BLS stats show little improvement under Obama and some losses

[Dittohead not!]

I know they did, but now technology has caught up with that goal. We can do not only that but also be an exporter.

If Obama demanded this, the Dems would fall in line and the Reps would do it because they want to.

It would be bipartisan, but, that thing all by itself, would stop the Big 0 from doing this. Bipartisan thinking to the Big 0 is like garlic to a vampire.

much as it is to the Congress of the United States.

Could we become energy independent? As you say, there is some new technology out there, and yes, we should become independent. If we're going to depend on the government to do it, though, I see Hell freezing first.

 

[notquiteright]

we are shipping that "toxic sludge" now in rail cars to its destinations, a pipeline would be much safer. It would create jobs in the building of the pipeline and add security to others teetering on layoffs.

The reason Obama took so much flack is because he tried to change the "jobs created" during his tenure to "jobs created or saved"...a number that cant be calculated, but he gave it a number...all to give himself better numbers and make it look like he did something great rather than the crappy job he did.

As far as subsidies to those large companies for CNG vehicles...I have been in VA for 18 years now and AEP has always has CNG vehicles that I am aware of. PSE&G was the company I had up in NJ, they had CNG vehicles as far back as I can remember. CNG is inexpensive, burns cleaner than gasoline and every gasoline powered motor can be converted. The US is the ME of natural gas, we need to take advantage of it.

Now we need to get back on topic for this post...

Well allow me this reply, It would be very interesting to see any source for almost 20 years of CNG, an earlier post of mine shows the very distinct advantages of propane over CNG, which has been used without subsidy in the farming industry since the 60's.

The debacle that is the toxic sludge should never cross the border, the Canadians should be refining that crap, not us. Our refineries should not be 'converted' to use that crap while the sweet crude is sent to Canada. Makes zero sense.

The same reason Obama got flak for jibs saved is the same reason for giving jobs saved flak now. A create jobs program label for a pipeline really isn't, the very few new hires for the pipeline will be a handful and most of them gone in two years.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Well allow me this reply, It would be very interesting to see any source for almost 20 years of CNG, an earlier post of mine shows the very distinct advantages of propane over CNG, which has been used without subsidy in the farming industry since the 60's.

The debacle that is the toxic sludge should never cross the border, the Canadians should be refining that crap, not us. Our refineries should not be 'converted' to use that crap while the sweet crude is sent to Canada. Makes zero sense.

The same reason Obama got flak for jibs saved is the same reason for giving jobs saved flak now. A create jobs program label for a pipeline really isn't, the very few new hires for the pipeline will be a handful and most of them gone in two years.

I disagree with you on that the pipeline will create jobs. Most will be in the 3-5 year range. Pipes need to be manufactured, foundations need to be set, grading, welding, controls need to be manufactured & installed...there are a ton of behind the scene work we wont ever see that people will be hired to do.

Not to mention that we are already bringing in the crude from Canada now via rail car & existing pipelines. Extending the pipeline and making it larger will be environmentally friendlier...no risk of rail car derailment.

A pipeline from source to refinery will definitely lower the cost of transporting it.

Even a 3-5 year employment boost will help surrounding communities...workers that didnt have jobs would have money to pump into local economies all along the pipeline route. That may just be the shot in the arm some of those areas need to get back on their feet.

 

[shrubnose]

Employment Situation Archived News Releases

All numbers stated in thousands. Worsening factors shown in red.

2008, Dec.: Employed: 143,338, Employment Participation Rate: 65.7%, Not in Labor Force: 80,588, Part time work: 34,597

2013, July: Employed: 144,285, Employment participation rate: 63.4%, Not in labor force: 89,957, Part time work: 35,215

Most distressing is that there are 9,369,000 people who have left the work force.

Participation rate is down more than 2%.

I checked this because there was so big a flap about the increase of part time labor, but that number is only up 618,000. Not much to see there.

Household income is still way down and the shrinkage of the labor force is depriving the young of the opportunity they deserve.

Isn't it about time to pull out the stops and try to get the economy moving?

When will he stop voting present and start doing something about this?

What has the G-nO-P done to make the situation better?




I can answer that question with one word= Nothing.

Anyone who thinks that the GOP will not pay a heavy price for it's failure to help the American people will be disappointed by the results of future elections.

Since Barack Obama moved into the White House, The GOP has been doing all that it could do to try to make America fail, so that it could say that Obama failed.

Well . America has not failed, and America is not going to fail, the GOP is going to fail,keep an eye on those losers, they are going to end up in the same place where the Whigs are and they are doing it to themselves.





Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[notquiteright]

I disagree with you on that the pipeline will create jobs. Most will be in the 3-5 year range. Pipes need to be manufactured, foundations need to be set, grading, welding, controls need to be manufactured & installed...there are a ton of behind the scene work we wont ever see that people will be hired to do. Not to mention that we are already bringing in the crude from Canada now via rail car & existing pipelines. Extending the pipeline and making it larger will be environmentally friendlier...no risk of rail car derailment. A pipeline from source to refinery will definitely lower the cost of transporting it. Even a 3-5 year employment boost will help surrounding communities...workers that didnt have jobs would have money to pump into local economies all along the pipeline route. That may just be the shot in the arm some of those areas need to get back on their feet.

Funny you cite no source for your opinion. We have pipe manufacturing plants already, though I think making the pipe for Keystone will 'save' jobs in China, not here. Same for the electronic controls. Grading, welding, concrete work- all the companies that do that sort of work are in place so I doubt there will be many if any new hires and any will be at the shovel handle side of the equation. Shot in the arm for local economies? Just how big a shot in the arm were the bridge and road construction jobs that were loudly panned by the 'drill baby drill' crowd? If we consult the employment rates of the very narrow band that is the pipeline reach from side to side across the heartland, if we look at the history of these areas and long term forecasts on 'growth' you will see first unemployment is far lower than the national average and the history/forecast is for a continued slide even lower economically as it lacks any sort of 'draw' for long term employment so the 'boost' will be like pouring a cup of water in the desert.

The crap in the railroad cars/pipelines isn't crude, it is sludge, tar sand ooze with a toxic thinner to make it at least appear to be a liquid. Like I said it makes far more sense to let the Canadians face the environmental nightmare of a spill in their nation than somewhere across the heartland of ours. I hope you are not trying to say pipelines don't have spills- the folks in Mayflower Ark, would disagree. At the MOST optimistic flow rates the sludge will provide 4% of the daily refinery capacity- not a big step toward energy independence. :roll:

All in all a lose lose for us and a huge win for Canada... not that I have a thing against smart Canadians...

 

[Dittohead not!]

Every time a huge construction project, public or private, is proposed, the justification for it is, "It will create jobs!"
and, of course, any huge construction project will create jobs while it is being built. The border fence will create jobs, high speed rail will create jobs, building a new freeway through town will create jobs.

But, the questions have to be answered: Will the project pay in the long run? Who will pay the tab, and how much will it cost? What are the environmental risks? Who will get those jobs? How long will they really last?

 

[code1211]

much as it is to the Congress of the United States.

Could we become energy independent? As you say, there is some new technology out there, and yes, we should become independent. If we're going to depend on the government to do it, though, I see Hell freezing first.

That's the tragedy of the whole thing. There is no downside for the country, but there is for the Democrats who hate fossil fuels, business of any size and people who are not on food stamps.

All they need to do is stop the resistance and the American people would do the rest and the recession would be in the rear view mirror by about 8:37 tonight.

 

[code1211]

What has the G-nO-P done to make the situation better?




I can answer that question with one word= Nothing.

Anyone who thinks that the GOP will not pay a heavy price for it's failure to help the American people will be disappointed by the results of future elections.

Since Barack Obama moved into the White House, The GOP has been doing all that it could do to try to make America fail, so that it could say that Obama failed.

Well . America has not failed, and America is not going to fail, the GOP is going to fail,keep an eye on those losers, they are going to end up in the same place where the Whigs are and they are doing it to themselves.





Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Are you at altitude and unable to breath properly. Put on your mask!

The Republicans can't vote on a snide remark by the Big 0 nor can they force Harry Reid to bring anything to the floor of the Senate.

This is the most Lawless president in the history of the Republic. If he wants to get something done, like bypassing the approval process for appointees, he imagines and then certifies a recess and makes pretend recess appointments. He regulates his way pas thte law making process. He just acts as the imperial tyrant that he is.

This mess belongs to Obama. He is directionless, clueless, planless and overtly political to the detriment of the American people.

He is bought and paid for and a slave to those who have written him checks.

By the Mr. Deflecto, what has obama done? Not talked about; done.

 

[shrubnose]

Are you at altitude and unable to breath properly. Put on your mask!

The Republicans can't vote on a snide remark by the Big 0 nor can they force Harry Reid to bring anything to the floor of the Senate.

This is the most Lawless president in the history of the Republic. If he wants to get something done, like bypassing the approval process for appointees, he imagines and then certifies a recess and makes pretend recess appointments. He regulates his way pas thte law making process. He just acts as the imperial tyrant that he is.

This mess belongs to Obama. He is directionless, clueless, planless and overtly political to the detriment of the American people.

He is bought and paid for and a slave to those who have written him checks.

By the Mr. Deflecto, what has obama done? Not talked about; done.

