Laid-off Keystone XL worker says decision to cancel pipeline ‘is going to hurt a lot of people’

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Not to bring up he who shall not be spoken of, but as a member of the GOP, he was much more centrist than at least the last 3 GOP occupants in the WH.  That aside, I do enjoy the utopian vision you are saying the Dems have.  The Dems have clearly shifted to the extreme Left, and they have also become the Party of the rich elite (do you think Bezos voted GOP?), I know, it is sacrilege to say the Dems are only paying lip service to the little guy, but that is exactly what it is.  It is also a big reason why I do not belong to either Party.

 

Btw, you do know that it is the producers of this country that actually drive the economy right?  It is not DC, as the government is not in any way a producer. 

Really? Who exactly are these producers?   Do they use Federal highways? Ship on barges on Federal waterways? Use irrigation, upon a stable power grid, educated workforce, federal research? If they can't pay a living wage are their employees getting federal and state assistance? Do they say no to federal loans when disaster hits? Did they stand inline to get federal assistance for covid relief? Will their staff take the covid vaccine so we can get back to work?  Do they import or export on shipping lanes kept safe by our military?

 

They can probably "produce" without federal help, but the environment for doing so is fraught with risk.

 

 

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Really? Who exactly are these producers?   Do they use Federal highways? Ship on barges on Federal waterways? Use irrigation, upon a stable power grid, educated workforce, federal research? If they can't pay a living wage are their employees getting federal and state assistance? Do they say no to federal loans when disaster hits? Did they stand inline to get federal assistance for covid relief? Will their staff take the covid vaccine so we can get back to work?  Do they import or export on shipping lanes kept safe by our military?

 

They can probably "produce" without federal help, but the environment for doing so is fraught with risk.

Yeah, good points. This is another pet peeve of mine. The old "I'm a self-made whatever." Yeah, no you're not. You relied on friends, family, public infrastructure, small business loans backed by public money, etc. Bill Gates didn't get rich just because he rolled up his shirt sleeves and went to work. He had wealthy parents who made sure he had the best education and resources, and bought computers for his high school. Show me a "self made" man, and I'll show you somebody who was able to take advantage of outside help. But when the poor and working class just simply ask for a hand up, they're derided by the right as lazy and unambitious. They got theirs, and now they want to shut the door.

 

If you live in any society, you already live under "socialism" by definition. Nationalized health care (as just one example of the "extreme left") doesn't somehow take away your freedom, any more than public roads, air traffic control, or fire departments take away your freedom. But it would be very effective at keeping the national workforce healthy and productive, which can only improve our economy.

[Dashinka 24,735]

17 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Really? Who exactly are these producers?   Do they use Federal highways? Ship on barges on Federal waterways? Use irrigation, upon a stable power grid, educated workforce, federal research? If they can't pay a living wage are their employees getting federal and state assistance? Do they say no to federal loans when disaster hits? Did they stand inline to get federal assistance for covid relief? Will their staff take the covid vaccine so we can get back to work?  Do they import or export on shipping lanes kept safe by our military?

 

They can probably "produce" without federal help, but the environment for doing so is fraught with risk.

 

 

So your argument is the Feds make everything happen, and they bring value to the economy?  Just wow.  You do realize that most highways, federal or otherwise are built using money from the local tax base primarily from property taxes.  Additionally, most businesses do in fact pay federal taxes in some form or other, and their employees are also subject to taxes, so no, I do not beholden myself to the almighty federal government for all that is in this country.  In fact if we left it up the Feds (and their unelected bureaucracies) to actually efficiently produce anything, we would all die of either starvation or from the cold.

[Dashinka 24,735]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

I think that would be a very tough case to make. Rich people did very well under Trump. Everyone else did worse. There was no way the pandemic was going to leave the economy unscathed, but his handling of the pandemic impacted the economy a lot worse than it would have. I could go on and on, but ultimately you only need to look at his extremist base to see that calling Trump a centrist is completely redefining the word. I didn't like most of GW Bush's policies, but looking back, I'd have taken two more terms of Bush over a single Trump term. We will be paying for Trump's radicalization of his supporters for a generation.

 

I'm trying to be careful here to delineate between when I speak about the Dems, and when I speak about the left. There is a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram, but suffice to say I consider myself left of center. I don't trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them, but for now I'll throw my support behind them because the Republican party has completely lost the high ground on any issue or policy they ever stood for.

