It's the ONLY part of the bill that would actually create jobs.. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/13/morning-bell-why-would-obama-veto-job-creation/

Other than the obvious answer: Obama playing both sides for donations and political gain... How can anyone on the left begin to defend this stupid decision?

The bill allows him to make choice. Give the go ahead to allow construction of the pipeline or say no to the construction. If he says no, he must put it in writing as to why he said no. This is just another example of his inability to be a leader and actually make a decision. Not much difference in this and his voting present when in the Illinois Senate.

”Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject.”

 

Does anyone know Obama's reasoning for this?

The jobs claim by the XL project is not supported by evidence. If I remember correctly even the company that would benefit says the jobs created are not very high.

 

Actual number of jobs would be 5k to 6k.

 

So let's use that number when we are debating.

The jobs claim by the XL project is not supported by evidence. If I remember correctly even the company that would benefit says the jobs created are not very high.

 

Actual number of jobs would be 5k to 6k.

 

So let's use that number when we are debating.

 

But it is still jobs. And giving us access to oil to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep that money at home.

But it is still jobs. And giving us access to oil to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep that money at home.

 

Correct on the "still jobs." I just want to make sure we use real numbers and not those being thrown around.

 

As to your second point that , too, seems to be untrue. Most of the oil is already contracted to be exported.

So adding 5k to 6k jobs

 

&

 

"Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.”

 

What are the drawbacks to this? Not being rhetorical, but asking sincerely.

We had the job number debate before.. The low figure you cited did not include the added jobs to provide materials, equipment,etc. to supply the project.. Besides, the number of jobs is not the question.

But it is still jobs. And giving us access to oil to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep that money at home.

 

So Canadian oil isn't foreign oil?

So adding 5k to 6k jobs

 

&

 

"Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.”

 

What are the drawbacks to this? Not being rhetorical, but asking sincerely.

 

I do not know what assumptions are being made to come up with the $5.2B figure. IF true (and I suspect it's too high like the jobs claims) then it has to be big factor.

I do not know what assumptions are being made to come up with the $5.2B figure. IF true (and I suspect it's too high like the jobs claims) then it has to be big factor.

 

Therefore you're making an assumption?

We had the job number debate before.. The low figure you cited did not include the added jobs to provide materials, equipment,etc. to supply the project.. Besides, the number of jobs is not the question.

 

The title said something about "jobs." Any debate over whether something is "worth" it has to take into account the real number of jobs.

Therefore you're making an assumption?

 

Partly. However, until someone verifies that number it cannot be used - just like the jobs numbers throw around.

So adding 5k to 6k jobs

 

&

 

"Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.”

 

What are the drawbacks to this? Not being rhetorical, but asking sincerely.

 

The way I see it is that it doesn't really create jobs, doesn't lower our dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise), it continues to pose risks to our planet in all stages of it's lifecycle from pumping, transport and consumption and it won't lower cost at the pump for American's. I don't see any advantages