Economics 101

[Rshermr]

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.

He's economically illiterate.
That is you, me boy. A con tool is, by definition, illiterate. And people who insult any president are ignorant, as well as classless.

from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.

And huge tax hikes in 1932.
Did you have a point, me con tool.
By 1932, prior to the tax increase, the ue rate had risen by about 19 points. By 1934, two years after the "huge tax increases", the ue rate had dropped about 2% points, and was on it's way down. So, I assume you are saying that the tax increase was helpful in decreasing unemployment?



Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,

And the economy boomed. Weird.
Was already booming. But it was a well documented run up to the great depressions.

and again in 1929.

Nope, 1925.
So, no one suggests that tax decreases are a bad thing. Especially during times when the economy is booming.

No, but it allows SPENDING

Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.
Thank god. If we had followed your blueprint, we would have ended up in the Great Republican Depression of 2008 instead of the Great Republican Recession.

Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.

Yes. Without helping economic growth.
Fully depends. It is never as simple as con talking points try to make it.

Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.

• Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

Not in an Aggregate demand recession. Reagan tried it in 1981, and watched ue rates go from 7.5% to 10.8%. But he started spending like a sailor in early 1982 and the ue rate dropped in 1983.

consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.
You are lying like a typical con tool. Tax cuts saw no decrease in ue rates. By late 1981, and continuing through 1982, Reagan was as popular as a fart in church. Until he started spending like a sailor, and his earlier spending in the defense industry, turned the economy around.


In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.
You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward. But the important point was that Reagan Spent heavily and that helped drop the ue rate over the period after it reached it's high point at the end of 1982. His tax cuts did nothing, but his spending stimulated the economy, while tripling the national debt and increasing the size of the federal government greatly.

 

[boedicca]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

But but but FEEEELLLLZZZZZZ!!!!!!!11!!!!1!1!!!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.

Fed funds rate was 20% in 1981. It was monetary recession that had nothing to do with Reagan. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.

He's economically illiterate.
That is you, me boy. A con tool is, by definition, illiterate. And people who insult any president are ignorant, as well as classless.

from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.

And huge tax hikes in 1932.
Did you have a point, me con tool.
By 1932, prior to the tax increase, the ue rate had risen by about 19 points. By 1934, two years after the "huge tax increases", the ue rate had dropped about 2% points, and was on it's way down. So, I assume you are saying that the tax increase was helpful in decreasing unemployment?



Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,

And the economy boomed. Weird.
Was already booming. But it was a well documented run up to the great depressions.

and again in 1929.

Nope, 1925.
So, no one suggests that tax decreases are a bad thing. Especially during times when the economy is booming.

No, but it allows SPENDING

Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.
Thank god. If we had followed your blueprint, we would have ended up in the Great Republican Depression of 2008 instead of the Great Republican Recession.

Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.

Yes. Without helping economic growth.
Fully depends. It is never as simple as con talking points try to make it.

Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.

• Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

Not in an Aggregate demand recession. Reagan tried it in 1981, and watched ue rates go from 7.5% to 10.8%. But he started spending like a sailor in early 1982 and the ue rate dropped in 1983.

consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.
You are lying like a typical con tool. Tax cuts saw no decrease in ue rates. By late 1981, and continuing through 1982, Reagan was as popular as a fart in church. Until he started spending like a sailor, and his earlier spending in the defense industry, turned the economy around.


In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.
You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward. But the important point was that Reagan Spent heavily and that helped drop the ue rate over the period after it reached it's high point at the end of 1982. His tax cuts did nothing, but his spending stimulated the economy, while tripling the national debt and increasing the size of the federal government greatly.

In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.

Sure he did.
That's why rates were lower in 1983 than in 1982. Because he raised taxes.

That's why rates were lower in 1984 than in 1983. Because he raised taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

 

[P@triot]

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

Because he and all of his pals are heavily invested in the "green" energy joke and like a typical marxist, he wants to make billions for himself.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.

He's economically illiterate.
That is you, me boy. A con tool is, by definition, illiterate. And people who insult any president are ignorant, as well as classless.

from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.

And huge tax hikes in 1932.
Did you have a point, me con tool.
By 1932, prior to the tax increase, the ue rate had risen by about 19 points. By 1934, two years after the "huge tax increases", the ue rate had dropped about 2% points, and was on it's way down. So, I assume you are saying that the tax increase was helpful in decreasing unemployment?



Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,

And the economy boomed. Weird.
Was already booming. But it was a well documented run up to the great depressions.

and again in 1929.

Nope, 1925.
So, no one suggests that tax decreases are a bad thing. Especially during times when the economy is booming.

