Biden and Bernie to Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia: Drop Dead

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  3 months ago  •  45 comments

By:   Stephen Moore

Biden and Bernie to Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia: Drop Dead
Such is the "collateral damage" of the left's radical climate change agenda. The left is willing to put 300,000 Pennsylvanians and nearly 200,000 Ohioans in unemployment lines. One has to wonder if the professors, CEOs and social activists would be all-in on the green agenda if it were their jobs that would be wiped out. Too often, political activists measure their commitment to the environment by how many other people they are willing to let lose their jobs.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Democratic presidential field is down to two old, white males, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Though they are said to represent two polar-opposite wings of the party, on one issue, they are in complete agreement. They both have solemnly pledged to destroy millions of blue-collar jobs across Middle America's oil patch.

Each has pledged to stop oil and gas development dead in its tracks. This anti-shale and gas movement has the zeal of a religious crusade. If that green agenda comes to pass, it will reverse the economic renaissance in states such as New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These states have all become energy powerhouses thanks to new technologies in fracking and horizontal drilling.

It would be a stunningly stupid thing to stop these practices, because they come at the very moment that America has arrived at energy independence. We have now become a net exporter of natural gas. This shale revolution has neutered the OPEC nations that once had a blade at our necks, as well as other hostile countries such as Russia and Iran. It is no exaggeration to say that the people who would benefit most from Biden and Sanders' foolishness would be Vladimir Putin and the Arab oil sheiks.

One can imagine a hostile nation or terrorists trying to paralyze our economy by bombing our oil fields to shut down our energy production. But Biden and Sanders want our country to do this to itself.

In a recent debate, Biden said he supports stopping fossil fuel development in America, even though "thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands" of people would lose their jobs. Sanders says we have to end all fossil fuel development and "end fracking" immediately because of climate change.

The biggest losers would be blue-collar workers in the Midwest, the mountain states and the Southwest. Nationwide, the direct job losses would reach 1.5 million, and a total of 8 million to 10 million workers would be laid off in ancillary industries. Drillers, engineers, construction workers, truck drivers and welders would get pink slips, not paychecks. By the way, in many oil states, such as Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota, truck drivers can easily earn more than $100,000 a year. These are high-paying jobs. I thought that is what Sanders and Biden said they wanted.

It would kill a nearly $1 trillion industry and devastate small towns across the country. The devastation of the coal industry -- with towns in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming nearly eviscerated and residents now in unemployment lines or addicted to methamphetamine -- would be the fate of the oil and gas towns on a scale 10 times larger. The war against natural gas is particularly nonsensical because natural gas reduces carbon emissions.

Such is the "collateral damage" of the left's radical climate change agenda. The left is willing to put 300,000 Pennsylvanians and nearly 200,000 Ohioans in unemployment lines. One has to wonder if the professors, CEOs and social activists would be all-in on the green agenda if it were their jobs that would be wiped out. Too often, political activists measure their commitment to the environment by how many other people they are willing to let lose their jobs. In 2016, Hillary Clinton pledged to put coal miners out of business, and the coal states blitzed her. Will the oil and gas states respond the same way?

Climate change radicalism pits prosperity for the middle class against the elite and the millennial snowflakes who are protected from the real effects of the climate change hysteria. This movement exposes the fault line of the modern Democratic Party: Does it care more about the green activists than the blue-collar (often unionized) workers it says it stands behind? Right now, the greens are winning. One can only hope that the workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas are paying very close attention. Because Sanders and Biden are telling them: Drop dead!








Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    3 months ago

Each has pledged to stop oil and gas development dead in its tracks. This anti-shale and gas movement has the zeal of a religious crusade. If that green agenda comes to pass, it will reverse the economic renaissance in states such as New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These states have all become energy powerhouses thanks to new technologies in fracking and horizontal drilling.

