Obama pitches public works spending to create jobs

Krueger said any increased spending associated with the proposals would not add to the deficit.

Where do they come up with this BS? Another 4 billion here, another 21 billion there. Obamacare is projected to add an additional 6 trillion to the deficit, but this new plan of Obama's won't?? What planet is this guy from?

" he also called for a “Fix-It-First” program that would spend $40 billion in taxpayer funds on urgent repairs."

" a Miami port that’s undergoing $2 billion in upgrades paid for with government and private dollars."

What's the private/public funding ratio pray tell, and of course CUI BONO?

MORE spending seems the one trick the pony knows.

The roads and bridges are falling apart in Oklahoma. The electrical infrastructure just stinks and goes out in 80km per hour winds. Read a report it would take 2 trillion dollars to raise to score of public infrastructure from a D to a C. The USA should be an A and a world leader not compete with 3rd world countries for bad.

The USA should be an A and a world leader not compete with 3rd world countries for bad.

You can't have a First World infrastructure with Third World budgeting. If your priorities are to throw ever more money at failing welfare programs (Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, ObamaCare, Food Stamps, etc.) then government eventually runs out of money to do anything else. Go ahead, take 99% of the income of every person making more than $250K a year - you will won't be able to pay for it all. Time for Obama to face reality - other people don't have enough money for his grand Socialist paradise.

Krueger said any increased spending associated with the proposals would not add to the deficit.

That is what they said about ObamaCare too - no one believes you.

U.S. President Barack Obama promoted a plan Friday to create construction and other jobs by attracting private money to help rebuild roads, bridges and other public works projects.

But he won't approve the keystone pipeline, unbelievable.

Perhaps Obama has received "positive" feedback from Japanese PM Abe whose country is known for spending/wasting money on public works projects.

There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul by rebuilding our infrastructure that powers our businesses and our economy. This should not be a partisan idea.

Yes - But it is, because everything Obama proposes is rejected in a knee-jerk fashion by the right, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who certainly muddied the waters, saying Obama needs to listen to people in Florida “to get a true sense of the effect more tax increases and spending hikes will have on our nation’s middle class." Spending hikes decimating the middle class? He must have missed the wave of sequestration NIMBYism sweeping the GOP.

Now, Obama's proposal will cost $21 billion, but of this, only $4 billion comes from direct spending; $10 billion would be in loans to private companies and $7 billion would be in tax subsidies facilitating states to raise money to start construction projects. Any GOP opposition to this necessitates not only that the repudiate the private sector but that the turn their back on federalism.

It's said that the best way to negotiate is to convince our opponent that your idea was originally his. This is a problem with the GOP: Even when the ideas where originally theirs, when they come out of the President's mouth, they are de facto repugnant. I enjoyed the comments above; they show just how displaced from any semblance of reality many right-wingers have become.

" I enjoyed the comments above; they show just how displaced from any semblance of reality many right-wingers have become."

Yeah, displaced from the reality of $1.X T annual deficits and soaring national debt. It's Obama and lemmings who are out of touch.

@laguna

Only liberals believe that crap. The displacement has been and for the next foreseeable 4 years will be in keeping the country afloat and that is becoming more of a monumental effort. But I know, you liberals believe that everything is A-ok and the economy is just great. The far left. lol

But he won't approve the keystone pipeline, unbelievable.

That means the critics of the pipeline project have some compelling arguments against it.

I would bet dollars against donuts that conservative critics of Obama can't articulate any of those arguments and come up with points that are anywhere near as compelling.

I would bet dollars against donuts that conservative critics of Obama can't articulate any of those arguments and come up with points that are anywhere near as compelling.

As I would argue the same about liberals in this case. Yes, the liberal argument to you on the critics (predominantly liberal) that are against the pipeline might make sense to YOU and you might think getting oil from our enemies would be a more logical solution and or having tax payers pay even more money on liberal failed green projects. But I'm not convinced and most conservatives are not convinced. If I have to worry and decide if a rare fish that takes up 4km of a space area is more important than our need to ween ourselves from ME oil, for these people that fish is more important than the everyday lives of Americans. If we can tap into our own reserves, we wouldn't need to depend on these crazy countries that don't like us. Plus, the revenue that would come from this, the power and stronghold of the ME would come to a complete end! We don't have to see any more conflict, we can take our money out of those countries. Yes, compared to what the ignorant critics have been saying all these years (Very strong expletive use imagination) them! As long as this President is in office, we will never have FULL employment. Obama asks for more money, more sacrifice (bla, bla) If the GDP were at around 3% and he would be creating 250,000 jobs a month (talking about public sector) then I would be more willing to cut this guy some slack and wouldn't have a problem with some of the spending if necessary. But at this rate. We are sinking like a stone. But liberals think we can tax our way out of this problem. Even the far leftist of liberals like Bill Maher realize that this is insane, Maher the poster child of atheism and liberal progressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-nX5YsKHBQ

Even this shocked me!!! When reality bites!

