Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Corporations aren’t the job creators

Letter by Carol A. Dedrick, Tacoma on Jan. 20, 2012 at 11:17 am with 144 Comments »
January 20, 2012 1:37 pm

After watching more republican debates than I probably should have, I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has written a ninth beatitude: Blessed are the job creators for they shall never know a tax burden.

But who are the job creators? We know who the Republicans think they are: corporations and the richest Americans. We also know that both of those groups are sitting on piles of money right now, thanks in no small part to Republicans’ efforts to “protect the job creators.”

But if having lots of money creates jobs, then why have so pitifully few been created lately?

Here’s why. Businesses are struggling today because they are missing one essential component: customers. That’s it. Plain and simple.

Put a little extra money in the hands of the middle class and watch them go to restaurants, department stores, grocery stores, golf courses and all the other small businesses that create so many of the jobs in our community.

So, as the Republican Party continues to preach the sanctity of the job creators, realize their error. The concept is good; it’s their definition that’s bad.

You and I are the job creators, the middle class, not the corporations or the rich.

How about we rewrite that beatitude to something like this: Blessed is the middle class, for as it goes, so goes this economy.

Can I get an amen on that?

Leave a comment Comments → 144
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    A trillion dollars was wasted. Now a call for more. $6tril in additional debt under BHO. Keynesian economics have been tried and they fail. Let the private sector run by getting govt out of the picture

  2. aislander says:

    So…no corporation has hired anyone to fill a new position? Whatever…

    The reason that some companies are sitting on their assets is government, pure and simple.

    For banks, government has created a money-churning cycle that allows banks to make money with no immediate risk, but with little reason to lend to business.

    For other businesses, there is no predictability to government regulatory and tax policy. The laughable sixty-day extension to the payroll tax rate is a perfect illustration of this.

    Finally, the demand-side economics that you extoll just don’t work. As concernedtacoma7 pointed out, the “stimulus” did nothing to stimulate demand OR supply…

  3. Amen

  4. Is the above the Church of the Invisible Hand’s version of communal prayers?

  5. beerBoy, I was just adding the Amen that Carol asked for at the end of her letter.

    The two comments above mine are just the same old recycled nonsense as far as I am concerned.

  6. Here’s the deal guys.

    We don’t need no stinkin’ Income Tax!

    Cuz, we wanna keep all our own munney, that we earnt all by ourselfs, wit no one else’s help, cuz we workt hard and made all the right decishuns, and …

    We didn’t need no stinkin’ military protectun us from no Nazi’s, cuz we wood have made our own munney anyways, by workin hard and makin all the right decishuns, even if we wood have ended up speakin German and havin to throw a Sieg Heil here and there.

    What do you guys think INCOME TAX is for?

    It’s for protecting your rights from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC! Get a clue!!!

  7. Muckibr gave aislander an Amen.

  8. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Corporations are not job creators? I guess no one works at Weyerhaeuser, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Paccar, Amazon……..

  9. concernedtacoma7 says:

    We had a military prior to 1913.

    Just sayin’

  10. ct7 “We had a military prior to 1913.”

    United States Army has been continuously ACTIVE since 1775 to present.

    United States Marine Corps. has been continuously ACTIVE since 1775 to present.

    United States Coast Guard has been continuously ACTIVE since 1790 to present.

    United States Navy has been continuously ACTIVE since 1797 to present.

    and then there is the

    United States Air Force has been continuously ACTIVE since 1947 to present.

  11. God Bless you SPeters, but I am through with you.

    I don’t like to waste my time with people who post lies on these threads.

  12. And the biggest lie so far is, “The reason that some companies are sitting on their assets is government, pure and simple.”

    Carol has it right.., No consumers = No jobs.

  13. aislander says:

    Demand-side economics=No(n)sense…

  14. tree_guy says:

    Carol you displayed a lot of contempt for people you don’t think are creating enough jobs. I was curious…how many jobs have YOU created?

  15. philichi says:

    When I started College 30 years ago as an Economics major, my Econ 101 prof stated one fact on the 3rd day of class. “Keynsian economics has not ever worked and will not ever work to promote growth in an economy” I am happy to say that there are few absolutes in the world, However he has been right so far. Too bad he didn’t talk to Obama, our country would have saved $800 billion dollars.
    Economies grow when businessmen take risks and build and produce things. Why would they right now? All they hear every day is that they don’t pay enough in taxes, or that they need to spend more on regulation. The business owners that I know are closing their businesses and waiting till the next president.

  16. Put whose money in their hands, Carol? Sounds like “spreading a little wealth around”. Hmm, who did we hear that from? Sounds like class envy, Carol. Take a good look at Europe if you are in love with that stuff.

  17. ItalianSpring says:

    Wow Carol. You are definately Obomba quality.

  18. yabetchya says:

    muckibr says:
    Jan. 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm God Bless you SPeters, but I am through with you.
    I don’t like to waste my time with people who post lies on these threads.

    abetchya says…so you just like playing with your selfs, because you don’t lie, you liars. BTW you posted AMEN right after aislanders post.

  19. “But if having lots of money creates jobs, then why have so pitifully few been created lately?”

    No smart investor would put their money into a losing stock. Investing money right now with Mr. Obama as President is a losing stock. Until he is gone, free capital will not flow.

    All the left can do is demand more from the working class.

  20. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I’m a corporation – I hire people – I am middle class – I am invested in other corporations. Got a beef with me Carol?

