Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Republicans muscle tax cut bill through House

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:37 PM EST
politics, us, white-house, barack-obama, congress, social-security, rdp, republican-controlled-house, defiant-republicans
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 9 photos
<p>House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, accompanied by fellow Republican leaders, meets with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, before a crucial vote on a GOP effort to renew an extension of the payroll-tax cut. From left are, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, Boehner, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</p>

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, accompanied by fellow Republican leaders, meets with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, before a crucial vote on a GOP effort to renew an extension of the payroll-tax cut. From left are, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, Boehner, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Defiant Republicans pushed legislation through the House Tuesday night that would keep alive Social Security payroll tax cuts for some 160 million Americans at President Barack Obama's request — but also would require construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that has sparked a White House veto threat.

Passage, on a largely party-line vote of 234-193, sent the measure toward its certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate, triggering the final partisan showdown of a remarkably quarrelsome year of divided government.

The legislation "extends the payroll tax relief, extends and reforms unemployment insurance and protects Social Security — without job-killing tax hikes," Republican House Speaker John Boehner declared after the measure had cleared.

Referring to the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline, he added, "Our bill includes sensible, bipartisan measures to help the private sector create jobs."

On a long day of finger pointing, however, House Democrats accused Republicans of protecting "millionaires and billionaires, `' and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., derided the GOP-backed pipeline provision as "ideological candy" for the tea party-set.

After the House vote, the White House urged Congress on in finishing work on extending the tax cuts and jobless aid. Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that didn't mention the pipeline but renewed Obama's insistence that the legislation be paid for, at least in part, by "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share" in higher tax levies.

Lawmakers "cannot go on vacation before agreeing to prevent a tax hike on 160 million Americans and extending unemployment insurance," he said.

Republicans mocked Obama's objections to their version of the bill.

"Mr. President, we can't wait," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, employing a refrain the White House often uses to criticize Republicans for failing to take steps to improve an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.

Voting in favor of the legislation were 224 Republicans and 10 Democrats, while 179 Democrats and 14 Republicans opposed it.

At its core, the measure did include key parts of the jobs program that Obama asked Congress to approve in September.

The Social Security payroll tax cuts approved a year ago to help stimulate the economy would be extended through 2012, avoiding a loss of take-home income for wage-earners. An expiring program of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless would remain in place, although at reduced levels that the administration said would cut off aid for 3.3 million.

A third major component would avert a threatened 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients, a provision Republicans added to appeal to conservatives but one that the White House and Democrats embrace, too.

While the tax and unemployment provisions were less generous than Obama sought, he and Republicans clashed principally over steps to cover the estimated $180 billion cost of the measure, and on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada through environmentally sensitive terrain in Nebraska to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Obama recently delayed a decision on granting a permit for the pipeline until after the 2012 election.

The payroll tax legislation was one of three major bills that Congress was struggling to finish before adjourning for the year, and by far the most contentious.

A measure covering Pentagon spending was ready for passage, and, separately, negotiators said they were close to a deal on a $1 trillion measure to fund most government agencies through the end of the budget year.

That deal was in limbo, though, with Obama and congressional Democrats using it as leverage to keep House Republicans at the table negotiating a final compromise on the tax and unemployment measure.

It was the final showdown of a year that once brought the government to the brink of a shutdown and also pushed the Treasury to the cusp of a first-ever default.

Those confrontations produced last-minute compromises.

This time, leaders in both parties stressed a desire to renew the unemployment tax cuts and jobless benefits that are at the core of Obama's jobs program.

Obama and most Democrats favor an income surtax on million-dollar earners to pay for extending the Social Security tax cut, but Republicans oppose that, saying it is a violation of their pledge not to raise taxes.

Instead, the House bill called for a one-year pay freeze and higher pension costs for federal workers, higher Medicare costs for seniors over $80,000 in income as well as other items to cover the cost.

Obama's veto message focused on economic issues — which unite Democrats — accusing Republicans of putting the burden of paying for the legislation on working families "while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies."

Republicans drew attention at every turn to the pipeline, which is backed by some lawmakers in the president's party as well as by the blue-collar unions representing plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, carpenters and construction workers.

Estimates of the jobs that would be produced by pipeline construction vary widely but are in the thousands in a time of high national unemployment. The State Department estimated the total at about 6,000; project manager TransCanada put it at 20,000 directly, and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said in debate on the House floor it was more than 100,000.

Democrats aimed their criticism at the bill's impact on those who would bear the cost.

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the party's senior lawmaker on the Ways and Means Committee, displayed a placard that said "Seniors sacrifice: $31 billion. Federal workers sacrifice: $40 billion. Unemployed Americans sacrifice: $11 billion. Millionaires and billionaires sacrifice: $0."

The bill also "spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals," he said, referring to a part of the measure that will raise federal Medicare payments to doctor-owned hospitals.

Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, said he had an open mind about the pipeline but also said it had no legitimate role in the payroll tax bill.

Republicans argued otherwise.

Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the pipeline's construction would allow Canada to send one million barrels of oil a day into the United States, lessening domestic reliance on imports.

He said Canadian development of a pipeline is a certainty, and lawmakers needed to decide whether they wanted it to end up in the United States or "someplace like China."

As drafted by Republicans, the measure also would block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing planned rules to limit toxic emissions from industrial boilers. Republicans said the regulation would be a job killer, and 41 Democrats supported an earlier stand-alone measure to prevent the administration from acting.

Other provisions to cover the cost of the legislation would repeal billions from the health care bill that Obama won from Congress last year when both the House and Senate were under Democratic control and from boosting fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge banks for backing their mortgages.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • David Espo's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 112th United States Congress
  • Regions: United States , Canada , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (196)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
MJMullinII

In other words yet more time wasting on the American Taxpayer's dime.

Gee...I wish I could be a Republican member of Congress.

  • 23 votes
#1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:38 PM EST
Skull Bones

Gee...I wish I could be a Republican member of Congress.

Come on now....you want to be disliked that much?......j/k...... :)

On a serious note...........VETO...VETO...VETO......THAT SLUDGE PIPELINE........the lawsuits will surely bankrupt America.....6 states worth of lawsuits against the Feds...is that what this country needs right now??...I didn't think so..........and would you want the Feds seizing your land to put a highly toxic pipeline on your property, above your aquifer (drinking water source) ??? I didn't think so again........this pipeline is unnecessary and will not provide enough jobs to make the environmental spills and hazards worth the rewards....did we already forget Exxon Valdez, or BP's Deep Horizon???.....Let Canada refine its own sludge......If we must have that SLUDGE LINE......run it through downtown WASHINGTON DC, and through the WhiteHouse backyard..........

  • 21 votes
#1.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:11 PM EST
scott-1148057

this is exactly what obama campaigned on , tax cuts and jobs...the pipeline means jobs, why wouldn't you want to create jobs, makes no sense

  • 13 votes
#1.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:51 PM EST
Matt22V36_40

Sounds like a compromise to me... Obama gets a little of what he wanted, Republicans get a little of what they want.

A pipeline is not a bad thing. It brings a lot of jobs when it gets built. We all drive cars, lets not fool ourselves. Oil is a product we all use.

We've been so conditioned to think anything oil is bad that we forget that oil is also a very good thing for us all. Everything from medicines to safety equipment is made from oil products. While we do need to remain focused on finding cleaner forms of energy, we have to realize we all are very much reliant on oil.

Here is a list of some oil-based products

  • 8 votes
#1.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:09 PM EST
Tappy McWidestance

The pipeline is owned by a Canadian jobs so the majority of jobs will go to Canadians. Plus what happened to Republican support for the states? Nebraska, a very red state, doesn't want the pipeline cutting their state in half. Yet the Republicans have voted for the big bad federal government to FORCE states to steal land from the rightful owners and give it to a foreign company. How is that acceptable to the base?

  • 22 votes
#1.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:10 PM EST
Tappy McWidestance

As for the focusing on jobs argument, when the House actually passes a job bill and the Senate Republicans don't filibuster then we can talk.

