Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   The GOP can add 10 million jobs and $15 trillion to the US economy without spending a dime   (finance.townhall.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, shale oil, green economy, Bureau of Land Management, oil sands, official trips, Michael Lynch, alternative fuels  
•       •       •

7820 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2012 at 8:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



369 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-13 09:43:19 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Brubold: the 10 million number is more from allowing companies to tap the shale oil reserves we have here.

And where does that come from? There's less than 100 thousand coal miners in whole country. We're going to employ 100x that many mining sand?


I'm not saying his 10 million is accurate at all. I said that in another post above as a matter of fact. I'm just saying the reaction by most of the thread has been towards a claim that the pipeline by itself = 10 million jobs and that claim is nowhere in the article.
 
2012-02-13 09:46:15 AM  
since we're pulling numbers out of our asses, i think the democrats should counter with, "actually, canceling keystone will produce 15 billion jobs and add 30 quadrillion dollars to the economy, so there!"
 
2012-02-13 09:47:51 AM  

Dimensio: sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

Perhaps the author believes that millions of jobs would subsequently be created in the environmental clean-up sector.


Bottled water sales.
 
2012-02-13 09:48:37 AM  
FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

img585.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-13 09:49:00 AM  
Yeah, 10 million jobs, sure. Whatever.

But let's say it's 400,000, plus maybe the service and support jobs that will be created to feed, clothe, and shelter and entertain that 400k. No matter how you break it down, that's a shiatload of people working.

Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?
 
2012-02-13 09:49:42 AM  

MindStalker: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

No, article is about Keystone XL. Sorry nice try.


It's about all the tar sands, not just the pipeline. Western US has a lot of its own Shale. Article mentions them all.
 
2012-02-13 09:49:50 AM  

Brubold: DarnoKonrad: Brubold: the 10 million number is more from allowing companies to tap the shale oil reserves we have here.

And where does that come from? There's less than 100 thousand coal miners in whole country. We're going to employ 100x that many mining sand?

I'm not saying his 10 million is accurate at all. I said that in another post above as a matter of fact. I'm just saying the reaction by most of the thread has been towards a claim that the pipeline by itself = 10 million jobs and that claim is nowhere in the article.


Just because I know I'm going to get this as a response -

None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

He's setting up his point further down in the article -

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn't about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and "green" energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

...

Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, "is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels," which is the holy grail of the left. And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.


Shale is where he's getting the 10 million number. Not the pipeline. Again, I'm not saying 10 million is accurate but some reading comprehension would be in order for the vast majority of posters here.
 
2012-02-13 09:50:17 AM  

indylaw: Just let him have it, man. It's all he got.


There are those of us who think it is a dick move when the right doesn't accurately quote the left, then runs with the misquote as if it were fact and also have the integrity to call out these dick moves when it is the right who are being misquoted.
 
2012-02-13 09:50:18 AM  

dumbobruni: there are a whole lot of people in this thread that have not read the article.

the article is about oil shale, not just Keystone.

/i know, i know. welcometofark.jpg


What do you expect? It's townhall. It's not reality based so most farkers just wait for one or two brave souls to take a peek and see what they are babbling about. There is no honest discussion to be had. The trollish modmins haven't seemed to figure out that they aren't going to get the click through cash for townhall, nro, brietbart............but they keep greening it. Nothing useful is ever discussed but folks around here really enjoy their snark.
 
2012-02-13 09:50:46 AM  
The observable universe contains somewhere in the order of 30 sextillion stars.

That is how many jobs the Keystone pipeline will create.
 
2012-02-13 09:51:03 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Yeah, 10 million jobs, sure. Whatever.

But let's say it's 400,000, plus maybe the service and support jobs that will be created to feed, clothe, and shelter and entertain that 400k. No matter how you break it down, that's a shiatload of people working.

Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?


See, this is why the blatant lie about ten million jobs works. It makes the equally blatant lie about 400,000 jobs look reasonable.
 
2012-02-13 09:51:15 AM  

AngryTeacher: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline.

We get it already.


i45.photobucket.com

THE PIPELINE IS NEAR!
 
