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  
•       •       •

7821 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 10:18:46 AM  

stebain: He says the entire Keystone argument is about the shale oil.


The Canadian shale oil.

From Keystone.

"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."

What farking dispute is he talking about, if not "the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline"?
 
2012-02-13 10:19:51 AM  

Brubold: 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.


And what do you say to the workers in the midwest who will pay MORE for gas if the pipeline is built? All that matters to him is that he has less money to put food on his families table.
 
2012-02-13 10:19:53 AM  

The Numbers: 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?


I'm not addressing the article as a whole and trying to make a case that the author did or didn't mean Keystone XL or tar sands. My point is that it's understandable that people who might not have read closely would be confused about the author's message, since the first thing you read - the summary of the story, basically - not only specifically references the Canadian tar sands crude that Keystone XL is intended to ship, but draws a clear link between Keystone XL and the "10 million jobs" claim as well.
 
2012-02-13 10:20:01 AM  

monoski: 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?


They have to come from somewhere. If they leave jobs to go to jobs in the new industry then the jobs they left have to be filled. And if the people that fill those jobs leave other jobs then those jobs they left will have to be filled.

Sooner or later a large group of unemployed people are going to get jobs when more jobs are added to the marketplace.
 
2012-02-13 10:21:06 AM  

qorkfiend: 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.


It didn't work at Love Canal, but that wasn't a pipeline either. What's your point?
 
2012-02-13 10:22:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: 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.

And what do you say to the workers in the midwest who will pay MORE for gas if the pipeline is built? All that matters to him is that he has less money to put food on his families table.


I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"
 
2012-02-13 10:25:20 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: How can you libs even say that with a straight face, and claim to give a flying fark about the poor?


And that's where I give up on your crap.
 
2012-02-13 10:25:30 AM  

Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"


From people who know what the fark they're talking about.

It's fascinating how society today is concerned more about 'validity of source' than 'validity of assertion', but I guess that's what happens when wikiality sets in.
 
2012-02-13 10:27:42 AM  
What a fantasy world...
 
2012-02-13 10:27:43 AM  
So according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics's site from 2009 there were a total of 134 million jobs in the US. So you are saying with one magical pipeline we can increase the number of jobs by 7.5%? With one pipeline construction? I'm pretty sure that someone is lying here.
 
2012-02-13 10:27:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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)


Here's what your document boils down to:

"None of this alters the fact that, even if Perryman's total job figures (119,000) were
correct, and all the workers expected to be hired in the next phase of the project were
hired tomorrow (so roughly 40,000 for three years), the US unemployment would remain
where it is today-at 9.1 per cent.
68 The US economy needs to create more than 90,000
jobs per month just to keep up with the growing labor force.
69 It needs to generate 8
million jobs in order the get the US unemployment down to where it was at the onset
of the recession"


Cliff notes: 119,000 jobs won't eliminate unemployment, so it's not worth it.


119,000 jobs means 200,000-300,000 people being lifted out of poverty.
Think about that, with your tiny little brain....300,000 people. That's more people than you have ever met in your entire life. That's everyone you went to high school with, hundreds and hundreds of times over - no longer living like beggars.

NOT TO MENTION the employment created by their economic activity, and the reduction in entitlement expenditures.

But hey, it wouldn't eliminate unemployment, so let's not bother, amirite?
 
Ant
2012-02-13 10:27:55 AM  

REO-Weedwagon: keylock71: What kind of a retard even entertains this nonsense as the truth?

[themagicnegro.com image 216x234]


shut up and drall? WTF does "drall" mean?
 
2012-02-13 10:28:41 AM  

give me doughnuts: qorkfiend: 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.

It didn't work at Love Canal, but that wasn't a pipeline either. What's your point?


"Fix the leak" and "Clean up what leaked" can be extremely difficult to accomplish. You don't just throw a patch over the hole and bust out a couple of mops.

