The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
The way you are framing the question makes it impossible to answer. If there were other investments that private companies could make (and turn a profit on) in the current economy then they would already be making them.
So what you're really looking for is how the government can interfere in order to provide opportunities for businesses. Except you've said no public investment! So there goes public spending and subsidies.. which means what you're really after is what regulation the government can enact, roll back, or ignore in order to make private business ventures profitable, and the answer is there's plenty! Repeal all zoning and permitting laws! End the EPA! It's just that we as a society have decided that we don't like indentured servitude or rivers that catch on fire or entire cities that collapse when a minor earthquake strikes.
Squigie pretty much nailed it. "Do Nothing" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "Terrible Idea".
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
I honestly believe you really can go into details, though. I don't think you've thought it through very well. Just handing out cash isn't sustainable in the longterm, and we both know it... since the longterm projection for any rational choice is unavoidable global misery and economic collapse (worst case), we ought to be thinking about how to sustain ourselves as best we can, with projects that create jobs and don't harm the environment. I'm amazed that your response to "we need jobs that don't fuck up the planet" is "Well, nevermind about jobs. We don't need those."
I'm sorry asking for details in a discussion is making it tough on you, but it's sort of on you to offer alternatives. While you're at it, you should try to be less passive-aggressive in your "parting shot" at me. I often decide not to bother with a discussion, but I try not to tack on a condescending, dismissive insult when I exit stage right.
I'm not actually sorry. Your advocacy picks sides against employment at a really rough time, and while it's probably the correct position, you ought to feel some sort of duty to at least be aware of real-world alternatives. Hating the correct things isn't enough to let you call yourself virtuous, when there's a human cost involved with either choice.
You are making a assumption that everything that we can do about global warming will cost jobs. Lots of things we can do in help create jobs.
Example: providing loans for low income households to upgrade their home's insulation. It doesn't cost taxpayers anything as the bonds are free (right now), it provides jobs and over the life of the insulation it will pay for itself.
You guys are thinking about this the wrong way. We should repeal all the safety standards associated with this pipeline. Do you have any idea how many jobs and man-hours of work will be involved in cleaning up spills leeching into aquifiers and farmland?
This is also why we should be going right ahead with coal seam gas fracking!
EDIT: Global warming is also a silly reason to oppose this - idiotic pathing with this thing is going to cause plenty of immediate environmental disasters all on its own.
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
The way you are framing the question makes it impossible to answer. If there were other investments that private companies could make (and turn a profit on) in the current economy then they would already be making them.
So what you're really looking for is how the government can interfere in order to provide opportunities for businesses. Except you've said no public investment! So there goes public spending and subsidies.. which means what you're really after is what regulation the government can enact, roll back, or ignore in order to make private business ventures profitable, and the answer is there's plenty! Repeal all zoning and permitting laws! End the EPA! It's just that we as a society have decided that we don't like indentured servitude or rivers that catch on fire or entire cities that collapse when a minor earthquake strikes.
Squigie pretty much nailed it. "Do Nothing" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "Terrible Idea".
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all the possible projects are already being pursued. All of them, really? All the good ideas are already in progress? Really?
Doing nothing has a cost. You shouldn't be comfortable with the cost. I'm not comfortable with the cost, so I asked for alternative ideas to promote that mitigate the cost. You guys have twisted and turned in every possible way to avoid offering any. I can't think of a single reason why, except you're convinced I secretly hold beliefs I'm not sharing. What the fuck, guys?
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
The way you are framing the question makes it impossible to answer. If there were other investments that private companies could make (and turn a profit on) in the current economy then they would already be making them.
So what you're really looking for is how the government can interfere in order to provide opportunities for businesses. Except you've said no public investment! So there goes public spending and subsidies.. which means what you're really after is what regulation the government can enact, roll back, or ignore in order to make private business ventures profitable, and the answer is there's plenty! Repeal all zoning and permitting laws! End the EPA! It's just that we as a society have decided that we don't like indentured servitude or rivers that catch on fire or entire cities that collapse when a minor earthquake strikes.
