Obama: Meh, the Keystone pipeline won’t really create jobs, you know

posted at 12:01 pm on March 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

House Republicans’ big meeting with President Obama on the Hill yesterday didn’t yield any sudden changes of heart on reaching some kind of big deficit bargain (shocking, considering how pure and straightforward I’m sure the president’s motives were, hem hem), but the president also kept his cards close to the vest on energy and how his administration is going to play the Keystone pipeline when Republicans pushed him on it. The White House insists that he didn’t provide any clues as to which way internal deliberations are leaning, but he did take a moment to rag on the economic benefits the pipeline’s construction could provide. The AP reports:

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., said Obama appeared “conflicted” on the pipeline, saying that many of the promised jobs would be temporary and that much of the oil produced likely would be exported.

But Terry said Obama also indicated that dire environmental consequences predicted by pipeline opponents were exaggerated.

“He said there were no permanent jobs, and that the oil will be put on ships and exported and that the only ones who are going to get wealthy are the Canadians,” Terry said. …

Obama said the pipeline “is not going to create as many jobs as you (Republicans) hope,” Scalise said. …

On at least one aspect of the pipeline, Obama is “flat-out-wrong,” Terry said. While some oil is likely to be exported, the total is far less than a majority, Terry said. “That was disturbing to me,” he said.

Okay, President Obama — let’s accept for a moment the premise that the Keystone pipeline will not create all of the direct jobs its proponents have claimed. That’s still not a reason not to build it, especially considering your own State Department has finally conceded its impact will be environmentally neutral. We’re talking about allowing free trade and the free market to function as it should, with both Canada and private companies investing in a fixture in the United States that would move oil to markets and grow the economy — and simply allowing that economic freedom, instead of shutting it down, does create jobs, and a heck of a lot more efficiently than all of the failed stimulus and government spending your administration has enacted to keep us stuck in the Longest. Recovery. Ever. Time to try something different, maybe?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

bho, you lie!
L

letget on March 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM

As I recall, the fact that the “shovel-ready” jobs the stimulus was supposed to create wouldn’t be “permanent” either didn’t seem to bother our president. Of course, it didn’t actually create any of those jobs, so I can see why he’d think that the pipeline wouldn’t either. Apparently if he approves it, it will be built by nanobots rather than people.

Athanasius on March 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I guess something is laking in my education but wouldn’t more oil on the market tend to lower prices or isn’t that included in this weekend’s talking points?

oldernwiser on March 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM

So lets see if I understand this correctly.
Stimulus monies paid to create 100 solar jobs is good but free market monies paid to create 100 oil jobs is bad. Since it doesn’t create enough jobs in his mind we shouldn’t do it.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 12:10 PM

How about building some new refineries? We could use the capacity and it takes people in jobs to run them. Get the boot of the EPA off of our businesses and industries necks.

karenhasfreedom on March 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The oil goes to China. What part of that doesn’t Commander Transparent like?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM

This joker has no inkling of anything beyond his self-gratification. Well, hell! HIS job is temporary, right? Since it is, maybe he shouldn’t have been elected in the first place, by his child-like complaining. And Washington isn’t making any money for all those failed green companies, is it; DC isn’t getting any tax revenue for its ‘investment’. I guess Obama shouldn’t have given them all the money, eh?

This guy is such a dolt! Did he ever truly grow up?

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 12:12 PM

yeah, who needs energy indepence from oil rich nations that hate our guts

DanMan on March 14, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Please note: All questions in my previous are rhetorical. ;-)

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Even if he’s right about the raw oil being exported (as opposed to refined on the gulf coast, it would be put on ships IN AMERICAN PORTS.

But that won’t create jobs?

Someone contact the dock workers ASAP.

joated on March 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM

“He said there were no permanent jobs,

Just let that sink in.

You’ve heard it before.

Ben Hur on March 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Low information voters are not interested in perpetual campaigns. Obama’s momentum following the election is over, and if he thinks turfing Keystone is a winner, he will be in GWB second term approval territory before long.

mwbri on March 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

On at least one aspect of the pipeline, Obama is “flat-out-wrong,” Terry said. While some oil is likely to be exported, the total is far less than a majority, Terry said. “That was disturbing to me,” he said.