<csb>
A family friend had a sprinkler system put in in their lawn. The contractor installing the system accidentally ruptured the main oil feed line to the house. The oil didn't gush, but instead slowly seeped into the ground. To remove the contaminated soil, they had to dig up their entire yard and half of the neighbors' yard.
</csb>

Obviously, this process will be easier if multiplied by orders of magnitude and the leaking oil is not only unrefined, but some of the dirtiest crude possible.
 
2012-02-13 10:28:44 AM  

monoski: 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?


And what happens to the jobs those people abandon, do they just go away, you farking genius?
 
2012-02-13 10:32:06 AM  

Alphax: Occam's Nailfile: How can you libs even say that with a straight face, and claim to give a flying fark about the poor?

And that's where I give up on your crap.


Sorry if the truth hurts. You farkers need to decide what matters. Is it people, or is it some misguided loyalty to the ideological crap you've been fed, telling you that oil=bad?

I don't know about you, but if I didn't have a job, and my family was living on food stamps, I would be happy as hell to take a job on an oil pipeline.
 
2012-02-13 10:32:59 AM  

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


<wingnut>
Ivy League East Coast durn librul elitists don't know what they're talking about.
</wingnut>
 
2012-02-13 10:33:00 AM  

sprawl15: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From people who know what the fark they're talking about.

It's fascinating how society today is concerned more about 'validity of source' than 'validity of assertion', but I guess that's what happens when wikiality sets in.


And I'm just supposed to believe your assertion that some people out there who know what they are talking about have said this and that they are correct?
 
2012-02-13 10:34:32 AM  
I'm really enjoying the "Won't somebody think about the poor and unemployed?!?" angle coming from folks, who laugh at the prospect of people dying without insurance and have been trying to dismantle the "Safety Net" for the last 30 years or so...
 
2012-02-13 10:35:13 AM  
 
2012-02-13 10:35:26 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: 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?


So, is it Asperger's? Or some other autism-spectral illness?
Is it undiagnosed?

Because even a few thousand jobs isn't going to help 46,220,000 people get off food stamps, moroon.
 
2012-02-13 10:36:22 AM  

Brubold: And I'm just supposed to believe your assertion that some people out there who know what they are talking about have said this and that they are correct?


You could ask the basis for the assertion. Would you like to know more?
 
2012-02-13 10:37:04 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: 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)

Here's what your document boils down to:

"None of this alters the fact that, even if Perryman's total job figures (119,000) were
correct, and all the workers expected to be hired in the next phase of the project were
hired tomorrow (so roughly 40,000 for three years), the US unemployment would remain
where it is today-at 9.1 per cent.
68 The US economy needs to create more than 90,000
jobs per month just to keep up with the growing labor force.
69 It needs to generate 8
million jobs in order the get the US unemployment down to where it was at the onset
of the recession"

Cliff notes: 119,000 jobs won't eliminate unemployment, so it's not worth it.


119,000 jobs means 200,000-300,000 people being lifted out of poverty. Think about that, with your tiny little brain....300,000 people. That's more people than you have ever met in your entire life. That's everyone you went to high school with, hundreds and hundreds of times over - no longer living like beggars.

NOT TO MENTION the employment created by their economic activity, and the reduction in entitlement expenditures.

But hey, it wouldn't eliminate unemployment, so let's not bother, amirite?


Wow, that's really what you got out of that document? Try reading it again.
 
2012-02-13 10:38:25 AM  

CapnBlues: I'm just glad I didn't click on another goddamn townhall link. i swear, their writers stopped going to school sometime around 8th grade and just spent the subsequent years reading right-wing pundits' books and jacking off to pictures of the laffer curve.


I long ago quit opening those links on principal. A quick browse through the thread gives you all the best quotes to laugh at.
 
2012-02-13 10:38:34 AM  

keylock71: I'm really enjoying the "Won't somebody think about the poor and unemployed?!?" angle coming from folks, who laugh at the prospect of people dying without insurance and have been trying to dismantle the "Safety Net" for the last 30 years or so...