    Seems like you’ve bought into the class warfare/ OWS crap that this… president is, and always has been, so fond of. You might try doing a little less parroting, and a lot more researching.

  21. lamofred says:

    Great letter, based on impeccable reasoning rather than the self-justifying rationalizations of the privileged class. Thank you.

  22. aislander – supply-side economics has been in place since the 80s and has led directly to the United States developing income/wealth disparity not seen here since right before the Great Depression. We now have numbers equivalent to banana republics.

    Since Clinton passed welfare reform far less receive welfare and for far less time. This should, according to libertarian and conservative ideologues, get rid of any “incentives” to stay poor – the result: higher poverty rates since welfare has been made less available.

    You can repeat your big lies over and over. But the facts is this: your ideology don’t work in the real world (grammatical errors made on purpose).

  23. “Demand-side economics=No(n)sense… ”

    Who cares if a business has no demand for its products? Who needs customers?

  24. “Economies grow when businessmen take risks and build and produce things.”

    Not if there’s no demand for them. You could build the best widget in the world, but if nobody buys it, you’re going out of business.

  25. Ok – one more time for the kids in the back, who came late to class. Of course Boeing, Amazon, Starbucks, Pomodoro, Metropolitan Market employ people in jobs.
    I think what Carol was saying is that – no customers, no demand. Basic laws of economics 101. Supply responds to demand. IT is customers that create demand.
    For Boeing to create jobs – it starts with airlines having customers or passengers being able to afford a ticket to fly.
    ANd the airlines’ pax base is dependent on way more jobs than Boeing can create. WE’re in this together but the middle class – the bulk of people on the bottom and middle of the pyramid are holding up the Republican’s myth of Job Creators.

  26. China. China. China.

  27. When the little guys try for a piece of the pie it called class warfare. When the big guys try to take the whole pie its called enterprise. Having lots of money does not create jobs. Amen and amen Carol.

  28. rooster_02 says:

    Amen. Carol has it right…or should I say correct. The usual juvenile comments from the usual conservative jokers. Without a strong middle class there is nothing but an empty shell of a once great country. This country is not the property of corporations. It belongs to the people. Amend Citizens United, reform the tax code, and get the teabaggers out of politics. The only jobs trickle down economics has created are privately owned prisons and off shore bank accounts. If you want to stimulate the economy put some bankers in jail and the middle class will start believing that this is about “We the People” not “We the Corporations”.

  29. Carol, you make a good point, and apparently Nick Hanauer agrees with you.

    “The most important reason the theory that “rich people create the jobs” is absurd, argues Nick Hanauer, the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion, is that rich people do not create jobs, even if they found and build companies that eventually employ thousands of people.What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company’s customers.”


  30. Loved the story about Boeing getting Wichita and Kansas politicians to lobby for them to win the bid for the tanker job by promising to keep jobs there and expand the workforce…..and right after they win the bid….adios amigos….nice knowing ya.

  31. The libs have ruled Olympia for years now, the voters pass something and the State ignors it so why do we keep hearing how bad the big corporations are why don’t the libs just impose a 50% or 70% tax on big corporations? I mean since according to the libs they don’t produce any jobs they just suck the tax payers dry with money given to them by the minority republicans.

  32. crusader says:

    solyndra ring any bells?

  33. You could build the best(?) solar panel in the world, but if nobody buys it, you’re going out of business, even if Obama gives you $535,000,000,000 of tax payer money.

  34. Apparently Boeing learned a few tricks from D.C.

  35. philichi says:

    Bill gates started Microsoft with no customers He didnt need politicians to take money from the shallow end of the pool and move it to the deep end of the poole and call it stimulus.

    by the way if the Key Stone pipeline was going to be built by an individual instead of a corporation, Carol would you and the other libs let Obama say yes?

  36. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Agreed – a well compensated middle-class workforce, government contracts, small business, and corporations create jobs! Socialist democrat government reduces the standard of living and creates excessive government regulations and the loss of the citizens freedoms!! The American electorate is being asked what course their country should follow – hopefully the majority are not on foodstamps or our nation is toast!!

  37. Imports kill jobs.

  38. Imports kill American jobs. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men……can’t fix this.

  39. philichi “Bill gates started Microsoft with no customers…

    That’s not precisely true phil…

    Bill Gates actually started Microsoft off with no “product,” or at least not the prduct his customer really wanted.

    Gates took his BASIC Language Translator, which is the only program that he wrote and was marketing at the time, to MITS the maker of the Altair microcomputer. That led to IBM contacting Gates to develop the BASIC interpreter for them, but they were more interested in obtaining an Operation System for their new microcomputers. At this point in the MS/IBM relationship Gates and MS had never developed any operating system software at all. One thing led to another, and in short Gates bought “a copy” of QDOS and renamed it DOS, licensed it to IBM as if he and Microsoft owned all rights to it, and Microsoft became a success because of the DOS Operating System. IBM had PC/DOS and Gates had MS/DOS, all thanks to QDOS, and before that CP/M.

    Years later Seattle Software Works successfully sued Gates and Microsoft, proving in court that Gates had fraudulently marketed their product, the Quick & Dirty Operating System, renaming it the Disk Operating System, and licensing it to IBM as his own product. Microsoft paid out millions in the final settlement. This is all legal fact by the way. There are different variations of this story all over the web, but this is essentially the heart of the controversy.

