How will it cost jobs when those jobs don't currently exist?
"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.
How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? :think:
I said it would cost jobs, and it will cost jobs, because with it, a certain number of jobs will be created. Pretty simple to figure out. AS with any project, if you do it, jobs are created. If you don't, jobs are not created. Now, if you use those same resources ($) for something else that creates more jobs...then great!!!
Let's not forget: we do not live in an educated, informed, aware society. We live in a society where the public falls prey to misinformation and clever media trickery. In the end, it is too much to ask of the people to educate themselves; to do the research necessary to acquire knowledge, instead of imprisoning themselves within the walls of their own un/misinformed, uneducated opinions. We live in a society where people not only see in black and white, but also only see--and only vote--in Rs and Ds. Oh how history will judge the oil and war generation!
it's called critical thinking ... or the lack thereof ...
Let's not forget: we do not live in an educated, informed, aware society. We live in a society where the public falls prey to misinformation and clever media trickery. In the end, it is too much to ask of the people to educate themselves; to do the research necessary to acquire knowledge, instead of imprisoning themselves within the walls of their own un/misinformed, uneducated opinions. We live in a society where people not only see in black and white, but also only see--and only vote--in Rs and Ds. Oh how history will judge the oil and war generation!
it's called critical thinking ... or the lack thereof ...
One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.
Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?
Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.
One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.
Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?
Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.
well ... what this highlights is the absurdity of politics ... without getting into the pros/cons of each project - the answer to your question is simply that these decisions are politicized instead of being about what the project is for ... this is a key failure in not on the gov't structure but the democracy (or people) ...
One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.
Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?
Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.
Look at the quote by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
The House and Senate voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.
Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53 billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.
"Today's vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.
The Associated Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."
California was hoping for several billion dollars to keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes. The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.
The House and Senate voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.
Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53 billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.
"Today's vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.
The Associated Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."
California was hoping for several billion dollars to keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes. The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.
Is construction proceeding or not? The last paragraph states they need the money but construction is starting in 2012. Are they starting a high speed network?
Is construction proceeding or not? The last paragraph states they need the money but construction is starting in 2012. Are they starting a high speed network?
no...i think the price went from 13 billion a few years ago to something like 40 billion
The Alberta Oilsands is the best oil on earth and they are'nt going away. Listen, if you want to keep getting the blood soaked oil from the middle east, thats your perogitive but I think that the US should stop killing for their oil and embrace Canada's oil industry. There isn't a whole lot of "conflict free" oil out there. Canada has enough to supply the whole world for hundreds of years. We have twice as much oil as the middle east and it is safer to work here as well. Shutting down the Keystone pipe line in the US only forces us to ship it to other countries. I personally prefer to send it to our "Sister" in the south than to send it to a country that we cannot fully trust in the east. remember, we all live in NORTH AMERICA which makes us family, why not co-operate and help each other. Thats my two cents. And if you believe the propaganda out there as far as "Tar Sands" being the devil, take a good look in the mirror. Canada does not kill for oil, "Just sayin" . Not to mention, a pipeline is probably the safest/greenest way to ship oil. Remember Exxon Valdez, BP off-shore rig and countless other disasters? When we involve our oceans its never good for the environment but it seems that everyone is ok with that method of shipping. Oil isnt EVER going away, it is a neccessary evil to provide energy. Yeah, sure green energy is the best energy for the environment but we should have started producing it 50-60 years ago not (what seems to be) yesterday. Sorry for the rant but once I started, I couldn't stop( I could go on and on) This just my perspective nothing more.
