[stupendousman]

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Obama claimed that helping secure domestic energy sources which requires manpower and labor would result in fewer jobs created than "extending unemployment insurance."

Really? Did he mean to say that, or is he really that clueless as to how things work? I'm sure there will be some sycophants who will try and spin this into making some kind of sense, but does a guy really deserve to be President who thinks that hiring people for real jobs that produce something is the same as paying people who are watching TV all day?

[Athens]

Not Obama's fault, the republicans stuck in a 2 month dead line through congress which was not enough time for EPA and other agencies to assess the pipeline. The arbritary deadline is what killed the deal. TransCanada can make a new application.

Obama blames Republicans
A statement released by U.S. President Barack Obama put the blame on Congressional Republicans, who inserted a 60-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline in a December 2011 bill to continue U.S. payroll tax cuts.

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in the statement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-pipeline.html

Oh well China can have our oil. Will just add to global pollution with the tankers.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Not Obama's fault, the republicans stuck in a 2 month dead line through congress which was not enough time for EPA and other agencies to assess the pipeline.

It's not Obama's fault that he either believes something that is totally illogical and would seem to explain many of his failures, or that it's not his fault that his telepromper made a mistake?

I'm talking about the incredibly stupid claims he made, not the incredibly stupid opportunity he passed up.

[subego]

Reading the article, it's a continuation of unemployment benefits and a payroll tax cut.

Would a payroll tax cut not create jobs?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reading the article, it's a continuation of unemployment benefits and a payroll tax cut.

Would a payroll tax cut not create jobs?

More then actually creating jobs? I don't see how. That is on top of all the jobs you are assuming will stay lost with paying more people to stay home. I can't see where there will be a net gain there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reading the article, it's a continuation of unemployment benefits and a payroll tax cut.

Would a payroll tax cut not create jobs?

I never understood the logic why it would.
No company is going to hire more people just because of payroll tax cuts.

If the argument is that LOWER taxation would lead to more disposable income, and hence, spending, fine.
But then you also need to CUT government spending in accordance with the tax cuts.

Just lowering taxes and keep spending via more deficits is not helping. It would be none different than just outright printing money and giving it to people so they can spend more. If that was a viable solution, I'd say let's print Eleventy Billion $$$.

-t

[Big Mac]

I love how somehow it's the Republicans' fault that they imposed a deadline for him to make a decision. Not his fault for making the stupid, environmental nut-job decision that could see Canada help China further tighten its grip on world oil supplies.

And touting more unemployment benefits? Wow he really wants to be France Jr.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I never understood the logic why it would.
No company is going to hire more people just because of payroll tax cuts.

Agreed. Companies will hire if there is enough DEMAND to justify it.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If the argument is that LOWER taxation would lead to more disposable income, and hence, spending, fine.

And that is EXACTLY what the argument is. Payroll tax cuts puts more money in the hands of the working and middle class. Extending unemployment benefits in an economy where there are presently 4 unemployed individuals for every 1 job opening puts money in the hands of someone who otherwise would have no income. Precisely the demographic that is most likely to SPEND it. Thereby increasing AGGREGATE DEMAND in the economy ... which leads to hiring in the private sector to service it.

These two items affect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans. The Keystone XL project ... by TransCanada's own figures .... would create approximately 6000 TEMPORARY jobs. So you do the math.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But then you also need to CUT government spending in accordance with the tax cuts.

Just lowering taxes and keep spending via more deficits is not helping. It would be none different than just outright printing money and giving it to people so they can spend more. If that was a viable solution, I'd say let's print Eleventy Billion $$$.

The problem here T is that this is rooted in ideology and not economics. And individual business is going to hire or not hire based upon the economic situation facing that particular business. How much the federal government is going to "spend" on F-22 fighter jets is totally irrelevant.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I love how somehow it's the Republicans' fault that they imposed a deadline for him to make a decision. Not his fault for making the stupid, environmental nut-job decision that could see Canada help China further tighten its grip on world oil supplies.

You do realize that most domestic oil production gets exported anyway right? Which is the likely outcome for the oil produced by this particular Keystone XL project.

