The pipeline extension was never approved, so there were no employees to fire. To compare putting a stop to a project Americans didn't want before it even started, using speculative estimates of potential jobs, to the mass terminations happening now is quite a stretch.
This is getting ridiculous now. Apparently, discourse is not appreciated here. I'm thinking maybe it's time to find a site that encourages exchanges of ideas.
Understood, but the whole idea of a site like this is to have discourse with others. Also, the fact that you can't block anyone which would precent conversation, so the fact that your responses are seen by the person to whom you are directing your comment may mean that others don't have an opportunity to freely converse with you. By the way, your comment can be removed before the person you answered gets to see it.
Oddly, virtually all of my moderated comments were directed to the same person so I know they were seen. I do agree it's difficult to have a real exchange of political ideas on this site for a number of reasons.
It will take some time to see what impact the headcount reductions may have. If a plane crash is due to mechanical failure, pilot error, or weather, then it should not be the fault of the FAA, the transportation secretary or the President. But, if equipment is not maintained, maps are not current, personnel on the ground who guide the planes are short staffed, computer systems are not updated, it won't matter if air traffic control is fully staffed with white men.
The impacts are more likely to be delays in takeoffs and landings in the short-term. A big problem that some CEO'S have is that they think of employees as an expense rather than an asset. A mass layoffs helps the bottom line for a while, but it is rarely sustainable.
Spunky 