Lots of very intelligent people have argued that our safety net, as it exists, encourages more poverty than it corrects. If that weren't true, then why is it that the more money we pour into it, the more people rely on it?

This is your argument:

"Give me some food. I'm poor."

"No. But I'll give you a job, and you can buy your own food."

"YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TEH POOR!"
 
2012-02-13 10:41:49 AM  

devek: crazydave023: I stopped reading after "whackjob environmentaliists"
Where are they gettin 10 million jobs created from?
Does anybody call these people out?

Unemployment in the US is what, 12.8 million? So they are saying this will slash unemployment by 78%?

I was hanging out last night and some person was saying the world wasn't overpopulated because there were 5000 square miles of land per person on Earth. I was like really? Run your own numbers dude...


Well, let's see. There are 197 million square miles of surface area on earth, but maybe he made a mistake and was thinking in kilometeres, in which case it's 510 million. Now, in Revelation 7:4, John tells us that there will be 12,000 people from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, so 144,000 in total. Technically, only 30% of the Earth's surface is water, but I think it's fair to say that the oceans will have boiled off by this point in the game. So we're looking at 1,368 square miles or 3,542 square kilometers per person. And from there you can get to around 5,000 by harmonizing the statistical quirks.

So sure, your friend is a little silly for saying miles when he meant kilometers, but don't be too rough on him; the approach is sound.
 
2012-02-13 10:42:24 AM  
Go globalism!
Check out the number of Americans receiving food stamps as set against the admission of China to the WTO in December 2001.www.trivisonno.com

From here (new window), globalist serfs.

/Ross Perot was right.
 
2012-02-13 10:44:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)


Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.
 
2012-02-13 10:45:03 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Wow, that's really what you got out of that document? Try reading it again.


Hey go easy on the guy. Simple cognitive tasks actually take a tremendous amount of effort when your most significant thinking tool is a ganglion in your heel.
 
2012-02-13 10:45:05 AM  

MyRandomName: 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.


Okay, then. Shale oil programs will create 10 million jobs. Let's go with this....

Why are the republicans not asking the oil companies to start building the refineries RIGHT NOW to jump start this amazing process of job creation, given that we already have a complete network of pipelines all over the country. Oil companies are having record profits and revenue....surely some of this money could be used to R&D some shale oil processing facilities.

Why do we have to wait until a pipeline that will be solely used to move Canadian oil to China needs to be in place? Why do we need to approve of this magic pipeline BEFORE someone actually submits the actual route of the pipeline so we can then start the process of creating 10 million jobs?

As Americans, our animated eagle gifs cry waiting for 10 million jobs that could be started RIGHT NOW while republicans and oil companies pussy foot around playing political games for brownie points when they could, RIGHT NOW start the process that would bring in immediately 40,000 of those 10 million job TODAY...but for some reason we have to wait until we can build a pipeline to support a foreign power???

WHY? WHY? WHY? When will the mighty fark independents answer the call to our patriotic sparkly flag gifs and support America in rallying the minority limp-powered republicans to call forward and start the process of job creation TODAY, instead of waiting for the Empty Suit, the nigh-motherland-bred, the Man of Zero-BAM!-a to cloud the judgement of those enviro-hippies everywhere who dream of clean skies and fresh water for their children.

I say to you, take action as you have always theatened! Do it now!

HARK! Rise up with your brothers and sisters(well, maybe not the sisters, since they need to stay home and make babies)! Call out to the job creators! Begin the process today! Take the lead of the lesser countries from the North, steal their amazing tar sand technology, and apply it to our God-given destinies of creating 10 million jobs RIGHT NOW! TODAY! STAND UP FROM YOUR HOVERAROUNDS! DEFY THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER! WE HAVE THE TAR SANDS! WE HAVE TAX BREAKS! USE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS THEY WERE MEANT TO BE UNFURLED! LET THE FREE MARKET PREVAIL! STEP INTO A SLIM JIM!
 