  • 15 votes
#1.5 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:12 PM EST
Matt22V36_40

Tappy you act like (and the story is written like) Democrats are spineless and had zero ability to do anything about those "evil" Republicans. If that's the case then I suppose the Democratic voters should pick stronger people to elect.

As far as most of the money going to Canada, I bet the Americans hired to help out don't feel too bad about it.

Just a thought, I'm not strongly for or against it to be honest. We use oil, we need jobs so it doesn't sound too bad to me. Plus Obama got what he asked for and to me, to get the two sides to agree on ANYTHING is nothing short of a miracle.

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:37 PM EST
waffle

Pipeline to nowhere?

  • 5 votes
#1.7 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:54 PM EST
mountainmike-1199289

The nitty gritty question here is what's the pipeline from Canada to Texas all about? The blatantly obvious answer is a big fat pork project for big oil moving shale oil from Canada to Texas ( a tenaciously Republican state). Follow the money and you will find Republicans getting huge amounts of money through big oil lobbyists for this pork project.

John Boehner is one of the most lobbyist compromised legislators in congress. Follow the money.

New Released Information Ohio Rep. John Boehner has recieved $30million from lobbyists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgE-4NNLwY

  • 17 votes
#1.8 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:06 PM EST
Smith Cassidy

Matt22V36_40

Sounds like a compromise to me... Obama gets a little of what he wanted, Republicans get a little of what they want.

You mean approximately 160 million Americans would continue to get a payroll tax cut and Big Oil would get a pipeline. In other words, what Obama wants is for a payroll tax cut and the Republicans won't help Americans unless we allow them to shove more oil down our throats to make the wealthy wealthier.

Yeah, quite the @!$%#ing Republican compromise.

  • 16 votes
#1.9 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:10 PM EST
MJMullinII

Myself, I'm neither hot nor cold about the pipeline.

However several of the states...states that are controlled by Republican Administrations I might add...have asked for more time to study it (in the case of Nebraska, have asked that it flat be moved).

I'm going to mention the 800lb. Gorilla in the room no one ever wants to mention -- but I seem to remember last year, during the healthcare debate "State's Rights" being a big rallying call of the right-wing base.

I find it very curious that "state's rights" was a topic of complaint when Barack Obama was perceived as doing something states didn't like, but is being completely ignored now that John Boehner wants something.

Frankly, I can see only one major difference between the two (and readers are free to make of that whatever they will)

  • 9 votes
#1.10 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:12 PM EST
Smith Cassidy

Read about the problems with 'fracking' pipes inside one state, Pennsylvania, and tell me how good it will be to run a pipe across our country while Republicans are screaming for less regulation along with the moronic "Drill, Baby, Drill" mindset.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/inquirer/marcellus-shale/20111212_Us_vs__Them_in_Pa__Gaslands.html?cmpid=131298059

  • 11 votes
#1.11 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:19 PM EST
Smith Cassidy

We all drive cars, lets not fool ourselves. Oil is a product we all use.

Oil is not air, water, or food. In other words, it isn't something we have to use, but it is in everything because of the influence of the industry, similar to the way corn products are pushed into many areas where they are not needed.

Speaking of fooling ourselves, let's not act like there aren't alternatives to oil that could greatly reduce our consumption inside a few years if we made the effort to move forward as opposed to continuing to take steps back.

  • 11 votes
#1.12 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:22 PM EST
Matt22V36_40

Smith - Yes, we need to get alternatives but oil isn't anywhere near just a fuel source. We not only have to find an alternative fuel source, we have to find an alternative pretty much everything else we have. Plastic is an oil product. You are, as am I, typing on an oil product, looking at a display made of oil, the car you drive is made with a lot of oil products, run on oil, is lubricated with oil, etc.

I completely agree we need to ALWAYS be improving but I am also a realist. We have plenty of time to build a pipeline, get use out of it, and improve things a bit before we come up with a solution for replacing all the products that are made from oil.

Like I said above, I'm not passionate about this subject. Frankly, it's not really at the top of my list of things to worry about. I'm just saying that we are a lot further than a few years away from losing our dependency on oil and if this puts Americans to work I'm more in favor than against. Hope that made sense. I tend to ramble.

  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:46 PM EST
MJMullinII

At #1.13 -- And none of that changes the fact that pushing the pipeline "for the good of the country" is PRECISELY what the Democrats said when the passed Healthcare.

I find the double standard very curious and would like a Republican to please tell me why they should be allowed move "against the will of the people" but a communist conspiracy when Democrats can be accused of doing it?

  • 10 votes
#1.14 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:54 PM EST
Matt22V36_40

MJ - Like I said, I'm not passionate about this. I'm just more for it than against. I think the difference is that the healthcare bill cost us tons and tons of money and, like pretty much all government programs, will likely result in mediocre care. This is just a way to make a few bucks the way I read it. It'll put some people back to work. That's mainly why I approve of it more than disapprove.

I completely agree that it sucks that some places don't want this and will likely get it. I figure if an oil company has enough money to build that large of a pipeline surely it can come up with extra to go around or reroute.

BTW, I tend to vote more Republican than Democrat but I wouldn't say I'm a person that leans very strong towards Republicans. Just as I've found with Democrats, I tend to find them hard to trust. Neither side really impresses me.

  • 1 vote
#1.15 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:08 PM EST
MJMullinII

At #1.15 -- I'll tell you the one thing that causes me to lean more toward Democrats than Republicans (maybe you'll find it pertinent, maybe you won't :) ) is that they tend to error on the side of the middle class.

Now does that mean I'm naive enough to believe that Democrats are always for the little guy and those darned old Republicans never are, of course not.

But here's my problem -- When Democrats are accused of "tax and spend" or any of the other talk-radio-esque smartass quips you hear, it's always over something that, ultimately, serves the public EVEN IF it's "giving stuff" to people who aren't deemed "worthy" of support.

However, when Republicans are given cutesy smartass names like "Greed Over People" (you can fill in the blanks I'm sure), It's always on the back of nonsense like this -- specifically moving to far (in my opinion) toward codling corporate interests at the expense -- rather than the benefit -- of the people in general.

Social Security, Medicare, the Healthcare Reform, all of the things Republicans bemoan all error (assuming you consider them errors, I do not) on the side of those who, otherwise, would have little power.

Demanding a pipeline be built and holding middle-class tax cuts hostage -- if you heard that without any qualifiers...you would know exactly who it was speaking of without being told (speaking of Republicans) and I think that's very sad.

But my empathy does not equal sympathy.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:27 PM EST
mairslm

Keystone XL is shovel-ready. TransCanada is poised to put 13,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline - pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, among other jobs - in addition to 7,000 manufacturing jobs that would be created across the U.S. Additionally, local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local goods and service providers.
TransCanada looks forward to concluding the U.S. regulatory review process and beginning the important work of building Keystone XL. The safe and reliable operation of our pipelines and infrastructure has been TransCanada's priority for 60 years. This same commitment will drive us forward in the years ahead.

  • 3 votes
#1.17 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 PM EST
MJMullinII

At #1.17 -- STATE'S DON'T WANT IT. I'm sorry to yell, but what makes Republicans' wanting the Federal Government to run over states any different than their accusations of the exact same thing by the passing of the Healthcare Law?

Democrats can produce and equally long list of the "great things it does" -- What makes one alright and the other a "communist conspiracy"?

BTW -- your posting sounds suspiciously like an advertisement (or at best a press release).

  • 8 votes
#1.18 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:39 PM EST
Rich-365548

[Rep. Fred Upton] said Canadian development of a pipeline is a certainty, and lawmakers needed to decide whether they wanted it to end up in the United States or "someplace like China."

Really? You think it will be cost-effective to build a pipeline from Canada to China, which must be 6 or 7 times the distance to Texas and most of the trip is via the Pacific Ocean? You really think Canada can count on China to negotiate honestly with them, that it would less complicated than dealing with political red tape in America? You really think Canada would consider this as a realistic option? Really?!

  • 1 vote
#1.19 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:40 AM EST
sobi

lol

  • 1 vote
#1.20 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:12 AM EST
TexMan

Bring it on - who needs fresh drinking water. If you are rich you can move to another area. Or can you? Anyone remember Love Canal ?