Yes, when I go on lefty sites, everyone there says that ALL the oil will be exported, which is just false. Even if it were true, it would still be processed and exported through Texas and add to our state and national economy that way. Trade is a big part of the TX economy.

juliesa on March 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM

many of the promised jobs would be temporary and that much of the oil produced likely would be exported.

More proof that this idiot has never operated a business.

Temporary? So once the pipeline is built, it will never need maintenance? Upgrades? Cleaning?

O.K., so much of the oil would be exported. Are we going to just GIVE it way?? How are we going to export it? Magic?

Defend this dolt, trolls. I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM

The oil will just be exported, huh? Well, Mr. President, if you have a product, such as oil or nat gas, you can sell it to people who need it. They pay you money which you use to hire employees to make it work. Whatever’s left you can invest or keep as profit. Sounds crazy, but it’s called an “economy” and it actually works pretty well.

I know, right?

xuyee on March 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM

President Obama, Solyndra on line #1

portlandon on March 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The Canadian oil is not now available. When it is it will increase supply and lower cost. This will happen whether it goes through the Gulf states or Vancouver. Only in the Gulf there will be Americans at work as there will be with pipeline construction. Barky is always harping on infrastructure repair as an economic boon. Well it takes maybe a year to rehab a series of Interstate overpasses. When they’re finished tho guys are out of work> What’s the difference with the pipeline, except no tax dollars are funding it? Maybe Barky’s goal is to prevent the canucks from shipping their oil anywhere.

xkaydet65 on March 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Hey Dronemaster, much like welfare, not all jobs are permanant!

Seiu, federal workers exempt.!

can_con on March 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM

This guy is such a dolt! Did he ever truly grow up?

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 12:12 PM

when you grow up in sunny Hawaii smokin’ weed and blowing @#$%’s, you don’t.

GhoulAid on March 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM

It was my impression, when all of this was being discussed, last year, that if the Keystone pipleline wasn’t going to be built, the Canadians had plans to build their own pipeline, westward, so that Canadian ports could be used for shipment of the oil to China, which had already entered into discussions about purchasing said oil.

Anybody?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Well then, of course, we should nationalize the oil industry because studies have shown that for every dollar spent by the government creates 9.73 new private sector jobs.

Fenris on March 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

There needs to be a bill that specifies how much of the oil will be kept in the U.S. because that is a huge sticking point with many people I have talked to. Something concrete would take that talking point away and more people would support it.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Obama is slicker than anything a pipeline could hold.

Slimier even.

profitsbeard on March 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Only in the Gulf there will be Americans at work as there will be with pipeline construction.

There’s Barky’s problem right there – those are Red States, mainly. We can’t have THAT.

Jeff Weimer on March 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM

when you grow up in sunny Hawaii smokin’ weed and blowing @#$%’s, you don’t.

GhoulAid on March 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM

He must have started at a very young age. In my experience, the younger a person started doing that stuff, the dumber and more emotionally-stunted he was.

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Still conflicted? Is he going to take another year to decide? Are the Canadians p*ssed yet? Somebody send him CEO for Dummies stat.

LetsBfrank on March 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Don’t forget all those jobs created by building wind farms…

/phuquewit

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM

It was my impression, when all of this was being discussed, last year, that if the Keystone pipleline wasn’t going to be built, the Canadians had plans to build their own pipeline, westward, so that Canadian ports could be used for shipment of the oil to China, which had already entered into discussions about purchasing said oil.

Anybody?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

The Canadians don’t want the pipeline going across their country. (That does give one pause.) The Chinese have stated that they want to purchase the oil whether it goes through the U.S. or Canada.
That is why so many people are concerned about how much of the oil will be used domestically. Something in writing, as I stated previously, might calm people’s fears.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

There needs to be a bill that specifies how much of the oil will be kept in the U.S. because that is a huge sticking point with many people I have talked to. Something concrete would take that talking point away and more people would support it.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I can tell you first hand that domestic reservation policies are counterproductive.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Obama said the pipeline “is not going to create as many jobs as you (Republicans) hope,” Scalise said. …

Said by the man who had no idea what “shovel ready job” actually meant, and got it completely wrong.

Why does anyone give the time of day to anything this guy says?