The Alberta Oilsands is the best oil on earth and they are'nt going away. Listen, if you want to keep getting the blood soaked oil from the middle east, thats your perogitive but I think that the US should stop killing for their oil and embrace Canada's oil industry. There isn't a whole lot of "conflict free" oil out there. Canada has enough to supply the whole world for hundreds of years. We have twice as much oil as the middle east and it is safer to work here as well. Shutting down the Keystone pipe line in the US only forces us to ship it to other countries. I personally prefer to send it to our "Sister" in the south than to send it to a country that we cannot fully trust in the east. remember, we all live in NORTH AMERICA which makes us family, why not co-operate and help each other. Thats my two cents. And if you believe the propaganda out there as far as "Tar Sands" being the devil, take a good look in the mirror. Canada does not kill for oil, "Just sayin" . Not to mention, a pipeline is probably the safest/greenest way to ship oil. Remember Exxon Valdez, BP off-shore rig and countless other disasters? When we involve our oceans its never good for the environment but it seems that everyone is ok with that method of shipping. Oil isnt EVER going away, it is a neccessary evil to provide energy. Yeah, sure green energy is the best energy for the environment but we should have started producing it 50-60 years ago not (what seems to be) yesterday. Sorry for the rant but once I started, I couldn't stop( I could go on and on) This just my perspective nothing more.
i disagree wholeheartedly ... without the wars - there would be no tar sands ... the tar sands is very costly to extract not only in dollars but in resources ... it uses 3 times the amount of resources as conventional crude - for that reason, oil can only be extracted from the tar sands when the price per barrel is over $75 ... something that wars and instability in the middle east does ... without those wars - tar sands oil would not be profitable ... that along with the massive subsidies given to this evil industry ...
also, we do not need oil ... there are alternatives for almost everything ... the fact we are still consuming oil at our current rate is reflective of how much influence that industry has over gov't policy ...
The Alberta Oilsands is the best oil on earth and they are'nt going away. Listen, if you want to keep getting the blood soaked oil from the middle east, thats your perogitive but I think that the US should stop killing for their oil and embrace Canada's oil industry. There isn't a whole lot of "conflict free" oil out there. Canada has enough to supply the whole world for hundreds of years. We have twice as much oil as the middle east and it is safer to work here as well. Shutting down the Keystone pipe line in the US only forces us to ship it to other countries. I personally prefer to send it to our "Sister" in the south than to send it to a country that we cannot fully trust in the east. remember, we all live in NORTH AMERICA which makes us family, why not co-operate and help each other. Thats my two cents. And if you believe the propaganda out there as far as "Tar Sands" being the devil, take a good look in the mirror. Canada does not kill for oil, "Just sayin" . Not to mention, a pipeline is probably the safest/greenest way to ship oil. Remember Exxon Valdez, BP off-shore rig and countless other disasters? When we involve our oceans its never good for the environment but it seems that everyone is ok with that method of shipping. Oil isnt EVER going away, it is a neccessary evil to provide energy. Yeah, sure green energy is the best energy for the environment but we should have started producing it 50-60 years ago not (what seems to be) yesterday. Sorry for the rant but once I started, I couldn't stop( I could go on and on) This just my perspective nothing more.
i disagree wholeheartedly ... without the wars - there would be no tar sands ... the tar sands is very costly to extract not only in dollars but in resources ... it uses 3 times the amount of resources as conventional crude - for that reason, oil can only be extracted from the tar sands when the price per barrel is over $75 ... something that wars and instability in the middle east does ... without those wars - tar sands oil would not be profitable ... that along with the massive subsidies given to this evil industry ...
also, we do not need oil ... there are alternatives for almost everything ... the fact we are still consuming oil at our current rate is reflective of how much influence that industry has over gov't policy ...