2012-02-13 09:52:37 AM  

astonrickenbach: But a recent Cornell study said it would destroy more jobs than it would create.

Link (new window)


Cornell study refused to count secondary jobs only focusing on in site construction jobs. Since it is not a liberal program, secondary effects don't count. Plus the article talks about all Shale oil, not just the pipeline. So your strawman is even worse.

Using the modeling used in 3 million jobs saved from stimulus, estimated total revenue from all Shale projects would create 10 million jobs.

Bit again, not a liberal program so that doesn't count.
 
2012-02-13 09:53:15 AM  

Alphax: sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

So the lie is up to 10 MILLION now? It's getting bigger all the time.

$15 trillion.. wow.. to run Canadian oil to other countries. What, are they going to set up toll booths along the pipeline every 5 feet?


I guess the new design for the Keystone pipeline is a bucket brigade.
 
2012-02-13 09:53:47 AM  

Alphax: sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

So the lie is up to 10 MILLION now? It's getting bigger all the time.

$15 trillion.. wow.. to run Canadian oil to other countries. What, are they going to set up toll booths along the pipeline every 5 feet?


Can liberals farking not read? He refers to all Shale oil programs. Seriously, learn to farking read.
 
2012-02-13 09:53:56 AM  

Brubold: Shale is where he's getting the 10 million number. Not the pipeline. Again, I'm not saying 10 million is accurate but some reading comprehension would be in order for the vast majority of posters here.


The thesis of TFA is clear: Build pipeline and 10 million jobs will follow. It even goes so far as to imply that's what Obama is trying to stop. You don't need to assume they all come form the pipeline -- but it is a pipe dream predicated on it.
 
2012-02-13 09:56:22 AM  
The GOP can add 10 million jobs and $15 trillion to the US economy without spending a dime

but then they realized that it would help the middle class, so they gave millionaires a tax break.
 
2012-02-13 09:57:52 AM  

Mrtraveler01: dumbobruni: there are a whole lot of people in this thread that have not read the article.

the article is about oil shale, not just Keystone.

/i know, i know. welcometofark.jpg

FTA:
None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

You were saying?


You extract a point he made about Obama not persuing Shale oil and extrapolate it to the full article? Reading comprehension for fail, Alex.
 
2012-02-13 09:58:01 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Yeah, 10 million jobs, sure. Whatever.

But let's say it's 400,000, plus maybe the service and support jobs that will be created to feed, clothe, and shelter and entertain that 400k. No matter how you break it down, that's a shiatload of people working.

Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?

See, this is why the blatant lie about ten million jobs works. It makes the equally blatant lie about 400,000 jobs look reasonable.


What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.

What reason could possibly exist to NOT offer those people a way out, if one were available? I'll wait.
 
2012-02-13 09:59:21 AM  
Remember when Bart changed the D's on his report card to A+'s and Lisa told him he should have forged plausible grades? I guess Townhall never saw that episode.
 
2012-02-13 09:59:30 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Brubold: the 10 million number is more from allowing companies to tap the shale oil reserves we have here.

And where does that come from? There's less than 100 thousand coal miners in whole country. We're going to employ 100x that many mining sand?


badalinkdink badading
canary in a sand mine

badalinkdink badading
canary in a sand mine
 
2012-02-13 09:59:30 AM  
The pipeline will create 100 million jobs--no, 100 billion jobs--and bring in a million quadrillion googleplex dollars. We'll never need to work again. So do it! Do it! Don't think about it, just do it!
 
2012-02-13 10:00:41 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Yeah, 10 million jobs, sure. Whatever.

But let's say it's 400,000, plus maybe the service and support jobs that will be created to feed, clothe, and shelter and entertain that 400k. No matter how you break it down, that's a shiatload of people working.

Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?

See, this is why the blatant lie about ten million jobs works. It makes the equally blatant lie about 400,000 jobs look reasonable.

What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.

What reason could possibly exist to NOT offer those people a way out, if one were available? I'll wait.



Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.
 
2012-02-13 10:01:36 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?


Because the GOP tried to force Obama's hand by requiring a decision well before all the studies had been conducted...

