Would the Keystone Pipeline be a great economic asset to the United States? Hardly.

[Sallow]

What did you mean Airlines cost big on 9/11?
Did you mean because an airplane piloted by a hijacker?
Or after 9/11 3 days no flights cost airlines business?
Or after 9/11 passenger traffic down 20%?

What did you mean "9/11 costs"?

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME FUCKING DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO FUCKING FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

Gore introduced a security bill in 2001? By what authority? to whom?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03344.pdf

By the same "authority" George HW Bush ran a plethora of spook operations under Reagan.

Oh..guess that's okay.

 

[Sallow]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

 

[Stephanie]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

OIL is what this damn country runs on...Obama GAVE our monies to GREEN companies...and they failed, went bankrupt and took our money with them..So WHO did this ENRICH?..IF they were so GREAT why isn't it in MORE DEMAND? you have one warped view.

 

[Sallow]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

OIL is what this damn country runs on...Obama GAVE our monies to GREEN companies...and they failed, went bankrupt and took our money with them..So WHO did this ENRICH?..IF they were so GREAT why isn't it in MORE DEMAND? you have one warped view.

How many iterations of the lightbulb do you suppose there were before Edison got it right?
How many times did the internal combustion engine "fail" before one worked?
How many Airplanes were tested before one actually flew?

You guys and your old tech..sheesh.

Were it up to you guys..there would be absolutely no progress..ever.

 

[kwc57]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

Care to venture a guess why?

 

[uscitizen]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project 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.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

But it would boost the economy. A few rich people would gain more wealth.
Isn't that what economic growth means in the USA?

 

[Stephanie]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

Care to venture a guess why?

why?
we shouldn't INVEST in something that is a sure thing...we should be like this administration and GIVE our tax dollars to Green Companies that go belly up..
But of course the Obama tells us he is worried about jobs in this country....MY ASS

 

[daveman]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

That's because oil works.

The other sources...not so much.

 

[daveman]

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

OIL is what this damn country runs on...Obama GAVE our monies to GREEN companies...and they failed, went bankrupt and took our money with them..So WHO did this ENRICH?..IF they were so GREAT why isn't it in MORE DEMAND? you have one warped view.

How many iterations of the lightbulb do you suppose there were before Edison got it right?
How many times did the internal combustion engine "fail" before one worked?
How many Airplanes were tested before one actually flew?

You guys and your old tech..sheesh.

Were it up to you guys..there would be absolutely no progress..ever.

How was the government involved in the development of the light bulb, the IC engine, and airplanes?

 

[daveman]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project 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.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

But it would boost the economy. A few rich people would gain more wealth.
Isn't that what economic growth means in the USA?

It would create jobs. Why are Democrats against that?

 

[kwc57]

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

Care to venture a guess why?

why?
we shouldn't INVEST in something that is a sure thing...we should be like this administration and GIVE our tax dollars to Green Companies that go belly up..
But of course the Obama tells us he is worried about jobs in this country....MY ASS

Sweetheart, if you'll read my posts above, you'll see we are on the same side.

 

[Stephanie]

Care to venture a guess why?

why?
we shouldn't INVEST in something that is a sure thing...we should be like this administration and GIVE our tax dollars to Green Companies that go belly up..
But of course the Obama tells us he is worried about jobs in this country....MY ASS

Sweetheart, if you'll read my posts above, you'll see we are on the same side.

sorry dear...must of missed it..
my post was directed more to Sallow..I should of posted it to him personally.

 

[saveliberty]

Cornell did the report based on technical assistance from The Goodman Group.

The Goodman Group Home

They are based out of Berkley, CA.

Does this sound like a scientific analysis of the issue?

None of this alters the fact that, even if Perryman’s total job figures (119,000) were
correct, and all the workers expected to be hired in the next phase of the project were
hired tomorrow (so roughly 40,000 for three years), the US unemployment would remain
where it is today—at 9.1 per cent.68 The US economy needs to create more than 90,000
jobs per month just to keep up with the growing labor force.69 It needs to generate 8
million jobs in order the get the US unemployment down to where it was at the onset
of the recession.70 And while it is true that construction and manufacturing have been
hit hard by the 2008 recession, these are areas of the economy that have reduced
unemployment substantially over the past 12 months. In August 2011 the unemployment
level for construction workers was 13.5%, down from 17.0% a year ago. Manufacturing
unemployment had also fallen to 8.9%, slightly below the 9.1% average for the workforce
as a whole.71 In an economy that has lost millions of jobs since the onset of the recession in
2008, KXL jobs amount to a tiny drop in a very deep bucket.

