# First Day of the 114th.. First Veto!



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/politics/keystone-obama-veto/



> Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will veto the Keystone XL bill if Congress passes a measure green-lighting the oil pipeline, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced on Tuesday.




So that's done... And I'm sure this is the very first of many more to come.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 6, 2015)

[h=1]More first day antics......

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One[/h]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/social-security-di-house-rules-change 

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress. 

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform. 

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address.​
Please don't underestimate the damage they can do the next two years.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 6, 2015)

That's too bad, the Keystone Pipeline is a non-issue, IMO, and he shouldn't be vetoing it.  He should choose his battles more carefully, there's more important things to concentrate on like health care, social security, medicare, etc.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

Why not veto it?   It's not like he has a veto limit...  He should veto everything crappy thing they try.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Why not veto it?   It's not like he has a veto limit...  He should veto everything crappy thing they try.



You are exactly right!  We had all better hope he vetos.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 6, 2015)

And right now the enthusiasm for Keystone is on the wane and a veto will easily be sustained. Why the Republicans decided to hang their hat on that dumb issue is beyond me. I'm so opposed to helping the Canadians develop those super dirty oil sands. I use to think of our neighbors to the north as exemplary world citizens but the oil sands are a stain on their reputation.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

The best part is that the Republicans are far from having a veto proof majority..  so all the vetos will stand..  Like I told the rable rousers and  cheer leaders for the GOP "victory" in November...... ((((((yawn)))))) so what?


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

He needs to sign it so he'll know what's in it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm now beginning to see the power the Minority has...  The Republicans filibustered just about everything...  NOW the favor will be returned.. AND in addition, we have the VETO..     Thankfully, Ole' Mitch will NOT take the silent filibuster away.... because he knows he will probably lose the Majority in 2 years.   So now the Dems protect us from the radical Right agenda.  NOW if Republicans will only get serious and pass things that will actually benefit the American people, I am sure the left and the President will be happy to work with them.. BUT all the crap about cutting programs and repealing the ACA will be dead in the water.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

We will soon see I'm sure. No need to speculate.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 7, 2015)

In two years the GOP will have made enough mistakes to ensure big losses in '16.  I am glad he will veto the Canadian pipe line through our country.  As to control of both houses of congress by GOP, the last time that happened was 1928 and next came the great depression.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> In two years the GOP will have made enough mistakes to ensure big losses in '16.  I am glad he will veto the Canadian pipe line through our country.



For the life of me... I can't understand why the Republicans chose this as their 1st order of business..  Particularly since Tar Sands is no longer profitable.   I heard this morning it costs $80 to drag up one barrel of Tar Sands... and oil is now selling for under $50.    All I can figure is that the GOP is so indebted to Big Oil for their win in November, it's a promise they have to keep.  Look for more HUGE bills to appease their puppet masters.   Prez... order in a new supply of veto pens.


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

so the grid lock contines. who pays??


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> so the grid lock contines. who pays??



We would pay a far greater price if the GOP were allowed to run roughshod over seniors and the middle class... So... I pick grid-lock..


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> We would pay a far greater price if the GOP were allowed to run roughshod over seniors and the middle class... So... I pick grid-lock..



grid lock. so the Gov shuts down. now what


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> grid lock. so the Gov shuts down. now what



Guess the GOP will pay BIG time in 2016...  After all... They were elected to govern..  If they can't, and the government shuts down they will be blamed and pay the price.  Don't worry... they won't shut down the government..... AGAIN....  will they?


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Guess the GOP will pay BIG time in 2016...  After all... They were elected to govern..  If they can't, and the government shuts down they will be blamed and pay the price.  Don't worry... they won't shut down the government..... AGAIN....  will they?



and the dems?  why were they elected?? they're paying an even bigger price now. ie the mid term. the country said enough of liberal politics. and they will lose in 16. you want grid lock. my concern is the country. or do we even matter to you??? remember. you pay to


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> and the dems?  why were they elected?? they're paying an even bigger price now. ie the mid term. the country said enough of liberal politics. and they will lose in 16. you want grid lock. my concern is the country. or do we even matter to you??? remember. you pay to



My, (and the Democrats) concern is for the country... particularly for the welfare of the people.. especially the poor and middle class.. and more particularly Seniors.  If the Republicans had their way, all the money would be filtered to the top and the rest of us will have nothing..Corporations would have slave labor and continue to call the shots.   That's the kind of America we want?  Not me..  We will reign in their radical agenda until we take back control in 2016.  THAT is what is best for our country.

