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 67
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-02-13 08:38:37 AM
3 votes:
I agree that we need to expand drilling for oil at EVERY possible juncture, and increase refining accordingly.

The sooner it's all gone, the sooner we'll die off as a species. Then maybe whatever evolves next might have a chance.

Maybe.

I suspect it'll either be cockroaches, or republicans. Hard to tel lthe difference some days.
2012-02-13 08:35:42 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-02-13 10:03:55 AM
2 votes:

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 08:39:06 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-02-13 02:37:00 PM
1 votes:
2012-02-13 01:58:18 PM
1 votes:

watson.t.hamster: /also how did canceling the project create wealth or jobs?


When was it canceled? I though the decision was, "No" based on current information and because the GOP demanded an immediate answer (Feb 21, I think the deadline was?), but it could be brought up for consideration again in the future.

Seems like once the studies are done and a new route proposed, the proposal can be considered again, from what I read, anyway.
2012-02-13 12:06:12 PM
1 votes:
If we start refining tar sands at home then it's not there for when the rest of the world runs short.

Sitting on our own vast reserves while getting the economic rent states to drain their reserves is a clever strategy that will only pay off in the next few decades.

And there is no way in hell "loosening restrictions on American oil industry" would produce 10 million jobs. It involves a lot of highly skilled or highly educated labor, and you can't magic that up with legislation.
2012-02-13 11:49:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:47:15 AM
1 votes:

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 11:45:31 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:16:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:09:22 AM
1 votes:

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 11:06:32 AM
1 votes:

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 11:04:17 AM
1 votes:
It might not solve our biggest problem, but it would be a start, and it is a conservative estimate.
2012-02-13 11:00:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:42 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:26 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:27 AM
1 votes:
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 10:47:14 AM
1 votes:

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 10:45:05 AM
1 votes:

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 10:44:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:06 AM
1 votes:

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 10:28:44 AM
1 votes:

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 10:27:49 AM
1 votes:

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?
2012-02-13 10:22:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:16:45 AM
1 votes:

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?
2012-02-13 10:16:14 AM
1 votes:

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 10:13:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:13 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:55 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:42 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:38 AM
1 votes:

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 10:04:06 AM
1 votes:

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 09:59:21 AM
1 votes:
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 09:58:01 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:17 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:42 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:00 AM
1 votes:
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 09:33:06 AM
1 votes:

indylaw: 10 million jobs. From a pipe that carries oil from Canada to ports in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yeah, OK. That's only about 10,000 people per mile.


FTA -

But instead, the president, who has been railing against Congress for not passing another expensive jobs bill, and talks about income equality like it's the most pressing issue of the day, just killed 400,000 American jobs that would battle income inequality in the most productive sense by providing ordinary Americans with the opportunity to earn some income.

According to the author, the pipeline = 400k jobs not 10 million. If any of you had actually bothered to read it you'd see that the 10 million number is more from allowing companies to tap the shale oil reserves we have here.
2012-02-13 09:24:21 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: You were saying?


He does actually eventually start rambling incoherently about oil shale.

Oil shale is a simple test to find out if someone is stupid and hasn't ever paid attention to history. Ever since the 40s, every time oil prices go up a bit, the less lucid amongst us have charged into Colorado or Wyoming or wherever they think the best place to squeeze a little oil out of rocks is at the time, built little boom towns that turn into ghost towns a couple of years later when they figure out that it takes more money and energy than they will ever get out of it. Next week on townhall.com: how the "newly discovered" Oronoco Sludge will fix our energy problems forever.
2012-02-13 09:17:57 AM
1 votes:
10 million jobs. If you assume that average total cost per employee hour (wage, benefits, training, insurance, everything else) is $20 per hour, that works out to $8 billion per week.

We consume about 140 million barrels of oil per week. If *every drop* of oil we use comes through this pipeline, that means a cost of about $57 per barrel just for those ten million employees. Cost of design, construction, maintenance (and anything else I'm not thinking of) are all extra. Of course, environmental protection will be free, because there won't be any.

If half our oil comes through it, it's now $114 per barrel.

The GOP: Ensuring our economic future.
2012-02-13 09:17:15 AM
1 votes:

The Numbers: Sorry if this spoils any of the anti right-wing outrage that seems to have kicked off in this thread, but nowhere does the author claim the pipeline would create 10 million jobs. That was just subby trolling.

Anyway, continue with the rabid frothing.


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 were saying?
2012-02-13 09:12:17 AM
1 votes:

merkinpeeble: bucketeers


This word is going on my resume.

masercot: So, an essay about using the United States for a pipeline to get Canadians and Boehner wealthy by selling the oil to countries that are not the United States...


A pipeline built with substandard Indian and Chinese steel, using mostly Canadian labor, to pump Canadian oil to Saudi refineries to be sold overseas. It's the most patriotic thing I've seen since I tattooed a crying eagle on my truck nuts.
2012-02-13 09:07:33 AM
1 votes:

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...
2012-02-13 09:01:02 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-02-13 08:43:45 AM
1 votes:
legalize slavery?
2012-02-13 08:38:51 AM
1 votes:
Nope. Keystone again. Because giving a Canadian oil company an easy ride of oil to the Gulf of America to ship it overseas creates 10 million new jobs.
2012-02-13 08:37:45 AM
1 votes:
But a recent Cornell study said it would destroy more jobs than it would create.

Link (new window)
2012-02-13 08:36:41 AM
1 votes:
So tell me.....Why is it that THIS pipeline will bring those numbers....whereas the others haven't.
2012-02-13 08:32:57 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-13 08:31:05 AM
1 votes:
Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?
2012-02-13 08:28:45 AM
1 votes:
As if they would even if they could.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report