Trump is putting coal workers out of work

[JoeB131]

You can't put wind farms where there is no sustained winds, you can't put solar where it isn't flat and sunny. Wastewater plants go where the interceptor sewers meet up, power plants go where the property values are low.

Yes, amazing that these things ALWAYS have to go where poor people live.

 

[martybegan]

You can't put wind farms where there is no sustained winds, you can't put solar where it isn't flat and sunny. Wastewater plants go where the interceptor sewers meet up, power plants go where the property values are low.

Yes, amazing that these things ALWAYS have to go where poor people live.

Or poor people move to where these things are. Considering most of the infrastructure has been in place for decades, that is more likely.

 

[Andylusion]

All your anecdotes are bullshit.

And the thing about most infrastructure is that most of it dictates the location by technical need, not by your desire to fuck over people with more than you.

Yet, oddly, "needs" always seems to dictate that they end up taking from the poor, not the wealthy.

Do you know why? Because joining the military is a great way to move out of poverty. You can get training in the military. Having military on your resume is a huge plus to employers. And you can get paid for education when you leave the military.

Actually, I was in for 11 years. You know what I saw a lot of. A lot of kids from the hood who couldn't do simple math, couldn't read or write a sentence, who thought that the Army was going to get them into college.

I have my great plan for peace. We have universal conscription, but the children of the wealthy end up in a special airborne unit that is the first deployed to any war zone.

Peace in our time.

Yet, oddly, "needs" always seems to dictate that they end up taking from the poor, not the wealthy.

Are you talking about eminent domain? I agree with you on that. I don't like that law. I think that property should be considered sacred.

I think they should offer people double the value of their house, to sell. But I don't think they should ever be compelled.

But the reasons are pretty logical though. If you are going to build a highway, which place are you going to build A: The area of thirty $2 Million dollar homes, or B: The area of thirty $40,000 homes?

But really this is all left-wingers fault to be honest. It's the left-wing, anti-capitalists, that sit around saying property rights are evil.

You know what I saw a lot of. A lot of kids from the hood who couldn't do simple math, couldn't read or write a sentence, who thought that the Army was going to get them into college.

I have my great plan for peace. We have universal conscription, but the children of the wealthy end up in a special airborne unit that is the first deployed to any war zone.

Peace in our time.

You have to be smart obviously. I know people who came out of the military having learned pipe fitting, and now make good living. Obviously if you can't read, you need to learn a trade skill of some sort.

I know a guy that is a professional brick layer. He makes really good money. Another other, that just started mopping and waxing floors, and he makes really good money.

As for Universal conscription, and peace in our time.... that is ridiculous. First, the super wealthy would just move out of the country, which would shift more of the tax burden on the poor.

Second, many many wealthy people have their kids join the military, and many wealthy kids whose parents were in congress, went to Iraq.

The idea that somehow having your kids in the military means there will never be wars... honestly you are absurd. You clearly don't know history. Throughout all history it was the upper class who joined military troops and pushed for war.

Such ignorance based comment.

 

[Andylusion]

You can't put wind farms where there is no sustained winds, you can't put solar where it isn't flat and sunny. Wastewater plants go where the interceptor sewers meet up, power plants go where the property values are low.

Yes, amazing that these things ALWAYS have to go where poor people live.

Why is that amazing....? It is so baffling how common sense, is amazing to left-wingers.

This is normal around the world. It's normal in socialists countries. It's normal in 1st world Capitalist countries. It's normal in 3rd world banana republics. It's normal everywhere.

Because why would you build something that will obviously lower property values in places where property values are high?

And this is so obvious to any thinking person. You build where it can't really damage property values, because they are already low.

If you lived on a farm, and you wanted to build a couple of composting piles....

Do tell genius.... do you build them right outside your kitchen or dinner room window?.... Or do you build out behind the old barn on the other side of the acre of land, where no one goes except to get the tractor out, or put it away?

Of course you build it far away from where anything important is. So obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain cell.

 

[JoeB131]

But the reasons are pretty logical though. If you are going to build a highway, which place are you going to build A: The area of thirty $2 Million dollar homes, or B: The area of thirty $40,000 homes?

Actually, you should build it through the million dollar homes, if that's the shortest route. The problem is we don't.

 

[Andylusion]

But the reasons are pretty logical though. If you are going to build a highway, which place are you going to build A: The area of thirty $2 Million dollar homes, or B: The area of thirty $40,000 homes?

Actually, you should build it through the million dollar homes, if that's the shortest route. The problem is we don't.

Well no... because government doesn't have unlimited amounts of money. You can't just pick the most expensive spot (because you are a bigot against rich people), and plow through $10 Billion dollars worth of homes, because you want to build a $200 Million dollar highway.