But Florida Republicans, including Gov Rick Scott, faulted Obama for being “late to the party.” Before Obama arrived in Florida, Scott argued that state taxpayers have had to pick up too much of the tab for this and other port projects because the president was slow to support them.

So that's one Republican who believes in handouts from the federal government.

bass4funk: If the GDP were at around 3% and he would be creating 250,000 jobs a month (talking about public sector) then I would be more willing to cut this guy some slack and wouldn't have a problem with some of the spending if necessary.

You wouldn't have any problem with more spending? Obviously you aren't a true conservative. If you were on the Republican ticket I'd vote you off in favor of a real Republican who doesn't hate America.

That means the critics of the pipeline project have some compelling arguments against it.

So awesome and compelling that you don't even bother to post it to even consider if its really compelling or not.

I would bet dollars against donuts that conservative critics of Obama can't articulate any of those arguments and come up with points that are anywhere near as compelling.

Minnesota Oil Spill: Canadian Train Derails, Spilling 30,000 Gallons Of Crude In U.S.

The derailment is the first major spill of the massive expansion of crude shipment by rail, which has increased rapidly in the last three years as booming North American oil production has outgrown existing pipeline capacity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/minnesota-oil-spill_n_2967118.html

Yes, the liberal argument to you on the critics (predominantly liberal) that are against the pipeline might make sense to YOU and you might think getting oil from our enemies would be a more logical solution and or having tax payers pay even more money on liberal failed green projects.

I knew that bet would be easy to win.

If I have to worry and decide if a rare fish that takes up 4km of a space area is more important than our need to ween ourselves from ME oil

Wrong again on both points. There is not a "rare fish" involved, and Keystone will not "ween" the US off of oil from the Middle East.

The derailment is the first major spill of the massive expansion of crude shipment by rail, which has increased rapidly in the last three years as booming North American oil production has outgrown existing pipeline capacity.

One compelling argument does deal with spills.

How much crude will the pipeline carry? What percentage of that oil will be lost to spillage by the industry's own estimates? How many gallons does that percentage represent? (Check my responses to these below.)

What will be the financial and social impacts of a spill in areas where the ground will not hold the oil (i.e. sandy soil) and will result in serious water contamination?

Take the number of the 30,000 gallons in the above derailment -- a serious accident -- and compare it to the 800,000 gallons leaked from a Canadian (Enbridge) pipeline in Michigan in 2010. Over 80% of that oil leaked before pipeline supervisors became aware of it.

Pipeline experts estimates leakage losses as 1-2% of pipeline capacity per year -- an industry average. For Keystone, a one-percent loss due to leakage amounts to roughly 8,300 barrels per day (332,000 gallons). (The pipeline will carry between 850,000 and 900,000 barrels per day.) The industry, as well as the US government considers a "serious" leak to be around 50 barrels and above.

How much crude will the pipeline carry? What percentage of that oil will be lost to spillage by the industry's own estimates? How many gallons does that percentage represent? (Check my responses to these below.)

I did and it's one sided and doesn't take into account the reality that rail is the method that is only going to further increase transporting crude as long as keystone languishes in eco nut land. Rail is a real terrible way to transport crude, rail lines also generally go through major population centers.

Better yet why don't we do the math and compare freight rail transport of crude to pipeline transport and the reportable spill ratio between the two and then see which is better mode for transport for the environment.

Historically, railways have spilled more oil on a gallons-per-mile basis than pipelines, according to several studies. One 2009 analysis of oil spills between 1980 and 2003 done for the American Petroleum Institute by Environmental Research Consulting found 80 out of every 1 billion gallons transported via rail spilled, compared to 38 out of every 1 billion gallons transported via pipeline.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324685104578386662069983532.html

Your call Yabits as to which is best for the environment.

