Obama: "The private sector is doing fine."

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by lapaz

You seem to try to be sensible, but it is a charade, because associating Obama with socialism is a ridiculous and insensible assertion. Give me one example of Obama's socialist economy?

Agreed. Obama is way more a crony capitalist than he is a socialist.

[DJA101]

2007: Barack Obama promised to "walk on that picket line" if workers are denied the right to bargain - YouTube

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by UncleTrvlingJim

I think the point is that any economic struggles we're having is not a result of oppressive government policies that are hurting companies. I'll need to dig into that data, but the last time I looked corporate profitability and cash reserves are very healthy.

I mean, all you needed to do was look at the title of the link to get the point... Obama's "socialist economy" has been healthy for private companies. You can debate that with numbers and facts if you want, but the point was pretty clear.

I disagree with you, I think anything that is going positive for small business right now is in spite of Obama not because of anything he has done. I also think that if Obama hadn't doen things, or allowed things under his administration the economy would be better than it is now. Just to give you an example of why I feel that way, go take a look at the EPA's MACT regulation. This one regulation, when it kicks in on 1/1/2015 is going to cause a jump in electricity costs of somewhere between 130 to 175%. When companies look to grow or expand they take a long look a energy costs both now and long term. I don't mean to be rude, but if you think that is helping the economy in anyway then you are delusional.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

I disagree with you, I think anything that is going positive for small business right now is in spite of Obama not because of anything he has done. I also think that if Obama hadn't doen things, or allowed things under his administration the economy would be better than it is now. Just to give you an example of why I feel that way, go take a look at the EPA's MACT regulation. This one regulation, when it kicks in on 1/1/2015 is going to cause a jump in electricity costs of somewhere between 130 to 175%. When companies look to grow or expand they take a long look a energy costs both now and long term. I don't mean to be rude, but if you think that is helping the economy in anyway then you are delusional.

Care to explain what you're talking about? I've never heard of MACT until you posted it so I googled it and found Ohio.com had a bunch of stuff dating back to 1990 and the EPA site lists a bunch of things that happened as recently as 08.

As I recall, Bush was in office back then so what's the deal with MACT?

From EPA's site:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/t...act/faqs.htm#6

7. What were the cost estimates associated with the October 2005 final rule?

Total annual social costs associated with the final standards were estimated at $22.6 million per year. This estimate included all relevant government costs, and anticipated market adjustments (e.g., price changes, waste diversions, system exits). Under this scenario, commercial incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns were projected to experience net gains as a result of the final standards. This was based on increased waste receipts, marginal price increases, and comparatively lower upgrade costs. Our conservative cost scenario, of $40.7 million per year, assumed no market adjustments. Under this scenario, liquid and solid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces accounted for about 85 percent of the total costs.

Top of Page

[6stringslide]

From the epa's website:
12/23/11 - The EPA published the Boiler MACT reconsideration proposal (40 CFR 63, subpart DDDDD, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters). The EPA will accept comment on the reconsideration proposal until February 21, 2012.

Does't sound like much...right? What this regulation will do is cause coal fired power plants to either shut down or put scrubbers on each generator. These scrubbers are very expensive coming in at just under a billion dollars per unit. That cost will get passed onto customers. The estimated cost to every customer will raise electric bills by around 135%. This regulation goes into effect on 1/1/2015. If you are lucky enough to get your power from a nuke plant your rates won't increase as much but the chances are your utility company does own coal fired plants and they will either close them or put the scrubber on them and pass the cost along. The bad thing is when you look at the number of coal fired power plants across the country and what this regulation will do. It's not a pretty future.

All of this was put into place under BHO. I don't think you have heard much about it because the utilities have been really busy looking at ways to cover their butts in a really short time frame compared to the amount of work that will have to be done.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

From the epa's website:
12/23/11 - The EPA published the Boiler MACT reconsideration proposal (40 CFR 63, subpart DDDDD, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters). The EPA will accept comment on the reconsideration proposal until February 21, 2012.