You have to compensate people for the value of their property. So yeah, it might reduce the cost of building the highway by $10 Million dollars to go straight through instead of curving around it.... but do you want to pave over thirty $5 Million dollars homes? Or pave over thirty $50 Thousand dollar homes?

And then you have to look at the longer term. Not only are you shelling out $150 Million to save $10 Million dollars in highway building...

But now you are losing a massive tax base. All the property taxes from those thirty $5 Million dollar homes... gone. Schools defunded.

And not just those 30 homes. The value of the million dollar homes all around that area are going to drop in value like a rock. No one in the market for an expensive home, is going to buy one next to the highway.

And those places will likely be torn down. Because no one rich is going to buy it next to a highway, and no one poor is going to be able to maintain a house that was originally millions of dollars.

That tax base also is going to be wiped out. And those rich people are likely going to move out of the city. Why would you buy a house for millions of dollars, just to have the city confiscate it from you?

So those rich people are moving out, thus you are going to lose that income tax revenue as well.

My point is, you are going to lose a ton of money. Not just in the short term, buying extremely expensive property to bull doze and pave over, but also in the long term as those people leave the area, and stop paying taxes.

No. You are not going to pave over the wealthy area. Not going to happen. Ever. Anywhere. And you yourself would come to that conclusion if you actually were in government, and had to look at the real numbers involved in your choices. It's easy to say from the outside you could do it better, when you can ignore things like 'math' and such.

 

[JoeB131]

Well no... because government doesn't have unlimited amounts of money. You can't just pick the most expensive spot (because you are a bigot against rich people), and plow through $10 Billion dollars worth of homes, because you want to build a $200 Million dollar highway.

Sure. The highway is an investment... the Mansions for rich people, not so much.

Now, if we could plow through them when the Rich Douchebags are still home, so much the better.

No. You are not going to pave over the wealthy area. Not going to happen. Ever. Anywhere. And you yourself would come to that conclusion if you actually were in government, and had to look at the real numbers involved in your choices. It's easy to say from the outside you could do it better, when you can ignore things like 'math' and such.

The problem is, you think that the rich are really that valuable. They aren't. We could shoot them, put them in a ditch, and redistribute their wealth, and we'd all be better off. They are parasites who've convinced you they are vital organs.

 

[Coyote]

he also ties his shoes the wrong way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah, he has somebody tie them for him. The fat fuck can't bend over far enough to tie his own shoes.

velcro,

 

[Andylusion]

Well no... because government doesn't have unlimited amounts of money. You can't just pick the most expensive spot (because you are a bigot against rich people), and plow through $10 Billion dollars worth of homes, because you want to build a $200 Million dollar highway.

Sure. The highway is an investment... the Mansions for rich people, not so much.

Now, if we could plow through them when the Rich Douchebags are still home, so much the better.

No. You are not going to pave over the wealthy area. Not going to happen. Ever. Anywhere. And you yourself would come to that conclusion if you actually were in government, and had to look at the real numbers involved in your choices. It's easy to say from the outside you could do it better, when you can ignore things like 'math' and such.

The problem is, you think that the rich are really that valuable. They aren't. We could shoot them, put them in a ditch, and redistribute their wealth, and we'd all be better off. They are parasites who've convinced you they are vital organs.

No, I don't "think" the rich are valuable. I know as empirical fact, that rich are valuable.

We've tried your system dozens of times now. Dozens.

We tried your system in Russia. The result was mass starvation. We tried it in Cuba. The result was mass poverty. We tried your system in France. The result was an economy crisis. We tried your system in Venezuela. The result was mass starvation. We tried your system in Zimbabwe. The result was utter destruction.

Your system has never worked in the world. And OUR system, the right-wing capitalist based system, has resulted in the youngest nation in the world, becoming the lone super-power of the world, and the most wealthy country in the world.

Our system has resulted in a nation where a husband and wife, both working full time jobs.... places them in the top 1% of wage earners in the face of the earth.

Your system has always consistently 100% of the time, resulted in poverty and death.

Our system has always, consistently, 100% of the time, resulted in wealth and prosperity.

Once again.... facts over opinion. You constantly talk about your own personal bigoted bias, hate, envy, and greed based opinions. I talk about facts, and I have dozens of examples to post on it.

Again, you talk about redistributing wealth, but you can't do that. Wealth only exists, from people who know how to make wealth. If you get rid of the people who know how to make wealth, there won't be any.

As I pointed out before, the top wealthy in this country, lost $38 Billion in net worth from the government caused crash. Are you better off now, since the wealthy have less wealth? No you are not. Nor is anyone.

