US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1210

On August 12 2014 09:49 aksfjh wrote:

Now that they are doing the bare minimum (no more major debt/budget crises), they are pro-business. That doesn't mean there isn't MORE that could be done to help business, but with the way businesses evolve around regulations and taxes, government doing nothing is a huge boon to (big) business.

As the coal industry suffers through year after disappointing year in the U.S, there’s a growing divide in coal country over the reasons behind its current economic predicament. Some blame the federal government and its regulations. Others blame coal companies that have destroyed the environment, and then moved on to the next town.

One thing is clear: For the people who relied on coal as a job provider, the situation is dire, and getting worse every day.

“There’s been a big depopulation in the area. It’s really bad,” said Chuck Nelson, a 58-year-old resident of Glen Daniel, West Virginia, who worked in coal mines for 30 years and now campaigns to hold coal companies responsible for environmental damage. “This used to be a thriving community.”

The coal industry’s struggles picked up steam in the last month, with a spate of announcements about closing coal-fired power plants and coal mines, meaning big layoffs.

The economic hurt caused by coal’s decline has set off a blame game in Washington and in coal country, with some saying that the Environmental Protection Agency under President Barack Obama has overstepped its bounds by instituting tough new anti-pollution measures, and others saying coal’s decline had more to do with market forces than regulation, and that it’s high time the U.S. found other ways to employ those who once depended on coal for their incomes.

Regardless of the reasons, the hurt is real.

Last week Alpha Natural Resources announced it would close its Emerald Mine in Greene County, Pennsylvania, costing the area 500 jobs. It came the same week that NRG Energy said it would eliminate 250 jobs at coal facilities across Illinois. The week prior, Alabama Power announced it would close two coal power plants in the state, affecting about 180 workers. And a day before that, Alpha said it would lay off 1,100 workers at its surface mining operations in West Virginia.The increase in coal plant closures, coupled with new federal regulations that will make burning coal potentially less profitable than ever, angered some unions and the miners they represent. Hundreds of workers took to the streets of Pittsburgh on July 29 to voice their concern for an industry that provides nearly 40 percent of the U.S. energy supply.

“Hey, hey, EPA, don't take our jobs away,” the miners chanted.

Their calls echoed the press releases of coal companies in the past few months, which have laid blame for the industry’s decline on Obama and the EPA. The agency recently announced regulations that would reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. While the regulations are not set in stone, many believe they essentially mean no new coal power plants will be built in the United States, and existing ones may be gradually phased out.

“The proposed rules are simply not workable,” said Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. “People are losing good paying jobs that are sustaining a lot of families.”

But even if the EPA rolled back its rules tomorrow, it’s unclear whether many of the coal industry’s jobs could be saved. The industry has long been in decline.

On August 13 2014 06:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Well, I'll just have to disagree with that. It's the conventional wisdom but I don't think it's really true. A do-nothing Congress doesn't stop agencies from extending their regulatory reach, and sometimes (as is the case with oil rail cars now) a delay in regulations is bad for business. And sure, sometimes a business can weasel around a rule as with tax inversions, but that kind of activity isn't what businesses really want to be spending their resources on.

On August 13 2014 05:16 Yoav wrote:


The Bush thing would be insane, and everybody would hate a Bush v Clinton race, but he is the most moderate Republican prospect on offer. As for Christie, it's an uphill battle, but if we've all decided to ignore the *many* Clinton scandals on the grounds she was never directly implicated, I think Christie could manage the same.

On August 13 2014 09:10 jellyjello wrote:


I feel that Bush is already a done deal not primarily because of what he stands for, but more so because of his predecessors. Christie is not out yet, far from it, especially when Clinton can get away with all of her baggage. Like you said, there is a potential to turn the bridge scandal to his advantage if he successfully shape it as a direct comparison to all those scandals from the Obama administration. His biggest obstacle would be fighting the mainstream media to uphold his image as someone trustworthy.

On August 13 2014 09:10 jellyjello wrote:


I feel that Bush is already a done deal not primarily because of what he stands for, but more so because of his predecessors. Christie is not out yet, far from it, especially when Clinton can get away with all of her baggage. Like you said, there is a potential to turn the bridge scandal to his advantage if he successfully shape it as a direct comparison to all those scandals from the Obama administration. His biggest obstacle would be fighting the mainstream media to uphold his image as someone trustworthy.

On August 13 2014 09:46 Sub40APM wrote:
Too bad those jackasses at the commodities futures trading commission shut down intrade.

Bottled-water drinkers, we have a problem: There's a good chance that your water comes from California, a state experiencing the third-driest year on record.

The details of where and how bottling companies get their water are often quite murky, but generally speaking, bottled water falls into two categories. The first is "spring water," or groundwater that's collected, according to the EPA, "at the point where water flows naturally to the earth's surface or from a borehole that taps into the underground source." About 55 percent of bottled water in the United States is spring water, including Crystal Geyser and Arrowhead.

The other 45 percent comes from the municipal water supply, meaning that companies, including Aquafina and Dasani, simply treat tap water—the same stuff that comes out of your faucet at home—and bottle it up. (Weird, right?)

But regardless of whether companies bottle from springs or the tap, lots of them are using water in exactly the areas that need it most right now.



The map above shows the sources of water for four big-name companies that bottle in California. Aquafina and Dasani "sources" are the facilities where tap water is treated and bottled, whereas Crystal Geyser and Arrowhead "sources" refer to the springs themselves.

On August 13 2014 09:10 jellyjello wrote:


I feel that Bush is already a done deal not primarily because of what he stands for, but more so because of his predecessors. Christie is not out yet, far from it, especially when Clinton can get away with all of her baggage. Like you said, there is a potential to turn the bridge scandal to his advantage if he successfully shape it as a direct comparison to all those scandals from the Obama administration. His biggest obstacle would be fighting the mainstream media to uphold his image as someone trustworthy.

On August 13 2014 12:01 IgnE wrote:
its only possible in a world where soft drink companies created entire populations that only drank soda and then took advantage of those behavioural patterns and tastes to shift towards bottled water in response to greater "health" awareness.

On August 13 2014 13:27 sc2isnotdying wrote:


I won't count Christie out yet but he is no Clinton. Whatever you may think about the Clintons there is no denying their skills as political operators. Just because the Clintons seem immune to scandal, doesn't mean Christie will be. Maybe Christie has the chops to overcome the bridge scandal, but he hasn't yet. It's got legs.

On August 13 2014 13:30 jellyjello wrote:


It's all about personal choices. You know you have diabetes and you choose to over-consume soft drinks, then whose problem is that?

On August 13 2014 12:01 IgnE wrote:
its only possible in a world where soft drink companies created entire populations that only drank soda and then took advantage of those behavioural patterns and tastes to shift towards bottled water in response to greater "health" awareness.