Hilary and coal mining
 

So in one speech, Hilary brags to her liberal friends that "we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

When a coal miner showed Hilary pictures of his kids, she said her previous comments were a misstatement.

Spence, how many ways are there, to interpret what she said? How many contexts can that be put in?

There are absolutely no limits to the lies and flip-flopping that this career politician will engage in...nor are there any limits to the contempt that she has for all of us, to assume we'd just accept her pathetic explanation.

You could start by actually reading what she said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I quoted what she said. And saw the video.

I take that as your stalling, searching the Huffington Post for what to say in her defense.

i don't necesarily have a problem with what she originally said. Clearly the liberal agenda would put a lot of these people out of work.

If I was running as a conservative, I would be forced to admit that a lot of public employees would soon be getting pink slips. But I wouldn't admit it one day, then say the next day that it was "taken out of context".

Your answer shouldn't depend on the audience. Hell, not only does she change her answer, she changes her accent, using a southern drawl when she is south of the Mason-Dixon line. That's not pandering. Nope.

Spence doesn't care Jim. You see he is actually quite worried that she won't be the next president. Especially after so many republicans are going to register as a democrat in California, New Mexico and New Jersey to vote for Bernie so they won't have to endure 4 years of her. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Montana and North Dakota and somewhere else I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cruz had enough backbone to go into Iowa and tell them that he was for ending ethanol and mandates and subsidies . Clinton panders to her audience of the day without being held accountable .
Spence is checking with his wife and will be back to you shortly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same response Buck, go read the full quote. You're wrong on both counts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's TWICE you've come on, told us we are wrong, and offered zilch to support your claim. Still searching?

I remember that, and it was a rare display of honesty. It's a LOT EASIER to take the mike and just tell everyone what they want to hear.

Spence, I am curious...am I also wrong when I say that Hilary tends to adopt a southern accent, when she gives speeches in the south?

Jim, take the ten seconds and read up on it yourself. This is why you rarely know what you're talking about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksIXqxpQNt0

She says she's going to put them out of work. She's not very ambiguous about it. She also makes a very vague reference to the fact that she doesn't want to forget those people, and that (somehow) they will all have jobs in "green energy".

Well, many of those pepole are currently unemployed, and after 8 years of having a tree-hugging fanatic in the White House, I don't think those coal miners have yet found the pot of gold at the end of the green energy rainbow.

But I am sure that Hilary's apologist-in-chief here, will tell me that I am wrong, and that in fact most of those former coal miners are way better off now, thanks to Obama and Hilary. I guess they just forget to tell the unemployed miner who started all this by asking her the question. Maybe the libs can start going through his garbage too, and dig up dirt on him, like they did to Joe The Plumber, who had the nerve to ask Obama a question which he bombed. Because when libs know they look stupid, they respond with personal attacks. Always.

yes spence she also said she will bring clean renewable energy....do not hold your breath

Please spence, tell us what she really said.

What she was getting at is she proposes to shut down coal mines and push to get the people who loose their jobs hired into the green energy sector. It came out all wrong obviously. Crazy loon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they could go work for Solyndra
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you're just stirring the pot :wid:

Here's the real issue. The global coal industry is in a shambles. Producers in the US are over leveraged and have shifted to strip-mining because it easier...it also replaces people with machines. There's also a global shift towards renewable sources of energy which are driving technology innovation. Most coal plants are 40-60 years old and to rebuild to meet emissions standards isn't profitable as natural gas is undercutting their margin.

Having an understanding of global trends and economics as Clinton does she was stating the obvious, the jobs are going away as we transform, but she's proposing 30 Billion to help impacted communities move to a sustainable path.

And she did this right in the heart of coal country buck...

Knowledge + Experience + Leadership = Hillary Clinton

If she cares so much about clean air to save the planet, then why does she support Monsanto the company who's genetically modified food which is NOT labeled in this country, and is not safe for us to eat. But we will have clean air to breathe, but die of all kinds of nasty #^&#^&#^&#^& and destroy our ecology by ruining plants all over the world all because of money. She takes their filthy money, she wants power, all she wants is to get back into the White House with Bill. He'll make a great vice President won't he.


"understanding of global trends and economics" The rest of the world labels GMO but the US keeps knocking that down, our politicians are spineless money grubbing weasels afraid of Monsanto. Going to be hard to profit from all that GMO food with no people to sell it to when our grandchildren are dying from God knows what because of that abomination they are creating.. So What understanding of global anything does that fall under? She is all about herself Spence

God help us all


Greed, incompetence, evil and lies = Hillary

You should work for her if you already don't. Although then you'll be out of work after November.
Perhaps an over paid job at the Clinton Foundation .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Accepting donations in exchange for arms deals :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually that energy department loan program ended up turning a profit, but you care about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many bankruptcies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not many, I believe the default rate on 34 billion in loans was under 3 percent. It was a Bush era program intended to be revenue neutral but ended up turning a nice profit after the interest payments offset the losses.

