Economic anxiety is not why Trump was elected.

[DINGO Joe]

I hate wading into these WV/coal things because there are people who get it and people who never will.  If "Who killed Appalachian coal" was a game of Clue the answer would be everyone with every weapon, but since Fuzzy lives in FLA let's talk about FLA and it's neighbor GA who were two of the first to kill Appalachia.  Starting around 2000, they looked at the rising cost of Appalachian coal the new technology of Natural Gas CC power plants new pipelines and supply from the Gulf and marched down a different path. 

https://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/archive/2001/d_01state.pdf

https://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/pdf/d_16state.pdf

These are government statistics on where states get their coal and how much they get

In 2001  GA got  more than 20 million tons of coal from WV and EKY, FL took in a little under 15 million tons from the same

In 2016 GA got about 600,000 and FL got 400,000 tons.  The rest replaced with NG or cheaper coal.

I doubt Fuzzy has ever contacted his local utility demanding that they save the poor Appalachian coal communities and start burning their coal again. 

Fast forward to today with the Marcellus and Utica in full swing and this is the generation scheduled to open in the next year (meaning they are under construction now)



Everyone who gets coal or electric power from Appalachia coal are actively replacing it with cheaper NG power, everyone except WV (even KY built a NG plant in Louisville)  Of course, Dum Dum Donald's and Retard Rick's efforts to "save" coal would mean kneecapping all those new gas plants.  Of course, they'll have a hard time proving a national emergency in court, assuming they can even write a coherent order claiming such an emergency.  Circling back to Florida, in 2001 they got about 33% of their electricity from coal, by 2008 it was 25% and this year they're on pace for about 12%, and they are still shutting down coal plants.  Given that Florida has little interconnection with other states their grid is relatively independent so it'll be hard to claim that the PJM grid is "at risk" when Florida operates with virtually no coal.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

[DINGO Joe]

Now, let's talk about WV.  There is exactly one state that has fewer people now than it had in 1950, that would be West Virginia.  They topped out at 2 million and are now down to 1.8 million.  It's not uniform as the East Panhandle (which has nothing to do with coal) has tripled in population from 60000 to 190000 and Morgantown (WVU which oddly gets more than half of it's students from out of state) has doubled from 50000 to 100000.  That means "coal" WV has gone from 1.9 million to 1.5 million.  Obviously, people have been leaving WV for some time now.  The 80s were the most brutal decade after WV coal had a good 70s.  The state lost 150000 in the 80s and the number of births dropped from 29000/year to 22000/year by the 90s (US births went from 3.6 mil to 4.2 mil in the same decade).  

The state has become very old.  The 3rd highest % of people 65 and over (behind Florida and Maine), which is impressive given the shorter lifespan WV have.  And it's not because WV is a retirement mecca like Florida (which can replenish their olds constantly)  it's because they are what is left as the young have left.  For 2017 WV had 18500 births and 23000 deaths (Maine is the only other state with negative gap--about 1000).  BTW, the three youngest counties in the state are Morgantown and Berkeley and Jefferson (East Panhandle) so "coal" WV is even older.


As people have noted, WV actually only has about 13000 miners out of more than 700,000 jobs in the state, so why are they so coalcentric?  Well, it's both identity and economic.  Just as Iowa used have more farmers and it's identity is as a farm state, WV has lots of ex-coal miners who still live there, in fact certainly more ex-miners that current.  The reason communities were founded and still exist (even if barely) was because of coal.  This isn't easily accessible terrain and it's hard to maintain the roads and infrastructure, especially when there are fewer people.  It's like stretching Detroit across mountains.  The economic part is that the state does collect considerable revenue off of coal, property taxes and severance taxes plus the state generates 95% of it's electricity from coal.  It also subsides it's in state electric rates by selling excess power out of state, except the rise of cheap NG has meant states that bought their power are building their own plants or buying from NG plants in places like PA, meaning that electric rates in WV have been rising and coal plants shutting down that can't compete.

