[vector]

Mines not coal mines.

I hit 2-3 different topics. I meant exactly what I said. Mines. Cowin doesn't do coal mines in eastern Kentucky.

Its funny you want me to admit I am wrong when your the one who is mistaken.

you are wasting your time this guy is anti gov but he got his college edu with
help from the gov now he gets his payday from the gov so hypocritically it
isn't funny

[Wildcatk23]

I never said that you wouldn't. What you won't get is the value that all of the money that you paid in would have had if it had been invested in something other than federal IOUs. The government does not even put the money that you pay in to SS into a mattress, they spend it as soon as they get it. If we invested the same amount of money that we pay into SS over our lifetimes into stocks and bonds, the amount that we would have at age 65 would dwarf what any of us will every draw in benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund - it is nothing but smoke and mirrors and that is all that it has ever been.

Working people pay the benefits for retired people because the money that the retirees paid into the system was spent as the government withheld it from their checks. If a private retirement system worked the same way, the administrators of the fund would go to jail.

Doesn't working people pay for mine cleanups once the declare bankruptcy?

[Hoot Gibson]

Sulfide. Upper Michigan by the lakes .

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, there has been no production from the sulfide mines that are being developed in the UP. Is that what you consider a "thriving" mining industry? And what do non-producing mines have to do with eastern Kentucky companies not following regulations, or Jim Booth following them? I'll give you a "C" for your Googling skills anyway. :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

you are wasting your time this guy is anti gov but he got his college edu with
help from the gov now he gets his payday from the gov so hypocritically it
isn't funny

Technically, there are probably no idiots capable of even make a rudimentary post such as your's - but you walk perilously close to that line. I paid for my education by working in the coal industry every summer that I was in school. As for checks, I work hard for mine. What do you do for your check? What kind of handout are you getting? It's nobody's fault but your own that you are not qualified to do anything other than manual labor.

[Hoot Gibson]

Doesn't working people pay for mine cleanups once the declare bankruptcy?

What does your question have to do with the post that you quoted? Your posts lack the coherence that one normally associates with a moderator.

To answer your question, mining companies are heavily taxed and some of those taxes go to pay for the reclamation of abandoned mines for situations such as the one that you mentioned. For modern mining operations, companies must post reclamation bonds before they disturb the surface of any land. But a mining expert such as yourself probably already knows that.

[vector]

What does your question have to do with the post that you quoted? Your posts lack the coherence that one normally associates with a moderator.

To answer your question, mining companies are heavily taxed and some of those taxes go to pay for the reclamation of abandoned mines for situations such as the one that you mentioned. For modern mining operations, companies must post reclamation bonds before they disturb the surface of any land. But a mining expert such as yourself probably already knows that.

but IF they reclaim the land they get there bond money back is that right

[Wildcatk23]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, there has been no production from the sulfide mines that are being developed in the UP. Is that what you consider a "thriving" mining industry? And what do non-producing mines have to do with eastern Kentucky companies not following regulations, or Jim Booth following them? I'll give you a "C" for your Googling skills anyway. :biglmao:

Considering they have put 2 new mines in the last 3 months I would consider that production.

But once again u was proved wrong and refuse to admit it.

Have a nice day. Their is no point of going down the this road. I awnsered your question and you ignored it.

I will pull a you and just stop responding to you and like everyone else's post.

[Hoot Gibson]

but IF they reclaim the land they get there bond money back is that right

That's right, but the point that I was refuting was WildcatK23's assertion that taxpayers pay for reclamation if the mining company goes bankrupt. They don't. They forfeit their reclamation bonds, which cover the cleanup costs.

[Hoot Gibson]

Considering they have put 2 new mines in the last 3 months I would consider that production.

But once again u was proved wrong and refuse to admit it.

Have a nice day. Their is no point of going down the this road. I awnsered your question and you ignored it.

I will pull a you and just stop responding to you and like everyone else's post.

