B-Man Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Well, after all the (supposedly) non-campaign trips that the president has spent, on the public dime, speaking in (coincidently) swing states over the past few months attacking the congress and placing himself as the "protector of the middle class, you got what you wanted. Hey, that was easy. The Republican-controlled House passed a bill that has in it exactly what President Obama asked for. Well, except for one little item: WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled House has passed legislation sought by President Barack Obama to extend Social Security payroll tax cuts through 2012. But the bill also includes a requirement for construction of an oil pipeline that has drawn a veto threat. The vote was 234-193. The measure now goes to the Senate, where top Democrats strongly oppose the pipeline provision. The legislation would also renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. And it would head off a threatened 27 percent cut in fees to doctors who treat Medicare patients. President Obama has threatened a veto of any bill with the Keystone XL in it so as to not lose the coveted Daryl Hannah endorsement. The pipeline would create between 6,000 and 20,000 US jobs, depending on whose estimate you use. Obama claimed that the payroll tax break and unemployment extension would create more jobs than the pipeline (pause for laughter). The bill will have trouble getting through a Dem-controlled Senate that claims to need more time for careful analysis: Reid and other Democrats argue the pipeline project requires more study and should not be fast-tracked as part of a political calculation by Republicans. An oil pipeline should be studied meticulously over the course of years before being built, but more trivial bills like ones that take control of the entire country’s health care system qualify for fast-tracking and hasty implementation? That sounds about right. So did Obama really want the payroll tax cut extension or did he just want to a campaign issue for his "don't look at my record, blame congress" strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Nice try for the Cons to add in a jobs project. This will fail as it is just payback for blocking Obama's American Jobs act. The Keystone XL pipeline is opposed by most Canadians as it is a Canadian resource being exported and creates little Canadian jobs. The main point is this, do i Joe Taxpayer benefit more from having $1500 extra bucks in my pocket or having Conocco Phillips profit having a pipeline linking Canadian oil sands to Texas? If given the option show me the money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Nice try for the Cons to add in a jobs project. This will fail as it is just payback for blocking Obama's American Jobs act. The Keystone XL pipeline is opposed by most Canadians as it is a Canadian resource being exported and creates little Canadian jobs. The main point is this, do i Joe Taxpayer benefit more from having $1500 extra bucks in my pocket or having Conocco Phillips profit having a pipeline linking Canadian oil sands to Texas? If given the option show me the money! I really don't know why they can't do part of the refining in Canada - at least until it's more like light sweet crude and then do the rest of the refining in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I really don't know why they can't do part of the refining in Canada - at least until it's more like light sweet crude and then do the rest of the refining in Texas. Because it costs more to build and operate a new refinery than it does a pipeline? And then you still have to transport the product anyway, which needs...a pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Nice try for the Cons to add in a jobs project. This will fail as it is just payback for blocking Obama's American Jobs act. The Keystone XL pipeline is opposed by most Canadians as it is a Canadian resource being exported and creates little Canadian jobs. The main point is this, do i Joe Taxpayer benefit more from having $1500 extra bucks in my pocket or having Conocco Phillips profit having a pipeline linking Canadian oil sands to Texas? If given the option show me the money! Way to miss most of it! This has nothing to do with jobs, and certainly not Canadian jobs. Let's do this right. Since this is 100% about politics, let's keep score: House +1 House Reps for passing a bill that mostly takes away Obama's painfully obvious "do nothing Congress" strategy. +2 House Reps for passing a bill that they can use in November, that is in line with their constituencies values and is a net + in terms of approval. This is how you score independents. -5 House Dems for being suckered into voting against a jobs bill, and a tax holiday to boot. The number of people who want to prevent the pipeline is less than 25% of the people who want decreased gas prices and the jobs. This is the real story here. The Republicans now have a major attack they can use on every Democrat currently in the house, that can also be used to defend against every Democrat who will run against them. Senate (much remains to be seen, but for now) +1 Senate Reps for now being able to say "hey it's not us, it's Harry Reid, this is why we need a Republican Senate. +1 For Harry Reid, because now he has all the power -5 For Senate Dems, because they will face a tough decision: take the same hit that the House Dems will now, or, risk rebelling against Reid and Obama. There's no way all of these guys fall on the sword for Obama. They know they may still be able to win in November(there are 22 Dems defending seats). But, what chance does Obama have? Chances are they feel defending their own job is more important than defending Obamas. This is a recipe for chaos for them, and they know it. If it comes to a vote, it passes. Reid is the wildcard here. He may yet find a way to poison pill this thing. Obama -5 For getting his bluff called, and being outmaneuvered publicly +1 For getting some response from the Congress on his legislative agenda -4 For putting the Senate Dems in what could easily be an impossible position -10 For trying to emulate Harry Truman, and not coming up with his own original political strategy. Is nothing Obama does his idea? Why does he keep going back 60 years for ideas? The problem with them is: Reps have had 60 years to learn why they worked, and how to beat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 The main point is this, do i Joe Taxpayer benefit more from having $1500 extra bucks in my pocket or having Conocco Phillips profit having a pipeline linking Canadian oil sands to Texas? If given the option show me the money! Guess what, Skippy...if the Senate passes the bill and Obama signs it, you don't have to make a choice; you get the benefit having an extra $1500 in your pocket AND thousands of unemployed people going to work. But that's probably not good enough for a die-hard Harry Reid-sucking mindless fool like yourself who is so blind that you actually think the bill is an either/or proposition. Jesus. Is it any wonder people like Harry Reid keep getting elected when he has people like you carrying his mindless water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Nice try for the Cons to add in a jobs project. This will fail as it is just payback for blocking Obama's American Jobs act. The Keystone XL pipeline is opposed by most Canadians as it is a Canadian resource being exported and creates little Canadian jobs. The main point is this, do i Joe Taxpayer benefit more from having $1500 extra bucks in my pocket or having Conocco Phillips profit having a pipeline linking Canadian oil sands to Texas? If given the option show me the money! Isn't that a good thing? I mean exporting and importing money? Just sayin Edited December 14, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Isn't that a good thing? I mean exporting and importing money? Just sayin Remember, you are talking to a guy that wishes there were toll roads in his state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Isn't that a good thing? I mean exporting and importing money? Just sayin If Canadians thought that way, they wouldn't be hoarding all the tuques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Bi-partisan agreements require "give and take" - but that takes leadership. Something the politicians are woefully lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts