Why would any president want higher gas prices, skyrocketing rates,lay off 400,000?

[edthecynic]

Five years into the Obama Administration and those skyrocketing electricity prices have failed to materialize.

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

 

[Redfish]

The fact remains that the average price of gas has been higher under Obama than the previous president. Higher gas prices means higher prices everywhere else.

Now if you want to compare energy prices:

EIA - Electricity Data

The price depends on where you live, but it has gone up and yet the far left thinks that higher gas prices and higher electric bills will some how help the poor.

Not only that, they think higher prices will hurt the evil rich that they hate so much. Do these ignorant libs think that Oprah gives a shit how much a gallon of gas costs?

 

[plant]

You can believe what is printed in left wing blogs if you choose, but to do so is just ignorant-------I guess the shoe fits------------

Ignorant is the GOP mantra ,so start tying them shoes !

"If you like your heathcare policy, you can keep it, period"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period"
"57 states"
"the average person will see his healthcare premium decrease by $2500"
"raising the national debt is unpatriotic and a failure of leadership"
"corpseman"

speaking of ignorant and lying-----------------

Whaaaa . It's politics they fucking lie , all of them . Not just red or blue . Wow you do know the tooth fairy is not real , how about the Easter bunny sheeeez

 

[Redfish]

Five years into the Obama Administration and those skyrocketing electricity prices have failed to materialize.

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

False narrative. There is no requirement that all gas refined on the gulf coast has to be exported. Shipping gas costs money, the oil companies would much rather sell it in the US.

Plus, building the pipeline would create thousands of new jobs in the USA. I thought you libs wanted more jobs?????

 

[Redfish]

Sur

Ignorant is the GOP mantra ,so start tying them shoes !

"If you like your heathcare policy, you can keep it, period"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period"
"57 states"
"the average person will see his healthcare premium decrease by $2500"
"raising the national debt is unpatriotic and a failure of leadership"
"corpseman"

speaking of ignorant and lying-----------------

sure they all lie. But you libs refuse to acknowledge the lies spouted by your kenyan messiah.

Admit that obama has been a terrible president and then we can proceed to discuss what needs to change and why.

Your continual worship of this failure of a president is making everything worse----admit the truth and then we can move on to fix the mess.



Whaaaa . It's politics they fucking lie , all of them . Not just red or blue . Wow you do know the tooth fairy is not real , how about the Easter bunny sheeeez

sure, they all lie, obama has just taken it to a new level.

 

[Kosh]

Five years into the Obama Administration and those skyrocketing electricity prices have failed to materialize.

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

Oh my! * Yawn *

Pulling from a far left blog site, boring!

 

[Kosh]

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

False narrative. There is no requirement that all gas refined on the gulf coast has to be exported. Shipping gas costs money, the oil companies would much rather sell it in the US.

Plus, building the pipeline would create thousands of new jobs in the USA. I thought you libs wanted more jobs?????

Many of those jobs would be union jobs, you would think the far left would support the mechanism that feed the bulk of the DNC coffers.

 

[Redfish]

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

False narrative. There is no requirement that all gas refined on the gulf coast has to be exported. Shipping gas costs money, the oil companies would much rather sell it in the US.

Plus, building the pipeline would create thousands of new jobs in the USA. I thought you libs wanted more jobs?????

Many of those jobs would be union jobs, you would think the far left would support the mechanism that feed the bulk of the DNC coffers.

But, but, but some evil corporation might make an evil profit, libs just cannot have anyone making a profit, especially a corporation.

 

[healthmyths]

Five years into the Obama Administration and those skyrocketing electricity prices have failed to materialize.

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

HEY!!! All that maybe true!
BUT tell me with all your analysis and supporting documents WHY are you evidently in favor of 1 million barrels per day floating on the open seas (kind of like Exxon Valdez?)
versus 700 barrels flowing in one mile of secured pipeline on dry land?
Which do you think would do more damage if there were an accident???

I really don't understand environmentalists as the chances are so great and the damage is so great risking 1 million barrels in a tanker versus 700 barrels in one mile of pipe!

 

[healthmyths]

Ignorant is the GOP mantra ,so start tying them shoes !