You think you will win in 2016?  guess again...  the GOP took control ONLY because of gerrymandered districts and voter apathy.  You DO realize only 35% of the electorate voted in the midterms.   The General will bring out the liberal base in droves as it always does.   If the GOP  proves they cannot govern in the next 2 years they will lose the Senate and perhaps the House.   They will be blamed for any and ALL grid-lock..  As we speak, the Presidents approval rating is going up.

In addition, in 2016 the Republicans will have to defend 24 Senate seats, many of them in States won by Obama.  The Dems only are defending 10.  SOOOO.... the picture is bleak for the GOP in 2016.. enjoy your time in control.. it won't last


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

In reality, the Keystone Pipeline is not that big a deal.  The Canadian oil has been moving smoothly to our refineries in Texas for the last couple of years, via existing routes, and rail.  The Keystone would shorten the route, and be far safer than moving this oil via rail.  This entire issue is far more Political, than anything.  Our Texas refineries are about the only ones that can handle this Heavy Crude efficiently.  Those in the rest of the world are designed only to process the Light Crude.  So, both the US and Canada have a vested interest in working together if this oil is going to be processed.  Besides, every barrel that comes from these shores lessens the likelihood that we would ever again be held hostage by the Arabs....remember the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970's???  Like it or not, we depend upon a reliable and affordable source of oil to sustain our economy, and I would far rather see dollars going to Canada, than to Kuwait.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

Don M. said:


> In reality, the Keystone Pipeline is not that big a deal.  The Canadian oil has been moving smoothly to our refineries in Texas for the last couple of years, via existing routes, and rail.  The Keystone would shorten the route, and be far safer than moving this oil via rail.  This entire issue is far more Political, than anything.  Our Texas refineries are about the only ones that can handle this Heavy Crude efficiently.  Those in the rest of the world are designed only to process the Light Crude.  So, both the US and Canada have a vested interest in working together if this oil is going to be processed.  Besides, every barrel that comes from these shores lessens the likelihood that we would ever again be held hostage by the Arabs....remember the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970's???  Like it or not, we depend upon a reliable and affordable source of oil to sustain our economy, and I would far rather see dollars going to Canada, than to Kuwait.



We should be leaving that crap in the ground anyway.  It's not going to impact the US... that oil is going to China..  do you like that?


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> My, (and the Democrats) concern is for the country... particularly for the welfare of the people.. especially the poor and middle class.. and more particularly Seniors.  If the Republicans had their way, all the money would be filtered to the top and the rest of us will have nothing..Corporations would have slave labor and continue to call the shots.   That's the kind of America we want?  Not me..  We will reign in their radical agenda until we take back control in 2016.  THAT is what is best for our country.
> 
> You think you will win in 2016?  guess again...  the GOP took control ONLY because of gerrymandered districts and voter apathy.  You DO realize only 35% of the electorate voted in the midterms.   The General will bring out the liberal base in droves as it always does.   If the GOP  proves they cannot govern in the next 2 years they will lose the Senate and perhaps the House.   They will be blamed for any and ALL grid-lock..  As we speak, the Presidents approval rating is going up.
> 
> In addition, in 2016 the Republicans will have to defend 24 Senate seats, many of them in States won by Obama.  The Dems only are defending 10.  SOOOO.... the picture is bleak for the GOP in 2016.. enjoy your time in control.. it won't last



your from CA all right. fulla BS


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

Social Security....and more specifically the SSDI, is going to be a real hot button issue.  SSDI funding will be depleted sometime in early 2016, and how Washington handles that situation could very well effect the other entitlements such as SS and Medicare/Medicaid.  SS and Medicare have been a couple of the Only programs that have been fairly well managed by the government, whereas SSDI has been Raped by Fraud.  

