occupied
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2011
- 36,705
- 17,194
- 1,590
Why wasn't it valid when Obama wanted to do it when the economy was so much worse than it is now? That's my point. People getting paychecks is always stimulative yet the republican line was that temporary jobs sucked for economic stimulus and helped no one in the long term. Other than bitching about the expense or that unionized workers might get some work it was their only excuse.Plenty of jobs could be created doing something that actually makes America a better place to live. The jobs argument is disingenuous anyway. When Obama was trying to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects the republicans' main issue was these jobs would be temporary and short term. They claimed that short-term jobs are not stimulative.With Obama's veto coming in the middle of a currency war this is too precious for words. The idiot in the Oval office doesn't realize that trans-Canada can no longer finance the pipeline. Giving the Rs a 2016 campaign issue involving jobs that would have never have been created, wonderful. If I failed to thank any of you leftist idiots for giving me a great laugh just inform me and I will correct the omission.
The Keystone pipeline is supposed to take two years with various numbers working at any given time and yet these short term jobs are so fucking valuable to the country that we will not recover from the loss if the project is not passed, according to republicans.
Never use the jobs argument again for Keystone.
Thousands of men and women mostly skilled union workers have already been well paid for building Keystone I, II, III and III b) which is under construction as we post.
XL would also employ American skilled workers. The jobs argument is valid.
Ask your State Department.