If you take a wealthy person's Bentley luxury car, and give it to a poor person, are they going to be able to maintain such a car? No they will not. That luxury car, will be a junk pile in a couple of years.

How do I know this? I've seen it. I worked at a Cadillac dealer. I would see these people come in with cars they couldn't afford, and then complain they couldn't afford to fix them. The mechanics had a phrase of it that I hard dozens of times "Champaign taste, with a beer budget".

And they drive their broken Cadillac, until it stops working, and then they had to ditch them. We had a parking lot full of deserted vehicles.

Redistributing wealth will not make everyone better off. Never has. This is why the majority of people who win the lottery, end up bankrupt in 10 years.

Because it is the people themselves, that make wealth. Wealth is not static. It is dynamic. It changes.

Classic case of this is Venezuela and the oil companies. Hugo Chavez operated on your belief system. He nationalized the oil production in Venezuela. Famously Exxon lost their facilities worth roughly $1 Billion dollars to the Venezuela government.

The problem was, without the expertise that Exxon had in running those facilities, they quickly fell into disrepair, and stopped producing oil.

Those facilities that were worth $1 Billion, are now worth almost nothing, because they produce no oil, in a country with the most known oil reserves in the world.

It's the people that make the wealth have value. You get rid of those people, and the value drops with the people.

I could provide endless examples of this. Endless. Zimbabwe confiscated the land from the super wealthy farmers, and gave it to the farm hands. The evil white farmers left. Next thing you know.... there is a nation wide food shortage in Zimbabwe. Shocking!

And taking the wealth from the wealthy, didn't make the farm hands wealthy. You know why? Because the value of land is based on you being able to use it. If you don't have the knowledge to make the land productive, then it has zero value. The farm hands, who couldn't cultivate the soil to produce food, couldn't sell the land, because no one else knew how to farm the land either. The people who did, were the white farmers who fled from Zimbabwe.

So the land was worthless.

This is the reality. You get rid of the rich... you might as well shoot sons and daughters, and your wife, and then finish with yourself. Because that is what you are doing. You are destroying yourself. Every country that has pushed out the rich, has fallen to chaos, poverty, and death. Jamaica PM Manley the anti-rich socialist, said famously in 1972

​

"Jamaica has no room for millionaires," he was widely quoted as saying in one famous speech. "For anyone who wants to be a millionaire, we have five flights a day to Miami."​

​

And that is EXACTLY what they did. They left the country. Businesses closed. Factories closed. The Bauxite industry that was booming in Jamaica, all but entirely vanished. The economy imploded. The people were impoverished. They turned to gangs and crime. Drugs exploded. Violence in the streets.

Jamaica went from being the second largest economy in Caribbean, to being practically 3rd world.

Institutions vs. Policies: A Tale of Two Islands

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Tale of Two Islands: Jamaica and Barbados.

 

[JoeB131]

We tried your system in Russia. The result was mass starvation.

Uh, buddy, Russia under the USSR was more wealthy and affluent than Russia under the Tsars...

This is really a poor argument.

We tried it in Cuba. The result was mass poverty.

Um, we've made 60 years of economic war on Cuba for picking an economic system we didn't like. That's nothing to be proud of.

I could provide endless examples of this. Endless.

Yeah, but they are all poor third world countries that were poor third world countries before they tried Socialism.. and still remain poor third world countries after they stopped trying socialism.

Now, I'm not for socialism. I would prefer to go back to a Pre-Reagan era of fair wealth distribution, but still capitalist.

 

[Andylusion]

We tried your system in Russia. The result was mass starvation.

Uh, buddy, Russia under the USSR was more wealthy and affluent than Russia under the Tsars...

This is really a poor argument.

We tried it in Cuba. The result was mass poverty.

Um, we've made 60 years of economic war on Cuba for picking an economic system we didn't like. That's nothing to be proud of.

I could provide endless examples of this. Endless.

Yeah, but they are all poor third world countries that were poor third world countries before they tried Socialism.. and still remain poor third world countries after they stopped trying socialism.

Now, I'm not for socialism. I would prefer to go back to a Pre-Reagan era of fair wealth distribution, but still capitalist.

Uh, buddy, Russia under the USSR was more wealthy and affluent than Russia under the Tsars...

You are crazy. You are utterly and entirely ignorant of history. They slaughtered 60 million people through mass starvation of the collectivization of farms. Deported more. Used forced labor camps, because people don't do things voluntarily without a profit motive.

To claim that they were more wealthy and affluent under the socialists, rather than the Tsars, all that does is prove you have no idea what you are talking about. None. None whatsoever.

Um, we've made 60 years of economic war on Cuba for picking an economic system we didn't like. That's nothing to be proud of.

