SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | President Barack Obama


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: manalagi1/25/2012 10:05:57 AM
   of 145958
 
Obama did it again! Who can claim that he is weak in defending the country.

news.yahoo.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: koan who wrote (108077)1/25/2012 10:05:57 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water
   of 145958
 
Koan, Romney is running for the Republican nomination here and the party consists of of a large amount of evangelical Christians. To come out for gay marriage would be political suicide. Additionally, Obama himself has not committed to this issue as of yet. You're judging a Republican candidate by a cultural value that is in flux even among Democrats. Not too realistic IMHO.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: koan who wrote (108082)1/25/2012 10:08:24 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water
   of 145958
 
The issue was, as stated by you, that Romney could become rich AND run for President by not thinking for himself. You've yet to provide any evidence that someone else is doing Romney's thinking for him--both in business and poitics.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: manalagi who wrote (108099)1/25/2012 10:22:45 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water
   of 145958
 
No doubt Romney benefitted by the Capitalist infrastructure--all capitalists and investors do. That's what the system is constructed to be like--to benefit capital to create business organizations. It's to Romney's credit that he was able to skillfully use this system to accumulate wealth. It shows he knows how to play in it. He's the equivalent of a star NFL quarterback on this capitalist playing field.

As Romney's released Tax returns show he does pay his taxes--in the millions. His effective tax rate (about 15%) is just less than one applied to us ordinary folk that make more than 70K (jumps to 25% above that) because most of his income is dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than earned income (above 70K a year income).

So it's the system that is unfair, or treats investment gains differently, not that Romney is some kind of tax cheat.

Furthermore, I am not arguing that Romney should be President, but that he is the most qualified of the Republican candidates to be the nominee ( and the most moderate). Therefore, if Obama was to lose the election Democrats would be better off with Romney than with any other Republican in the race.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: koan who wrote (108077)1/25/2012 10:28:30 AM
From: manalagi
   of 145958
 
For the good of the country, I want this fight between Romney and Gingrich go to the distance. And as a good measure, I might go door to door for Newt.

news.yahoo.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (108111)1/25/2012 10:57:20 AM
From: brushwud
   of 145958
 
His effective tax rate (about 15%) is just less than one applied to us ordinary folk that make more than 70K (jumps to 25% above that)

You're comparing Romney's average rate with someone's marginal rate. The $70K individual doesn't pay anywhere near 25% (not even 15%) of $70K. But if Romney made one more speech for $60K, his marginal rate would be greater than 25%.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/25/2012 12:02:41 PM
From: zeta1961
   of 145958
 
Keystone XL Jobs Bewilder Media

Reporters still fumbling numbers in wake of pipeline’s rejection

By Curtis Brainard


cjr.org


This is a great read re: what Transcanada says in its press releases that the media outlets keep regurgitating and what TC has told the gvt......
_____________________________________________________________________



God help the poor news consumers of America, especially the would-be voters.

President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline last week incited a new wave of coverage and speculation about how many jobs the line would create. Unfortunately, many outlets are still citing inflated and unreliable industry figures in the tens to hundreds of thousands while ignoring more modest and trustworthy approximations from academia and government, which place the total anywhere from 2,500 to 6,000.

The media were obsessed with the jobs number in 2011 and developed a preference for 20,000. A wide variety of conservative politicians and industry groups, from House Speaker John Boehner to the American Petroleum institute, have cited that figure, and some reporters have mistakenly attributed it to a variety of research firms that have issued reports on Keystone XL. But make no mistake, the number comes directly from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canadian tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries in the United States. TransCanada first mentioned it, with no explanation, in a February 2 press release, but didn’t explain its math for another eight months.

Here’s how the company arrived at the figure:

Construction of the 1,600 mile pipeline is broken down into 17 U.S. pipeline spreads or segments, with 500 workers per spread—that’s 8,500 jobs Keystone XL also needs 30 pump stations worth tens of millions of dollars. Each station requires 100 workers—that’s 3,000 jobs. Add another 600 jobs that would be needed for the six construction camps and tank construction at Cushing, Oklahoma. A project of such magnitude needs construction, management and inspection oversight—that would create 1,000 jobs, bringing the overall Keystone XL total to 13,000 direct, on-site jobs.Now, compare the math in the company’s press release to the information that it provided to the US State Department for its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), delivered in August. With regard to the seventeen “spreads,” it read:

Approximately 500 to 600 construction and inspection personnel would work on each spread, except for the proposed Houston Lateral which would require approximately 250 workers. Each spread would require 6 to 9 months to complete. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in 18 to 24 months. Tank farm construction would require approximately 30 to 40 construction personnel over a period of 15 to 18 months.Notice that in its press release, TransCanada omitted the durations of employment and inflated the number of pump-station and tank-farm jobs in order to arrive at 13,000 construction jobs. To that, it arbitrarily added 7,000 manufacturing supply jobs in order to get to 20,000 jobs. Most reporters published only that number despite the fact that, based on the information provided by TransCanada, the State Department’s EIS said Keystone XL “would result in hiring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the three-year construction period.”