2012-02-13 10:45:25 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: blah blah blah


Nah, 30+ years of clowns like you pushing for the failed policies of "trickle-down" economics as a solution to poverty and unemployment is why I'm laughing about your "concern" for the poor and unemployed.
 
2012-02-13 10:45:46 AM  

sprawl15: Brubold: And I'm just supposed to believe your assertion that some people out there who know what they are talking about have said this and that they are correct?

You could ask the basis for the assertion. Would you like to know more?


Someone got to it before you did and I have already responded to them.
 
2012-02-13 10:47:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: 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)

Here's what your document boils down to:

"None of this alters the fact that, even if Perryman's total job figures (119,000) were
correct, and all the workers expected to be hired in the next phase of the project were
hired tomorrow (so roughly 40,000 for three years), the US unemployment would remain
where it is today-at 9.1 per cent.
68 The US economy needs to create more than 90,000
jobs per month just to keep up with the growing labor force.
69 It needs to generate 8
million jobs in order the get the US unemployment down to where it was at the onset
of the recession"

Cliff notes: 119,000 jobs won't eliminate unemployment, so it's not worth it.


119,000 jobs means 200,000-300,000 people being lifted out of poverty. Think about that, with your tiny little brain....300,000 people. That's more people than you have ever met in your entire life. That's everyone you went to high school with, hundreds and hundreds of times over - no longer living like beggars.

NOT TO MENTION the employment created by their economic activity, and the reduction in entitlement expenditures.

But hey, it wouldn't eliminate unemployment, so let's not bother, amirite?

Wow, that's really what you got out of that document? Try reading it again.


Why don't you try responding to the questions I posed to you, instead of deflecting the argument towards a debate of a paper created with a clear bias?

I will repeat my question to you, and will rephrase it to use your own document's numbers. Respond in your own words, without dissemination or deflection.

What is your argument against putting 50,000 people people to work, knowing it would result in 3 times that many, at least, rising out of poverty, off the foodstamp rolls, and generating economic activity that would benefit the communities those people live in?

Don't be a coward this time. Use your own words, and respond.
 
2012-02-13 10:47:27 AM  
Speaking of which, guys, I can add 20 million jobs and $30 trillion to the US economy without the government spending a dime as well. All you have to do is give me a waiver to the minimum wage and labor laws and I'm good to go.
 
2012-02-13 10:47:59 AM  

Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)

Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.


So now you don't care about the poor worker putting food on his table for his family? What a shocking development. I'd have never guessed that your professed concern for the struggling worker wasn't wholly sincere.
 
2012-02-13 10:49:34 AM  

keylock71: Occam's Nailfile: blah blah blah

Nah, 30+ years of clowns like you pushing for the failed policies of "trickle-down" economics as a solution to poverty and unemployment is why I'm laughing about your "concern" for the poor and unemployed.


Right. Because clearly, exponential entitlement spending growth has worked wonders.
 
2012-02-13 10:50:24 AM  

Brubold: Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.


Oil shale will not ever, and can not ever, lead to low oil prices. We have known about our oil shale reserves for over 75 years. Ever wondered why we didn't dig it up before the environmentalism movement, back when we didn't give a shiat about the consequences? It's because it costs ridiculous amounts of money to extract and refine. If we ever exploit our oil shale on a significant scale, it will have to be because oil prices are extremely high. I would recommend that you go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin and rejoin the discussion afterwards.
 
2012-02-13 10:50:47 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Go globalism!
Check out the number of Americans receiving food stamps as set against the admission of China to the WTO in December 2001.[www.trivisonno.com image 640x506]

From here (new window), globalist serfs.

/Ross Perot was right.


While I agree that Perot was right about many things such as jobs being outsourced, your point about that graph could just be a coincidence. It shows a fairly steady pattern until around the time of the housing meltdown.
 
2012-02-13 10:50:47 AM  

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

Link (new window)


FTA: Jobs will be temporary and between 85-90% of the people hired to do the work will be non-local or from out of state.

beinglatino.files.wordpress.com

We can has yobs!