Squigie pretty much nailed it. "Do Nothing" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "Terrible Idea".
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all the possible projects are already being pursued. All of them, really? All the good ideas are already in progress? Really?
Are you saying that the free market can fail? And that government may need to involve itself?
I mean, if investors and venture capitalists with millions and billions of dollars at their disposal can't find business opportunities to exploit without any government subsidies or assistance, then why do you think a bunch of intertubers will be able to?
If the "cost" you're referring to is "jobs", then government spending can do that on needed infrastructure projects without the potential for an environmental catastrophe, as has been mentioned several times in this thread. Bam. Solved.
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
The way you are framing the question makes it impossible to answer. If there were other investments that private companies could make (and turn a profit on) in the current economy then they would already be making them.
So what you're really looking for is how the government can interfere in order to provide opportunities for businesses. Except you've said no public investment! So there goes public spending and subsidies.. which means what you're really after is what regulation the government can enact, roll back, or ignore in order to make private business ventures profitable, and the answer is there's plenty! Repeal all zoning and permitting laws! End the EPA! It's just that we as a society have decided that we don't like indentured servitude or rivers that catch on fire or entire cities that collapse when a minor earthquake strikes.
Squigie pretty much nailed it. "Do Nothing" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "Terrible Idea".
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all the possible projects are already being pursued. All of them, really? All the good ideas are already in progress? Really?
I think this is a very good point: Plenty of times in history, innovation has come around because someone, out of nowhere, realized that independent inventions of the time could be combined to create something revolutionary. As a modern day example, the smartphone is a realization of computers being small and powerful enough to do every-day activities AND fit in your pocket, LCDs being small enough and high resolution enough to be adequate displays for pocket sized computers, batteries being able to power the whole system, cellular internet access (which is quite a bit older than smartphones,) sufficiently powerful and robust battery technology, and the opportunity for digital media distribution.
Those are all things that existed as individual things, but when placed together, pushed forward a new concept.
But the thing is, spool32, it sounds to me like that's an argument for government subsidies for exploration and exploitation of new technology. If there are --and I for one thing wholeheartedly think there are- viable commercial opportunities that have yet to be discovered despite available technology being up to the task, government funding to encourage exploration of these options is likely to encourage their discovery.
Where would nuclear power be if we'd only explored it through private funding?
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Constructing solar plants?
Repairing infrastructure?
Establishing grocery co-ops?
Conducting a detailed survey of the progess / decline of wetlands & forest over the next decade?
I love how Republicans always want to have both ways. If you propose a solution to a problem, they say that it's 'unrealistic' or that you'll never find the work force to do it. If you propose that a project is extremely problematic, they say, 'Well when's the last time you offered a solution that will employ so many people?'
I think this is a very good point: Plenty of times in history, innovation has come around because someone, out of nowhere, realized that independent inventions of the time could be combined to create something revolutionary. As a modern day example, the smartphone is a realization of computers being small and powerful enough to do every-day activities AND fit in your pocket, LCDs being small enough and high resolution enough to be adequate displays for pocket sized computers, batteries being able to power the whole system, cellular internet access (which is quite a bit older than smartphones,) sufficiently powerful and robust battery technology, and the opportunity for digital media distribution.
But you just described why smartphones didn't come out of nowhere; rather, they're the synthesis of dozens of components developed over decades by countless individuals.
That's rather the point; creating new things is largely a matter of combining existing technologies in new ways. Basically, we're looking at a bunch of datapoints that you could call 'inventions' or 'capabilities' or whatever word fits. Like, different polymers. Alloys. Superconductors. Pressboard. Knowledge of physics. To think that we've actually evaluated all the things we can do with everything that exists or is known right now is totally unrealistic. Even completely progressive and predictable technological progressions in one area can suddenly open up entirely new avenues for invention. So no, I don't mean out of nowhere in the sense that the building blocks didn't exist, I just mean out of nowhere in the sense that no one had previously realized how those blocks could be assembled into a new product.
