or that it the economy was worse than we though. (Obama's advisors.). However, there are a growing number of economists who are asking if Keynesian stimulus works in today's economy.

And the monetary stimuls has been equally bad. At one time the Fed Reserve could drive interest rates down and the economy would perk up. But now "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke has held rates low for more than 2 years and is promising a minimum of another year of interest rates being 0.00% effectively and not only has it not helped increase demand, but it's increasingly looking like the low interest rates are part of the reason we aren't seeing a recovery in the banking and housing sectors. I've even started seeing more and more economists questioning just how good Greenspan was. A large number believe his overuse of low interest rates contributed to the fall and helped generate the new economic reality where monetary policy has no effect.

It's easy to attack the GOP for refusing to approve any new spending plan. However, right now its equally easy to attack the Demos for failing to acknowledge that the current economy no longer supports a European style welfare state. The GOP has been trying to stop progress in a direction they believe will cause the economy to go bad sooner.

Personally, I suspect that the GOP is closer to right than the Demos, although neither party is saying or doing anything to attack the real problems. Both are too happy to score political points while the nation's economy continues to hollow out.

More spending won't solve the problem, we've had record spending and it doesn't appear to stop the bleeing.

Just lowering taxes won't work either, again we've tried that recently and it failed to generate a sustainable growth rate.

but can congress see and agree on the only options left that might work. Right now I'm not willing to bet on that.

Dave, the oil from the pipeline does not mean that it will be sold in the US. All oil is sold on the international market. so your entire statement about getting us further away from mid east oil is false. The fact of the matter is we need to get off oil completely. This is the reason that alternative fuels need to be subsidized (just as at one time there was a need to subsidize oil).

Um Dave...it's really approx. 1500 jobs (most of them temporary) and that oil is being exported. It will have no impact on how much oil we get from the middle east or anywhere else.

Apparently you prefer the knee-jerk reactions/decisions of the previous administration as opposed to the pragmatism of the current administration?