 

Jeff Bezos is worth close to $200 billion. Do you think he really cares about party? As I said earlier, he's reaped the rewards of Republican tax give-aways to the rich. If the GOP could write Bezos explicitly by name out of their give-aways, I'm sure they would. Bezos could lose 99% of his wealth and still be a billionaire, so let's not get hung up on who he votes for. I could have just as easily used the Koch family, who are hard-core Republicans and worth over $50 billion. The point is that Republicans have sold your and my future to the wealthiest 1% in this country. You don't have to like the Democrats, but you're cutting off your own legs every time you vote for or support the Republican party. The Democrats may be terrible, but their legislation at least works for the other 99%.

 

I have long held that the President holds little sway over the economy, barring major interference like tariffs and other heavy-handed manipulation. Every time someone has posted about how great the economy was doing under Trump, or every time Trump blabbed about how great his economy was, I was mocked for mentioning that belief. So I'm glad to have an ally in recognition of that truth. Policy can tip the economy or put pressure on it, but yes, in general it's the producers who drive it. But when laws are passed that favor the wealthy over the other 99%, it really doesn't matter what the economy is doing. Even when the economy was doing great before the pandemic, wages and benefits were stagnant. Under Republicans, the deck is always stacked against the 99%.

Record unemployment and everyone else did worse?  I know a lot of middle class folks that would very much disagree with you.  The pandemic has artificially hit some sectors of the economy through oftentimes very arbitrary rules being done at the state or local levels, but those folks making these decisions are all following the science (sarcasm intended).  Personally, I really do not care what Jeff Bezos thinks about, nor Bill Gates, the Koch's or any other person that has made money.  I know your feeling is they all did this on the backs of the poor, or were lucky enough to win some kind of genetic lottery (much like the members of the DC elite I imagine), but the simple fact is they are just people like anyone else.  I would though like to hear about all these laws passed that benefit the wealthy over the other 99%?  I know, it was the tax breaks passed a few years ago right?  Well, I know a lot of folks part of the 99% that benefitted quite nicely from that.  I know the Dems/Left are very adept at gaslighting the public (they have a lot of help from their media allies), but we all don't have to fall for it.

[moxy 1,051]

10 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Record unemployment and everyone else did worse?  I know a lot of middle class folks that would very much disagree with you.

Yes. Record unemployment, and everyone else did worse than the wealthy. Even as the economy was booming, wages were stagnant at best, and often falling. Benefits were being cut, the cost of medical care was (and is) skyrocketing, more adults were (and are) living with their parents because affordable housing is a joke, and while the Republican controlled congress was more than happy to put the country deeper in debt to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, the national debt all of a sudden became very concerning to them when people who were either homeless or about to be because of the mismanaged pandemic needed a couple thousand dollars of relief.

 

Ask your middle class friends when the last time they got a raise was, without having to get a new job. Ask them how much of their income goes to paying for health care, and how life-changing it would be if they didn't have that cost. Ask them what happens if they lose their job for six months. Will they have to siphon from their 401k because we have very few safety nets in place? What happens when they're unemployed, can't afford COBRA, and they come down with a major illness. The fact is that most people who are middle class are just six months away from being homeless and dying because they can't afford medical care.

 

None of this is normal, but we've been fed a narrative that because the stock market is/was doing great, we must be better off for it. We are not. Only 1% of us are doing great. The rest of us are living on borrowed time. Those at the lower end of society don't even have that luxury of borrowed time.

 

 

Quote

  The pandemic has artificially hit some sectors of the economy through oftentimes very arbitrary rules being done at the state or local levels, but those folks making these decisions are all following the science (sarcasm intended).  Personally, I really do not care what Jeff Bezos thinks about, nor Bill Gates, the Koch's or any other person that has made money.  I know your feeling is they all did this on the backs of the poor, or were lucky enough to win some kind of genetic lottery (much like the members of the DC elite I imagine), but the simple fact is they are just people like anyone else.  I would though like to hear about all these laws passed that benefit the wealthy over the other 99%?  I know, it was the tax breaks passed a few years ago right?  Well, I know a lot of folks part of the 99% that benefitted quite nicely from that.  I know the Dems/Left are very adept at gaslighting the public (they have a lot of help from their media allies), but we all don't have to fall for it.

I'm not necessarily saying Bezos or the Kochs are somehow evil people for being billionaires, although it sickens me that somebody could amass such incredible wealth that they or the next 10 generations of their family will never be able to spend. I'm saying the conditions that the Republican party have set up to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is bad.

 

If you want to know more about how the Republican party benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, just look at every single tax bill they've passed since Reagan. It's all about "trickle down economics" (we call it supply-side economics now because that sounds better) which has been given a good 40+ year run, and has yet to prove out. Look at their cuts to social safety nets. Look at their opposition to any publicly funded healthcare. Look at their cuts to public infrastructure. Look at the trillions of dollars they're happy to hand over to defense contractors, while always looking to cut a million here and there from public education.