It would be a stunningly stupid thing to stop these practices, because they come at the very moment that America has arrived at energy independence. We have now become a net exporter of natural gas. This shale revolution has neutered the OPEC nations that once had a blade at our necks, as well as other hostile countries such as Russia and Iran. It is no exaggeration to say that the people who would benefit most from Biden and Sanders' foolishness would be Vladimir Putin and the Arab oil sheiks.

One can imagine a hostile nation or terrorists trying to paralyze our economy by bombing our oil fields to shut down our energy production. But Biden and Sanders want our country to do this to itself.

In a recent debate, Biden said he supports stopping fossil fuel development in America, even though "thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands" of people would lose their jobs. Sanders says we have to end all fossil fuel development and "end fracking" immediately because of climate change.

The biggest losers would be blue-collar workers in the Midwest, the mountain states and the Southwest. Nationwide, the direct job losses would reach 1.5 million, and a total of 8 million to 10 million workers would be laid off in ancillary industries. Drillers, engineers, construction workers, truck drivers and welders would get pink slips, not paychecks. By the way, in many oil states, such as Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota, truck drivers can easily earn more than $100,000 a year. These are high-paying jobs. I thought that is what Sanders and Biden said they wanted.

It would kill a nearly $1 trillion industry and devastate small towns across the country. The devastation of the coal industry -- with towns in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming nearly eviscerated and residents now in unemployment lines or addicted to methamphetamine -- would be the fate of the oil and gas towns on a scale 10 times larger. The war against natural gas is particularly nonsensical because natural gas reduces carbon emissions.

Such is the "collateral damage" of the left's radical climate change agenda. The left is willing to put 300,000 Pennsylvanians and nearly 200,000 Ohioans in unemployment lines. One has to wonder if the professors, CEOs and social activists would be all-in on the green agenda if it were  their  jobs that would be wiped out. Too often, political activists measure their commitment to the environment by how many other people they are willing to let lose their jobs. In 2016, Hillary Clinton pledged to put coal miners out of business, and the coal states blitzed her. Will the oil and gas states respond the same way?  https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49721/biden-and-bernie-to-pennsylvania-ohio-and-west-virginia-drop-dead

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

Some people apparently value lives. Imagine that.

Where are all the coal jobs your orange idol promised ? That got him off the hook for any realistic training for new jobs. He likes the old days, as he has often said. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  katrix @1.1    3 months ago

Biden and Sanders have no clue as to how an economy works.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    3 months ago

LMAO... this coming from the president who thinks having the government pay for your tax refund is the way to go and now wants to rob SS, so the economy won't crash. SS is something you paid for, so he's robbing you at both ends.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    3 months ago

That’s just pure nonsense. Such a deliberately egregious mischaracterization  of policy undermines, nay destroys, ones credibility.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.3    3 months ago

Please explain to me how I am wrong, instead of making personal attacks. 

Do you know how much those tax breaks has raised our national debt? 

Is Trump not proposing ending payroll taxes till the end of the election cycle? Gee, I wonder why? And what does that money go to normally?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    3 months ago

Such patience.   Kudos.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    3 months ago

Like the Democrats and Republicans give a shit about the debt. The only time the debt comes up is as a political attack when the other party holds the White House.

Maybe the FED needs to step in and start quantitative easing again?  Seems they had no hesitation last time when a D was in the White House. Of course all of those negative assets being bought have to go somewhere. But, I am sure the FED can hide them just like last time.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    3 months ago
Please explain to me how I am wrong, instead of making personal attacks. 

Expect a blast of hot air.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    3 months ago

I just wonder if there was the same criticism when Obama cut the payroll tax as part of a stimulus plan or if its just more TDS going on here?  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.8    3 months ago
I just wonder if there was the same criticism when Obama cut the payroll tax as part of a stimulus plan.

exactly.

there was not so much as a peep from the left... it was an awesome idea when obama did it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.6    3 months ago
Like the Democrats and Republicans give a shit about the debt. The only time the debt comes up is as a political attack when the other party holds the White House.