    Whatever happened to Gates real product, the only one that he actually developed, a version of BASIC?

    Well, with every copy of DOS they sold, Microsoft and IBM gave away a free copy of BASIC. Most people and companies who bought PCs with DOS and BASIC just threw the BASIC in the trash.

    This is all kind of detailed in the Wiki page on Bill Gates if you are interested. Except that the part about the real origins of DOS, QDOS and CP/M and Seattle Software Works have been mysteriously expunged.

    Here are some other links where you can read more about it.

    In 1981, Microsoft paid Seattle Software Works for an unauthorized clone of CP/M, and Microsoft licensed this clone to IBM which marketed it as PC-DOS on the first IBM PC in 1981, and Microsoft marketed it to all other PC OEMs as MS-DOS.


    Putting Microsoft on the Map
    History of the MS-DOS Operating Systems, IBM & Microsoft


  40. All the king’s czars can’t fix this.

  41. writnstuff says:

    Tommy, the word is naive. But your phonetic spelling isn’t the most embarrassing part of your post–is it the total lack of value you add to this string with your name calling.

  42. “… the king’s czars …”

    czar |zär; (t)sär| (also tsar or tzar)
    1 variant spelling of tsar

    In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time, due to the medieval translations of the Bible, and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

    Czars/Tsars are Kings.

    Is this another kettle calling the pot black thing from LF?

  43. Phil – if “Mr.” Keystone would put down a multi-trillion dollar bond to ensure against destruction of Nebraska’s aquifer then maybe I would consider it.

  44. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Where does the money come from to create this artificial demand the left craves? A little reminder to hippies, we are $16 trillion in debt.

    But, for the sake of argument, let’s say BHO borrows $2tril from china tomorrow (or steals it from SS) for another stimulus. We will ignore the long term debt issues for now (you dems are great at that). Who gets the cash? The ‘poor’? The ‘middle class’? Ok, let’s say he gives everyone a check $10k or allows EBT cards to be used for LED TVs and the like. For a month or two businesses do well. They hire no one because they know what caused the artificial, temporary spike in business. No new job creation. Ok, let’s say he uses it on infrastructure this time (only 10% of the last stimulus went to infrastructure). We rushed cash to states and counties for ‘shovel ready’ projects. Most of those were short term. Major projects take years of enviro studies, engineering, etc. by the time those projects get underway the recession is over.

    So, the left calls for higher taxes (evil rich guys!), demand side economics (free stuff from govt paid for by china!), and ignores the debt.

    The right wants a small, more efficient govt modeled after the American principles from the Constitution.

  45. ct7, you were lamenting about angry letters on the other thread. Why is it here that anyone who disagrees with you is all the sudden a hippie?

  46. menopaws says:

    Trickle down didn’t work for Reagan and the Republicans can keep reciting their mantra until doomsday—-it still doesn’t work………..The last go round on renewing the Bush tax cuts everyone talked about stifling those “job creators”………They haven’t exactly been creating a lot of jobs in the last year now have they?? Or, the year before that—or in 2008 when our economy was losing 700.000 jobs per month while the banks and economy were melting down……….they had those tax cuts then—my guess is they gave that money to Bernie Madoff…..So, where are the jobs of these job creators? Obama went overseas and sold a lot of Boeing planes on his trip—that translates into more jobs than the fathead Republicans have brought to the table………..And, as far as Solyndra is concerned–bad investment, big mistake………I’ll match an honest mistake against no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Blackwatch in Iraq—which cost taxpayers billions and made Cheney and company very, very rich………….So, lets pay attention to the difference between a mistake and a taxpayer funded hand-out given for all the WRONG reasons……..The job “creators” aren’t holding up their end of that bargain–except to fatten the wallets of some Republican politicians…….I think it’s time for Americans to present them with their bill…….

  47. No amount of stimulus will work as long as we continue to export our economy to China.

  48. Pacman33 says:

    “Can I get an amen on that?”

    No, a ‘layman’ would more suitable.

    Obama has spent three years lost in his own private fantasyland of failed government-subsidized “green energy jobs” and “middle-class stimulus” while attacking those “millionaires and billionaires” who actually create jobs.

    Under the Obama administration, there has been a concerted effort to attack American industry. Nearly, every major corporation, from Boeing to Intel to the health care sector as a whole, has been the subject of harassment by the Justice Department, EPA, SEC, FCC, NLRB, and hundreds of other federal agencies, all stocked with thousands of regulators and litigators sucking the blood out of American businesses.

    Almost every ordinary American understands that jobs are created when businesses make a profit. Profits translate into expansion, which translates into new hiring. But when businesses are subjected to aggressive new regulation and taxation, they make less profit, and hiring is curtailed. Ordinary Americans understand this, but their commander-in-chief does not. “Now is not the time for profits”, Obama said back in 2009, setting the tone for his administration. “That’s a message I intend to send directly to them,” he stated, and that is what he has done. And as a result, businesses have been reluctant to hire. Recovery from the 2008 recession has been the weakest of any in American history, and the result is that the jobs market has been devastated.

    Obama has sacrificed this recovery on the altar of his radical Marxist ideology. The progressive’s perversion of economics in general, along with it’s established volatile and unpredictable trigger in 0bama, a combustible atmosphere arises. Simply having employees on payroll is a major liability in this environment of insanity. At any time 0bama could make another unprecedented tyrannous mandate or regulation, on a whim, that could possibly double a business’s payroll expense. It would be foolhardiness to entertain the suggestion of hiring additional workers with the 2012 election, the likely end of this madness, ahead in the horizon. The possibility of a one term presidency for 0bama is the most positive economic news we’ve seen in some time now. When 0bama isn’t reelected in November, I predict a hiring frenzy.