I'll answer your question with a question: What will the GOP be doing after massive demographic change hits it full force like a tidal wave?

Well the very simple answer is that it won't be doing anything, because there won't be a GOP.




Have a nice day as we watch the GOP fade away.

 

[code1211]

I'll answer your question with a question: What will the GOP be doing after massive demographic change hits it full force like a tidal wave?

Well the very simple answer is that it won't be doing anything, because there won't be a GOP.


Have a nice day as we watch the GOP fade away.

I don't doubt that at all.

The only thing more ineffective than a Democrat government planner is a GOP campaign manager.

 

[shrubnose]

(Shipping American jobs overseas.)

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'll answer your question with a question: What will the GOP be doing after massive demographic change hits it full force like a tidal wave?

Well the very simple answer is that it won't be doing anything, because there won't be a GOP.




Have a nice day as we watch the GOP fade away.

The demise of the GOP is highly exaggerated.

Remember a few years back, when the GPO had control of Congress and the WhiteHouse, and people were talking about the end of the Democratic Party?

The rise and fall of political parties is cyclical.

 

[Somerville]

Personally, I would not be in favor of exporting any strategic natural resources, but I am in full support of their development and use...

the oil sludge coming out of Canada, the stuff the Keystone XL pipeline in intended to carry, isn't American, the owners of the material can sell it wherever they wish.

Funny how the Canadians don't want any pipelines carrying the crud across to Canadian Pacific ports, so the Canadian company figures it is easier to scam the American people into believing the pipeline will "create jobs", nevermind the danger posed to the Ogallala Aquifer

 

[Ikari]

Employment Situation Archived News Releases

All numbers stated in thousands. Worsening factors shown in red.

2008, Dec.: Employed: 143,338, Employment Participation Rate: 65.7%, Not in Labor Force: 80,588, Part time work: 34,597

2013, July: Employed: 144,285, Employment participation rate: 63.4%, Not in labor force: 89,957, Part time work: 35,215

Most distressing is that there are 9,369,000 people who have left the work force.

Participation rate is down more than 2%.

I checked this because there was so big a flap about the increase of part time labor, but that number is only up 618,000. Not much to see there.

Household income is still way down and the shrinkage of the labor force is depriving the young of the opportunity they deserve.

Isn't it about time to pull out the stops and try to get the economy moving?

When will he stop voting present and start doing something about this?

So maintaining the status quo? Yeah, the Republocrats will do that.

 

[Somerville]

Straw Man. Again. Do you never tire of talking to yourself. The pipeline would do 20,000 jobs for about 2 or 3 years.

The rest would do about 9 million jobs and that would go for about a century.

Sadly, your god in the White house cannot depart from the course dictated by those who have purchased him.

one of those 'librul' academic studies says far fewer jobs than 20,000 would be created by building the pipeline

Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs
Project May Kill More Jobs Than It Creates.

Cornell GLI’s new report, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL (pdf) examines the job impacts of TransCanada Corportation's Keystone XL Pipeline, the proposed pipeline that would transport tar sands oil almost 2,000 miles from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. The report reviews claims made by TransCanada and the American Petroleum Institute that the project will create 20,000 construction and manufacturing and 119,000 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs.

The report concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are unsubstantiated and the project will not only create fewer jobs than industry states, but that the project could actually kill more jobs than it creates. Main findings include:

• The project budget that has a direct impact on U.S. employment is between $3 and $4 billion or about half of what industry claims.
• 50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside of the U.S.
• Jobs will be temporary and between 85-90% of the people hired to do the work will be non-local or from out of state.
• The Perryman study, which estimates around 119,000 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs is a poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada.
• Job losses would be caused by additional fuel costs in the Midwest, pipeline spills, pollution and the rising costs of climate change. Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of Keystone XL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by the project.

Ogallala Aquifer

 

[Tettsuo]

Every time a huge construction project, public or private, is proposed, the justification for it is, "It will create jobs!"
and, of course, any huge construction project will create jobs while it is being built. The border fence will create jobs, high speed rail will create jobs, building a new freeway through town will create jobs.

But, the questions have to be answered: Will the project pay in the long run? Who will pay the tab, and how much will it cost? What are the environmental risks? Who will get those jobs? How long will they really last?

This is exactly why infrastructure jobs are so important. An improved infrastructure will be a massive boon to productivity for generations to come.

 

[Fisher]

Every time a huge construction project, public or private, is proposed, the justification for it is, "It will create jobs!"
and, of course, any huge construction project will create jobs while it is being built. The border fence will create jobs, high speed rail will create jobs, building a new freeway through town will create jobs.

