We CAN wait

[Chef Jim]

What an embarrassing mess this guy has turned into. I can't wait until 2012, so we can elect the next embarrassing mess.

 

God that is to true.

[WilliamCody]

The pipeline may create some jobs, but they will be temporary. These pipelines are meant to basically run by themselves. So we may create a few thousand temporary construction jobs, but TransCanada - who would own and operate the pipeline - have said numerous times that the pipeline would only create a few hundred permanent jobs in the United States. TransCanada itself has issued a report saying the highest potential number of temporary jobs the project would create is just under 5,000. Talk about a drop in the bucket.

 

And as for reducing oil prices, the majority of the oil would be exported from Houston/Galveston/Port Arthur, Texas to markets in Central and South America and would thus have little impact on domestic gas prices. Additionally, these ports are designated Foreign Trade Zones, so we couldn't even tax the exports.

[B-Large]

fixed. It's all about the next election baby.....

 

and its an 18+ month "thinking about the next cycle" process. So, POTUS terms are really two years.... maybe less.....

[IDBillzFan]

The pipeline may create some jobs, but they will be temporary.

Define temporary. A week. A month. A year. Three years?

 

Also, you'd think an administration willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars just to "save" some jobs would be happy to create some temporary ones. But apparently not.

[Oxrock]

The pipeline may create some jobs, but they will be temporary. These pipelines are meant to basically run by themselves. So we may create a few thousand temporary construction jobs, but TransCanada - who would own and operate the pipeline - have said numerous times that the pipeline would only create a few hundred permanent jobs in the United States. TransCanada itself has issued a report saying the highest potential number of temporary jobs the project would create is just under 5,000. Talk about a drop in the bucket.

 

And as for reducing oil prices, the majority of the oil would be exported from Houston/Galveston/Port Arthur, Texas to markets in Central and South America and would thus have little impact on domestic gas prices. Additionally, these ports are designated Foreign Trade Zones, so we couldn't even tax the exports.

 

Oh, I see. Sort of like infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges.

[DrFishfinder]

The pipeline may create some jobs, but they will be temporary. These pipelines are meant to basically run by themselves. So we may create a few thousand temporary construction jobs, but TransCanada - who would own and operate the pipeline - have said numerous times that the pipeline would only create a few hundred permanent jobs in the United States. TransCanada itself has issued a report saying the highest potential number of temporary jobs the project would create is just under 5,000. Talk about a drop in the bucket.

 

And as for reducing oil prices, the majority of the oil would be exported from Houston/Galveston/Port Arthur, Texas to markets in Central and South America and would thus have little impact on domestic gas prices. Additionally, these ports are designated Foreign Trade Zones, so we couldn't even tax the exports.

 

Pretty much like the Holy Stimulus, methinks.

[Magox]

Let me just say this,

 

William COdy is talking out of his ass and just about everything he said, is incorrect.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Let me just say this,

 

William COdy is talking out of his ass and just about everything he said, is incorrect.

You don't like Buffalo Bill?

[WilliamCody]

Oh, I see. Sort of like infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges.

 

Yes, exactly. With one exception...infrastructure is designed to increase commerce for multiple parties while the pipeline will only directly profit one company in the long-term.

 

Pretty much like the Holy Stimulus, methinks.

 

See above. The stimulus was aimed at the economy at large. The pipeline is aimed at one (albeit important) sector, or perhaps even one company (that isn't even based in the US)

 

Let me just say this,

 

William COdy is talking out of his ass and just about everything he said, is incorrect.

 

Care to elaborate? What did I say that is incorrect? I did some quick research before I posted and I would like to know which portions are not factual.

Edited November 16, 2011 by WilliamCody

[/dev/null]

The stimulus was aimed at the economy at large. The pipeline is aimed at one (albeit important) sector, or perhaps even one company (that isn't even based in the US)

 

The Stimulous® wasn't directed at the economy at large. It was aimed at one (albeit important to Obama) sector, Unions and Democratic donors

[WilliamCody]

The Stimulous® wasn't directed at the economy at large. It was aimed at one (albeit important to Obama) sector, Unions and Democratic donors

 

Explain more fully.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Explain more fully.

It was a giant money laundering scheme and power grab by shoring up the democrat union base while using taxpayers money to foot the bill

[WilliamCody]

It was a giant money laundering scheme and power grab by shoring up the democrat union base while using taxpayers money to foot the bill

 

That's not explaining more fully, that's restating what he has already said. I would like to know the actual avenues through which this took place. I would also like to know how and why these projects would be necessarily opposed to a strengthening of the private sector. I'm just not seeing how the stimulus bills was meant primarily for unions, and I'm then not getting why many of the unions were still hostile to Obama's policies. If you have an article that spells this all out, I would love to see it.

 

Define temporary. A week. A month. A year. Three years?

 

Also, you'd think an administration willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars just to "save" some jobs would be happy to create some temporary ones. But apparently not.

 

I don't know the exact definition of temporary, I haven't seen the reports. And I think the real issue is outlay versus benefit. It's not clear to many why this project is of long-term interest to the US economy considering it will be controlled by one Canadian company and most if not all the oil will be exported. This seems like a great proposition for TransCanada and Canada in general, I'm just not seeing such a great benefit for the US economy.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't know the exact definition of temporary, I haven't seen the reports. And I think the real issue is outlay versus benefit. It's not clear to many why this project is of long-term interest to the US economy considering it will be controlled by one Canadian company and most if not all the oil will be exported. This seems like a great proposition for TransCanada and Canada in general, I'm just not seeing such a great benefit for the US economy.

