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 369
    More: Obvious, GOP, shale oil, green economy, Bureau of Land Management, oil sands, official trips, Michael Lynch, alternative fuels  
•       •       •

7818 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2012 at 8:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-13 11:00:33 AM

sprawl15: 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.


Supply and demand rules of economics 101 are stupid?
 
2012-02-13 11:02:24 AM

Occam's Nailfile: 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.


It worked for St. Reagan.
 
2012-02-13 11:03:59 AM

Brubold: Supply and demand rules of economics 101 are stupid?


No, really it was the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread, and that counts Occam's Nailfile. Bleating about supply and demand doesn't change the fact that your assertion that "development of oil shale would bring oil prices down" shows that you know nothing about the subject.
 
2012-02-13 11:04:17 AM
It might not solve our biggest problem, but it would be a start, and it is a conservative estimate.
 
2012-02-13 11:06:32 AM

Brubold: Supply and demand rules of economics 101 are stupid?


When you have no idea the basis for your assertion, absolutely.

Lets start at the beginning: the pipeline wouldn't "open up" anything beyond its terminals. It's farking retarded to even think it could. Do you know how pipes work?

Second one: "we were able to supply the country with our own oil". Midwest refineries - the place the tar sands are being refined at right now - are not operating at capacity.

Third: Why the fark do you think oil companies would refine and sell oil here at a lower rate than they could afford internationally? Think about this for a minute, you're saying that by linking an isolated system to the world, it will create an isolated system. It's moronic.
 
2012-02-13 11:06:53 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?


Yes, it certainly does sound like dereliction of duty when you just make up and inflate numbers.
 
2012-02-13 11:09:22 AM

Hollie Maea: Brubold: Supply and demand rules of economics 101 are stupid?

No, really it was the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread, and that counts Occam's Nailfile. Bleating about supply and demand doesn't change the fact that your assertion that "development of oil shale would bring oil prices down" shows that you know nothing about the subject.


Again I have to point out that Canada is proving you wrong at this very moment with their production of shale oil.

Liberals - "OMG, for shale oil to be profitable the cost of oil has to be eleventy billion monies per barrel!"

Canada - "LOL"
 
2012-02-13 11:10:38 AM

Brubold: Again I have to point out that Canada is proving you wrong at this very moment with their production of shale oil.


the fark are you babbling about
 
2012-02-13 11:12:22 AM
The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?
 
2012-02-13 11:12:28 AM

sprawl15: Brubold: Supply and demand rules of economics 101 are stupid?

When you have no idea the basis for your assertion, absolutely.

Lets start at the beginning: the pipeline wouldn't "open up" anything beyond its terminals. It's farking retarded to even think it could. Do you know how pipes work?

Second one: "we were able to supply the country with our own oil". Midwest refineries - the place the tar sands are being refined at right now - are not operating at capacity.

Third: Why the fark do you think oil companies would refine and sell oil here at a lower rate than they could afford internationally? Think about this for a minute, you're saying that by linking an isolated system to the world, it will create an isolated system. It's moronic.


Now with your third point you've actually hit a subject we can agree on. I think any deal where we allow these companies to start producing shale oil should include some sort of agreement about supplying X amount of oil to the US at below market prices.
 
2012-02-13 11:12:43 AM

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

Link (new window)


Cornell is an Eastern institootion of LIBERL socalist hier edukacuon. So, your argument is invalid.
 
2012-02-13 11:13:05 AM

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


Even if it created a million jobs it has to be weighed against the disadvantages of its existence, something that congress tried to bypass by attempting to force a decision before the official study had been completed The mere fact that we are fighting so hard over something that will create as many jobs as are currently created naturally in about a month should give you pause as to who is really benefiting from this project. What if the opponents are right and this cost us jobs, and causes environmental damage, would it be worth it? Probably yes, just so you can stick it in the eye of those libby libs.
 
2012-02-13 11:16:39 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

One one hand, your study claims that no jobs will be created, and on the other, it claims that the impact of the pipeline is so great that is will prevent green jobs form being created. Which is it? Is it an inconsequential project, that will have no real impact? Or is it a green-jobs-killing machine?

Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Heh. 75,000 jobs. But "not all good jobs".

Putting a Cornell stamp on a PDF does not make the contents any less laughable.
 
