Paying for investments with a return is one thing, government creating disincentives to work so we can subsidize them is another. One makes sense, the other is stupid.

And by the way, your link isn't too convincing.

Quote:

---

OK. But will TransCanada’s $45 million or so pay the full costs of the project?
Almost certainly not...

That’s $4 million more than TransCanada will apparently pay NPPD for the upgrades...

So it appears NPPD ratepayers will be paying $4 million or so...

---

And I don't live in Nebraska so that's their problem.

lovely attitude, goes with the begger my neighbour attitude of the fed

Quote:

---

The Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) recently approved rate increases for its customers. According to the Columbus Telegram, the increase will include costs for capital projects. One of those projects is electrical improvements needed for the Keystone XL pipeline: “Of the $348.2 million capital budget, approximately $45 million will be paid for by TransCanada as part of its Keystone XL Pipeline project.”

---

Texas is next!!

Quote:

---

lovely attitude, goes with the begger my neighbour attitude of the fed

---

As opposed to sticking a finger in Canada's eye over this or blocking the project for Nebraskans? Should the beleaguered residents of Nebraska have to squeeze out a few million they will be repaid many times over economically, and that's a big IF according to Tal's link, so point to someone else over their attitude toward their neighbor.

You should at least explain where Nebraskans will get repaid many times over when you jack up their bills, instead of making a wild claim.

commercial projects shouldn't get handouts from anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello, again:

Here's the deal. Those jobs are NOT coming back. Why NOT enjoy it?

Look. If it were up to ME, I'd hire ALL of 'em to fix our infrastructure... You'd rather let the infrastructure AND the people who can fix it, ROT!

excon

---

maybe you think you can recreate the WPA ? Perhaps Roosevelt could get away with paying non-union wage scale ....but I doubt a similar program could get away with it again.
Or maybe you think the Hoover Dam could become reality today without a decade + of environmental reviews . Look at all the nonsense associated with the Keystone pipeline . They began construction of a new Tappan Zee Bridge here recently . The proposed project began in 1999 . That's over a decade to begin putting those workers to work . Compare that to the Hoover Dam ;a much more complex and ambitious project than putting a bridge across the Hudson River . Congress authorized it in 1928 .Construction began in 1931 and was completed in 1936 .
In today's over regulated environment and unions dominating the construction industry . It's more likely that you will end up with multiple white elephant projects like the Boston big dig .
Here in NY we pay a fortune in fuel tax and tolls ;and all that is supposed to support infrastructure. Today there were multiple reports of pot holes the size of the Grand Canyon. Where is all that revenue going ?

Quote:

---

I am for Keystone too, when they have a comprehensive emergency plan for when stuff happens

---

You mean like when one of Warren Buffett's trains full of oil derails

yep, they just sop it up, if it doesn't burn off and get on with the job, you mean to say this sort of thing isn't a frequent occurence?

of course . It just doesn't get sensationalized like a pipeline spill.
Train carrying fuel oil derails, spills in Mississippi | Reuters

Really? Lac Mégantic?

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .

As the article says .....

Quote:

---

Friday's accident follows a spate of explosive derailments of trains carrying crude oil over the past year that has raised questions about safety, especially of some older tank cars prone to puncture.

---

Quote:

---

You should at least explain where Nebraskans will get repaid many times over when you jack up their bills, instead of making a wild claim.

---

I said economically, you don't think all those new jobs and the money spent in Nebraska won't be worth many times over $4 million? I'd be willing to bet the farm that's more likely than Porkulus ever gave in return.

Quote:

---

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .

---

Even WaPo makes that case now...

Quote:

---

Keystone report from State Dept. puts common sense back in the pipeline By Editorial Board, Published: February 5

ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE drawn a line in the sand on the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s the wrong line in the wrong sand, far away from any realistic assessment of the merits — as yet another government analysis has confirmed. It’s past time for President Obama to set aside politics and resolve this bizarre distraction of an issue.


