Obamanomics

[Toro]

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.



So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs...

referring to 1 Keystone pipeline


then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.


referring to roads, bridges and multiple projects that create MORE than 35 jobs in this country.


confusing ain't it.

By "35," you mean "42,000" right?

 

[Flash]

Obama and the filthy ass Democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by environmental wacko billionaire Tom Steyer.

What Tom wants from his Boy he gets. Even if is destroys American jobs and energy independence.

 

[Claudette]

Tell the environmentalist to go hug a fucking tree.

 

[Care4all]

Obama and the filthy ass Democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by environmental wacko billionaire Tom Steyer.

What Tom wants from his Boy he gets. Even if is destroys American jobs and energy independence.

exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?

 

[Toro]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

 

[Ravi]

Tell the environmentalist to go hug a fucking tree.

Okay.

 

[Toro]

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

He didn't say what you claimed in the OP. Or at least if he did say it, no one is reporting it that way, even Fox.

His own State Department, ala John Fucking Kerry, met with him this morning and said the conclusion of the State Department was to pull the plug.

Obama's State Department concluded that 42,000 jobs would have been created regardless of John Fucking Kerry's recommendation.

 

[Ravi]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

How many people do you suppose work for FDOT or any of the other DOTS including USDOT?

 

[Ravi]

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

He didn't say what you claimed in the OP. Or at least if he did say it, no one is reporting it that way, even Fox.

His own State Department, ala John Fucking Kerry, met with him this morning and said the conclusion of the State Department was to pull the plug.

Obama's State Department concluded that 42,000 jobs would have been created regardless of John Fucking Kerry's recommendation.

Not 42,000 jobs. Temp jobs over the course of a few years that will equal 42,000 "jobs" and I believe the actual vacancies for those temp jobs amounted to around 1,000 jobs (temp) with a grand total of maybe 40 permanent jobs period.

 

[Care4all]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

No roads, no bridges, NO JOBS FOR ANYONE in the future.

No expanded Electric grid, no electricity for businesses or jobs of the future.

No expanded and fixed up schools, no educated work force, for jobs in the future.

 

[Ravi]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

No roads, no bridges, NO JOBS FOR ANYONE in the future.

No expanded Electric grid, no electricity for businesses or jobs of the future.

No expanded and fixed up schools, no educated work force, for jobs in the future.

I'm beginning to think Toro is here as a secret weapon from Canada to turn us into a third world country.

 

[Ravi]

The value of infrastructure jobs:

First, infrastructure is not limited to short-term construction. Beyond “shovel-ready” projects, millions of workers are critical to providing timely transportation, reliable water, efficient energy, and other public services over several decades. Engaged in the construction, operation, governance, and design of infrastructure, these workers—from bus drivers and civil engineers to air traffic controllers and telecommunication line installers—play a key role supporting the economy across every region.

Second, infrastructure jobs usually represent long-term, well-paid opportunities for the two-thirds of U.S. workers who lack four-year college degrees. These jobs not only boast competitive wages and have relatively low barriers to entry, but they also have enormous replacement needs, primarily due to an impending wave of retirements. In turn, infrastructure has the potential to promote more durable and equitable growth as the labor market picks up steam following the Great Recession.

Expanding opportunity through infrastructure jobs

 

[Toro]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

How many people do you suppose work for FDOT or any of the other DOTS including USDOT?

The Democrats' and economists' arguments for infrastructure creating long term jobs don't revolve around government regulation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Keystone 40 jobs sounds a lot like the AGWCult "97% Consensus" lie

 

[Toro]

The value of infrastructure jobs:

First, infrastructure is not limited to short-term construction. Beyond “shovel-ready” projects, millions of workers are critical to providing timely transportation, reliable water, efficient energy, and other public services over several decades. Engaged in the construction, operation, governance, and design of infrastructure, these workers—from bus drivers and civil engineers to air traffic controllers and telecommunication line installers—play a key role supporting the economy across every region.

Second, infrastructure jobs usually represent long-term, well-paid opportunities for the two-thirds of U.S. workers who lack four-year college degrees. These jobs not only boast competitive wages and have relatively low barriers to entry, but they also have enormous replacement needs, primarily due to an impending wave of retirements. In turn, infrastructure has the potential to promote more durable and equitable growth as the labor market picks up steam following the Great Recession.

Expanding opportunity through infrastructure jobs

Agreed.

Also, pipelines.

 

[Toro]

The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.

The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.

 

[Toro]

.

the Bridge or road or electric grid is then OURS to utilize and benefit from for another 75 years.

the keystone xl pipeline was to benefit the tar sands business in Canada, and two or three refiners, in an area of the Gulf that is not even taxed by the USA....then shipped to foreigners....not even for USA usage.

We, as a Nation, would not benefit for this leg of the pipeline at all, and were asked to give up our land and risk the spoilage of water with possible leaks and breaks for the next 100 years..... without a true and healthy benefit for our citizens...

If Trans Canada would buy the land they needed from our citizens ON THEIR OWN and pay the home owners the price it would take for the home owners to give up their land that is needed by TransCanada, then that is a different story....


but for Canada to come to OUR GVT, and have OUR Gvt use eminent Domain to take away our citizen's land for a pipeline that would not benefit OUR Nation, but benefit a Canadian corporation, is simply unethical and WRONG...and abuses govt power over us, imho.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

The issue of the OP is that Obama said that an infrastructure project wouldn't create many jobs, then said that we should have an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

So, which is it?

His very own State Department said that Keystone would have created 42,000 jobs.

a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.

No roads, no bridges, NO JOBS FOR ANYONE in the future.

No expanded Electric grid, no electricity for businesses or jobs of the future.

No expanded and fixed up schools, no educated work force, for jobs in the future.

I'm not arguing that infrastructure isn't good for the economy.

I'm arguing that Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[Siete]

The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.

The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.

nah, the fact is an infrastructure bill that creates 100's - 1000's of jobs is excellent for the economy ... 1 pissy little pipeline , not so much.

devil is in the details...

 

[boedicca]

The Keystone presser

"The Keystone pipeline isn't good for the economy. It won't create many jobs."

Immediately followed by

"What would create jobs is an infrastructure program."

Wow.



Outstanding.

I read this today - a quote from Obama regarding climate change. It actually sounds like a projection of his entire legacy:

This summer President Obama visited Alaska, where he stood in front of a shrinking glacier and said, “Climate change is no longer some far-off problem; it is happening here, it is happening now.” At a conference in Anchorage, he made the apocalyptic prediction that “submerged countries, abandoned cities . . . entire industries of people who can’t practice their livelihoods (COAL!), desperate refugees seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own (The ME Diaspora), and political disruptions that could trigger multiple conflicts around the globe (as fostered by Obama's dismal foreign policy) ” would be the wages of failing to act now to stop global warming.

The Religion Of Environmentalism

 

[Toro]

The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.

The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.

nah, the fact is an infrastructure bill that creates 100's - 1000's of jobs is excellent for the economy ... 1 pissy little pipeline , not so much.

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.