You don't have to watch TV for very long before you see a commercial from some shady law firm promising to get people signed up for SSDI. "60 Minutes" did an expose on that program about a year ago, and there was no shortage of examples of lawyers "gaming" that program by signing up people whose biggest problem was a "hangnail"....and getting huge legal fees for doing so.  Like anything else, it doesn't take many Cheats to screw things up for Everyone.


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> We should be leaving that crap in the ground anyway.  It's not going to impact the US... that oil is going to China..  do you like that?



via Harry Reid and his kick backs from Beijing


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> your from CA all right. fulla BS



I'm from CA??   lol!!

( and.... it's you're.. not your)


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> via Harry Reid and his kick backs from Beijing



Really??  Do you have a link for that.... I mean from someplace other than a far Right wing-nut site or Limbaugh?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Social Security....and more specifically the SSDI, is going to be a real hot button issue.  SSDI funding will be depleted sometime in early 2016, and how Washington handles that situation could very well effect the other entitlements such as SS and Medicare/Medicaid.  SS and Medicare have been a couple of the Only programs that have been fairly well managed by the government, whereas SSDI has been Raped by Fraud.
> 
> You don't have to watch TV for very long before you see a commercial from some shady law firm promising to get people signed up for SSDI. "60 Minutes" did an expose on that program about a year ago, and there was no shortage of examples of lawyers "gaming" that program by signing up people whose biggest problem was a "hangnail"....and getting huge legal fees for doing so.  Like anything else, it doesn't take many Cheats to screw things up for Everyone.



Perhaps raising the cap on the income FICA is paid on... to maybe $500,000 instead of $115,000?   Do you think the GOP would go for that?   That would make SS and Medicare solvent FOREVER...


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

"That Oil is going to China".  Perhaps, but if so, that is one of the VERY Few things that we are exporting that might help balance our debt with other nations.  Someone is going to process that oil, and far better that our refineries do so, than shipping it to China and letting them pollute the planet even more, with refineries that aren't well equipped to handle it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

Don M. said:


> "That Oil is going to China".  Perhaps, but if so, that is one of the VERY Few things that we are exporting that might help balance our debt with other nations.  Someone is going to process that oil, and far better that our refineries do so, than shipping it to China and letting them pollute the planet even more, with refineries that aren't well equipped to handle it.




OR it could be left in the ground... why is Canada not refining it themselves.. and shipping it off THEIR West Coast?  Too dirty and dangerous for them?


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Really??  Do you have a link for that.... I mean from someplace other than a far Right wing-nut site or Limbaugh?



ok so *your* from Chicago

all kinds a links. why should I show em to a far left lug nut like you??? just stay in line with all the other ducks


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

Raising the CAP on SS funding is far and away the Most Sensible Solution for the long term solvency of SS.  As we have more and more Seniors every year, any attempt to dismantle SS would be political suicide for any politician who hoped to dismantle that system...BUT ONLY if Seniors are paying attention, and voicing their concern about any such attempts.  

SS is the most Stable of our entitlements, and its funding is the most secure...so far.  Long before SS gets into trouble SSDI and Medicare will become major problems.  How our government handles SSDI, and how Obamacare affects our current health care system will give us a good clue as to what SS will look like years from now.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> ok so *your* from Chicago
> 
> all kinds a links. why should I show em to a far left lug nut like you??? just stay in line with all the other ducks



In other words.... Ya got nuttin'   lol!!!     *YOU'RE a hoot!  *


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> OR it could be left in the ground... why is Canada not refining it themselves.. and shipping it off THEIR West Coast?  Too dirty and dangerous for them?



As I said before, our Texas refineries are some of the very few, globally, which are equipped to handle the Heavy Crude from Canada.  I suppose the Canadians could spend billions, and take years, to build their own refineries, but since we already have the capability, it only makes good financial sense....for both nations...to ship it here and refine it.  Then, if it IS exported, at least we get back some of the 10's of billions our people spend every year on "Made in China".


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

Don M. said:


> As I said before, our Texas refineries are some of the very few, globally, which are equipped to handle the Heavy Crude from Canada.  I suppose the Canadians could spend billions, and take years, to build their own refineries, but since we already have the capability, it only makes good financial sense....for both nations...to ship it here and refine it.  Then, if it IS exported, at least we get back some of the 10's of billions our people spend every year on "Made in China".