Again, complete and total ignorance.
"The Sugar King of Havana"
Author John Paul Rathbone
Talks about the sugar cain growers who fled Cuba after the Socialist got control, and how their property and farms were confiscated, and the result was people who didn't know how to grow sugar cain but were great socialists, got control of these farms, and pretty much ran them into the ground.

Meanwhile the wealthy fled to other countries, and opened successful businesses there, while Cuba declined quickly from a 1st world country, with things like modern automobiles and hospitals, to a 3rd world country where average Cubans can't get Aspirin, and drive 60 year old cars.

Had nothing to do with this mythical 'economic warfare' that ignorant of history losers, blame for the failure of their ideology.

Yeah, but they are all poor third world countries that were poor third world countries before they tried Socialism.. and still remain poor third world countries after they stopped trying socialism.

Not true, and I can prove it with one single example. Hong Kong and China.

China went down the path of Socialism, and Hong Kong under the UK, down the path of Capitalism.

Hong Kong is (or was) a first 1st world country, where people have a standard of living comparable to the UK. China still had people living in mud huts up until the 1980s.

China was literally embarrassed by Hong Kong, because you have identical people, with an identical culture, with an identical language, with an identical starting point.

Hong Kong and China both started economically, socially, culturally, and technologically identical. The only difference..... ironically... is that Hong Kong had virtually zero natural resources, and China has more natural resources than even they themselves know about.

Yet China was so poor and impoverished, and so backwards, that 60 million people starved to death.

Hong Kong with no natural resources to speak of, and starting the same place China did, ended up a first world standard of living.

And again, I can list HUNDREDS of examples.

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 30th edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

You show me which Capitalist based free economy on the economic freedom index, in the top 20, is a poor nation. Which is it? Where is this country that adopted free-market capitalism, and became poorer?

There is no such example. Every single example in all human history of people moving towards Capitalism, has resulted in them being richer.

Facts over feelings sir. Your opinion does not contradict my facts.

I would prefer to go back to a Pre-Reagan era of fair wealth distribution, but still capitalist.

The pre-reagan era sucks. By every possible measure the high taxes and so-called wealth redistribution of the 1970s were terrible. We had government caused energy crisis twice. We had the stagflation. We had the misery index.

Everyone did better after Reagan. Everyone did. The poorest people, were better off after Reagan than before Reagan. Are you just that ignorant? Have not talked to people who lived through the 70s, and said it sucked? I have yet to meet anyone anywhere, who said the 70s were great... other than a partisan that also makes such ridiculous claims as the Russians were more wealthy after they slaughtered 60 million people. Show how much I can trust your ignorance on this topic as well.

 

[Dana7360]

Donald Trump promised to revived the coal industry but instead he has been a nightmare for coworkers. Some big companies are even going bankrupt:

"Perhaps the most persuasive evidence of President’s Trump’s failure to revive the coal industry lies in the number of coal company bankruptcies and mine closings. As of Oct. 30, 2019, 11 companies, including the largest privately held operation, had declared bankruptcy since Trump’s inauguration. And according to the USEIA, more than half of all mines operating in 2008 had closed by the end of 2018. The consumption of renewable sources of energy surpassed coal consumption in 2019 for the first time in over 130 years, according to USEIA."

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article244088642.html

Coal miners are great people and I feel bad for them because they were conned into voting for Trump with the illusion that he would help them.
We heard a lot about Hillary being potentially really bad for coal workers but Donald Trump has been full of empty promises of greatness and resurgence.

They had a choice, Russian BS aside. So did the burbs in the Rust Belt, and they chose DJT. And now they are crying Covid-19 mismanagement from the WH and everything else from coal to no health benefits.

So you believe they would have done better under Hillary?

Hillary lost coal country because she stated she would put coal miners out of work. Under Trump we are simply working towards what she said she would do.

No she didn't say she would put coal miners out of work.

You just repeated a lie.

She told them that their jobs are going away and won't come back. Then she offered them reeducation so they wouldn't be totally screwed.

She told them the ugly truth. Coal is a dying industry. Much more cleaner and much more efficient sources of energy are being used and developed.

They chose to go with the liar who pandered to them with lies to get them to vote against their best interest. They chose the lazy way and they got totally screwed.

If people are too lazy to take responsibility for their own lives then I really can't have any sympathy for them.

They made the bad choice. Now they don't want to take responsibility for that bad choice.

They were warned. They ignored the truth and warnings. They made the lazy choice. They got what they voted for. I have no sympathy for them.

"Reeducation" for what?

Read her energy and coal proposal.

Reeducation in new energy industries, in computers, in medical field or any other field they want to work in.