If you really believe the issue is outlay versus benefit, you must REALLY hate the Stimulus bill, which is interesting because your posts tend to lean to the left.

[WilliamCody]

If you really believe the issue is outlay versus benefit, you must REALLY hate the Stimulus bill, which is interesting because your posts tend to lean to the left.

 

I think it is more difficult to see the long-term and short-term benefits of the stimulus bill than it is to see the costs. I don't pretend to have enough of an expertise in macro-economics to definitively declare that this type of Keynesian strategy is always good or always bad. As a historian, I am willing to wait a few more years before I declare definitively the success or failure of the stimulus bills. At the time, I thought that doing something was better than doing nothing (even if the only effect was to slightly raise consumer confidence and to ensure the current historic low levels of interest rates) just as with the XL Pipeline I currently favor doing nothing over doing something. But this belief comes as much from my belief that the US will gain a long-term comparative advantage in the global economy (and thus a growth in the domestic economy) not by clinging and growing its oil infrastructure, but in innovating new strategies for energy use. I happen to think for a variety of reasons that the current oil-based economy is on its way out (over the next 2 or 3 generations) and the country that realizes this first will be the leader of the 21st century global economy. For the sake of my kids and my grandkids, I hope that is the US. If this means you think I lean left, so be it - but I characterize my political beliefs of the response to particular issues, not by an adherence to some universal political ideology.

Edited November 16, 2011 by WilliamCody

[IDBillzFan]

I think it is more difficult to see the long-term and short-term benefits of the stimulus bill than it is to see the costs. I don't pretend to have enough of an expertise in macro-economics to definitively declare that this type of Keynesian strategy is always good or always bad. As a historian, I am willing to wait a few more years before I declare definitively the success or failure of the stimulus bills. At the time, I thought that doing something was better than doing nothing (even if the only effect was to slightly raise consumer confidence and to ensure the current historic low levels of interest rates) just as with the XL Pipeline I currently favor doing nothing over doing something. But this belief comes as much from my belief that the US will gain a long-term comparative advantage in the global economy (and thus a growth in the domestic economy) not by clinging and growing its oil infrastructure, but in innovating new strategies for energy use. I happen to think for a variety of reasons that the current oil-based economy is on its way out (over the next 2 or 3 generations) and the country that realizes this first will be the leader of the 21st century global economy. For the sake of my kids and my grandkids, I hope that is the US. If this means you think I lean left, so be it - but I characterize my political beliefs of the response to particular issues, not by an adherence to some universal political ideology.

You don't need history to tell the story on stimulus. It failed. It failed by the very milestones set by the people who passed it, and it failed just by considering a number of the embarrassingly wasteful items it tried to fund.This is what happens when you do something simply because you feel like doing nothing is a bad idea. Often times the person running around the office overwhelmed with their workload is simply a person trying to appear busy when they really appear irresponsible.

 

Anyone even objectively looking at the various parts of the stimulus bill knows that what wasn't a money laundering scheme for Dems and unions was some of the most moronic expenditures a group of people could possibly create. We can start with the study of grape genetics and work our way to the more-than-half million dollars allotted to replace the windows at a US Forest Service Visitor Center (in Washington) that was closed in 2007 to $60+ million to Ed Rendell's North Shore Connector...a project even Rendell referred to as "a tragic mistake."

 

Stimulus failed. And while I genuinely believe that YOU believe your political beliefs are just an accumulation of of your position on various topics, you're really only kidding yourself. You can't suggest the pipeline will only create temporary jobs and therefore is not worth it while simultaneously suggesting the story of the stimulus success won't be written for another couple of years.

Edited November 16, 2011 by LABillzFan

[Oxrock]

Yes, exactly. With one exception...infrastructure is designed to increase commerce for multiple parties while the pipeline will only directly profit one company in the long-term.

 

 

 

See above. The stimulus was aimed at the economy at large. The pipeline is aimed at one (albeit important) sector, or perhaps even one company (that isn't even based in the US)

 

 

 

Care to elaborate? What did I say that is incorrect? I did some quick research before I posted and I would like to know which portions are not factual.

Wrong. The pipeline itself is infrastructure. It will need to be maintained. It will lower the cost of oil and therefore the cost of transporting goods for the economy at large. Thus, it is exactly like how you describe the "stimulus".

[erynthered]

I guess I'll stick this right in here

 

$1,000,000 per job.....................

 

Cronyism at its finest.

 

 

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/16/robert-kennedy-jr-s-green-company-scored-1-4-billion-taxpayer-bailout/

[Rob's House]

I guess I'll stick this right in here

 

$1,000,000 per job.....................

 

Cronyism at its finest.

 

 

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/16/robert-kennedy-jr-s-green-company-scored-1-4-billion-taxpayer-bailout/

Ever notice how they never try to justify or refute this? They just move on and trust that their followers will adhere to the doctrine of don't ask no questions.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Ever notice how they never try to justify or refute this? They just move on and trust that their followers will adhere to the doctrine of don't ask no questions.

What do you think that statistic means? Can you explain it for us without looking like a complete idiot?