So let me get this straight... You are fine with risking OUR land and aquifer to move the filthiest of ALL oil across it so Canada can be spared the expense of building a refinery and profit from the export?   IT'S NOT OUR OIL!  Canada will make all the profit... we will take all the risk.   It's not going to benefit us at all.. either economically.. OR at the pump.


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> In other words.... Ya got nuttin'   lol!!!     *YOU'RE a hoot!  *



and you got nuttin' to give


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So let me get this straight... You are fine with risking OUR land and aquifer to move the filthiest of ALL oil across it so Canada can be spared the expense of building a refinery and profit from the export?   IT'S NOT OUR OIL!  Canada will make all the profit... we will take all the risk.   It's not going to benefit us at all.. either economically.. OR at the pump.



OK...let me address a couple of your concerns.  First, the current proposed route for the XL Pipeline has been moved North and East of the original proposals...so as to give the Ogallala Aquifer a wide berth, in the unlikely event that a major break might occur.  Such a pipeline would be a Far Safer means of moving this oil than trying to move it along our rapidly aging rail lines.  Besides, as an example, the Alaskan Pipeline has been in use for many years, and I am not aware of any problems with that pipeline.  Further, the Ogallala Aquifer is being so rapidly depleted that the present corn and wheat fields it supports in Nebraska and Kansas may well be history in another 10 or 20 years...just think of what THAT is going to do to grocery prices.  

Insofar as Profit going all to Canada....I doubt very seriously that our refineries are processing this oil for Free.  This oil processing is making good money for our refineries, and the people who work there.  Heaven knows...in this current economy we need all the good jobs and high wages we can come up with.  

I like most people, am always concerned about the environment...but the application of good common sense can usually come up with a means of sustaining our nations needs, while doing minimal damage to our surroundings.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

I agree Don. Another plus that we really need now is the good jobs building the pipeline.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

I hope, one day, we will see a high priority being placed on rebuilding our infrastructure, and putting people to work in good, high paying construction jobs...rather than just extending Unemployment benefits.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 7, 2015)

The money we borrow to give to our enemies would build a lot of bridges.


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> I agree Don. Another plus that we really need now is the good jobs building the pipeline.



or the oil fields in ND, need a job?? start at 6 figures. more jobs than people. there's enough oil under this country to last until the rapture.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

Don M. said:


> I hope, one day, we will see a high priority being placed on rebuilding our infrastructure, and putting people to work in good, high paying construction jobs...rather than just extending Unemployment benefits.



I agree... however, the Keystone XL will not do that.. It will provide about 42,000 TEMPORARY jobs during construction and only about 35 permanent ones.  Better to put the money into roads and bridges and high speed rail... forget the pipeline...  It's not worth anything to us... just Canada.   that has been documented over and over... WHY you don't believe it is beyond me..  You prefer some talking point put out that has been proven to be false.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> or the oil fields in ND, need a job?? start at 6 figures. more jobs than people. there's enough oil under this country to last until the rapture.




Oh it will destroy planet earth LONG before that happens...


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh it will destroy planet earth LONG before that happens...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

How sad....  I'm going to the store... Want me to restock you Kool aid?


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> How sad....  I'm going to the store... Want me to restock you Kool aid?



only libs drink it. get me a bottle of jack Daniel's


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm in favor of the KeystonePipeline, I think it would be good for the American workers and the economy. There has to be some give and take on both parties, not everything is black and white. I understand the oil is coming here anyway by railroad, but we're not getting the benefits of putting our middle class citizens to work.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...peline-report/


_
The State Department just came out with its latest report on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The report finds that the pipeline’s construction would create almost 2,000 jobs that last for two years and would support more than 40,000 jobs.

The report further finds that the pipeline likely would not harm the environment when considered relative to what will happen if the pipeline is not built. Yet, even given these clear facts in favor of green lighting the pipeline, don’t expect an approval in the near future. 