/hot like 8 hours in the sun
 
2012-02-13 10:51:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)

Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

So now you don't care about the poor worker putting food on his table for his family? What a shocking development. I'd have never guessed that your professed concern for the struggling worker wasn't wholly sincere.


You don't even try to argue logically, do you? You just copy, paste, and make ad hominem attacks. Why even bother?
 
2012-02-13 10:51:56 AM  

Hollie Maea: Brubold: Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

Oil shale will not ever, and can not ever, lead to low oil prices. We have known about our oil shale reserves for over 75 years. Ever wondered why we didn't dig it up before the environmentalism movement, back when we didn't give a shiat about the consequences? It's because it costs ridiculous amounts of money to extract and refine. If we ever exploit our oil shale on a significant scale, it will have to be because oil prices are extremely high. I would recommend that you go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin and rejoin the discussion afterwards.


And yet Canada is doing so and is going to make money off of it.
 
2012-02-13 10:52:10 AM  
26.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-02-13 10:52:44 AM  

Brubold: HotIgneous Intruder: Go globalism!
Check out the number of Americans receiving food stamps as set against the admission of China to the WTO in December 2001.[www.trivisonno.com image 640x506]

From here (new window), globalist serfs.

/Ross Perot was right.

While I agree that Perot was right about many things such as jobs being outsourced, your point about that graph could just be a coincidence. It shows a fairly steady pattern until around the time of the housing meltdown.


And nothing at all to do with off-shoring American manufacturing, I'm sure.
 
2012-02-13 10:52:46 AM  

Hollie Maea: Brubold: Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

Oil shale will not ever, and can not ever, lead to low oil prices. We have known about our oil shale reserves for over 75 years. Ever wondered why we didn't dig it up before the environmentalism movement, back when we didn't give a shiat about the consequences? It's because it costs ridiculous amounts of money to extract and refine. If we ever exploit our oil shale on a significant scale, it will have to be because oil prices are extremely high. I would recommend that you go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin and rejoin the discussion afterwards.


When, not if.

Because oil will get high enough per barrel to make it "worth" it
 
2012-02-13 10:53:26 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)

Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

So now you don't care about the poor worker putting food on his table for his family? What a shocking development. I'd have never guessed that your professed concern for the struggling worker wasn't wholly sincere.


Again with the reading comprehension issues. Yes, short term it will hurt those workers with a slight increase in their gas prices. Long term it will help them by reducing the cost beyond where it was to start with.
 
2012-02-13 10:53:52 AM  

Brubold: And yet Canada is doing so and is going to make money off of it.


Because prices are high and are certain to go much higher when the global downturn ends. Do try to pay attention.
 
2012-02-13 10:55:50 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: 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)

Here's what your document boils down to:

"None of this alters the fact that, even if Perryman's total job figures (119,000) were
correct, and all the workers expected to be hired in the next phase of the project were
hired tomorrow (so roughly 40,000 for three years), the US unemployment would remain
where it is today-at 9.1 per cent.
68 The US economy needs to create more than 90,000
jobs per month just to keep up with the growing labor force.
69 It needs to generate 8
million jobs in order the get the US unemployment down to where it was at the onset
of the recession"

Cliff notes: 119,000 jobs won't eliminate unemployment, so it's not worth it.


119,000 jobs means 200,000-300,000 people being lifted out of poverty. Think about that, with your tiny little brain....300,000 people. That's more people than you have ever met in your entire life. That's everyone you went to high school with, hundreds and hundreds of times over - no longer living like beggars.

NOT TO MENTION the employment created by their economic activity, and the reduction in entitlement expenditures.

But hey, it wouldn't eliminate unemployment, so let's not bother, amirite?

Wow, that's really what you got out of that document? Try reading it again.

Why don't you try responding to the questions I posed to you, instead of deflecting the argument towards a debate of a paper created with a clear b ...


I don't need to argue against you fantasy of putting 50,000 people to work. The link already did.

Here, let me highlight that portion, since you obviously missed in during your careful consideration of the document.


The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State
Department.


