Forum Thread

Hillary's plan for coal country is "Trumped"


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 43 of 43 Prev 1 2 3
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There has always been winners and losers since the beginning of human civilization.

    Am I for job training and educational programs to help the individuals who no longer have a job in the coal industry? Yes.

    Do I feel bad for the individuals who are so angry and jaded about losing their jobs that they would rather sit on their ass and bitch all day instead of doing something about it? No.

    I am all for helping these people out, but there also comes a time when they have to stop bitching about the world not being fair and actually get off their soap box and figure out a new way to support themselves.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    That is exactly your problem. You think they, the poor, can help themselves and actually give them some blame for their condition. That is right wing conservative thinking. They have no mobility and significant numbers live in secluded remote areas that developed around the coal mines. If they were trained and educated there is still no industry or businesses where they live to employ them. That is why they are unemployed. Unemployment is not caused by people refusing to work. Unemployment is caused by bad management of money. The solution to unemployment is not a pep talk to the unemployed. There are enough resources to keep the world employed at a living wage. The solution is the responsibility of anybody that has the power to help. Unemployment is a human rights problem. Democrats don't blame poor people for being poor. There is no planning for collateral damage. In anything. The unions and I as an elected officer campaigned for scrubbers. We wanted clean air and clean water as much as anybody. We thought our power was invincible. We should have contained ourselves to what we knew. Work conditions of our brothers and sisters. Our National Officers , in all unions, should have contained themselves to what they knew. They should have done what they do best. Fight for the safety and welfare of the members. Trade our political power for the longevity and betterment of the Union. Not work shoulder to shoulder with people who could care less about the welfare of union workers. There are better ways to do everything.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Since I started this thread, I suppose it's time to interject my worldview, first on coal and then on jobs. First, Jared is right about the adverse effect of burning coal on the environment. There are newer technologies that reduce some of the pollutants, but ultimately the only solution is the capture and storage underground of the carbon dioxide.

    It's unfortunate that the term, "clean coal" is bandied about by politicians, including Barack Obama at one time. The term should rather have been "less dirty coal". And for the different technologies described in this paper, Clean Coal - Pros and Cons, none are economically feasible on a grand scale. You can read about all the technologies, but the concluding paragraph at the end of the paper is the economic and environmental reality:

    "There are emerging technologies that suggest that coal can be a clean source of energy. Unfortunately, none of these technologies have been proven and there are currently no coal-fired power plants in the United States that are using any of these technologies because of the uncertainty of the technologies and expensive that is required to implement them. The fact is that coal is dirty from beginning to end. Coal mining is destroying entire ecosystems beyond repair and coal burning pollutes the atmosphere with toxic greenhouse gases. There are some benefits of coal - it's cheap, reliable, and readily available in the United States. Nearly 50% of the electricity in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants, so it will be a difficult transition to renewable power sources. But instead of focusing the green effort on trying to fix coal, resources should be allocated toward truly renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar."

    Now on the question of jobs, in my canvassing neighborhoods to get people to vote, there is no other topic that invokes more emotions for those unemployed or potentially to be unemployed. When one owns' job is at risk, all the other environmental or other issues or views you might have become secondary. People cannot talk rationally. It is also unfortunate that politicians from both parties pander to different demographics every election year on the promises of jobs. Donald Trump's promise to bring back coal mining jobs is a big fat lie, yet those coal miners in the audience cheering him are not being realistic about their own future. Trump is giving them false hope. Coal mining jobs are declining largely for economic reasons, and environmental regulations have become a convenient scapegoat.

    Much like jobs lost due to trade, those jobs are not coming back.

    What both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both promised is not to bring back coal jobs, but rather massive redevelopment and education programs. However, I will go even further. Rather than specifically targeting the coal industry, the government's programs to encourage community revitalization and redevelopment should extend to all communities across the USA whose economic well being has been affected by market forces, technology, and globalization. In a sense I support something like a "job guarantee" as Carlitos has proposed because the dignity of work is important for the cohesion of the American people. Much of the so called "anger" that is being so talked about in this election has been festered by politicians seeking to promote themselves by casting blame on the "other".

    And the mainstream media are enablers of adversity.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: That is exactly your problem. You think they, the poor, can help themselves and actually give them some blame for their condition. That is right wing conservative thinking.

    The only thing I hate more than a red herring logical fallacy is straw man arguments. I never once said that the poor are to blame for their conditions. Not once.

    What I did say is that there are plenty of programs for individuals who lost their jobs in the coal industry to utilize if they want to find a new profession. I also said that I don't feel sorry for those who sit on their ass and bitch all day about how tough their lives are without utilizing the programs that are out there for them to help get them back on their feet.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: They have no mobility and significant numbers live in secluded remote areas that developed around the coal mines. If they were trained and educated there is still no industry or businesses where they live to employ them. That is why they are unemployed. Unemployment is not caused by people refusing to work. Unemployment is caused by bad management of money.

