Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Wait, there is more.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from msobstinate99. Show msobstinate99's posts

    Wait, there is more.

     

    Susan Rice May Have Major Financial Stake in Keystone Pipeline

    | Wed Nov. 28, 2012 2:32 PM 

    Susan Rice, thought by many to be Obama's No. 1 pick for secretary of state, holds millions of dollars in investments in Canadian oil companies and banks with stakes in the  $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline, according to apiece out today from OnEarth, a magazine published by the environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. As head of the State Department, Rice would have ultimate authority in determining the fate of the pipeline, which would link northern Alberta's remote oil sands fields to Texas' Gulf Coast refineries.

    The piece reveals that Rice has significant holdings in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would benefit from the growth of the Canadian tar sands industry and the construction of the controversial pipelineOnEarth's Scott Dodd finds that nearly a third of Rice's personal net worth—estimated in 2009 to be between $23.5 million and $43.5 million—is invested in Canadian oil producers, pipeline operators, and other energy companies, including several with egregious environmental records on both sides of the border. Financial disclosure reports further show that Rice has between $300,000 and $600,000 invested in TransCanada, the company that is seeking the permit from the State Department to build sections of the pipeline from Oklahoma to the Canadian border.

    "It's really amazing that they're considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies," Bill McKibben, founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sand Action, which have organized protests against the Keystone XL project, told OnEarth.

    The decision on whether to build the pipeline was delayed in 2011 when the State Department ordered a review of alternate routes to avoid cutting through an ecologically sensitive section of Nebraska. This saved Obama the political cost of having to make a decision on the controversial project in an election year. The Keystone XL decision could be one of the first tasks of the new secretary of state in 2013.  

    To read OnEarth's full story, click here. To see a larger version of the document below, clickhere.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    Speaker of the House Boehner has invested money into companies that are involve in the Keystone Pipe and also he has recieved political donations from those companies.

    Where is the outrage on that ?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Speaker of the House Boehner has invested money into companies that are involve in the Keystone Pipe and also he has recieved political donations from those companies. Where is the outrage on that ?



    Sssshh, the wingnuts don't like to play on a level playing field.

    They need to have their double-standard else they get cranky.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Speaker of the House Boehner has invested money into companies that are involve in the Keystone Pipe and also he has recieved political donations from those companies. Where is the outrage on that ?




    Sssshh, the wingnuts don't like to play on a level playing field.

     

    They need to have their double-standard else they get cranky.

     




    I'm putting that in the vault !

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Speaker of the House Boehner has invested money into companies that are involve in the Keystone Pipe and also he has recieved political donations from those companies.

    Where is the outrage on that ?



    Try Vice President Al Gore clearing the way for Occidental Petroleum to get the Elk Hill Strategic Reserve for a kiss while sitting on buku Occy stock, and all while telling us how bad coal and oil is.

    Now I don't know about Rice, but Obambi has been blocking that pipeline.  If she becomes SecState, and he suddenly decided to build it, THEN you have a smelly dead rat.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Speaker of the House Boehner has invested money into companies that are involve in the Keystone Pipe and also he has recieved political donations from those companies.

    Where is the outrage on that ?



    Try Vice President Al Gore clearing the way for Occidental Petroleum to get the Elk Hill Strategic Reserve for a kiss while sitting on buku Occy stock, and all while telling us how bad coal and oil is.

    Now I don't know about Rice, but Obambi has been blocking that pipeline.  If she becomes SecState, and he suddenly decided to build it, THEN you have a smelly dead rat.




    I agree with you, a smelly dead rat with alot of worms on it !

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Try Vice President Al Gore clearing the way for Occidental Petroleum to get the Elk Hill Strategic Reserve for a kiss while sitting on buku Occy stock, and all while telling us how bad coal and oil is. Now I don't know about Rice, but Obambi has been blocking that pipeline.  If she becomes SecState, and he suddenly decided to build it, THEN you have a smelly dead rat.



    Hmmm.....

    Wingnuts pushing privatization = good.

    Dems do it = bad.

    Again with the double standards....

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    It takes a special dude to equate giving Strategic Oil Reserves to an oil company "privatization", but then there are those "special" ones who think Bush wanted to privatize social security, but were just fine with Clinton proposing triple what Bush did.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    The Department of Energy and Occidental Petroleum Corporation today concluded the largest divestiture of federal property in the history of the U.S. government. In a Washington, D.C., ceremony, Secretary of Energy Federico Peña and Occidental Oil & Gas Chief Executive David Hentschel signed final papers for the sale of the United States' interest in the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve to Occidental.

    Today's signing completed a privatization process that began in 1995 when the Clinton Administration proposed selling Elk Hills. The divestment will get the federal government out of the business of producing oil and gas at Elk Hills and reflects President Clinton's vision for the proper roles of the federal government and private industry.

    "This historic transaction is another example of the Clinton Administration's commitment to common sense government that works better and costs less," Secretary Peña said. "We're returning to the private sector those functions that can be more effectively performed in the private sector. That underscores this Administration's faith in the ability of market forces to create prosperity and new opportunities for all Americans."

    http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/1998/tl_elsold.html

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    It takes a special dude to equate giving Strategic Oil Reserves to an oil company "privatization", but then there are those "special" ones who think Bush wanted to privatize social security, but were just fine with Clinton proposing triple what Bush did.




    It takes a special form of delusion to convince one's self of things that never happened. 

    I guess if you really want to convince yourself that Clinton actually proposed anything regarding privatization of SS, as opposed to just considered such things, ya might want to start with the above facts.

    Playing in the world of speculation is a fools game.

    Last time I checked, 'considered' and 'proposed' are two distinctly differenet things.

    But then again wingnuts have a problem with word definition.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    I have cited the PROPOSAL more than once.  Run along

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    Then you should have no problem re-posting it.

    I must have misplaced that link.

     

    President Clinton said today he was "open-minded" about proposals to invest Social Security funds in the stock market and other private investments, although he warned that "we also have to ask the hard questions" about the risks involved.

    As political momentum builds for some form of "privatization" of Social Security, Clinton signaled his willingness to consider what once would have been an unthinkable and radical remake of the government's main program for the elderly as he seeks to build a national consensus on how to fix its long-term problems.

    While not committing to anything, Clinton said private investment of at least some retirement funds could be a more palatable alternative to what he sees as the only other options for bolstering the finances of Social Security -- reducing benefits, raising taxes or shutting down other portions of government.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/security/stories/clinton072898.htm

     

    The president has proposed a plan to ensure that the Trust Fund can pay Social Security benefits through 2055, primarily by using government surpluses to increase the program’s assets. Congressional Republicans tend to favor a more radical strategy of privatization that would transform Social Security into individual private investment accounts.

    http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_fixsocsec/

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    Playing in the world of speculation is a fools game.

     

     



    Except when you do it of course...sigh....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    "individual private investment accounts."

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

    The very essence of Clinton's idea!!!

    Say good night Gracie

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Wait, there is more.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    "individual private investment accounts." The very essence of Clinton's idea!!! Say good night Gracie



    Still can't find that 'cited proposal' I see.

    ///YAWN////

     
Sections
Shortcuts