To Democrats: How is it Healthier to be Unemployed?

[Guest]

by Marita Noon

The Republican National Convention in Tampa displayed a large “debt clock” that ticked away at a rate of $10 million a minute, keeping the nation’s dire financial straits front and center. Had there been a companion counter with a chit mark for each time the word “jobs” was mentioned from the main stage, it likely would have clicked on at a similar pace.

This week, at the Democratic National Convention the word “jobs” is sure to, once again, be a popular topic.

As Vice President Biden famously said, referencing the number one issue facing the middle class, “it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S.”

That “three-letter word” may be the only thing the two parties agree on—and how each would get there is totally different.

In Tampa, Romney said: “What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn't take a special government commission to tell us what America needs. What America needs is jobs. Lots of jobs. … I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon. And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps. First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.” (Italics added.)

The Romney plan starts with another word we are hearing, and will continue to hear, a lot of: “energy.”

While I was in Tampa, I did several dozen radio interviews discussing the Romney energy plan. As it was the Republican convention, the various hosts were positive and receptive to my comments. However, there was one “left of center” host who was interviewing folks via Skype. I sat down in front of the computer-mounted camera and began to answer his questions—which quickly turned into an attack. He threw the typical left-leaning lines at me about pollution, greenhouse gases, and health. I stopped him and asked: “How is it healthy for people to have higher energy prices? How is it healthy for people to be out of work?” I think I threw him off course, as he paused and asked: “Where’d that come from?” and quickly went to a break. My interview was over.

This week in Charlotte, the comments about energy will probably mirror the tone of the rude talk-show host. The stars of the Democratic Party who will parade across the stage will scoff at the Romney plan to create 12 million new jobs and will deride his emphasis on “oil and coal and gas and nuclear”—calling the Romeny plan “something better suited for the last century.” Instead, the party line will address “green” energy and the jobs that it creates—despite the thousands of jobs lost at failed green energy companies like Solyndra and the increased cost green energy adds to consumers’ utility bills.

In late July, I toured the coal mines of Eastern Kentucky where whole communities of hard-working miners are out of work due to increasing EPA Regulations. Since the start of 2012, 2000 direct jobs have disappeared in Eastern Kentucky. Arch Coal, one of the largest coal-mining companies in the world, has had to shut down three of its four mines in the region—other companies have had layoffs. About a half a dozen mines have been permanently closed. I’ve met with the miners and talked to local officials. They are hurting. You can be sure these registered Democrats will not be voting for Obama this year.

Despite the damage their policies are doing to physical health and material wealth, the Democrats will tout “clean” energy. They will be critical of coal-fueled power plants—focusing on the barely measureable amounts of mercury that may be emitted from a stack. They won’t talk about the recent smack down the EPA received from the Washington DC District Court that determined that the EPA had overreachedwith its waste water discharge regulations that required water to be cleaner than Evian before it could be released into nature. There will not be any concern for the lost jobs in Eastern Kentucky—or the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the Gulf of Mexico because Obama’s policies chased the oil and gas industry to foreign shores. There will be no mention of the extreme health impacts of unemployment.

Earlier this year, the Minority Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, under the leadership of Ranking Member, Senator John Barrasso, MD, released a report titled Red Tape Making Americans Sickthat brought together decades of research which points to increased “likelihood of hospital visits, illnesses and premature deaths in communities due to joblessness.” The report states: “an estimated 11.5 millionAmericans are projected to lose their jobs as a direct result of several proposed EPA rules.”

As I asked the talk-show host, “How is it healthy for people to have higher energy prices? How is it healthy for people to be out of work?”

The Subcommittee report cites Susan Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. “As Dudley points out, the Administration ignores the thousands of jobs that will be eliminated at the plants and factories that shut down due to higher energy and construction costs of installing that equipment. The end result is thousands of jobs being crushed to create a few green jobs, which leads to higher unemployment.”

At a Senate hearing, Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University testified: “The unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed since the early 1980s. In addition to influences on mental disorders, suicide and alcohol abuse and alcoholism, unemployment is also an important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and overall decreases in life expectancy.”

The report points out that it is not just the out-of-work adult whose health is affected. A study from the National Center for Health Statisticsaddresses the impact of poverty on children’s health: “Children in poor families were four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children in families that were not poor.”

Niger Innis, of the Congress on Racial Equality says, “For the middle class, energy represents 25% of their income. If you fall below the poverty line, it can go as high as 70% of your income. For every dollar spent on energy, that is a dollar not available for food, healthcare, shelter and other necessities. Access to affordable, reliable energy is a civil right.”