  49. Where’s the data to support this tripe?

  50. philichi says:

    I met a restaurant owner in Spain one time. He talked about the crazy rules that they have over there for employment. (you really can’t fire anyone) He talked about the taxes that they pay on profits. Boy that is a great economy!
    He said that no fool would ever hire anyone there. That is very close to what we have here. Most will just wait Obama out.

  51. menopaws says:

    Marxist???? Do you even know what that means…….Honestly, you throw out these labels that you read on some twisted website and treat them as gospel……….Please, calling all you mental giants—point by point, support your argument…give me hard examples of Obama’s marxism…..But, please, look up the definition of marxism first …..Make an intelligent, reasoned argument to prove your “spin”……….throwing out labels is easy—just like the rich—put up or do us all a big favor , and just shut up…….I will await your presentation of facts to support your theories……..But, if you make these accusations–best be prepared to support them with real knowledge–facts, figures, etc……….I am tired of all the mud slinging that is truly reality challenged.

  52. aislander says:

    Incorporating elements of Marxism in one’s ideology makes one, to that degree, a Marxist. Obama and the modern-day Democrat party incorporate those elements into their behavior. Which makes them…well, you know…

  53. aislander says:

    menopaws writes: “…throwing out labels is easy—just like the rich…”

    Apparently it IS easy, since you did exactly that in the sentence I quote above–unless “the rich” isn’t a label…

  54. You know who the real Marxists are don’t you?

    The remaining 4 Republican candidates for president:

    Harpo – Romney
    Chico – Santorum
    Zeppo – Paul
    GROUCHO – Gingrich!

  55. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Muck- the very far left radicals of the 60’s and 70’s are running this admin. the college crowd of drugs and protests.

    They are leading the dialogue of the left, so yes, hippies. Emotion and ‘hope’ over reason and fact.

  56. Lighten up! Muckibr is a “centrist”… he said so, so it is so.

  57. menopaws says:

    Wow!!!!! NO facts—just more spin…….Can’t find a dictionary? We’re done and I don’t have to take you seriously ever again………Ignorance, I guess, is bliss………Listen for the laughter……

  58. hansgruber says:

    So the corporations, who employs thousands of workers don’t create jobs, then who does?

  59. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Meno- do you expect to be taken seriously when you write in your style? What is wrong with the ‘enter’ key? Even though you are very partisan you bring up a decent point every now and then. Write like an normal adult and maybe you can spark a decent dialogue.

  60. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Hans- I walked over to 21st and Pacific and asked everyone in a tent for a job. They told me they did not pay people who were legal citizens, but I should try Starbucks, Subway, or a store at the mall.

  61. Incorporating elements of Marxism in one’s ideology makes one, to that degree, a Marxist.

    Wow aislander. Your extremist labeling and demonizing would make Joe McCarthy proud.

  62. ct7 – the hippies have hip replacements and, while they may have fond remembrances for their youth (just as the chickenhawk college republicans from that age group), they all grew up, got old and realized that the 60s are over. Maybe it is time for you to do the same.

    btw – Obama is too young to have been a hippie.

  63. Misunderestimated says:

    I believe it was billy clinton (D) who gave us NAFTA and led to our well paying jobs moving to Mexico.
    Ross Perot was right on the money with his comments about NAFTA leading to the loss of most well-paying factory jobs in the USA as $20 per hour jobs in the US became $5 per hour jobs in Mexico.
    Thank you billy c; your Kool Aid drinking supporters still love you as they blame others for your ills…

  64. denismenis says:

    The result of all this nonsense is the “catch phrase spin” attributed to to much of what passes for political dialogue. We have such disparate dialects in political discourse that we are saying things that mean something else, with repeated inferences being confused with fact.

    That result is letters such as these and consequent strings on most of these blogs. It may get votes, it does little to resolve our issues.

    More succinctly, as of late we are believing our own bull no matter what political stripe.

  65. “Incorporating elements of Marxism in one’s ideology makes one, to that degree, a Marxist.”

    Incorporating elements of lies in one’s arguments make one, to that extent, a liar.

  66. “it was billy clinton (D) who gave us NAFTA and led to our well paying jobs moving to Mexico.”

    Revisionist history.

    President George H.W. Bush was NAFTA’s original sponsor, signing the deal on December 17, 1992. The bill passed the House only because a large majority if Republicans voted for it. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.

  67. hansgruber says:

    No amen on that. You almost it, you missed the part about lowering taxes which creates more spendable money to create jobs. Amen.

  68. “Meno- do you expect to be taken seriously when you write in your style?”

    When you know you don’t have the intellectual horsepower to refute the messenger, attack the messenger’s writing style.

  69. “lowering taxes which creates more spendable money to create jobs”

    Well, since the Bush administration cut taxes, where are all the jobs?

  70. Mis… I love the internet and Wikipedia!

    “Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation’s legislative or parliamentary branch.”


    You see the name there as to who, for the U.S., “spearheaded NAFTA”?

    George H. W. Bush

    How about that! W’s dad.

