Obamanomics

[Valerie]

That's a different argument, though.

What the President said was that this infrastructure project wouldn't create jobs. Then, literally in the very next breath, he said we should support an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

FTR I think we should have an infrastructure bill. But for Obama to contradict himself literally in the very next sentence is staggering.

maybe he should have simply said, not only will this project also create more jobs, but this type of infrastructure is absolutely necessary as well...

 

[Care4all]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Valerie]

btw, can you link this? I can't find a transcript of his speech or anyone reporting those comments. TIA

good point

 

[Ravi]

That's a different argument, though.

What the President said was that this infrastructure project wouldn't create jobs. Then, literally in the very next breath, he said we should support an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

FTR I think we should have an infrastructure bill. But for Obama to contradict himself literally in the very next sentence is staggering.

maybe he should have simply said, not only will this project also create more jobs, but this type of infrastructure is absolutely necessary as well...

“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,’’ the president said in remarks from the White House.

^I'm beginning to wonder if Toro misunderstood what he heard.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Look the Wing Nuts are struggling with Good economic News ...I love it they are hurting for certain

Watch Fox News Stumble Through Outstanding October Jobs Report

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Only 271,000 new jobs were added last month."

 

[Siete]

That's a different argument, though.

What the President said was that this infrastructure project wouldn't create jobs. Then, literally in the very next breath, he said we should support an infrastructure bill because it would create jobs.

FTR I think we should have an infrastructure bill. But for Obama to contradict himself literally in the very next sentence is staggering.

maybe he should have simply said, not only will this project also create more jobs, but this type of infrastructure is absolutely necessary as well...

“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,’’ the president said in remarks from the White House.

^I'm beginning to wonder if Toro misunderstood what he heard.

if RW's are too dumb to know the difference between tar sand mining and drilling for real crude oil what leads anyone to believe they focus on real employment facts and numbers?

keystone is history, deal with it.

 

[Valerie]

Look the Wing Nuts are struggling...

ftr toro is far from being a dumb wing nut...

 

[Valerie]

“The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,’’ the president said in remarks from the White House.

^I'm beginning to wonder if Toro misunderstood what he heard.

happens to the best of us...

 

[Siete]

Look the Wing Nuts are struggling...

ftr toro is far from being a dumb wing nut...

debatable ... drilling Canadian Keystone crude right out of the ground huh? .... with bulldozers and dump trucks, right Toro ?

 

[Ravi]

Even FOX isn't reporting it that way:

Obama dismissed the claims that Keystone would be a major job creator.

“If Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this is not the way to do it,” he said, before calling for a bipartisan infrastructure plan that he says would make a more significant impact on job creation.

 

[Ravi]

Look the Wing Nuts are struggling...

ftr toro is far from being a dumb wing nut...

debatable ... drilling Canadian Keystone crude right out of the ground huh? .... with bulldozers and dump trucks, right Toro ?

Ah, Toro is okay. He's just Canadian is all.

 

[Toro]

Canadians shouldn't even be sending that crap to the US. Let them build their own refineries.

That's what the Canadian Left would like also.

And that's what might eventually happen.

The American refineries want it, though.

The real reason why this has been stopped is because US environmentalists don't want the Oil Sands mined. It will have virtually zero effect on the environment because it's coming out of the ground regardless of Keystone.

American refineries will do anything to make a profit. That's why their safety record is so bad and why their are so many explosions at refineries.

They also employ thousands of Americans, and corporate profits from American refineries are recycled back into the American economy.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ah, Toro is okay. He's just Canadian is all.

So is Ted Cruz

 

[Ravi]

Ah, Toro is okay. He's just Canadian is all.

So is Ted Cruz

Yikes.

 

[Toro]

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

 

[Ravi]

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

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

 

[Dot Com]

well, i'm pretty sure we're not thnking of the pipeline as OUR infrastructure.

our infrastructure is bridges, roads, trains, etc., all of which are in dire need of repair.

Pipelines are infrastructure.

In the United States.

its a sculpture created out of imported Indian pipe. How many cars & trucks can you drive on it? How many planes can you land on it? How many ships can steam through it?

\thread end

 

[Siete]

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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



So, which is it?

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

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

referring to 1 Keystone pipeline


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


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


confusing ain't it.

 

[Care4all]

.

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

 

[Dot Com]

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

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

its delicious when you two disagree