No, but it allows SPENDING

Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.
Thank god. If we had followed your blueprint, we would have ended up in the Great Republican Depression of 2008 instead of the Great Republican Recession.

Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.

Yes. Without helping economic growth.
Fully depends. It is never as simple as con talking points try to make it.

Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.

• Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

Not in an Aggregate demand recession. Reagan tried it in 1981, and watched ue rates go from 7.5% to 10.8%. But he started spending like a sailor in early 1982 and the ue rate dropped in 1983.

consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.
You are lying like a typical con tool. Tax cuts saw no decrease in ue rates. By late 1981, and continuing through 1982, Reagan was as popular as a fart in church. Until he started spending like a sailor, and his earlier spending in the defense industry, turned the economy around.


In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.
You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward. But the important point was that Reagan Spent heavily and that helped drop the ue rate over the period after it reached it's high point at the end of 1982. His tax cuts did nothing, but his spending stimulated the economy, while tripling the national debt and increasing the size of the federal government greatly.

In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.

Sure he did.
That's why rates were lower in 1983 than in 1982. Because he raised taxes.

That's why rates were lower in 1984 than in 1983. Because he raised taxes.

You are an idiot. Are you of the opinion that the only tax is Federal Income Taxes?
Did I say he raised Federal income Taxes?
Here. I know that it is hard for con tools like you, but see if you can actually reason:
"the Gipper really did cut taxes — with the help of Congress — in his first year as president."


The "largest tax cut in history" that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
Got it, me boy. If you check,when he came in, the ue rate was about 7.4%. And Reagan had a major tax cut.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.

He's economically illiterate.
That is you, me boy. A con tool is, by definition, illiterate. And people who insult any president are ignorant, as well as classless.

from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.

And huge tax hikes in 1932.
Did you have a point, me con tool.
By 1932, prior to the tax increase, the ue rate had risen by about 19 points. By 1934, two years after the "huge tax increases", the ue rate had dropped about 2% points, and was on it's way down. So, I assume you are saying that the tax increase was helpful in decreasing unemployment?



Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,

And the economy boomed. Weird.
Was already booming. But it was a well documented run up to the great depressions.

and again in 1929.

Nope, 1925.
So, no one suggests that tax decreases are a bad thing. Especially during times when the economy is booming.

No, but it allows SPENDING

Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.
Thank god. If we had followed your blueprint, we would have ended up in the Great Republican Depression of 2008 instead of the Great Republican Recession.

Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.

Yes. Without helping economic growth.
Fully depends. It is never as simple as con talking points try to make it.

Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.

• Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

Not in an Aggregate demand recession. Reagan tried it in 1981, and watched ue rates go from 7.5% to 10.8%. But he started spending like a sailor in early 1982 and the ue rate dropped in 1983.

consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.
You are lying like a typical con tool. Tax cuts saw no decrease in ue rates. By late 1981, and continuing through 1982, Reagan was as popular as a fart in church. Until he started spending like a sailor, and his earlier spending in the defense industry, turned the economy around.


In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.
You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward. But the important point was that Reagan Spent heavily and that helped drop the ue rate over the period after it reached it's high point at the end of 1982. His tax cuts did nothing, but his spending stimulated the economy, while tripling the national debt and increasing the size of the federal government greatly.

In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.

Sure he did.
That's why rates were lower in 1983 than in 1982. Because he raised taxes.

That's why rates were lower in 1984 than in 1983. Because he raised taxes.
OOOOPS My mistake. I did not realize you could be that stupid. I over estimated you.
Apparently you think that the only tax is INCOME tax. That is NOT what I said, me poor ignorant con tool. As I said before, he raised several taxes. I even gave you examples. And there are many federal taxes that are not INCOME TAXES.
So, me boy, let me try to educate you AGAIN:
"the Gipper really did cut taxes — with the help of Congress — in his first year as president.
The "largest tax cut in history" that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the country’s gross domestic product."

So, big tax cut, in 1981, as I have said. In the nature of almost 2% of GDP. Got that, me boy? And that was an decrease in income tax. Federal, of course. Following me so far?????
"Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic.

These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Still, Baker said, "the loopholes were big ones."
Reagan’s tax increases
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)
This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.
Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.
1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.
1984: The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.
Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions).
Stephen Colbert brings up Ronald Reagan's tax-raising record in Ted Cruz interview

So, reagan raised taxes multiple times, as I have told you. From early 1982 on. And the result was that reagan felt justified in spending like a drunken sailor. As opposed to other presidents, Reagan's increase in the national debt was mostly spending, with a smaller portion on lost tax revenue.