2012-02-13 11:16:54 AM

HotWingConspiracy: The rosiest projection even the GOP put out said 20k jobs, now it's up to 10 million? WTF are all these people going to be working on?


Well, they need that many people to hold the pipeline in place once it is built.
 
2012-02-13 11:17:12 AM

max_pooper: Let's see, the proposed pipeline is about 2200 miles long (give or take for final routing), or 11,616,000 feet or 1,393,920,000 inches. With 10 million jobs that's one job for 14" of pipeline. $15 trillion translates into $107,610 in economic output per inch of pipeline.

As hard as it is to believe, there are people that actually vote for Republicans.




Actually, I was thinking the only way it would create ten million jobs is if we round up all the unemployed, give them each two buckets and have them walk the oil from Canada to the Gulf. Which would probably be a plausible plan to the GOP derpmeisters.
 
2012-02-13 11:17:25 AM

meat0918: Because oil will get high enough per barrel to make it "worth" it


There are a lot of crappy little towns in CO and WY that have been fed this line forever, and when gas gets up to around $4.50 a gallon, they see the surveying trams come back out, and the heavy equipment starts moving in and they finnaly think that there's going to be a boom.

Then oil prices drop and everybody leaves again.
 
2012-02-13 11:17:53 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?


No that's just congressional math.
 
2012-02-13 11:18:18 AM

Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?



When, in at least the last 30 years, have the GOP been any good at math?
 
2012-02-13 11:18:25 AM

sxacho: What the fark did I just read? Was he being serious?


When it's impossible to tell if a Republican pundit is being completely serious or is being completely facetious...maybe it's time to just implode the party and start over.
 
2012-02-13 11:20:16 AM

Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.


Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?
 
2012-02-13 11:20:20 AM

Brubold: I think any deal where we allow these companies to start producing shale oil should include some sort of agreement about supplying X amount of oil to the US at below market prices.


Good news: that's already happening. Keystone XL would change that.

Brubold: Now with your third point you've actually hit a subject we can agree on.


You disagree with me on how pipes work?

Alright, explain to me how you think a domestic shale oil mining facility could tie in to an existing pipe that's operating at capacity.
 
2012-02-13 11:21:07 AM
10 million jobs, huh? So they're claiming that this one pipeline will take us beyond full employment? I smell bullshiat even without knowing that many of the congresscritters pushing this are heavily invested in the company that is lobbying for it to happen.

How can anyone listen to this shiat and still support the GOP?

/[reads some of the comments on TFA]
//Mother of God
 
2012-02-13 11:21:48 AM

Kibbler: It must have been a pipeline that allowed the GOP to build those thousands of hospitals, tens of thousands of schools, hundreds of thousands of clinics, millions of new houses, and tens of millions of miles of new roads, without spending a dime, and while lowering the price of oil, they were always bragging about in Iraq.

Otherwise it almost seems like their claims were suspiciously exaggerated.


Especially since the US GDP was $14.58 trillion last year. Thus I'm just a little tiny bit skeptical that one pipeline would DOUBLE our GDP. But hey making up numbers is fun so let me try: If Scarlett Johansson would give me a BJ, nearly 100,000 new jobs would be created and almost $500 billion would be added to the economy


/crosses fingers and waits
 
2012-02-13 11:23:04 AM
Sometimes I think the GOP vision for the future of America is to become 1800's London...
 
2012-02-13 11:23:58 AM
Apparently the Republicans that estimate jobs created from shale oil are the same Republicans who send estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the US to right-wing blogs and inflation totals to Infowars.

"400,000 jobs at bare minimum, which will give us all pipeline fever and create conservatively another 10 million jobs. All in a country with 70 million illegals and 42.9 percent inflation!"
 
2012-02-13 11:24:34 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?


Do you just ignore content, even in your own supportive documentation, that contradicts your argument? I repeat, since you clearly have reading comprehension issues:



Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Do those statements sound like they are:

A) Biased
B) Unbiased

Respond, and feel free to show your work.
 
2012-02-13 11:25:07 AM

Brubold: Again I have to point out that Canada is proving you wrong at this very moment with their production of shale oil.


Goddamn but you are a moron.

