What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

nursej22, MSN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

4 hours ago, Beerman said:

No, I doubt that anyone has said it in those words. But it seems that with most social problems that are discussed, such as the discussion on the last page or two about chiod poverty, the liberal answer is always that we need to throw more money at it. So, from that, we need more money and based on past liberal rhetoric, it can be inferred we need to further tax the rich.

I don't believe I ever said we just throw more government money at poverty. But it does seem pretty obvious that the way to overcome poverty is with money. I am all for people being paid decent wages, by which I mean enough to have enough to eat, a roof over one's head, and clothes to wear. If indeed, the rich are the job creators, then let them pay their employees enough to get by and care for their families without government dollars. This may mean they earn a little less, but then their tax bill would go down.

I found one source, https://www.business.org/finance/accounting/hourly-wages-ceo-vs-employees/, that report that the average CEO makes $21.45 million a year, 400 times what an average employee makes. Does a CEO really generate 400 times more value that an employee? Certainly, one ought to be able to squeak by on a mere 10 mill? I think if one was frugal, 5 mill would do.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Feb 21, 2022

22 hours ago, Tweety said:

which might correspond to their percentage the economy and the number of employees they have not all of them put it in their bank account.

But yes many people rich and poor got money they didn't need.

Pelosi help draft it.

I have no problem with wealthy people getting funds IF they used the money to put people to work....But 2008 already proved the point that they don't do that. Look how the meat packers dragged their feet to make their factories safer. A lot of workers had to die before they even installed the basics like plastic dividers between working stations. I, too, have problems with Pelosi even though I admire her tenacity and appreciate that she stayed because of her institutional knowledge. I cringed when she opened the ACA document with "let's see what's here."

Tweety, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

6 minutes ago, subee said:

I have no problem with wealthy people getting funds IF they used the money to put people to work....But 2008 already proved the point that they don't do that. Look how the meat packers dragged their feet to make their factories safer. A lot of workers had to die before they even installed the basics like plastic dividers between working stations. I, too, have problems with Pelosi even though I admire her tenacity and appreciate that she stayed because of her institutional knowledge. I cringed when she opened the ACA document with "let's see what's here."

I can't disagree. The pandemic was an interesting time. At the same time people were hurting, wealthy people got wealthier and middle class savings accounts rose to some of their highest levels.

Crazy times.

Guests · Feb 21, 2022

And now that the wealthiest have increased their wealth and some middle class workers have saved some cash during the pandemic that is note an excuse to address the pandemic inflation by imposing austerity on the working poor and economically vulnerable. Unless your government is more of an oligarchy than a democracy.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 21, 2022

10 hours ago, nursej22 said:

I don't believe I ever said we just throw more government money at poverty. But it does seem pretty obvious that the way to overcome poverty is with money. I am all for people being paid decent wages, by which I mean enough to have enough to eat, a roof over one's head, and clothes to wear. If indeed, the rich are the job creators, then let them pay their employees enough to get by and care for their families without government dollars. This may mean they earn a little less, but then their tax bill would go down.

I found one source, https://www.business.org/finance/accounting/hourly-wages-ceo-vs-employees/, that report that the average CEO makes $21.45 million a year, 400 times what an average employee makes. Does a CEO really generate 400 times more value that an employee? Certainly, one ought to be able to squeak by on a mere 10 mill? I think if one was frugal, 5 mill would do.

What the article or anyone here has ever made the case for, is why it matters what the CEO makes.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 21, 2022

More on the war against oil:

"In my 30 years of working in Washington, this has without a doubt been the most unfavorable political and regulatory environment for our industry I have ever seen,” said Stewart. “It started on Day One, and it continues.”

Stewart referenced President Joe Biden’s promise at last Friday’s press conference that he would “work like the devil” to lower gasoline prices. He said it ran contrary to the administration’s prior actions on oil and gas, including cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and a freeze on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters.

“My response would be: ‘You’ve worked like the devil to jack up prices until last Friday,’” Stewart said.

Energy analyst David Blackmon, an editor for Shale Magazine, voiced strong agreement with Stewart.

