Well no kidding. Obama nearly succeeded in his promise to kill the industry through regulation. Fortunately a lot of that is being undone but it won’t result in plants that had to be refit to meet the new regulations.
We will likely though see some that were simply shut down coming back online.
Natural Gas did more to kill the use of coal than anything.
Coal is really really dirty and moving away from socializing the environmental costs… as in those who burn coal have gotten a free ride for decades… is simply balancing the equation.
Are they?
Not according to this table
A five year chart shows very little.
Coal is dying because there are better, cheaper and cleaner energy sources and the world is slowly shifting towards that… not away.
I referenced the table, not the chart, the table goes back to 1968.
Are we speaking of global coal? US coal? Appalachian coal?
Let us pin down what exactly the conversation is about before moving forward.
Refer to what happened in the aftermath of Katrina:
Not everyone used the funds for improper purchases, but quite a few did. Additionally, there were scams created to double dipping on multiple levels.
FEMA tried to speed up some of these payments to Katrina’s survivors by handing out $2,000 debit cards, meant to cover basics like food and clothes. But, as the GAO dryly noted, “debit cards were used for items or services such as a Caribbean vacation, professional football tickets, and adult entertainment, which do not appear to be necessary to satisfy disaster-related needs as defined by FEMA regulations.”
and Germany 1930s.
Does coal only pollute or get sold when it is burned in the United States?
Not really answering the question that I was asking.
Sure it is.
You could apply the same argument to the tax cuts - there is a certain sector of tax cut recipients who are involved with drugs, and other illegal activities. guys like Bernie Maddoff. Now suddenly they are gonna be responsible and not use their gains to further their criminal activities?
The war on poverty failed because people in poverty have decided not to participate. If someone decides to drop out of school, do drugs, engage in criminal activity, fail to take advantage of career training, basically doing absolutely nothing to prepare for life. The results will be poverty or prison. Some people have no intention of working. That is the simple truth.
So let me get this straight: Tax cuts that are paid to wealth/high earners by borrowing money (deficit spending) are good, but universal basic income is bad because we don’t know how to pay for it?
It just seems to me that this argument is always one sided without critical thought. Maybe I’m just missing a critical point of information.
Don’t hold your breath waiting on it. This sort of socialism isn’t popular with the vast majority of working Americans.
How many truly are good at managing a budget?
Rich, poor, any and everything in between, really, without any limits on how to spend this free cash, how many do you truly think are going to be capable of prioritizing their living expenses like responsible adults?
We just had a thread about how a significant percentage of Americans don’t have even $400 to cover an emergency expense–like unexpected car trouble–and I believe it was 1/4 feel they aren’t on track for retirement, 1/4 haven’t saved any money for that at all.
I respect Sir Richard’s assertion that automation will displace or leave underemployed many workers, but cash with no limits is bound to fail, IMO. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Tanf) even has limits on what purchases can be made with it.
No. Tax cuts are good. Budget cuts are good. Smaller government is good. Deficit spending is bad. We don’t pay for tax cuts. Nobody really cares about deficit spending when it’s their party doing the spending. That is true for dems and R’s.
Did I supply the missing info?
Or the U.S. supreme court. I forget who is in charge of nominating the new justice. Is it Donald something? 
Don’t we already hand out free cash for not doing anything? It’s called welfare if I’m not mistaken.
Actually, “welfare”, strictly Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, has a work requirement, with the only exemption being for those with infants under age one in the house. Many people on welfare are employed, in general, underemployed.
I’m not sure where the idea that welfare is just “handed out for not doing anything” originates. Anecdote I live in Massachusetts and I think a former friend of mine had a handout mentality at least 20 years before the recession started in '08.
This woman actually got mad when she went to apply for Food Stamps and wasn’t given a book of coupons to use that day.
That’s right. You actually must submit proof of income (or non income, like ___________ either lost her job or is on unpaid leave), info like your apartment lease and bank statements, meaning it probably takes several weeks to even get an approval or denial letter.
To top it off, the Food Stamps office was practically in the T station, and she called me up to ask could I give her a ride home. Um, no. I’m meeting someone and you got yourself there, you can get yourself home.
But seriously. Where does this idea originate that it’s either 1) work, or 2) welfare? These programs have an income limit for participating, and it isn’t $0.00.
Hannity Community
The official community forum of Sean Hannity. Join the conversation with fellow conservatives on the issues that matter most.