Those refineries in Texas were going to export the gas anyway, like the tons we already do because it's more "profitable".

Just FYI.

Phil

Hannity watcher I see!

Phil

According to the keystone business plan, the oil in question was going to go to china/asia/europe anyways.

It makes little difference whether that oil gets there through British Columbia or through Houston.

he does hate Texas & plans to punish them, but he knows FL is a swing state & he will suck up to them all he can.! Watch him also down the road on Ohio, Penn

Folks remember, MSM, Hollywood, Congress, big Oil, Big Pharma are the 1%

Ruken: I assume you mean gasoline not natural gas because we should be exporting natural gas. many terminals we built to import LNG but AMERICAN ingenuity found our own supplies in such great abundance we should re-tool them for exporting LNG. You pay 11-15 cents a KW for electricity, in Europe try 35-40 Pence

Ferro: Never seen it. (My politics have always been "Atilla the Hun was a pussy) I am a reader.

Johnathan (morning buddy) It makes a huge difference in the 000's of jobs created in laying the pipeline, operating the pipeline and export taxes to the USA (Not Canada, who also got 2 great Pandas from China this weekend)

Molly, Darlin' remember your comment when your freezing/sweating in the dark in the northern states as supplies from Texas may not be available in those Northern states forever.

If the president really hated Texas he would push to close some of the 11 military bases in that state.

Phil.

not very many jobs will be created by Keystone anyways, the number that TCPL published was misrepresented because it didn't mean what the press said it meant.

As a Texan, I really didn't like the idea of an ugly pipeline crossing the country. Look at the Alaskan pipeline and how much it enhances the natural beauty of Alaskan wilderness.

highways and railroad tracks are about as pleasing.

I don't really care one way or the other about keystone by the way. I can see merits in both sides of the argument, I just don't like seeing misstatements and lies on both sides being used to push their argument.

Believe me jobs would be created, Especially during the construction phase. Its what I do. Jobs in the steel industry supplying pipe, manufacturing compressors (normally GE turbine ala 747 engines). In the Post construction running those compressor stations (one about every 30 to 50 miles) maintaining the right of way, etc. etc. Believe me there is a whole industry out there supporting the hundred of pipelines crisscrossing this country. (More than interstate roadways). Many pumping stations exist but are so well camouflaged you don't know they're there. AND dont forget all the extra jobs in the refining and shipping industries. all these people paying income & sales taxes.

Now: all gone to Canada cos our president doesn't like Texas

FYI: The pipe would be buried (the Alaska one isn't as it is constructed in/on permafrost.

the jobs for the materials have already been contracted out to Mittal Steel and a chinese company so there are no jobs in the US to be had there. Essentially the jobs are down to about 2 or 3000 short term jobs for construction over 4 years and a few hundred maintenance jobs.

And if you think it has to do with texas, you are just another right wing political rant job. The issue had to do with the VERY unfortunate decision to route the pipeline over a VERY environmentally sensitive area, a VERY SHALLOW aquifer. If there was a leak, then there was the possibility of the water supply for 4 or 5 states of being contaminated.

So yeah, not everything is political bull@!$%# like you may think it is.

And burying the pipe (and not all of it would be buried, a lot of it would be open topped in a shallow ditch) would make the problem MUCH worse from an environmental perspective because if it did leak, then there would be very difficult to detect that leak, and the environmental risk would be MUCH HIGHER.

Now if you are of the ilk that drinking water is not important, well then that concept probably means nothing to you, but oddly enough, most people like to be able to drink water.

Don't bother, Jonathan. People will just counter your argument with, "well, I don't drink tap water. I only drink bottled water."

Little do they know....

well do they eat food? because that water is also used for agriculture.

Again, little do they know...

Luddites all: shiver in the dark. I have never come across such negativity. & yeh I drink unfiltered Houston tap water.

Why does no one seem to remember that the Governor of Nebraska put a stop to the pileline because HE didn't like the chosen route, and the Republicans just blamed Obama for it. The President pushed for a study to find a new route, one that the people and Governor of Nebraska would approve of, but because of GOP ploys in Congress, was forced to cancel it because he was not given, by law, enough time to find a new route. So again, the GOP blames him.

How long can this go on? Why do we allow lies to cloud our thinking so much?

You're right Ruken! It's funny how everytime this administration talks about cutting anything it's always NASA or the military funds! Never the entitlements for people sitting around on their A**es!! It's shameful!

Defund NASA! It's not like they got us to the moon or anything. /sarc

On a serious note, though, NASA did manage to develop major breakthroughs in technology, namely new ultra-strong lightweight materials (materials science and engineering), computing (PCs are derived from the need to build smaller computers for shuttles), propulsion technology, etc. NASA is an important scientific institution -- the saying, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist..." will become obsolete when we no longer have any...