Let's see: Today, oil prices are $100 a barrel. Is that cheap? No. Is it high enough that heavy oil is profitable? Not quite. But the Canadians know that prices are depressed about $30 because of the global economic downturn, and that as the world recovers prices will go up to a point where heavy crude is marginally profitable. Now, here's the part you are missing: If prices went back down for whatever reason to, say, $75--which still isn't that cheap by historical standards--Canada's oil sands industry would go bust--just like every heavy crude boom has when there has been a price correction. Canada is betting that the prices will never go back down--and they are probably right, since the prices are not high due to, say, a military or political issue as has been the case with previous oil shocks.

Just to make sure that these things are in terms you can understand:

A true statement: High oil prices can lead to the production of heavy crude.

Your statement (which can never be true): Production of heavy crude can lead to low oil prices.

Seriously: go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin so you won't sound like an absolute moron next time.
 
2012-02-13 11:26:56 AM

Hollie Maea: Just to make sure that these things are in terms you can understand:


He doesn't understand how a pipe works. I wouldn't assume he could understand anything more complicated than a slice of pizza.
 
2012-02-13 11:27:43 AM
How proud I'll be when I see my kids and grandkids working as shale oil miners. Thanks GOP!
 
2012-02-13 11:28:17 AM

Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?


Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.
 
2012-02-13 11:28:51 AM

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?

Do you just ignore content, even in your own supportive documentation, that contradicts your argument? I repeat, since you clearly have reading comprehension issues:



Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Do those statements sound like they are:

A) Biased
B) Unbiased

Respond, and feel free to show your work.




Where is your unbiased study? Where is your proof that the facts presented in the Canadian government's approval of the pipeline were in error?

Let me go back and read all of the support that you have provided for your claims.... Oh wait there is none.
 
2012-02-13 11:35:47 AM

pwhp_67: Sometimes I think the GOP vision for the future of America is to become 1800's London...


Early 1800's America, more like.

Something interesting I found on the topic. Apologies for such a long cut and paste. One section that really caught my eye in bold. Lord help us if any Republican Congresspeople are reading this and taking notes.

BEFORE POORHOUSES

Prior to the establishment of poorhouses the problem of what to do with paupers in a community was dealt with in one of three ways:

1) Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds.

2) Auctioning off the Poor: People who could not support themselves (and their families) were put up for bid at public auction. In an unusual type of auction, the pauper was sold to the lowest bidder (the person who would agree to provide room and board for the lowest price) -- usually this was for a specific period of a. year or so. The person who got the contract got the use of the labor of the pauper for free in return for feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for the pauper and his/her family. This was actually a form of indentured servitude. It sounds a lot like slavery -- except that it was technically not for the pauper's entire lifetime. And it had many of the perils of slavery. The welfare of the paupers depended almost entirely upon the kindness and fairness of the bidder. If he was motivated only by a desire to make the maximum profit off the "use" of the pauper, then concern for "the bottom line" might result in the pauper being denied adequate food, or safe and comfortable shelter, or even necessary medical treatment. And there often was very little recourse for protection against abuse. (See scan of an authentic record of an auction in 1832 in Sandown NH.)

3) Contracting with someone in the community to care for Paupers: In this situation the care of a group of paupers was delegated to the person(s) who would contract to provide care at, again, the lowest price. This system allowed the opportunity for somewhat better supervision as indicated in the terms of the contract -- which might specify what minimum standard of care must be provided and that community officers would do inspections, etc. There were still often the same opportunities for abuse that were noted above.

Note: In some cases (before state laws began to require the establishment of County Poorhouses) local communities had already discovered that a place to house paupers helped reduce the cost of poor relief. These small town poorhouses were the prototypes for the later state-required county poorhouses. Those earlier poorhouses often instituted the use of an adjacent farm on which the paupers could work to raise their own food, thus making the houses more self-sufficient (relying less on local tax funds). That is how the term "poor farm" came into being.

THE BEGINNING of the COUNTY POORHOUSE SYSTEM

During the second quarter of the 19th century, as the industrial revolution had its effect on the United States, the importation of the factory system from England was followed almost immediately by the full scale adoption of what seemed to be an inherent component of that system -- the Poorhouse System. These poorhouses were built with great optimism. They promised to be a much more efficient and cheaper way to provide relief to paupers. And there was a fervent popular belief that housing such people in institutions would provide the opportunity to reform them and cure them of the bad habits and character defects that were assumed to be the cause of their poverty.
 
2012-02-13 11:37:09 AM

The Numbers: Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?

Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.


So you agree with the statement that he is questioning? You AGREE that the Keystone XL pipeline will double the US economy, as the author explicitly states?