Preserving the US for our children and grandchildren just does not apply whey you are talking about the GOP / GOTP grabbing a fist full of dollars.

  • 10 votes
#1.21 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:34 AM EST
HappyToSeeYa

@1.11 Smith Cassidy and @1.21 TexMan are both correct.

Now, we have another in a series of teapublicon hostage taking.

We already know that fracking is poisoning potable water. We don't know the environmental impact for the pipeline. We, who are the 99%, are about to be sold out by our teapublicon federal representatives who are blowing off their fellow state tea/republicans who have negative issues about the pipeline. All the teapublicon feds know is that they can line their pockets. Teapublicon feds hear ka-ching!

  • 7 votes
#1.22 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:56 AM EST
scott-1148057

you've got to get a life and stop blaming others for your injustice in life..... blame the tea party blame the tea party, they are intolerant and want to stop my being able to do WHATEVER I want....thats not fair wah wah wah. those tea partiers live by rules of conduct that oppose mine so they are bad wah wah wah ....they're policies want to create societal leanings towards goodness and wholesomeness and that will resrtict my abilities to live my hedonistic lifestyle wah wah wah

    #1.23 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:05 AM EST
    wwaugh

    This Bill is the usual GOP piece of CRAP. It will go nowhere in the Senate. This is a welfare Bill for the Red States. Americans need to vote everyone of these ass-hats out.

    • 6 votes
    #1.24 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:37 AM EST
    Zoolopolis

    GOP don't mind being seen as Corporate Tools.

    • 5 votes
    #1.25 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:15 AM EST
    Michelle-340891

    As a lifelong citizen of Nebraska, I can tell you that the MAJORITY of people in my state do NOT want this atrocity to be built here, especially through our beloved sandhills. It goes beyond the topside environmental impacts, which would be HUGE, despite what the oil company would like us to believe. It ALSO goes over very sandy soil directly over the largest aquifer in the U.S. (and one of the largest in the world), and right where the aquifer is closest to the surface. Right in the heart of the "breadbasket of the world." But then, who needs food when the world will have a few more barrels of oil to bid on (most of that oil will NOT be sold to the U.S., but on the world market, as most oil is)?

    WHEN the pipeline leaks, and it IS when, not if, it will have NOTHING to stop it from soaking into that aquifer, also despite what the oil company would like us to believe. This would be a colossal disaster, in every aspect. It will impact our food production, our water source, our livestock, our livelihoods... everything. When this @!$%#s up an goes south, there is NO do-over. Much like the Gulf.

    State's rights are only important to the GOTP when they can get something they want out of it. When they can't, they're fully ready and willing to throw that out the window to appease their God, which we all know is corporate money, specifically Big Oil money.

    Our state already told Keystone XL to go to hell. Maybe, by doing this, more people in this state will wake up and realize that the Republicans no longer speak for us middle-class farm community types, if they ever did. If the GOTP keeps pushing this, the only good thing that might come of it is that they will forever lose Nebraska to the Dems. Not a huge loss to them, with only 2 electoral votes, but any loss for the GOTP is a good thing, IMO.

    However, it would be disastrous for those of us who have to live here. Not that the GOTP cares, as long as they get their kickbacks ... er ... bribes ... er ... campaign contributions.

    • 9 votes
    #1.26 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:22 PM EST
    neoatg

    This is a Bill the GOP know has no change in hell of passing as they loaded it down with Right-wing pet projects. They just wanted a bill any bill no matter how silly that GOP supports can use to defend them from the fact that they have no real intention of passing an extension for the middle class.

    • 7 votes
    #1.27 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:53 PM EST
    MyPurpleNews

    The bill that was passed by the House has many many facets.

    First the extension of the SS tax cut. Why in the world would any rational person extend this tax cut when the very fund that relies on the revenue from this tax is running in the red? The obvious answer is that a rational person would not extend this tax cut. The very people that rely the most on the payments from SS fund are the people who have labored all of their lives under the false premise that the fund would be solvent in order to ensure payments to them in retirement. The so-called rich don't rely on these SS payments. As everyone knows, the so-called rich have their own retirement funds and the SS payments are simply icing on the so-called rich's investment returns. I find the premise that $20 per week is essential money for the so-called middle class having lived that so-called middle class all of my life. Seriously, a couple of 6 packs a week. I can live without it - thanks just the same.

    Next, the unemployment benefit. I have lived the life-I know about unemployment and a job search. 99 weeks is an absolute joke. I'm laughing as I write this. Who could imagine receiving a check for 99 weeks for doing absolutely nothing. I've heard the arguments that this poor unemployed people are being held back from receiving what is rightfully theirs if the unemployed are required to actually document that they have pursued work, a GED or other job training. Wait a minute. They are the one's that are unemployed. Shouldn't they be motivated to follow the logical steps that are required to receive FREE money from others. The unemployed did not EARN this benefit. It is bestowed on them by a generous government that robs it from the employers. The bill as passed by the House for this provision is a joke. Shouldn't have ever passed. Make people work for a living and they will achieve more including self-respect.

    I'm getting tired and need to get back to the couch and drink a YOO-HOO but one last comment. The pipeline. Aren't we in a recession-severe-not mild. Don't we-the US citizens, I will exclude the millions of illegals-desire more jobs in the US? This pipeline does transport some toxic and dirty crude oil. That's true. US engineers have also figured out years ago how to engineer this type of pipeline. Yes, US engineers. Educated and trained in US schools and companies. The pipeline provides thousands of jobs for equipment operators, pipe-fitters, welders, insulators, controls technicians, electricians, carpenters, masons and even project management personnel including engineers and construction management. Let's get off the political bandwagons. This enterprise provides immediate construction jobs to thousands funded by private business. Once finished, the on-going jobs in management/maintenance of the pipeline as well as the refinery business are great long-term jobs. Lastly, the oil production is a key to the US energy business. Let the government concentrate on the important issues such as how many tree squirrels can survive in a black walnut tree in Kansas over one year.

    • 2 votes
    #1.28 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:27 PM EST
    Wizeguy

    WHEN the pipeline leaks, and it IS when, not if, it will have NOTHING to stop it from soaking into that aquifer

    All well said Michelle....the pipe itsef may not burst (but it probably will a few times) but the pumping stations are the weak links...they have already had 11 pumping station "failures"..Trans Canada says they don't count as leaks...change the name form a leak to a failure and wallah no leaks..

    http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-05-12-lets-supersize-a-disaster

    • 4 votes
    #1.29 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:57 AM EST
    MyPurpleNews

    Wizeguy, the pumping stations are constructed with containment for the very purpose of retaining any leakage so that it can be then be cleaned up. The problem with a leak or failure or spill is the potential damage to the surrounding area and the groundwater. The pumping station construction deals with that issue.

    • 1 vote
    #1.30 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:48 PM EST
    Wizeguy

    Yup and the BP PLatform in the Gulf had a blow out preventor that worked real well....

    • 5 votes
    #1.31 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:27 AM EST
    Reply
    RACHEL1-933952

    Yup...we'll give you peons your tax break as long as we can pollute your water, air and destroy the environment...UGH!!!!

    • 26 votes
    Reply#2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:39 PM EST
    MyPurpleNews

    Rachel, who do you think the "we" is? Didn't the House pass this bill? If so, the members of the House represent all of "we the people". Some of the 'people" are highly educated, experienced and motivated. They achieve more and are compensated accordingly. Are you motivated to achieve your goals? If so, you can achieve whatever you desire. Probably not the first time you try and not without a great many set-backs and hours upon hours of hard work. If you are not motivated, be ready to continue to dwell in mediocrity.

      #2.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:41 PM EST
      sobi

      Jeepers. I wouldn't think that Rachel had offered nearly enough personally revealing information to receive that kind of an assessment. There ought to be at least one piece of evidence which is not derived and a product of the reader.

      • 2 votes
      #2.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:47 AM EST
      RACHEL1-933952

      Thank you sobi!

      I am not now, nor have I ever wallowed in mediocrity....but, the purple might not realize that, as they've no bloody idea of who I am....