This week as you watch the news coverage of the Democratic National Convention, you’ll hear about jobs and energy, you’ll hear about poverty and health. The implications—and outright accusations—will be made that Republicans don’t care about the middle class. Yet, it is the Democrats’ policies—driven by an extreme environmentalist agenda—that are raising energy costs, killing jobs, increasing poverty, and hurting human health.

When you hear claims that additional Clean Air Act regulations will improve public health, think about the broader consequences. An America without abundant, available, and affordable energy is not an America that benefits the middle class or the poor. It hurts. It is unhealthy.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/m...oyed/page/full/

[Neil D]

Ok, a legitimate question and one of a good debate...

On one hand we have the need for jobs...and energy is the way to get the job market going...So, increase the energy sector of our economy to get the jobs up and going.....Get the nuclear, the coal, the petroleum, and LPG up and going again....The problem is that these jobs create waste that harm our environment and are not good to our health...

We know this because we have seen this..Who wants to advocate that our abundance of coal would not solve our energy problems? Granted, we can get that energy up and fire up more coal plants and get our energy needs way up....the problem is that, despite the advertising, coal is NOT CLEAN ENERGY...You don't remember the flood of toxic ash from the coal energy plants that came running down into a town a few years ago? You are not concerned about radiation leaks or possible ecological disasters that would happen to a plant after an earthquake, hurricane or tornado? How about a Tsunami? Remember Japan???

I agree, energy is what we need...but not at the risk of hurting our health...If I have my health, I do have everything that I need to live a productive life. Who wants a job that not only produces energy, but liver and lung and pancreatic cancers.....Who want to drink water from a nuclear cooling plant that also goes to outdoor pools and passes as drinking water?

Denmark, Holland and much of Europe are doing much to show the way of clean energy...Add an american know-how and we can take that over quite easily....

[Guest]

Take another drink of the Kool-Aid. It'll be ok.

[Neil D]

no rebbuttal.....just a stupid remark made to inflame the discussion...

Richard, are you really interested in bridging the divide here or are you just a little troll who wants to make rude?

[Guest]

Bridge the divide? What divide? You think I've come here to try to somehow bridge the divide between conservatives and liberals? LOL, Where did that come from? You're talking in bumper sticker language, Neil. You can't compromise with evil. I simply come here to tell the truth.

And look who's throwing the word troll around. You always did like that word. But I'm not the one using multiple identities here to try and hide who I am. I'm not ashamed of who I am, and don't need a phoney front.

[Neil D]

Truth??? YOU have THE TRUTH.....

Well, ain't that special...coming from a troll...who cant rebutt beans...There was a day here, on this board where people like you were sentenced to other troll boards where they could proclaim THE Truth all they wanted...In reality, they were small minded individuals who wanted a microphone so that they could be heard...only no one wanted to listen to thier c*r*a*p....because everyone KNEW that they were wrong...

So, TROLL away Richard...but know this, you cant rebutt what I put up and you are still wrong...

[OzarkWoman]

So, anyone that disagrees with you is a troll??? I say that you seem to be part of that tolerant left. NOT!!!

[bonnie]

So, anyone that disagrees with you is a troll??? I say that you seem to be part of that tolerant left. NOT!!!

Fits the tolerant left perfectly. Tolerate anything except disagreement with them.

[Guest]

Poor Neil...

Keep in mind folks, that this is the same guy who, in a moment of meltdown, openly admitted to being a troll, (he called himself that) and removed himself from C/A. Only to keep popping back up under different identities. Such as hamilton-beach, JoMoe, etc.

Only problem is, he can't change the way he talks for very long, and he hasn't learned how to spell any better. So he still misspells the exact same words, the exact same way. Every time. Myself and a few others can spot him every time.

A spell check program would be a good investment Neil, if you plan to continue wearing masks. I think you can get one for free.

Also, when Maria and myself first let it be known that we were "talking", Neil sent her a pm on facebook, warning her of what an evil person I am, and what a huge mistake she was making. It would have worked maybe, but she had already gotten to know me a little, for herself.

I'm sure I do seem evil to you Neil, but I've never tried to do YOU any harm like that. The thought would have never crossed my mind.

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman

So, anyone that disagrees with you is a troll??? I say that you seem to be part of that tolerant left. NOT!!!

Fits the tolerant left perfectly. Tolerate anything except disagreement with them.

[Neil D]

So, anyone that disagrees with you is a troll??? I say that you seem to be part of that tolerant left. NOT!!!

Oh nooo, no no..OW...The concept of "troll" comes when an origional poster puts out a thesis/post, and rebuttal/disccussion ensues, and then the poster tells everyone that posts a rebuttal to "drink kool-aid" and can not rebut the rebuttal...