They are subsidised because of all of the people they employ. Without those jobs we would be in the mess the US is in (unemployment leads to crime and instability in society). Like I said, it is not all evil, people have a great quality of life because of it up here. I work here so I know that the media makes it sound like we are killing the planet. Also if we didnt need oil then quit driving cars, taking buses, flying, stop buying toys you may have like sleds, ATV's, boats etc, etc, etc. If anyone would do that (I would bet that mabe 1% of us would) then yes we would not need oil but until then, your argument is mute. You need oil to run most environmentally friendly alternatives as well, I mean how do you think these things get built?, Magic? Bearings need oil to stay lubricated, trucks and cranes use oil to build them so there is really no way to get away from using it. Oh and next time you go to a PJ show , ask youself how the band got to your town or how you got to the show. If you walked and they walked with all of their gear then I would listen to your point. Even though your shoes are made with rubber.(which is made from oil)
oil can only be extracted from the tar sands when the price per barrel is over $75 ... something that wars and instability in the middle east does ... without those wars - tar sands oil would not be profitable
So I guess we should all thank the US for keeping a roof over my head . Thanks again for keeping the middle east unstable. Now you complain about a pipeline? WOW! Priorities eh? Do you realize how many pipelines are under our feet? Maybe we should create jobs by tearing all of them up. Obviously they are so bad for the environment, not like spilling oil into the ocean, that is ok right. Cuz if this pipeline isn't approved then more oil will be shipped by boat. (to China) Thats way better than over the land that it came from in the first place. (sarcastic)
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,388
An oil-free world is NOT what 99.9% of environmentalists and climate scientists are looking or hoping for. And yes, oil is necessary for the production of renewable energy equipment. So the logical conclusion (especially if you believe like I do that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing climate change) would be to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels while transitioning to renewable and- even more importantly- learn to live with a lower fossil fuel consumption. There are many ways each of us can greatly reduce our oil consumption (and, honestly, no one needs or wants to hear me tell you how- for the hundredth time- how to achieve that goal.) One way or another we will have to learn to live with less oil. The idea of endless petroleum is, at best, M.Y.T.H. Besides, if there was an endless supply we would eventually do ourselves in by too greatly changing the climate. That is already a possibility.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
' 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.' From the Cornell study.
Also
As of August 2011, 100,237 solar workers are employed in the United States. Solar is employing workers in all 50 states and across a vast supply chain. To put that in perspective: the solar industry has grown 6.8 percent over the previous year, adding 6,736 new workers in 12 months.
During that same time span, overall national employment grew by only 0.7 percent. The fossil fuel electric generation industry fared even worse, losing 2 percent of its workforce. These are not insignificant numbers -- and all policy makers would be wise to study them carefully.
Unlike the negative conjecture by pundits about the state of the U.S. solar industry, The Solar Foundation's stats are a real snapshot of the industry. (And they're backed by social science researchers at Cornell.) They're also backed up by countless industry success stories. Take solar installation firm SolarCity, which currently employs more than 1,200 people in 11 states. It will create jobs in an additional 22 states thanks to an agreement with the Department of Defense to install 160,000 rooftop solar installations on military housing complexes at 124 military bases across 34 states. The company hopes to fill many of those jobs with veterans and military family members. From the huffington post....also seen in other reports.
They are subsidised because of all of the people they employ. Without those jobs we would be in the mess the US is in (unemployment leads to crime and instability in society). Like I said, it is not all evil, people have a great quality of life because of it up here. I work here so I know that the media makes it sound like we are killing the planet. Also if we didnt need oil then quit driving cars, taking buses, flying, stop buying toys you may have like sleds, ATV's, boats etc, etc, etc. If anyone would do that (I would bet that mabe 1% of us would) then yes we would not need oil but until then, your argument is mute. You need oil to run most environmentally friendly alternatives as well, I mean how do you think these things get built?, Magic? Bearings need oil to stay lubricated, trucks and cranes use oil to build them so there is really no way to get away from using it. Oh and next time you go to a PJ show , ask youself how the band got to your town or how you got to the show. If you walked and they walked with all of their gear then I would listen to your point. Even though your shoes are made with rubber.(which is made from oil)
they are subsidized because they have direct access to gov't and policy making ... like others have said - those subsidies and jobs can be created in so many more areas ... i also get the fact you are employed by the oil industry and you are prepared to take everything they tell you at face value ... so be it ..
i have friends who work for the non-profits that are looking into the impacts of the tar sands and the reality is that it is killing the planet ... and i see you did not want to address my point about foreign wars ...
In the meantime, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) launched a “countdown clock” that ticks off the time until the permitting deadline expires and posted a video on YouTube that touts the pipeline as a chance to create jobs with private investment. Playing off Obama’s mantra of “We Can’t Wait,” the video flashes phrases across the screen including, “We Can’t Wait for Leadership. We Can’t Wait for Jobs.”