If we were serious about saving money in the budget, we'd shut down some of the failed projects, be more selective in the military budget, fix SS/Medicare/Medicaid, and change the tax code to both increase revenue and simplify the system. But fat chance of that -- change like that doesn't get votes.

What we need to look at is this...over the years..not just during Obama's term...our elected in congress have cut lots of spending in many areas..while making sure their pet projects are funded. this country today has fallen behind many other country's in education, health care...scienes and even college level teaching. As for being the best country in every field that we once were...that is gone.....the profits of the few have taken over congress....

Give less the inner city and more to the people in NASA so they will vote for him.

Flawless logic.

The reduction is small, but regrettable. To think this is political in the way you describe is ludicrous. NASA just needs to take the pain that all the government agencies have to take since congress can't get their act together.

@Ferrosynthesis: agreed; these are austere times and this could have been a lot worse. This is a much better outcome than I expected; we'll see if they can preserve these funding levels through the cycle. But even more important than the amount in the budget is how it is being directed to be spent by Clowngress.

@Tommy Fishfryer

Say what? Dude, stop watching Fox or listening to whatever whack job conservative idiots you got that from. No one is giving more money to the inner cities right now. In fact, the inner city areas have been hit quite hard due to massive budget cuts at the state level, and the Federal government isn't doing anything to make up the difference. I'm not suggesting that they should either, I'm simply pointing out that the facts are completely different then what your saying.

I want to see more NASA funding as much as the next guy, and I'm pissed to see cuts like this when we don't even have a manned space vehicle... but pulling utter garbage out of your ass is not a good way to show your disapproval. Its just makes you look like an idiot.

The REAL reason there isn't any money left for NASA? Were giving it away to the RICH, not the poor, through massive tax cuts that account for nearly half of our budget deficit... not to mention a pointless war in Afghanistan and runaway military spending. If you want to complain about the lack of funding for NASA, thats where you need to start looking.

John S

It is however a little difficult to justify NASA spending increases when every other department has to cut costs as a result of the failed deficit negotiations. The deal was, no exceptions. This is where the GOP is screwing things up because now they are saying 'no fair' to defence cuts (which is more of a trim job than real cuts).

@Jonathan: agreed; a deal is a deal and everybody should have to take their lumps.

It's not like the Mars missions were really doing anything productive at this point. Congress is NEVER going to fund a program to mars, it is just make work to make politicians look good.

That's true; according to the polls lately, there's a considerable number of people that would take a trip to Mars to get away from politicians ... or send their reps on a one-way voyage. I'd like to see them stick to a strategy, other than funding projects in their districts.

Or take any of the funding given to any Arab nation and use it here at home, including NASA.

No he is hoping that they will build software to take advantage of the second by second fluctuations in stock prices.That would make the large numbers of Wall Street insiders in his administration happy.

The cuts are what one would expect from a bunch of lawyers with limited vision. There is plenty of pork in the military budget to keep NASA at least level funded. No wonder this country is decaying.

Very few people work for NASA comparatively, Gary. NASA has about 34,000 employees. If he were proposing big budget cuts to the DoE, then we'd be in trouble. At DoE national labs alone, there are roughly 140,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians. NASA is important, but since we're not doing manned missions any more, I can see the justification in cutting some of the budget -- we don't need to work on zero-gee physiology experiments (and the expensive chambers!) when we're not going up there anymore.

matt,

of course NASA is still doing manned missions. They are just currently going to the russians to physically do the launch. The training is STILL being conducted here.

Matt,

And we'll never DO any more manned missions (using our own vehicles) if we don't boost NASA funding.

It's like if you sell your car to pay your rent, and then your boss decides to cut your pay since, after all, you don't need to pay for gas for that car anymore.

Helps to read the article...

The proposed budget is about the same as the previous year. It's a shift of funds within NASA away from robotic planetary exploration (Mars sample return, etc.) in favor of completing the James Webb telescope, building SLS, and getting Commercial Crew (CCDev) going.

This only the President's proposal. Congress (specifically the Senate) generally dictates the final version.

I would venture to argue that the private sector hires more scientist than NASA does.

He has already proven that we can’t spend our way to growth and now says we can’t cut our way to growth so what’s left to try?

Borrow our way to growth?

The 2013 NASA budget is only 0.3% less than the previous year... Which really is not bad considering the economic and political climate.

Actually he has proven that we can spend our way to growth, by having over 2 years of continuous growth.

Borrow our way to growth?

C.Smith, that is how our growth was created in the past. Buy on credit and boost the economy. It had to come crumbling down sometime. Don't blame the government because people bought more than they could afford.

it is fine to borrow your way to growth if that borrowing is investment because you expect/hope for a return on that borrowing, and while you don't always 'win', the averages work out. But when that borrowing is for consumer spending, then you just end up getting in debt and you guarantee yourself no chance to gain income on that debt.