"If you like your heathcare policy, you can keep it, period"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period"
"57 states"
"the average person will see his healthcare premium decrease by $2500"
"raising the national debt is unpatriotic and a failure of leadership"
"corpseman"

speaking of ignorant and lying-----------------

Whaaaa . It's politics they fucking lie , all of them . Not just red or blue . Wow you do know the tooth fairy is not real , how about the Easter bunny sheeeez

AND do you know that:
10 million of the 46 phony million uninsured are not legal citizens?
14 million of the 46 million don't know they are already eligible for Medicaid so they aren't "uninsured'?
18 million of the 46 phony million are under 34, make over $50k and don't want their employers' health plans as it is more then they spend on health services?
The PHONY number of 46 million is really 4 million that want and need NOT 46 million which was used to PASS ACA!
If more idiots realized what a SCAM that number is maybe you'd wake up and realize what JOKE Obama is and what fools you've become!

 

[deltex1]

NOT one single supporter has yet come up with ANY justification for ANY president to make totally ignorant and grossly uninformed statements like these!

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Obama: I?ll make energy prices ?skyrocket? « Hot Air
So Obama WANTS ordinary people and businesses to PAY higher rates thus forcing people to spend less, employers to lay off workers?
NET effect:
Obama hire EPA management that sole objective is to destroy businesses that employ people!
"EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year,
while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

Boiler MACT Rule: EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas.
The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.
Articles: Obama's EPA Plans for 2013


Obama says..I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly" LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
WHAT will employers do when delivery truck gas prices climb? Stop delivering or raise prices. Means no drivers.. means unemployed!
Why in any sane world would a President say he'd like higher gas prices??? Ignorance?

Finally do you comprehend when Obama says "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program"
IF OBAMA is a proponent... that means he is against the 1,300 health insurance companies existing!
400,000 jobs GONE!! $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local/property taxes gone!

So explain to me why ANY American wants: higher utility prices, gas prices and destroy 1,300 companies?

NO matter what the context this is a destructive policy NOT constructive and IF Obama is so stupid not to be able to accomplish his goals without destroying
America... geez you idiots that support him... he really isn't that smart then!

YOU don't have to want alternative energy sources by destroying current ones.
You don't have to destroy the tax base, jobs, etc. to combat global warming!
If Obama is that stupid to want higher gas prices, utility rates to skyrocket, bankrupt companies... don't you think there are smarter people then him???

The schmuck wants to funnel more money to the Solyndraphiles...

 

[whitehall]

A president who wants to destroy the fabric of society as we Americans know it.

 

[edthecynic]

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

HEY!!! All that maybe true!
BUT tell me with all your analysis and supporting documents WHY are you evidently in favor of 1 million barrels per day floating on the open seas (kind of like Exxon Valdez?)
versus 700 barrels flowing in one mile of secured pipeline on dry land?
Which do you think would do more damage if there were an accident???

I really don't understand environmentalists as the chances are so great and the damage is so great risking 1 million barrels in a tanker versus 700 barrels in one mile of pipe!

You've asked this on other threads and every time it is answered you run away only to ask it again on a new thread.

Since the Canadian oil products are being sent over the Keystone XL for the purpose of export using the deep water ports in the Gulf, not only are you not eliminating a single barrel from being shipped over open seas, you are actually increasing the number of barrels on the open sea.

So which is worse, barrels of Canadian tar sand pipelined to the midwest that stay in the US and do not end up on the open seas, or diverting that same tar sand to the Gulf with the Keystone XL and then shipping the products over the open seas to the world market????

 

[healthmyths]

The whole purpose of the Keystone XL is to DIVERT oil away from the US to the deep water ports of the Gulf where it can be sold overseas. The Canadian government openly admits it!!!

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come.* Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.*

The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL's impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public's concerns about water and safety.*

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity.* TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada's President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL's crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.*
Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

HEY!!! All that maybe true!
BUT tell me with all your analysis and supporting documents WHY are you evidently in favor of 1 million barrels per day floating on the open seas (kind of like Exxon Valdez?)
versus 700 barrels flowing in one mile of secured pipeline on dry land?
Which do you think would do more damage if there were an accident???

I really don't understand environmentalists as the chances are so great and the damage is so great risking 1 million barrels in a tanker versus 700 barrels in one mile of pipe!

You've asked this on other threads and every time it is answered you run away only to ask it again on a new thread.

Since the Canadian oil products are being sent over the Keystone XL for the purpose of export using the deep water ports in the Gulf, not only are you not eliminating a single barrel from being shipped over open seas, you are actually increasing the number of barrels on the open sea.

So which is worse, barrels of Canadian tar sand pipelined to the midwest that stay in the US and do not end up on the open seas, or diverting that same tar sand to the Gulf with the Keystone XL and then shipping the products over the open seas to the world market????