    Yes, Ross Perot was right about how NAFTA would create a “giant sucking sound to the south” as our industrial jobs would be sucked down to Mexico. (By the way, I shook Ross’ hand and got his and Margot’s autographs when they were in Olympia for the petition delivery to get him on our ballot.) But Ross bailed on us! He let us down. Turns out his main ambition was to divide Republican votes to make sure Bush did not get reelected. He succeeded too, and that’s how Bill Clinton ended up being a part of NAFTA, after it was pretty much a done-deal, because he inherited it from George H.W. Bush.

    Thank you George H.W. Bush and his supporters, and Kool-Aid drinking Republicans everywhere who have messed-up our U.S. economy, and are still doing it today.

  71. Attacking Clinton for continuing, and expanding upon, the short-sighted supply side neo-liberal trajectory that Reagan started us on is an accurate assessment but it is rather meaningless partisan bull pucky if you turn around and claim that it somehow exonerates the Republicans for their part in this mess.

    Obama has received more Wall St. money than any candidate in history. They aren’t investing in anything that will provide any hope for any change from the current situation. The GOP candidates are all campaigning on a completely unabashed return to the past policies that got us here. NEITHER party is putting forward anything that any sane analysis would conclude will actually help.

  72. philichi says:

    Why blame Nafta for your problems? Do you really think that artificial barriers will continue to keep America strong? When a single mother needs to buy cloths for her children she is looking for the best value for her money. “not the union label” The scared left needs to think of ways to make us more competitive. Not short term barriers.

    Because of an efficient labor force, and low cost of natural gas, our steel industry is now eating the lunch of those around the world. Lets bring the price of energy even lower in America and really get going. Mr President get that Keystone Pipeline going. Get them going all over America. Drill. Lets get America moving again. I am tired of being “food Stamp nation”

  73. Pacman,

    “Menu stuttered”
    “menu’s hypocritical label is ironically of a Marxist flavor in multiple ways.”
    “Dishonesty is another aspect menu’s contradictory gaffe”
    “menu’s blunder”

    When you hurl insults, it’s a public admission that you know you’ve lost the argument.

  74. Supply side economics benefits the few at the top at the expense of the rest. Reagan’s chickens have come home to roost.

  75. Our biggest looming problem IS neo-liberalism and how much our economy is exposed to the Euro crisis – something none of our politicians have any direct control over.

    The meme being put forward that the Keystone project – with its 6,000 temporary jobs – is going to magically transform the economic situation is a pipe dream……put down the pipe boys, stop playing gotcha politics, and let’s work at actually fixing this long-term, systemic economic problem.

    And….before you dismiss the potential economic/environmental impact that a massive oil sand spill in a major aquifer might have – remember that the Japanese were absolutely certain that their nuclear reactors were safe from the ocean.

  76. philichi, I am a bit confused by your support of the Keystone pipeline. You have provided us with information that shows we have huge oil reserves right here inside of the borders of the U.S. If that is so, then why would you encourage a pipeline that would, in effect, ship more U.S. dollars to Canada, rather than keep them here in our own country?

    BTW, NAFTA sucks big-time, but it was Misunderestimated at 6:05 AM who pointed to it as a cause celeb, and incorrectly blamed the inception of it on Clinton rather than Bush-1.

    My take:

    NAFTA = Bad! Shipped U.S. jobs and dollars to Mexico.
    Keystone pipeline = Bad! As it would ship U.S. jobs and dollars to Canada.
    Our own oil and gas reserves? = That could be a GOOD thing if it’s really true! Just based on the info you gave us already. Right?

  77. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Speaking of NAFTA, why are we not talking about BHO killing our trucking industry?

    Not only did he change regulations upending the way truckers operate, but he now let truckers from Mexico take over our highways.

  78. ct7, Come on now, you are smarter than that. President Obama is not responsible for allowing Mexican truck into the U.S. That is still a part of NAFTA, which we all agree was spearheaded by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

    USA TODAY: “After years of union efforts to keep them out, Mexican trucks are about to start rolling into the U.S., as allowed under the North American Free Trade Agreement.”


  79. “why are we not talking about BHO killing our trucking industry?”

    Because he didn’t.

  80. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Shipping centers and trucking companies are physically located based on a combo of market served and the distance a truck can go in one stretch. BHO changed the distance (time based) a truck can go, upending the industry.

    Another example of over regulation killing business and jobs.

    Muck- every admin before this said no Mexican trucks. Doesn’t matter where the idea came from, BHO implemented it

  81. ct7, “Doesn’t matter where the idea came from”

    and you know you are only saying that because the idea for NAFTA and resulting consequences came from a Republican president (G.H.W. Bush). If it would have come from a Democrat, you’d be right there with Misundersetimated trying to pin all the blame on Clinton, just like you are trying to blame whatever on Obama right now.

    How did President Obama change “the distance (time based) a truck can go, upending the industry.”? Where is your documentation?

    I can be swayed by documented evidence, just ask philichi. If you can prove your case, you may convince me that you’re right. As for now, you have provided no proof, just your opinion.

  82. of course, dcr is the only member of the trucking industry who posts here….

    Interesting that the UNIONS were responsible for staving off that NAFTA mescan trucker thing….I thought Unions were evil and killed American jobs.

  83. a quick google search netted this:

    The Bush administration three times authorized longer hours behind the wheel and on the road for long-distance truckers, despite the fact that the courts repeatedly tossed out the rule.