I think I understand, and I agree. And I certainly don't actually think that everything that's out there to be invented has been invented. But even with such confluences, the number of actual jobs created in the United States are limited thanks to globalization (raw materials sourced from country A manufactured into components in country B and assembled in country C with designs produced in country D for sale in country E).
Specifically, we're evaluating opportunities that can
create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recent technology that would fit that criteria. For example, while the rise of the tablet certainly benefits the US economy to some extent, the entire table industry hasn't created 20,000 man-years of work in the United States in the last year- much less any one company, product, or project. You'd be strictly talking about large-scale investments into infrastructure or manufacturing. Which, like I said- if any opportunities were out there..
But even with such confluences, the number of actual jobs created in the United States are limited thanks to globalization (raw materials sourced from country A manufactured into components in country B and assembled in country C with designs produced in country D for sale in country E).
No arguments there from me. Globalization is just part of life these days.
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
solar powered electric bullet trains.
coast to freaking coast.
lots of jobs, green energy, plus, trains.
i have no sources to support this idea, but i like it, and think it would be neat.
i have no sources to support this idea, but i like it, and think it would be neat.
There are buses in Japan that provide a proof of concept for this idea - but, honestly, maglev trains are better than standard bullet trains.
So, solar powered maglev transit.
Better way of created 20,000+ man years of employment than building a fucking pipeline.
yeah but spool specifically required ideas that wouldn't involve spending any government money, which is why we went off on him earlier. Unfortunately, for one person to get an income, someone else has to spend the money on their salary.
Best idea I can think of for creating jobs without spending money: reform the Post Office to get rid of its absurd pension requirements. That'll save 100,000 jobs, and won't cost the government a penny.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
You guys are lucky. You don't live in Nebraska and thus can avoid being assaulted with "I'm totally an expert on oil stuff and I guarantee that oil will never leak into the underground water supply and you can trust me because I'm TOTALLY an expert" commercials twice a half-hour.
It's the height of disingenuous bullshit. These jobs aren't going to be filled by Nebraskans, America's not going to see one drop of the oil or the money generated from the export, gas prices will either not change or go up like normal and all of this non-pro stuff at the risk of polluting an extremely significant aquifer.
i have no sources to support this idea, but i like it, and think it would be neat.
There are buses in Japan that provide a proof of concept for this idea - but, honestly, maglev trains are better than standard bullet trains.
So, solar powered maglev transit.
Better way of created 20,000+ man years of employment than building a fucking pipeline.
yeah but spool specifically required ideas that wouldn't involve spending any government money, which is why we went off on him earlier. Unfortunately, for one person to get an income, someone else has to spend the money on their salary.
I think there is a ton of stuff the government can do without costing taxpayer a dime. If the government borrows money for a project and it pays for itself with interest it is not really coming out of anyone's pocket.
I think there is a ton of stuff the government can do without costing taxpayer a dime. If the government borrows money for a project and it pays for itself with interest it is not really coming out of anyone's pocket.
The government is borrowing money at a rate below the inflation rate.
i have no sources to support this idea, but i like it, and think it would be neat.
There are buses in Japan that provide a proof of concept for this idea - but, honestly, maglev trains are better than standard bullet trains.
So, solar powered maglev transit.
Better way of created 20,000+ man years of employment than building a fucking pipeline.
yeah but spool specifically required ideas that wouldn't involve spending any government money, which is why we went off on him earlier. Unfortunately, for one person to get an income, someone else has to spend the money on their salary.
I think there is a ton of stuff the government can do without costing taxpayer a dime. If the government borrows money for a project and it pays for itself with interest it is not really coming out of anyone's pocket.
You might think so, and I might think so, but the Republicans... are jittery.
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
I've been pretty proud of my area for totally saying no on fracking. They've been really pushing hard to sell fracking as a job creator but they never ever talk about how much damage it does. And, we went through this once with coal, so we know what "job creating" does to our local environment.
Yea, I'm not real happy New York is generally moving forward with fracking. They're staying the fuck away from where I live because it's a massive watershed but still. Ugh.
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
I've been pretty proud of my area for totally saying no on fracking. They've been really pushing hard to sell fracking as a job creator but they never ever talk about how much damage it does. And, we went through this once with coal, so we know what "job creating" does to our local environment.