So, if you want to save WV you have to find companies that you can pay to move into a state with a shrinking,  aging (and drug addled) workforce, that has a substandard infrastructure with rising electric rates.  Or you can let them keeping thumping their chest about how coal keeps the lights on as they die off.  

If you wish to compare WV population pyramid with the US or other states follow this link

https://business.wvu.edu/centers/bureau-of-business-and-economic-research/data/population-data

and choose Resident Population by Age and Gender link.

[Indy Texas]

Would some form of UBI work for coal miners who have lost their jobs due to coal industry work? I’m normally staunchly opposed to this but for workers near retirement (where retraining them would be useless), it seems like the most viable solution.

Why would we give this to coal miners when we don't do it for anyone in any other industry?

From an economic perspective, it makes no sense to give coal miners a special carveout for this. From a political perspective, why should we help coal miners when they're just going to keep voting Republican anyway?

[Green Line]

Why do so many hispanics love Trump if this is true?  Do they hate themselves?  I really dk.

[Indy Texas]

This is what the future of coal mining looks like: an open pit somewhere in Wyoming with a bunch of self-driving trucks and excavators being operated remotely by a handful of people.

The kind of mining that is done in West Virginia and Kentucky is economically unsustainable and that way of life is going the way of the dodo, whether the people who live there like it or not.

Hillary Clinton tried to tell them hard truths and give them help preparing for them.

Donald Trump offered them feel-good lies.

They chose the high fructose corn syrup that will kill them over the bitter medicine that could have helped them.

Trump was offering them friendlier policies toward the industry they worked in.  He wasn't lying there.  How wise those policies were/are is another issue, but his policies would be better for THEIR jobs in the short run, and their choice was not rational.

Yes, these folks passed on Hillary's "Tough Love".  Here's a secret:  "Tough Love" is tough on the lover.  How tough were these policies on Hillary?  They were policies that benefitted educational establishments and "green" industries at the expense of coal miners who could not necessarily support themselves through the "training period" and were by no means certain to find a job where they lived.  Of course; they didn't feel the (tough) love!  They didn't see the love in being forced to move from the only place they've ever known for a place where their chances of (A) being employed in their "new career" or (B) just flat-out making ends meet at a below-modest level.   ("People Are Portable" was the unspoken theme of the Clinton campaign in WV in 2016.)

The coal miners are America's throwaway people.  They have every right to be bitter at America welcoming in foreigners at liberal rates while they're being thrown away as useless.  Bill Clinton used to say, "We don't have a person to waste!", but his spouse is bent on showing America otherwise.

You know, they don't have "COAL MINER" branded on their skin. They are human beings who are capable of performing other tasks.

When Blockbuster went out of business, we generally expected the people who used to rewind VHS tapes to go out and find something else to do. We didn't scream about them being THROWAWAY PEOPLE. When people could start buying plane tickets online, travel agents found other things to do.

I don't understand why you think coal miners in particular have some God-ordained right to never have to do any other job besides mine coal and should have the jobs "come to them" when the rest of us don't have that privilege.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Except for the fact that it isn’t bs. She said it. We all know what the witch meant.

[mvd10]

Well, looking at the exit polls it did play a role I suppose, as Trump won 40% of voters with an income under $30k (Romney won only 35%). Trump's primary voters also were the least affluent Republican primary voters. But Trump's base is disproportionally middle-class (just like Hillary's base) because poor people generally don't turn out to vote. I have to agree with Indy Texas btw. Sure, I feel sorry for those people but there are so many industries that are dying and so many people are losing their jobs to automation. There is no reason why we should suddenly make an exception to save coal miners, especially when coal doesn't really seem to offer much positive externalities. Obviously coal is a symbol/way of life which means the debate gets much more emotional but I don't think we should make policy on basis of that.