The State Department deserves considerable praise for such a fair and unbiased report. Essentially the report focuses on three aspects: jobs, environmental impacts from the pipeline, and what would happen if the pipeline were not built. The findings, taken together, make clear to anybody with an open mind that the pipeline should be approved.

On the jobs front, the report estimates the pipeline’s construction would result in 3,900 jobs over two years. The additional spending on construction material would push the job gains up to about 42,000 counting jobs building the pipeline, selling materials for the pipeline, and those supported by the spending of people in the first two categories. 

Considering how the president claims that jobs are his top priority, a project that would create 42,000 jobs according to the administration’s own study while using no government money would seem to be a good deal.




keystone pipeline(Photo credit: shannonpatrick17)



The environmental risks from the pipeline were deemed to be minimal by a fair reading of the report. The route of the pipeline has been shifted since the initial application was filed and now avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska that had raised concerns from many environmentalists. 

There are still risks of spills from the pipeline, but the report puts those in perspective relative to other ways to transport the oil. A similar approach is taken to the impact of the pipeline on climate change. 

When environmentalists first tried to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, their goal in blocking the pipeline was to have the oil stay deep in the Canadian tar sands where it lies now. 

In the five years of dithering over the pipeline by the Obama Administration, that goal has not been fulfilled. Instead, the Canadians moved full speed ahead on bringing up the oil. For now, a lot of the oil is moved by rail. 

In the future, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, it appears likely that a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and rail cars will send the same amount of oil to a mix of U.S. refineries and China. 


With the State Department correctly admitting that the oil will be mined and refined regardless of whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the impact of the pipeline on climate change due to emissions from using these fossil fuels becomes negligible. 

If anything, emissions should be somewhat lower if the oil is refined and used in the U.S. with our environmental regulation than if it travels to China.
_


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 7, 2015)

Shut down?  Anyone think THAT will help GOP?


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'm in favor of the KeystonePipeline, I think it would be good for the American workers and the economy. There has to be some give and take on both parties, not everything is black and white. I understand the oil is coming here anyway by railroad, but we're not getting the benefits of putting our middle class citizens to work.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...peline-report/
> 
> 
> _
> ...


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Shut down?  Anyone think THAT will help GOP?



the GOP wants it to flow. but the dems hate oil


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)




----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 7, 2015)

Oil Field Dodge


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Oil Field Dodge



what was it a nickel a gallon then???


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 7, 2015)

They say it was 20 cents a gallon, and people complained it was too high because of their earnings back then. http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver...ost-of-gasoline-be-thankful-its-not-1920.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> the GOP wants it to flow. but the dems hate oil



Nonsense..... BUT we do enjoy breathing clean air, and having pure drinking water.... call us radical....  :grin:


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Nonsense..... BUT we do enjoy breathing clean air, and having pure drinking water.... call us radical....  :grin:



where's my bottle???


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> They say it was 20 cents a gallon, and people complained it was too high because of their earnings back then. http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver...ost-of-gasoline-be-thankful-its-not-1920.html



that's is high. I remember 25 cents a gal and something called gas wars


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2015)

kcvet said:


> where's my bottle???




Booze or Kool Aid?  Both explain a lot... hahahaha..


----------



## kcvet (Jan 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Booze or Kool Aid?  Both explain a lot... hahahaha..



how about i spike your kool aid with whiskey???


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> The money we borrow to give to our enemies would build a lot of bridges.



The hundreds of billions we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably suffice to rebuild our entire infrastructure.  After 10 years, Iraq has descended into a total mess, and Afghanistan will probably follow suit.  We have been "training" their armies for years, so they can stand alone...and still they cannot do the job.  It takes 2 or 3 months to take one of our kids from high school and turn him into a decent soldier...but these Muslims take Years????  Now, as part of the agreement to pull out of Afghanistan, Obama is giving Afghanistan 6 billion a year to "continue that training".  Baloney...someone in these countries is padding their Swiss bank accounts with our tax dollars. 