But I am not a Democrat. I'm a fiscal conservative. 

Maybe the FED needs to step in and start quantitative easing again? 

What are you talking about? The Fed Reserve just lowered the rate by 0.50 percent to a range of 1-1.25 percent. Any lower you might as well not have a bank account.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.8    3 months ago
I just wonder if there was the same criticism when Obama cut the payroll tax as part of a stimulus plan or if its just more TDS going on here?  

Excuse me, but I don't suffer from TDS, so nice personal attack. I was not for his impeachment. 

And yes I did criticize Obama plenty. That payroll tax should not be touched since it is what pays for our retirement, and for some people that is all they will have.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.9    3 months ago

You were not here when Obama was prez. I criticized him plenty. And he is no longer the prez, is he?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.12    3 months ago
That payroll tax should not be touched since it is what pays for our retirement, and for some people that is all they will have.

It's been "touched" since the PONZI scheme known as Social Security was enacted.   You know as well as I do that the actuarial tables at the time had people dying prior to or very soon after starting collecting benefits.  And any "remaining" contributions were essentially forfeit to the government with the exception of a $225 burial stipend.   It was created to raise revenue for the feds since raising taxes the proper way was political suicide at the time.  The only place SS could "invest" excess funds was in US Treasuries.   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.12    3 months ago
I don't suffer from TDS

You can't suffer from it, nor can anyone else. It doesn't exist. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.14    3 months ago

9mm,

You might want to call it a ponzi scheme (it has become that because of the boomers), but this is a fund that is paid for by us and our employers, and is needs every dime it can get, because of the boomers. And I am not discussing how it should be invested. I am saying that it should not be used as a source of stimulus for the President. The extra $50 a week it will add to most people will not change much but it will hurt SS in aggregate. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.16    3 months ago
You might want to call it a ponzi scheme (it has become that because of the boomers), but this is a fund that is paid for by us and our employers, and is needs every dime it can get, because of the boomers. And I am not discussing how it should be invested. I am saying that it should not be used as a source of stimulus for the President. The extra $50 a week it will add to most people will not change much but it will hurt SS in aggregate.

What is it called when YOU 'invest' in something and require the 'investment' of OTHERS to recoup your 'investment'?

If you need assistance in the answer, I'll provide the following:

What Is a Ponzi Scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for early investors by acquiring new investors. This is similar to a  pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors' funds to pay the earlier backers.

Source:  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp

When originally conceived, it was possible to accomplish the hoped for goals fairly easily.   There were many more "contributors" than recipients.  Today, the number of contributors is down to roughly three or four for each recipient.

What will they do when the numbers reach a one to one ratio?  Like my brother and many people I know who are receiving benefits, I receive the maximum monthly amount permitted by law.   But then I also paid into it, along with my employer, the maximum amount required by law every year of my working life with the exception of my very first part time jobs while in high school.

They're now dipping into the "reserves" of Treasury Notes as the "contributions" collected yearly are out stripped by the paid out benefits.  That's one of the reasons I maxed out my 401k contributions (and later, I also made the maximum "catch up 401k contributions) and my son and his wife are doing the same.  It WILL go broke.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
1.1.18  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.15    3 months ago
I don't suffer from TDS
You can't suffer from it, nor can anyone else. It doesn't exist

  So says the TDSholic

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.19  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.13    3 months ago
You were not here when Obama was prez

I was clearly talking about "the left."

I thought you were independent. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.20  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.17    3 months ago

I fully understand the condition of SS, which is why I am so against removing the payroll deduction under any condition. Too many baby boomers. 

But I am not following you here. You are a retiree, and you are getting SS. Why are you stripping out your 401K instead of using it as supplemental? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.19    3 months ago
I thought you were independent. 

What would indicate I wasn't from anything I said?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.20    3 months ago
I fully understand the condition of SS, which is why I am so against removing the payroll deduction under any condition. Too many baby boomers. 