Environmentalists note that in December 2010, according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada.
Bill McKibben, a climate activist and co-founder of the group 350.org, wrote in an e-mail that Boehner has received more than $1 million from fossil-fuel companies, “and now we find out that he’s got extensive personal investments in companies dependent on tarsands oil.”
“He was willing to shut down the government in part to prevent enough time for serious environmental review,” McKibben added. “In any other facet of our public life . . . this whole list taken together would be seen for the gross conflict of interest that it is.”
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
In the meantime, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) launched a “countdown clock” that ticks off the time until the permitting deadline expires and posted a video on YouTube that touts the pipeline as a chance to create jobs with private investment. Playing off Obama’s mantra of “We Can’t Wait,” the video flashes phrases across the screen including, “We Can’t Wait for Leadership. We Can’t Wait for Jobs.”
Environmentalists note that in December 2010, according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada.
Bill McKibben, a climate activist and co-founder of the group 350.org, wrote in an e-mail that Boehner has received more than $1 million from fossil-fuel companies, “and now we find out that he’s got extensive personal investments in companies dependent on tarsands oil.”
“He was willing to shut down the government in part to prevent enough time for serious environmental review,” McKibben added. “In any other facet of our public life . . . this whole list taken together would be seen for the gross conflict of interest that it is.”
Top story out from Reuters right now about GOP pressure on the pipeline.
I can think about 4000 other shovel ready projects to make a better future for the country than this one.
great. Please name all 4,000.
Obama said, "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought... hahaha."
look it up.
I can list them all if you would like. Honestly. I can think of 5 green projects near my small town alone. Ive dealt with pipeline crews. Nepotism abounds and generations of welders, pipefitters, surveyors etc.. who are very close knit traveling families. If you are looking for a job your are not going to find it from the "liners."
Top story out from Reuters right now about GOP pressure on the pipeline.
I can think about 4000 other shovel ready projects to make a better future for the country than this one.
Boener is really quite the pathetic bully isn't he?
Awful little crying alcholic scab of man in my honest opinion ESPECIALLY if you are in a position of power of being a "public servant" but serving your own private interest holding the whole country hostage.
Top story out from Reuters right now about GOP pressure on the pipeline.
I can think about 4000 other shovel ready projects to make a better future for the country than this one.
great. Please name all 4,000.
Obama said, "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought... hahaha."
look it up.
I can list them all if you would like. Honestly. I can think of 5 green projects near my small town alone. Ive dealt with pipeline crews. Nepotism abounds and generations of welders, pipefitters, surveyors etc.. who are very close knit traveling families. If you are looking for a job your are not going to find it from the "liners."
What are the 5?
And what does nepotism have to do with... ah... nevermind.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,388
AMY GOODMAN: We’re at Park City Television in Park City, Utah, home of the Sundance Film Festival, the largest festival of independent cinema in this country. Over the weekend, I spoke with Robert Redford. He is the founder of Sundance Film Festival, well known as an actor, an Academy Award-winning director, and a producer. We sat down in the opening days of the film festival to talk about politics and his life. Over these next few days, we’ll play excerpts of that interview.
Today we’re going to begin with a conversation around President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline that would go from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. Robert Redford has weighed in on this, written columns, posted podcasts about it, a well-known environmentalist. He talked about the significance of this decision.
ROBERT REDFORD: I think it’s important because it ties to a number of crucial things. One is what kind of information gets to the American public that’s really the truth, that’s going to relate to what happens to their environment, which has already been so degraded over the years that we—there’s less and less planet to live on. And if anybody is thinking about their children or the children to come beyond that, then they should start thinking about what they’re going to provide for them to live on. And it’s the greed and the corporate control of profit, which was fine up to a point during the Industrial Revolution—I mean, that was great, helped this country grow strong and so forth—but you have to look at the other side of it now, and it’s kind of grim.