I do like discussions...I do like to seek for a common answer...Unfortunately for Richard, he post things he can not support...and has consitantly no evidence for his assurtions...

And as for all that stuff about mojoe and neil...no evidence...no proof...and he just continues to make assurtions...

[bonnie]

Oh nooo, no no..OW...The concept of "troll" comes when an origional poster puts out a thesis/post, and rebuttal/disccussion ensues, and then the poster tells everyone that posts a rebuttal to "drink kool-aid" and can not rebut the rebuttal...

[Guest]

Quote:

And as for all that stuff about mojoe and neil...no evidence...no proof...and he just continues to make assurtions...

You know,many people post a response and neglect to check the spelling of a word or two.Then there are those that routinely misspel a word in the exact same way everytime they use it.Not as a mistake but as the way they believe it to be spelled as in "assurtions" instead of assertions

And that's just one example.

[Guest]

Then there are those that routinely misspel a word in the exact same way everytime they use it.Not as a mistake but as the way they believe it to be spelled as in "assurtions" instead of assertions

He knows we know, but continues lying about it. I guess if he can live with himself knowing that he's living a lie online... and knowing that we know..

He didn't have to lie to OzarkWoman, but he did. She hadn't asked him anything about what I said.

[Guest]

So, anyone that disagrees with you is a troll??? I say that you seem to be part of that tolerant left. NOT!!!

Some posts are just so wrongheaded, backwards, and absurd, that they don't warrant a response. Neil's posts are often like that.

He's just repeating the same mind numbed mantras of the left, and regurgitating whatever the left is feeding that day. Without ever bothering to really check any of it.

I can't reprogram somebody who has been brainwashed, and buys the radical left's lies hook line and sinker. I wouldn't know how. And where would I start?

[bonnie]

You know,many people post a response and neglect to check the spelling of a word or two.Then there are those that routinely misspel a word in the exact same way everytime they use it.Not as a mistake but as the way they believe it to be spelled as in "assurtions" instead of assertions

And that's just one example.

[Guest]

.However,not sure I understand the almost hysterical response to "drinking the kool-aid"

That is said frequently by more than one in this forum.

But the left if getting rather hysterical in many area's.

I think maybe I hit a nerve, because he knows he has a Kool-Aid drinking problem. :)

[Neil D]

Amazing....absolutely amazing....

You two cant rebutt the rebuttal but you can attack the messenger....

What trolls....just absolutely trolls...

[bonnie]

Amazing....absolutely amazing....

You two cant rebutt the rebuttal but you can attack the messenger....

What trolls....just absolutely trolls...

You are the one that went on the attack because Richard did not share your concerns.And just for the record,I didn't attack you. Rebut what?

The fact we need fossil fuel.That is a given.Or the hysteria we are running out of fossil fuel?

Consider the cost of alternative energy. You know,the energy it requires to deliver this cheap wind energy.Where do you suppose that comes from?

Obama wants to become the best customer of other countries for their oil. Where do you suppose the other countries get it? By magic.. Or is it Okay to put them at "risk"

There is a calculated risk in everything we do.At times there will be mishaps.

Every time you get in your car you are at risk of injury or death. Riding a bike,snowmobiling, motorcycles.Many activities are not a necessity to life.Maybe they should be banned.

Every time my husband climbed a three story ladder he was at risk. Should he have refused?

We live three miles from a nuclear power plant,has been there for decades. No one has come to any harm.Could it happen, sure. I could get hit by a truck tomorrow on my way to town.

The uses of fossil fuels are endless. That will not be stopped.

It is safer today than it ever has been. If there were a demand for alternative fuel someone would come up with a viable alternative. The government cannot manufacture that demand and then supply the "fix"

For all the billions that has been poured into alternative energy by the government it hasn't worked.

You personally can do your share tho. Scale your living way back.Never drive if you can walk,ride a bike.Do not use AC,people have lived for thousands of years without it,make sure you do. Dispense with anything that uses unnecessary energy.Just think how much could be saved if all the rich liberals of Hollywood put their money where there mouth is.

From the president on down,put your so-called convictions into actions.

For me I will keep living by the nuclear power plant,keep my AC on,drive my car etc.

[Neil D]

You are the one that went on the attack because Richard did not share your concerns.And just for the record,I didn't attack you. Rebut what?

The fact we need fossil fuel.That is a given.Or the hysteria we are running out of fossil fuel?

Bonnie, look at the posts again...

I gave a thoughtful rebuttal to Richard's post, and Richard's response was to "drink the kool-aid"....Truely a wish that I was dead just for replying to his hokey post...what kind of Christian is that, eh? Not a Christian at all in my book....And yes, I do judge people by what they write here...