    Well then maybe it's time for them to accept that the place they live is no longer viable for them or their families. If the jobs are no longer there and new industries don't show interest in moving there then they may want to move somewhere that is seeing a rise in job growth. Then that training and education they received will be of use.

    Some coal miners are unemployed because they were in an industry that is no longer needed and they haven't learned to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Other coal miners learned to adapt and moved themselves and their families where there are jobs. Towns rise and towns fall. Is it fair? No. But there are more than enough resources for those who are unemployed to get retrained in a new profession.

    And the coal industries unemployment crisis has absolutely nothing to do with bad management of money. It's because the vast majority of the population rose up and demanded that we begin to find new resources of energy that won't kill our planet. That population demanded that we invest our taxpayer dollars in energy sources that are renewable, cheap, and carbon neutral. Coal is none of those things.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Bad money management is the cause of almost all problems since 2001. When a significant part of money is tied up in derivatives that slows the velocity of money and unemployment follows.

    Poor people do not have discretionary money. The can't move out of economically depressed regions. They cannot move into a promising area and afford first and last, water deposit, sewerage deposit, garbage deposit, electric deposit and to live until they can find a job. Additionally the most menial of any training costs more than the actual move. That is reality.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Why didn't they put aside some of their high union wages into a high yield savings account for a rainy day? You said that you were making 50 plus thousand a year your first year in the job. Correct me if I'm wrong, but coal country isn't necessarily the most expensive place to live in this country.

    Look--I want these out of work people to find new jobs, but sitting around and blaming everyone else isn't going to get them a new one.


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    jsredsxtn said:

    "Do I feel bad for the individuals who are so angry and jaded about losing their jobs that they would rather sit on their ass and bitch all day instead of doing something about it? No.

    I am all for helping these people out, but there also comes a time when they have to stop bitching about the world not being fair and actually get off their soap box and figure out a new way to support themselves."
    You are saying they could do something to change their situation and they are not. That is blaming them for not helping themselves.
    And talking about saying something that wasn't said. I never said I made 50K a year. I said somebody could start out making 50k a year. I was Federally certified to work on high voltage circuits up to 1000 volts in explosive conditions underground and higher voltage transformers above ground. I made 75 thousand a year.
    Why didn't they invest in high yield savings accounts or insurance annuities or any other savings or income plan? They spent their money. Does that make them deserving of bad treatment? Why didn't the government provide for them before taking their livlihood away? Why are their no equitable reparations for people that lose their livlihood thru no fault of their own? They pass laws to enable traders to make billions of dollars and at the same time take the livlihood away from lower classes without blinking an eye. Where is help for lower class people?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Don't even get me started on my opinions of reparations. Middle class white men who made $50,000 a year and didn't think that it would be smart to save for a rainy day are hardly deserving of reparations.

    Individuals who grew up in the Jim Crow south whose ancestors were lynched and given zero rights are.

    Get off your damn soap box. If any class of people is deserving of reparations it's African Americans, not old white men who killed our planet and are too dam lazy to find a new job.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Don't even get me startnot old white men who killed our planet and are too dam lazy to find a new job. my opinions of reparations. Middle class white men who made $50,000 a year and didn't think that it would be smart to save for a rainy day are hardly deserving of reparations.

    Individuals who grew up in the Jim Crow south whose ancestors were lynched and given zero rights are.

    Get off your damn soap box. If any class of people is deserving of reparations it's African Americans, not old white men who killed our planet and are too dam lazy to find a new job.

    There is nothing in what you say about the displaced coal miners that is even remotely Democratic or liberal. You distort logic to sensationalize your opinion. First of all the coal miners are represented by all ages and predominantly family men and women. Then again you blame them for their own unemployment saying they are lazy and won't get up to find a job. Then you blame the workers for the pollution there product makes. That ill logic says that all the transportation workers, power plant workers and just about every industrial worker and every person that drives a car is responsible for pollution. Not Democratic and not liberal and not logical. I defend workers rights and you tell me to get off my soap box. My points are liberal and democratic. Explain your criticism from your liberal democratic position you claim to have.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Since I started this thread, I suppose it's time to interject my worldview, first on coal and then on jobs. First, Jared is right about the adverse effect of burning coal on the environment. There are newer technologies that reduce some of the pollutants, but ultimately the only solution is the capture and storage underground of the carbon dioxide.

    It's unfortunate that the term, "clean coal" is bandied about by politicians, including Barack Obama at one time. The term should rather have been "less dirty coal". And for the different technologies described in this paper, Clean Coal - Pros and Cons, none are economically feasible on a grand scale...

    It is unfortunate so many politicians use that term because it then makes people believe that it's true. All the reading I've done on "clean coal" by scientific studies and other peer reviewed sources is that there's actually no such thing as clean coal. I like your term "less dirty coal" because that's what it is and even that makes people believe that it's healthy for us.