      • 2 votes
      #2.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:34 AM EST
      sobi

      You actually required no defense. My comment was an offense against improper characterization substituting for argument. No bloody idea is right, but as it was required and not present, the remainder of the assessment deserved assessment. I merely provided it.

      Have a good day.

      • 1 vote
      #2.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:45 AM EST
      MyPurpleNews

      sobi

      kind of an assessment

      Do not put words in my mouth. I gave no assessment what so ever!

      And I certainly called no one "peons" like Rachel.

      Back to the point, The Bush tax cuts, currently the Obama Tax Cut Plan, were cuts for absolutely all people who pay taxes (that is only 50% of the people). When the President consistently calls out for taxing a tiny sector of the population without that sectors expressed permission then you no longer have a democracy. If the upper corporate executives have an advantage with the capital gains tax (and they do)which is commonly used as a means of compensation for executives, then fix the tax code. The practice to do a tax "work around" and tax small business, who pay 50% of Income in taxes to get a way to tax the "Warren Buffets" who pay capital gains is backwards. Go to the problem, the 70,000 pages of tax code favors, Congresses book of gifts to their donors.

      • 1 vote
      #2.5 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:12 AM EST
      sobi

      I did not put words in your mouth. It wasn't necessary.

      • 3 votes
      #2.6 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:33 AM EST
      RACHEL1-933952

      And I certainly called no one "peons" like Rachel.

      Neither did I...I was speaking from Congress' voice, not mine.

      • 1 vote
      #2.7 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:57 AM EST
      Reply
      Awed and Amazed

      You know, this is far past ridicluous. The Republicans are in favor of the payroll tax cut; so are the Democrats. What they couldn't agree on was how to pay for it.

      Obama and most Democrats favor an income surtax on million-dollar earners to pay for extending the Social Security tax cut, but Republicans oppose that, saying it is a violation of their pledge not to raise taxes.

      Instead, the House bill called for a one-year pay freeze and higher pension costs for federal workers, higher Medicare costs for seniors over $80,000 in income as well as other items to cover the cost.

      You know what Republicans, F you and F your pledge. Seriously, I can't even pretend like anything you have to say is valid anymore. I think there's another pledge you're forgetting...

      • 19 votes
      Reply#3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:47 PM EST
      MyPurpleNews

      Awed, First why do you think the Government is right to tax only a minority of the population more? Second, do you know that Obamacare and many states already tax millionaires. This card have been played over and over and Obama lies about it. Third, here are the statistics so that you can rest the anger that the uppers pay too little:
      ONLY a scant 1.57 million tax returns nationwide pay income taxes. These pay few people pay 40% of US taxes of the 307 million people!
      Summary:
      307,000,000 people,
      157,000,000 file returns,
      75,000,000 pay taxes, the lower aprrox. 50% pay no Income taxes.
      1,570,000 pay 40 % of the taxes

      There are so many free-riders in the USA, of course, they say tax the tiny percent, JUST DON'T TAX ME

      Maybe we should ALL pay a flat tax even drug lords who get a free ride on taxpayers as they drive down the street in their Bentleys!

        #3.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:18 AM EST
        MJMullinII

        At #3.1 -- Ah, yes, see that's the definition of "Progressive Income Tax".

        i.e. -- When a group controls 99% of the money and assets, it should really be no surprise that they pay the lion-share of the taxes.

        It's almost as though you're saying that by virtue of being the richest class of of individuals IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY they should somehow now be exempt from supporting the very system that allows them their high status as...what...a reward?

        • 3 votes
        #3.2 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:33 AM EST
        MyPurpleNews

        exempt from supporting the very system

        Your logic is puzzling, Since the top 10% pay for 70% of the taxes, then they are the very ones that built the "very system". Where do you get they do not support it????????????????

        And the so called poor, the 50% who pay zero Income taxes... How is it that the rich are riding on their back? In fact, they are riding quite free of income taxes.

        This is Obama campaign red meat to get everyone enraged over silliness so he can make you forget that he ran the debt up after saying how unpatriotic it was for Bush to have a lesser debt increase, or how he never went through the budget line by line to find waste like he promised, and how the economy never got the boost he promised after his First Stimulus. And now he says, he didn't understand how damaged the economy was after decades of the housing bubble (not just the Bush years). Finally, I agree, the housing bubble started with Carter and has grown since then; and it will take years to recover. But this economic mess was created by the Government policy of "red-lining", not the fault of the rich, yet the hungry government, wants only the rich to pay by a millionaires tax for solutions for it's ills as the spending continues! Now I have taken you to the frustration. The government creates bad policy, then they look to the people to pay for it. No wonder the Congress and the President have a terrible rating.

        • 2 votes
        #3.3 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:36 AM EST
        MJMullinII

        And the so called poor, the 50% who pay zero Income taxes

        50% of those are extremely wealthy who live off tax deferred (or even exempt) income. So, as a whole, only 25% of Americans earn so little in income as to be exempt from Income Tax (though they certainly pay other taxes).

        and how the economy never got the boost he promised after his First Stimulus

        You mean the $400 Billion in tax cuts Republicans promise will fix everything?

        Since the top 10% pay for 70% of the taxes

        Yes, see, that's called "Progressive Income Tax" -- You make money, you pay taxes.

        not the fault of the rich

        No one said it was their fault, we simply asked that everyone contribute to fixing the problem everyone benefited from. The poor benefited from Government spending, the rich benefited from not being taxed.

        It's improper to ask the poor to suffer with budget cuts to programs they might well have expected to continue while not asking the rich to contribute to paying down the debt through an extremely modest 2% tax increase.

        yet the hungry government, wants only the rich to pay by a millionaires tax for solutions

        The Democrats wanted to pass a $4 TRILLION debt reduction with $1 in tax increases for every $1 in budget cuts. You can't get more fair than that.

        Of course the Republicans passed because they have no intention of fixing anything...just complaining (as you're doing now, BTW).

        The government creates bad policy, then they look to the people to pay for it

        i.e. -- YOU ELECTED GOVERNMENT tries to pass policies that please the mass of the people. Trust me when I say you would NOT like the alternative.

        No wonder the Congress and the President have a terrible rating

        Congress as a whole is rating the teens (with Republicans as a party in the single digits). The President is holding in the 40s (just like every other incumbent as this stage who was re-elected).

        No one is buying the pity party martyrdom act (speaking of the Republicans and the rich). The 1% are the wealthiest group of people in all of human history...and that's great. It's something more than a few of us aspire too. However, those of us with self-respect don't expect to be treated differently when we obtain it.

        • 4 votes
        #3.4 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:33 PM EST
        Ronin-2

        MJMullinII

        Must be easy to spend other people's money without risking any of your own? If the Bush Tax cuts were so evil, then they were evil for all of us. Let them all expire and go back to the levels they were under the Clinton administration. At this point it won't help by itself, but this is about winning political points, not what will actually work.

        Don't buy the Democrat BS offer of $1 tax increase for every $1 cut. The cuts would be temporary- just like they were after the Contract with America fell apart, and Clinton left office. Spending would increase, and budgets would be dropped in favor of spending resolutions that are harder to track, and the public to pin down increases.

        Forget trying to then reduce the taxes back again. This time it would be the Dems blocking instead of the government.

        • 1 vote
        #3.5 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:53 PM EST
        TexMan

        What a short memory or a joker. You must fail to recall Bush 2 making a national televised speech where he said that there was not any point to maintaining the Clinton tax rates because the government was simply hoarding money unnecessarily. Then he managed to repeal the inheritance tax rates, reduce the capitol gains rate and give tax creidits and lower rate to the top 5% of US taxpayers.

        Does anyone really wonder why the the economy tanked and national debt went through the roof. Oh yeah ...... the GOP / GOTP will blame Obama. All he did is show up at a time that the Bush 2 tax cuts had the ox mired shoulder deep in mud.

        • 2 votes
        #3.6 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:12 PM EST
        Ronin-2

        It took more than just the Bush tax cuts for the economy to tank. But, I take it that you want to talk simplistic terms? What about.