Does't sound like much...right? What this regulation will do is cause coal fired power plants to either shut down or put scrubbers on each generator. These scrubbers are very expensive coming in at just under a billion dollars per unit. That cost will get passed onto customers. The estimated cost to every customer will raise electric bills by around 135%. This regulation goes into effect on 1/1/2015. If you are lucky enough to get your power from a nuke plant your rates won't increase as much but the chances are your utility company does own coal fired plants and they will either close them or put the scrubber on them and pass the cost along. The bad thing is when you look at the number of coal fired power plants across the country and what this regulation will do. It's not a pretty future.

All of this was put into place under BHO. I don't think you have heard much about it because the utilities have been really busy looking at ways to cover their butts in a really short time frame compared to the amount of work that will have to be done.

Thanks for the info. Where are you getting your 135% number? Are you saying this regulation is going to more than double coal derived energy prices or increase them 35%?

I know the coal pollution in our area has been greatly reduced over the past 20 years or so and that our utility is trying to get a new nuke built about 80 miles from here. Interesting.

Billion dollar pot scrubbers sound like stimulus and reduced pollution is a good thing. Rates of profit held constant with increasing dollars of volume make additional profit for utility companies and the market will see the increased utility costs lead to cleaner fuel.

What's your problem with cleaner fuel? Just the cost to consumers of coal fired power plants? I surely don't see how this is going to be some calamitous horror like you do, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on it.

[DaveinCoalinga]

Or you can read about how once again environmental regulations and the costs involved are usually just scare tactics.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...y_falling.html

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

Or you can read about how once again environmental regulations and the costs involved are usually just scare tactics.

Mercury Falling: Many Power Plants Already Have Equipment to Slash Mercury, Toxic Contamination

While I would love to read that I have to live in the real world where not only do I see how policies affect my energy bill, I see what the effect will have in the future. You see I work for a utility company and I see the real world cost that go into every kw hour that company puts out. I know for a fact that the costs of the scrubbers that will have to go on each of the generatos we have will cost $989 million to install and much more to maintain and operate. BTW at just one of our plants that will mean$ 4.95 billion. I know that the costs will get passed onto our customers that I just happen to fall into the category of. I don't want my bill to increase the amount it will if we have to install scrubbers, that aren't really needed. I want clean water and air just like everyone, but there comes a point when you over regulate something. This is what is going to happen if this regulation stands, you will see rate increases.
I had to add this after I read what was in that article. First let me say that the price they quoted for a 300MW plant is a joke. The smallest generator we have is a 225MW alone and the cost is way more than they quoted for that. The rest of the stuff was even moe laughable. I can say for a fact that just about every company that I am aware of is doing everything they can to make emissions safe, hell we live in the area we work, why wouldn't we want our kids and family to breathe clean air? I know my company promotes things to keep the beaches and rivers clean in our area and even pays us to go out and work on projects to help. So take it for what you want but that is the truth.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by dtc

Thanks for the info. Where are you getting your 135% number? Are you saying this regulation is going to more than double coal derived energy prices or increase them 35%?

I know the coal pollution in our area has been greatly reduced over the past 20 years or so and that our utility is trying to get a new nuke built about 80 miles from here. Interesting.

Billion dollar pot scrubbers sound like stimulus and reduced pollution is a good thing. Rates of profit held constant with increasing dollars of volume make additional profit for utility companies and the market will see the increased utility costs lead to cleaner fuel.

What's your problem with cleaner fuel? Just the cost to consumers of coal fired power plants? I surely don't see how this is going to be some calamitous horror like you do, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on it.