Not to mention the 400,000 number is also bullshiat.
 
2012-02-13 10:02:24 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If we just allow Keystone XL to be built, we will not only create 10 million jobs, we will cure cancer, see the Chicago Cubs win the World Series, prevent Iran from having nukes, and have a permanent base on the Moon! Why do the Democrats want to stop this miraculous development?


Look, the Cubs are going to win it all this year, with or without the Pipeline.
 
2012-02-13 10:03:55 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it?


Maybe because the house GOP forced him to make a decision before a full environmental impact study could be conducted, in a blatant effort to "embarrass" him? But of course you already knew that.
 
2012-02-13 10:04:06 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Brubold: Shale is where he's getting the 10 million number. Not the pipeline. Again, I'm not saying 10 million is accurate but some reading comprehension would be in order for the vast majority of posters here.

The thesis of TFA is clear: Build pipeline and 10 million jobs will follow. It even goes so far as to imply that's what Obama is trying to stop. You don't need to assume they all come form the pipeline -- but it is a pipe dream predicated on it.


Only insofar as building it opens up tapping our shale oil reserves here because the fight to stop shale oil production here would melt away (hopefully) with the existence of a pipeline filled with Canadian oil produced from shale. So the pipeline is essentially a gateway to a broad expansion of jobs in that industry according to the author.
 
2012-02-13 10:04:16 AM  

fracto73:

Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.


1) Fix the leak.
2) Clean up what leaked.


This isn't rocker-surgery.
 
2012-02-13 10:04:19 AM  

fracto73: Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.


Would you advocate shutting down all pipelines until there is a good answer?
 
2012-02-13 10:04:33 AM  

indylaw: I did read it, numbnuts. He starts out with 10 million jobs lost because evil Obama won't approve the XL pipeline.



(Ok... I rtfa even though is townhall.)

He really doesn't say that it's about the Keystone. He says the entire Keystone argument is about the shale oil. I don't know if that is true or not, but that's what he said. He also fails at any attempt to disengage the two and allows the reader, as evidenced in this thread, to read or perceive the argument as directly about the Keystone XL even though he (not so clearly) states he thinks the lib-forces are arguing against the shale oil industry.

The 10 million didn't suddenly reduce to 400k. He is saying that in addition to the 400k (wherever that number comes from?), there are 9.6 million other jobs related to shale oil that the United States is missing out on.

He does not do anything to try to explain where the other 96% of the jobs originate. I guess some would be in Colorado and Wyoming. Maybe 10k? Maybe the other 9.59 million jobs are in the cleanup / filtration industries?
 
2012-02-13 10:05:03 AM  
Lies like this should be illegal......srs
 
2012-02-13 10:05:38 AM  

give me doughnuts: fracto73:

Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.

1) Fix the leak.
2) Clean up what leaked.


This isn't rocker-surgery.


Fixing and cleaning sounds like more jobs to me.
 
2012-02-13 10:05:42 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Brubold: Shale is where he's getting the 10 million number. Not the pipeline. Again, I'm not saying 10 million is accurate but some reading comprehension would be in order for the vast majority of posters here.

The thesis of TFA is clear: Build pipeline and 10 million jobs will follow. It even goes so far as to imply that's what Obama is trying to stop. You don't need to assume they all come form the pipeline -- but it is a pipe dream predicated on it.


To me, the author was saying "If we build Keystone XL, we'll be able to tap all of the shale deposits and that will create 10 million jobs!" It appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt to link "Keystone XL" with "10 million jobs".

The second paragraph is the major problem: "None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs."

The author qualifies "the dispute about black, tar-sands crude" with specifics, instead of generalities: "that Canada would like to ship through the Keystone XL pipeline".

The takeaway: "If the left gave up the dispute about black tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the Keystone XL pipeline, 10 million jobs will be created".
 
2012-02-13 10:05:54 AM  
Look, this may be a temporarily positive outlook on the jobs front, but who is going to reap the majority of the revenue generated from this pipeline?

It certainly isn't those people who have to go out and "get jobs."
 
2012-02-13 10:06:55 AM  
Ok, let's do some math.