So this—this, to me, was an example of one of the big interests that I think has a lot of control over the country, certainly politically, which is Big Oil. Oil, coal and gas still dominate, in terms of control, because of their relationship with members of Congress they give a lot of money to, the jobs they claim they create, and so forth. But because times have changed so drastically, and I don’t think we can afford to be at the mercy of what Big Oil wants to do anymore, it’s a question of, "OK, you’ve had your thing." Now, if you just want to look at a real simple equation, which is what got me involved in the environment in the first place, it’s really simple. You have non-renewable energy sources, and you have renewable energy sources. And when I saw a map in the late '60s about that, I thought, "Wait a minute, all of our energy is going to non-renewable energy sources. Why are we not considering that it's non-renewable for a reason? It’s going to go out someday. And it’s polluting our environment. It’s creating health hazards and so forth. Why would we not be switching to renewable?" And that’s when I realized how politics plays its role in it. So, from that time on, I’ve been pretty active in trying to have a hard look at the environment and human rights. But those are the two areas that I’ve been focusing on.
So, right now, here’s this glaring example of what’s wrong. And that is, if you look at the facts, it’s a terrible situation—if the facts can get out there. But the facts are so busy being distorted, exaggerated, or just lied about by the other side, who has a more commanding presence on the airwaves and so forth, you’ve got a serious situation. And so, my effort to come out is, please look at the facts. Don’t look at—when you have people like Mitch McConnell, you have people like Boehner, Gingrich, who’s his own—he’s a whole other issue—but when they exaggerate the truth, or fabricate it, or just out-and-out lie about the actual facts, then you’ve got to step up and say, "Wait a second. That’s not the truth." So, what is the truth? And there is a lot of untruth being propagated by these people about this pipeline, 1,200 miles of crude oil, which is the dirtiest oil on the planet, being shipped from Canada, that wants to get to the ocean, to Houston. And for what? It’s not going to put any—it’s not going to put any gas in your tank. It’s oil that’s going to be exported to other countries. So, what is the point? In the meantime, it’s going to run through the heartland of America. And don’t tell me there won’t be any leaks. Of course there will be leaks, because we’ve seen it all over the map in recent months, years. So I just figure, OK, the American people will decide.
AMY GOODMAN: Actor Robert Redford. We will play excerpts of this interview throughout the week.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
In the meantime, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) launched a “countdown clock” that ticks off the time until the permitting deadline expires and posted a video on YouTube that touts the pipeline as a chance to create jobs with private investment. Playing off Obama’s mantra of “We Can’t Wait,” the video flashes phrases across the screen including, “We Can’t Wait for Leadership. We Can’t Wait for Jobs.”
Environmentalists note that in December 2010, according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada.
Bill McKibben, a climate activist and co-founder of the group 350.org, wrote in an e-mail that Boehner has received more than $1 million from fossil-fuel companies, “and now we find out that he’s got extensive personal investments in companies dependent on tarsands oil.”
“He was willing to shut down the government in part to prevent enough time for serious environmental review,” McKibben added. “In any other facet of our public life . . . this whole list taken together would be seen for the gross conflict of interest that it is.”
this is pretty much the crux of it ... greed and corporate influence ... the misinformation is staggering and most people just eat it up ...
Pipeline Bill to go into Congress renamed and repackaged....
Wouldn't 'cha know! :evil:
Right?
More threats and bullying from the GOP... totally expected and totally shows their lack of ability to be professional with their insistence to undermine the president. It's a wonder why anyone supports these clowns.
Comments
I said it would cost jobs, and it will cost jobs, because with it, a certain number of jobs will be created. Pretty simple to figure out. AS with any project, if you do it, jobs are created. If you don't, jobs are not created. Now, if you use those same resources ($) for something else that creates more jobs...then great!!!
it's called critical thinking ... or the lack thereof ...
....and it no longer insists...........
Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?
Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.
well ... what this highlights is the absurdity of politics ... without getting into the pros/cons of each project - the answer to your question is simply that these decisions are politicized instead of being about what the project is for ... this is a key failure in not on the gov't structure but the democracy (or people) ...