Any you say *he's* the dimwit?
 
2012-02-13 11:40:21 AM

Spindle: The Numbers: Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?

Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.

So you agree with the statement that he is questioning? You AGREE that the Keystone XL pipeline will double the US economy, as the author explicitly states?

Any you say *he's* the dimwit?


Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.
 
2012-02-13 11:43:58 AM
Only read the first page so I apologize if someone said this but the 10 million jobs and 15 trillion to the economy would be from mining shale oil. Not from the pipeline.

I get it though, y'all prolly didn't make it that far in the article. FSM knows it was difficult for me.
 
2012-02-13 11:44:30 AM

The Numbers: Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.


FTA: 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.

You do know he's drawing a causal relationship, right? You did read the article?

FTA: 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.
 
2012-02-13 11:45:31 AM

RichieLaw: Only read the first page so I apologize if someone said this but the 10 million jobs and 15 trillion to the economy would be from mining shale oil. Not from the pipeline.


Because he says that we'll only mine our own shale oil if we let Keystone happen, it's the same farking thing.
 
2012-02-13 11:47:00 AM

The Numbers: Spindle: The Numbers: Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?

Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.

So you agree with the statement that he is questioning? You AGREE that the Keystone XL pipeline will double the US economy, as the author explicitly states?

Any you say *he's* the dimwit?

Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.


Hmm, well... let's see here. I'll start with the title of the article: "The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime."

Later in the article: "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."

Sure seems like he's explicitly stating it to me. I suppose you're trying to argue semantics, in that it won't expand the economy by $15 trillion in a single year, but the point stands that the author says it will expand the economy by $15 trillion.

/Not sure why I'm bothering, you're obviously just trolling.
 
2012-02-13 11:47:15 AM

Brubold: 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 -


He may well be setting up his point further down in the article, but the fact of the matter is that the first example he gives after his topic sentence (and this really does read like a middle school level research paper. You can almost see the outline format that he used for this) is the paragraph that you quoted. In that paragraph he says:

1)The dispute is about black tar sands that Canada wants to ship to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico through a giant pipeline that would run the length of the US
2) The dispute is not environmental, it is financial. It is about 10 million new jobs.

His topic sentence is "There are many contrasts that the GOP can use to go after Obama on the economy" (emphasis mine). So the topic sentence refers to a plurality. The next paragraph refers to a singularity. Twice it says "the dispute". If the author had said "one of the disputes" this would not be an issue.

This is not about reading comprehension. This is either a deliberate misleading in order to incite more rage than the issue at hand deserves (assuming the position that it deserves any at all), or more likely just a really badly written article with huge context errors and a basic lack of understanding as to how to present an argument.
 
2012-02-13 11:47:59 AM
I guess if you're going to lie, Lie Big.
 
2012-02-13 11:48:02 AM

BSABSVR: meat0918: Because oil will get high enough per barrel to make it "worth" it

There are a lot of crappy little towns in CO and WY that have been fed this line forever, and when gas gets up to around $4.50 a gallon, they see the surveying trams come back out, and the heavy equipment starts moving in and they finnaly think that there's going to be a boom.

Then oil prices drop and everybody leaves again.


Personally, I hope algae biodiesel becomes economically competitive with diesel. That will be amazing, as the military runs on diesel, not gasoline. If we don't need to power our tanks and trucks and forward operating bases with oil we get from not so friendly countries, we'll have taken a major step towards energy independence.

//Watch the advent of efficient production of biodiesel lead to a new wave of wars because now anybody can fuel and feed an army.
 
2012-02-13 11:48:15 AM

sprawl15: The Numbers: Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.

FTA: 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.

You do know he's drawing a causal relationship, right? You did read the article?

FTA: 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.


So you agree dimwit was wrong in saying the article stated "the pipeline alone would double the US economy"?
 
2012-02-13 11:49:44 AM

The Numbers: So you agree dimwit was wrong in saying the article stated "the pipeline alone would double the US economy"?


Sure.

That doesn't make your posts in this thread idiotic apologist nonsense, though.
 
2012-02-13 11:49:55 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?

Do you just ignore content, even in your own supportive documentation, that contradicts your argument? I repeat, since you clearly have reading comprehension issues:



Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Do those statements sound like they are:

A) Biased
B) Unbiased

Respond, and feel free to show your work.