        • The housing market crash? As much as Dems want to blame Bush for it the roots of it had a start in the Carter and Clinton administrations. Bush tried to warn Congress several times. Frank, Dodd, and the rest of the committee turned the Fannie/Freddie hearing into a joke. Bush shares the blame, along with previous administration, Congress, "flippers". Banks, and people who bought homes they could never afford.
        • Free Trade agreements signed under Clinton. Sure, Bush would have signed them as well; but blaming all of the manufacturing and customer service jobs that fled overseas on Bush is short sighted. Businesses are in around for 1 thing, to make a profit. They saw the chance for profit and left the US.
        • 2 unfunded wars. Bush can take the blame for starting these; but he is no longer President, and the wars are still unfunded. Obama can throw in Libya, and all our encursions into other countries with drone attacks; which are all unfunded as well.
        • Glass Steagall was ended during the Clinton adminstration. Not saying Bush wouldn't have signed it as well, but ending Glass Steagall helped caused the economy to tank.

        I said let the tax rates go back to the rates under the Clinton administration. I was not kidding. But, I do not think it will be a magical cure all for the economy, or the debt at this point. Until government reigns in spending, and keeps it under control, the deficits and ever increasing debt will continue.

        • 2 votes
        #3.7 - Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:06 AM EST
        MyPurpleNews

        We now borrow 42 cents on every dollar, with a tax on the rich, we might drop to around borrowing 39 cents on every dollar. This is no where near the debt solution, but great campaign slogans. Spending for purposes not called out in the Constitution is the problem. For examples, why do we pay for Sesame Street to be shown in another country, why does the Fed Gov fund studies to see why monkeys throw their poop? I am not saying thumbs up or down on these endeavors, but I am saying it is something for the private sector to fund if they have merit, the Federal Gov. has no business funding massive such progams (wthout even speaking about entitlements the the Dems want to hold over voter heads as the only cuts the Fed would make.)

        Fix the tax code. It is 70,000 pages of favors. Implement the
        National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Bowles-Simpson which was created in 2010 by President Barack Obama to identify "…policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.) There are bipartisan solutions that a leader would jump on.

          #3.8 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:08 PM EST
          Reply
          greg81082-4115372

          They are just catering to their base..Oops,I mean basest.

          • 11 votes
          Reply#4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:48 PM EST
          mountainmike-1199289

          New Released Information Ohio Rep. John Boehner has recieved $30million from lobbyists

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgE-4NNLwY

          John is not much different than Tom DeLay before him, the House leader that got involved in the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal and was sentenced to prison.

          • 10 votes
          #4.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:14 PM EST
          Reply
          Redder

          This is the strategy the repubs used to get Mr. Obama to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. He caved in then and I hope he remains steadfast now. Veto the bill and let the tax cut expire. He has to make a stand. Then there will be no excuse to extend the Bush Tax Cuts again and maybe there will be more tax revenue. He keeps letting Mr. Boehner back him into a corner. Had he vetoed the tax cut extension he would have been in a better position now.

          • 12 votes
          Reply#5 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:49 PM EST
          Carl Lafoon

          I agree. Draw a line in the sand.

          VETO THE BILL.

          I don't think the Senate will even pass the bill for the President to sign. Of course the Republican led House doesn't understand Government 101 so I am just p-----g into the wind.

          • 6 votes
          #5.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:27 PM EST
          mountainmike-1199289

          Obama will veto the bill because of Boehner's big fat oil pipeline pork project/butt kiss for big oil.

          • 6 votes
          #5.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:15 PM EST
          RACHEL1-933952

          It will never get out of the Senate...no need to worry about a VETO.

          • 4 votes
          #5.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:39 AM EST
          Reply
          chitownty

          So some pledge to a non elected guy with a big mouth is more important than the pledge they took to the country and their constituents ?

          • 20 votes
          Reply#6 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:56 PM EST
          Michelle-340891

          Yep.

          • 2 votes
          #6.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:27 PM EST
          Reply
          FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS

          Let the Tax cuts expire so people can start funding their SS again. If they are allowed to stay in place The Reps will be saying it's Obama's fault that people didn't put enough into the Trust Fund. President Obama _"VETO THIS BILL" and let the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthy Expire. And Congress pay back those IOU's in the Trust Fund that you "Borrowed" to fund your pork projects.

          • 6 votes
          Reply#7 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:15 PM EST
          acravatt

          That takes it down to the nut cutting, but it just might work.

          • 1 vote
          #7.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:38 PM EST
          Reply
          Donna-3163307

          This whole thing with the Republicans is completely stupid. They care nothing for the people of this country only their own selfish political ambitions. I see Cathy McMorris Rodgers is once again standing behind the speaker. She is a career politician from Washington State and always votes along party lines to further her ambitions. She is now trying to convince the people there that she is trying to protect medicare. All the while she and the other Republicans are plotting to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We've got to vote these people out of office! Our Seniors depend on these programs. Let the rich pay more taxes , that's what Americans really want!

          • 6 votes
          Reply#8 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:15 PM EST
          YELLOW DOG D.

          No pie is better than half a pie, this time. Hold to your stand Mr. President.

          • 13 votes
          Reply#9 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:18 PM EST
          b dune

          I thought teapublicans say they are for "States Rights"

          Nebraska says they don't want the pipeline..

          I repeat - teapublicans are for "States Rights"!

          • 11 votes
          Reply#10 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:19 PM EST
          Michelle-340891

          I thought teapublicans say they are for "States Rights"

          Only when it serves their purposes and puts more money into their pockets....

          Nebraska says they don't want the pipeline..

          That's putting it mildly. We actually told Keystone to go to hell (nicely of course).

          • 4 votes
          #10.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:30 PM EST
          Reply
          outragious

          Typical move by the Repub/TP. It has been obvious that they will fight for their master but not the very people who elected them into office. They will fight to uphold a pledge but not the Constitution. Traitors, the whole lot of them...

          VETO it Mr. President! This issue is about the American people's well being, not some Canadian lobbyist and their American accomplices; who's primary focus is about the well being of their coffers!! Enough of our country has been given over to other countries (China, India, Mexico etc.) it is time to make a stand! Do NOT Compromise, according to their rules, it is a bad thing!!!!!

          • 7 votes
          Reply#11 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:28 PM EST
          Mal'achi

          My comment is based on the original article (not presently shown).

          John Boner is obviously playing with himself again while his fellow Republicans have their heads up their as_es as usual.

          As drafted by Republicans, the measure also would block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing planned rules to limit toxic emissions from industrial boilers. Republicans said the regulation would be a job killer

          Sounds to me like the toxic emissions are already killing employees.

          Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that the Canadian development of a pipeline is a certainty, and lawmakers needed to decide whether they wanted it to end up in the United States or "someplace like China."

          Let’s see, if Canada is looking to run a pipeline from Texas to Canada; how in God’s Name can it end up “someplace like China”???

          • 7 votes
          Reply#12 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:29 PM EST
          Mal'achi

          The original article also didn't mention the route of the proposed pipeline or how much was to be paid to a U.S. property owner if their land was needed or whether eminent domain was even applicable since the pipeline is Canadian venture.

          • 3 votes
          #12.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:40 PM EST
          Michelle-340891

          Mal'achi: They've already threatened several landowners here in Nebraska with eminent domain, pissing a LOT of people here off. Yet another strong arm tactic being used on us, in addition to the LIES the company is telling about how "safe" their pipelines are....

          Nebraska already told Keystone to go to hell. Why does the GOTP think they can force citizens to do something they don't want to do, and that's okay, but if the Dems want to use a REPUBLICAN IDEA like a mandate (which isn't a good idea, IMO) it's fascism ... or is that socialism? I keep hearing it differently depending on which GOTPer is talking....

          • 3 votes
          #12.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:34 PM EST
          Hannibel Lechter

          Michelle-340891

          I've heard that when "eminent domain" is involved the private landowner (not a business owner) has the right to hire whatever lawyer he/she wants; usually the best in their field. The lawyer will then fight for them (trying to prevent the acquisition or transfer of the property or obtaining the highest possible price for their property for them). The property owner would then be able to send the bill for the lawyer to the state or in this case to Keystone to pay. Every state has their own set of laws so, I'd check with an attorney in your state to confirm it.