The State Department’s latest study — the product of more than five years of investigation — largely confirms the conclusions of previous assessments and those of many independent energy experts: Allowing the firm Trans­Canada to build Keystone XL, which would run across the Canadian border to Steele City, Neb., is unlikely to have significant effects on climate-change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s because its construction, or its rejection, would not significantly affect the extraction of tar sands bitumen, an oil-like substance, in Alberta. Even if the president rejects Keystone XL and no other pipelines out of Alberta are built, the crude could still travel by rail and barge — with marginally higher greenhouse emissions and a higher likelihood of accident. One hundred eighty thousand barrels of Canadian crude already moves on train cars every day.

---

Pipeline or train passing through your town? It's coming either way.

Even with Keystone you still have the old rupturing pipes in the ground, and the messes they made as those derailments continue to happen. If you think a new pipeline for oil to be sold overseas for private profit and walk away from the messes yet to be cleaned up, by taxpayers instead of the companies that made the mess is a good idea then you have no good idea.


Speech already said he cares more about the Canadians turning a buck than the Nebraskans getting a fair shake. Sounds good on paper (50 permanent jobs), and all you have to do is raise the utility rates of ordinary citizens. Raise the taxes of the ones who profit from this deal makes more sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .

---

Man you are one cold dude. It was a disaster, families and homes were torn apart. I guess if it doesn't happen near you it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Speech already said he cares more about the Canadians turning a buck than the Nebraskans getting a fair shake.

---

I said no such thing.

Quote:

---

Man you are one cold dude. It was a disaster, families and homes were torn apart. I guess if it doesn't happen near you it doesn't matter.

---

No he isn't, you're just still chalenged by sarcasm and apparently obsessed with hating on conservatives.

Quote:

---

apparently obsessed with hating on conservatives

---

How so? I was commenting on tom's answer, not on conservatives as a whole.
This whole Current Events board is based on 3 or 4 people hating everything liberal so you are in no position to admonish me.

It's what happens when you run rail full of hazardous materials through communities .The Keystone would not be cut through the middle of a downtown.So any spills that Tal is moaning about would have far less potential for human disaster .

Quote:

---

How so? I was commenting on tom's answer, not on conservatives as a whole.

---

You called me "nasty" the other day after I made a sarcastic remark and called him cold for doing the same. Stop making it personal and learn what sarcasm is.

Quote:

---

This whole Current Events board is based on 3 or 4 people hating everything liberal so you are in no position to admonish me.

---

Nonsense, there's just as much if not more hating all things conservative, if you don't like it here you don't have to show up.

It's a good place to find out what the right-wings are telling their people what the talking points are for the day. It's entertaining to correct you guys on the misinformation you spew - it usually takes only 10 sec of reading a source, something you guys rarely do.

And yes, sarcasm can be cold and nasty. If the shoe fits...

The irony.

So if Obamacare is "the law of the land" as you lefties keep reminding us, why does he keep changing it, illegally I would add?

Obama Looks to Illegally Change Obamacare . . . Again | National Review Online

Yet again the conservatives have found a new excuse to do nothing.

You are the one that keeps saying it's the law, well is it or isn't it? Or is it whatever the president says it is?

I have given you links already to the provisions in the law that specifically were written to address the glitch and problems that were foreseen. You chose to ignore instead of read, so your spin is bogus, and so is the source of your link this morning. Its spin for the uninformed.

We call that hollering loud and saying nothing in my barrio and prevents any reasonable discussion of facts, policy, and procedure. Case in point, your authors dismissing totally the written law as described by "the secretary shall" which implicitly is followed by a procedure to rectify, when applicable for good reason, the practical physical effects of implementation of said policy.

Where exactly in the law does it give the president flexibility to extend mandates? Do you even know what mandate means, what the word "shall" means?

how do you extend a mandate? an mandate means you have the authority to implement or rule, either he has a mandate or not. If a policy is taken to an election it is usually presumed that the victor has a mandate to implement that policy. What is happening here is the loser is in denial. You can argue over the detail but you can't deny the mandate. So the President had a mandate for the ACA and the legislature argued about the detail and even the judiciary doesn't deny the mandate or even the detail..

