• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BLS stats show little improvement under Obama and some losses

Well, who said bullet trains were cheap. As to the cost/benefit analysis, it was done and determined that the benefits outweighed the cost. Whether overruns nullify that, I don't know.

I do know every major economy on the planet has high speed trains. If Japan and France can build them, so can we.

Right, and the original idea was for there to be private venture capital along with state and federal money. Guess what? No one, but nobody, is willing to put up venture capital. The cost estimates have soared to nearly a hundred billion, and the contractor has a history of cost overruns.
 
Well, who said bullet trains were cheap. As to the cost/benefit analysis, it was done and determined that the benefits outweighed the cost. Whether overruns nullify that, I don't know.

I do know every major economy on the planet has high speed trains. If Japan and France can build them, so can we.

Perhaps you should google size comparisons between France and Japan and the US. France is about the size of texas and Japan maybe as long as California. They have far less territory to cover and the population are far more dense. And while the statistics have gotten remarkable better over the years, quite a few people feel a need to not stop at railroad crossings because they have crap to do with slow trains (Crossing Collisions & Casualties by Year | Operation Lifesaver, Inc.). Add in high speed trains and you will see that trend completely reverse itself.
 
Please remove the Goggles of Truth and take a couple minutes to read the report.

Thats why I asked, I cant find the link, I would like to read it to find out their info... I looked but there are so many links in this thread and I am not going to search through every one to find it....so I asked.
 
First off, let us explain the keystone pipeline to you. You see the oil from those areas already goes to america for a large part. Yes, we are already getting it. the reason they want the pipeline is to get it to texas which has ports so it can go on the world market. America is not going to be the only person getting that oil, and the people who will profit from it will be the oil companies who will not have to dump it cheaper in the midwest US when they have a global market for it. Second, the jobs will be temporary. We are not going to be building this thing forever, we will only have a couple of years. Besides, 20k jobs (which is a huge overstatement of the temporary employment it will create) is not a lot of jobs for a temporary measure which will raise prices for gas in the midwest and not make america energy independent as you say. Fracking has it's downsides too, and you do not want it in your backyard. Flammable chemical laden tap water sucks. Not to mention the sink holes and other problems associated with it.

Are you a walking advertisement for the corporate interests who run the republican party, or what?


Yet again, a small but temporary improvement. I am not opposed to this idea, but it will not be a permanent fix, nor does it actually address a lot of the problems with our growing industrialization.


You say immediately? Do you even have an idea of the logistics of doing so? This is not even close to being an immediate solution. It is not even permanent. Not to mention the reality that pulling out of the middle east would actually put a lot of people out of work. I may wish the military industrial complex was gone, but it does have a lot of people working for it who would be out of work and 20,000 jobs doesn't even come close to employing them.


Dude, you are woefully ignorant of the situation, and worse yet you are completely misinformed about it. What your suggesting does not work as you say it does, and certainly would not yeild any of the great results you think it would. There are some arguments for the pipeline, fracking, and natural gas conversion, but you are using complete fantasy.



Why you and others cut up a comment and reply to each piece as if it was a stand alone thought?

The oil from Canada will find its way to market. There will be 20,000 people who work on it for 2 or 3 years. After that there will be a few permanent jobs to handle the crude as it comes out the other end and maintain the thing as it keeps pumping the oil.

The Conversion of vehicles to CNG is only a part of what was stated in the previous segment that you decided to separate. Sheesh!

Again, it was YOU who decided to segment this. The first part which you seemed to have forgotten by the time you gotten here was the part about the TEN YEAR PLAN TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT. Again, sheesh!

The elimination of the dollar value of the unrefined petroleum products from our balance of trade reduces imports to the point where they are less than the exports. This is simple math. Addition and subtraction. You are woefully ignorant or just obtuse. I don't know. The jobs to remove the domestic fossil fuels from the ground and to move and refine them would take the more than 300 billion dollars currently exported to buy the crude and distribute that here to pay for and fuel the new vehicles that would be built to use it.

The dollar value of this would be equal to about 4 of Obama's Failed stimulus every year for about 100 years. The difference is that it costs no government money and actually pays taxes back to the coffers. The danger is that the basements of parents all over the country would spew the derelict young who could finally find work.
 
I suspect you heard a rightwing talking point.



I suspect you don;'t know what the plan is for the high speed train in California.

That's okay though. It brings this topic to the same level of understanding you normally employ.
 
Why you and others cut up a comment and reply to each piece as if it was a stand alone thought?

it is the way i do things. try sticking to a point and it is not so bad.
The oil from Canada will find its way to market. There will be 20,000 people who work on it for 2 or 3 years. After that there will be a few permanent jobs to handle the crude as it comes out the other end and maintain the thing as it keeps pumping the oil.

That is not really any solution to anything.If we wanted to distribute it through the US they could have put the thing right up to the great lakes. You have your water for refining, and we would get cheaper gas and have to buy less foreign oil. However texas seems to have a monopoly on refineries for a purpose. It makes them money.