 

[Toro]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

I don't know of any conservatives who oppose infrastructure spending. What I know of is conservatives opposing infrastructure spending by the government. And I think many, if not most conservatives would support infrastructure spending if they didn't think it would be a waste.

 

[Crackerjack]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

The other funny thing about this topic is that the only infrastructure spending conservatives seem remotely interested in..is that which would enrich the oil industry.

And, as petroleum is the lifeblood of this economy, it would enrich everyone else participating in the US economy as well, myopic partisan considerations notwithstanding.

 

[bripat9643]

the Cornell University Global Labor Institute

Now there's an obviously market oriented institution. I'll bet they like Greece's economic program.

 

[skookerasbil]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

LMAO.........high speed rail.........what a fcukking genius!!!


My world would suck without k00k lefty assholes..........it'd be so fcukking boring. LOL..........here I am on the one hand thinking these dolts should have their own seperate state to try all their Disney idea's but then life would be so boring not having them to publically humiliate all the time. I always hope though that these people are not being put in charge of anything though.........wtf........like the blind leading the sheep.

Where the fcukk do these people get this shit??? Its fcukknig fascinating. Its as if they live in a bubble..........or like my 8 years old who wants everything she see's!!!!

 

[Billy000]

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.


And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

I see, so just because Cornell puts out a study that poo-poos the economic effects of the Keystone pipeline, they are automatically correct because they oppose the construction just like you do and all the other claims are automatically wrong because they support it?

How do you know the claims made in this report are any more valid than the claims made by others?

But say for argument sake that Cornell is right and there will only be a few thousand temporary jobs. You're saying that those few thousand people should not be allowed to have a job for two years to support themselves and their families and at least get off government assistance for that time because a nonsensical ideological agenda is more important?

Fine, find me another independent study that refutes these claims. For now, I am going to accept this study as true.

 

[Billy000]

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

Hey dumbass.......all jobs are temporary. I've been at my company now for 15 years, but I know it won't last forever based on the other 3 jobs I've had in the same industry that lasted from 5 to 6 years each. Even if your numbers were correct of 2500 to 4650 (which isn't correct by a long shot), that is 2500 to 4650 more than 0. Get the picture? For a president who constantly whines for his Democrat controlled Congress to pass his jobs bill, he doesn't really seem all that interested in actually doing anything to put people to work.

My god you're an idiot. These jobs would end once the pipeline is complete. That is what makes them temporary.

Okay, so if those numbers are off, what are the true numbers? And how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Billy000]

So, just to be clear, we have a job being planned that will create between 5000 jobs on the low end and 20,000 on the high end and you say skip it because you want more? Want less? Don't care? Don't accept that there's a problem with creating jobs?

I don't understand your objection.

Any job like a pipeline job will support 3 others. So we are looking at 15,000 on the low end to 60,000 on the high end.

Also, more oil coming to market will reduce the cost per gallon for gas. We were paying about $1.80 in 2008 and now we covet the $3.00 level.

Why would anyone be against any of this? More jobs, lower gas prices and more gas.

What's the downside?

Where the hell are you getting these numbers from? Did you even read my OP?

Yes, i did. I found it to be biased to the point of being fanciful. I sought another viewpoint and found one in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. It presents various sides of the argument and various conclusions on the number of jobs produced and how those numbers are supported by the groups that assert their accuracy.

Reading sources that try to present an accurate picture instead of a biased and ridiculous cartoon is something that helps one understand the world more completely.

You should try it sometime.

Fact checker: Keystone pipeline jobs claims | StarTribune.com

Perhaps you should try reading the source you are going to post before you try to argue that mine is bogus.

Speaking of bogus, what makes it a "cartoon"? Why should I believe it is cartoonish if you can't even explain why?