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

If the Chinese are going to buy the oil regardless of pipeline endpoint, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it would be better for the US to sell them that oil from a US pipeline endpoint, rather than for the oil to be sold from a Canadian pipeline endpoint (meaning the US gets nothing for operating a pipeline)?

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:31 PM

They will be paying an estimated $60 million in property taxes in Nebraska over the next 16 years. This is just one state along the route. Since a majority of property tax revenues go to education, one would think that supposed proponents of education would be in favor of this. This doesn’t even address the impacts in other states or with other taxes (e.g sales tax, income tax).

This is a no-brainer.

weaselyone on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

and simply allowing that economic freedom,

Sorry Ericka, this is 100 percent totally opposed to Obama’s Marxists ideology. He is trying to implement the Cloward-Pivens Strategy, so that he can set the stage for a “Central Committee Command and Control” Marxist economy.

SWalker on March 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM

That is why so many people are concerned about how much of the oil will be used domestically. Something in writing, as I stated previously, might calm people’s fears.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

We export oil right now. Didn’t know that, did you? In fact, we’re the worlds 10th largest exporter.

We are a net importer of oil, I’ll give you that.

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

I can tell you first hand that domestic reservation policies are counterproductive.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

WHY? If the U.S. allows the pipeline, shouldn’t the people of this country be assured that most of the oil will be kept here? Isn’t the whole argument that this will help make us less dependent on foreign sources?

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

For the life of me, I don’t understand why anybody in those meetings just doesn’t say he is a liar and a demagogue…..

ultracon on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Repeat after me, Barry –

Carbon is the source of all evil in the modern world.

RedPepper on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

The states through which this pipeline would pass should just go ahead and build it. Dare this administration to stop them. What can they do about it?

Can you imagine the optics of troops and a gang of clipboard carrying bureaucrats physically standing in the way of Americans working?

Bring it.

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Obama said the pipeline “is not going to create as many jobs as you (Republicans) hope,” Scalise said. …

Said by the man who had no idea what “shovel ready job” actually meant, and got it completely wrong.

Why does anyone give the time of day to anything this guy says?

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Hell, said by the same man who claimed that a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR debt was not a imminent crisis.

SWalker on March 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

weaselyone on March 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

A Liberal believes in the utopia that is eternal revenues for ever larger Government without any of the mining or industry or commerce required to create profits that create tax dollars to pay for the bloated whale of a Government they claim to love so much.

Instead, the “enternal sunshine of the spotless Liberal mind” comforts itself on rosy dreams of class warfare and redistributing wealth earned by someone else’s efforts.

Parasites, really.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

TY for the response.

Along with some of the people you’ve talked to, about this, I, too, have a problem with feeding fuel to the machine that wants to eat us up, alive.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Lets see, in what states will the jobs be created? Hmmm, Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota. All red states. Hmm.

Denied!

iurockhead on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

We export oil right now. Didn’t know that, did you? In fact, we’re the worlds 10th largest exporter.

We are a net importer of oil, I’ll give you that.

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Yes, I do know that! That is why I and millions of others are skeptical about this pipeline helping to make us energy independent. I also know that we have a huge trade deficit with China and that China holds much of our debt. Try again.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Government should only interject itself into the free market and into the private lives of its citizens when its action will be an unequivocal good. Here, Obama appears to be suggesting that he is considering preventing something because the free market and the citizens haven’t shown that their actions wouldn’t be an unequivocal good? Just insane. Insane. We are living in Bizarro America, people.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 12:40 PM

For the life of me, I don’t understand why anybody in those meetings just doesn’t say he is a liar and a demagogue…..

ultracon on March 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM

And a filthy Marxist.

I’d refuse to shake the bastard’s hand.

He and his ilk are the enemy of everything I believe in.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:40 PM

We’re talking about allowing free trade and the free market to function as it should,

The thing being, Dear Liar, as a marxist, does not believe in the free market.

rbj on March 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM

I would assume that at least one welder will be needed to connect all the pipes together, unless Bark has created some way to weld using wind or something, so obviously he’s full of shiite.

Seriously, is every demorat a stone-cold moron liar?

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Keystone could be the first of multiple pipelines from the Canadian fields. Why not one going west and another east?

If we had ‘leaders’ like Obama in the year 1900, we might still be a nation largely of farms and not industry. And maybe be speaking German and Japanese, to boot.