[President Johnson]

Well, looking at the exit polls it did play a role I suppose, as Trump won 40% of voters with an income under $30k (Romney won only 35%). Trump's primary voters also were the least affluent Republican primary voters. But Trump's base is disproportionally middle-class (just like Hillary's base) because poor people generally don't turn out to vote. I have to agree with Indy Texas btw. Sure, I feel sorry for those people but there are so many industries that are dying and so many people are losing their jobs to automation. There is no reason why we should suddenly make an exception to save coal miners, especially when coal doesn't really seem to offer much positive externalities. Obviously coal is a symbol/way of life which means the debate gets much more emotional but I don't think we should make policy on basis of that.

That has largely something to do with education. I don't like to say it, but the less education people have, the more likely is that they don't reflect proposed policies and follow a demagogue who has easy answers to complex problems.

[mvd10]

Well, looking at the exit polls it did play a role I suppose, as Trump won 40% of voters with an income under $30k (Romney won only 35%). Trump's primary voters also were the least affluent Republican primary voters. But Trump's base is disproportionally middle-class (just like Hillary's base) because poor people generally don't turn out to vote. I have to agree with Indy Texas btw. Sure, I feel sorry for those people but there are so many industries that are dying and so many people are losing their jobs to automation. There is no reason why we should suddenly make an exception to save coal miners, especially when coal doesn't really seem to offer much positive externalities. Obviously coal is a symbol/way of life which means the debate gets much more emotional but I don't think we should make policy on basis of that.

That has largely something to do with education. I don't like to say it, but the less education people have, the more likely is that they don't reflect proposed policies and follow a demagogue who has easy answers to complex problems.

You're right, but I'm going to assume people with household incomes less than $30k are pretty economically anxious too.

[Pericles]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Except for the fact that it isn’t bs. She said it. We all know what the witch meant.

I'll refer you back to what I posted before, containing what she actually said and meant. It's easy to make people look bad when their remarks are spliced into one sentence and taken out of context, and hopefully people have a more nuanced view upon seeing the full remarks.

"Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right.  Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America.  We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope. 

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work."-Hillary Clinton

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Except for the fact that it isn’t bs. She said it. We all know what the witch meant.

No she didn't. Conservatives projecting their sadism and enjoyment of the suffering of their "cultural enemies" onto others as usual.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Except for the fact that it isn’t bs. She said it. We all know what the witch meant.

I'll refer you back to what I posted before, containing what she actually said and meant. It's easy to make people look bad when their remarks are spliced into one sentence and taken out of context, and hopefully people have a more nuanced view upon seeing the full remarks.

"Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right.  Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America.  We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope. 

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work."-Hillary Clinton

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/

I love how "context" never applies to Trump, only Hillary. She said "I will put those miners out of work" and meant it. The fact that she would give them piecemeal training programs - mere scraps in the context of her broader economic policy - made it clear that she wasn't really interested in putting them back to work. This is all Hillary Clinton had to offer on her website.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She would have left the miners high and dry. She had no interest in retraining them, and those funds for "retraining" would have probably only "retrained" the mine bosses anyway. Hillary Clinton doesn't care about miners. End of story. She was the candidate of economic genocide and she was roundly rejected and spit out by the American voters (sorry - I meant the voters that mattered) as a result.

In fact, all Hillary had to offer was a temporary stopgap plan in which funds would be diverted to the UMW's pension program. You can read about it here.

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Except for the fact that it isn’t bs. She said it. We all know what the witch meant.

No she didn't. Conservatives projecting their sadism and enjoyment of the suffering of their "cultural enemies" onto others as usual.

Sadism is putting white mine workers out of work so government money can be used to cover the legalized undocumented criminals in this country who would surely give the Democrats their votes in exchange.

[forgotten manatee]

Looks like he called her a witch. That says it all. Don’t waste your time on him; he “heard” exactly what he wanted to “hear” from Hillary, so nothing you can say is going to change his mind.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Looks like he called her a witch. That says it all. Don’t waste your time on him; he “heard” exactly what he wanted to “hear” from Hillary, so nothing you can say is going to change his mind.