But, the questions have to be answered: Will the project pay in the long run? Who will pay the tab, and how much will it cost? What are the environmental risks? Who will get those jobs? How long will they really last?

Well not all infrastructure projects are created equally. I really do not see the virtue of building more roads, but if you want to widen a valley in Tennessee to create a hydroelectric dam/recreational lake and float the rock down the Mississippi to help reestablish offshore marsh beds and such to help protect New Orleans from Hurricane damage and re-establish natural habitats that are good for the environment, then I would give you a blank check.

 

[Somerville]

Well not all infrastructure projects are created equally. I really do not see the virtue of building more roads, but if you want to widen a valley in Tennessee to create a hydroelectric dam/recreational lake and float the rock down the Mississippi to help reestablish offshore marsh beds and such to help protect New Orleans from Hurricane damage and re-establish natural habitats that are good for the environment, then I would give you a blank check.

Infrastructure is not just building new, it also entails maintenance and repair of existing structures. The more bridges I look at, the more frightened I become about driving over them - as just one example.

Over two hundred million trips are taken daily across deficient bridges in the nation’s 102 largest metropolitan regions. In total, one in nine of the nation’s bridges are rated as structurally deficient, while the average age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently 42 years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that to eliminate the nation’s bridge deficient backlog by 2028, we would need to invest $20.5 billion annually, while only $12.8 billion is being spent currently. The challenge for federal, state, and local governments is to increase bridge investments by $8 billion annually to address the identified $76 billion in needs for deficient bridges across the United States.

Read lots more dispressing info on the site of the American Society of Civil Engineers

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is exactly why infrastructure jobs are so important. An improved infrastructure will be a massive boon to productivity for generations to come.

But not all infrastructure is equally important. We should be able to agree that maintaining and rebuilding obsolete bridges, as an example, or maintenance of highways, is important but we don't. One person's important infrastructure improvement is another's boondoggle.

California, for example, is still bound and determined to build a high speed train to nowhere. Why this project has so much support, I have no idea. Meanwhile, we need to rebuild the levies built during the gold rush and improve our water delivery systems, but there's no money for that. It makes no sense.

 

[Fisher]

Infrastructure is not just building new, it also entails maintenance and repair of existing structures. The more bridges I look at, the more frightened I become about driving over them - as just one example.


Read lots more dispressing info on the site of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Well then why are we always trying to build new roads when we cannot maintain the ones we have? I am anti-more roads. My proposal is so much cooler than grinding rust off bridges and replacing bolts.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well then why are we always trying to build new roads when we cannot maintain the ones we have? I am anti-more roads. My proposal is so much cooler than grinding rust off bridges and replacing bolts.

and it would be oh so cool to just let the bridges fall into the rivers and try to get across with ferry boats.

 

[Somerville]

and it would be oh so cool to just let the bridges fall into the rivers and try to get across with ferry boats.

There would be the small problem of building the boats first and then the docks to which they tie plus the parking lots for the cars because not every ferry could carry vehicles.

:roll:

 

[Fisher]

and it would be oh so cool to just let the bridges fall into the rivers and try to get across with ferry boats.

Just don't pay the ferryman until he gets you to the other side. My town just got a few new bridges. Screw the rest of you cause we already gotz our ObamaBridges :2wave:

 

[Tettsuo]

But not all infrastructure is equally important. We should be able to agree that maintaining and rebuilding obsolete bridges, as an example, or maintenance of highways, is important but we don't. One person's important infrastructure improvement is another's boondoggle.

California, for example, is still bound and determined to build a high speed train to nowhere. Why this project has so much support, I have no idea. Meanwhile, we need to rebuild the levies built during the gold rush and improve our water delivery systems, but there's no money for that. It makes no sense.

I absolutely agree. Bridges, highways, airports, trains (I believe trains are hugely important and often overlooked) and other means of rapid transportation should be obvious infrastructure projects to risk debt over. It's sad that our government officials can't agree on the easiest and most beneficial stimulus around.

 

[head of joaquin]

But not all infrastructure is equally important. We should be able to agree that maintaining and rebuilding obsolete bridges, as an example, or maintenance of highways, is important but we don't. One person's important infrastructure improvement is another's boondoggle.

California, for example, is still bound and determined to build a high speed train to nowhere. Why this project has so much support, I have no idea. Meanwhile, we need to rebuild the levies built during the gold rush and improve our water delivery systems, but there's no money for that. It makes no sense.

A high speed train will result in huge productivity gains, as businesses are able to draw on people up and down the state for expertise, and as tourism between the North and South increases. Faster means of travel has always been at the heart of productivity gains. Just ask Afghanistan.

Every continent except Antarctica has a bullet train -- well Antarctica and North America. A scandal.