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM

WHY? If the U.S. allows the pipeline, shouldn’t the people of this country be assured that most of the oil will be kept here? Isn’t the whole argument that this will help make us less dependent on foreign sources?

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

As others have pointed out here, there are multiple benefits to developing and operating the Keystone XL pipeline regardless of who the ultimate purchaser and consumer of that oil happens to be. Domestic reservation policies serve as disincentives to resources development because it means that the amount reserved is sold at a disadvantage to the developer, since it cannot command export pricing. This disadvantage in turn discourages investment and development of resources.

Also, as Robert Bryce has pointed out on numerous occasions, oil is fungible enough to where markets are linked. Therefore the advantage to developing US based oil and gas resources is not so much in terms of domestic supply security (as it was pointed out above, the US currently exports oil now, and as more supply is developed, exports will rise), but rather, in that the US captures mineral royalties and jobs all associated with the development, shipment, and marketing of those resources.

Hint: OPEC countries are filthy rich because of the mineral royalties those countries earn from exporting oil to international consumers. More royalties means lesser deficits, and ultimately, increased supply means lower prices – which has geopolitical and strategic implications far beyond simply lowering costs domestically.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I can’t believe we have a President who can lie so easily and so shamelessly.

Dusty on March 14, 2013 at 12:44 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM

It isn’t worth building this behemoth if the majority of the oil is not kept here. Yes, jobs would be created but the economy will still suffer from our dependence on foreign oil if it is not kept here.
I agree with you on China. I don’t want us to do anything that will fuel their economy at the expense of ours.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM

I also know that we have a huge trade deficit with China and that China holds much of our debt. Try again.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Um, when we sell to China, our trade deficit goes down, not up. Also when we sell oil to China that is extracted from deposits inside the US, we keep the royalties, not someone else.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:46 PM

He is trying to implement the Cloward-Pivens Strategy, so that he can set the stage for a “Central Committee Command and Control” Marxist economy.

SWalker on March 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Correct!
Red Army by Aaron Klein


“Obama now accused of destroying U.S. economy … on purpose!
President, Dems accused of deliberately overloading country’s financial system

Published: 10/24/2011 at 8:45 PM

NEW YORK – A new book released today documents how President Obama and progressive Democrats are deliberately overloading the U.S. financial system, using socialist designs to remake the economy.

“Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott unearths the radical origins of Obama’s major economic legislation and policies, including the 2009 “stimulus” and health-care law.

The book, with nearly 1,500 endnotes, documents how these radicals aim to remake the American financial system with massive government control.

“Red Army” contains a number of other major scoops while exposing the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama’s presidential agenda and threatens the very future of the U.S…”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/359785/#ASZ54bRBiJPSL6BR.99

avagreen on March 14, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I agree with you on China. I don’t want us to do anything that will fuel their economy at the expense of ours.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Then you want the Keystone XL to be built in the US, not a transcontinental pipeline to be built across Canada.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Thank you enlightened voters . . . you really stuck it to us this time.

rplat on March 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

read some friedman, hayek or sowell. the free market needs to be FREE. adding another regulation, especially a protectionist one forbidding trade is counterproductive. let the market ebb and flow naturally.

chasdal on March 14, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:44 PM

HINT: OPEC countries are filthy rich because they export oil! And we have lost thousands of American lives because we depend on that oil. Maybe it’s time we worried a little more about American national security and financial security in our country and less about what we do to help the global economy.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Yes, I do know that! That is why I and millions of others are skeptical about this pipeline helping to make us energy independent. I also know that we have a huge trade deficit with China and that China holds much of our debt. Try again.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Ok, let me clarify something for you. The United States will not be made energy independent at any time in the near future while the worlds primary portable source of energy is petroleum based. You can abandon all hopes of that right here and now.

The reason is… Fungibility. Crude oil is the worlds single most fungible commodity.

Definition of FUNGIBLE
1
: being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation

So long as their is a world wide commodities market no nation on earth regardless of their crude oil production rates will every be “energy independent” as being energy independent would mean being cut off from the entire rest of the worlds commodities market. Remember before you start to type, while crude oil is the worlds most popular fungible commodity, it is by no means the worlds only fungible commodity. Any nation being removed from the worlds commodities market would suffer a complete and total economic collapse.