And look at this reply...Not only do you not see, and expand your false accusation that Troll Richard did not attack, but your first response was a "Rebut what?" You didn't even consider my rebuttal at all....here you show your ignorance.....

sad, sad sad....again you live up to the claims of an internet troll....

[bonnie]

Bonnie, look at the posts again...

I gave a thoughtful rebuttal to Richard's post, and Richard's response was to "drink the kool-aid"....Truely a wish that I was dead just for replying to his hokey post...what kind of Christian is that, eh? Not a Christian at all in my book....And yes, I do judge people by what they write here...

And look at this reply...Not only do you not see, and expand your false accusation that Troll Richard did not attack, but your first response was a "Rebut what?" You didn't even consider my rebuttal at all....here you show your ignorance.....

sad, sad sad....again you live up to the claims of an internet troll....

[bonnie]

What is it you would like to have someone rebut?

Quote:

On one hand we have the need for jobs...and energy is the way to get the job market going...So, increase the energy sector of our economy to get the jobs up and going.....Get the nuclear, the coal, the petroleum, and LPG up and going again....The problem is that these jobs create waste that harm our environment and are not good to our health...

All of the above is safer and cleaner today than it has ever been. We not only need jobs,we need a viable source of energy in every facet of life.Nothing prevents someone from developing a alternative if there is one.

Quote:

We know this because we have seen this..Who wants to advocate that our abundance of coal would not solve our energy problems? Granted, we can get that energy up and fire up more coal plants and get our energy needs way up....the problem is that, despite the advertising, coal is NOT CLEAN ENERGY...You don't remember the flood of toxic ash from the coal energy plants that came running down into a town a few years ago? You are not concerned about radiation leaks or possible ecological disasters that would happen to a plant after an earthquake, hurricane or tornado? How about a Tsunami? Remember Japan???

Wind energy is not clean either. It takes an abundance of fossil fuel to produce all that goes into the wind turbines.

The possible ecological disasters against the known disaster of what we have now?

Disasters are going to happen in all walks of life.Can you prevent them or just those that you think can possibly happen with fossil fuel?

The number of deaths caused by cars and drunk driving is staggering and a far more immediate threat to my health and life than the nuclear power plant I live by.

Shall we have prohibition to prevent the next possible drunk driver and unnecessary injury and death?

Energy use produces far more beneficial results as is a very necessary part of our daily life. Alcohol is not.

Quote:

I agree, energy is what we need...but not at the risk of hurting our health...If I have my health, I do have everything that I need to live a productive life. Who wants a job that not only produces energy, but liver and lung and pancreatic cancers.....Who want to drink water from a nuclear cooling plant that also goes to outdoor pools and passes as drinking water?

My husband worked a high risk profession.He has COPD as a result. The mass hysteria over lead caused a far greater risk to those in that profession than lead based paint. Latex,once introduced into the body is there forever. Lead is dissipated over time.

Do I think lead is good for you? NOPE. I know spraying latex even with the proper mask is not.

There is a calculated risk every day to everything you do.

Denmark, Holland and much of Europe are doing much to show the way of clean energy...Add an american know-how and we can take that over quite easily....

[Guest]

Bonnie, look at the posts again...

I gave a thoughtful rebuttal to Richard's post, and Richard's response was to "drink the kool-aid"....Truely a wish that I was dead just for replying to his hokey post.

You see Neil, this is why I don't care if I answer your idiotic posts or not. You're obviously unstable if you think that telling you to drink some more Kool-Aid means I want you dead.

[Planey]

So I am intrigued, Richard.

What exactly was the inference in "drink the Kool-Aid"?

As a foreigner, I am not aware of all the nuances within American culture.

I, apparently foolishly, assumed the reference was to the Jim Jones episode in Guyana.

Obviously, my bad.

Graeme

[Guest]

So I am intrigued, Richard.

What exactly was the inference in "drink the Kool-Aid"?

As a foreigner, I am not aware of all the nuances within American culture.

I, apparently foolishly, assumed the reference was to the Jim Jones episode in Guyana.

Obviously, my bad.

Graeme

The "Kool-Aid" is the left wing propaganda that people like Neil drink in. They buy it hook line and sinker, and believe it, either because they are already brain washed beyond hope of return, and/or they live in a bubble, where they are only around, and only hear the liberal line, as it were.

It actually hinders them from seeing reality. Because when compared to what is real, and what is really happening, most of what they say/believe, is absurd.

So since I see no hope for Neil in this area, I figure he may as well drink some more Kool-Aid. Both of you overlooked the phrase "another drink" in my original post. That implies that he has already drank some, you see. Therefore it couldn't be a Jim Jones thing, or anything that would kill him.

I hope this helps Graeme.