    What I've come to understand is that the four main types of coal are twice or three times as harmful to the planet than oil when it's burned. So no amount of "less dirty coal" technology will come close to being on par with oil, which is plenty harmful as well.

    Schmidt Wrote: Now on the question of jobs, in my canvassing neighborhoods to get people to vote, there is no other topic that invokes more emotions for those unemployed or potentially to be unemployed. When one owns' job is at risk, all the other environmental or other issues or views you might have become secondary. People cannot talk rationally. It is also unfortunate that politicians from both parties pander to different demographics every election year on the promises of jobs. Donald Trump's promise to bring back coal mining jobs is a big fat lie, yet those coal miners in the audience cheering him are not being realistic about their own future. Trump is giving them false hope. Coal mining jobs are declining largely for economic reasons, and environmental regulations have become a convenient scapegoat.

    Much like jobs lost due to trade, those jobs are not coming back.

    What both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both promised is not to bring back coal jobs, but rather massive redevelopment and education programs. However, I will go even further. Rather than specifically targeting the coal industry, the government's programs to encourage community revitalization and redevelopment should extend to all communities across the USA whose economic well being has been affected by market forces, technology, and globalization. In a sense I support something like a "job guarantee" as Carlitos has proposed because the dignity of work is important for the cohesion of the American people. Much of the so called "anger" that is being so talked about in this election has been festered by politicians seeking to promote themselves by casting blame on the "other".

    And the mainstream media are enablers of adversity.

    I agree that employment is the most politically charged issue for the vast majority of working Americans. When they are unemployed they are angry at the government for not doing more to help them find a job. It's an understandable human emotion, but if an unemployed person believes that electing a demagogue like Trump will change their employment status then they are going to be sorely disappointed.

    As you said--coal jobs are not coming back. That's just a fact those who worked in coal country must learn to accept. I am more than willing to spend my taxpayer dollars on job training, education programs, and relocation assistance to help anyone who lost their job due to no fault of their own find a new one. However, I begin to lose my sympathy for people when they have these services at their fingertips but refuse to accept them

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: There is nothing in what you say about the displaced coal miners that is even remotely Democratic or liberal.

    I'm not a Democrat; I'm a progressive liberal. I believe in using our taxpayer dollars in a way that will benefit the overall society and not a specific occupation or trade. I believe in a single payer health care system, an expanded social security safety net, and major investments in education that will prepare future generations for the world as it will be and not how it used to be. I believe in a livable wage that automatically adjusts for inflation so no person who works a full time job has to be on food stamps or Medicaid. And I believe in civil and human rights for all.

    I've said a million times that I want to invest in programs that will retrain displaced coal miners for new professions. I've also said that those coal miners might have to relocate if they want a new job.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: You distort logic to sensationalize your opinion. First of all the coal miners are represented by all ages and predominantly family men and women. Then again you blame them for their own unemployment saying they are lazy and won't get up to find a job. Then you blame the workers for the pollution there product makes. That ill logic says that all the transportation workers, power plant workers and just about every industrial worker and every person that drives a car is responsible for pollution.

    I never once blamed them for their unemployment. I only said that I don't feel bad for them if they would rather sit on their couch and bitch about the world not being fair than use the resources available to them to learn a new trade or profession.

    I also never once blamed them for the pollution their product makes. I said that they were unfortunately in an industry that is killing the planet and we are now finally beginning to find new technologies that won't kill our planet.

    Try to keep focused on my words and not what you think I believe. Like I said before--there's nothing that bugs me more than straw man fallacies.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Not Democratic and not liberal and not logical. I defend workers rights and you tell me to get off my soap box. My points are liberal and democratic. Explain your criticism from your liberal democratic position you claim to have.

    I'm right there with you when it comes to defending workers rights, but this argument has absolutely nothing to do with workers rights.

    Workers don't have a right to pollute our planet; they have a right to a safe work environment and a lunch break. Workers don't have a right to keep their jobs no matter what; they have a right to a safe work environment and a lunch break.


    My criticism of your positions has to do with your arguments that these displaced workers should be taken care of ad infinitum with no strings attached. I have no problem making sure those who have black lung disease are taken care of for the rest of their lives and I have no problem making sure retired coal miners continue to receive their pensions.

    What I have a problem with is a 35 year old former coal miner who was used to making $50,000 a year refusing to find a new job because it might pay less than what he was used to making. What I have a problem with is a 35 year old former coal miner who refuses to relocate to another part of the country that is hiring because he expects the government to take care of him for the rest of his life.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn you said "old white men who killed our planet and are too dam lazy to find a new job."
    Then you said: " I also never once blamed them for the pollution their product makes."
    I don't understand the reasoning. I am finished discussing unemployed coal miners.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn you said "old white men who killed our planet and are too dam lazy to find a new job."

    Then you said: " I also never once blamed them for the pollution their product makes."

    I don't understand the reasoning. I am finished discussing unemployed coal miners.

    I encourage you to read my entire posts and not focus on the words that you can selectively pick to back up your preconceived beliefs.