Exactly.

Jon ...... when 2/3s of the deficit is the result of mandatory Federal spending welfare programs just where does it make sense to make those cuts? It will take a real leader to take the steps needed to end the destructive cycle of wasting resources buying the next election with bread and circus instead of investing in nation strengthening programs absolutely needed (and legitimate federal responsibility).........how would that needed leader ever get in office with a population trained to believe in a free lunch??

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."-- Thomas Jefferson

Dennis,

if you are going to take those programs that you call welfare out of the budget, you ALSO have to take out the revenues associated with those programs, which is the PART YOU ARE @!$%#ING MISSING.

So take out SS and medicare, you ALSO HAVE TO TAKE OUT ALL PAYROLL TAXES. When you do that, your so called deficit problem is WORSE because those two programs are STILL in surplus (they bring in more revenue than they give out in benefits).

You STILL show that you don't understand, and what is more important, you show that you DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

molly,

he never got funding out of congress for that, which is NASA's biggest problem, someone can come up with whatever dream, make the speech, but without congress willing to fund it, there just isn't any point.

Also, during the election, Obama never really talked about NASA, except to say that he would kill NASA and give the money to schools for science education. Those types of comments are really an indication that he didn't understand exactly what NASA does, and it isn't just space, but also its role in encouraging science education. After he was 'advised' he never really talked about space and NASA after that.

I don't really get the impression that Obama is all that interested in space, but then again, neither has any president ever really been interested in space other than Lyndon Johnson (even for Kennedy, it was a political venture, not one that indicated a personal interest). I don't begrudge him that, and to me, the response after the augustine report, which was completed after Obama took office, was measured and correct. I am a big space supporter, but considering the current situation, I am not sure if anyone could get the political support to increase NASA's support level, and that has NOTHING to do with who is President, that is just reality.

Your comments about Sunstein (who the hell is that) and Ayers though just show that you really didn't want to say anything of substance, just to make yet another political rant for the sake of making another political rant. Maybe you should actually start using your brain and think about things rather than just spout bs.

Jonathan is correct, Congress isn't funding anything. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years!

I don't care what side of the aisle anyone is from, we've had a broken government since 2005 and it's getting worse... "Boys with toys" syndrome run amuck. If this partisan bickering doesn't cool down soon, we're seriously going to lapse into a REALLY disfunctional government ala modern Russia.

Mark

Of course they have, otherwise the government would be operating. They have just been using the FY2010 budget as the template, and authorizing continued spending based on the details of that budget.

I do agree though, government is broken.

Stop-gap emergency spending extensions do not a budget make. :-|

Seriously: the US Senate has not passed a budget since 29 April 2009. That's over 1000 days.

http://news.yahoo.com/reid-senate-not-pass-budget-220253871.html

The house hasn't passed a 'serious' budget in that same time period.

In theory, they're supposed to work together on this so... we're back to boys with toys.

Well creating a budget that they know is going to be rejected in the Senate because they knowingly put in 'poison pills' is not the way to conduct business. Yes it is a shame because it really isn't even addressing the structural issues with what is wrong with this nation, but to be honest, I am not sure what is worse, the utter destructiveness of the republicans, or the uselessness of the Democrats.

This has nothing to do with the proposed NASA cuts though because that was part of the budget deficit deal that all departments that are 'discretionary funding' are subject to.

...which is still better than passing nothing at all. After all... if you can't negotiate, you need to at least pass something as a counter-offer.

A plague a' both their houses.

Yes, but it does indirectly because as both sides have so many sacred cows NASA is being unfairly targeted.

hmmm so a budget that does the equivalent of 'buying you footwear, but removing your foot' is better than nothing at all?

Well the deficit deal was part of the debt ceiling, but yes, it was the failure of the 'bipartisan' committee that was set up as part of the debt ceiling agreement that failed.

As for NASA itself though, personally I would love for NASA's budget to be sustained at something much closer to the Apollo program levels, but I am realistic, I know that isn't going to happen. People should expect that and try to start working around it. It has been the case since Nixon killed most of what NASA was working on at the time. Nothing has changed since then and nothing is going to change in the near future.

The cuts themselves are across the board, NASA has to take its lumps too (though note my personal opinion in the previous paragraph again). ALL spending that is considered discretionary must be cut by the same amount. I think that is short sighted though because it doesn't differentiate between useful spending and non useful spending, but if it was that easy to make that determination, we wouldn't be talking about this right now would we.