SWalker on March 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I’m Canadian

And God, I hate that man

Marxist scumbag

/Signing Off

JMG

Gauthijm on March 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM

HINT: OPEC countries are filthy rich because they export oil! And we have lost thousands of American lives because we depend on that oil. Maybe it’s time we worried a little more about American national security and financial security in our country and less about what we do to help the global economy.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Well, you could always go back to using whale oil for lamps and horses for travel…but if you live in a big city, I’d suggest avoiding dining alfresco once that happens, ’cause the dried horsesh*t blowing around the streets will get into everything.

Oil is a global commodity, one upon which our modern standard of life is built solidly and thoroughly. If you want to go back into the isolationism of pre-WWII years, I’d suggest you read up on how well people lived during the Depression.

Otherwise, if you want to discourage the oil sheikhs from causing market shocks when one of them goes bonkers over missing camels to copulate with, I’d suggest that you consider encouraging more development and sales of oil from the US and Canada, as well as exporting our oil to other nations. Exports mean wealth, as you have stated, and exports lower the overall price of oil, which promotes geopolitical stability.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM

many of the promised jobs would be temporary and that much of the oil produced likely would be exported

The Idiot in Chief NEVER mentions that all his proposed “infrastructure repair” jobs are also TEMPORARY.

And the Chief MORON should know that what will be exported will be OIL PRODUCTS, primarily jet fuel and lubricants. You know, things that might help our BALANCE OF PAYMENTS.

Thanks, you 51% who voted for this fool!

GarandFan on March 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM

GarandFan on March 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I want more than anything to start using bullsh*t green energy policy against liberals so I can fleece them blind. Want to start wind farm projects with me? ;)

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Jobs? What would this economics/business illiterate know about jobs?

You’d think that after four years of OJT, he’d have learned a few things. But apparently there’s no such luck.

petefrt on March 14, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Obama seems to be looking for any kind of excuse to avoid making a decision. I bet he was hoping the EPA would say the pipeline would be an ecological menace, so he could kill the project and point at the Agency. Of course he doesn’t want to get it built, and resents having his forced.

I’m concerned that the only way he’ll agree, and get to avoid being scolded by his ecoterrorist base, is to demand only union workers get the jobs. I don’t know if the bill ever passed, but in the 80s Ted the Swimmer demanded that the government buy only from union shops, and that every supplier to the shops had to be union, too.

The EPA cleared the way. What is Obama waiting for–a cross-town bus?

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Muslims hate the U.S. 245/7. Canadians only hate the U.S. when a U.S. team knocks their “favourite” team out of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

bw222 on March 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

245/7 = 24/7

bw222 on March 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

this pipeline, some of which is already built, is not only for the canadian oil.
the canadian connection is just an added source of product and jobs.

dmacleo on March 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

You stoooooopid Conservatives……the only entity that really creates jobs is the GOVERNMENT.

They are long lasting, not cyclical, and they are all created for the betterment of society free from the greedy motivation of capitalism.

Stop it, and get with the program. Conservativism is just a mental disorder or something.

….in 5….4….3…

PappyD61 on March 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Shovel ready!

OxyCon on March 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Really. Geopolitical stability? WE need to become energy independent. Period! How much blood and treasure have we spent on your so called desire for this geopolitical utopia? Do you ever add THAT into your calculations?

And by the way, isolationism was a consequence of the Great Depression, not it’s cause. Apparently you are not as smart as you think you are.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM

This from the guy who had to use “jobs saved” to pad his job numbers for stimulus. Clueless.

the_schmoo on March 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

(The bad) Obama (from episode 31) lies about Obama

During the campaign, Obama stood in front of part of the Keystone XL pipeline in Oklahoma and talked about the jobs it was creating.

J_Crater on March 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Further proof we have elected an economic illiterate as President. What does it matter if we export the oil. And who cares how much the Canadians make?

Can’t you just be happy, Mr. Idiot, that we aren’t sending that money to Venezuela or some al-Qaeda supporting dip wad somewhere? Can’t you understand that, in order to export it, it has to be more profitable than to use it in the US? Once the Canadians sell it to us and it arrives here form Canada it becomes part of our domestic resources. That is unqualifiedly a good thing, you ding-dong.