You did know all this right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After doing a little research it appears you are wrong again. In 2014 it looked like it would turn a $5 billion profit.,but by 2015 it was 2.2 billion in the hole .
And don't forget those bankruptcies and how many people they hurt .
But you wouldn't care about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think another failed recently

This is the crap that makes me want to punch my monitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

Knowledge + Experience + Leadership = Hillary Clinton


or you could have a laugh at the fact that there are actually people out there who would write such nonsense

i call it the Puffington Post

and that was before this just the other day...

NEW YORK – SunEdison, a renewable energy company once billed as North America’s largest provider of solar energy, is planning to file for bankruptcy this week in yet another green-energy debacle likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer in excess of $3 billion.

I've never heard of Clinton taking money from Monsanto, there have been a lot of lies spread around that she sat on their board. She did hire a lobbyist with ties to Monsanto to run ops in Iowa, which wouldn't be that odd...

I think she views GMO as a solution to some global problems. For instance if we're going to help starving people in Africa, sending over wheat seeds that can't grow in an arid climate isn't going to help them.

To be honest I think a lot of the GMO flap is overblown. I'd be much more concerned with excessive use of antibiotics and hormones in proteins.

As for labeling, I like as much information as I can get about my food, but remember from a business perspective this can add tremendous cost...i.e. more government regulation. I thought you didn't like that?

No, you're reading it wrong or whomever you're reading read it wrong. I'd like to see the source.

The 2.2B refers to credit servicing costs that were factored into the program...because of improved credit among some of the loaners the credit service cost was half of what was expected.

The 5B in profit was a misinterpretation by the media according to the GAO...

I hope you realize I wrote that just for you :rtfm:

SunEdison fell victim to a bad business strategy, it had nothing to do with the viability of renewable energy. Filing for Chapter 11 doesn't mean they go out of business. They actually have some very good projects in the pipeline, just too much debt. They'll negotiate on debt, probably restructure reducing headcount a lot and come out looking a bit different.

Big picture it's still a blip in the larger shift to clean technologies.

I'd note also that you guys seem fixated on clean energy. Have you ever looked into the much larger subsidies afforded the carbon industry and how many of those businesses have fared? :hee:

Spence this contradicts U:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/t.../#d18274c576c4

No it doesn't. The author is just arguing that as these loans have a very low interest rate there are other investments the government could make that would -- if successful -- net a higher return.

For instance if you want to understand the net present value of an investment, you discount the cash flow based on a hurdle rate, say 18%. i.e. you don't get to claim returns that would have otherwise been guaranteed.

The author is glossing over two things I think 1) that the Bush program wasn't ever intended to make an economic profit and 2) the equation here is only looking at money out and money in, he's ignoring all the other benefits like job creation, technology innovation etc...which is the entire purpose for the plan.

The political point though -- how taxpayer resources should be used in regards to risk/return -- is perfectly valid.

:laugha::laugha::laugha: This socialist trajectory is transitioning from disaster to comedy. The socialists have had field days attacking the evil profiteering of companies like Bane Capital, but are all in for the federal government being their venture capitalist. Apparently, capitalism is bad only in the privater sector.

Really, Spence, do you want the taxpayer being made to gamble? Is it your dream that big government should not only squeeze us out of a nation of shopkeepers (the so-called middle class) into a big business/big government oligarchy, but should become big business itself?

I'll stick with my opinion of her backing that corporation with their poison GMO and Round up destroying the water supplies and smaller life on this planet.

I think there's a few reasons behind the resistance.

One is that I'm pretty sure the US consumes the most processed food of any nation by a good margin. Crops like corn and soybeans which are primarily from GMO seeds are rampant in these products.

Second, the FDA has very strict regulations, perhaps the most stringent in the world. Currently that bag of non-GMO corn chips is being labeled voluntarily as non-GMO. This means the producer does need to have documentation as to the provenance of the ingredients, but the simplistic ingredients and niche appeal of most of the non-GMO products I see doesn't make this a huge burden. Also, nobody is really watching...

But...If GMO labeling is a regulation, everybody, especially the big food manufacturers are going to have to have solid documentation behind their claims. For a large food producer that actually has a tiered supply chain from raw material to consumable food in a package this is very complicated. For instance, if that jar of non-GMO Jiff peanut butter accidentally sourced non-GMO soybean oil from one country made from mislabeled soybeans in another country it's a recall and huge $$$. All for soybeans that could be genetically identical.

Actually under FDA regulations if the labeling in any way doesn't match what's inside the package you have to recall.

So there is a business impact, and the US market exacerbates it.