[DevilsWin]

http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1089613.html

Many of you are advocates for the use of coal as an energy source.

Many of those same posters are against government handouts not only for people on welfare who wont work, but also the automobile industry and other industries that are given tax payers money.


If Ky took away the corprate welfare(tax money) wouldn't these coal companies fail and go bankrupt?

[Hoot Gibson]

Only in the lexicon of liberals are reductions in tax rates to taxpaying individuals and corporations the equivalent of welfare payments to people who pay no taxes and contribute nothing of tangible value to a society.

If utilities paid a 6 percent sales tax on coal, consumers of the electricity generated would pay an additional 6 percent (plus administrative costs) on their utility bills. Of course, the state might rip off taxpayers to get additional money to subsidize the real welfare recipients who also have to pay to keep their lights on and their homes warm.

Are liberals really this clueless? (That was a rhetorical question.)

[DevilsWin]

Only in the lexicon of liberals are reductions in tax rates to taxpaying individuals and corporations the equivalent of welfare payments to people who pay no taxes and contribute nothing of tangible value to a society.

If utilities paid a 6 percent sales tax on coal, consumers of the electricity generated would pay an additional 6 percent (plus administrative costs) on their utility bills. Of course, the state might rip off taxpayers to get additional money to subsidize the real welfare recipients who also have to pay to keep their lights on and their homes warm.

Are liberals really this clueless? (That was a rhetorical question.)

I'll give you that. Individuals who pay no income tax was a bad example. I was only trying to draw a comparison to make a point.

On the other hand how is subsidizing Coal different than the bailout given to the Auto industry?

Isn't it all just more corporate welfare?

When GM was about to fail many of you were saying, "if it can't save itself it should be allowed to fail because its not competetive in todays market".


So if you use that argument, in the markets of the future, as said in the article coal should be allowed to fail because it can't remain competetive in the market without govt tax dollars.

[Mr.Kimball]

I'll give you that. Individuals who pay no income tax was a bad example. I was only trying to draw a comparison to make a point.

On the other hand how is subsidizing Coal different than the bailout given to the Auto industry?

Isn't it all just more corporate welfare?

When GM was about to fail many of you were saying, "if it can't save itself it should be allowed to fail because its not competetive in todays market".


So if you use that argument, in the markets of the future, as said in the article coal should be allowed to fail because it can't remain competetive in the market without govt tax dollars.

You have the anti-coal federal government doing everything within it's power to destroy the industry while the pro-coal state government is doing what ever they can to keep it alive.

It's not a case of mismanagement by the coal industry that is causing it's demise. It's big brother's intervention. There is a big difference between what induced coal's struggle and what caused the auto industry's..

[Hoot Gibson]

I'll give you that. Individuals who pay no income tax was a bad example. I was only trying to draw a comparison to make a point.

On the other hand how is subsidizing Coal different than the bailout given to the Auto industry?

Isn't it all just more corporate welfare?

When GM was about to fail many of you were saying, "if it can't save itself it should be allowed to fail because its not competetive in todays market".


So if you use that argument, in the markets of the future, as said in the article coal should be allowed to fail because it can't remain competetive in the market without govt tax dollars.

Electricity is pretty much a necessity, much like food and water are necessities. Should the 6 percent sales tax be collected on the sale of all necessities or just coal? The government can make any product uncompetitive through the imposition of punitive regulation and taxes. This is not a case of government subsidy, it is a case of the government not imposing a tax on a necessity that would ultimately be passed directly to the consumer.

In contrast to coal, the premature development of alternative fuels is being directly and heavily subsidized by the government because those fuels cannot compete in the current market place. Are you opposed to taxpayer funding of the development and adoption of so-called green energy?

[DevilsWin]

Electricity is pretty much a necessity, much like food and water are necessities. Should the 6 percent sales tax be collected on the sale of all necessities or just coal? The government can make any product uncompetitive through the imposition of punitive regulation and taxes. This is not a case of government subsidy, it is a case of the government not imposing a tax on a necessity that would ultimately be passed directly to the consumer.

In contrast to coal, the premature development of alternative fuels is being directly and heavily subsidized by the government because those fuels cannot compete in the current market place. Are you opposed to taxpayer funding of the development and adoption of so-called green energy?

I realize that's a loaded question.

So I will say yes I am against taxpayer funding of green energy research.

[DevilsWin]

Electricity is pretty much a necessity, much like food and water are necessities. Should the 6 percent sales tax be collected on the sale of all necessities or just coal? The government can make any product uncompetitive through the imposition of punitive regulation and taxes. This is not a case of government subsidy, it is a case of the government not imposing a tax on a necessity that would ultimately be passed directly to the consumer.

In contrast to coal, the premature development of alternative fuels is being directly and heavily subsidized by the government because those fuels cannot compete in the current market place. Are you opposed to taxpayer funding of the development and adoption of so-called green energy?

Transportation is "Pretty Much" a necessity as well.

Are we not on a nationwide power grid?

Can we not transfer electricity from one part of the country to another?

[DevilsWin]

You have the anti-coal federal government doing everything within it's power to destroy the industry while the pro-coal state government is doing what ever they can to keep it alive.

It's not a case of mismanagement by the coal industry that is causing it's demise. It's big brother's intervention. There is a big difference between what induced coal's struggle and what caused the auto industry's..

Please explain the differences.

[Hoot Gibson]

Transportation is "Pretty Much" a necessity as well.

Are we not on a nationwide power grid?

Can we not transfer electricity from one part of the country to another?

Yes we are on a nationwide power grid and 49% of the electricity on that grid is generated from coal. Coal is a very heavily taxed commodity and it is taxed at the local, state, and federal levels. Coal is the cheapest source of electrical power for Kentuckians and the only thing that will change that fact is the imposition of new taxes on the industry.

Much of the cost of coal cited by the Mountain Association of Community Economic Development (MACED) is for enforcing regulations on the industry, many of which are unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government.

It is no surprise that a "study" by a left wing community development (read "organizing") organization that is heavily funded by the Community Organizer In Chief's pals believes that coal is under taxed. President Obama did promise skyrocketing utility bills for consumers of coal-generated electricity and he aims to make good on that promise. Obama is throwing STIMULUS money at groups like MACED to help demonize his political opponents.

[DevilsWin]

Yes we are on a nationwide power grid and 49% of the electricity on that grid is generated from coal. Coal is a very heavily taxed commodity and it is taxed at the local, state, and federal levels. Coal is the cheapest source of electrical power for Kentuckians and the only thing that will change that fact is the imposition of new taxes on the industry.

Much of the cost of coal cited by the Mountain Association of Community Economic Development (MACED) is for enforcing regulations on the industry, many of which are unfunded mandates imposed by the federal government.

It is no surprise that a "study" by a left wing community development (read "organizing") organization that is heavily funded by the Community Organizer In Chief's pals believes that coal is under taxed. President Obama did promise skyrocketing utility bills for consumers of coal-generated electricity and he aims to make good on that promise. Obama is throwing STIMULUS money at groups like MACED to help demonize his political opponents.

Care to provide any proof of that?

[Hoot Gibson]

Care to provide any proof of that?

Opinions do not require proof, per se, but if you want proof that the group is a political ally of Obama that is receiving ARRA funding, just go to the MACED website. MACED has received $millions already and they are obviously pushing an anti-coal agenda that fits right in with Obama's vision of the future.

[notamoocher]

The consumer pays all taxes. I noticed that obama gave 2 or 3 billion to green energy.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." AYN RAND