I understand that since it was buried on page 2 of the document, it was hard to miss.

And then this section must have been wholly missing from your version:

A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department.9

The State Department's FEIS considers each component of construction labor, andprovides jobs data for the construction spreads, pump stations, and tank farms:

» Construction of the pipeline is planned to occur in 17 construction spreads or
completed lengths (Table 3.10.1-13). Ten spreads are planned along the proposed Steele City Segment, six spreads along the proposed Gulf Coast Segment, and one spread along the proposed Houston Lateral. Final spread configurations and construction schedules could result in shorter spreads.

» Approximately 500 to 600 construction and inspection personnel would work
on each spread, except for the proposed Houston Lateral which would require
approximately 250 workers. Each spread would require 6 to 9 months to
complete. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional
workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in
18 to 24 months. Tank farm construction would require approximately 30 to 40
construction personnel over a period of 15 to 18 months.10

Based on jobs information provided by TransCanada for the FEIS, KXL US on-site construction and inspection creates only 5,060-9,250 person-years of employment (1 person-year = 1 person working full time for 1 year). This is equivalent to 2,500-4,650 jobs per year over two years.
On-site construction labor thus accounts for only a small share (about 5-10%) of overall KXL US project costs.11

Stated another way, KXL US on-site employment is only about 1-2
person-years per $1 million project cost.12
 
2012-02-13 10:55:51 AM  

meat0918: When, not if.

Because oil will get high enough per barrel to make it "worth" it


Because we're stupid. I mean, I agree with you and the reason is because we're too stupid to plan ahead and transition off of oil onto something else. We're going to suck the earth dry of all its oil, we'll be paying over $20 a gallon in my lifetime because we're too farking stupid as a country to transition to some other energy source.
 
2012-02-13 10:56:29 AM  

Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)

Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

So now you don't care about the poor worker putting food on his table for his family? What a shocking development. I'd have never guessed that your professed concern for the struggling worker wasn't wholly sincere.

Again with the reading comprehension issues. Yes, short term it will hurt those workers with a slight increase in their gas prices. Long term it will help them by reducing the cost beyond where it was to start with.


Don't bother. He's a mindless little puppet of his liberal masters. He has no capacity for original thought, and has precisely zero interest in having an adult conversation.
 
2012-02-13 10:57:42 AM  

Brubold: I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant.


The price increase was estimated at 10-20 cents per gallon. The price delta between Brent and WTI is more than $10. That's Bad.

Since the cost estimate of the pipeline is drastically overinflated, the price increase in gas to the Midwest actually would cost more jobs than the pipeline would create. By a significant factor. This is before the damage from environmental dangers; they're using a significant amount of Welspun steel, and they're under investigation from PHMSA for delivering substandard steel on the earlier Keystone phases and the waivers given on the project to pipe gauge. One only has to look at their spill record for the earlier pipes to know that they're totally incompetent.

Brubold: Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.


This is a profoundly stupid thing to say.
 
2012-02-13 10:58:38 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: Philip Francis Queeg: Brubold: I'd say, "Where are you getting this information that your gas prices are going to go up because of the keystone pipleline?"

From the Canadian Government's approval of the project.

PGI indicated that historical price discounts at the USGC suggest that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in traditional markets. Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian exports of heavy crude oil. It further stated that access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing over supply. (new window)

Oh good grief. I'd tell the worker to get over the 5-10c increase in his gas prices. Compared to the overall price increase we've seen in the last few years it's irrelevant. Besides which, if the pipeline did indeed open up production of shale oil here, then those prices would go back down considerably when we were able to supply the country with our own oil.

So now you don't care about the poor worker putting food on his table for his family? What a shocking development. I'd have never guessed that your professed concern for the struggling worker wasn't wholly sincere.

You don't even try to argue logically, do you? You just copy, paste, and make ad hominem attacks. Why even bother?


Yep, I copy and paste actual facts. Terrible isn't it? I know that facts destroy your argument, so it really is mean of me to keep posting them.
 
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