They propose that the Keystone pipeline, carrying 590,000 barrels of tar sand oil a day, will produce 400,000 jobs immediately. 590,000 barrels of oil, we'll generously assume a price of $90/barrel, slightly lower than the price of $100/barrel to account for the higher refining costs. We'll assume a (generously low) cost of $25/barrel to extract it, which would include wages, but as that part of the process is done in Canada it doesn't count towards American jobs. That leaves $65/barrel, for a post-extraction value of $38.4 million/day.

Here's where the magic happens: Even if we assume that 100% of that money goes to wages (no profits, no refining costs, nothing else!) $38,400,000 divided by 400,000 jobs is $96/day per job, or an average yearly salary per job of $35,000. If half of the remainder is consumed by refining costs (which are large for tar sand oil) and profit (the entire purpose of this endeavor), you're down to $17,000/job, or $8.17/hour.

BEHOLD REPUBLICAN MATH
 
2012-02-13 10:07:13 AM  

fracto73: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Yeah, 10 million jobs, sure. Whatever.

But let's say it's 400,000, plus maybe the service and support jobs that will be created to feed, clothe, and shelter and entertain that 400k. No matter how you break it down, that's a shiatload of people working.

Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it? Because the big pipe would not be pretty enough? Is that a good enough reason to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy? FFS, people are really hurting, why the hell would anyone prevent a project that would help so many people?

See, this is why the blatant lie about ten million jobs works. It makes the equally blatant lie about 400,000 jobs look reasonable.

What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.

What reason could possibly exist to NOT offer those people a way out, if one were available? I'll wait.


Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.


So, fark those hundreds of thousands of people, because some oil might leak? Back into the ground where it came from in the first place? Really? That's what you're going with? What the hell do you think would happen if there were a leak, would the planet's ecosystem come to a grinding halt? Would life end as we know it? Do you even have a farking clue?
 
2012-02-13 10:07:19 AM  

Hollie Maea: Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it?

Maybe because the house GOP forced him to make a decision before a full environmental impact study could be conducted, in a blatant effort to "embarrass" him? But of course you already knew that.


And also because he could delay his decision, thus getting the tree-hugger votes for his second term, and then turn around and approve it when it won't do him an political harm.

It's a win/win.
 
2012-02-13 10:07:55 AM  

give me doughnuts: fracto73:

Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.

1) Fix the leak.
2) Clean up what leaked.


This isn't rocker-surgery.


We all know how well that process worked with Deepwater Horizon.
 
2012-02-13 10:08:42 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Back into the ground where it came from in the first place?


"Oil leaks are fine, because the oil came from the ground anyway." Really? That's what you're going with?
 
2012-02-13 10:09:07 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.

What reason could possibly exist to NOT offer those people a way out, if one were available? I'll wait.


How about discussing actual estimates rather than "what ifs"?

Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL (pdf)
 
2012-02-13 10:10:32 AM  

The Numbers: fracto73: Because they don't have a good answer to 'what happens when it leaks?', and they all leak at some point.

Would you advocate shutting down all pipelines until there is a good answer?



It depends on what you mean by 'good answer'. In my opinion if the devastation is limited to the area surrounding the pipeline then just cleaning it up can be a good answer. If the answer is 27% of the irrigated land within the US will be contaminated, then yes, that pipeline should be shut down.
 
2012-02-13 10:11:16 AM  

Brubold: the fight to stop shale oil production here would melt away (hopefully)


This is not a good thing. Greasy sand is just barely a net energy producer once you add up how much energy goes into mining and refining the stuff. The fact it's profitable at all should tell you about the near term future of fossil fuel in general.
 
2012-02-13 10:12:34 AM  

qorkfiend: Occam's Nailfile: Back into the ground where it came from in the first place?

"Oil leaks are fine, because the oil came from the ground anyway." Really? That's what you're going with?



I am going to guess he is trolling, if not his enthusiasm for drinking oil will be self correcting.
 
2012-02-13 10:13:35 AM  

qorkfiend: DarnoKonrad: Brubold: Shale is where he's getting the 10 million number. Not the pipeline. Again, I'm not saying 10 million is accurate but some reading comprehension would be in order for the vast majority of posters here.

