[Coach_Owens87]

McCain on tuesday, told an audience in Florida that he supported ending MTR, and supports other forms of mining.

How does this make the pro-mtr, pro-republican voters on here feel.

Obama has also expressed similar sentiment, and even mentioned last year in Lexington, that he was against MTR.

http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitnes...7e6b.shtml

[RavenBoy]

Go McCain!

[Coach_Owens87]

Go McCain!

Im glad both candidates have spoken out against MTR.

I still wont vote for McCain, but I respect him for speaking out against MTR.

[phs1986]

This community would basically come to a stand still.... There are TONS of families that depend on the jobs they have to survive. I guess BOTH canidates are for supporting with "others" money all the families they jeopardize? I don't think so....

[Coach_Owens87]

This community would basically come to a stand still.... There are TONS of families that depend on the jobs they have to survive. I guess BOTH canidates are for supporting with "others" money all the families they jeopardize? I don't think so....

Did you get this from friends of coal, or did this just come to you? They didnt say they wanted to stop mining, just MTR, so I dont really see the big deal? They just realize, like most people, that MTR is destroying this region, we need jobs that dont destroy our land.

This "We have to have coal", "we have to strip mine" is the same BS I hear from all MTR supporters. You're brainwashed into thinking that coal is the only way we can live. This couldnt be further from the truth, we have many things here to build an economy on. This region is full of natural beauty, and ecotourism could be a big draw, but the amount of land left to tour is decreasing every day. The economy in our region is not booming, never really has been, we have high poverty rates, and unemployment rates that haven't changed for decades. Most of the counties in EKY rank among the poorest in the country, is this the economy you want. IMO both candidates realize we need to do something about this energy crisis, and also realize the MTR is a much to damaging method of mining to let it continue.

[phs1986]

Did you get this from friends of coal, or did this just come to you? They didnt say they wanted to stop mining, just MTR, so I dont really see the big deal? They just realize, like most people, that MTR is destroying this region, we need jobs that dont destroy our land.

This "We have to have coal", "we have to strip mine" is the same BS I hear from all MTR supporters. You're brainwashed into thinking that coal is the only way we can live. This couldnt be further from the truth, we have many things here to build an economy on. This region is full of natural beauty, and ecotourism could be a big draw, but the amount of land left to tour is decreasing every day. The economy in our region is not booming, never really has been, we have high poverty rates, and unemployment rates that haven't changed for decades. Most of the counties in EKY rank among the poorest in the country, is this the economy you want. IMO both candidates realize we need to do something about this energy crisis, and also realize the MTR is a much to damaging method of mining to let it continue.

For YOUR information... I didn't get this from anyone! I myself am an educated person such as yourself and SEE what unemployment does. I will PERSONALLY look up some statistics and give you some numbers so that you can see what it is going to cost THIS COUNTRY to re-train these men and women who are put out of jobs AND the unemployment costs we as a country will also endure while they are in training. Granted, there ARE other types of mining that are used but many men/women have only worked in certain types of situtations and will have to have different training so that they can do their jobs efficently so that it won't cost OUR COUNTRY more money in the long run.

As for your assumption that I am "brainwashed"... you need to make your opinions and assumptions on something that you KNOW..... You have no idea who I am and what my exact feelings are on anything. SO... please refrain from assuming you know anything about me!!!!

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

in this area that will mean about 30% or more will be unemployed. BAD IDEA!!

[Poseidon]

This community would basically come to a stand still.... There are TONS of families that depend on the jobs they have to survive. I guess BOTH canidates are for supporting with "others" money all the families they jeopardize? I don't think so....

Life would go on and with different industries that are not as unhealthy for their workers. Coal does offer a lot of money to the communities, but it also is causing a lot of environmental damage and medical bills to their workers....

[Poseidon]

in this area that will mean about 30% or more will be unemployed. BAD IDEA!!

Compared to the damages the industry is causing, the unemployment would be acceptable. I am not just talking about damages to the environment, but damages to the people that work there and breathe in the coal dust and such. I would be interested to see a study on the life expectancy of coal miners compared to people who do not work around the mines.

[Coach_Owens87]

For YOUR information... I didn't get this from anyone! I myself am an educated person such as yourself and SEE what unemployment does. I will PERSONALLY look up some statistics and give you some numbers so that you can see what it is going to cost THIS COUNTRY to re-train these men and women who are put out of jobs AND the unemployment costs we as a country will also endure while they are in training. Granted, there ARE other types of mining that are used but many men/women have only worked in certain types of situtations and will have to have different training so that they can do their jobs efficently so that it won't cost OUR COUNTRY more money in the long run.

As for your assumption that I am "brainwashed"... you need to make your opinions and assumptions on something that you KNOW..... You have no idea who I am and what my exact feelings are on anything. SO... please refrain from assuming you know anything about me!!!!

Information from no one?
You had to get your info from someone, or you would have to make it up yourself.

Over the last two decades coal mining jobs have decreased by almost 70% due to advances in technology that limit the amount of workers needed, most of this decline has come on surface mines, but no one is complaing about that. But when someone mentiones stopping a destructive form of mining, which is arguably the cause of much of the job loss in the mining sector, everyone goes into fits.