MTF on March 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

…at this point…why are we even commenting on anything JugEars declares?

KOOLAID2 on March 14, 2013 at 2:39 PM

But who need a high capacity assault pipeline.

yenober on March 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I was responding to why not west – the Rockey Mountains are a glorious thing – and harder than hell to get through – going south a walk in the park.

Now for your comment on the depression – sorry, but you are mistaken. The commodity based argument you have been hearing is correct – the tarriff acts at the start of the 30s is what really got the world wide depression going according to most economic historians. Our isolationism promoted that act – then FDRs silly policies made it worse. Yes, the seeds of OUR depression were set by many things and as this quote from the American History website concedes;

“The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the Great Depression than an initial cause. However, its passage did not help end the Great Depression and in fact caused more suffering.”

This exported our depression throughout the world – and provided the seeds of all sorts of nasty things that boiled over a decade later.

AS the most efficient economy in the world – we benefit from world trade the most. Any thing that inhibits it is to our disadvantage.

Zomcon JEM on March 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Yes, I do know that! That is why I and millions of others are skeptical about this pipeline helping to make us energy independent. I also know that we have a huge trade deficit with China and that China holds much of our debt. Try again.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Fail. We would still be importing oil from Canada. The fact is there are enough proven reserves within our border to be energy independant for at least 200 yrs. Think permian basin, eagle ford, bakken, marcellus, etc. If you factor in the oil shale in the Green River Basin of WY,CO,UT you can add in another 500 yrs or so. Until the gov’t starts issuing drilling permits on Fed. land we will remain slaves to OPEC.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on March 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM

AS the most efficient economy in the world – we benefit from world trade the most. Any thing that inhibits it is to our disadvantage.

Zomcon JEM on March 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Let’s turn your argument around. For decades, we have been anything but isolationist. So, where are we now? We passed numerous trade agreements with Mexico, China, etc. and exported millions of jobs. We have trade deficits with third world countries and have built up China to the point where they dominate the global economy. Our economy is depressed, millions are unemployed or under employed, we have huge trade deficits, and we manufacture nothing. So exactly how has “world trade” benefitted us exactly?

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Fail. We would still be importing oil from Canada. The fact is there are enough proven reserves within our border to be energy independant for at least 200 yrs. Think permian basin, eagle ford, bakken, marcellus, etc. If you factor in the oil shale in the Green River Basin of WY,CO,UT you can add in another 500 yrs or so. Until the gov’t starts issuing drilling permits on Fed. land we will remain slaves to OPEC.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on March 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I agree. I stated that the pipeline should HELP make us energy independent, not that it would be a panacea. Selling most of it to China would not help to make us energy independent. Energy independence is often used as a selling point for the pipeline. I don’t care whether it is built or not. It will create jobs. It won’t make us energy independent and the American people should not be deceived about that.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Obama only cares about his own job and his own billions.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Yes, I do know that! That is why I and millions of others are skeptical about this pipeline helping to make us energy independent. I also know that we have a huge trade deficit with China and that China holds much of our debt. Try again.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

You’re right. We’re doing pretty well without it. Thanks for convincing me of the folly of getting access to an as-yet untapped energy source.

Plus, I’m thinking of all the environmental damage this pipeline will cause. Just think of the blight to the ‘amber waves of grain’ this ugly, featureless pipe will bring, and the untold cancer and leukemia victims who will die so Romney and the Bush’s can get richer.

God Bless America! Debt is unpatriotic! At some point, you’ve made enough money. Lets sue the Canadians for tempting us with this evil poison. Don’t they understand we’re leading the world in pond scum research?

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM

The pipeline will not create GOVERNMENT jobs.

That’s the real problem here.

dkmonroe on March 14, 2013 at 3:43 PM

it won’t create AS MANY jobs so don’t CREATE ANY JOBS at all…that’s the ticket champ…wadda loser

RedInMD on March 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM

But Food Stamps do?

Riiight!!!