          • 3 votes
          #12.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:46 PM EST
          Mal'achi

          Michelle-340891

          It doesn't sound like fascism or socialism; it appears to be a rampant case of "economic corruption" on the part of our political leaders to me.

          • 2 votes
          #12.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:23 PM EST
          Reply
          FactOfTheMatter

          What does the pipeline have to do with tax cuts?

          I am really sick of tax cuts for the middle class being held hostage to corporations and the rich.

          • 16 votes
          Reply#13 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:37 PM EST
          Spike Eng2

          Well it might have something to do with money. Big money for for big oil and a few bucks to placate the masses while our environment is being destroyed .

          • 12 votes
          #13.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:44 PM EST
          Mal'achi

          FactOfTheMatter

          The Republicans are looking to "blackmail" Obama into passing the social security tax cuts only if he accepts the "sweetheart" extras they snuck into the bill to benefit Big Business.

          • 11 votes
          #13.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:45 PM EST
          Coral Atlas

          The GOTP has to believe that the majority of Americans are just plain stupid and that they can walk all over us and even piss on us at the same time! and then just spend a skillion dollars to get us to vote for them and believe their line of crap.

          • 9 votes
          #13.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:52 PM EST
          mountainmike-1199289

          The oil pipeline that Boehner wants is a big fat pork project for big oil. I have no doubt he has been paid a lot of lobbyist money to promote this project to move Canadian shale oil into the United States. Check the route of the pipeline and it is a line up of Republican states. And the EPA just verified that excavation for shale oil through hydrofracking and chemicals results in those chemicals ending up in the ground water of the local areas where it is excavated.

          • 5 votes
          #13.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:26 PM EST
          Reply
          BKER1492

          HMMMMMM. Tax cuts for all with funding to pay for it. A pipeline bringing jobs and energy to the USA and that is wanted by all the Democrat owned Labor unions. A pipeline that adds capabilities to another already existing pipeline (that hasn't destroyed the environment). A pipeline that will generate millions, if not billions, of dollars in state and federal taxes.

          I can see why Democrats hate this bill.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#14 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:47 PM EST
          mountainmike-1199289

          Its all about big oil moving Canadian Shale oil into America by pipeline through Republican states.

          And that's what Republicans hate to hear, the truth.

          • 5 votes
          #14.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:28 PM EST
          neoatg

          BKER1492 your overinflated that this pipeline will mean for "American" it will be a Canadian pipeline subject to Canadian policy not US

          • 3 votes
          #14.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:39 PM EST
          Michelle-340891

          Bker: A pipeline that WON'T bring a whole lot of jobs into our state, despite the tripe we've been told, while cutting through a VERY fragile ecosystem in our sandhills, and jeopardizing the largest aquifer in the U.S. And if you believe for a second that the GOTP will allow this oil company to pay "millions, if not billions of dollars in state and federal taxes," you haven't been paying attention to what the GOTP has been doing for YEARS. Tax cuts to the uber-wealthy and Big Oil are the very foundation of the GOTP's tax plan, and has been since Reagan.

          By the way, do you have a source for that claim? I'd love to see some kind of study that shows the amount of tax revenue this would generate. One from a NONPARTISAN, NON-BIASED source. Good luck with that one, and I won't hold my breath.

          Nebraska, a RED state, has told Keystone we don't want it going through our sandhills. We don't want to deal with the loss of our ecology, our environment, our water source, our livestock, our farms, our very livelihoods. WE DON'T WANT IT.

          What part of "Nebraska said NO to the pipeline" don't you understand?

          • 4 votes
          #14.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:44 PM EST
          YELLOW DOG D.

          When ever it leaks, Michele, you will get a lot of clean up jobs.

          • 1 vote
          #14.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:29 PM EST
          Michelle-340891

          Yellow: LOL. Well, that may be true ... however, it will more than likely be on OUR dimes, not TransCanada's (much like BP and the GOTP wanted for the Gulf).

            #14.5 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:38 AM EST
            BKER1492

            So Canada controls pipelines inside America? And the "Truth" is that most of the jobs will be in Republican States?

            If Democrats as a group were thier own species they would be extinct.

              #14.6 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:10 PM EST
              Reply
              sistagirl

              So the bill also has the house continuing their war on the unemployed by reducing weeks of payments and they also have repealing the HCR. A real non-starter and a waste of time, but that is what they want anyway.

              Can we please get rid of these people come 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • 7 votes
              Reply#15 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:47 PM EST
              Coral Atlas

              sistagirl .... Absolutely! Done!

              We just have to build up enough momentum to break all records at the poll booths and give OUR President a mandate to make some much needed changes to the constitution and the SCOTUS as well as extend term limits for the President like Mayor Bloomberg did in NYC!!!!

              • 6 votes
              #15.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:55 PM EST
              Mal'achi

              sistagirl

              My wife and I have already decided NOT to vote for ANY Republican; vote them all out. Then raise taxes sky high on the rich and big business.

              • 6 votes
              #15.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:56 PM EST
              MyPurpleNews

              You are too late. The rich already pay almost ALL OF TAXES.. Specifically the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes. The huge bottom 50% pay zero. Your Obama loves to throw red meat into the crowd and say tax the rich, but he can check that off. His Obamacare already taxes the rich more.

              It just plays so well for those who do not FACT CHECK the lies. Open your eyes and see that the Democrates are buying votes by throwing candy to crowd.

                #15.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:30 AM EST
                Michelle-340891

                MyPurple: The "top earners" (top 10%) ALSO hold over 80% of the wealth in this country.

                http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

                Source site for your standard Faux talking point? One that is reliable and nonpartisan. That means anything connected to Faux "News" and right wing propaganda groups are excluded. I'll not hold my breath.

                Your answer is to make those with no money pay even MORE in taxes? And that is somehow fair to you? When the wages of the richest 1% have gone up almost 300% since the Bush tax cuts, while the "average" income for the masses has remained stagnant? Tell you what, when the masses profit from those tax dollars as much as the wealthy do, then maybe I'll support that. Until then, we each pay according to our ability. And the filthy rich have a much better ability to pay a little more than some schmuck struggling to pay the rent and feed the kids on what few breadcrumbs the filthy rich deem the rest of us worthy of.

                • 5 votes
                #15.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:59 PM EST
                MyPurpleNews

                As long as your attitude is the rich are filthy

                filthy rich

                you will always say the rich, no matter how much they pay and how hard the work, deserve to pay for everyone else . Don't throw all the rich in one basket. There are good and bad in all incomes. The rich have no monoplies on the ills of the income groups.

                You make no comment that the capital gains tax at 15% and the entire 70,000 page tax code of sweet heart deals created by Congress are the problem. Again the poor pay no Income taxes. Check the IRS stats. Obama has created these haters for self-serving purposes. The rich DO NOT cause the poor.

                Middle class jobs were send over seas by the Unions driving up the cost of labor here, not the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, the middle class as reported on CNN has decreased due 3 things: 1. they are dropping out of school more, 2. there are more divorces splitting income. 3. Increased drug use. These are NOT caused by the Bush tax cuts or the rich. The middle class is becoming a smaller group due these issues, there is more income at the top by default becuse the middle income jobs are gone. Thank the UNIONS, not the uppers for chasing jobs out the USA. And I brilliant enought to read so always attributing anything you wantto deny to Fox is a worthless debate.

                we each pay according to our ability

                You like Carl Marx?

                • 1 vote
                #15.5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:42 PM EST
                Michelle-340891

                MyPurple: So it's okay to you that the top 10% owns 80% of our wealth? And they have the gall to whine about not having the rest of it!

                I'd like a source site that shows that unions drove our jobs overseas. One from a RELIABLE source, which would necessarily exclude Faux News, Rush, or a right wing blog.

                attributing anything you wantto deny to Fox is a worthless debate

                Which translates to "I can't provide any proof or source site to you." Typical.

                Interesting that unions caused all this, considering the FACT that union membership has gone down. And that union membership drop closely parallels when wages became stagnant.

                1. they are dropping out of school more, 2. there are more divorces splitting income. 3. Increased drug use

                Want to know what DOES cause all of those issues? No money. Flat wages. Arguments over what to pay for: rent or food.

