Virginia Democrats trying to starve Southwest Virginians?

[dorminWS]

Damn right they are.

http://bearingdrift.com/2016/04/21/are- ... a-starves/

[ShotgunBlast]

But don't we want smaller government and a more simplified tax code?

[ShotgunBlast]

Really, the first comment after the article sums it up.

irst, the job alternatives for SW Virginia are not just coal mines or Wal-Mart and call centers. Take a look at West Virginia and the I-79 High Technology Corridor. I had a career in business development and served a term on my county Rural Economic Development Council. Are the economic development people in SW Virginia just sitting on their hands waiting for the coal jobs to come back or are they looking forward towards emerging opportunities?

Second, you cite the shrinkage of coal jobs between 1988 and today. Virginia had a coal tax credit during all those years and as many Republican governors as Democratic ones. How many coal jobs have been lost in 2014 and 2015 under McAuliffe? There are clearly forces at work that are far more significant than a coal tax credit or the political party of the governor.

Third, just how does the Virginia Republican Creed, with its stated emphasis on free enterprise, individual responsibility, and fiscal restraint, support government subsidies to protect private sector jobs? Is it now the position of the Republicans that government should pick winners and losers?

BTW, Virginia has a Democratic governor today because the RPVA chose to have a nominating convention in 2013 instead of an open primary, a convention that was hijacked by Tea Party activists who held it hostage with delaying tactics until the middle of the night and then proceeded to nominate a slate of unelectable extremists. You reap what you sow. You can blame McAuliffe and the Democrats for a lot of things, but the loss of coal jobs and the economic opportunities in southwest Virginia isn't one of them.

[MarcSpaz]

Really, the first comment after the article sums it up.

...BTW, Virginia has a Democratic governor today because the RPVA chose to have a nominating convention in 2013 instead of an open primary, a convention that was hijacked by Tea Party activists who held it hostage with delaying tactics until the middle of the night and then proceeded to nominate a slate of unelectable extremists. You reap what you sow.

I likely would have punched this dude in the mouth if he said this in front of me.

[grumpyMSG]

I likely would have punched this dude in the mouth if he said this in front of me.

There is some truth in his words. Virginia's Republican party went O for 3 in commonwealth wide elections during a period where the national statehouse pendulum was swinging to the right. I tend to agree that the lack of a primary hurt Republicans more than it helped them. I remember hearing the logic that the primary campaign would save the party big money in advertising. It also kept most of the voters blind to the candidates until after the convention.

[dorminWS]

Are the economic development people in SW Virginia just sitting on their hands waiting for the coal jobs to come back or are they looking forward towards emerging opportunities?

Of course they aren't sitting on their hands. But there is no I-79 corridor in the SW Va coalfields; because there is not an interstate highway. There are many obstacles to ED in SW Va. Lack of tertiary (some would argue even secondary) health care. Poor schools. Low housing stock. Lack of educational attainment. The local ED people mourn about the "No Starbucks" problem. Development gets siphoned off to the Tri-Cities area in Tennessee (and immediately contiguous Va. counties) because there are such amenities there. The problem is that all of the "fixes" touted by McAuliffe and the anti-coal jihadists are likely to take a generation and people are looking for their next meal today. In such a case, anything that will preserve remaining coal jobs even in the short term is very important.

Second, you cite the shrinkage of coal jobs between 1988 and today. Virginia had a coal tax credit during all those years and as many Republican governors as Democratic ones. How many coal jobs have been lost in 2014 and 2015 under McAuliffe? There are clearly forces at work that are far more significant than a coal tax credit or the political party of the governor.

There clearly are. But things like Chinese demand for steel (and therefore Appalachian metallurgical coal), natural gas prices, and other economic forces are cyclical. They will, in time, move the other way and coal demand, prices and employment will recover. But when the EPA strong-arms utilities into either converting generating facilities to natural gas at huge expense or shutting them down, THAT is permanent. And, by the way, when the EPA imposes water purity standards for runoff water on surface mines that Evian bottled water can't meet (believe it or not that is the truth), that ALSO kills mining jobs and counters other efforts to preserve them. Further, for the government to do this when the aforementioned economic conditions are at their cyclical worst makes the negative impact on the economy and its people even more devastating. Finally, there are many jobs that are coal-dependent but not coal mining. Mining employment has indeed declined for non-cyclical reasons like increased regulation, mechanization and the gradual decline of coal use. That was the REASON for the tax relief. But the many jobs in support and related industries either have not declined or have declined much less. This includes trucking, fuel suppliers, railroads, the ports in tidewater through which the coal was being shipped, etc. So to measure the effectiveness of the tax relief strictly by coal jobs was misleading and downright dishonest. We are now seeing the railroads laying people off. If the ports haven't already, they soon will. Tidewater will never miss those jobs because they are so diversified and prosperous. Lucky them. TMac and his henchmen can keep them happy where all the votes are. I can even tell you about at least a score of gas-and-convenience stores that have closed their doors because nearby mines have shut down and left them with such low sales they can't pay their help.

Third, just how does the Virginia Republican Creed, with its stated emphasis on free enterprise, individual responsibility, and fiscal restraint, support government subsidies to protect private sector jobs? Is it now the position of the Republicans that government should pick winners and losers?

Now, that is just a plain old cheap shot. Since when is NOT TAXING someone a SUBSIDY? Obviously a talking point conceived by a "progressive" whose attitude is that nothing is yours unless the government decides to let you keep it for the time being. Also, how is this different from "tax subsidies" given to new employers by economic development people in all states? It's OK to give a tax break to get a promise of new jobs, but not to keep jobs that we already have? BALDERDASH. If republicans refrain from taxing they are picking winners, but democrats just pick losers by taxing and regulating them out of business? This is all just a manufactured excuse to carry Barack Obama's and Hillary's water and punish southwest Virginia for voting so resoundingly against democrats lately.

