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

[WillowTree]

No I'm afraid you haven't. You couldnt' make your case about SS. And haven't made the case that you are capable of objective reason. Explain to me why exactly should anyone conclude anything about your intelligence with no other information than you have stack of money and the ability to build something?

I've made my case. Take it or leave it. I got yours too you wants yours NOW.. we get that.

What is it I want now? I just want the bill that makes the most sense for the country. I get the whole "come on, just compromise" argument. And sometimes that's warranted. It just isn't this time for a lot of reasons:

With the economy in the shape it's in, business can't afford any more uncertaintiy about what their expenses will be in the future. A company needs to forecast expenses before it makes decisions in terms of reinvestment and hiring and if all you're going to do is tell them is here's what your expenses will be for the next two months, you might as well be telling them nothing at all. It isn't enough information to make an informed decision.

Denying a project that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs makes no sense other than than trying to score political points with the environmental whacko voter block.

Compromising with the dems on this one hoping the democrats might agree to give them what they want then is wishful thinking. Why would you do that? Will the dems promise the republicans they'll pass the year extension and the pipeline when it comes up again in two months? If that were the case why won't they just do it now?

The repubs most definately should be taking a hard stand on this first and foremost because it is the right thing for the country and secondly there is no good reason to believe that the dems are going to approve the pipeline if made a separate bill nor does it seem likely they will extend the tax cuts once the two months are up. If they were it again begs the simpe question, why won't they just extend it for a year now?

It does go back to critical thinking unfortunately Willow. There is no logical reason to oppose what the repubs want. There is no upside to the american people in extending tax cuts for only two months as opposed to a year and there is no upside to opposing the creation of the jobs that will result from the pipelie. The ONLY benefit is the selfish benefit that democrats won't have to look bad in front of the 'stick it to the rich' and 'environmental whacko' voting blocks.

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

 

[WillowTree]

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.

so anything that makes jobs and makes a product cost more is not a reason to have jobs.. is that it??? well then,, let's get rid of all energy jobs then,, cause they all cause the cost to go up.. yep that the dumbass ticket.

 

[WillowTree]

The GOP sent the Senate a clean bill extending the payroll tax cut?

Really?

When did the president acquire the authority to dictate the content of bills Congress passes?

You mean other than his authority to veto the whole things if he doesn't like the cotent in it?

yes but,, his veto can be over ridden can it not..

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Now you admit you understand cost..

I suppose cost creates jobs no??

I would believe a line sending oil to us would be cheaper than bringing it here by boat???

 

[Nic_Driver]

Democrats say NO to 1 year extension on payroll tax cut

No they didn't.

 

[Bern80]

I've made my case. Take it or leave it. I got yours too you wants yours NOW.. we get that.

What is it I want now? I just want the bill that makes the most sense for the country. I get the whole "come on, just compromise" argument. And sometimes that's warranted. It just isn't this time for a lot of reasons:

With the economy in the shape it's in, business can't afford any more uncertaintiy about what their expenses will be in the future. A company needs to forecast expenses before it makes decisions in terms of reinvestment and hiring and if all you're going to do is tell them is here's what your expenses will be for the next two months, you might as well be telling them nothing at all. It isn't enough information to make an informed decision.

Denying a project that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs makes no sense other than than trying to score political points with the environmental whacko voter block.

Compromising with the dems on this one hoping the democrats might agree to give them what they want then is wishful thinking. Why would you do that? Will the dems promise the republicans they'll pass the year extension and the pipeline when it comes up again in two months? If that were the case why won't they just do it now?

The repubs most definately should be taking a hard stand on this first and foremost because it is the right thing for the country and secondly there is no good reason to believe that the dems are going to approve the pipeline if made a separate bill nor does it seem likely they will extend the tax cuts once the two months are up. If they were it again begs the simpe question, why won't they just extend it for a year now?

It does go back to critical thinking unfortunately Willow. There is no logical reason to oppose what the repubs want. There is no upside to the american people in extending tax cuts for only two months as opposed to a year and there is no upside to opposing the creation of the jobs that will result from the pipelie. The ONLY benefit is the selfish benefit that democrats won't have to look bad in front of the 'stick it to the rich' and 'environmental whacko' voting blocks.

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.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Now you admit you understand cost..

I suppose cost creates jobs no??

I would believe a line sending oil to us would be cheaper than bringing it here by boat???

Depends.

Are you now saying that companies don't pass costs along to consumers?

 

[WillowTree]

What is it I want now? I just want the bill that makes the most sense for the country. I get the whole "come on, just compromise" argument. And sometimes that's warranted. It just isn't this time for a lot of reasons:

With the economy in the shape it's in, business can't afford any more uncertaintiy about what their expenses will be in the future. A company needs to forecast expenses before it makes decisions in terms of reinvestment and hiring and if all you're going to do is tell them is here's what your expenses will be for the next two months, you might as well be telling them nothing at all. It isn't enough information to make an informed decision.