Not too many boomers.   It's simply that the government never expected to have to actually make good on the promises they made.   They NEVER expected to pay people for 20, 30 or more years as the actuarial tables, as I indicated earlier had people dying before or very shortly after they started.  YEARS of payments were never considered in the original theory.

But I am not following you here. You are a retiree, and you are getting SS. Why are you stripping out your 401K instead of using it as supplemental? 

I mean they're stripping out the "trust fund".  Hell, I'm pissed that I'll be forced to take RMD's (required minimum distributions) next year since I'll hit that magic 70 1/2 this year.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.21    3 months ago
What would indicate I wasn't from anything I said?

nothing you said...  I don't think of independents as "the left"

so, I was not even talking about you in my original reply.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.10    3 months ago
But I am not a Democrat. I'm a fiscal conservative. 

I am an independent fiscal conservative. What I stated is true. The only time either party cares about the debt is when they are out of power. Then every increase is scrutinized. I don't remember calling you a Democrat?

What are you talking about? The Fed Reserve just lowered the rate by0.50 percent to a range of 1-1.25 percent. Any lower you might as well not have a bank account.

What am I talking about? Did the FED hold interest rates at 0 for most of Obama's time in office? Were they or were they not buying toxic assets and priming the market with billions pumped in every month? 

Both parties are more interested in staying in power than actually doing what is beneficial for the rest of us. What Trump is doing is self preservation; the same thing any Democrat would do if they held the presidency. Power is all they care about.

My original post and this one are not meant as personal attack against you. I was directing anger at both the Republicans and Democrats, and the FED. What I see clearly as sarcasm sometimes doesn't come out in my posts sometimes. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.25  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    3 months ago

Perhaps I have given too much benefit of the doubt. In any event, the only thing that is meaningful is this area of discussion is that someone take notice that there are those among us that possess a greater understanding of the true nature of SSI's deficiencies and not some reflexively simplistic interpretation of the same.  Further that the experiential cynicism derived from this forum offers no solace in advancing such understanding. thus begging the question ...   Go on.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.26  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.21    2 months ago

Maybe because there’s a difference between how you respond to points made by conservatives here compared to those of liberals here.  You may be not Republican or Democrat and thus technically independent but between right and left and members behind those views it appears that you are sympathetic to many more left positions on issues than right positions on issues.  

 
 
 
katrix
1.2  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

Hillary did not pledge to put coal miners out of business. She said that coal wasn't coming back. She said it badly, but she was correct. 

Have you even bothered to research the reasons why coal isn't coming back, and how little any president could do to impact that?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.2  Split Personality  replied to    3 months ago

No Wally.  Simple math, there is a dwindling supply of coal which costs more and more to extract and (mostly) ship to China, while we have an over abundance of natural gas, so much so that we arrogantly  simply burn off the fumes over all of our major oil fields.

It's so abundant, that it is cheaper to burn off the excess rather than capture it for resale.

BP lost up to 17% last year.  Under this Administration, Exxon & BP increased burn off by 70%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/climate/natural-gas-flaring-exxon-bp.html512

In a 2014 investigation of flaring of natural gas in the nation’s two most prolific shale oil formations, North Dakota’s Bakken Shale and Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale, Earthworks found that North Dakota oil companies have flared more than $854 million of natural gas since 2010, and state officials do not track how much money companies owe in taxes for the gas. The report found that Texas does not tax flared gas at all, pointing to the need for more stringent measures to reduce flaring in both formations and raising questions about whether North Dakota officials will enforce recently issued regulations to control flaring. https://earthworks.org/issues/flaring_and_venting/

Opportunities everywhere, create jobs, tax revenue, heat houses or make electricity while lowering air pollution.

Win, Win, Win...

Sad...

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.2    3 months ago

not only are they willing to flare it off, they're happy to pay the fines when they get caught doing it in my state, and those costs are passed on to the consumer...