She proposed 30 billion for them to be retrained.

They chose to not do the work to secure their own future. Which was a very bad choice. So now they are totally screwed. No job, no retraining and no hope for a future.

They made the very bad choice to take the lazy way. They chose trump the liar who now has abandoned the workers and they've been left high and dry on their own.

They were warned. They ignored the warnings. They got what they voted for. Now they're whining about it.

They should stop whining, go get new training and get their lives together.

I highly doubt they will do that. They have already shown they are too lazy to do the work for their own future.

The result will be more generational poverty in West Virginia.

They had a chance at a better life, they were too lazy to take it.

There are no alternative energy jobs (or at least not that many), computer or nursing jobs to be had. What good is it to offer people training in non existent jobs and how do they survive until these jobs happen to appear?

Empty rhetoric.

But yeah, go ahead and note how you have no sympathy for them. How Democrat of you.

There might not be in your area but my area has alternative energy jobs.

You might not need nurses or health care workers where you live but they are needed all over the nation.

You may not have many computer jobs where you live but there are tons of them all over the nation.

Those aren't the only jobs. People can go to school to learn anything they want. Not just what I listed.

Stop being so negative. You're just making excuses and enabling those workers to remain lazy and in poverty. Many other people in professions that died got retrained. The coal miners can do the same thing. When was the last time anyone needed a key punch operator?

Then there are the manufacturing jobs that went overseas. All those workers were offered retraining so they could have a career that would support them.

Stop advocating for people to be so lazy. Coal is a dying industry. They were told the truth. They were told they would get help to be retrained. All it took from them is the work to do it. They were too lazy to want to do the work so now they're screwed.

Your attitude only allows them to remain lazy and create more generational poverty.

Good going.

There are no jobs. Are you really going to argue that people don't have jobs or even more specifically decent paying jobs simply because they are lazy?

I'm not talking about right now during this pandemic.

In normal times there are jobs.

Again, have you ever been in coal mining country? No there is not.

Right now the medical field needs workers for countless jobs. The covid virus is going to raise the number of breathing specialists needed alone.

Then there's the rural areas. They barely have a clinic muchness a hospital. I own a second house in one of those rural areas. The nearest hospital is 40 miles away. And that one is a small one with limited services. Most have to travel all the way to King county to get proper medical help.

The need for workers is limited now but that's not going to last forever.

No, those who want good paying jobs aren't lazy. Those who aren't willing to take the time and work to be able to do those good paying jobs are the lazy ones. Like the coal miners who turned down free education. So many are paying on college loans yet those miners turned free college or trade school training down.

I don't think that is smart. It's not the actions of people who are willing to put in the work to be trained in a profession that can support them. It's the actions of lazy people who don't want to keep up with society and the changes our society goes through.

Your attitude only enables the mess. Look at where they are now. They have no job. No ability to get a new job. Seems to me that all the denial and excuses aren't changing their situation for the better. The only thing that will do that is retraining for a profession that will support them. A bonus, it won't be a profession that kills them like coal will.

It's classic capitalism doing it's job. It's a very good example of why supply side economics doesn't work. It's another example that no amount of tax cuts, no amount of deregulation, no amount of privatization will prevent it. A company can supply all the coal they want. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

It's worthless if people don't buy it.

Hospitals in WV are going out of business.

Struggles likely to continue for West Virginia hospitals - WV MetroNews

I'm sorry that West Virginia doesn't have a diversified economy. It's not safe.

I know. I am from Seattle. I remember the sign on Interstate 5 that said the last person out of the city please turn out the lights.

Boeing was our primary source of good jobs. We didn't diversify. So we nearly died.

My dad was one of the few at Boeing who didn't lose their jobs. Many of my friends' dads did. They had to move away.

In the years since we have diversified. Not just the city but the whole state.

Why not start changing now? Why deny the inevitable? The jobs are going away. They aren't going to come back no matter how much you or anyone wants them to come back. it will be cheaper and easier now than when it gets totally out of control.

No amount of excuses that they can't get retrained will work with me either. I watched as my city and state changed. No it can't happen over night but then, we aren't into instant gratification either. We knew and still know it takes work to make the change.

You can change the state. You just have to have the will and do the work.

Saying you can't will guarantee you won't. It will also doom your state to an even worse future.

We did. So can you.

 

[Dana7360]

Damn peasants.

Conservatism is not propping up a dying industry for political gain.

It's not about propping up, it's about progressives trying to kill it before it's natural time because of the AGW boogeyman.

Most of these people would accept economics dragging them under, but when progs like you want to do it intentionally that's when they have the issue.

There were numerous attempts by the Trump administration to prop up the coal industry. I believe all of them failed because they lacked the authority to do so but haven’t heard much in a while.