In the U.S., we have a presidential administration that has spent a year now taking every action at its disposal to hinder domestic oil and gas production, as well as the build-out of transportation infrastructure to move it to market. We have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress who inserted significant anti-fossil fuel provisions into their infrastructure bill and sought even more in the failed Build Back Better legislation,”

https://m.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-most-unfavorable-political-and-regulatory-environment-for-our-industry-I-have-ever-seen-u-s-oil-gas-assoc-chief_4277717.html

Tweety, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

49 minutes ago, Beerman said:

What the article or anyone here has ever made the case for, is why it matters what the CEO makes.

It doesn't matter what they make. But it also doesn't matter to us that we tax them more because they make so much.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

"War on Oil". Does that go along with "Cancel Culture", "The War on Christmas"? Oh the drama of it all.

The above quotes is just rhetoric, but I can't read the article without giving an email which I won't do to find out what are the specific actions he's taken that this executive says is the worst in 30 years.

But yes, he has not exactly pandered to the will of big oil.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2021/01/29/how-president-bidens-executive-orders-impact-the-oil-industry/?sh=278fc5834ef4

MunoRN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

More on the war against oil:

"In my 30 years of working in Washington, this has without a doubt been the most unfavorable political and regulatory environment for our industry I have ever seen,” said Stewart. “It started on Day One, and it continues.”

Stewart referenced President Joe Biden’s promise at last Friday’s press conference that he would “work like the devil” to lower gasoline prices. He said it ran contrary to the administration’s prior actions on oil and gas, including cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and a freeze on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters.

“My response would be: ‘You’ve worked like the devil to jack up prices until last Friday,’” Stewart said.

Energy analyst David Blackmon, an editor for Shale Magazine, voiced strong agreement with Stewart.

In the U.S., we have a presidential administration that has spent a year now taking every action at its disposal to hinder domestic oil and gas production, as well as the build-out of transportation infrastructure to move it to market. We have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress who inserted significant anti-fossil fuel provisions into their infrastructure bill and sought even more in the failed Build Back Better legislation,”

https://m.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-most-unfavorable-political-and-regulatory-environment-for-our-industry-I-have-ever-seen-u-s-oil-gas-assoc-chief_4277717.html

I'm not sure I'd take the views of the head of the oil lobby, as reported in the Falun Gong's conspiracy/news outlet to be a reasoned source on the topic. The only specific evidence seems to be that Keystone fell through, even that it had no potential to increase domestic oil extraction and was unlikely to affect gas prices.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 21, 2022

7 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not sure I'd take the views of the head of the oil lobby, as reported in the Falun Gong's conspiracy/news outlet to be a reasoned source on the topic.

Hmm, if things were rosy, I'm not sure why the oil lobbist would say they are the worst he's seen in 30 years? What purpose would that serve? The energy analyst for the magazine seemed to agree with him.

14 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

The only specific evidence seems to be that Keystone fell through, even that it had no potential to increase domestic oil extraction and was unlikely to affect gas prices.

According to you, and what other sources? And, I hope those sources can stand up to the same kind of scrutiny you place on any source that presents something that doesn't align with the liberal agenda.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

9 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Hmm, if things were rosy, I'm not sure why the oil lobbist would say they are the worst he's seen in 30 years? What purpose would that serve? The energy analyst for the magazine seemed to agree with him.

Saying "it's the worst it's been in 30 years" needs a little back up and like I said I can't read the article.

Things aren't necessarily "rosy" for exploration and expansion and polluting, as the public wants to move into cleaner energy sources, but these aren't necessarily hard times for big oil either.

They are pocketing profits, and taking advantage of rising gas prices to turn the public in favor of them and against regulation, and blaming regulation on high prices. They've done this before.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/06/oil-companies-profits-exxon-chevron-shell-exclusive

MunoRN, RN · Feb 21, 2022

16 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Hmm, if things were rosy, I'm not sure why the oil lobbist would say they are the worst he's seen in 30 years? What purpose would that serve? The energy analyst for the magazine seemed to agree with him.

It's his job to procure sympathy for the oil industry. The writer is not an energy analyst.

17 minutes ago, Beerman said:

According to you, and what other sources? And, I hope those sources can stand up to the same kind of scrutiny you place on any source that presents something that doesn't align with the liberal agenda.

There is a public group that are actually energy analysts, these are views of one of it's former heads: PolitiFact | Keystone XL suspension probably won’t boost oil prices for Americans

I think you're applying a sort of wonky burden of proof. How would it supposedly reduce US gas prices? It doesn't increase domestic oil production, or foreign oil productions for that matter, and wouldn't affect the aspects of transportation costs that we would see at the pump.