Does the blue text in my post scare you?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Hillary was, however, thrilled to see the coal industry die in the name of "green".  Mourning the collateral damage didn't lessen the impact of her intended policies.  Her attitude was that these folks' jobs were being sacrificed in the name of the environment, and while this was a shame, they would just have to suck it up for the greater cause of the Greening of America.  

And I get that to a point.  Ending the production of tobacco, for example, will cause job loss and relocation, and I have sympathy for the tobacco workers (while I hate the industry; it's legal poison).  But "retraining" isn't a plan for these people's economic viability; it's a tool to say, "We left you a life preserver!".  The life preserver does little for protection against the sharks swimming in the waters they were just thrown into.

I'm also not anti-environmentalism (at least not to the degree Trump is), but look at much "environmentalism".  It's elitism on steroids.  Why is FL so anti-offshore drilling?  An enlightened electorate?  No, it's because rich, snotty coastal and barrier island property owners don't want their view of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico spoiled by oil rigs and platforms.  (And, yes, Florida's environment is more delicate than many places.)  It's a lot of NIMBY crying, and I don't have tons of sympathy for much of this, because much of it is about better-off folks afraid of their property values and not wanting to shoulder some uncomfortable social responsibility for a greater good.  (The WV coal miners get that forced on them, however.)  

I've been in situations where politicians wished to eliminate my job.  In their case, it was for the sake of rewarding private contractors.  Of course they "cared" about us, they were "thankful for our efforts" and "concerned about our families"; they would certainly arrange for "referrals" and for "linking" us up with "job opportunities".  There would even be "counseling resources" available, so I could process with a therapist instead of ranting on sites like Atlas.  Wasn't that awesome?  If you don't think so, consider why Hillary's faux empathy isn't playing well in WV.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Would some form of UBI work for coal miners who have lost their jobs due to coal industry work? I’m normally staunchly opposed to this but for workers near retirement (where retraining them would be useless), it seems like the most viable solution.

Why would we give this to coal miners when we don't do it for anyone in any other industry?

From an economic perspective, it makes no sense to give coal miners a special carveout for this. From a political perspective, why should we help coal miners when they're just going to keep voting Republican anyway?

And you opposed Obama's bailout of the American Auto Industry because . . .

[forgotten manatee]

Looks like he called her a witch. That says it all. Don’t waste your time on him; he “heard” exactly what he wanted to “hear” from Hillary, so nothing you can say is going to change his mind.

Does the blue text in my post scare you?

Oops. I have Fuzzy on ignore and mistook your post for his in the quote within a quote chain. It is confusing to have two rascals with blue Florida avatars, I'm sure you can understand.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Looks like he called her a witch. That says it all. Don’t waste your time on him; he “heard” exactly what he wanted to “hear” from Hillary, so nothing you can say is going to change his mind.

Does the blue text in my post scare you?

Oops. I have Fuzzy on ignore and mistook your post for his in the quote within a quote chain. It is confusing to have two rascals with blue Florida avatars, I'm sure you can understand.

Now that she's destined to never be President, I have Hillary Clinton on ignore.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Deep down, even if they don't want to admit. Most people voted for Trump because they have an irrational distaste for immigrants.

That is over simplified, but partially correct.

In a democracy, if Americans who have a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries) see a candidate who clearly has a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries), then they are free to express their democratic rights at the polling booth.

The issue is that not all Trump supporters are the same.

Others are just fed up of the over governed, overtaxed, over regulated garbage like what happened in Seattle with the homeless tax on big business.

Others are fed up with how the military is run into the ground.

Others are concerned about the economy and manufacturing.

To call all Trump supporters deplorables shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the world that actually exists.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Deep down, even if they don't want to admit. Most people voted for Trump because they have an irrational distaste for immigrants.