The natural time for the coal industry is when a price competitive alternative exists with fewer emissions. Which is no.

I don't know about that. At least to generate energy.

My state started closing down our last coal fire plant in 2005. It's probably closed by now.

We get our energy from water, wind, sun and natural gas. No coal.

It's possible. Just have to have the politicians who will allow it to happen which as long as republicans have the power to stop it, they will. They have done a very good job stopping it thus far.

Some states like mine ignored the federal government so we just did it ourselves.

We have more electricity than we use. We sell it to neighboring states. Our rates are the second lowest in the nation. WITHOUT coal.

Not sure what adjective to use for this hope about the future that the GOP keeps giving this doomed, dirty industry and its workers. It's certainly unfair, it's certainly inappropriate, it's certainly ugly.

I know.

The republicans have left the workers totally screwed.

While the republicans helped the owners, executives and stockholders of those coal companies.

They were told the truth. They were offered help to be retrained. They rejected that and went with the lie.

 

[pknopp]

Donald Trump promised to revived the coal industry but instead he has been a nightmare for coworkers. Some big companies are even going bankrupt:

"Perhaps the most persuasive evidence of President’s Trump’s failure to revive the coal industry lies in the number of coal company bankruptcies and mine closings. As of Oct. 30, 2019, 11 companies, including the largest privately held operation, had declared bankruptcy since Trump’s inauguration. And according to the USEIA, more than half of all mines operating in 2008 had closed by the end of 2018. The consumption of renewable sources of energy surpassed coal consumption in 2019 for the first time in over 130 years, according to USEIA."

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article244088642.html

Coal miners are great people and I feel bad for them because they were conned into voting for Trump with the illusion that he would help them.
We heard a lot about Hillary being potentially really bad for coal workers but Donald Trump has been full of empty promises of greatness and resurgence.

They had a choice, Russian BS aside. So did the burbs in the Rust Belt, and they chose DJT. And now they are crying Covid-19 mismanagement from the WH and everything else from coal to no health benefits.

So you believe they would have done better under Hillary?

Hillary lost coal country because she stated she would put coal miners out of work. Under Trump we are simply working towards what she said she would do.

No she didn't say she would put coal miners out of work.

You just repeated a lie.

She told them that their jobs are going away and won't come back. Then she offered them reeducation so they wouldn't be totally screwed.

She told them the ugly truth. Coal is a dying industry. Much more cleaner and much more efficient sources of energy are being used and developed.

They chose to go with the liar who pandered to them with lies to get them to vote against their best interest. They chose the lazy way and they got totally screwed.

If people are too lazy to take responsibility for their own lives then I really can't have any sympathy for them.

They made the bad choice. Now they don't want to take responsibility for that bad choice.

They were warned. They ignored the truth and warnings. They made the lazy choice. They got what they voted for. I have no sympathy for them.

"Reeducation" for what?

Read her energy and coal proposal.

Reeducation in new energy industries, in computers, in medical field or any other field they want to work in.

She proposed 30 billion for them to be retrained.

They chose to not do the work to secure their own future. Which was a very bad choice. So now they are totally screwed. No job, no retraining and no hope for a future.

They made the very bad choice to take the lazy way. They chose trump the liar who now has abandoned the workers and they've been left high and dry on their own.

They were warned. They ignored the warnings. They got what they voted for. Now they're whining about it.

They should stop whining, go get new training and get their lives together.

I highly doubt they will do that. They have already shown they are too lazy to do the work for their own future.

The result will be more generational poverty in West Virginia.

They had a chance at a better life, they were too lazy to take it.

There are no alternative energy jobs (or at least not that many), computer or nursing jobs to be had. What good is it to offer people training in non existent jobs and how do they survive until these jobs happen to appear?

Empty rhetoric.

But yeah, go ahead and note how you have no sympathy for them. How Democrat of you.

There might not be in your area but my area has alternative energy jobs.

You might not need nurses or health care workers where you live but they are needed all over the nation.

You may not have many computer jobs where you live but there are tons of them all over the nation.

Those aren't the only jobs. People can go to school to learn anything they want. Not just what I listed.

Stop being so negative. You're just making excuses and enabling those workers to remain lazy and in poverty. Many other people in professions that died got retrained. The coal miners can do the same thing. When was the last time anyone needed a key punch operator?

Then there are the manufacturing jobs that went overseas. All those workers were offered retraining so they could have a career that would support them.

Stop advocating for people to be so lazy. Coal is a dying industry. They were told the truth. They were told they would get help to be retrained. All it took from them is the work to do it. They were too lazy to want to do the work so now they're screwed.

Your attitude only allows them to remain lazy and create more generational poverty.

Good going.

There are no jobs. Are you really going to argue that people don't have jobs or even more specifically decent paying jobs simply because they are lazy?

I'm not talking about right now during this pandemic.

In normal times there are jobs.

Again, have you ever been in coal mining country? No there is not.

Right now the medical field needs workers for countless jobs. The covid virus is going to raise the number of breathing specialists needed alone.

Then there's the rural areas. They barely have a clinic muchness a hospital. I own a second house in one of those rural areas. The nearest hospital is 40 miles away. And that one is a small one with limited services. Most have to travel all the way to King county to get proper medical help.

The need for workers is limited now but that's not going to last forever.

No, those who want good paying jobs aren't lazy. Those who aren't willing to take the time and work to be able to do those good paying jobs are the lazy ones. Like the coal miners who turned down free education. So many are paying on college loans yet those miners turned free college or trade school training down.

I don't think that is smart. It's not the actions of people who are willing to put in the work to be trained in a profession that can support them. It's the actions of lazy people who don't want to keep up with society and the changes our society goes through.

Your attitude only enables the mess. Look at where they are now. They have no job. No ability to get a new job. Seems to me that all the denial and excuses aren't changing their situation for the better. The only thing that will do that is retraining for a profession that will support them. A bonus, it won't be a profession that kills them like coal will.

It's classic capitalism doing it's job. It's a very good example of why supply side economics doesn't work. It's another example that no amount of tax cuts, no amount of deregulation, no amount of privatization will prevent it. A company can supply all the coal they want. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

It's worthless if people don't buy it.

Hospitals in WV are going out of business.

Struggles likely to continue for West Virginia hospitals - WV MetroNews

I'm sorry that West Virginia doesn't have a diversified economy. It's not safe.

I know. I am from Seattle. I remember the sign on Interstate 5 that said the last person out of the city please turn out the lights.

Boeing was our primary source of good jobs. We didn't diversify. So we nearly died.

My dad was one of the few at Boeing who didn't lose their jobs. Many of my friends' dads did. They had to move away.

In the years since we have diversified. Not just the city but the whole state.

Why not start changing now? Why deny the inevitable? The jobs are going away. They aren't going to come back no matter how much you or anyone wants them to come back. it will be cheaper and easier now than when it gets totally out of control.

No amount of excuses that they can't get retrained will work with me either. I watched as my city and state changed. No it can't happen over night but then, we aren't into instant gratification either. We knew and still know it takes work to make the change.

You can change the state. You just have to have the will and do the work.

Saying you can't will guarantee you won't. It will also doom your state to an even worse future.

We did. So can you.

Diversify? Like putting a factory on top of a mountain? You are doing the same thing as earlier. Vast generalization. Seattle has an airport. You aren't going to be able to sustain an airport in the mountains of WV to fly CEO's into.

 

[JoeB131]

You are crazy. You are utterly and entirely ignorant of history. They slaughtered 60 million people through mass starvation of the collectivization of farms. Deported more. Used forced labor camps, because people don't do things voluntarily without a profit motive.

Okay, when you repeat Crazy Bircher shit like this, I just can't take you seriously.

Let me help you out. The Population of the Soviet Union didn't decrease under Stalinism. It increased. And that is despite WWII and some famines that would have happened collectivization or not.

 

[bripat9643]

You are crazy. You are utterly and entirely ignorant of history. They slaughtered 60 million people through mass starvation of the collectivization of farms. Deported more. Used forced labor camps, because people don't do things voluntarily without a profit motive.

Okay, when you repeat Crazy Bircher shit like this, I just can't take you seriously.

Let me help you out. The Population of the Soviet Union didn't decrease under Stalinism. It increased. And that is despite WWII and some famines that would have happened collectivization or not.

It definitely decreased when 20 million people died from famine in Ukraine during the Holodomor.

 

[martybegan]

You are crazy. You are utterly and entirely ignorant of history. They slaughtered 60 million people through mass starvation of the collectivization of farms. Deported more. Used forced labor camps, because people don't do things voluntarily without a profit motive.

Okay, when you repeat Crazy Bircher shit like this, I just can't take you seriously.

Let me help you out. The Population of the Soviet Union didn't decrease under Stalinism. It increased. And that is despite WWII and some famines that would have happened collectivization or not.

Wow, defending Stalin. That's a low even for you. Did me make the trains run on time as well?

 

[Andylusion]

You are crazy. You are utterly and entirely ignorant of history. They slaughtered 60 million people through mass starvation of the collectivization of farms. Deported more. Used forced labor camps, because people don't do things voluntarily without a profit motive.

Okay, when you repeat Crazy Bircher shit like this, I just can't take you seriously.

Let me help you out. The Population of the Soviet Union didn't decrease under Stalinism. It increased. And that is despite WWII and some famines that would have happened collectivization or not.

Dude they lied man. Are you nuts? Stalin had show trials. They didn't keep records of all the people who died.

https://salempress.com/Media/SalemPress/samples/masterplots_pgs.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851&tag=ff0d01-20

The Gulag Archipelago

Read something.... anything... that makes you less ignorant than you are right now.

You remember that truism from the past "Better to keep your mouth closed, and have people think you a fool, than open your mouth and prove it"?

You just made yourself the poster child for that phrase. Do yourself a favor. If you don't know anything about the topic, keep your mouth closed. You are just making yourself the forums clown.

 

[JoeB131]

It definitely decreased when 20 million people died from famine in Ukraine during the Holodomor.

Um, no, buddy. Here's an article on the Demographics of the USSR>

In 1920, the population of the USSR was 137 million. That was after Russia gave up much of its eastern frontier in the Treaty of Brest-Listov.

By 1926, it had increased to 148 Million and by the eve of WWII, it increased to 139 Million. After the Ribbontrop-Molotov Pact, when it regained the Baltic states, Moldava and eastern Poland, the population jumped to 196 Million.

Now, World War 2, there really were a lot of documented deaths, mostly caused by the Nazis, and the population dropped to 170 MM.

So, no, the myth of millions dying under Stalin is exactly that, a lot of Cold War propaganda. Stalin WAS a bastard. he did kill a lot of people. He was nowhere near a Hitler.

Dude they lied man. Are you nuts? Stalin had show trials. They didn't keep records of all the people who died.

I'm sure he killed a lot of people. It was nowhere near 20 million or 60 million or whatever bizarre numbers you want to pull out of your ass. For most Russians, the USSR is actually considered the "Good times". Stalin is still respected and admired in Russia today, and the guy wasn't even a Russian.

 

[Andylusion]

It definitely decreased when 20 million people died from famine in Ukraine during the Holodomor.

Um, no, buddy. Here's an article on the Demographics of the USSR>

In 1920, the population of the USSR was 137 million. That was after Russia gave up much of its eastern frontier in the Treaty of Brest-Listov.

By 1926, it had increased to 148 Million and by the eve of WWII, it increased to 139 Million. After the Ribbontrop-Molotov Pact, when it regained the Baltic states, Moldava and eastern Poland, the population jumped to 196 Million.

Now, World War 2, there really were a lot of documented deaths, mostly caused by the Nazis, and the population dropped to 170 MM.

So, no, the myth of millions dying under Stalin is exactly that, a lot of Cold War propaganda. Stalin WAS a bastard. he did kill a lot of people. He was nowhere near a Hitler.

Dude they lied man. Are you nuts? Stalin had show trials. They didn't keep records of all the people who died.

I'm sure he killed a lot of people. It was nowhere near 20 million or 60 million or whatever bizarre numbers you want to pull out of your ass. For most Russians, the USSR is actually considered the "Good times". Stalin is still respected and admired in Russia today, and the guy wasn't even a Russian.

Yeah, and right now there are people in Venezuela that wish Chavez was back in power.

Stupid people can be convinced of anything, if you lie to them enough.

Especially when the damage from the policies, shows up after you leave office.

When Stalin first came to power, he ordered that the food produced in the Ukraine, was carted into Russia, and distributed to the people.

Well of course as a Russian, you think Stalin's policy is fantastic, even while millions of Ukrainians starving.

But after Stalin is dead, and those farms that used to provide food, are dead from starvation.... slowly over time food shortages grow worse.

Same thing happened in Venezuela. Yeah, things were better under Hugo Chavez, because bad policies take time, sometimes years to destroy the economy.

It's like Thatcher used to say "Eventually you run out of other people's money".

Well that takes time. That's the dangerous mythology of the left. In the short term, socialism is fantastic. Chavez taking food and giving it to the poor for free, was fantastic for the poor. Until..... the food runs out. Farmers were for years saying it was becoming less and less profitable to grow food. Eventually they stopped.

Chavez dies, and the food runs out, so the stupid people say "Things were better under Chavez!" and they were... but only because the bad policies had been around for fewer years.

Same with Stalin. Yeah, things were better under Stalin, because the policies had not been around as long, when Stalin was alive. He was still able to steal wealth from the producers when he was alive. After he died, the money ran out, and Russians were literally engaging in Cannibalism because there was no food.

If Stalin had lived to the 1990s, they would still have been in mass starvation, and everyone would have hated him. Stalin just didn't live long enough to see the natural result of his policies.