Not all jobs in Pennsylvania, just jobs in the coal industry (for people in Pennsylvania in general, however, this should be considered of paramount importance given how important coal is to the economy of the state, as well as several other states).
Before today, no one has heard this of Senator Government, however, because once again the lamestream media covered for Obama by hiding it. But now it's out:
Obama: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Obama's idea is to institute a cap and trade system for "greenhouse gas" emissions that will add such prohibitive costs to coal powered energy production plants that no one will build them. Further, what isn't specified by Senator Government is whether or not this will affect existing plants. Either way, it is a proposal to stagnate and eventually kill coal demand, meaning jobs in the coal mining industry will disappear. So while more people in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Indiana, and other states are thrown out of their jobs and into welfare lines, everyone's power bills will skyrocket since 49% of power generated in the U.S. is generated with - you guessed it - coal! The so-called proposal to make up for this is Obama's idea to use the proceeds of this plan to fund research of alternatives, but those are decades away from viability and the funding would die off much earlier since it would come from a collapsing industry. That will kill jobs throughout the economy, not just those in the coal industry.
8 comments:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html
Hah hah, yeah, I already know that this is the kool-aid being offered up to counteract the latest harsh dose of reality. It's funny though in that Obama's extended statements only underscore his commitment to ideals that will only cost all of us dearly and probably fail, too. There's no changing the fact that Obama acknowledges and endorses the bankrupting of industries for his political agenda.
The technology talked about here does not exist in enough viable forms to be usable everywhere, and what does exist cannot be built as fast as electricity demand is rising, yet the costs of operating without these things are supposed to be imposed now, supposedly so that revenue can be generated to fund research into that tech. So between now and then - whenever that might be - consumers will get hit with massive cost increases on energy, which will cut demand, which in turn depresses revenues and thus the proposed funding for research. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of jobs will shrivel up and die - 120,000 or so in the coal industry alone are directly threatened by this.
It's amazing to me that someone such as yourself, who frequently struggles to meet expenses, would willingly go along with a man and a plan that promises to make your life even harder. Do you think that you don't pay enough already to refrigerate your food and turn on lights?
My taxes will be lower than they are now. Education for my children will have increased funding. I may be able to get health care. As it is now, my health insurance would cost me $5000 a month if I could find a company willing to cover me.
Yeah, clean coal isn't perfected, but it's underway. Technology can make great leaps under the right pressures. Did you expect two years ago to ever see a hybrid SUV? I could buy into the drill baby drill ideology, that "might" pay off in 10 years.... though I ask is it worth it? I save 50 cents a gallon for what, exactly? Or I can buy into making changes in our environment so my kids and their kids can breathe.
Am I willing to struggle harder to pay for electric for a future that avoids the world being like Beijing pre-cleanup?
Yeah, I am.
If your income taxes are lower, the increased cost of living it seems we're now set up for will wipe that out (do you really think businesses will happily take a hit to their margins to keep your prices in place?). I highly doubt that you're going to get any of the promised goodies they've bought your vote with, but what you do get will very likely be insufficient to meet your needs at the same time that quality declines for everyone.
I guess it doesn't matter to argue the points anymore. You and yours have decided that the rest of us owe you a living and now you've got government force to back it up. The mugger ethic has won. That's that, then. All there is to do now is to begin hiding some assets and put others into non-taxable instruments. I never expected I'd find myself thinking of financial planning as self defense, but here we are now.
"You and yours have decided that the rest of us owe you a living and now you've got government force to back it up."
You owe me an apology for that, right now.
I'm sorry your guy didn't win, but I'm not the only one who voted for Obama, and I sure as hell never asked you for a damn thing. I'm making my own way as best I can and the assistance I get I'm grateful for and pay back in all the ways I am able.
You're right about one thing, Deb. You've never asked me personally for anything. You prefer instead to use government as a weapon to force resources from others for your own benefit. It's the same thing as making demands on my life, only instead you enjoy relative anonymity by hiding behind government force while doing so.
The only thing I'm sorry for is that there are as many people who believe as you do, that this is how things should be; don't take it personally, as if I'm saying this only to you, because I am in fact saying it to everyone. I owe you no apology for the truth.
For someone who claims to know me and my situation well enough to know my motivation, you are surprisingly obtuse. My premium costs so much not because I'm disabled or have extensive medical expenses, but because I have a pre-existing condition (MS, as you know). Despite the fact that I have not had a serious episode in years, I cannot get coverage. I have neither asked for, been promised, nor demanded free insurance. I have asked that I be looked at as an individual with a medical history that has glitches, but has been clear for years and be permitted to pay a premium that I can afford and that will not destroy my family.
I do think that's how it should be - that I, and everyone else, should be viewed individually with individual circumstances - Obama said he would fight that broad brush of pre-existing conditions that destroys families. He's not said we'll get freebies. And even if he did, I wouldn't buy it because I don't believe in free health care. I believe in health care based on the individual clients of the insurance companies.
But you are so busy painting me with a brush loaded with ignorance that it is stunning to me. Particularly by a man who loudly proclaims that the individual is sacred.
Apparently the only individuals who are sacred, who have valid beliefs, thinking, and experiences, are those that agree with you. The rest of "us" are out to get you. Just you, Paul. We all want your money. We want you to fail. We want to climb onto your shoulders so we can get higher and push you into the ground, right?
Yeah, you owe me an apology and I recognize I won't get it. Because there is no "I" or "me" as far as you're concerned. I have no identity. I am only "Obama voter and supporter". And that's fine. Sadly I wish I could see you simply as one of the masses instead of a friend who is so small now. A former friend.
And that's a shame. To me anyway.
If you don't believe in freebies, you wouldn't demand "a premium you can afford." You would accept that the premiums you've been quoted are the premiums you must pay for the product you want. If insurers are forced to lower the cost of the policy to accommodate you, it will be passed on to someone else. Even if you pay some part of it yourself, that doesn't change the value they had established for the product, and it is a freebie for you that someone else will be made to pay for. The expense doesn't just go away because some politician promises to make it so and no matter what kind of pretty wrapping paper you try to put it in, it is the thing you claim it is not. You want a product produced by other people in the private sector handed over to you through government force.
And despite your drift into unhinged ranting, I will bother to make a point about something else you've said. I know you're not out to get me personally - that would be silly. I don't even think that you and yours are out to get anyone per se. The ideas you subscribe to, however, tend to hurt people like me (and in the end, you, too). Yes, I do hold the individual to be sacrosanct. That necessarily includes me, so when people do or advocate things that will do me harm, I say and/or do something about it, sidestep the threat, defend myself, whatever is needed. Sparing your feelings and not calling a spade a spade is not a requirement of holding true to that.
Post a Comment