Socratease on March 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Obama: “But making decisions is soooo hard! Tiger, what do you think?”

dominigan on March 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM

I am so tired of this make-believe president’s lies.

sadatoni on March 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM

I guess something is laking in my education but wouldn’t more oil on the market tend to lower prices or isn’t that included in this weekend’s talking points?

oldernwiser on March 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM

No no, no!
You see, oil is the only commodity in the history of the world that isn’t subject to the law of supply and demand. Because, shut up.
/s

JusDreamin on March 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM

BobMbx on March 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Where the H did that come from? I didn’t say we are doing alright without it. I said that proponents of the pipeline keep saying that building it will make us energy independent. If we build a pipeline and most of the oil produced is then shipped to China, we are little more than middlemen. Yes, it will create jobs and yes we can charge for refining it, which by the way is a lot more costly than refining regular crude, BUT IT WILL NOT MAKE US ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!! Haven’t you wondered why the Canadians don’t build there own damn pipeline and refine it themselves? The cost is staggering and the impact on the environment is unknown. The Canadians do not want to take it across their country.
Why? Are you so whetted to anything called capitalism that you do not take the time to research the implications before you make a judgement? I am as conservative as they come but I am not stupid. Paraphrasing Einstein: “It is easier to fool people then it is to convince them that they have been fooled.”

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Um, when we sell to China, our trade deficit goes down, not up. Also when we sell oil to China that is extracted from deposits inside the US, we keep the royalties, not someone else.

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 12:46 PM

But the oil we are talking about is from Canada. I give up! You people are hopelessly inclined to believe anything that has “capitalism” attached to it. I guess you all like the big bank bailouts and are glad the government owns GM too. Afterall, they were “saved” for the sake of capitalism.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Obama hates private sector jobs..it’s as simple as that

sadsushi on March 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

And by the way, isolationism was a consequence of the Great Depression, not it’s cause. Apparently you are not as smart as you think you are.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Nope, hon, I’m not quite the legend of brilliance in my own mind. But I think in this instance neither are you, insofar as I was referring to the little matter of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. While this Act was not entirely responsible for the Great Depression in totality, it sure as hell ensured that most countries around the world felt it’s awful effects. As another commenter said, it “exported the Depression” which contributed to both its depth and longevity.

Let’s turn your argument around. For decades, we have been anything but isolationist. So, where are we now? We passed numerous trade agreements with Mexico, China, etc. and exported millions of jobs. We have trade deficits with third world countries and have built up China to the point where they dominate the global economy. Our economy is depressed, millions are unemployed or under employed, we have huge trade deficits, and we manufacture nothing. So exactly how has “world trade” benefitted us exactly?

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The argument here is simplistic and ignores the Obama/Democrat assault on mining, oil & gas, and (by way of extension) manufacturing. World trade benefits everyone by allowing capital to be invested where it is most profitable, keeping prices low. I used to feel the way you do until I saw the PBS special, Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy based on the book of the same name by Daniel Yergin. To answer your question, “exactly how has ‘world trade’ benefitted [sic] us exactly?”, by lowering the cost of manufactured goods, it allows the middle class and poor to have more net disposable income, which allows them to enjoy a higher standard of living than they would otherwise. Also, it allows for more competition which gives rise to more creative destruction by way of spurring innovation. I don’t suppose you are old enough to remember when the textile industry was screaming back in the early 1980′s how clothing made in Asia was going to kill the economy. I recall a statistic from Commanding Heights that measured job losses and gains following the implementation of NAFTA; although approximately 400,000 jobs were lost, well over one million new jobs were created in the same timeframe. Incidentally, the reason China will never dominate the US economically is because, as von Hayek and Friedman argued, free markets and freedom of expression are interlinked. Freedom of expression allows for creative destruction, a principle driving innovation (e.g., consider the case of the push button phone – Bell Labs created it back in the early 1960′s when AT&T were a monopoly (it was a monopoly on the phone system so deeply back then that only AT&T phones could legally connect to the wired network and AT&T owned your phone, not you), but since push button phones would make rotary phones obsolete, AT&T had no reason to develop them. AT&T’s monopoly wall began to crack in the early 1970′s when other manufacturers could legally sell you a phone that, with a license, was allowed to connect to the wired network. Next thing you know, push button phones sprang up everywhere). The problem with China is, by not guaranteeing its citizens the right of free expression, creative destruction is shunned. Innovation is nonexistent in China (unlike, say, Japan) and so any growth in industry there is entirely reliant upon first world nations like the US to offer expertise. Also, because free expression isn’t available to Chinese people, they have no reason to improve quality on their own. But that’s a larger discussion, and I digress.