    In 2005, more than 5,200 people were killed and another 114,000 were injured in truck crashes, according to P.A.T.T. The group notes that truck crash fatalities increased every year from 2003 to 2005 during the first two years the Bush Administration HOS rule was in effect.

    Read more: http://news.injuryboard.com/controversial-trucking-regulations-thrown-out-.aspx?googleid=273444#ixzz1kDUp9o9D

  84. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BHO gave up on the 10 hour fight.


    That is a mobile link, but If you google truck regulations it is on the first page.

  85. philichi says:

    I can’t give you an understanding of economics and business in these silly comments. However, for simplicity purposes, more is always better than less when it comes to resources. Yes bring the oil in from Canada. Bring it from Dakota, Alaska, and the Gulf too. The economy is in bad shape. We need jobs. Lets build pipe lines and build them again. The oil and pipeline companies will pay for this and pay royalties to the US. Yes Keystone is temporary, so was the construction of our freeways. But we have them now. The price of our resources will be lower because of this.

    The alternative is to remain the Obama goal, “Food Stamp Nation”

  86. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Adding to Philichi’s acumen:

    The pipeline will increase the supply of oil to meet or hopefully exceed increasing demand which will cause gas prices to fall for everyone who buys gas. This additional “income” will be spent on other goods within our economy. Lower costs, whether in the form of lower taxes, or goods and services increase efficiency within the economy and will (and has) raised the standard of living in America.

    Price competition, (think Walmart) raises the standard of living for everyone and creates more demand for additional products which increases employment.

    Sorry to burst your bubble Carol, but capitalism does work and more people have better lives because of it.

  87. The price of our resources will be lower because of this.

    evidence to support that assertion – I’ve seen the opposite claim.

    * By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
    * TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
    * Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
    * According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.


  88. Poor people suffer the most from from high fuel costs. :) er, uh :(

  89. aislander says:

    I’m not buying the tendentious arguments presented in beerBoy’s post above. Discounted prices are unstable prices. What will happen to prices once the oversupply is diverted to Canada’s west coast and therefore to China?

  90. “BHO changed the distance (time based) a truck can go, upending the industry.”

    He did nothing about how far a truck can go.

  91. aislander – again….evidence other than your lack of buying into a cogent argument?

  92. “I’m not buying the tendentious arguments”

    No, you just present tendentious arguments.

  93. Over the last 25 years, oil companies have closed around 150 refineries in the U.S. After closing them, they began claiming they don’t have adequate refining capacity and used the resulting shortage to raise fuel prices.

    Now they’re clamoring for more oil from the Keystone pipeline, and not a word about building new refineries.

    Something smells fishy.

  94. aislander says:

    I have a suspicion that complying with regulations was not thought to be cost-effective in keeping older refineries online.

    I expressed an opinion and asked a question, but you addressed only the opinion, beerBoy. What about the question?

  95. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Over the last 25 years, oil companies have closed around 150 refineries in the U.S. After closing them, they began claiming they don’t have adequate refining capacity and used the resulting shortage to raise fuel prices.

    Shockingly, cirrus has missed the mark by a few lightyears… again. The link, below, is to a new york times piece that explains the difficulties in opening a new refinery in the US. Here’s some reading for ‘ya c:


    And as to your spurious claim the refineries have not added capacity, here is a link to some facts that completely contradict your lame attempts to put an anti-corporate spin on the question of new refineries:


    But which administration do you suppose thinks it a good idea to use tax-payer money to finance construction of foreign refineries? Big surprise here from the NIMBY-in-chief:


  96. sandblower says:

    No matter the difficulties building new refineries, what ever they may be, do we really need to be building plants that contribute to global warming in an increasing manner? I say no and I am thankful for all the restrictions on building refineries, pipelines and tarsand mining and fracking.

  97. aislander says:


  98. sandblower says:

    All the other arguments are simple detritus from the real problem. Let’s get on with alternative energy please.

  99. sandblower says:

    When energy scarcity begins to drive access disparities to the point that people are cold or other similar scenarios, we will see the results of not dealing with alternative energy. Global warming and access might be neck and neck in the race.

  100. aislander says:

    WANT “energy scarcity?” Think alternative fuels…

  101. No kidding aislander.

  102. aislander says:

    There IS an alternative energy that doesn’t contribute to the myth of man-exacerbated global warming. It’s called nuclear, but I’m certain that will be eliminated from consideration because it actually provides energy, and our lefty protector like only any form of energy that doesn’t actually work to propel the economy…

  103. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Alternative energy question:

    Does blowing sand produce energy?


    If you blowhard enough it will produce hot air.

  104. aislander says:

    I’m thinking the moniker comes from the image of pouring sand into the gears of capitalism. Could be we have a real, live revolutionary amongst us. How exciting is that!

  105. aislander says:

    …or it could merely be that he is short…

  106. sandblower says:

    aislander wrote: “WANT “energy scarcity?” Think alternative fuels… ”
    Do you think fossil fuels are infinite?
    Do you think before you write?

  107. sandblower says:

    Having trouble with sandblower? Here’s a little help.
    The pertinent part is at about 2:46 into the clip.

  108. aislander says:

    No, I don’t think fossil fuels are infinite–I think they’re available. Now.

    By the way: do you have any idea how many whales were saved by the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania?

    When an energy source is found that makes economic sense, it will prevail in the marketplace over existing sources. You know: as petroleum prevailed over whale oil. No need for force or subsidies by government…

    So…what about nuclear?