 

As I said earlier, the right loves to attack people like Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez (to pick one example, there are others) as an extremist, but all she's really saying is that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, and that your access to health care shouldn't be tied to your ability to pay. She's saying everyone should have equal access to education, a living wage, and to be treated fairly no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, or origin. I absolutely cannot understand how any of that can be considered "extreme." To me, extreme is trying desperately to take the health care away from millions of Americans because they don't like the guy whose name is attached to it, and who don't even have a plan to replace it.

[Dashinka 24,735]

2 hours ago, moxy said:

Yes. Record unemployment, and everyone else did worse than the wealthy. Even as the economy was booming, wages were stagnant at best, and often falling. Benefits were being cut, the cost of medical care was (and is) skyrocketing, more adults were (and are) living with their parents because affordable housing is a joke, and while the Republican controlled congress was more than happy to put the country deeper in debt to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, the national debt all of a sudden became very concerning to them when people who were either homeless or about to be because of the mismanaged pandemic needed a couple thousand dollars of relief.

 

Ask your middle class friends when the last time they got a raise was, without having to get a new job. Ask them how much of their income goes to paying for health care, and how life-changing it would be if they didn't have that cost. Ask them what happens if they lose their job for six months. Will they have to siphon from their 401k because we have very few safety nets in place? What happens when they're unemployed, can't afford COBRA, and they come down with a major illness. The fact is that most people who are middle class are just six months away from being homeless and dying because they can't afford medical care.

 

None of this is normal, but we've been fed a narrative that because the stock market is/was doing great, we must be better off for it. We are not. Only 1% of us are doing great. The rest of us are living on borrowed time. Those at the lower end of society don't even have that luxury of borrowed time.

 

 

I'm not necessarily saying Bezos or the Kochs are somehow evil people for being billionaires, although it sickens me that somebody could amass such incredible wealth that they or the next 10 generations of their family will never be able to spend. I'm saying the conditions that the Republican party have set up to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is bad.

 

If you want to know more about how the Republican party benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, just look at every single tax bill they've passed since Reagan. It's all about "trickle down economics" (we call it supply-side economics now because that sounds better) which has been given a good 40+ year run, and has yet to prove out. Look at their cuts to social safety nets. Look at their opposition to any publicly funded healthcare. Look at their cuts to public infrastructure. Look at the trillions of dollars they're happy to hand over to defense contractors, while always looking to cut a million here and there from public education.

 

As I said earlier, the right loves to attack people like Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez (to pick one example, there are others) as an extremist, but all she's really saying is that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, and that your access to health care shouldn't be tied to your ability to pay. She's saying everyone should have equal access to education, a living wage, and to be treated fairly no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, or origin. I absolutely cannot understand how any of that can be considered "extreme." To me, extreme is trying desperately to take the health care away from millions of Americans because they don't like the guy whose name is attached to it, and who don't even have a plan to replace it.

You keep going back to healthcare which is not really relevant to the discussion in this thread.  Is the US HC system broken?  Yes it is, and Obamacare didn't really do anything to fix that, but that is a discussion for another thread.  Whether it is supply side or trickle down, it does not really matter, the economy thrives when people are consuming things regardless of their income levels, and that money is distributed accordingly.  It seems you would rather have some form of wealth re-distribution overseen by the idiots in DC, I am not sure that would work given the inefficiency of the Feds.

 

Btw, AOC is indeed an extremist, and she makes no bones about that.  Being a proud member of the Democrat-Socialists of America with their goal of making all industry government owned is quite extreme (I know, you don't want to hear it called socialism or communism, but it is what it is).  Yes, they want a living wage and for some reason they think all these big evil businesses (most of whom are small business persons and not huge corporations) will simply eat it and there will be no loss of jobs due to implementing wage requirements.  Btw, what is a living wage in say TX, of AL, or CA, etc. $15/hr, $30/hr, why not $100/hr?  Companies will do what they do best and maintain their profits (I know, a bad word) through automation, or less employees, etc.  Then of course inflation will catch up and the new artificial federal wage floor will have to be re-adjusted.  This seems like a never ending cycle to me.

 

Regardless, the conversation is quite off target, but I get your point, we need more federal intervention into the private sector to equalize outcomes (I am not against reasonable regulations regarding the environment or worker safety by the way) , and I would like the Feds to get out of the way and in fact shrink its size as much as possible (do we really need all the bureaucrats we currently have) and make sure everyone has equal opportunities as it is really hard to legislate equal outcomes.