@superlib

You wouldn't have any problem with more spending? Obviously you aren't a true conservative. If you were on the Republican ticket I'd vote you off in favor of a real Republican who doesn't hate America.

I am an independent, leaning more conservative. Also, I'm not running for any public office. I don't know where you get ths hate America, opposite, I love America, it's the Dems and liberals that seriously hate America and want it to resemble Europe in every way.

We see this statement of opinion: "Rail is a real terrible way to transport crude..."

Followed by something that appears to support it::

Historically, railways have spilled more oil on a gallons-per-mile basis than pipelines, according to several studies. One 2009 analysis of oil spills between 1980 and 2003 done for the American Petroleum Institute by Environmental Research Consulting found 80 out of every 1 billion gallons transported via rail spilled, compared to 38 out of every 1 billion gallons transported via pipeline.

It is clearly too taxing on the intelligence of some to get them to question and consider that, in the USA and Canada, there is an estimated 260,000 miles of rail lines, while the total length of the pipeline systems carrying all forms of fossil fuel products exceeds 2.3 million miles. While rail lines and tanker cars are relatively standard, pipelines, in terms of what they carry, under what pressure and temperature, and for what lengths, are much less so -- making a comparison using the metric above very specious at best.

Not to diminish the seriousness of any spill, the total amount of oil transported by rail in the year 2012 was around 167 million barrels (7 billion gallons) out of a total yearly production of 7 million barrels per day. Nearly all of that yearly production of over 107 billion gallons is transported at some point by pipeline. (Reference: Same WSJ article.) While transport by rail has dramatically increased, the number of spill events has just as dramatically decreased.

Additional points: Much of the oil spillage by pipeline goes undetected for long periods of time. The spillage numbers for pipelines given above are for recorded spills. By comparison, it is much easier to detect and "record" a train derailment. Rapid detection is critical for mitigating the damage to the environment caused by a spill. What also needs to be considered is that type of "product" carried by Keystone has a much more corrosive effect on its pipeline than other petroleum products, and, combined with the higher temperatures and pressure during transport, would be far more susceptible to the risk of a serious spill. Again, a !% loss rate -- per industry estimates -- of the amount of product just carried by Keystone would be many, many times the loss rate of all oil that is transported by rail in a year.

People asking the intelligent questions and raising intelligent concerns about this might be dismissed as "eco-nuts" by a craven few, however, what the craven few fail to come up with are any numbers showing the impact that a medium-level spill event would have if water sources supplying a large section of our farm belt were to become contaminated. The foolishly craven want to pretend that rail is far more dangerous, and dismiss the genuine risks of the Keystone extension -- an extension primarily built to export Canadian oil to foreign markets via US refineries in Texas.

Your call Yabits as to which is best for the environment.

Going by your numbers alone, no one could hope to make an intelligent call. But that is par for the course for conservatives.

It is clearly too taxing on the intelligence of some to get them to question and consider that, in the USA and Canada, there is an estimated 260,000 miles of rail lines, while the total length of the pipeline systems carrying all forms of fossil fuel products exceeds 2.3 million miles.

The personal insults and inferences that I lack intelligence is just plain boorish and tiresome. Sad that you always resort to this type of crap when in a discussion.

A) Rail car tankers require individual transfers of crude into each one.

B) 118-car unit trains, can transport 60,000 to 68,000 barrels per trip.

C) That is 118 on-load transfer evolutions. Every single transfer heightens the spill potential.

D) There will be 118 off-load transfer evolutions. Every single transfer heightens the spill potential.

My so called lack of intelligence tells me that you minimize the transferring of crude or any other dangerous chemical to the most minimal transfer movement of the product as possible to minimize spills, reduce worker exposure and reduce the danger to the public.

Sad that you always resort to this type of crap when in a discussion.

I decry not a lack of intelligence within a person, but the failure to apply it to an issue at hand. Or, they use what intelligence they have to dissemble or otherwise act without intellectual integrity. I find it rather vile to see people who have done serious investigation into the issue being dismissed as "eco-nuts," as though they had no compelling argument -- by those whose command of the basic facts are extremely weak indeed.

My so called lack of intelligence tells me that you minimize the transferring of crude or any other dangerous chemical to the most minimal transfer movement of the product as possible to minimize spills...