BTW, Virginia has a Democratic governor today because the RPVA chose to have a nominating convention in 2013 instead of an open primary, a convention that was hijacked by Tea Party activists who held it hostage with delaying tactics until the middle of the night and then proceeded to nominate a slate of unelectable extremists. You reap what you sow. You can blame McAuliffe and the Democrats for a lot of things, but the loss of coal jobs and the economic opportunities in southwest Virginia isn't one of them.

Yes there is some truth in that. But in an election as close as that one, the decision of the RINOS to withhold funding and support clearly (IMO, at least) puts the blame for democratic wins squarely in the republican establishment's lap.

[ShotgunBlast]

Third, just how does the Virginia Republican Creed, with its stated emphasis on free enterprise, individual responsibility, and fiscal restraint, support government subsidies to protect private sector jobs? Is it now the position of the Republicans that government should pick winners and losers?

Now, that is just a plain old cheap shot. Since when is NOT TAXING someone a SUBSIDY? Obviously a talking point conceived by a "progressive" whose attitude is that nothing is yours unless the government decides to let you keep it for the time being. Also, how is this different from "tax subsidies" given to new employers by economic development people in all states? It's OK to give a tax break to get a promise of new jobs, but not to keep jobs that we already have? BALDERDASH. If republicans refrain from taxing they are picking winners, but democrats just pick losers by taxing and regulating them out of business? This is all just a manufactured excuse to carry Barack Obama's and Hillary's water and punish southwest Virginia for voting so resoundingly against democrats lately.

It's a perfectly valid question. If you're in the coal mining business you get some kind of tax credit because you're in the coal mining business, but if I'm in the natural gas business I don't get access to your coal mining tax credit.

A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).

And sure, you could make the argument of taxing vs not taxing, but it's a different argument than what was mentioned here.

Also your mixing in of the tax subsidies to new employers by economic development is a completely different issue (and equally just as bad). Republicans, if they're going to live by their creed of free enterprise and fiscal restraint, should abhor all subsidies.

I agree that SW Virginia is going to have a helluva uphill climb over the next generation or so, but the tax credit needs to go. Hopefully the convictions of the people there are stronger than the political retribution this administration on all levels is dishing out to them.

[dorminWS]

I agree that SW Virginia is going to have a helluva uphill climb over the next generation or so, but the tax credit needs to go. Hopefully the convictions of the people there are stronger than the political retribution this administration on all levels is dishing out to them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, "Let them eat cake", huh?

[ShotgunBlast]

I agree that SW Virginia is going to have a helluva uphill climb over the next generation or so, but the tax credit needs to go. Hopefully the convictions of the people there are stronger than the political retribution this administration on all levels is dishing out to them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, "Let them eat cake", huh?

That saying implies a disregard for the people living there, which may be the attitude of the administration with their burdensome regulations. My stance is a realization that they're in a really crappy spot, but hope that they can retool and evolve the area into something that the administration isn't out to kill. Sure, it's going to take a lot of effort and it's going to take time and I know people need to put food on the table today, but my empathy for them and their tough road ahead does not outweigh my convictions for limited government and a simplified tax code. When you start making those compromises, then you don't stand for anything.

[MarcSpaz]

The real problem is, government shouldn't be trying to kill the industry. It's not the government's place to manipulate markets. They killed lead smelting in the US and now lead is 4 times more expensive than it needs to be because we have to ship ore out of the country to be processed, and then shipped back in. They accomplished nothing positive, because it is a needed product and the process still occurs. Its just that now we pay more and another country is getting more wealth FROM us.

Now, the government is trying to do the same thing with oil and coal. Energy pulled out of the ground is the most widely used globally because it's cheap and efficient and it is more popular than all other sources combined. It generates the most usable energy pound per pound. The market exists, thrives, and there is no reasonable, affordable, market ready alternative anywhere in the world.

So, other than to repress the population to control the nation, what other possible excuse could they have to mess with commerce?

Just remember, healthy, smart, self sufficient people can't be controlled. They have to make us need them to maintain power. That means we need to be dumb, sick, and dependent on THEM. Arguing over what part of the system is the part to blame is pointless to us, because the whole system is screwing us. But us bickering helps them tremendously as it divides us and makes us weaker.

You want to know who's fault it is... Don't look to the people who have been lied to for their whole life. Look to the liars.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Viper21]

You want to know who's fault it is... Don't look to the people who have been lied to, for their whole life. Look to the liars.

Definitely going to borrow that line......

[MarcSpaz]

Of course. Use it. Share it. Tell your friends. LoL.

[M1A4ME]

Just another example of efforts to damage the country. Shut down industry, make us more dependent on sources of supply/food/energy from outside our borders. The effects on people aren't the primary efforts, except for the desire to get people to move from rural areas where they are more independent/resourceful and harder to control to towns/cities where they become more dependent on the government.

And I won't lose any sleep if you don't believe me.

[dorminWS]

The answer is simple. They don't want to preserve coal mining jobs; they want to eliminate them and dismantle the industry and its labor force so there can never be a revival of it; even if they lose the White house and their more rational successors reverse their rulings, edicts and policies. They want to phase out all fossil fuels, and coal is first on the list because it is "dirty". It's part of the Obama/Clinton/progressive anti-global warming strategy. If people out here in SW Va have to move away to find a way to feed themselves, that tickles the heck out of them.