[moxy 1,051]

25 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

You keep going back to healthcare which is not really relevant to the discussion in this thread.  Is the US HC system broken?  Yes it is, and Obamacare didn't really do anything to fix that, but that is a discussion for another thread.  Whether it is supply side or trickle down, it does not really matter, the economy thrives when people are consuming things regardless of their income levels, and that money is distributed accordingly.  It seems you would rather have some form of wealth re-distribution overseen by the idiots in DC, I am not sure that would work given the inefficiency of the Feds.

I keep hitting that tangent because it's all part of the larger problem. Republicans are going after Biden for killing pipeline jobs, as if they actually care about these people. But when it's Republican policies affecting jobs, then it's all talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. I mentioned healthcare and other issues because you asked for specifics.

 

Quote

Btw, AOC is indeed an extremist, and she makes no bones about that.  Being a proud member of the Democrat-Socialists of America with their goal of making all industry government owned is quite extreme (I know, you don't want to hear it called socialism or communism, but it is what it is).  Yes, they want a living wage and for some reason they think all these big evil businesses (most of whom are small business persons and not huge corporations) will simply eat it and there will be no loss of jobs due to implementing wage requirements.  Btw, what is a living wage in say TX, of AL, or CA, etc. $15/hr, $30/hr, why not $100/hr?  Companies will do what they do best and maintain their profits (I know, a bad word) through automation, or less employees, etc.  Then of course inflation will catch up and the new artificial federal wage floor will have to be re-adjusted.  This seems like a never ending cycle to me.

 

Socialist =/= extremist.

 

My impression is that AOC isn't trying to turn this country into a communist paradise. To bring this back to topic, AOC would want those displaced pipeline workers to have access to health care and social safety nets while they were in between jobs. She'd want those workers to stay healthy and not struggle, so that when they're ready for the next thing, they're healthy and can contribute to a robust economy. She'd want that worker's kids to have access to a quality public education, and opportunities for a living wage when they entered the work place. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think when you hear "socialist" you think of communism and the worst abuses of un-democratic regimes. Socialism in this context just means the government putting people first. All people, not just the 1%. If her rhetoric says otherwise, I'm open to having my mind changed.

 

Quote

Regardless, the conversation is quite off target, but I get your point, we need more federal intervention into the private sector to equalize outcomes (I am not against reasonable regulations regarding the environment or worker safety by the way) , and I would like the Feds to get out of the way and in fact shrink its size as much as possible (do we really need all the bureaucrats we currently have) and make sure everyone has equal opportunities as it is really hard to legislate equal outcomes.

Mostly agreed, and I'll leave it at that. Good conversation, thanks for that. I really enjoy threads where people aren't trying to score zingers and misrepresenting the other person's arguments. I appreciate that, and if I've misrepresented anything you've said, my apologies, I'll do better.

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, moxy said:

Yeah, good points. This is another pet peeve of mine. The old "I'm a self-made whatever." Yeah, no you're not. You relied on friends, family, public infrastructure, small business loans backed by public money, etc. Bill Gates didn't get rich just because he rolled up his shirt sleeves and went to work. He had wealthy parents who made sure he had the best education and resources, and bought computers for his high school. Show me a "self made" man, and I'll show you somebody who was able to take advantage of outside help. But when the poor and working class just simply ask for a hand up, they're derided by the right as lazy and unambitious. They got theirs, and now they want to shut the door.

 

If you live in any society, you already live under "socialism" by definition. Nationalized health care (as just one example of the "extreme left") doesn't somehow take away your freedom, any more than public roads, air traffic control, or fire departments take away your freedom. But it would be very effective at keeping the national workforce healthy and productive, which can only improve our economy.

Bill Gates would likely agree with you.

[Dashinka 24,735]

14 hours ago, moxy said:

I keep hitting that tangent because it's all part of the larger problem. Republicans are going after Biden for killing pipeline jobs, as if they actually care about these people. But when it's Republican policies affecting jobs, then it's all talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. I mentioned healthcare and other issues because you asked for specifics.

 

 

Socialist =/= extremist.

 

My impression is that AOC isn't trying to turn this country into a communist paradise. To bring this back to topic, AOC would want those displaced pipeline workers to have access to health care and social safety nets while they were in between jobs. She'd want those workers to stay healthy and not struggle, so that when they're ready for the next thing, they're healthy and can contribute to a robust economy. She'd want that worker's kids to have access to a quality public education, and opportunities for a living wage when they entered the work place. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think when you hear "socialist" you think of communism and the worst abuses of un-democratic regimes. Socialism in this context just means the government putting people first. All people, not just the 1%. If her rhetoric says otherwise, I'm open to having my mind changed.

