Message Boards » General Topics » News and Views

Thread: My Cong. Rep.


Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 23 - Last Post: Feb 1, 2012 2:01 PM Last Post By: Shar M
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 7:37 AM
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
From my Reps. weekly newsletter:

"Most recently, with the support of the Senate, we sent the president the Keystone XL pipeline extension, only to have him reject it for political purposes. The extension would create 20,000 "shovel ready" jobs and increase Americas energy independence."
My response sent to her:

You're better then Boehmer who announced " the pipeline would create 100,000 new jobs."

Statements by both of you are patently NOT TRUE.

For one thing the amount of jobs stated is wrong. It was taken by a Texas Company hired by X Canada. They reach the 20,000 figure by figuring one year equals 10,000 and 2 years equals 10,000 Therefore 10,000 plus 10,000 equals 20,000 jobs.
WRONG from the get go.

The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs.

The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.
There's many more problems with the pipeline that have been noted.

No wonder Congress has such a low confidence rate when doing this kind of sloppy self serving work.

jwalker1166

Posts: 533
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 12:23 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Did some reading on the net. Keystone will be carrying some bad stuff until its refined.
The proposed path takes it over a major water supply. Even the republican governors of the several states
have concerns, One terrorist attack on it could force removal of a lot of people. Obama has been put in a the trick bag
by politicians that take no care in their judgement. As president he must way a lot of info. before judgement.
Typical Republican political move. These people want the power of running the government? The biggist
outfit to profit will be the koch bros. they pull the strings the republicans say yes master.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 1:09 PM   in response to: jwalker1166 in response to: jwalker1166
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The jobs of manufacturing the pipes will go overseas. We can't even get that type of thing going for us. At one time they wanted them made in India and a couple of other countries that would make them cheap but not as sturdy as what is used now. And that would be to put thru that "slury" not just crude oil.
Last I heard, that was caught and turned down. Hope it stays that way.
We all want to see people go to work, get jobs but there is an expense involved which a lot of people don't want to face.
Sean


Posts: 6,519
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 3:50 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Also, Republican rhetoric about having this oil stay in the U.S. is bogus. There's a reason Transcanada wants this oil to go to the Gulf of Mexico: because they are planning on putting it on ships and selling it. In fact, Transcanada has told Congress this to their face:

http://cspangeek.com/2011/12/transcanada-will-export-keystone-xl-oil/
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 4:03 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Wow. And to a tax free zone where we , the U.S. get nothing. And, using those old broken down refingeries.
There is just no good reason to be a partner of Keystone and my bloody Rep. should be aware of it.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 5:22 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Turtletoes, I think I'd take your reps word over some of the posters on this board. She should be in a good position to know.

In the meantime, China will begin drilling off our coast.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 5:56 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It isn't only the posters on this board. I've been looking at some of the results of meetings of Congress over the issue.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 6:07 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And as usual, the liberals are against it and the conservatives are for it.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 6:31 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Of course. With due respect. The Lierals are digging to fine whats what. I don't see that with the conservatives.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 6:36 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Originally, the president was in favor of the pipeline but it is now too close to the election. It's expected he will sign it if he gets re-elected.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 7:56 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I hope not. For reasons I've posted for some time.

The statement that President Barack Obama has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline is not accurate. Obama rejected the hurry-up, now-or-never deadline imposed by House Republicans.

The decision will be be made later, when there has been time to sift through the pluses and minuses. On the plus side, many already rich stand to make a lot more money if XL is pushed through. There could be serious minuses, such as environmental disasters which rival other recent happenings, cancelling out the plusses.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 9:34 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I was under the impression that the studies had been done already.

Turtletoes, you commented that many rich stand to make more money. How many poor people do you know that can accomplish this kind of project. It takes people with wealth to accomplish this or any other kind of project.
Sean


Posts: 6,519
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 8:26 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Shar M wrote: I was under the impression that the studies had been done already.

Studies were done on the original routing, but not on a revised routing that would bypass much of the sensitive area. As you noted, it's expected that the Obama Administration will approve that request once they are complete.

Instead, Republicans chose to force a decision now to create a political issue. Now, the pipeline has to go through the process again, and will be delayed. So Republicans chose to create a political issue instead of the pipeline and the jobs. Great work, guys!
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Jan 31, 2012 9:37 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No, Shar, environmentalists, both conservative and liberal are against it. It goes through the sandhills that are the source of the Ogalala aquifer. The pipeline will transport 700,000 gallons of oil a day. We can't afford to have such a pipeline go through that area because a break there could contaminate ground water from Nebraska down into Texas. There are alternatives to the Keystone pipeline that are even cheaper. It is time to look at those alternatives.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 3:34 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I don't understand what one has to do with the other.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 8:42 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Just the concern for the environment. China is not nearly as environmentally concerned as we are. They are drilling near areas where the US should be drilling instead. What recourse do we have for our beaches and environment if China has a breakdown. It won't be cleared up nearly as efficiently or quickly as it was during our own Gulf crisis. I am told the Gulf coast beaches are now better and cleaner than they have been in years.
Sean


Posts: 6,519
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 12:07 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Shar M wrote:What recourse do we have for our beaches and environment if China has a breakdown.

So, you're suggesting that there should be regulation of oil drilling? Are you wearing your red sweater today?
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 1:24 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No, I'm saying that off our shores, we should be doing it instead of China.
Sean


Posts: 6,519
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 1:39 PM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Thank the Bushes for that...
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 2:01 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Jeb Bush was opposed to drilling off the coast of Florida, a decision that I did not agree with, then or now. And much has changed in the years since Jeb was governor.
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 9:19 AM   in response to: Shar M in response to: Shar M
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Once again, Shar, you are telling half truths.

You must be talking about Cuba leasing tracts to foreign companies. Your Representative Stearns has been sounding the alarm about this.

However, you should check The Tampa Bay Times Politifact:

Who holds the rights to the areas? Oil and gas companies based in Spain, Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Brazil. But not China.

China has an onshore, land-based lease in Cuba but not an offshore lease.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1085129.ece

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,294
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 9:47 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Did you read the comments ?
Gramps


Posts: 14,442
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 11:14 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I stand corrected. I just read in the Miami Sentinel that a Chinese deep water rig has arrived in Havana. It is set to start drilling 70 miles off the Keys. I think it does bring up the need for some sort of international regulation of such projects.
Shar M


Posts: 15,911
Re: My Cong. Rep.
Posted: Feb 1, 2012 11:36 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hum, did you run your mouth before you had all the facts? Cliff Stearns is my represenative so there's been considerable discussion of it here in Florida.
And once again you accused me of telling half truths when I knew what I was talking about.

I'm waiting for your apology. Since I'm getting up there in years, gramps, I hope it doesn't take too long.