The sad thing is that it'll probably lead to more jobs doing environmental cleanup than it ever did in actual construction. Well, assuming they even bother to do the cleanup.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
I've been pretty proud of my area for totally saying no on fracking. They've been really pushing hard to sell fracking as a job creator but they never ever talk about how much damage it does. And, we went through this once with coal, so we know what "job creating" does to our local environment.
The sad thing is that it'll probably lead to more jobs doing environmental cleanup than it ever did in actual construction. Well, assuming they even bother to do the cleanup.
Why would they? An environmental disaster anywhere other than California or New England doesn't matter in this country. Look at the freak out over the cat1 this summer compared to the mehness of every other hurricane ever.
The biggest problem with this whole bullshit story is that Congress is trying to force the president's hand about a project that nobody wants except for oil companies and the congressmen they paid for. The advisory people need more than 60 days to look at this project and its environmental impact. The company doesn't even have alternate routes picked out yet. It's just Republicans trying to be able to say "Oh look, the President killed your tax cut".
In good news, assuming Rick Scott doesn't send the money back to Washington, Everglades restoration got a big funding boost this week. So, silver lining I guess.
The fracking industry has to hire people to come hold pro-fracking signs in our county. When you have to pay people to be your supporters, you might not be making the best decisions.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
I've been pretty proud of my area for totally saying no on fracking. They've been really pushing hard to sell fracking as a job creator but they never ever talk about how much damage it does. And, we went through this once with coal, so we know what "job creating" does to our local environment.
The sad thing is that it'll probably lead to more jobs doing environmental cleanup than it ever did in actual construction. Well, assuming they even bother to do the cleanup.
Why would they? An environmental disaster anywhere other than California or New England doesn't matter in this country. Look at the freak out over the cat1 this summer compared to the mehness of every other hurricane ever.
The biggest problem with this whole bullshit story is that Congress is trying to force the president's hand about a project that nobody wants except for oil companies and the congressmen they paid for. The advisory people need more than 60 days to look at this project and its environmental impact. The company doesn't even have alternate routes picked out yet. It's just Republicans trying to be able to say "Oh look, the President killed your tax cut".
In good news, assuming Rick Scott doesn't send the money back to Washington, Everglades restoration got a big funding boost this week. So, silver lining I guess.
Rick Scott recently about-faced on all the school burning he does too. I think the 28% approval rating might have had something to do with it.
The republicans gave the Obama admin an easy out "We told you it would take more time, you say 60 days, we say can't be done so the answer is No, thanks for giving us an unreasonable timeline."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The republicans gave the Obama admin an easy out "We told you it would take more time, you say 60 days, we say can't be done so the answer is No, thanks for giving us an unreasonable timeline."
Yeah, seriously. It's not like they could FORCE him to act anyways.
PAD ID - 328,762,218
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Since it doesn't mandate construction of Keystone, anyone else hoping Obama comes out on Monday and says "Fine, you guys didn't want to wait for us to check it out and make sure it won't kill everyone in the midwest, so we're not building it."
Since it doesn't mandate construction of Keystone, anyone else hoping Obama comes out on Monday and says "Fine, you guys didn't want to wait for us to check it out and make sure it won't kill everyone in the midwest, so we're not building it."
I would be shocked if he said no to this.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The pipeline or the bill? Sadly, you're probably right on both.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I mean, we need the tax holiday (all economic experts say so), but fuck this pipeline if they're not going to let the State department actually research it.
Since it doesn't mandate construction of Keystone, anyone else hoping Obama comes out on Monday and says "Fine, you guys didn't want to wait for us to check it out and make sure it won't kill everyone in the midwest, so we're not building it."
Yesterday an Obama admin basically said with this timeline they've killed the pipeline based on that very language.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Since it doesn't mandate construction of Keystone, anyone else hoping Obama comes out on Monday and says "Fine, you guys didn't want to wait for us to check it out and make sure it won't kill everyone in the midwest, so we're not building it."