Having said that .... my position on this is that it's become a pretty silly political football. The GOP is typically beholden to the corporate interests of Big Oil. Consequences be damned. And this pipeline is presently designed to cross extremely sensitive ecosystems in the US. A pipeline that's already sprung several minor leaks in the sections that have already been constructed ... and now they want to extend that over aquifers that provide drinking and irrigation water to MILLIONS OF AMERICANS in the Midwest? A major BP-like spill in that area would be DEVASTATING ... and some of our good friends on the right simply need to understand that some things (like human life and health) are more important than the Almighty Dollar. Oh and did I mention that the Republican Governor or Nebraska shares this concern?

Now on the other hand, the Obama Administration is stuck between two core constituencies itself. Environmentalists and Labor. The former opposes the project for the reasons I outlined above ... but let's keep it real. They will oppose it even if a more suitable route was found because they are pushing the country to adopt more clean energy rather than increase what is even a dirtier and more toxic form of oil production. Labor of course favors it because it's looking at it from a jobs standpoint. I think the Obama Administration is looking to thread the needle on this politically. The GOP attempted to force his hand by sticking this entirely irrelevant measure into the Payroll Tax Cut Extension bill. So the Obama Administration rejects it on the grounds of it being an "arbitrary deadline" in order to counter criticism in his base that he won't stand up to the GOP. And the environmentalists are happy to boot. But the decision is made "without prejudice" so TransCanada is free to reapply for the permit with an alternate route. Which will likely happen and that will get the Obama Administration off the hook for making a 60 day decision. If I had to put money on it an alternate route that avoids sensitive aquifers will get approved. Then Labor will be happy. The GOP critics will be neutralized. The Environmentalists will grumble but they will fall in line because he tossed them a bone earlier ... and he's still pushing other Green Energy initiatives.

Imagine if this hadn't been politicized at all?

OAW

EDIT: Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it this way .....

What's really going on here, of course, is the most craven sort of election-year politics. The Obama administration seemed to be on its way to approving Keystone when environmental groups made the pipeline a key test of their support for the president, who suddenly decided the administration couldn't possibly make a decision until sometime after the election.

Congressional Republicans saw an opportunity to put the president in a box: Approve the pipeline and alienate core Democratic environmentalists, or reject it and let Republicans attack him for forgoing the thousands of jobs that pipeline construction would bring. As part of last December's agreement to extend the payroll tax cuts for two months, Republicans required Obama to make a decision on the pipeline within 60 days. On Wednesday, the administration said that timetable didn't give it enough time to evaluate alternate routes for the pipeline in Nebraska, so it would have to say no.

The administration made itself vulnerable to being hogtied on this issue by allowing the approval process to drag on far longer than necessary. But if Republicans' highest priority was the jobs and oil the pipeline would bring, they could have tried to negotiate a mutually acceptable timetable with the president. What they actually wanted was to embarrass Obama, and they succeeded.

The biggest loser in this game of political football is the national interest.

Editorial: Obama's pipeline decision delays energy security - USA Today

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

These two items affect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans. The Keystone XL project ... by TransCanada's own figures .... would create approximately 6000 TEMPORARY jobs. So you do the math.

I'm not sure what "math" I'm supossed to do.

In the REAL world, there is a difference between "productive jobs" that add value, and phoney jobs that are generated by debt-financed spending.

Keystone XL would have added value w/o additional debt.

You can NOT spend you way to prosperity and higfher GDP.
Have we not learned the lesson ? Our whole economy in the last 30 years was inflated by debt. The chicken WILL come home to roost sooner or later.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not sure what "math" I'm supossed to do.

Well that speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

In the REAL world, there is a difference between "productive jobs" that add value, and phoney jobs that are generated by debt-financed spending.

I daresay your definition of "productive jobs" is highly subjective and rooted in ideology. Are all the military personnel who take home a paycheck not working a "productive job" because the federal government is engaging in "debt-financed spending"? What about all the workers at Boeing and Northrop Grumman and other defense contractors who supply the military with goods and services and are paid by the federal government that is engaging in "debt-financed spending"? Are the people that work in companies that supply OFFICE SUPPLIES to federal government agencies not working a "productive job"? I see .... their paychecks that they then turn around and spend in the PRIVATE SECTOR on food, clothing, housing, entertainment, etc. must simply be a figment of their collective imagination.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Keystone XL would have added value w/o additional debt.

Perhaps. But the point is that the "added value" of 160 million plus continuing their payroll tax cuts far outweighed the "added value" of approximately 6000 TEMPORARY construction jobs. Despite the former being debt-financed.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You can NOT spend you way to prosperity and higfher GDP.