You are not taking into consideration the fact that every single joint where two sections of pipe are brought together represents a point of transfer. As good as the welds are, none is perfect. The significant differences between rail transfer and the Keystone pipeline is that, for rail, the transfer points:

a) Handle far less of the product than what passes through each section of Keystone

b) Are nearly always monitored far more carefully, than hundreds of miles of pipeline running through open country.

c) Have the skills and capabilities closer by to act upon any spill situation. Time is absolutely critical in this.

d) Pausing or halting a transfer of product to/from a tanker car in a spill situation is FAR easier than trying to stop the flow in a pipeline hundreds of miles long.

The pipeline, therefore, represents a VASTLY greater danger to the environment and the public. One percent loss per year in a pipeline carrying as much as Keystone does is extremely likely to have unacceptable consequences.

The pipeline, therefore, represents a VASTLY greater danger to the environment and the public. One percent loss per year in a pipeline carrying as much as Keystone does is extremely likely to have unacceptable consequences.

That is what you believe and most liberal cooky environmentalists, you would rather we just waste more money on experimental pet fossil fuel free alternatives where most have failed (we should look for other alternative energies) in the meantime, while that is taking place, we should use the natural resources we have, yes, we should do it in a responsible way with the minimalist amount of damage to the environment. crude oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal. Maybe you would rather be dependent on ME oil, but I for one, want to end these disastrous relationships with these crazy dictators.

The pipeline, therefore, represents a VASTLY greater danger to the environment and the public.

Train cars with toxic cargo fall off New Jersey bridge

A bridge failed in Paulsboro, New Jersey, on Friday, sending four train cars -- at least one leaking a toxic chemical -- crashing into a creek near the Delaware River.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/us/new-jersey-train-derail

That is what you believe and most liberal cooky environmentalists, you would rather we just waste more money on experimental pet fossil fuel free alternatives where most have failed

Yes, a bit like telling Edison to give up on his notion of a filament -- after failing hundreds of times -- so that man could stick with fossil fuel lighting. No one with that "Can't Do" attitude can claim to "love America." It's the antithesis of what American has always been about. We already know that non-renewable fossil fuels are a loser.

A bridge failed in Paulsboro, New Jersey, on Friday

Well, thanks for striking another note in support of President's Obama's efforts to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. Let's see...where did I read this? Oh yeah, from the first paragraph of this topic:

U.S. President Barack Obama promoted a plan Friday to create construction and other jobs by attracting private money to help rebuild roads, bridges and other public works projects.

Train cars with toxic cargo fall off New Jersey bridge

Pipeline fans should take a look at what is happening in Mayflower, Arkansas this week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/mayflower-arkansas-oil-spill_n_2992373.html

The Keystone XL pipe would carry ten times the amount of product as the pipeline in Arkansas.

Yes, a bit like telling Edison to give up on his notion of a filament -- after failing hundreds of times -- so that man could stick with fossil fuel lighting.

Ummm, if it wasn't for Edison electric power plants would never have been developed to support the filament. Unless your electricity is from nuke, hydro or renewable which the vast majority electricity generated is not then your using fossil fuel for you lighting............... and lots of it.

Ummm, if it wasn't for Edison electric power plants would never have been developed to support the filament.

While that is true, the main point was that it often requires a great many "failures" to achieve ultimate success of a new technology. Wanting to throw in the towel on renewable energy sources isn't really an option. Wanting to throw in the towel after a few failed development attempts isn't particularly American either, but it speaks volumes about these modern conservative hand-wringers and naysayers.

Returning to the statement above, electrification had tremendous advantages over gas lighting, not the least of which being safety. Another advantage is the options available for creating and storing electricity. Fossil fuels have been heavily used because they were once thought to be "cheap." However, when the externalities such as environmental impacts start to be factored in, the costs increase significantly.

Examples are abundant of individual homes becoming their own power plants using completely renewable energy sources -- which generate enough power for the homeowner's uses and often enable them to sell surplus capacity back to the grid. I'd like to see President Obama put more emphasis on the ideal of maximizing the number of American private residences attaining independence from the grid.

“There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and economy,”

I completely agree. And we need to consider revisiting our assumptions on how the infrastructure was built in the first place. For example, like diminishing the distance between energy generation and energy consumption, so as to eliminate as much as possible the heavy losses that occur in transmission. Having as many private businesses and residences as possible become power plants on a micro scale would go a very long way in achieving this.

The financial model for getting it done was already demonstrated with great success. During the late 70s and 80s, Americans dramatically reduce energy consumption through improved insulation and energy efficient appliances -- with some significant tax credits offered as incentives. That was really a win-win for the US.