Yesterday an Obama admin basically said with this timeline they've killed the pipeline based on that very language.
Yeah, his press secretary keeps banging on the point that the company still doesn't have an alternate root so how can they evaluate it
At this point you'd think that perhaps the Republicans want it to die...
Even if they had a pipeline to texas it wouldn't suddenly mean the US gets less oil from the middle east.
I don't know about that. If it produces enough, it will be comparatively cheaper to get oil from the pipeline that it will be to ship it half way around the world.
So, we might end up buying less oil from the middle east.
But the bigger issue, is that oil is a global commodity, so it doesn't really make a difference if the canadians are selling it to the chinese, and we are buying our oil from the arabs, or the canadians are shipping it to us, and the chinese are buying oil from arabs. The same amount of oil, is being bought from the same people, for about the same amount. Canadian production might lower prices, by allowing OPEC less control over supply, but unless the global oil market is totally restructured or the amount of oil being used is decreased, it doesn't really mater who is buying from whom.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I mean, we need the tax holiday (all economic experts say so), but fuck this pipeline if they're not going to let the State department actually research it.
Posts
The way you are framing the question makes it impossible to answer. If there were other investments that private companies could make (and turn a profit on) in the current economy then they would already be making them.
So what you're really looking for is how the government can interfere in order to provide opportunities for businesses. Except you've said no public investment! So there goes public spending and subsidies.. which means what you're really after is what regulation the government can enact, roll back, or ignore in order to make private business ventures profitable, and the answer is there's plenty! Repeal all zoning and permitting laws! End the EPA! It's just that we as a society have decided that we don't like indentured servitude or rivers that catch on fire or entire cities that collapse when a minor earthquake strikes.
Squigie pretty much nailed it. "Do Nothing" is a perfectly reasonable alternative to "Terrible Idea".
You are making a assumption that everything that we can do about global warming will cost jobs. Lots of things we can do in help create jobs.
Example: providing loans for low income households to upgrade their home's insulation. It doesn't cost taxpayers anything as the bonds are free (right now), it provides jobs and over the life of the insulation it will pay for itself.
This is also why we should be going right ahead with coal seam gas fracking!
EDIT: Global warming is also a silly reason to oppose this - idiotic pathing with this thing is going to cause plenty of immediate environmental disasters all on its own.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all the possible projects are already being pursued. All of them, really? All the good ideas are already in progress? Really?
Doing nothing has a cost. You shouldn't be comfortable with the cost. I'm not comfortable with the cost, so I asked for alternative ideas to promote that mitigate the cost. You guys have twisted and turned in every possible way to avoid offering any. I can't think of a single reason why, except you're convinced I secretly hold beliefs I'm not sharing. What the fuck, guys?
Are you saying that the free market can fail? And that government may need to involve itself?
If the "cost" you're referring to is "jobs", then government spending can do that on needed infrastructure projects without the potential for an environmental catastrophe, as has been mentioned several times in this thread. Bam. Solved.
I think this is a very good point: Plenty of times in history, innovation has come around because someone, out of nowhere, realized that independent inventions of the time could be combined to create something revolutionary. As a modern day example, the smartphone is a realization of computers being small and powerful enough to do every-day activities AND fit in your pocket, LCDs being small enough and high resolution enough to be adequate displays for pocket sized computers, batteries being able to power the whole system, cellular internet access (which is quite a bit older than smartphones,) sufficiently powerful and robust battery technology, and the opportunity for digital media distribution.
Those are all things that existed as individual things, but when placed together, pushed forward a new concept.
But the thing is, spool32, it sounds to me like that's an argument for government subsidies for exploration and exploitation of new technology. If there are --and I for one thing wholeheartedly think there are- viable commercial opportunities that have yet to be discovered despite available technology being up to the task, government funding to encourage exploration of these options is likely to encourage their discovery.
Where would nuclear power be if we'd only explored it through private funding?
Constructing solar plants?
Repairing infrastructure?
Establishing grocery co-ops?
Conducting a detailed survey of the progess / decline of wetlands & forest over the next decade?