Look at the quote by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ail-plan/1
The House and Senate voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.
Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53 billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.
"Today's vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.
The Associated Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."
California was hoping for several billion dollars to keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes. The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.
no...i think the price went from 13 billion a few years ago to something like 40 billion
i disagree wholeheartedly ... without the wars - there would be no tar sands ... the tar sands is very costly to extract not only in dollars but in resources ... it uses 3 times the amount of resources as conventional crude - for that reason, oil can only be extracted from the tar sands when the price per barrel is over $75 ... something that wars and instability in the middle east does ... without those wars - tar sands oil would not be profitable ... that along with the massive subsidies given to this evil industry ...
also, we do not need oil ... there are alternatives for almost everything ... the fact we are still consuming oil at our current rate is reflective of how much influence that industry has over gov't policy ...
They are subsidised because of all of the people they employ. Without those jobs we would be in the mess the US is in (unemployment leads to crime and instability in society). Like I said, it is not all evil, people have a great quality of life because of it up here. I work here so I know that the media makes it sound like we are killing the planet. Also if we didnt need oil then quit driving cars, taking buses, flying, stop buying toys you may have like sleds, ATV's, boats etc, etc, etc. If anyone would do that (I would bet that mabe 1% of us would) then yes we would not need oil but until then, your argument is mute. You need oil to run most environmentally friendly alternatives as well, I mean how do you think these things get built?, Magic? Bearings need oil to stay lubricated, trucks and cranes use oil to build them so there is really no way to get away from using it. Oh and next time you go to a PJ show , ask youself how the band got to your town or how you got to the show. If you walked and they walked with all of their gear then I would listen to your point. Even though your shoes are made with rubber.(which is made from oil)
So I guess we should all thank the US for keeping a roof over my head . Thanks again for keeping the middle east unstable. Now you complain about a pipeline? WOW! Priorities eh? Do you realize how many pipelines are under our feet? Maybe we should create jobs by tearing all of them up. Obviously they are so bad for the environment, not like spilling oil into the ocean, that is ok right. Cuz if this pipeline isn't approved then more oil will be shipped by boat. (to China) Thats way better than over the land that it came from in the first place. (sarcastic)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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.' From the Cornell study.
Also
As of August 2011, 100,237 solar workers are employed in the United States. Solar is employing workers in all 50 states and across a vast supply chain. To put that in perspective: the solar industry has grown 6.8 percent over the previous year, adding 6,736 new workers in 12 months.
During that same time span, overall national employment grew by only 0.7 percent. The fossil fuel electric generation industry fared even worse, losing 2 percent of its workforce. These are not insignificant numbers -- and all policy makers would be wise to study them carefully.
Unlike the negative conjecture by pundits about the state of the U.S. solar industry, The Solar Foundation's stats are a real snapshot of the industry. (And they're backed by social science researchers at Cornell.) They're also backed up by countless industry success stories. Take solar installation firm SolarCity, which currently employs more than 1,200 people in 11 states. It will create jobs in an additional 22 states thanks to an agreement with the Department of Defense to install 160,000 rooftop solar installations on military housing complexes at 124 military bases across 34 states. The company hopes to fill many of those jobs with veterans and military family members. From the huffington post....also seen in other reports.
Top story out from Reuters right now about GOP pressure on the pipeline.
I can think about 4000 other shovel ready projects to make a better future for the country than this one.
they are subsidized because they have direct access to gov't and policy making ... like others have said - those subsidies and jobs can be created in so many more areas ... i also get the fact you are employed by the oil industry and you are prepared to take everything they tell you at face value ... so be it ..
i have friends who work for the non-profits that are looking into the impacts of the tar sands and the reality is that it is killing the planet ... and i see you did not want to address my point about foreign wars ...
great. Please name all 4,000.
Obama said, "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we thought... hahaha."
look it up.
Boener is really quite the pathetic bully isn't he?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... print.html
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Interesting, and not at all surprising.