Where is your unbiased study? Where is your proof that the facts presented in the Canadian government's approval of the pipeline were in error?

Let me go back and read all of the support that you have provided for your claims.... Oh wait there is none.


And your cowardice is now on display, for all to see.

I do not have an unbiased study to present. I will present this for your perusal, but unlike you, I will not claim it to be unbiased. I am sure, with your google fu, you can find plenty of information to support both sides of this argument.

The numbers presented in this TownHall article are clearly pulled out of someone's ass. I have not debated that. But your study's language also indicates a clear bias, which undermines the calculations and conclusions drawn, and calls into question the entire study's credibility. As intelligent as you try to portray yourself, you certainly should be aware of that already - you simply lack the character to admit it.

Bottom line, whether you choose to see it or not:

1. The project is privately funded, and will create jobs.

2. For every job directly created, additional family members will be lifted out of poverty.

3. For every job directly created, a multiple of economic activity will result, creating more jobs and more wealth, and improving the lives of the people who live in many communities.

4. For every job directly created, tax revenues will be generated as well.

5. For every job directly created, the number of people relying on entitlements to live will decrease by a measurable degree.

6. Refusal on the part of the Obama administration to approve the project directly prevents the above positive economic impacts from taking place.

Those are facts, Queeg. Statements like "these jobs are not all good jobs by any means" are not facts. They are opinions, shrouded in just enough data to make them appear persuasive.

Gotta run, have a nice day.
 
2012-02-13 11:50:35 AM

sprawl15: The Numbers: So you agree dimwit was wrong in saying the article stated "the pipeline alone would double the US economy"?

Sure.

That doesn't make your posts in this thread not idiotic apologist nonsense, though.


FTFM. Too early for this many negatives.
 
2012-02-13 11:55:06 AM

Spindle: The Numbers: Spindle: The Numbers: Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?

Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.

So you agree with the statement that he is questioning? You AGREE that the Keystone XL pipeline will double the US economy, as the author explicitly states?

Any you say *he's* the dimwit?

Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.

Hmm, well... let's see here. I'll start with the title of the article: "The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime."

Later in the article: "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."

Sure seems like he's explicitly stating it to me. I suppose you're trying to argue semantics, in that it won't expand the economy by $15 trillion in a single year, but the point stands that the author says it will expand the economy by $15 trillion.

/Not sure why I'm bothering, you're obviously just trolling.


Wow, you're a moron. What is it that the author says will bring in that $15tr? Its in the paragraph you quoted.

Hint: Its getting oil from US tar sand. That is NOT the same thing as building a pipeline with Canada.
 
2012-02-13 11:56:19 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)


Could you be a bit more specific, as the document you linked to does not seem to contain the word "gasoline."
 
2012-02-13 11:57:21 AM

The Numbers: Spindle: The Numbers: Spindle: The Numbers: Lord Dimwit: The entire GDP of the United States, the largest economy in the world, is around $15 trillion. They're saying that this pipeline alone would double the size of our economy in twenty years? Really?

Appropriate login you've got there m'lord.

So you agree with the statement that he is questioning? You AGREE that the Keystone XL pipeline will double the US economy, as the author explicitly states?

Any you say *he's* the dimwit?

Please point out where in the article the author explicitly states the pipeline alone would expand the economy by $15 trillion.

Hmm, well... let's see here. I'll start with the title of the article: "The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime."

Later in the article: "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."

Sure seems like he's explicitly stating it to me. I suppose you're trying to argue semantics, in that it won't expand the economy by $15 trillion in a single year, but the point stands that the author says it will expand the economy by $15 trillion.

/Not sure why I'm bothering, you're obviously just trolling.

Wow, you're a moron. What is it that the author says will bring in that $15tr? Its in the paragraph you quoted.

Hint: Its getting oil from US tar sand. That is NOT the same thing as building a pipeline with Canada.


Then why is the author going out of his way to link the two?
 
2012-02-13 11:58:17 AM

Occam's Nailfile: Refusal on the part of the Obama administration to approve the project directly prevents the above positive economic impacts from taking place.


Sure. Spill and cleanup will also employ thousands. Think of the positive economic impacts from that.
 
2012-02-13 11:59:18 AM

qorkfiend: Then why is the author going out of his way to link the two?


He's either a troll, an idiot, or both. Just ignore him.
 
Displayed 50 of 369 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report