I love how Republicans always want to have both ways. If you propose a solution to a problem, they say that it's 'unrealistic' or that you'll never find the work force to do it. If you propose that a project is extremely problematic, they say, 'Well when's the last time you offered a solution that will employ so many people?'
Pretty disingenuous.
But you just described why smartphones didn't come out of nowhere; rather, they're the synthesis of dozens of components developed over decades by countless individuals.
Specifically, we're evaluating opportunities that can
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any recent technology that would fit that criteria. For example, while the rise of the tablet certainly benefits the US economy to some extent, the entire table industry hasn't created 20,000 man-years of work in the United States in the last year- much less any one company, product, or project. You'd be strictly talking about large-scale investments into infrastructure or manufacturing. Which, like I said- if any opportunities were out there..
No arguments there from me. Globalization is just part of life these days.
coast to freaking coast.
lots of jobs, green energy, plus, trains.
i have no sources to support this idea, but i like it, and think it would be neat.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
There are buses in Japan that provide a proof of concept for this idea - but, honestly, maglev trains are better than standard bullet trains.
So, solar powered maglev transit.
Better way of created 20,000+ man years of employment than building a fucking pipeline.
Best idea I can think of for creating jobs without spending money: reform the Post Office to get rid of its absurd pension requirements. That'll save 100,000 jobs, and won't cost the government a penny.
It's the height of disingenuous bullshit. These jobs aren't going to be filled by Nebraskans, America's not going to see one drop of the oil or the money generated from the export, gas prices will either not change or go up like normal and all of this non-pro stuff at the risk of polluting an extremely significant aquifer.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
This requirement is nonsensical. The pipeline construction will involve a substantial amount of government subsidy (on both sides of the border).
I think there is a ton of stuff the government can do without costing taxpayer a dime. If the government borrows money for a project and it pays for itself with interest it is not really coming out of anyone's pocket.
The government is borrowing money at a rate below the inflation rate.
You might think so, and I might think so, but the Republicans... are jittery.
Rich folks aren't going to hold their own signs. Don't be silly.
The sad thing is that it'll probably lead to more jobs doing environmental cleanup than it ever did in actual construction. Well, assuming they even bother to do the cleanup.
Why would they? An environmental disaster anywhere other than California or New England doesn't matter in this country. Look at the freak out over the cat1 this summer compared to the mehness of every other hurricane ever.
The biggest problem with this whole bullshit story is that Congress is trying to force the president's hand about a project that nobody wants except for oil companies and the congressmen they paid for. The advisory people need more than 60 days to look at this project and its environmental impact. The company doesn't even have alternate routes picked out yet. It's just Republicans trying to be able to say "Oh look, the President killed your tax cut".
In good news, assuming Rick Scott doesn't send the money back to Washington, Everglades restoration got a big funding boost this week. So, silver lining I guess.
Rick Scott recently about-faced on all the school burning he does too. I think the 28% approval rating might have had something to do with it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Think he'd like to explain how to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts?
Since it doesn't mandate construction of Keystone, anyone else hoping Obama comes out on Monday and says "Fine, you guys didn't want to wait for us to check it out and make sure it won't kill everyone in the midwest, so we're not building it."
Yesterday an Obama admin basically said with this timeline they've killed the pipeline based on that very language.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, his press secretary keeps banging on the point that the company still doesn't have an alternate root so how can they evaluate it
At this point you'd think that perhaps the Republicans want it to die...
I don't know about that. If it produces enough, it will be comparatively cheaper to get oil from the pipeline that it will be to ship it half way around the world.
So, we might end up buying less oil from the middle east.
But the bigger issue, is that oil is a global commodity, so it doesn't really make a difference if the canadians are selling it to the chinese, and we are buying our oil from the arabs, or the canadians are shipping it to us, and the chinese are buying oil from arabs. The same amount of oil, is being bought from the same people, for about the same amount. Canadian production might lower prices, by allowing OPEC less control over supply, but unless the global oil market is totally restructured or the amount of oil being used is decreased, it doesn't really mater who is buying from whom.
Cite reference all economic experts