Also I used to agree with you in regards to increasing oil production in the US would equal a decoupling from volatile world oil markets. Having read what Robert Bryce had to say on this topic has changed my thinking. Oil exploration and drilling development capital will go where it makes the most economic sense to producers for it to go, period. If you isolate the US oil market from the world market, the price of US oil will be depressed and capital will not be allocated for further drilling and exploration in the US. It’s as simple as that. By not building the Keystone XL pipeline, not only does Canada lose (in the short term, until they build a pipeline to Vancouver eventually), but also all the shale and tight oil producers in places like North Dakota lose, because their oil is geographically stranded. But guess who wins in the short term? Warren Buffet and his BNSF railroad. Now there’s a modern-day robber baron for you if there ever was one.

Where the H did that come from? I didn’t say we are doing alright without it. I said that proponents of the pipeline keep saying that building it will make us energy independent. If we build a pipeline and most of the oil produced is then shipped to China, we are little more than middlemen. Yes, it will create jobs and yes we can charge for refining it, which by the way is a lot more costly than refining regular crude, BUT IT WILL NOT MAKE US ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!! Haven’t you wondered why the Canadians don’t build there own damn pipeline and refine it themselves? The cost is staggering and the impact on the environment is unknown. The Canadians do not want to take it across their country.

Why? Are you so whetted to anything called capitalism that you do not take the time to research the implications before you make a judgement? I am as conservative as they come but I am not stupid. Paraphrasing Einstein: “It is easier to fool people then it is to convince them that they have been fooled.”

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Calm down. On the first point of your quote here I bolded, the answer is, what you call “middlemen” in this instance (referring to the pipeline operators) is vital. If not pipelines, then trains, which are much less efficient and far more polluting than pipelines. Also, the “middlemen” comment completely ignores the value adding role of refining (to which manufacturing of complex goods from raw materials is very similar, btw).

To the second bolded part of the quote, Canada is building the pipeline (at least it’s a Canadian pipeline company). The reason they prefer to build it in the US is, the US is a much closer market and they would prefer to deal with the US from a geopolitical perspective.

And finally, this comment of yours,

But the oil we are talking about is from Canada. I give up! You people are hopelessly inclined to believe anything that has “capitalism” attached to it. I guess you all like the big bank bailouts and are glad the government owns GM too. Afterall, they were “saved” for the sake of capitalism.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2013 at 7:36 PM

For someone who claims to be a conservative, you sound awfully like someone who is comfortable spewing leftist talking points regarding “big banks” and government ownership of GM. I personally supported neither one.

At this point I have to wonder what your professional background is, because it sure isn’t economics or political discussion…

Wanderlust on March 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Will we use more oil than will be produced in the US plus that shipped down from Canada to the US in 2017? Yes.

But in Obama’s mind we’ll ship THAT oil overseas, and ship different oil here… because the market will save money by shipping oil across the ocean.

Can someone explain to me how putting oil on a boat and shipping it across the ocean (twice, ours going, and other oil coming) saves money over doing nothing?

If I want to ship a tanker of oil to Saudi Arabia and back, does it really cost LESS Than $0.00?

I guess so, Obama said so… man I’m in the wrong business. I should have tankers of oil just shipping it back & forth and never unloading. the money will magically appear.

gekkobear on March 15, 2013 at 12:36 AM

It’s true that some of the crude oil transported from Canada to the Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline will be processed into fuels that will be exported.

That’s because of two factors:
1) There aren’t enough pipelines to transport the refined fuels to the Mid-Atlantic and New England where there’s not enough gasoline and diesel. And it is illegal to transport that fuel by tanker unless the ships are registered in the US, which most tankers are not.

2) Most of the exports are to Latin America, where the economies are expanding faster than crude production and refining capacity.

But this is mostly irrelevant — what is important is the level of net imports. If exports increase while imports decline or remain constant, then the US will be less dependent on foreign oil — and could, in an emergency, become entirely self-reliant on domestic oil (and oil from our reliable trading partner Canada).

If Keystone is not built, then Canadian oil will be exported directly to Asia; the US will have less-secure access to the oil it needs; and the US will not benefit from the value it can add by refining crude into gasoline, diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, and other petroleum byproducts.

J Baustian on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM