Obamanomics

[boedicca]

.

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's only barometer is what feeds his own narcissism and internal monologue.

 

[Flash]

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

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

exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?

We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.

Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.

 

[Siete]

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

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

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

go drill some "crude"

 

[Ravi]

The value of infrastructure jobs:

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

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

Expanding opportunity through infrastructure jobs

Agreed.

Also, pipelines.

Not that one.

 

[Ravi]

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

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

Still waiting for that link.

 

[Toro]

The value of infrastructure jobs:

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

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

Expanding opportunity through infrastructure jobs

Agreed.

Also, pipelines.

Not that one.

The multiplication effects from building a road, bridge or pipeline are pretty much the same.

 

[Ravi]

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

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

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True."

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I responded to that.

thanks.

it's about 40 permanent jobs in the US. and me? I think environmentally it was a train wreck.

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it's about 40 permanent jobs in the US.

How many permanent jobs does a new bridge create?

 

[Toro]

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

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

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True."

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

I know.

Like I said, roads and bridges create zero permanent jobs.

But permanent jobs are not the economic argument for infrastructure spending.

 

[Care4all]

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

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

exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?

We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.

Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.

keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.

 

[Ravi]

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

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

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True."

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

I know.

Like I said, roads and bridges create zero permanent jobs.

But permanent jobs are not the economic argument for infrastructure spending.

No one maintains roads and bridges?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I responded to that.

thanks.

it's about 40 permanent jobs in the US. and me? I think environmentally it was a train wreck.

List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The transfer of oil via the railroad is damn scary, particularly through densely populated urban areas.

And that's what's going to happen.

The crude is still going to come out of the ground. But instead of it being transported into America by pipeline, it's going to be transported by rail or tankers.

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

it's my understanding it wouldn't even be for our own use but would go to the multinational oil companies and go to where ever they feel like sending it.

Yep. So the entire thing is pointless. We aren't in the business of boosting the Canadian economy.

Moron.

 

[Care4all]

Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.

keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

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

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

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

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


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

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, more jobs and more secure, cheaper oil.
Just like Cuba. Moron.

 

[Toro]

Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.

keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.

The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.

Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.

 

[Care4all]

.

But that's not the issue of the OP.

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

So, which is it?

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

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

Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, more jobs and more secure, cheaper oil.
Just like Cuba. Moron.

NONE, zip, zero oil from Canada's keystone xl was to be for USA use....

do you understand that?

NONE.

 

[Toro]

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

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

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True."

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

I know.

Like I said, roads and bridges create zero permanent jobs.

But permanent jobs are not the economic argument for infrastructure spending.

No one maintains roads and bridges?

Fewer than maintain pipelines.

 

[Siete]

Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.

keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.

it makes perfect sense to push our own tar sand production to the back of the line an give Canada first shot and the $$$$$

es

 

[Ravi]

Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.

keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.

The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.

Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.

Link?

 

[Ravi]

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

devil is in the details...

42,000 jobs is good for the economy.

But Obama says otherwise.

"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.

The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.

Jones’ claim is True."

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

I know.

Like I said, roads and bridges create zero permanent jobs.

But permanent jobs are not the economic argument for infrastructure spending.

No one maintains roads and bridges?

Fewer than maintain pipelines.

Link?