Obama's wish ..."it will bankrupt them"..

Discussion in 'Politics' started by healthmyths, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,253
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,857
    "if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them,!"

    Utah company blames President Obama for 102 workers laid off

    The layoffs are necessary because of the president's "war on coal," the statement said. The slogan is one used frequently during the election by Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, who was an ardent supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

    In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down "204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014" and for drastically reducing the market for coal.

    In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down "204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014."
    "There is nowhere to sell our coal, and when we can, the market prices are far lower," the statement said. "Without markets, there can be no coal mines and no coal jobs."

    Utah company blames Pres. Obama for 102 workers laid off | ksl.com
    Why would ANY President want companies to go bankrupt?
    Why not HELP achieve results without BANKRUPTING???

    1) HIS EPA forcing the following to lay off people:
    a) coal companies facing “a regulatory environment that’s aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal.”
    b) Obama says: "if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them,!"
    c) And he went on to say: “Under my plan....electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

    2) Obama says he Obama said "I'd like higher gas prices.."

    These are JUST a few ways Obama HAS NOT helped but hindered the economy. Helped at least KEEP jobs!
    Consider if he had reduced EPA's influence...
     
  2. Nova78
    Offline

    Nova78 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,915
    Thanks Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +267
    Obama-good for you ,good for me-Forward march, right off a cliff :razz:
     
  3. Intolerant
    Offline

    Intolerant Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    2,050
    Ratings:
    +2,236
    You haven't seen anything yet.
     
  4. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    Just let this shit play out.

    America must be made to realize what they have just voted for.
     
  5. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,253
    Thanks Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,857
    "It's pretty clear that, whether it's caused by future carbon legislation or action by the EPA, the migration away from coal has begun," says Constellation Energy Group Chief Executive Mayo Shattuck.

    Progress Energy Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., intends to close four coal-burning plants and replace two of them with gas-fired plants by 2017. The company says it's cheaper to build gas-fired plants than it is to outfit the coal units with the necessary pollution-control equipment.
    Power Companies Burn Less Coal, More Natural Gas - WSJ.com

    SO WHY did the EPA then force these costs?
    A new report from the National Academy of Sciences reveals that US coal-fired power plants do over $62 billion in environmental damages a year in "hidden costs".

    So to supposedly eliminate $62 billion a year over 10 years .. $620 billion..
    It cost the coal burning utility almost $300 million to add the pollution control.

    examined 406 coal plants--which collectively create about 95% of the nation's coal-burned electricity. As Bloomberg notes, the "aggregate damages associated with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emitted by the facilities amounted to $156 million on average per plant.

    so the cost to bring 406 up to date $125 billion...
     

Share This Page