That is over simplified, but partially correct.

In a democracy, if Americans who have a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries) see a candidate who clearly has a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries), then they are free to express their democratic rights at the polling booth.

The issue is that not all Trump supporters are the same.

Others are just fed up of the over governed, overtaxed, over regulated garbage like what happened in Seattle with the homeless tax on big business.

Others are fed up with how the military is run into the ground.

Others are concerned about the economy and manufacturing.

To call all Trump supporters deplorables shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the world that actually exists.

This.

[IceAgeComing]

As people have noted, WV actually only has about 13000 miners out of more than 700,000 jobs in the state, so why are they so coalcentric...

There's one other fundamental issue that you don't raise and that is that coal jobs tend to support other jobs in local communities.  When the mines shut its not just the miners that lose their jobs but also what happens is since the main industry of their community has effectively closed there is a lot less money in the local economy so other businesses locally lose revenues and have to downsize or close which cause the people that work for them to be laid off.  I think that's the fundamental reason why many voted for Trump: this is a process that for whatever valid reasons or not have been happening for decades - not just in areas with the coal industry but in communities that traditionally have been supported by a single industry that's downsized or closed - and no one has really paid any attention so when someone appears and offers what appears to be very simple reasons for and very easy solutions to your problems (which wouldn't actually help - but then again they never were meant to) then its only natural that you'll get people who move in that direction.  

The "retraining" thing is a bit of a meaningless cry as well for several reasons.  Firstly you have to consider that because the coal industry tends to employ older people who've worked their entire lives in the industry and that means that frankly they aren't very good targets for retraining.  Someone who's say, 50 and worked in the mines since they left school is going to struggle to get a job in a totally different industry since a company is very unlikely to employee someone who's that old with no experience in their industry or anything close when there are likely younger candidates or people with lots of experience applying for the same job.  And whatever job it is its going to pay less than what they earned as a miner so it will seem like a move backwards anyway.  Secondly in order for retraining schemes to work you need there to be jobs available for the people that you are retraining and that is unlikely to be the case when it comes to this particular case.

There's no easy solutions to situations like this - I'm a Green so naturally I think that we need to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable, environmentally friendly forms of energy but I'm also a human being and understand that you can't just close the mines and expect things to change overnight.  The policies that many of the Democrats in this thread seem to be suggesting are followed are worryingly similar to those pursued by Thatcher in the 1980s in the mining communities of Britain and they only resulted in many ex-coal communities having 90% unemployment for many years, people being put on disability benefits even though they are fit to work to give at least some people a slightly better living (and also to make unemployment figures look slightly better) and the issues resulting from those are still very much present now.  Its not just a case of doing retraining schemes or whatever - the history of government-ran retraining schemes isn't great; they don't tend to be overly useful or helpful - and the most important thing is to encourage new industries to move to traditionally coal areas and provide new jobs that are more sustainable in every way to those communities and means that the harm of closing the mines from a purely economic perspective (although not from a local pride perspective which is also important and much harder to fix) is less.  Perhaps you also could put more money into the coal miners pension fund to allow miners who lose their jobs at an age near retirement to instead take their pension early rather than be unemployed and have no income coming in at all: that might help as well.  Whatever solution there is will take lots of time, money and effort though and I don't know whether there is the political will on the side of the Democrats to try and pursue such policies - the Republicans never would because of ideological reasons.

[Famous Mortimer]

Whites don't dislike Hispanic immigration because Hispanic immigrants are brown, whites dislike Hispanic immigration because they are expected to pay for Hispanic immigrants. Middle class whites (and middle class people of all races) are taxed to pay for programs for immigrants, programs they themselves are not eligible for because they're "too rich". People who are struggling economically don't want to be taxed to pay for services for other people with whom they have little in common beyond being human. Middle class desire not to be taxed will only increase as the middle class becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the population and needy immigrants become a larger and larger percentage of the population.