The thesis of TFA is clear: Build pipeline and 10 million jobs will follow. It even goes so far as to imply that's what Obama is trying to stop. You don't need to assume they all come form the pipeline -- but it is a pipe dream predicated on it.

To me, the author was saying "If we build Keystone XL, we'll be able to tap all of the shale deposits and that will create 10 million jobs!" It appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt to link "Keystone XL" with "10 million jobs".

The second paragraph is the major problem: "None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs."

The author qualifies "the dispute about black, tar-sands crude" with specifics, instead of generalities: "that Canada would like to ship through the Keystone XL pipeline".

The takeaway: "If the left gave up the dispute about black tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the Keystone XL pipeline, 10 million jobs will be created".


So did you stop reading after the second paragraph or are you just ignoring the parts that don't fit with your argument?
 
2012-02-13 10:14:13 AM  

give me doughnuts: Hollie Maea: Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it?

Maybe because the house GOP forced him to make a decision before a full environmental impact study could be conducted, in a blatant effort to "embarrass" him? But of course you already knew that.

And also because he could delay his decision, thus getting the tree-hugger votes for his second term, and then turn around and approve it when it won't do him an political harm.

It's a win/win.


You can hypothesize about what he would or would not have done until your face turns blue. But that doesn't change the fact that you don't farking build an oil pipeline through the country's largest source of drinking water without doing careful studies first. The house GOP knew this, and also knew that the average American would be too stupid to understand this, so they put Obama in a position where he would be forced to kill it, leaving intellectual giants such as "Occam's Nailfile" gobsmacked as to why he would do such a thing.
 
2012-02-13 10:16:14 AM  

imashark: Look, this may be a temporarily positive outlook on the jobs front, but who is going to reap the majority of the revenue generated from this pipeline?

It certainly isn't those people who have to go out and "get jobs."


I see your argument and it makes sense. Let's shutdown any companies who have people at the top making lots of money. That will fix the the lack of jobs here quickly. Let's start with with auto industry...oh wait. Well then maybe the banks..oh we just bailed them out too.

So I guess I'm a little lost. If we can spend taxpayer money to save companies that have always made more money for people other than those working in lower tier jobs in the industry, why can't we allow companies like that to grow with no taxpayer money?

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter to the guy who has been out of work for a year that the people at the very top of the company that just hired him make 100 times more than he does. All that matters to him is that he can put food on the table for his family again with a comfortable salary at his new job.
 
2012-02-13 10:16:30 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.


You are making the assumption that everyone hired will come from the unemployment roles. Do you see a problem with that?
 
2012-02-13 10:16:45 AM  

Hollie Maea: Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it?

Maybe because the house GOP forced him to make a decision before a full environmental impact study could be conducted, in a blatant effort to "embarrass" him? But of course you already knew that.


Come on, you aren't really that stupid are you? The "we need more study" excuse has been the go-to excuse to stop every energy project that's been proposed for decades.

fark whether or not he is embarrassed. Does he give a shiat about Americans that can't feed their families, or not? It's that simple.

www.oklahomafarmreport.com

This is a real problem, and not just a problem on paper, or a hypothetical boogieman like "OMG WHAT IF IT LEEKS!!11!". It's an illustration of 45 million human beings living like beggars in the greatest nation in the world. Do you really mean to say that the danger of some hypothetical future seepage of oil is so severe that we should ignore an opportunity to help these people?

How can you libs even say that with a straight face, and claim to give a flying fark about the poor?
 
Juc
2012-02-13 10:16:53 AM  
10 million jobs from keystone? Is he nuts?
Generally I think the pipeline is a good thing, once the route issues are addressed, and it will bring some jobs but 10 million jobs is beyond a ludicrous number.
 
2012-02-13 10:18:22 AM  
Most of those jobs are temporary. Once the pipe is done, there goes the jobs. It's not what I call a real fix.
And then, we have securely locked our lips onto the oil teat of yet another country, waiting for the day when we are ripped away from the source.

/Time for alternative fuels.
 
Displayed 50 of 369 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report