:biglmao:

The two mines to which you refer have produced no copper and no nickel because they have not yet reached the deposit. You call that Michigan's thriving mining industry - I call it you getting caught making facts up as you go. Anybody who reads your post will immediately recognize that your claim and attempt to cover yourself after the fact make no sense when viewed in the context of the thread and in the context of your own post. Michigan has no coal mines and the sulfide mining industry that you later claimed to be "thriving" has not produced an ounce of copper, nickel, or any other metal yet.

If you want to stop making stuff up and like people's posts who make sense, then I think that you would be upping your game. nicker:

[vector]

That's right, but the point that I was refuting was WildcatK23's assertion that taxpayers pay for reclamation if the mining company goes bankrupt. They don't. They forfeit their reclamation bonds, which cover the cleanup costs.

not all of the cost

[Hoot Gibson]

not all of the cost

Maybe not, but coal companies pay far more in taxes than the government spends on deadbeat companies that go belly up without reclaiming their mines. The coal industry is not subsidized when you consider the taxes they pay versus the benefits that the industry receives.

[vector]

Maybe not, but coal companies pay far more in taxes than the government spends on deadbeat companies that go belly up without reclaiming their mines. The coal industry is not subsidized when you consider the taxes they pay versus the benefits that the industry receives.

I bet they don't pay as much taxs as you think they do

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fed..._subsidies

[Hoot Gibson]

I bet they don't pay as much taxs as you think they do

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fed..._subsidies

SourceWatch? Really? I truly believe that you don't read the junk that you post. Try reading some of the articles before you post them. SourceWatch does not even have the credibility of Wikipedia.

If you can find specific examples where coal mining companies have received subsidies, then post them here. If you find any examples, then my guess is that they are owned by Obama campaign contributors and there are very few such people in the industry. There are good reasons why Obama was trounced in West Virginia in the 2012 election. The federal government is no friend of coal miners. The last administration to treat the industry fairly was Reagan.

[vector]

http://daily.sightline.org/2013/01/09/wo...-benefits/

http://www.wvpolicy.org/do-you-pay-more-taxes-than-coal

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=574]

I guess my fedral tax rate is higher

[Hoot Gibson]

http://daily.sightline.org/2013/01/09/wo...-benefits/

http://www.wvpolicy.org/do-you-pay-more-taxes-than-coal

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=574]

I guess my fedral tax rate is higher

I am guessing that is not the case. As usual, you posted links to articles that do not support your position. There is no mention of federal subsidies for the coal industry in either article. As usual, you cannot back up your anti-capitalist claims. You just post links to disjointed articles that you found on left wing websites. The least you could do is read them before you link to them.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Im not kidding when i say this administration has absoloutly all but killed the coal industry.
I still had a little hope for it, but this has been the worst year on record for coal production and work since ive been alive.

[vector]

Im not kidding when i say this administration has absoloutly all but killed the coal industry.
I still had a little hope for it, but this has been the worst year on record for coal production and work since ive been alive.

trust me there's been worst in early 80's it was pretty bad

[vector]

I am guessing that is not the case. As usual, you posted links to articles that do not support your position. There is no mention of federal subsidies for the coal industry in either article. As usual, you cannot back up your anti-capitalist claims. You just post links to disjointed articles that you found on left wing websites. The least you could do is read them before you link to them.

I tried to find something on faux but they don't want you to know this is going on

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/...-subsidies


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...-cleans-up






[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=575]

[Hoot Gibson]

I tried to find something on faux but they don't want you to know this is going on

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/...-subsidies


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...-cleans-up






[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=575]

Still nothing showing federal subsidies going directly to coal mining companies. Who do you think receives money for clean coal technology projects? Mostly universities and political cronies, not mining companies. If I thought that you read or understood the articles to which you linked, then I would point out some of the more ridiculous claims in them to you. I am sure that you did not, so I will just point out one.