But, I digress....we were discussing the XL Pipeline.  For every argument Against it, I can find 2 or 3 For it.  Unfortunately, it seems to have become a Political Football.  Those on the Extreme Left are Against it, while those on the Extreme Right are allowing themselves to be distracted and failing to sell this pipeline on its merits.  Both extremes need to exit the picture, and let the majority of the people, who see the potential benefits of this project, prevail.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 7, 2015)

It seems like we pay a lot of money per gallon in gas taxes in the US, both state and federal.  Where is all this money going, they don't seem to be fixes roads or bridges with it? http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/02/07/this-gasoline-tax-map-explains-a-lot/


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2015)

Yes, we pay quite a bit in gasoline taxes, but that money is barely keeping up with basic maintenance on the rusty bridges, and potholed roads.  The Federal Gasoline tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and it hasn't kept up with the growing needs.  People are driving less, and driving far more fuel efficient cars, so the revenues, per vehicle, are actually dropping, but the roads and bridges are still suffering the ravages of time and use.  At some point, we are going to have to bite the bullet, and start paying a bit more if we want to keep driving on decent roads.  With this lower oil price, this would be a real good time for the Feds and States to start talking about adding some fuel taxes.  

Gas prices in Europe are 2 or 3 times what we pay, and most of that is taxes which are used to sustain their mass transit systems.  Here, mass transit wouldn't be sustainable except for some of our heavily populated coastal regions, so we need to have decent roads and bridges.  Like anything else, you get what you pay for, and we are Not paying for much in the way of roads.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 8, 2015)

And all the while... major corporations are allowed subsidies and tax breaks that in essence makes their tax burden near zero... having them pay a fair share just might address the problem...   YET... whenever that is pointed out... the GOP fights to keep them on Welfare...  Puzzling...

But the main thing.... for now.. or at least until 2016... the pipeline is dead...  and Mother Earth breathes a sigh of relief..


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 8, 2015)

Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all. Democrats just don't have simple common sense to see that all costs to produce a product result in  higher prices for that product which is paid by the consumer of the product. Higher prices for the product result in less product being sold due to competitors with lower prices. This results in a loss of jobs for those making the product which means those former workers are no longer contributing to the government coffers with taxes but are draining the coffers through unemployment checks and food stamps.

The pipeline is not dead. I believe it will be built.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 8, 2015)

I remind you of this iconic statement by Elizabeth Warren regarding taxation of the wealthy and Corporations...  The words ring true..



> "There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything in your factory. Now look, You built a factory and it turned into something terrific. God bless! Keep a big chunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a chunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 8, 2015)

I guess common sense can't be taught.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 8, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> I guess common sense can't be taught.



You appear to be proof of that.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 8, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You appear to be proof of that.



You're right AZJim. I've been wasting my time trying to teach liberals some sense.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And all the while... major corporations are allowed subsidies and tax breaks that in essence makes their tax burden near zero... having them pay a fair share just might address the problem...   YET... whenever that is pointed out... the GOP fights to keep them on Welfare...  Puzzling...
> 
> But the main thing.... for now.. or at least until 2016... the pipeline is dead...  and Mother Earth breathes a sigh of relief..



The main thing is Not so much the Subsidies and Tax Breaks....but Rather how they are levied.  Our "Corporate Owned" Congress gives these breaks freely to those who donate lavishly to the election campaigns.  If Congress truly had the welfare of our citizens as its priority, it would levy higher taxes on corporations who "Offshore" their production, and put Tariffs on their products...while, at the same time, reducing Corporate Taxes substantially to those companies which bring production back to these shores.  BUT...such moves would require a total revamp of our political system and funding of our elections...so as to get government control away from the 1%, and put it back into the hands of the 99%.  Yup...When Pigs Fly.

Insofar as the Keystone Pipeline is concerned....this Canadian crude is being moved already, on a daily basis.  The Keystone Pipeline would afford a more efficient, and far safer, means of doing so.  THAT is the Bottom Line, no matter what Political, or Environmental, arguments are raised.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 8, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> You're right AZJim. I've been wasting my time trying to teach liberals some sense.



