You don't need government sanctioned wealth transfer to pick-up something with real utility, lp.

Besides, this way I don't drop a dime in to the re-election effort.

No Way. Are you really doing Spanels? Taking $$$ from your state and federal treasuries?

I gauge DS's potential & eligibility prospect against the Bachelor(ette) and Vanity Fair.  Highly noncorrelative

"production of foodstuffs being crowded out by the production of ethanol feedstock"

NPR, Calories are not created the same. I desperately need to go on a fat diet/off of a carb diet. 

Carbon markets and solar panels will sort themselves out if we value the true cost of energy production and usage.  However, for considering how much I personally  lost, in real noninflated dollars, due to GWB's administration  inaction/ignorance/ineptitude, has to date, far exceeded BO's inaction/Ignorance/ineptitude. 

I'm afraid that if MR wins, that he will get the same crowd that GWB had where Congress and Adminstrators spent $$$$ and without corresponding revenue streams. Hence, I would rather see a TP'er over MR. 

I'm going to guess $80 is still well above break-even, lp. The funny thing is that if oil continues falling it will be because markets are seeing something at the end of the tunnel and it ain't a light.

Seriously, the administration should have been burning every useless piece of fat they could find -- I'm thinking global warmers, occupiers, EPA employees, myself -- to lessen the cost of energy. Instead they've spent three years poking things in the spokes in exchange for campaign dollars.

The Keystone and Canadian Tar Sands people must be going nuts, now that West Texas Crude is now bouncing at $80/barrel and Brent Crude is nearing $90. Not much profit, if any, for bitumen oil, production + shipping tariffs. 

Hey, I am for high priced oil. China gotta print more money to stimulate their economy and I gotta justify the Prius.

Finally, someone who can understand me.

I'd even would say that a consumption tax should be on existing invested money, but at a reduced rate or have an exit consumption tax as money has left the investment. 

Of course, all consumptions whether as services or non-service (money transactions in the way of investing) or product purchases should be taxed. No loopholes or exceptions. If companies want to invest in other countries there should be a exit money tax. Likewise import duties on everything.  I'd even tax foreign money that wants to invest in US. Weathy, asset holders will have a one time tax on existing properties and assets, so that they won't get a free ride for their wealth, perhaps at a reduced rate and thereafter the standard tax. 

Anything to make the politician and lobbys look bad. 

In general, I would like to see businesses pay taxes. IF business incorporation want to be treated as an "individual" then it should be taxed like an individual especially when it enjoys favorable treatments that individuals do not have.

My current pork barrel objection: We have some developeable land, inwhich we will have to incur substantial "system development charges"-fair enough. But if a company wishes to establish a facility in our fair city/county/state, it gets a pass or reduced SDC, property taxes, an possibly free employee screening by the State's human resources office, community college training of employees, rail or highway access. 

Yes, the worker and consumer pays corporattion passes on. I just don't like to take more than my fair share of ****. Perhaps, corporations can be careful on where they do their squating. 

Ron Paul says that income taxes is an invention of Marx and Engles. That we should look at consumption or VAT. Go RP- wreck havoc at the Convention. 

You've pin-pointed my problem with Romney, jd... he's the republican ex-governor of a liberal state, one whose population was probably gung-ho about him throwing a few million into green companies. Made them feel like they were doing their part and lessened a little of that guilt they carry around all the time.

But then there's the bigger problem with Obama --- he's thrown billions and billions, with the majority of the country saying "whoa, support your charities on your own dime, dude", and shows no sign of stopping. Speaks of doubling down, instead. What with the implosion of the green movement, Chris Matthews the red faced canary of the moment, you'd think he'd have learned his lesson but it seems the campaign cash is too needed.

from a non MSM:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

Really don't care if Keystone gets built. I only hope that the political rhetoric would  yield honest and balanced facts. 

Shazzam... Chris Matthews finally says something that sounds like he was sober.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's about the next four years, not the last four," Matthews said on Monday's broadcast of "Morning Joe" on the cable news network. "They've got a track record -- I think that we all agree that the most effective ad that the Romney people have put on the air yet is the one that starts with 'Keystone,' because Obama made a mistake on that. Okay there's an open mistake, I don't know he could fix it, it's probably too late. But that's a god job creation program -- tangible, construction jobs and what's the cost? Nobody can even remember what the environmental cost was here - we just know the benefit."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And my, doesn't he sound like an industrialist there? What's next, a "Silent Spring" bonfire on his show?

BTW, Who is paying for this pipeline? And what does the US Government/Obama have to do with this endeaver? 

Companies tend to have profit motives so I would assume they're pursuing a route that results in the highest return. The fact the Gulf coast is about the refining capital of the world, along with having capacity for what's essentially Venezuelan heavy oil, is probably key to the choice of destinations.

I have read that the Canadians will export much of the oil outside the US and will use the US jumping off point to skirt trade restrictions. I have also read that environmental concerns in their own country leads them to build the pipeline to the Gulf Coast rather than to their own west coast. The other interesting question is why take it to the Gulf Coast when there are closer refineries in the mid west. I found this article which seems to bring all these issues together.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00544

http://mediamatters.org/research/201112080014

If they start now, "20,000" US trained and skilled workers will be unemployeed just as the new Republican President, takes office. 

Considering the number of people unemployed since he took office, twenty thousand high-paying jobs do seem pretty insignificant, true, but the construction unions seem pretty keen for them anyway. Other than the No New Carbon crowd, I can't think of any other lobby that is against it - well, maybe the Saudis, Venzuela, and a few other interested parties.

No, the single stick in O's spokes is this bunch:

And if O doesn't heave-ho 'em under the bus, he's an idiot - Clinton would have done it in a heartbeat, all while sweet talking them that it wasn't his fault but that of those suicide bomber republicans.

Natural gas does seem to be coming out of ears at the moment, and I mean US gas, but there are some things oil is simply better for and, yeah... I'd rather be dependent on the Canadians at the other end of a pipeline than some jihadist supporting loons around the Strait of Hormuz.