The royalty rates that the federal government charges for surface mined coal (12.5%) and underground mined coal (8%) are very good considering the low BTU content (mostly sub-birtuminous) and low sales price of most coal mined on federal lands. The allegation that no bid leases of federal coal reserves may have cost taxpayers $30 billion is ridiculous. Those would be excellent royalty rates for high BTU, low sulfur and low ash Central Appalachian coal, which commands a much higher sales price than western reserves, such as that found in the Powder River Basin.

It is hard to believe that you really work as a miner, considering how hard you work to bite the hand that you claim feeds you. You don't seem to know much about the industry.

[TheRealThing]

Considering they have put 2 new mines in the last 3 months I would consider that production.

But once again u was proved wrong and refuse to admit it.

Have a nice day. Their is no point of going down the this road. I awnsered your question and you ignored it.

I will pull a you and just stop responding to you and like everyone else's post.

That's really funny right there 23. Hoot goes to the point of diminished return time and again in these discussions on here. Often approaching the argument he is making from several different angles. He does that to share the truth with you. You really think we 'not-dems' would spend all that time trying to talk you into supporting republicans or something? That's the mistake so many on here make, politicizing everything coming and going. Of course I know why you do it. You've been subjugated by the liberal press from the days of your early youth and that's just the way your mind works. Those of us who are free of the talking points, see things as factual or nonfactual. Sharing the truth is hardly an attempt to woo you away from your party.

When the politicizing left blows smoke up everybody's drawers we like to call their hand on it. We call out republicans for doing the same reason. Ironically, even if everything could be boiled down to a democratic either or a republican or, the direction of your party still can't be defined in those terms. Why? Because the democrats have been taken over completely by progressives and liberals. As evidence of that your BGR click sit around and argue social issues till you're blue in the face. Social issues are a monumentally big deal to democrats. The goal is to make everybody happy. I must have missed that one among the founding documents, LOL. Now, I did see where the function of the federal government is provide and nurture an environment in which to pursue happiness. But, I never saw where they could make people happy.

I guarantee you if you prove Hoot wrong he'll step right up and acknowledge that fact. But, there is a big difference between opinion and fact. Liberal progressive talking points are normally not proof.

[TheRealVille]

That's really funny right there 23. Hoot goes to the point of diminished return time and again in these discussions on here. Often approaching the argument he is making from several different angles. He does that to share the truth with you. You really think we 'not-dems' would spend all that time trying to talk you into supporting republicans or something? That's the mistake so many on here make, politicizing everything coming and going. Of course I know why you do it. You've been subjugated by the liberal press from the days of your early youth and that's just the way your mind works. Those of us who are free of the talking points, see things as factual or nonfactual. Sharing the truth is hardly an attempt to woo you away from your party.

When the politicizing left blows smoke up everybody's drawers we like to call their hand on it. We call out republicans for doing the same reason. Ironically, even if everything could be boiled down to a democratic either or a republican or, the direction of your party still can't be defined in those terms. Why? Because the democrats have been taken over completely by progressives and liberals. As evidence of that your BGR click sit around and argue social issues till you're blue in the face. Social issues are a monumentally big deal to democrats. The goal is to make everybody happy. I must have missed that one among the founding documents, LOL. Now, I did see where the function of the federal government is provide and nurture an environment in which to pursue happiness. But, I never saw where they could make people happy.

I guarantee you if you prove Hoot wrong he'll step right up and acknowledge that fact. But, there is a big difference between opinion and fact. Liberal progressive talking points are normally not proof.

What about my buddy's farm that was completely destroyed by a coal company that went belly up, and he can get no help from anyone? He has a hill top that is completely destroyed, and a house that is uninhabitable.

[TheRealThing]

What about my buddy's farm that was completely destroyed by a coal company that went belly up, and he can get no help from anyone? He has a hill top that is completely destroyed, and a house that is uninhabitable.

He made a deal with a company and that company later went belly up?

[TheRealVille]

He made a deal with a company and that company later went belly up?

Yes. They went belly up after they got done stripping.

[the other guy]

Many people choose to stay here and work in the mines to raise their families and keep the land and homes passed down to them. It's pitiful how long one must stay underground having rocks fall on them . Once their crippled and can hardly shoot a game of ball with their sons it's to late.