In September, researchers at Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute used the information in the EIS to come up with an estimate that was even more modest. Factoring in the various durations of employment, it calculated that “on-site construction and inspection creates only 5,060-9,250 person-years of employment (1 person-year = 1 person working full time for 1 year). This is equivalent to 2,500-4,650 jobs per year over two years.”

One of the researchers told InsideClimateNews that the difference between the Cornell and State Department estimates is attributable to the fact that the State Department includes a number of workers that TransCanada has already hired, while the Cornell study addressed only new jobs from pipeline construction. Whatever the case, the State Department and Cornell figures are clearly more reliable than those from TransCanada, which has a history of toying with numbers.

After the 20,000 “direct jobs,” the second most popular tally cited by the media has been 118,000 “spin-off jobs,” and it, too, has a long, convoluted history. It comes from a June 2010 report from The Perryman Group, a financial analysis firm based in Texas that was hired by TransCanada to evaluate Keystone XL. That report estimated, in a very non-transparent way, that the pipeline would create 118,935 person-years of employment over the hundred-year life of the project.

TransCanada first cited the figure in a September 2010 press release (which failed to mention the century-long time frame). But two months later, it issued another press release that dispensed with person-years and mistakenly referred to “118,000 spin-off jobs” instead. The error was repeated in dozens of media reports.

The Perryman Group did, in fact, estimate the “spin-off” jobs that result from “the permanent increase in stable oil supplies associated with the implementation of the Keystone XL Pipeline”: 250,348 under a “normal oil price scenario” and 553,235 under a “high oil price scenario.” And these figures formed the basis for countless media assertions that the pipeline would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but they are highly suspect. A report to Congress submitted by the State Department took issue with the numbers, stating:

The economic analysis conducted for the EIS under contract to the Department of Energy, however, indicates that Keystone XL is unlikely to have any impact on the amount of crude oil imported into, or refined in, the United States. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to suggest the pipeline would cause an increase in employment or other economic activity by increasing crude oil imported into the United States.“Regarding employment, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would likely create several thousand temporary jobs associated with construction; however, the project would not have a significant impact on long-term employment in the United States,” the State Department concluded.

That’s the bottom-line best guess for reporters: a few thousand temporary construction jobs over the course of a couple of years. Permanent jobs operating and maintaining the pipeline once it’s built probably wouldn’t add up to more than a few hundred. Everything else is unsubstantiated spin.

1 2

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: manalagi who wrote (108105)1/25/2012 12:52:25 PM
From: tejek
   of 145958
 
What is happening? I post a reply to mindmeld, and yet I kept getting my reply posted for Ted.

I don't know. Did you post to post # 108056.......that would be MM's post?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: brushwud who wrote (108092)1/25/2012 1:12:51 PM
From: koan
   of 145958
 
<<After 1964, the conservative Democrats not only left the Democratic party they formed a new racist party run by George Wallace, Strom thurmond and Jesse Helms. After that party failed they just folded into the Republican party.

<<George Wallace was shot in 1972 while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination versus George McGovern and Shirley Chisholm, ran again in 1976 versus Jimmy Carter and Jerry Brown, and I don't think he was ever a Republican. You pointed out some changes in Mormon governance that also occurred in the 1970s. But Republicans had passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments more than 100 years earlier.>>

Do you really want to defend George Wallace and his blatantly racist American Independent party?

en.wikipedia.org

Or Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms?

<<Would you always vote against a Mormon because of his or her religion? What about a Muslim? Maybe Romney will resign from his church in springtime like Obama did during the 2008 campaign. Would that make him acceptable?>>


I don't care what a person's religion is. I vote for all Democrats no matter what -lol.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself.

I said nothing about not voting for a Mormon, or anyone else of any religion. It matters not what religion a person is to me, only their policies.

I was just pointing out facts, which are pretty bad facts.>

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (108109)1/25/2012 1:26:39 PM
From: koan
   of 145958
 
<<Koan, Romney is running for the Republican nomination here and the party consists of of a large amount of evangelical Christians. To come out for gay marriage would be political suicide. Additionally, Obama himself has not committed to this issue as of yet. You're judging a Republican candidate by a cultural value that is in flux even among Democrats. Not too realistic IMHO.


Obama ended DADT. And I know he would like to support gay marriage. The right wing makes it impossible. I am not so sure Romney does support it.

My bitch with Romney goes way beyond gay marriage, an issue little Bush and the Republican;s used to beat Kerry and many dems over the years.

My problem with Romney is that he will continue to take from the poor and give to the rich. Bain capital was one of the lobbyists that prevented tax reform for carried interest which allows romney to only pay 15% when he should be paying 35%.

I don't care a whit what religion Romney is, or anyonen else for that matter e.g. I liked Huntsman until I saw his platform. They can sacrifice chickens in the parking lot for all I care.

I don't even really pay too much attention to the person. I am a yellow dog Democrat and have voted straight Democratic tickets for 50 years.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.