                I DO thank the unions. For my 40 hour work week, sick leave, vacation time, child labor laws, safe workplace laws, a wage that is better than slave wages, etc. Yeah, those unions. What horrible things they've brought to the workers of this country!/s

                We were told that the Bush tax cuts would keep jobs here. WHERE ARE THE JOBS? We've had Bush tax cuts for about a decade now, and still NO JOBS. Why is that? The uber wealthy (since you right wingers don't like the word "filthy" unless you're talking about OWS) have gotten even MORE wealthy, and still they aren't hiring (at the behest of the TPers, I might add http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-tea-party-nation-tells-business-owners-not-to-hire-anyone-20111021,0,7355762.story). When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, MORE JOBS LEFT. We started hemorrhaging jobs even faster than we had been before. Yet, this was said to be the savior of jobs in this country. How do you account for that? Gonna blame Clinton, like the GOTP always does?

                The Carl Marx shot is typical of right wingers. Tells me everything I need to know about you. Welcome to Ignore. Which re-reg are you, by the way?

                • 5 votes
                #15.6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:25 PM EST
                MJMullinII

                At 15.5 --

                You like Carl Marx?

                I think you mean "Karl Marx". If you're going to pull a right-wing talking point, is it too much to ask that you at least be able to spell what you consider to be such an insult?

                • 2 votes
                #15.7 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:03 PM EST
                YELLOW DOG D.

                Kinda like Felipe Castro or Jose Stalin,eh?

                  #15.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:10 PM EST
                  MyPurpleNews

                  MJ Hey! Thank you for correcting my spelling, Comrade. I stand corrected. Right wing, left wing, no need to hide under labels. Karl liked to see a vanilla, mediocre world with no incentives. Not my style. Not on my Christmas list either. I could use a spell checker on the site!

                    #15.9 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:27 AM EST
                    Reply
                    JeffWood

                    The Republican House could pass a bill that everyone would like and Harry Reid would still stand up in front of the microphone and say "This bill is Dead On Arrival". What was the last one he liked? What was the last one any of the posters on this page liked? I imagine it was one that was passed by that clucking Pelosi!

                      Reply#16 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:54 PM EST
                      Coral Atlas

                      The truth is when was the last time the GOTP compromised on ANYTHING?

                      All they've done is passed one poison pi;; after another that were dead on arrival and dead before they were even voted on by the house majority.

                      They are the losers in all of this. And attacking Nancy Pelosi because she's smarter than most white right men does no good. ;-)

                      • 7 votes
                      #16.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:57 PM EST
                      JeffWood

                      Coral,

                      The GOP has compromised more than they should. And the Dems have never compromised. Spending plan after plan, Jobs bill after Jobs bill have not enamoured this Congress or the POTUS. None have acted in the interest of the American People...none are even close. They are playing games with our lives and our childrens futures. Attacking individual issues shows our collective weakness and empowers Congress and the Executive Branch to continue to run over us. Their actions and distractions have the American people looking like the hopeful prom queen chasing after the shiny object hanging from the tiara; only to find out that we are running down a dark tunnel with no idea how we got there.

                      • 1 vote
                      #16.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:10 PM EST
                      are you crazy?-1425777

                      And the entrance to that tunnel started in 2001 but the light at the end of the tunnel looks like it will be here in 2012, that’s when the GOP will be DOA in November. Then Obama, Harry and Nancy get their bulldozers out.

                      • 4 votes
                      #16.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:19 PM EST
                      JeffWood

                      "get the bulldozers out"???? I think Washington has been bulldozing us for years. What do you think they are going to do for you if the GOP shows up DOA? I doubt that they will be thinking of you or their minions when they are splitting up their spoils. Blind Faith still makes me shake my head in awe of peoples blindness to what power does to people when they perceive their temporary as absolute. Wake up folks, you can't really believe your interests are being considered.

                      • 3 votes
                      #16.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:32 PM EST
                      MJMullinII

                      At #16 -- When you control 1/3 of the Government, you haven't been given the authority to demand "my way or the highway".

                      If the American Voter was interested in the Republican Party controlling America's Legislative Agenda, they would have put them in control of Congress in 2010 (like they did in 1994) -- they didn't.

                      They wanted, only, a check against Democrats -- but they still wanted Democrats calling the shots.

                      Don't get mad at Democrats because they choose to carry out the will of their constituents.

                      clucking Pelosi

                      Perfect example of why the above was done.

                      • 5 votes
                      #16.5 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:51 PM EST
                      Coral Atlas

                      Jeffwood - not sure what nation you've been living in or for that matter what planet ...... just concentrate on what your precious GOTP has done rather than make up stories about this President that the majority of Americans know are false ...

                      although looking for something your party has accomplished won't take up more than a few seconds of your time ... instead concentrate on what they haven't done or what they've ruined over the last decades dating back to the old cowboy .... decades - and that will take you a lifetime to enumerate ....

                      • 4 votes
                      #16.6 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:11 PM EST
                      Reply
                      greg81082-4115372

                      "If the rich could hire the poor to die for them, the poor would make a very nice living."--Yiddish saying.

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#17 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:56 PM EST
                      MyPurpleNews

                      If you like quotes, try an American quote by DAvid N. Mayer.
                      Taxes, to be legitimate, must be imposed with the consent of the people on whom they will be levied.

                      This plan of the founding fathers has died. See 3.1 above.

                        #17.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:36 AM EST
                        neoatg

                        Guess what Purple The majority want tax increase on the top We meet your quote long ago it's the few powerful that have stopped the many masses.

                        And your 3.1 post is a mass of false GOP talkingpoints mixed togeather.

                        • 5 votes
                        #17.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:46 PM EST
                        MyPurpleNews

                        No they are not from the GOP facts. They are info readily available in public records, but Obama does not want to know that the uppers pay 70% of the tax because he is campaigning on " tax the rich". He forgets to say tax them MORE. 3.1 is solid and the Democrats have no dispute, they just want more. On the news this morning they said to pay 60% of your income in Federal taxes is still no enough for the richest.

                        The fact that you think this is fictional scare me to know that you believe Obama without a FACT check, and you really think the upper 10% does not pay 70% of the income taxes and have for years... Please validate for yourself so you can know the facts.

                        • 1 vote
                        #17.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:58 PM EST
                        neoatg

                        I should of read your profile before I posted so much sigh DNFTT

                        • 1 vote
                        #17.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:08 PM EST
                        MyPurpleNews

                        NEOATG-A non-reply

                        The facts from the IRS are that you have aready succeeded in taxing the rich.
                        50% pay no income taxes and this is 50% of those who file returns, other do not even file.

                        It really takes the wind out of the Obama sail when his base finds out he already taxed the rich in Obamacare and they already pay 70% of the income taxes. Right? How would it look if he stated the IRS facts?

                        Just get the facts from the IRS before you fall for the Obama red meat, no need to watch FOX when the government puts this info out.

                        • 1 vote
                        #17.5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:57 PM EST
                        neoatg

                        Yea yea Right-wing tlaking point this right wing talking point that. No what takes the sails out of the insanity of tax cuts Or the idea that the rich pay there fair share is this.

                        The rich are paying less percentage wise in taxes then at any other time in the last 100 years. The only reason they still pay the majority of taxes is because they control a never before seen amount of US wealth. So much wealth that everyone else has seen at best minor wage growth most have seen a decline or stagnate wage. Millions have been thrown into poverity by the top 1-10% Gambling on wall street. When you control upwards of 80% of an entires countries wealth expect to pay the majoity of taxes that they are still paying less propotionaly then most americans is a crime.

                        And sorry The so called 50% stat is bull@!$%# it inculdes people who get a refund meaning they over paid there taxes. They paid they jsut didn't pay a 2nd time.

                        • 3 votes
                        #17.6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:08 PM EST
                        MyPurpleNews

                        neotage

                        who get a refund meaning they over paid there taxes

                        Per the IRS, 47% of those who file returns pay no taxes. For the statistics, it makes no differences as to how much was deducted from payroll and how much was paid with the return. The figure is based on ones income level, deductions, & marital status, and not if they get money back! Where in the world did you get that idea!