The mines cutting corners an skipping protection laws only to make max profit. A few people get killed and the only people that care are the family members. The company gets fines and shutdown because the unwilling to keep their mine up to current safety regulations. Then everybody that knows nothing about the mines or the situation yells about the government.

Jim booth hasn't laid one worker off. Because he keeps his mines up to regulation an cares about his workers.

Mines in Indiana, Illinois. Michigan are booming. All these little day and night companies come for a couple months hire a bunch of people, make tons of money, dumps their sludge in the local pond, buys some fish , fires all their workers and then moves on after getting fined for breaking regulations. Then we hear about the government shutting them down.

I'm sorry to tell you but you know nothing about mining, I can tell that you have never worked in the mines. Booth works most of his workers 50-60 hours every week. let me tell you that's not an easy thing for a worker to do. I don't believe for a second that Booth cares much about his workers. When you leave home at 1:30 every day and don't get home until 2:00 in the morning and do it 6 days a week I don't think you employer cares much about you or your family.

[TheRealVille]

I'm sorry to tell you but you know nothing about mining, I can tell that you have never worked in the mines. Booth works most of his workers 50-60 hours every week. let me tell you that's not an easy thing for a worker to do. I don't believe for a second that Booth cares much about his workers. When you leave home at 1:30 every day and don't get home until 2:00 in the morning and do it 6 days a week I don't think you employer cares much about you or your family.

How does that add up to 50-60 hours a week? Nobody can count driving time to get to work. They work 10 1/2- 11 hours a day(counting lunch) to put in a 60 hour week. You posted a 12 1/2 hour time frame in your work day.

Edit: My work day starts at 5 am(leave time) and ends at 6:30-7:00 pm( home time). How are the guys in your analogy any worse off? When I'm not off work waiting on knee surgery, that is.

[SKINNYPIG]

I'm sorry to tell you but you know nothing about mining, I can tell that you have never worked in the mines. Booth works most of his workers 50-60 hours every week. let me tell you that's not an easy thing for a worker to do. I don't believe for a second that Booth cares much about his workers. When you leave home at 1:30 every day and don't get home until 2:00 in the morning and do it 6 days a week I don't think you employer cares much about you or your family.

Since when was mining (or work, in general) supposed to be easy?

Cares enough to pay a good wage. Right?

[TheRealVille]

Since when was mining (or work, in general) supposed to be easy?

Cares enough to pay a good wage. Right?

From everything I hear from his workers, he treats them very well. And, they work steady. It's a perk to running a company that is relatively safe, and has good mining practices, that allows him to get permits easier than some others.

[vector]

From everything I hear from his workers, he treats them very well. And, they work steady. It's a perk to running a company that is relatively safe, and has good mining practices, that allows him to get permits easier than some others.

the big ? is why are they running safe

[vector]

Since when was mining (or work, in general) supposed to be easy?

Cares enough to pay a good wage. Right?

that's my point trying to get hoot to understand if you started working in the
mines at 18 it's pretty hard to work 47 years underground your body wears out
it's not like working behind a desk

[the other guy]

How does that add up to 50-60 hours a week? Nobody can count driving time to get to work. They work 10 1/2- 11 hours a day(counting lunch) to put in a 60 hour week. You posted a 12 1/2 hour time frame in your work day.

Edit: My work day starts at 5 am(leave time) and ends at 6:30-7:00 pm( home time). How are the guys in your analogy any worse off? When I'm not off work waiting on knee surgery, that is.

i worked 11-12 hours a day for the last 25 years i worked. Before that i worked underground. 12 hours above ground in easier than 8 below.

I was not being exact about the hours but if you really want to know they work 10 hours a day 6 days a week. they get off 1 weekend a month. so that is 50-60 hours a week.

And What you doing taking up for Booth being the big union guy you say you are.

I just think a person needs to spend some time with their families. I bet you don't work many weekends.

Would you support overtime rules of time and a half for over 40 but double time over 50.