The Conversion of vehicles to CNG is only a part of what was stated in the previous segment that you decided to separate. Sheesh!

it still doesn't end our reliance on fossil fuels. They are finite, and they do pollute. Eventually that pollution thing won't be a problem when we do not have any oil.
Again, it was YOU who decided to segment this. The first part which you seemed to have forgotten by the time you gotten here was the part about the TEN YEAR PLAN TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT. Again, sheesh!


What plan is that? I see no plan here.
The elimination of the dollar value of the unrefined petroleum products from our balance of trade reduces imports to the point where they are less than the exports. This is simple math. Addition and subtraction. You are woefully ignorant or just obtuse. I don't know. The jobs to remove the domestic fossil fuels from the ground and to move and refine them would take the more than 300 billion dollars currently exported to buy the crude and distribute that here to pay for and fuel the new vehicles that would be built to use it.

Where do you get these numbers from?
The dollar value of this would be equal to about 4 of Obama's Failed stimulus every year for about 100 years. The difference is that it costs no government money and actually pays taxes back to the coffers. The danger is that the basements of parents all over the country would spew the derelict young who could finally find work.

Fine, do the math. Do it right here for all of us to see. Explain the whole thing. All you are doing is saying catch phrases.
 
it is the way i do things. try sticking to a point and it is not so bad.


That is not really any solution to anything.If we wanted to distribute it through the US they could have put the thing right up to the great lakes. You have your water for refining, and we would get cheaper gas and have to buy less foreign oil. However texas seems to have a monopoly on refineries for a purpose. It makes them money.




it still doesn't end our reliance on fossil fuels. They are finite, and they do pollute. Eventually that pollution thing won't be a problem when we do not have any oil.



What plan is that? I see no plan here.


Where do you get these numbers from?


Fine, do the math. Do it right here for all of us to see. Explain the whole thing. All you are doing is saying catch phrases.



How much petroleum does the United States import and from where? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

This is not top secret information.
 
Ok, so I take it that you do not understand what you are arguing. Do us all the favor of explaining the plan with some numbers. You can pull them from other places, but feel free to show us all how this oil will make the US oil independent. Lay it out for me so I can see where you got your idea.




I am not the greatest at calculating numbers when they get this big so please anyone who is reading this, check the math and provide the right answer.

The trade deficit of the USA in 2012 was $504.4 billion.

The amount of oil imported by the USA is 10.6 million barrels of oil per day.

The current cost of a barrel of oil is $105.97.

That coverts annually to 38,690 million barrels per year at $105.97 per barrel.

That converts to $4,099,979.9 million.

2012 trade deficit was down by a good amount and will continue to improve especially if the economy is allowed to take off.

After ten years of an improving economy and a transition away from these excessive oil imports, the balance of trade will once again favor us.

How much petroleum does the United States import and from where? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Crude Oil Price, Oil, Energy, Petroleum, Oil Price, WTI & Brent Oil, Oil Price Charts and Oil Price Forecast

U.S. trade deficit declined in 2012, but goods trade deficits with China, and in non-petroleum products, rose sharply | Economic Policy Institute

US Trade Deficit
 
Thats why I asked, I cant find the link, I would like to read it to find out their info... I looked but there are so many links in this thread and I am not going to search through every one to find it....so I asked.

OK, reasonable request

The Cornell University site link - Cornell University - ILR School: Global Labor Institute Keystone XL Pipeline Study

on that page you will read the following, if you click (not here) but on the Cornell page the sentence highlighted, you will get a file download, a pdf, which is the full report.
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.
 
OK, reasonable request

The Cornell University site link - Cornell University - ILR School: Global Labor Institute Keystone XL Pipeline Study

on that page you will read the following, if you click (not here) but on the Cornell page the sentence highlighted, you will get a file download, a pdf, which is the full report.

That article (and PDF) both make quite a few assumptions and speculations...

They arent counting jobs because 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...so what...they are still jobs. Who cares where the people getting those jobs reside at now.

So what if 50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside of the U.S.....50% or so will be manufactured here. Pipe that isnt being made now. jobs that could be putting people back to work...rather than the author of the paper looking at work being created here he is lamenting on what work not being done here. None of it is being done here until the pipeline gets approved.

The Perryman study, which estimates around 119,000 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs is a poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada....says who? The writer of the PDF? No substantiating evidence to back up his opinion.

assumptions;

Job losses would be caused by additional fuel costs in the Midwest...what additional fuel costs? How is piping sand tar through a pipeline going to add to the cost of fuel in the mid west?

pipeline spills...speculation.

pollution and the rising costs of climate change...pollution from piping sand tar through a pipeline? If anything pollution should decrease because the tanker trucks running back & forth will be eliminated. Climate change? really? That has become like playing the race card.

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....what gas price increases? Cancel out some or all? again, speculation based on no information & assumed price increases in fuel.

The article is blatantly slanted with speculation, conjecture and assumption. If it were more credible and was fact based, I would take into consideration what it says, but it is nothing more than hooey.
 
Last edited:
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?

I wrote an article on PolicyMic about all this. I reposted it here on DebatePolitics.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/170283-inside-obamas-job-numbers.html
 
That article (and PDF) both make quite a few assumptions and speculations...