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to    3 months ago

The governor of New York already told his upstate citizens to drop dead when he banned the fracking neighbors in Pennsylvania were benefiting from. 

 
 
 
lady in black
1.2.5  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.4    3 months ago

Glad there is NO fracking in NYS.  If you want fracking, they can frack in your back yard

Btfw fracking is in the toilet and crooked donnie wants to do the socialist thing and bail them out

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/10/trump-oil-bailout/

White House likely to pursue federal aid for shale companies hit by oil shock, coronavirus downturn

But the idea could face resistance from those who support direct aid to workers. One critic called the idea ‘absurd.'

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @1.2.5    3 months ago

With the Saudis and Russia engaged in a race to the bottom with supply increases and price decreases, it might be reasonable to protect our producers

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2    3 months ago
Hillary did not pledge to put coal miners out of business.

Quite the contrary.  Here's her exact words:

"Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Source:  https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-biggest-campaign-mistake-2017-9
 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.7    3 months ago

She just said it badly....

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.9  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @1.2.5    2 months ago

Well we are doing it.  We are going to fill our national strategic oil supply to the Max as part of the national emergency. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

Climate change is bad.  It's bad for you.  It's bad for me.  It's bad for the people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio too.  Coal is 18th century technology.  Oil is 20th century technology.  It's time to move forward.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2  Freedom Warrior    3 months ago

Energy policy is one of the pillars of left-wing fukwadism. AOC and her 12 years, Green New Dumbphuckery, fracking bans, and the list goes on. 

Along the way we do observe people making claims regarding climate change and ignoring any scientific evidence that contradicts their prognostications which for the most part have been horribly erroneous. Indignantly glorifying their azzdouchery they seek to inflict their fascistic impulses on those that cast the least bit of justifiable skepticism upon their proclamations. 

Apparently they are woefully unaware that if they were more truthful in their scientific endeavors they would have far more success in achieving climate action awareness.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    3 months ago

Well said. 👍👏

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago

More and more we should consider folks who refuse to consider the contradictory scientific evidence as the true climate change deniers.

We know for a fact that contradictory data exists that suggests carbon emissions may not be a significant contributor to global warming and by their own admission any focus on the same does not represent a cure all.  More so, the data correlation between carbon and global temperature rise appears to be coincidental. Significant climate changes were observed before 1850 that have NO correlation with CO2/GHG changes in the atmosphere. Objectively that should give scientists pause; however, climate change "scientists" are often more political activist than scientist.

Even further, we have observed their fervor take on a cult like persona attempting to ostracize those that may raise skepticism reflexively branding them deniers thus heretically abandoning scientific principles while ironically manufacturing greater skepticism in contrast to their supposed goals.  A negative feedback loop?  Certainly one not originating within the fossil fuel industrial complex.

As I expect you know, alternative explanations for global climate change exist yet are more-or-less ignored by governments, the media, dimwitted politicians like AOC and more insidiously actively discounted by climate change "scientists". The more prominent of these alternative explanations is an astrophysical one that includes solar activity and magnetic affects on the Earths atmosphere. This model matches record of global climate changes for at least the past 4,000 years of recorded history ... something the favored, yet potentially fatally flawed carbon-based AGW models fail to do. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.1    2 months ago

Bingo.  You are right on in all the points you made.  The problem is that it gets harder to seed sources that back our point of view because off how they are rated by a site controlled by our domestic enemies.  They consider us to be questionable, pseudoscience, and or conspiracy types and try to make our viewpoint outside the bounds of community standards.  It is the proponents of one point of view using content control to limit the expression of other points of view.  

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2  cjcold  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    3 months ago
ignoring any scientific evidence that contradicts their prognostications

There is no contradictory scientific evidence, only fossil fuel industry propaganda.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  cjcold @2.2    3 months ago

I knew I could count on you to confirm my findings. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.2.1    3 months ago

Yes indeed...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




62 visitors