Spoken like someone who apparently doesn't know the definition of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

C - Private Consumption
I - Gross Investment
G - Government Spending
X - Exports
M - Imports

Government Spending BY DEFINITION increases GDP. Period. There is no debate on this point. No discussion. Ideology does not trump BASIC ARITHMETIC. That is all.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Have we not learned the lesson ? Our whole economy in the last 30 years was inflated by debt. The chicken WILL come home to roost sooner or later.

Indeed. But will you at least acknowledge that this is a SEPARATE ISSUE? The issue here is the pros vs cons of the Keystone XL project. The economic benefits vs the ecological impact.

OAW

[turtle777]

Oh F*ck, here we go with the Keynesian nonsense again.

I never disputed that GS doesn't add to GDP. I'm saying it's irrelevant in the long run, as well as any other debt-financed GDP increase.

If we could just borrow-&-spend ourselves to prosperity, I'm with Kyle Bass: "F*ck, why stop at a few Billion, let's spend Trillions. Make it count."

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh F*ck, here we go with the Keynesian nonsense again.

That's not Keynesian. If we followed Keynesian economics in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's not Keynesian. If we followed Keynesian economics in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.

You are right, I should have said Neo-Keynesian, which only focuses on the government spending in downturns, but ignores the government SAVINGS in good years.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh F*ck, here we go with the Keynesian nonsense again.

Uhh .... no. That's not "Keynesian". It's the definition of GDP as calculated by the "expenditure" approach. Even if you chose to use the "production" or "income" approach it does not matter because theoretically they are all designed to end up with the same result.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I never disputed that GS doesn't add to GDP. I'm saying it's irrelevant in the long run, as well as any other debt-financed GDP increase.

Well except for the part where you did. Right here when YOU SAID ...

Originally Posted by turtle777

You can NOT spend you way to prosperity and higher GDP.

Now I don't know about you ... but where I come from when one "adds to GDP" that will by definition result in "higher GDP". Yet you explicitly said that it would NOT. Even capitalized it for emphasis. These are your words T. So sorry. Don't hate the player ... hate the game.

Originally Posted by turtle777

If we could just borrow-&-spend ourselves to prosperity, I'm with Kyle Bass: "F*ck, why stop at a few Billion, let's spend Trillions. Make it count."

And again. I AGREED with you on that point. Over the long-term excessive debt-financed spending is detrimental. Where you and I likely disagree is in its short-term utility. Given some of your posts lately it appears that you are somewhat enamored with the socio-economic and political philosophy of Ron Paul. Someone who is advocating slashing federal spending by a TRILLION dollars in the first year of his "no-chance-in-hell" Presidency. Which is a prime example of ideology trumping basic mathematics and common sense. Slashing government spending by a trillion dollars in year one would result in a trillion dollar reduction in GDP. Well by definition a "recession" is two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP. A shock of this sort to the economy in such a short time frame would plunge the economy into a depression. Unemployment would skyrocket! And no the private sector wouldn't pick up the slack anytime soon even if the federal budget was balanced because not enough people would have jobs to purchase additional goods/services. The US is running trillion dollar deficits because the Bush Administration cut taxes, increased spending, and instituted policies that plunged the US into the Great Recession. We presently borrow 40 cents for every dollar the federal government spends. Cutting spending by 40 cents (i.e. a trillion dollars) will NOT put that money back into the hands of the taxpayers and magically grow the economy like Mr. Paul contends ... because it was borrowed money that wasn't coming out of taxpayers hands to begin with! Again ... this is MATH! Hell COMMON SENSE should tell us all that the treatment shouldn't put the patient in worse shape than the disease.

But like I said ... this is a separate issue. One you apparently can't bring yourself to acknowledge.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You are right, I should have said Neo-Keynesian, which only focuses on the government spending in downturns, but ignores the government SAVINGS in good years.

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't really see the point of the OPs original question. Surely republicans don't care if the president has a brain. They demonstrated this when they elected GWB. Twice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I never understood the logic why it would.
No company is going to hire more people just because of payroll tax cuts.

If the argument is that LOWER taxation would lead to more disposable income, and hence, spending, fine.
But then you also need to CUT government spending in accordance with the tax cuts.