  109. sandblower says:

    Nuclear is fine when they can decide what to do with the spent fuel that makes everyone happy.

  110. Obama defends smart planning by rejecting the phony Keystone deadline

    Republican leaders in Congress tried and failed to make a jobs controversy out of a contrived deadline to approve a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries. President Obama acted to protect water supplies in seven states.

    PRESIDENT Obama made exactly the right call on the Keystone XL pipeline. He rejected a plan and route that put a vast agricultural aquifer in jeopardy. Nebraskans know he made the right choice.



    Keystone oil pipeline shut down after leak

    Operators temporarily shut down the new $5.2 billion Keystone oil pipeline that runs through the St. Louis area after a large leak was reported in North Dakota.

    Witnesses on Saturday morning reported seeing a six-story geyser of oil gushing from a pump station in Sargent County in the southeastern part of the state.

    Officials with TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, blamed a bad fitting and shut down the line until all such fittings could be examined. They expect the system to be down a few more days.

    Company officials estimated about 21,000 gallons leaked. A berm around the station contained most of the spill. Some contaminated soil is being removed.



    Potential Keystone Pipeline Leaks Underestimated, Study Finds



    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline spills again – providing twelve reasons not to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline



    U.S.-Canada Keystone pipeline leaks, fuels outrage


  111. Its time to think beyond the present not in the past. Progress.

  112. Vox says: “Shockingly, cirrus has missed the mark by a few lightyears… again. The link, below, is to a new york times piece that explains the difficulties in opening a new refinery in the US. Here’s some reading for ‘ya c:” and,

    “And as to your spurious claim the refineries have not added capacity, here is a link to some facts that completely contradict your lame attempts to put an anti-corporate spin on the question of new refineries:”

    Who were you responding to Vox?

    I said nothing about opening new refineries, or the difficulties involved. I said instead, that manyu refineries have been closed. I also did not say that the remaining refineries have’nt added capacity. Instead, I said refining capacity is not what it could be because of the closed refineries. The oil companies then used the lack of refining capacity to create a fuel shortage, and therefore, as an excuse for raising prices.

    Please work on your reading comprehension skills prior to critiquing.

  113. aislander – I really see no need to respond to a hypothetical speculation on your part.

  114. test

  115. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I also did not say that the remaining refineries have’nt added capacity.

    “After closing them, they began claiming they don’t have adequate refining capacity and used the resulting shortage to raise fuel prices.”

    See link 2

    I said nothing about opening new refineries…

    “Now they’re clamoring for more oil from the Keystone pipeline, and not a word about building new refineries.”

    See link 1

    I said refining capacity is not what it could be because of the closed refineries.

    Did you? Where?

    No, using typical liberal anti-corporation talking points you “said” the oil companies manufactured a fuel shortage for the purpose of increased profits – that’s about all you “said”. The rest was inference, and therein lies the distinction. We could argue the absurdity of your claims… but what’s the use – bet you didn’t even bother to read the links I provided.

    Until you have mastered comprehension of your own writing, I would refrain from critiquing my critiques. Of course, the old walk-back spin mode could be in play here too, on your part. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to belief that you honestly don’t know what you “said”.

    In the mean time, we fossil fuel burners should have nothing to worry about – the 0bama administration will see to it that our tax dollars simply go to finance foreign refineries (not to mention exploration).

    See link 3.

    That way, in the future, they can claim reduced imports of foreign crude. Never mind the finished product, or process for that matter (that would be someone else’s problem).

  116. “I’m thinking the moniker comes from the image of pouring sand into the gears of capitalism. Could be we have a real, live revolutionary amongst us. How exciting is that!”

    Typical insults from aislander. When you know you don’t have the intellectual horsepower to refute the message, attack the messenger.

  117. ManuelMartini says:

    one thing drives the job market – supply and demand

  118. ManuelMartini says:


    Ask yourself if you want to live nearby

  119. Courageous Whistleblower Wants You To Know: The Keystone Pipeline is a Lemon

    Whistler Blower, Mike Klink “I am not an environmentalist, but as a civil engineer and an inspector for TransCanada during the construction of the first Keystone pipeline, I’ve had an uncomfortable front-row seat to the disaster that Keystone XL could bring about all along its pathway…..”

    “Despite its boosters’ advertising, this project is not about jobs or energy security. It is about money. And whenever my former employer Bechtel, working on behalf ofTransCanada, had to choose between safety and saving money, they chose to save money.”


  120. our lefty protector like only any form of energy that doesn’t actually work to propel the economy…

    Makes perfect sense. If you can’t win the war on poverty, start a war on prosperity.

  121. Obama demonstrates “smart planning” by throwing away $532,000,000,000 on a solar manufacturing company that failed anyway.

  122. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Wow, the company wants to make a profit. Where is the story here?

  123. ct7, Since you asked… as Paul Harvey used to say … AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY … (that some people would like to ignore) … the story here is that they want to make a huge profit at the expense of destroying the environment and ultimately sickening and likely killing people in the process of adding to their own greed. Because, all they really care about is themselves and their own profit.

  124. muckibr, You mean like the Alaskan Pipeline?

  125. I’m surprised at you all. You missed the big pinata in the original letter, the notion/expectation that “having lots of money creates jobs.” That dog won’t hunt. You could have a pile that would make Scrooge McDuck envious and not be motivated to create job one.