Now you are just wasting my time.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 8, 2015)

Don M. said:


> If Congress truly had the welfare of our citizens as its priority, it would levy higher taxes on corporations who "Offshore" their production, and put Tariffs on their products...while, at the same time, reducing Corporate Taxes substantially to those companies which bring production back to these shores.
> 
> BUT...such moves would require a total revamp of our political system and funding of our elections...so as to get government control away from the 1%, and put it back into the hands of the 99%.  Yup...When Pigs Fly.
> 
> Insofar as the Keystone Pipeline is concerned....this Canadian crude is being moved already, on a daily basis.  The Keystone Pipeline would afford a more efficient, and far safer, means of doing so.  THAT is the Bottom Line, no matter what Political, or Environmental, arguments are raised.



I completely agree Don, the corporations that stay in America, create jobs and build up our economy again should be the only ones rewarded with tax breaks.  Sadly the 1% corporate powers who basically run the government of the United States are not going to give up the power bestowed on them, why would they, they have the best of all worlds...money and power, isn't that their goal?

If the oil is already coming here by rail, then the pipeline will make things safer, and free up the railroads for transport of other products, correct?  The safety hazards of the Keystone Pipeline are being exaggerated by those opposed, IMO.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 8, 2015)

Actually... higher Corporate tax rates KEEP jobs in the country and create MORE JOBS...   We just need to do away with the incentives to move jobs overseas and institute fairer trade laws...

   Back when the Corporate rate with 94% under Eisenhower and 72% under Clinton, the economy was booming.  Jobs were plentiful and business were expanding..* WHY?... because just like now,  the incentive of every Corporation is to avoid paying taxes.  SO in order to do that, they kept their money in the business.  They expanded, they hired more workers, they invested in research and development...  They did NOT take out the money and park it in off shore tax havens or hidden accounts.* Tax law prevented that.     Now they can get away with profit taking at a grand scale to the detriment of the American worker... and sticking the American Tax payer with the full tax burden for things Business uses in higher proportion than the rest of us. ....Roads, infrastructure, police protection, the court system... WE pay the lion share now..

Trickle down is a farce... It doesn't work as has been proven over and over in the 30 years since Reagan sold that bill of goods... Just give Corporations more and more and more.... When are people going to stop falling for that nonsense.. ?  Corporations have WRITTEN the tax laws passed by Congress in the last 30 years.. and it really shows...  The game has been rigged as Warren states..... rigged by them.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 8, 2015)

"If the oil is already coming here by rail, etc."...........

Yes, hundreds of thousands of barrels of this stuff are on our rail lines daily....and it is a potential disaster waiting to happen.  There have been several train wrecks carrying flammable liquids, including this oil, in recent years.  The most recent major explosion happened in Lynchburg, VA, in late April of last year.   http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-railways-accident-virginia-idUSBREA3T0YW20140430

Last Fall, we were up in the city, and went to a community center where one of our great granddaughters was on a little girls team competing in a basketball tournament.  During a break, I went outdoors for a few minutes, just in time to see a train hauling about 50 oil tank cars rumbling past about 100 yards from this community center where hundreds of kids and family member were enjoying the day.  Were such a train to have a wreck in such close proximity to a crowded residential area, the carnage could be catastrophic.  

On the flip side, there are over 175,000 miles of existing oil and gas pipelines already in constant use in the nation, and I can't remember seeing any reports of any of them blowing up, or leaking their product into the soil.  There have been a couple of Natural Gas explosions in residential areas...usually due to some contractor hitting a natural gas pipeline while digging.  

Nothing is absolutely foolproof, but the Keystone Pipeline would be a far safer method of moving this oil than what is going on now.  Any "Environmentalist" who looked at this situation from an unbiased viewpoint, would have to admit the same.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 8, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> I guess common sense can't be taught.



I'm playing catch up now since I've read a few things, where do you stand on Social Security benefits RK?  This is my biggest concern, yes I'm selfish, but Republicans seem bent on dipping their mits into SS??  I know I may leading off topic, but I'm thinking priorities.  So R's want the pipeline, ok, but Rs also seem to want to be able to use SS monies for "other" things.

The only thing I can figure is that folks that don't "need" their SS, or perhaps they didn't get any (do self-employed acquire SS bennies) but I don't know.  62 years old and I'm just now getting a handle on some things.  I think I am smart enough to know right from wrong, I sure hope so.


----------