The 135% figure comes from a rate study that my company has done to see the impact the regulation will have on us and the best way we can keep costs down. I will take a guess and say that you are served by Gulf Power, and I would also say that you should hope that Southern Company gets that nuke built. It will keep your costs as some of the lowest in the country.
The scrubbers are not pot scrubbers but the are stack scrubbers. They are an unnecessary addition that the EPA will give a get out of jail free card to the utility company. If the company does nothing the stack emissions will only be .9% more than they will if the stacks are added...thats point 9. The first time the group I work with looked at the requirements of these scrubbers there was one thought that most of us had...that was someone is getting paid off in DC to make this crap go through.
If you think that only a few number of people are going to see this price increase let's look at the nymbers

I know this is a old chart but the numbers are roughy the same. Now if 45% of ALL US electricity comes from coal how many people do you think this is going to impact? This is going to be a job killer. But if you remember what Obama said, he told us that " if anyone wants to build a coal powered plany they can, but it's going to bankrupt them", he wasn't kidding. What he didn't say was that if you get electricity from coal thats going to bankrupt you, but thats what he should've said.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

The 135% figure comes from a rate study that my company has done to see the impact the regulation will have on us and the best way we can keep costs down. I will take a guess and say that you are served by Gulf Power, and I would also say that you should hope that Southern Company gets that nuke built. It will keep your costs as some of the lowest in the country.
The scrubbers are not pot scrubbers but the are stack scrubbers. They are an unnecessary addition that the EPA will give a get out of jail free card to the utility company. If the company does nothing the stack emissions will only be .9% more than they will if the stacks are added...thats point 9. The first time the group I work with looked at the requirements of these scrubbers there was one thought that most of us had...that was someone is getting paid off in DC to make this crap go through.
If you think that only a few number of people are going to see this price increase let's look at the nymbers

I know this is a old chart but the numbers are roughy the same. Now if 45% of ALL US electricity comes from coal how many people do you think this is going to impact? This is going to be a job killer. But if you remember what Obama said, he told us that " if anyone wants to build a coal powered plany they can, but it's going to bankrupt them", he wasn't kidding. What he didn't say was that if you get electricity from coal thats going to bankrupt you, but thats what he should've said.

Thanks for the thoughts and I'll readily admit that I don't know which side is right or wrong and suspect as I usually do that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

That said, I'll take a couple of minutes next week and call two of the board members from GP and ask them what they think. Should be interesting.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by dtc

Thanks for the thoughts and I'll readily admit that I don't know which side is right or wrong and suspect as I usually do that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

That said, I'll take a couple of minutes next week and call two of the board members from GP and ask them what they think. Should be interesting.

NP. I would be interested to hear what they say.

[Hawkeye Saint]

Originally Posted by DJA101

You going to vote for him again?

Yep. I don't trust the human shower shoe the GOP is trying to foist upon us.

[saintfan-n-alex]

Originally Posted by dtc

Clearly you didn't read or understand what I said. There is too much government and, imho, the numbers are in the wrong place. We could reduce the military by 20% in an instant and be no less safe and we could curtail military spending by 20% and see no change in our ability to defend ourselves or even intimidate others. There are too many people in too many places, but the teachers and cops and others are where cuts are coming.

Saving money on government does not mean we should eliminate the most important service providers we have.

No I read and followed what you were saying you want cuts in federal spending in military , TSA and grants for "meaningless " research etc (and I agree) - but these will also involve reduction of head count in many instances which seems to be contrary to the idea we need more public sector jobs as private sector is fine as the thread discusses - I'm not speaking to the effectiveness of the military ( I do support military reduction starting at the older/higher ranking personel who have earned retirement vs fewer opportunities for younger individuals who opt for military service as a jump start, sense of duty or "way out")


I'm sure the need for more or better teachers and other school personel is relative to certain areas just as police , firefighters etc but those aren't federal they are city/parish and state which from my understanding are paid for by local sales and property taxes - private sector employees in large part pay these taxes as public sector recieve them -

In regards to education however this country often throws more money at the problem though not having kids but having been one it's not a lack of funding which causes poor academics.

[yuyi64]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye Saint

Yep. I don't trust the human shower shoe the GOP is trying to foist upon us.

Yeah, that's it because the politician being offered by the Dems is so trustworthy it's a no-brainer!

[kennydfresh]

Originally Posted by yuyi64

Yeah, that's it because the politician being offered by the Dems is so trustworthy it's a no-brainer!

Better than Mitt Romney, the GOP has a weak candidate, we are talking about the same guy that lost to John McCain here, both Obama and Romney suck, Obama just sucks less.