Denying a project that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs makes no sense other than than trying to score political points with the environmental whacko voter block.

Compromising with the dems on this one hoping the democrats might agree to give them what they want then is wishful thinking. Why would you do that? Will the dems promise the republicans they'll pass the year extension and the pipeline when it comes up again in two months? If that were the case why won't they just do it now?

The repubs most definately should be taking a hard stand on this first and foremost because it is the right thing for the country and secondly there is no good reason to believe that the dems are going to approve the pipeline if made a separate bill nor does it seem likely they will extend the tax cuts once the two months are up. If they were it again begs the simpe question, why won't they just extend it for a year now?

It does go back to critical thinking unfortunately Willow. There is no logical reason to oppose what the repubs want. There is no upside to the american people in extending tax cuts for only two months as opposed to a year and there is no upside to opposing the creation of the jobs that will result from the pipelie. The ONLY benefit is the selfish benefit that democrats won't have to look bad in front of the 'stick it to the rich' and 'environmental whacko' voting blocks.

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Now you admit you understand cost..

I suppose cost creates jobs no??

I would believe a line sending oil to us would be cheaper than bringing it here by boat???

Depends.

Are you now saying that companies don't pass costs along to consumers?

so we shouldn't have anymore companies? is that what ewe think?

 

[Bern80]

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.

Now you admit you understand cost..

I suppose cost creates jobs no??

I would believe a line sending oil to us would be cheaper than bringing it here by boat???

Depends.

Are you now saying that companies don't pass costs along to consumers?

No it doesn't depend. When supply goes up, price goes down. That is one of the more basic laws of supply and demand. Certainly expenses do get pased on to customers, but a couple of other fairly basic principles would prevent that from happening in this case. First, TransCanada is not the only prodcuer of oil in the world. While they may like to pass the cost of the pipeline they don't have the market share to be able to raise the market price of a barrel of oil. They won't be able to sell oil for more than the going market rate. Secondly, while the pipeline construction is an expense, it's the least expensive option. Even if what you say were true (and it isn't) that the price of oil will go up in defiance of all the laws of supply and demand, it still would go up less than the alternative of transporting the oil to some other refinery (plan B is to build the pipeline to the Vancouver coast and ship the crude to China for refining). Again they have the same problem; while that is a more expensive means of refining it and thus may require them to pass more cost on to customer they can't afford to try to sell it for more than everyone else.

 

[JDzBrain]

I just sent the Speaker of the House an at-a-boy message and told him to hold the line on this. I hope he does.

As to this NONSENSE about the pipeline. Let's see, we can begin to stop sending 400 billion a year over to the Saudis who are teaching 9th graders to kill Israelis and how and where to cut off hands in feet, or buy oil from Canadians...who only want to cut off American hands and feet, but don't have enough guns to get that done...and create jobs for Canadians and Americans.

I vote for Canada!

And as to the IDIOTIC crap about green energy. Do you realize that every bit, every solar cell, every wind turbine, wave generator, every wood/waste gassification generator, EVERY "green" energy source currently in production in this country, which has had TRILLIONS of tax dollars spent to employ, by the way...EVERY BIT OF IT...produces EXACTLY .001% of the total energy consumed by Americans each year. You read that right. 1/10th of 1%...total!

Just so you get the picture, if we spent the ENTIRE GDP of this country on converting to "green" energy sources until we were completely converted...YOU would STILL not be alive by the time it was payed for!

Yeah...THAT makes sense!

 

[rdean]

Funny how right wingers are suddenly so concerned about budgets when Bush and the Republicans didn't include the cost of two wars, and trillions lost from tax cuts for the wealthy and a ginormous "drugs for votes" bill, both passed through reconciliation. Only now.

 

[Bern80]

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.

The only opposition I am aware of is that you somehow think this is actually going to effect what people draw out of SS sometime down the road. All that has to do with the above is 'how' the above gets paid for. It doesn't explain at all why the above are bad ideas.

 

[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

 

[Conservative]

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???

 

[WillowTree]

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?

 

[Bern80]

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

None of which makes any sense whatsoever. First according to who is capacity exceeding demand? Secondly why would a company build a pipeline to ship something there is no demand for? You say they will increases prices per barrel mile. Okay, TransCanada isn't the only supplier of oil in the world. If they are going to try to sell there's for more, we'll buy it from someone else for less.

You're also assuming this oil is going to be used for just U.S. consumption. That isn't so. TransCanada is just trying to get the crude refined into product as cheaply as possible. From their they can sell it to anyone in the global market.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

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.

 

[Conservative]

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

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.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

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...