What are the 5?
And what does nepotism have to do with... ah... nevermind.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re at Park City Television in Park City, Utah, home of the Sundance Film Festival, the largest festival of independent cinema in this country. Over the weekend, I spoke with Robert Redford. He is the founder of Sundance Film Festival, well known as an actor, an Academy Award-winning director, and a producer. We sat down in the opening days of the film festival to talk about politics and his life. Over these next few days, we’ll play excerpts of that interview.
Today we’re going to begin with a conversation around President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline that would go from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. Robert Redford has weighed in on this, written columns, posted podcasts about it, a well-known environmentalist. He talked about the significance of this decision.
ROBERT REDFORD: I think it’s important because it ties to a number of crucial things. One is what kind of information gets to the American public that’s really the truth, that’s going to relate to what happens to their environment, which has already been so degraded over the years that we—there’s less and less planet to live on. And if anybody is thinking about their children or the children to come beyond that, then they should start thinking about what they’re going to provide for them to live on. And it’s the greed and the corporate control of profit, which was fine up to a point during the Industrial Revolution—I mean, that was great, helped this country grow strong and so forth—but you have to look at the other side of it now, and it’s kind of grim.
So this—this, to me, was an example of one of the big interests that I think has a lot of control over the country, certainly politically, which is Big Oil. Oil, coal and gas still dominate, in terms of control, because of their relationship with members of Congress they give a lot of money to, the jobs they claim they create, and so forth. But because times have changed so drastically, and I don’t think we can afford to be at the mercy of what Big Oil wants to do anymore, it’s a question of, "OK, you’ve had your thing." Now, if you just want to look at a real simple equation, which is what got me involved in the environment in the first place, it’s really simple. You have non-renewable energy sources, and you have renewable energy sources. And when I saw a map in the late '60s about that, I thought, "Wait a minute, all of our energy is going to non-renewable energy sources. Why are we not considering that it's non-renewable for a reason? It’s going to go out someday. And it’s polluting our environment. It’s creating health hazards and so forth. Why would we not be switching to renewable?" And that’s when I realized how politics plays its role in it. So, from that time on, I’ve been pretty active in trying to have a hard look at the environment and human rights. But those are the two areas that I’ve been focusing on.
So, right now, here’s this glaring example of what’s wrong. And that is, if you look at the facts, it’s a terrible situation—if the facts can get out there. But the facts are so busy being distorted, exaggerated, or just lied about by the other side, who has a more commanding presence on the airwaves and so forth, you’ve got a serious situation. And so, my effort to come out is, please look at the facts. Don’t look at—when you have people like Mitch McConnell, you have people like Boehner, Gingrich, who’s his own—he’s a whole other issue—but when they exaggerate the truth, or fabricate it, or just out-and-out lie about the actual facts, then you’ve got to step up and say, "Wait a second. That’s not the truth." So, what is the truth? And there is a lot of untruth being propagated by these people about this pipeline, 1,200 miles of crude oil, which is the dirtiest oil on the planet, being shipped from Canada, that wants to get to the ocean, to Houston. And for what? It’s not going to put any—it’s not going to put any gas in your tank. It’s oil that’s going to be exported to other countries. So, what is the point? In the meantime, it’s going to run through the heartland of America. And don’t tell me there won’t be any leaks. Of course there will be leaks, because we’ve seen it all over the map in recent months, years. So I just figure, OK, the American people will decide.
AMY GOODMAN: Actor Robert Redford. We will play excerpts of this interview throughout the week.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
this is pretty much the crux of it ... greed and corporate influence ... the misinformation is staggering and most people just eat it up ...
Pipeline Bill to go into Congress renamed and repackaged....
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
More threats and bullying from the GOP... totally expected and totally shows their lack of ability to be professional with their insistence to undermine the president. It's a wonder why anyone supports these clowns.
Secure Tomorrow Act of 2012 or K-FAST
LOL because we dont want to be dependent on Middle East for oil... laughable. How about trying investing in alternate technologies?