What I don't get is why don't you get on with cooperating in the implementation, if there is error you can help correct it

What you don't get is this President has no regard for the law. This is entirely political, all about elections and power. Meanwhile the people got screwed, we lost the insurance we wanted and could afford, we're paying much more out of pocket, we may not get to keep our doctors, we get to fund more people's lifestyle who choose not to work thanks to the disincentive to work, more people on Medicaid and good luck using the websites that still don't work and may compromise your personal data due to shoddy security. What the hell should we cooperate in, getting screwed more?

can't see he has no regard for the law he has used executive orders less than others, what you don't like is what you got, I can understand that because it isn't universal health care but a scheme that you get what you can pay for with a minimum standard, it is free enterprise gone mad. There are many ways health care can be provided, taxation is one, private insurers are another but obviously the insurers couldn't be trusted to regulate themselves and so they whorted their clients, to change that obviously meant it was going to cost someone and we have never known an insurance company to be ultimately out of pocket.

i can see the implementation was poorly handled but you must blame the industry for that, vested interests had to be served, you see he had a mandate to broaden access to health insurance. The way we handled is if you are not insured you get a tax surcharge and access to a certain level of benefit and effectively that is what you have done because the insurers wanted everyone in the scheme. When we did it everyone started to opt out of health insurance and just rely on the government benefit, obviously you couldn't allow that to happen because you have your states involved. The government should be setting caps on premiums

Yes, he lags far behind his hero FDR who issued 3,522. It's not the use of EOs as much as it is the substance of them. The emperor is past pushing the envelope on legality.

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

Quote:

---

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

---

And we're back to this line of reasoning even if that's one of things Obama did by fiat was decide those worthless plans were ok to keep after all...after most people lost them. That's the problem with this shameless political maneuvering Tal, it fixes nothing. What is the point of delay, it fixes nothing.

well you can always fix it at the ballot box or can you?

Obama's opinion and fix means nothing, since the states are the ones who ultimately decide the policy and laws they write, enforce, or change in there own states. I have already pointed out that the procedure for resolving state conflicts, and concerns, with the federal law (ACA), is an extensive one and rather lengthy, but was funded 4 years ago in every state. Some made better use of it than others, but if you have a problem with it, talk to your own state commissioners, or regulatory body (in Texas, you county official).

In addition "if you like your doctor you can keep them" is not up to you, but up to your doctor AND your insurance provider.

That's what you get when you have a free market capitalist private system collaboration, instead of a consumer based one. But we have had that argument before and sorry Speech if you have failed to acknowledge, or recognize, what your own state, and private insurance companies, and hospital groups, are doing right under your nose.

I read every link every poster provides, and you should do the same. Then you conservatives and TParty types wouldn't miss what some states are doing in collusion with private industry that takes not only money, but options and opportunities right out of your pocket.

No, that's what you get when you have incompetent boobs building a cr@p sandwich for everyone based on a throwaway campaign line. YOu can keep shifting the blame and spreading the BS about it all you want but the Dems in the WH and congress own this.

And this is how you guys "fix" things.

Attachment 45650

LOL, its so easy to ignore that more will be helped than hindered. Your fix is to let the few be served, and the many be thrown back under the bus.

Some fix!!

If Obamacare is so great why does he keep delaying it? It's a simple question, Tal, but then I understand your side's idea of "helping" others is forcing those of us who do work and take responsibility for our lives to subsidize those who won't in addition to those who CAN'T, because apparently money grows on trees.

Quote:

---

And this is where liberalism has a very important choice to make. It's possible to defend Obamacare's overall goals while also recognizing its potentially perverse effects, and conceding that we should try to minimize the number of low-skilled workers exiting the labor market.

But it's also possible to argue that as a rich, post-scarcity society, we shouldn't really care that much about whether the poor choose to work. The important thing is just making sure they have a decent standard of living, full stop, and if they choose Keynesian leisure over a low-paying job, that's their business.

---

No Ross, it IS my business when you're taking my hard-earning money to pay for their laziness, but I do not expect any of you true believers to use your brains long enough to figure out how inherently unfair and ignorant that is, not to mention impractical. Ask Greece.