    What creates jobs is purely and simply the opportunity to make even more money. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), we have entered an era where entrepreneurs can make more money through increased productivity rather than traditional growth (i.e. hiring). It fact, smart companies are making more money now and in the process actually getting smaller in terms of headcount. This is the new normal and it was happening before the recession, it just wasn’t noticed because employers didn’t completely trust productivity technology. The recession made them trust it more and low and behold all that stuff actually worked. Now there is no going back. We are in a new era of capitalism and it will take time for us to figure out the social implications.

  126. oldman4: Nope! I mean like: what is detailed in the news articles I posted links to above in my comment on 1/22 @ 9:38 PM. Take a look!

  127. oldman4: Thanks to your comment I did some checking on the Alaska Pipeline, which needs to be considered with regard to the Keystone Oil Sands Pipeline project, and this is what I found:

    Alaska Oil Pipeline Leaks

    February 15, 1978, The largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks. Approximately 16,000 barrels of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.

    October 4, 2001: The steel pipe is resistant to gunshots and has resisted them on several occasions, but, a drunken gunman named Daniel Carson Lewis shot a hole into a weld near Livengood, causing the second-largest mainline oil spill in pipeline history. Approximately 6,144 barrels leaked from the pipeline; Nearly 2 acres of tundra were soiled and were removed in the cleanup.

    March 2006, corroded feeder pipelines on the North Slope gave way, spilling at least 6,310 barrels of oil.

    August 2006, during an inspection mandated by the United States Department of Transportation after the leak, severe corrosion was discovered.

    May 2010, as much as several thousands of barrels were spilled from a pump station near Fort Greely during a scheduled shutdown. A relief valve control circuit failed.

    Nebraska Eyes on Leaking Alaska Pipeline
    By Joe Jordan On May 27, 2010

    Jan 8, 2011, A leak was discovered in the basement of the booster pump at Pump Station 1. For more than 80 hours, pipeline flow was reduced to 5 percent of normal.

    BP shuts Alaska pipeline after leak
    Monday 10 January 2011 06.14 EST
    Another BP Leak Forces Shutdown of Major Alaskan Pipeline
    January 11, 2011 • 4:00 am PST

    BP pipeline leaks oily mixture onto Alaskan tundra
    Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:52pm EDT

    BP Spill: Alaska Pipeline Ruptures, Methanol And ‘Produced Fluids’ Leak (UPDATE)
    First Posted: 7/18/11 03:31 PM ET Updated: 9/17/11 06:12 AM ET

  128. Let’s see if I can redirect the thread back to the topic.

    I appreciate your thoughts pertaining to middle income people being an essential player in creating jobs, but to infer corporations and rich people don’t create jobs is just being dishonest with yourself and the rest of us.

  129. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Yes, off topic but, a little oil spilled in TUNDRA. It was cleaned up by the oil companies and the polar bears are fine.

    Let’s acknowledge that small spills are the cost of doing business. You want gas for your big Dodge, then get over the emotional reaction to a ‘spill’.

  130. ct7, As it has already come to a choice between: clean water required by human beings to live, versus oil and gas for my truck…

    I’ll gladly put my truck up on blocks to save the water and Mid-West aquifer(s) from being further contaminated by more Keystone Pipeline oil-sand spills in the future.

    Water is more important to life than oil! We already know, for a fact, that spills have happened with the current Keystone oil pipeline. Why be so foolish as to risk the lives of millions, for the profits of just a few?

  131. Pacman33 says:

    Politics is the only thing Leftists know about.

    They know nothing of economics, history or business. Their only expertise is in promoting feelings of grievance. A Leftist’s beliefs are all designed to pander to his ego. So when you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse or exaggerated, self-righteous fodder.

    Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence.

  132. Pacman – when you post blanket generalizations denouncing a whole class of people the only thing it reveals are your ideologically driven biases.

  133. hansgruber says:

    I see Obama is going to fly to Chandler, AZ on Wed (greater Phoenix, AZ) to claim his Admin’s economic policies are responsible for Intel Corps hiring and innovations when it really is that AZ legislators lower the tax on Corporation TO HIRE more employees.


  134. writnstuff says:

    Would Intel hire if no one was buying their products?

  135. Obama is a sandwich grabber.

  136. alindasue says:

    SPeters said, “Obama is a sandwich grabber.”

    That sounds like a good idea.

    I’ll be back. I’m going to go keep the bakery and peanut butter factory workers employed…

  137. :)

    Just remember alindasue, if someone else makes it, you grab it and eat it, and then take credit for how tasty it is… you too could be a sandwich grabber.

  138. writnstuff says:

    SPeter, have you learned the difference between millions and billions yet? I see you removed your post illustrating your lack of knowledge. Hope springs eternal.

  139. The moderator removed one of my posts? Weird.

    Which one?

  140. writnstuff says:

    SPeters said: Obama demonstrates “smart planning” by throwing away $532,000,000,000 on a solar manufacturing company that failed anyway.

    SPeters, a million has 6 zeros behind it. A billion has 9. Just so you know. I’ve seen that post on several threads, Not so good at math, huh? That explains a lot.

  141. The post is still up.

    Oh, I feel sooo much better knowing that Barry really did demonstrate “smart planning” by throwing away millions upon millions on a failed company.

    Thanks for the correction. :)

  142. writnstuff says:

    You’re an easy man to please. You might want to set the bar a little higher.

  143. LOl, you missed the sarcasm.

  144. writnstuff says:

    And you missed the point of the letter.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0