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious but which is more conducive to accidents.. Northern/Arctic seas or Gulf of Mexico?

 

[edthecynic]

HEY!!! All that maybe true!
BUT tell me with all your analysis and supporting documents WHY are you evidently in favor of 1 million barrels per day floating on the open seas (kind of like Exxon Valdez?)
versus 700 barrels flowing in one mile of secured pipeline on dry land?
Which do you think would do more damage if there were an accident???

I really don't understand environmentalists as the chances are so great and the damage is so great risking 1 million barrels in a tanker versus 700 barrels in one mile of pipe!

You've asked this on other threads and every time it is answered you run away only to ask it again on a new thread.

Since the Canadian oil products are being sent over the Keystone XL for the purpose of export using the deep water ports in the Gulf, not only are you not eliminating a single barrel from being shipped over open seas, you are actually increasing the number of barrels on the open sea.

So which is worse, barrels of Canadian tar sand pipelined to the midwest that stay in the US and do not end up on the open seas, or diverting that same tar sand to the Gulf with the Keystone XL and then shipping the products over the open seas to the world market????

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious but which is more conducive to accidents.. Northern/Arctic seas or Gulf of Mexico?

What does that have to do with the fact that if the Keystone XL is not built, none of the Canadian oil products end up on the open seas?!!!

 

[healthmyths]

You've asked this on other threads and every time it is answered you run away only to ask it again on a new thread.

Since the Canadian oil products are being sent over the Keystone XL for the purpose of export using the deep water ports in the Gulf, not only are you not eliminating a single barrel from being shipped over open seas, you are actually increasing the number of barrels on the open sea.

So which is worse, barrels of Canadian tar sand pipelined to the midwest that stay in the US and do not end up on the open seas, or diverting that same tar sand to the Gulf with the Keystone XL and then shipping the products over the open seas to the world market????

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious but which is more conducive to accidents.. Northern/Arctic seas or Gulf of Mexico?

What does that have to do with the fact that if the Keystone XL is not built, none of the Canadian oil products end up on the open seas?!!!

GEEZ I can't believe what you wrote!
So you are concluding that Canada will NOT ship the oil by tankers?????

 

[g5000]

Five years into the Obama Administration and those skyrocketing electricity prices have failed to materialize.

It hasn't happened because demand is down in a crappy economy. If Keystone had been built gasoline could be much cheaper than it is today.

Nope. It has not happened because natural gas is on the upsurge and is replacing coal. And natural gas has lower carbon emissions. It is win/win for everyone!

And that is why you rubes don't quote Obama's entire answer. Because he plainly ended his answer with, "...also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit."

 

[Indeependent]

"If you like your heathcare policy, you can keep it, period"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period"
"57 states"
"the average person will see his healthcare premium decrease by $2500"
"raising the national debt is unpatriotic and a failure of leadership"
"corpseman"

speaking of ignorant and lying-----------------

Whaaaa . It's politics they fucking lie , all of them . Not just red or blue . Wow you do know the tooth fairy is not real , how about the Easter bunny sheeeez

AND do you know that:
10 million of the 46 phony million uninsured are not legal citizens?
14 million of the 46 million don't know they are already eligible for Medicaid so they aren't "uninsured'?
18 million of the 46 phony million are under 34, make over $50k and don't want their employers' health plans as it is more then they spend on health services?
The PHONY number of 46 million is really 4 million that want and need NOT 46 million which was used to PASS ACA!
If more idiots realized what a SCAM that number is maybe you'd wake up and realize what JOKE Obama is and what fools you've become!

And YOU know that all of these people have been getting "free" health care since 1981 thanks to ReaganCare.

 

[Stephanie]

Gas prices have been over $3.00 a gallon for five years under Obama

that has caused the price of everything to go up and has been a drain on everyone from going to work everyday to buy food to feed their families and other staples to live on

we are worse off under his rule of our country

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious but which is more conducive to accidents.. Northern/Arctic seas or Gulf of Mexico?

What does that have to do with the fact that if the Keystone XL is not built, none of the Canadian oil products end up on the open seas?!!!

GEEZ I can't believe what you wrote!
So you are concluding that Canada will NOT ship the oil by tankers?????

That's right because the Canadian people will not allow the pipeline to be built to the sea over Canadian land. That is why Canada wants to build it over USA land, the Canadian people don't want the pipeline on their land.