 

Mostly agreed, and I'll leave it at that. Good conversation, thanks for that. I really enjoy threads where people aren't trying to score zingers and misrepresenting the other person's arguments. I appreciate that, and if I've misrepresented anything you've said, my apologies, I'll do better.

 

It seems the displaced pipeline workers would have healthcare if they were actually working, but of course there are different political agendas out there.  The simple fact is that Global Warming caused by man is in fact a political agenda, and Biden's EO ending these jobs will do nothing to change anything as the oil will flow, and in some cases cause more carbon emissions since it now has to flow by less environmentally friendly means.  As to AOC, I can only take her at her words regarding her adherence to Democrat Socialist of America (DSA) principles.  I have read their (the DSA) "Who We are" statement many times, and it has not changed.  Sure they say they do not want government owned industry, but rather social owned entities either owned by the workers, or publicly owned but managed by the workers.  I don't know if you have worked in industry or not, but management by committee rarely works when the goal is to grow and maintain the health of an industry.  All these "socially owned" industries will have to be overseen by someone (IMO government elites), and we end up in a death spiral from an industry standpoint.  Btw, if you look back to the former Soviet Union or talk to anyone that lived through it and were not part of the ruling class, the USSR's economic system was socialism, the single Party that controlled it were Communists.

 

Anyway, it gets down to my own libertarian views, get the government out of our business.  I for one do not want the government bureaucracy controlling healthcare and making healthcare decisions, it would be way worse than what we already have with insurance companies which is not so good either.  Much like the cost of advanced education, when the government starts injecting a ton of money into any sector, the prices go way up.  Healthcare would be no different as the bureaucracies would have to be paid for regardless as if it comes from private insurance companies, or some Executive Branch department.  I know the UK NHS is touted as a great success, but in that system, over half the employees are dealing with the administrative side rather than the healthcare side. 

 

Regardless, like anything else, it all comes down to politics and as I stated earlier, both Parties only goal as to stay in power.  My fear is that the Dems are in a position to get too powerful and we know what that does.  DC is full of corrupt career politicians and unelected bureaucrats that wield too much power.

[Dashinka 24,735]

14 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Bill Gates would likely agree with you.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, the Koch's, etc., always have the opportunity to give away their vast fortunes or even write big checks to the government if they feel the need.

[moxy 1,051]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

It seems the displaced pipeline workers would have healthcare if they were actually working

Yeah, that's the problem. Why is health care tied to work? In what universe do those two things go together? That's just as logical as saying if your house is burning down, the fire department will respond if you're working. The police will respond to your 911 call, but only if your employer provides police insurance. It's a complete farce, but we've somehow been convinced of the big lie that your worth as a human being is measured by your employment status.

 

Quote

Anyway, it gets down to my own libertarian views, get the government out of our business.  I for one do not want the government bureaucracy controlling healthcare and making healthcare decisions, it would be way worse than what we already have with insurance companies which is not so good either. 

I don't know how anything could possibly be worse than what we already have with the insurance companies. I guarantee that if you were out of work and uninsured, and came down with cancer, you'd be just fine with government run health care.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Our new insurance company has this thing. They will not pay for my higher price meds, but appointed a prescription  concierge who I have to give a limited power of attorney and will obtain them from Canada at no cost to me.  Got to see how this works out 

[moxy 1,051]

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Our new insurance company has this thing. They will not pay for my higher price meds, but appointed a prescription  concierge who I have to give a limited power of attorney and will obtain them from Canada at no cost to me.  Got to see how this works out 

I do hope this works out for you.

 

But this is not normal. At all.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

8 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Our new insurance company has this thing. They will not pay for my higher price meds, but appointed a prescription  concierge who I have to give a limited power of attorney and will obtain them from Canada at no cost to me.  Got to see how this works out 

I like the idea, Canadians were getting a bit ticked tho with the situation when covid-19 supply issues pushed some drugs into short supply. Watch the quality though, some of these drugs were not made in North America and are not even the drugs Canadians get.

 

 

  I despair that our country will ever regulate drug prices. If we could start with Federal programs at least.

 

Edit: can that concierge hook us up with concert tickets? 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

8 hours ago, moxy said:

I do hope this works out for you.

 

But this is not normal. At all.

We offshored IT support, PPE mfg, tax preparation and everything else. Prescriptions from Canada feels relative normal considering, at least it's north america.