Just lowering taxes and keep spending via more deficits is not helping. It would be none different than just outright printing money and giving it to people so they can spend more. If that was a viable solution, I'd say let's print Eleventy Billion $$$.

-t

Wouldn't the Keystone project be funded with the same debt?

[OAW]

^^^^^

Not at all. It is privately financed. The government is involved because it has to approve the project. The main sticking point is the environmental concerns.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Obama claimed that helping secure domestic energy sources which requires manpower and labor would result in fewer jobs created than "extending unemployment insurance."

Really? Did he mean to say that, or is he really that clueless as to how things work? I'm sure there will be some sycophants who will try and spin this into making some kind of sense, but does a guy really deserve to be President who thinks that hiring people for real jobs that produce something is the same as paying people who are watching TV all day?

Pres. Obama is right. Extending unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts will create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline.

[hyteckit]

Hey BP, when are you going to pay the taxpayers back for the oil spill?

[screener]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't really see the point of the OPs original question.

The stupendous one didn't think it through, again.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't really see the point of the OPs original question. Surely republicans don't care if the president has a brain. They demonstrated this when they elected GWB. Twice.

Actually, the entire country voted and GWB got it and as a citizen of this country, I care.

However bad GWB was, I don't think that GWB would have ever tried to make an argument like OHB did. Bush wasn't great, but the guy in now makes Bush look like mega brain.

[stupendousman]

Another guy who makes Bush look smart...

Biden’s oops moment in SF: “Giants on their way to Super Bowl” | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, the entire country voted and GWB got it and as a citizen of this country, I care.

However bad GWB was, I don't think that GWB would have ever tried to make an argument like OHB did. Bush wasn't great, but the guy in now makes Bush look like mega brain.

I know you guys on either side are often fiercely loyal to your parties, but seriously, you cannot believe that Bush is more intelligent than Obama.

[turtle777]

^^^ I don't think we can assert that Obama is more intelligent.
He's the better speaker / liar politician / lip-service-giver.

Apparantly, many people have real problems looking beyond just the words.
Because if you look past what Obama says, he's not better at all than Bush, and in many ways, frightenly alike.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I know you guys on either side are often fiercely loyal to your parties, but seriously, you cannot believe that Bush is more intelligent than Obama.

Why? Because the media has told you that Obama is smart and Bush is dumb? Is it that Obama's college records are more impressive? Oh...we really don't much of anything about Obama's time in college. He keeps most of his past a secret, or at least tries to. We do know that he doesn't like to open his mouth unless there are prepared, unmemorized words that are going to come out.

I wasn't a huge Bush fan on all accounts, but I don't remember seeing make some of the most boneheaded mistakes that Obama has, unless of course Obama IS a genius and really just wants to keep America from being great so that all the other countries can compete.

I'm not convinced either guy is all that bright, and Joe Biden has had more verbal gaffes and examples of misspeaking than Bush and Obama put together. None of the three are a Newt Gingrich, for instance.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? Because the media has told you that Obama is smart and Bush is dumb? Is it that Obama's college records are more impressive? Oh...we really don't much of anything about Obama's time in college. He keeps most of his past a secret, or at least tries to. We do know that he doesn't like to open his mouth unless there are prepared, unmemorized words that are going to come out.

I wasn't a huge Bush fan on all accounts, but I don't remember seeing make some of the most boneheaded mistakes that Obama has, unless of course Obama IS a genius and really just wants to keep America from being great so that all the other countries can compete.

I'm not convinced either guy is all that bright, and Joe Biden has had more verbal gaffes and examples of misspeaking than Bush and Obama put together. None of the three are a Newt Gingrich, for instance.

Media doesn't have to tell me anything. Just watching videos of Bush and Perry tells me they are dumb.

[BadKosh]

Isn't the military spending part of the protecting our citizens that the President is supposed to do?

[el chupacabra]

Obama hasn't rejected the pipeline so I don't see what the big deal is. It's just put on hold until further evaluation. If it was coming close to my town/water-source I'd want the environment protected as much as possible too. I'd might even be in an outrage that people in other states think we should all just except a pipeline coming through our area so they can have cheaper oil. Good to see the environmentalists are saving the day again.