                        The rich are paying less percentage wise in taxes then at any other time in the last 100 years

                        Lumping the rich ($250k to a Zillion Dollars) is quite a large spread to lump together. I am sure the husband and wife team bringing in $300,000 do not feel that they are in the same game as Warren Buffet. In fact, most small businesses pay about 50% of their income in taxes. However, due to the capital gains tax rate, not the income tax, many corporate executive get a break. This would be those execs who get compensated by stock options. Cap Gains tax is only 15%. So if a corp exec has a good year and makes 20 million in stock options, he pays only 15%. This makes his entire tax load very light. I agree this treatment under the tax code makes the upper income pay lightly WHEN they are are corporate execs paying at capital gains rates. But why confuse this with the small bs man paying 50% in taxes if you are really trying to do the right thing for the American people. So I am 100% on board with throwing all 70,000 pages of that tax code out, since it is full of the favors. I say let's start with another taxing tool that will also include the trillions of dollars of off-the-books income from the drug lords, sex trade, gangs, bribes etc. as well.

                        • 1 vote
                        #17.7 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:10 AM EST
                        TexMan

                        I see that the serial Karl Rove misinformation and incorrect information spreader is back at work. Typical inaccurate GOTP / GOP bs.

                        • 2 votes
                        #17.8 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:28 AM EST
                        TexMan

                        Once again Purple - here are the factual figures for how much tax is paid

                        You either ignorantly or disingenuously misstate the numbers.

                        http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs343tot.pdf

                        Again, put you source where your mouth is and show me where I am wrong

                        • 2 votes
                        #17.9 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:36 AM EST
                        Reply
                        elpkidd

                        Mr. President,

                        I make approximately 39 thousand dollars a year, please feel free to raise my social security taxes. I consider it an investment in my future.

                        note: this is not sarcasm!

                        • 10 votes
                        Reply#18 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:59 PM EST
                        Tappy McWidestance

                        I would gladly let my SS tax go up if they removed the cap on who pays. SS tax should also be taken from investment income.

                        • 8 votes
                        #18.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:15 PM EST
                        elpkidd

                        There is no cap on who pays SS tax, everyone pays on at least a part of their income. The cap is set at the first $108,600 dollars of income per year. No one pays on anything after that.

                        • 1 vote
                        #18.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:20 PM EST
                        Tappy McWidestance

                        SS tax is not paid by people who only earn investment income. It is only paid on wages. And as you pointed out there is a cap so wealth wage earners pay a lower percentage of their income into the trust fund than poor people.

                        • 4 votes
                        #18.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:38 PM EST
                        Coral Atlas

                        When you consider that 100% of lower & middle incomes go towards just satisfying basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and transportation and then education, insurance, utilities and health care beyond that - you start to realize just how screwed most Americans are!!!!!

                        • 5 votes
                        #18.4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:14 PM EST
                        Ronin-2

                        Remove the cap on what an individual can receive from SS, and then we can remove the cap on what an individual pays in.

                        SS was always meant to be you get out what you put in.

                        • 1 vote
                        #18.5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:47 AM EST
                        Reply
                        demdame

                        Another bill the American people do not want.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#19 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:56 PM EST
                        polearch

                        Don't no why people are upset. For once they came up with some kind of an agreement Just maybe they can keep up agreeing. That in it's self is a miracle. Lets hope they can come together more often in the future

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#20 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:03 PM EST
                        demdame

                        this is not an agreement, it's an assault by the GOtP and will be vetoed if it gets that far. I will gladly pay more into SS than accept this POS

                        • 5 votes
                        #20.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:09 PM EST
                        lifeisgood43

                        An agreement you say. There were 15 Reps who voted against crap. Only 10 Dems cross the isle

                        • 2 votes
                        #20.2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:34 PM EST
                        neoatg

                        It's not an agreement or compromise this is a Bill the GOP know has no change in hell of passing they loaded it down with Right-wing pet projects . They just wanted a bill any bill no matter how silly that GOP supports can use to defend them from the fact that they have no real intention of passing an extension for the middle class.

                        • 5 votes
                        #20.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:51 PM EST
                        Reply
                        lifeisgood43

                        The Reps stink big time Not only the pipeline that shoildn't be in the bill, but they are once again attacking the ObamaCare by taking money away from people who need Health Care. Boy I tell you, these Reps would let their mothers and grandmother die in the street just to please GROVER NORQUIST and the KOCH BROTHERS.

                        • 6 votes
                        Reply#21 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:32 PM EST
                        mountainmike-1199289

                        Big Oil Lobbyists Spending Over $83 Million Dollars This Year
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDx_pbw78Kw

                        Any doubt that big oil / lobbyists are paying Republicans an enormous amount of money for that pipeline?

                        • 6 votes
                        #21.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:32 PM EST
                        Reply
                        RNDiane

                        The Republicans are going to keep on working until they will stand no chance of getting elected. They don't have one person running in this presidential race that has any chance of getting elected. They are, as a group, a bunch of fools. And these get tough, redneck, pressure tactics are not what the American people want to see and frankly I think most people are tired of these elected officials not being able to work together. Some of the Republicans are like small children, stomping their feet and being stubborn.

                        Since so many of them believe in the fundamental Christian stuff, perhaps we could start a "spare the rod, spoil the child" program for them and just whip their butts.

                        • 4 votes
                        Reply#22 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:32 PM EST
                        vivilyDeleted
                        vivilyDeleted
                        JAVE

                        The real scam is that these payroll taxes have not been permanently cut. If it is a good thing enough to keep these taxes from taking effect every couple of years then end them. You don't see either the Democrats or Republicans just give lip service to ending the tax increase. Both wish to play the kick down the road game. Other then allowing politicians of each party to attach all sorts of crap to them every couple years, why allow these taxes and fees to keep existing?

                        Neither the Democrat or Republican scheme is ending this tax on the common American, it's only deferring it. It runs the risk of smaller increases over time or your taxes jumping by an unaffordable amount in a year. The Alternative Minimum Tax and the Medicare payment rate to doctors are two other examples of this nonsense. Any tax that keeps getting kicked down the road should end.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#25 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:45 PM EST
                        southern,comfort

                        This Bill should not have any attachments from the Republican agenda. Woe be unto the ones that make the middle class endure another tax hike right at the NEW Year. Mr. President, veto the damn thing and make them work thru the holidays. They have too much time on their hands anyway. Make them earn their PERKS. They damn sure want to take away ours, and we have already paid for them.

                        • 8 votes
                        Reply#26 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:48 PM EST
                        suz-3786636

                        The Ogallala Aquifer Runs from the Dakotas to Texas. It is larger then the Great Lakes on the Map. The Pipeline will run parallel with this Great Resource that is 978 Trillion Gallons of fresh water, for many STATES. Texas uses the most.

                        • 7 votes
                        Reply#27 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:50 PM EST
                        Michelle-340891

                        And where the pipeline is supposed to go through Nebraska, the aquifer is close to the surface, under VERY sandy soil that will do NOTHING to protect the aquifer. Of course, Keystone doesn't want anyone to know about that, which is why they keep LYING by saying that the "hard bedrock" will keep the oil out of the aquifer like it does everywhere else. Except that the "bedrock" DOESN'T EXIST where they want the new pipeline to go....

                        • 8 votes
                        #27.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:28 PM EST
                        TexMan

                        SUZ - Michelle ---- Do not depend on the Obama administration to protect the US on this one. Once again it demonstrates that it is not up to the task of representing the majority of the US middle class - i.e. the people who make about 30 - 90k a year.

                        The GOTP / GOP will again get Obama to blink and put millions more into the hands of the large oil companies at the expense of the citizens and land owners over which the pipeline will run.

                        • 1 vote
                        #27.2 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:26 AM EST
                        Reply
                        Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        FUN STUFF:
                        • Leaderboard |
                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                        • Top of the Vine |
                        • Newsvine Live |
                        • Newsvine Archives |
                        • The Greenhouse
                        COMPANY STUFF:
                        • Code of Honor |
                        • Company Info |
                        • Contact Us |
                        • Jobs |
                        • User Agreement |
                        • Privacy Policy |
                        • About our ads
                        LEGAL STUFF:
                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com