 

[Rshermr]

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?

 

[Rshermr]

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

 

[Rshermr]

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Typical con tool post. Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now. Later, maybe. Not now. The concern includes the obvious issue, called climate change. Which, as a con, you co not believe in. Though way over half the world, and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time. But, as a con tool, you disagree with the science, you disagree with the countries of the world, you disagree with the US Military, but you agree with the energy companies. Because you do not reason, you simply take what you are told to believe. Sad.
Then there are the states, and the famers and ranchers, who oppose the pipeline. Normal friends of the right, but when it comes to energy company money and the farmers and ranchers, the money wins. Dipshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Typical con tool post. Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now. Later, maybe. Not now. The concern includes the obvious issue, called climate change. Which, as a con, you co not believe in. Though way over half the world, and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time. But, as a con tool, you disagree with the science, you disagree with the countries of the world, you disagree with the US Military, but you agree with the energy companies. Because you do not reason, you simply take what you are told to believe. Sad.
Then there are the states, and the famers and ranchers, who oppose the pipeline. Normal friends of the right, but when it comes to energy company money and the farmers and ranchers, the money wins. Dipshit.

Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now.

That makes the jobs less important in some way?

and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time.

Yes, 75/77 is very impressive. Derp!

 

[Rshermr]

You are such a con tool. Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2 The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state. So, it would not have started for several years.
3. The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs. We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per MONTH, and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4. The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

 

[Rshermr]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Typical con tool post. Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now. Later, maybe. Not now. The concern includes the obvious issue, called climate change. Which, as a con, you co not believe in. Though way over half the world, and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time. But, as a con tool, you disagree with the science, you disagree with the countries of the world, you disagree with the US Military, but you agree with the energy companies. Because you do not reason, you simply take what you are told to believe. Sad.
Then there are the states, and the famers and ranchers, who oppose the pipeline. Normal friends of the right, but when it comes to energy company money and the farmers and ranchers, the money wins. Dipshit.

Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now.

That makes the jobs less important in some way?
Yes, all 35 of those jobs are less important than the damage to the world. According to science.

and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time.

Yes, 75/77 is very impressive. Derp!

Yes it is. Except to con tools, who only listen to find out what they are supposed to believe. To the rest of the world, yes, very important. To rational people, yes very important. To con tools, not important. It is only important to believe what they are told to believe. Because they only believe what they want. And what their fellow tools believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center? Derp!

 

[Rshermr]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
A few hundreths of 1% of the jobs republicans caused to be lost, replaced by them. And the public against it. Ever here of the concept of the majority rules, me boy? Just wondering. And think what the republican lap dogs could have done had they cared about the middle class and working men and women. Instead, of, like you, the wealthy only. iiii

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center? Derp!

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
The people block it. The president is supposed to do what the people want. Ever here of majority rule? Oh, yeah, you are a con tool. For you, it is wealth rules.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
As many as they could find. Did you have a point, or are you just being a con tool?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center?

Actually, we have refineries all over the US. But I know you like to get our oil out of the US. Most of us worry about our supply of oil. Not the supply under Saudi control. But, I keep forgetting that you are a con tool You just want the oil companies to be wealthier.

Derp
Try tums, dipshit.

!

 

[Rshermr]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
Oh, I forgot. You are a con tool. You do not know what a jobs bill is. You just know about making the wealthy happy. Your heroes do nothing to help the middle class, or the working people of this nation. Because, like you, they do not care.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
Do you think I am keeping track of shovel ready jobs? The only thing I am happy about is that the Stimulus has worked to slowly bring back all 8.7 million jobs lost to the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Because if we had relied on republicans, it would pretty certainly have turned into the great Republican Depression of 2008.

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center? Derp!
Why would you pump oil to a port if you were not going to load in onto tankers? Dipshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

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

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
The people block it. The president is supposed to do what the people want. Ever here of majority rule? Oh, yeah, you are a con tool. For you, it is wealth rules.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
As many as they could find. Did you have a point, or are you just being a con tool?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center?

Actually, we have refineries all over the US. But I know you like to get our oil out of the US. Most of us worry about our supply of oil. Not the supply under Saudi control. But, I keep forgetting that you are a con tool You just want the oil companies to be wealthier.

Derp
Try tums, dipshit.

!

The president is supposed to do what the people want.

The people want an end to unlimited illegals invading.

As many as they could find.

That few?

Actually, we have refineries all over the US.

And the idea that someone would ship oil to one and then ship it away is stupid, even for a liberal.

But I know you like to get our oil out of the US.

That won't be a problem, it the Canadians finally build their own to the Pacific. Derp!