Quote:Well the jobs you here championed would be construction jobs, and no construction job is permanent so the whole only 40 permanent jobs thing is a little misleading.


Second the pipeline would allow for more oil to come to market faster then pumping it and loading it on trains down to Texas, and the cost would be significantly less once the pipeline is built. Those are the two biggest factors in oil futures the supply (how much is on the market at a give time, faster production would mean greater supply) and the cost ( again reducing the cost would lower oil future averages across the board)


Right now it cost about $80 to extract oil from Canada and get it to market the pipeline is supposed to make that closer to $50 IIRC.


And yes is has been politicized that's the only reason Obama vetoed the bill today.

That is all well and good but it still doesn't explain how this makes us less dependent on foreign oil? It's not for the US it's to be sold on the open market. In addition, spending on actual infrastructure nationwide would create many more construction jobs for a longer period of time why the focus from the GOP on these 2000? 

 

It's also the only reason this has been one of the main pushes by the GOP congress rather than focusing on things that will actually effect the country as a whole. Big oil, not jobs or future prices is the reason for the politicization. 

 

The extent to which I am for or against this is mostly due to the seizing of land required to do it. I think it's dumb the parties have made this THE issue for months rather than an actual spending bill or tax reductions or w/e else the GOP is supposed to be doing.

---