They arent counting jobs because 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...so what...they are still jobs. Who cares where the people getting those jobs reside at now.
There is a bit of a difference between the 100,000+ jobs that Keystone supporters are claiming than the approximately 6,000 jobs the Cornell study found. So, yes, there will be jobs but less than 10% of the number claimed by promoters of the pipeline

So what if 50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside of the U.S.....50% or so will be manufactured here. Pipe that isnt being made now. jobs that could be putting people back to work...rather than the author of the paper looking at work being created here he is lamenting on what work not being done here. None of it is being done here until the pipeline gets approved.
With less than 50% of the pipe being produced in the US, there go someof the imaginary jobs that were included in the Perryman report

The Perryman study, which estimates around 119,000 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs is a poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada....says who? The writer of the PDF? No substantiating evidence to back up his opinion.
According to multiple sources, the Perryman report was paid for by TransCanada, here's one from Bloomberg:
Ray Perryman, a consultant hired by TransCanada to assess the economic impact of the project, said 20,000 temporary jobs equates to 10,000 full-time jobs.

assumptions;

Job losses would be caused by additional fuel costs in the Midwest
...what additional fuel costs? How is piping sand tar through a pipeline going to add to the cost of fuel in the mid west?
Even asking this question shows Imnukingfutz didn't read the Cornell paper.
» 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.

]pipeline spills
...speculation.

pollution and the rising costs of climate change...pollution from piping sand tar through a pipeline? If anything pollution should decrease because the tanker trucks running back & forth will be eliminated. Climate change? really? That has become like playing the race card.

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....what gas price increases? Cancel out some or all? again, speculation based on no information & assumed price increases in fuel.

The article is blatantly slanted with speculation, conjecture and assumption. If it were more credible and was fact based, I would take into consideration what it says, but it is nothing more than hooey.
You can hold to any opinion you wish, it is a free country, but promoting political ideas based on "opinions" seldom provides a rational end product for citizens.

Pipeline spills are speculation? Don't you read the news or watch tv talking heads?
Oil spill in Arkansas town a fraction of annual pipeline spills - Los Angeles Times

The images from Mayflower, Ark., after a March 29 oil spill were particularly repulsive: A river of black goo running through yards and down the street of a subdivision, and hundreds of workers arriving to clean up an industrial mess in a peaceful burg. But the Exxon Mobil pipeline spill, initially estimated to have released at least 157,000 gallons of crude oil and driven more than 20 families from their homes, represents only a fraction of the regular oil losses from the huge network of pipelines stretching across the United States.

Between 2008 and 2012, U.S. pipelines spilled an average of more than 3.1 million gallons of hazardous liquids per year, according to data from the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the nation's pipeline regulator. Those spills -- most commonly caused by corrosion and equipment failure -- caused at least $1.5 billion in property damage altogether.

Here's another one that got covered up by the BP oil spill in the Gulf
The July 2010 oil spill near Marshall, Mich., though little-known by the public, was widely considered one of the worst inland oil spills in U.S. history. Now, the National Transportation Safety Board has released the results of a two-year investigation into the spill -- and Enbridge Energy Partners takes it on the chin.

For starters, NTSB investigators said, Enbridge knew that its pipeline had been damaged five years before the spill. When the spill actually occurred, investigators said, the company's response was, in short, "poor."

Here's the 'fun' part about the Enbridge pipeline break in Michigan:
Three years after the Enbridge oil spill, cleanup continues

This week marks three years since an Enbridge Energy pipeline ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. More than one million gallons of tar sands oil have been cleaned up from Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River.

The cleanup has already cost Enbridge almost a billion dollars and they still have lots of work ahead of them.
 
There is a bit of a difference between the 100,000+ jobs that Keystone supporters are claiming than the approximately 6,000 jobs the Cornell study found. So, yes, there will be jobs but less than 10% of the number claimed by promoters of the pipeline

Well I never heard 100,000 jobs from anyone - I have heard 10,000 - 20,000
And the Cornell study is based off of assumptions - some of those are extremely outlandish as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

With less than 50% of the pipe being produced in the US, there go some of the imaginary jobs that were included in the Perryman report

The Cornel Report is speculating that 50% of the pipeline will be made elsewhere. No one knows who will make what, they cant even get approval to start the project let alone line up suppliers already.

Even asking this question shows Imnukingfutz didn't read the Cornell paper.
I asked the questions because the Cornell "report" didnt answer it...only speculated and assumed it was going to happen

You can hold to any opinion you wish, it is a free country, but promoting political ideas based on "opinions" seldom provides a rational end product for citizens.
Basing your data on speculation, assumptions and guesses isnt saying much about your "facts".

Pipeline spills are speculation? Don't you read the news or watch tv talking heads?
No, pipeline spills arent speculation...what is speculation is Cornell's report and their conclusion...based on this pipeline spilling...it friggin hasnt even been made yet but they are assuming the spill in their conclusion.

If you choose to hold a paper...what seems to be a college term paper at best, that uses speculation, assumptions, guesses and made up scenarios to come up with its conclusions..and believe it as gospel, go right ahead.
 
Back
Top Bottom