Having recently moved to Texas I have seen first hand what happens when liberal corporate communist republicans control things. Our air is full of benzene and other petrol chemicals I can't pronounce or spell. Kids are dropping dead from leukemia. And god knows what combination of chemicals other than radiation is in our water supply; We know that much of the radioactive water has been in EPA violation for about 10 years now. On a good day the water tastes like cough syrup without the cherry flavoring; on a bad day it tastes like recycled sewage. We know that in Galveston bay there's still many tons of toxic waste barrels that companies used to just dump there.

Careful what you wish for, you don't want your state to become Texasized... which is where many of these ideological ideas originate.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? Because the media has told you that Obama is smart and Bush is dumb?

I don't know anything about either of their college records. Obama can string a sentence together, pronounce words correctly, and says them like he understands what they mean. You might criticise him for being reliant on speechwriters when addressing the public (though this should come as no surprise given the ridiculous levels of opposition scrutiny he has faced since day one) but I got the strong sense that Bush couldn't tie his own shoelaces without help.

This is all pointless though because you clearly have no intention of being objective about two different people and looking beyond the colour of their campaign flyers.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Isn't the military spending part of the protecting our citizens that the President is supposed to do?

From what?

[besson3c]

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not really all that funny.

Obama comes looking for government money to create government dependent jobs and spend gazillions on stuff that will not really create any jobs.

An opportunity comes about to create non-government dependent jobs requiring really no federal dollars to be spent, and an editorial cartoonist and poster to an internet forum seem not to be able to tell the difference between the two.

[besson3c]

I'm just positive you've done a careful and unbiased assessment of this too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm just positive you've done a careful and unbiased assessment of this too.

What part of my analysis do you disagree with?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What part of my analysis do you disagree with?

There is nothing to disagree with because you didn't provide an analysis, you just made some unsubstantiated statements. It wasn't an analysis.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is nothing to disagree with because you didn't provide an analysis, you just made some unsubstantiated statements. It wasn't an analysis.

So you see no difference in taxpayers paying for someone to work by taking their income than jobs being created because they create value that people volunteer to pay for?

[besson3c]

Pretty leading question!

I'm not interested in taking subject matter involving as many variables as this does and reducing it to simplistic punchy little remarks that combat beliefs of yours that are not going to change no matter what is said, I was just hoping that you'd be interested in a more open-minded sort of discussion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Pretty leading question!

I'm not interested in taking subject matter involving as many variables as this does and reducing it to simplistic punchy little remarks that combat beliefs of yours that are not going to change no matter what is said, I was just hoping that you'd be interested in a more open-minded sort of discussion.

Actually, you are interested because that's EXACTLY what you offered with the political cartoon. An attempt to reduce a situation involving many variables into a punchy little remark that attempted to paint the GOP as unreasonable.

Don't give the medicine if you're afraid to take it yourself. You offered commentary, I pointed out how your commentary failed, and then you just criticized my disagreement without explaining how my rebuttal wasn't valid.

Okay - if that's all you've got.

[besson3c]

Ahhh, intimidation, sweet!

That cartoon was not intended as a response to something you said or an attempt to engage with you in conversation, and my response pointing out your lack of analysis was merely an observation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh, intimidation, sweet!

How is pointing our that your post was lacking in substance in regards to this thread, intimidation?

That cartoon was not intended as a response to something you said or an attempt to engage with you in conversation, and my response pointing out your lack of analysis was merely an observation.

IOW, another trademarked Besson vapor response - simply intended to please you by seeing your "name" on the page, while adding little to the conversation at hand. Seriously - if you just want to share something that has nothing to do with what the OP wrote - start your own thread.

Othewise, thanks for your participation.

[besson3c]

Whatever...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever, this thread blows anyway.

Blows your brain ?

See, if you were Obama, you wouldn't have that problem.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Blows your brain ?

See, if you were Obama, you wouldn't have that problem.

-t

I have no defense against Republican wordplay. Remember, the best I came up with was stormbama, which was mediocre at best.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Haha.. that's funny cause it's true.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha.. that's funny cause it's true.

Funny also because the pipeline wasn't a rejection of the premise necessarily, just a rejection of the stupid political tactics involved with the attached deadline.

It would be cool if x months later Obama came back with his assessment of the project and either went ahead with it or shot it down depending on the results of this assessment.

[BadKosh]

Deadline? No different than the "Hurry up" attitude Owe-bama had while trying to get that POS "JOBS" bill passed. Even Dingy Harry knew it wouldn't pass.