NASA by the way is a sacred cow to almost nobody anymore. There just isn't enough visibility nationwide to become one. My state, Illinois has almost NO NASA involvement, and none that I can tell that is visible, so why should anyone from the state of Illinois care about what happens at NASA. Apply that to all states other than Texas, Alabama, Nevada (ATK involvement) and possibly Florida, and you really can't make a political argument for even funding NASA anymore. Yes that is simplistic, but the drive to not require spending in all states, especially for visible programs, makes it harder to justify spending on NASA at all anymore.

Well, it's more like buying one shoe. (lol!)

It never had a chance... I think most people would agree on that now. They never even met in the same room!

As for the rest... ayep.

dennis,

of you want to get rid of medicare and ss, then fine, just return IMMEDIATELY the close to 5TRILLION dollars that taxpayers have put into those two systems.

Your ignoring of THAT fact when you make your statement that 2/3 of the deficit is from those two programs makes it obvious that you have NO CLUE.

"According to the House Republican Study Committee, which Jordan heads, the state and federal government are spending twice as much on welfare programs since reforms were instituted in 1996. The committee predicts that welfare spending will exceed $10 trillion over the next decade.

We have 77 different programs, and you just ask the obvious question, ‘Do you think there is some redundancy there?’ There are probably some programs that we can get rid of, and combine resources,” said Jordan. “And actually if you combine resources, and you can combine programs, you can actually free up some dollars. Some of the savings can actually go to help the needy families out there.”
“The last several years under Democrats, we’ve begun to move back to the old model of thinking of welfare as, the more people you sign up, the more successful the program is, versus what it should be,” said Jordan. “A successful social welfare program is one that would have fewer and fewer people, more and more people employed in the private sector, and more and more people who aren’t stuck in the old system.”

Try referrencing http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6&type=0&sequence= 14

you honestly think that a 'house republican study' is going to be non partisan? WOW!!!

And that link refers to ENTITLEMENTS, and again, if you are going to cut entitlements, you ALSO HAVE TO CUT THE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. Not sure why you don't understand that part.

SS & Medicare have their OWN REVENUE STREAM, it is called PAYROLL TAXES, so as I have now said several times, if you cut the programs, you ALSO HAVE TO CUT THE REVENUE. That doesn't make the deficit any lower (it makes it bigger at the moment because payroll taxes are STILL in surplus).

And just so you know, ENTITLEMENT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WELFARE.

If you want to make an argument, please use facts rather than bull@!$%# to make your point.

oh snap!

crackle, pop???

well NASA has been forbidden to do that, but NASA has done far more that benefits companies here on earth than you seem to be aware. Why don't you just do a google search for 'NASA Spinoffs' and take a look. Velcro by the way wasn't invented by NASA (or even in the US IIRC). It just found a use within NASA.

It's hard to make SUV-sized breakthroughs when you're being funded with moped-sized budgets.

Indigo, you complain that we haven't "brought back a single grain of usable ore from the asteroid belt, we haven't harnessed the power of the sun in the form of self-sustaining fusion reactors, and we're not going to in the next 4 years, possibly not in the next 40 years."

We will never figure out those things unless we provide enough funding to their research and development. And, considering the proposed FY2013 NASA budget is less than 0.5% of the entire US budget, it should be pretty easy to find a few dollars to save elsewhere.

Relax folks, the velcro thing is a long-running joke.

Yes, NASA research has spun off into the private sector in many ways, like giving us $4000 battery packs for electric vehicles that, when installed by mere line engineers not $120k/year NASA engineers, catch fire and don't last more than 3-4 years before needing to be completely replaced and are not covered by your warranty.

And they've given us freezed dried everything (I'm a huge fan of vanilla ice cream), and mylar, and mylar bags to pee in when we hunt...

But here's what you're missing:

We're not on the verge of any major breakthroughs, tennis-shoe sized, freight-train sized, or anywhere in between. This happens all the time - technology plateaus. Just look at computer CPU's for example.

A few years ago, we had single-cores peaking at 1.5 GHz, then suddenly, Hyperthreading, then dual-cores, then 2.5 GHz, then 3.0 GHz, then quad cores, then six-cores... now.. nothing new. A little faster here, a little more stable there, but the leaps-and-bounds innovation is stymied. Give a few years and it'll take off again.

And what does Intel do during these plateau periods? They reduce R&D funding, declassify and throw out technical documents for AMD to find in their trash, and let the rest of society adopt the new technologies.

NASA isn't that different - if they have something threatening breakthrough, then yes, throw some extra money at them. If they're status quo-ing along, divert funds elsewhere.

The universe has been here a very, very long time. It will be here long after the human race - our galaxy - is long forgotten. We've got time, we don't have money.

1020 as of today.

Yeah, but if we cut domestic handouts (as proposed above) it'd cut 50%! RAH RAH!!

Yes, that's a bit of sarcasm.