The language of politics.

[Undertoad]

good stuff is channeled to the corporation. there might some good stuff that happens that will go to the public, though in this example I can't really think of anything.

Public gets cheaper gas and cheaper petroleum byproducts which invigorates the economy by permitting the cheaper movement of people and goods and generally sends funds to state governments.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that the result of lower costs for the corporation, or competition? You could say lower costs to the corporation is what makes them competitive, but all corporations doing it makes that moot. It just become corporate profit at public risk.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Public gets cheaper gas and cheaper petroleum byproducts which invigorates the economy
by permitting the cheaper movement of people and goods and generally sends funds to state governments.

Hmmm.... why are the negatives not included in this equation ?

This is the kind of stuff that the opposition to the Keystone pipeline is made of...

.

[classicman]

Yes Lamp... which is another reason I cannot stand nor support either of these parties. They are both full of shit and don't give a rats ass about "us"
Yes there are a few exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of them are power hungry assholes. My opinion - YMMV

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well yes, but the "party line" is dictated by the lobbyists, so that's where the fer or agin is discussed shouted.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Hmmm.... why are the negatives not included in this equation ?

Because that's what BigV was wondering about.

Is that the result of lower costs for the corporation, or competition?

Both! If you want to decrease corporate profits, increase competition. If you want to lower costs, increase infrastructure. It's all good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, not both. Increasing infrastructure may increase profits, but certainly doesn't guarantee lower prices or competition.

[Undertoad]

Lower costs, not prices. And build infrastructure for all, without rules that benefit a select few.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Lower costs, not prices.

Pipeline is required for increased demand. That says little to nothing about prices or profits other than no product to meet increased demand affects prices.

If Alberta Tar Sands are so bad for the environment, then we should be banning ethanol in the gasoline. That is many times worse for the environment and for the economy.

All this argument about jobs or prices is trivial. Or how spin confuses an issue. The oil must get to refineries.

Meanwhile we also have another extremists law that says US crude cannot be sold to foreign nations. That also makes sense only when extremists rhetoric replaces intelligence. The rhetoric and lies are what lobbyists exist to create. It works when a public only believes the first thing they are told. Ethanol is required in all American gasolines only because of extremist rhetoric invented by lobbyists - and also called lies. Same lies also deny American crude sold to other nations.