The largest coal producing counties in ky have some of the lowest High school grad rates, highest poverty rates, and lowest median income rates in the state, is this really the community we want? Is this the future coal is promising us? Bramhabull has it right when he mentions that other business will take the place of the mining industry, but big coal doesnt want us to think that, and it looks like they have you on thier bandwagon. Why arent you complaing about the huge unemployment rise due to MTR? You say you dont want miners losing thier jobs (Neither do I), but yet you support a practice that is causing major job loss.

We need to build a future, we need to have communities and jobs that will keep the next generation in this area, and mining will not do that. It hasnt over the last 100 years, and it wont over the next. IMO the greatest asset we have is our natural bueaty, which could draw in millions of tourist, but MTR is destroying that option, along with our water, our mountians, and our heritage.



http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-proj...eneralinfo

http://books.google.com/books?id=8eFSK4o...&ct=result

[Coach_Owens87]

Does McCains statement about wanting to stop MTR change any of the pro-mtr peoples opinion of him?

[phs1986]

Information from no one?
You had to get your info from someone, or you would have to make it up yourself.

Over the last two decades coal mining jobs have decreased by almost 70% due to advances in technology that limit the amount of workers needed, most of this decline has come on surface mines, but no one is complaing about that. But when someone mentiones stopping a destructive form of mining, which is arguably the cause of much of the job loss in the mining sector, everyone goes into fits.

The largest coal producing counties in ky have some of the lowest High school grad rates, highest poverty rates, and lowest median income rates in the state, is this really the community we want? Is this the future coal is promising us? Bramhabull has it right when he mentions that other business will take the place of the mining industry, but big coal doesnt want us to think that, and it looks like they have you on thier bandwagon. Why arent you complaing about the huge unemployment rise due to MTR? You say you dont want miners losing thier jobs (Neither do I), but yet you support a practice that is causing major job loss.

We need to build a future, we need to have communities and jobs that will keep the next generation in this area, and mining will not do that. It hasnt over the last 100 years, and it wont over the next. IMO the greatest asset we have is our natural bueaty, which could draw in millions of tourist, but MTR is destroying that option, along with our water, our mountians, and our heritage.



http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-proj...eneralinfo

http://books.google.com/books?id=8eFSK4o...&ct=result

I'm through on this subject... WITH the exception of these 2 statements:
1. I am neither for or against MTR.... I just see the effects that CHILDREN mainly go through when a parent loses a job.

2. I think our dear country is in a mess... Point Blank!!! A lot of different things factor into this statement and I do NOT say it lightly.... MTR is only one of the many things I am considering when saying it.

DONE!

[Coach_Owens87]

I'm through on this subject... WITH the exception of these 2 statements:
1. I am neither for or against MTR.... I just see the effects that CHILDREN mainly go through when a parent loses a job.

2. I think our dear country is in a mess... Point Blank!!! A lot of different things factor into this statement and I do NOT say it lightly.... MTR is only one of the many things I am considering when saying it.

DONE!

What happened to those stats you where supposed to provide?

No one is saying that losing a job is a good thing, or that anyone deserves to lose thier job. We need jobs for the future that will help develop this region, without destroying our environment.

If you want to complain about job loss, talk to the coal companies who are using machines to replace miners.

Back on topic

No one has answered my question.

Does this change anyones opinion of McCain, especially the super coal friendly posters on here?

[SamuelAdams]

Does McCains statement about wanting to stop MTR change any of the pro-mtr peoples opinion of him?

I for one am from a long line of coal miners, from deep mining and surface mining. The "fact" that Senater McCain may be against MTR does not change the fact that he is the best man for the job.
There are other issues to consider, such as Pro-life, Pro-family, Pro-gun issues. Obama is so far left on these issues he is about to fall off. If you think that Obama for anything that would disturb one twig in an environment you are sadly mistaken.
Senater McCain may against MTR, but Obama would try to stop any mining if he could, MTR or deep mining.

[Coach_Owens87]

I for one am from a long line of coal miners, from deep mining and surface mining. The "fact" that Senater McCain may be against MTR does not change the fact that he is the best man for the job.
There are other issues to consider, such as Pro-life, Pro-family, Pro-gun issues. Obama is so far left on these issues he is about to fall off. If you think that Obama for anything that would disturb one twig in an environment you are sadly mistaken.
Senater McCain may against MTR, but Obama would try to stop any mining if he could, MTR or deep mining.

You could have just said it didnt change your mind, would have saved a lot of time.

Obama does not want to stop all mining, he has CLEAN COAL on his energy plan, cant have coal with mining. I still dont see why people get on here and make false comments, just look up what they stand for, it's not too hard.

PS I dont like Obama's plan for clean coal. There is no such thing as clean coal.

[Old School]

Coach, I've come to realize that you are into recycling, because you keep using the same info. over and over, do us a favor and get some new information. IMO if anyone is brainwashed it's you, here you are around 20 or 21 years old and you think you know everything "like you know all of coals dirty little secerts, remember that one". lol

1) What are "The many things to build an economy on".

2) If there are so many thing to build an economy on as you say, then Why aren't they being implemented today?

3) According to some true environmentalist you would avoid ecotourism, especially if your trying to generate revenue from it. Experts say that you need unspoiled, pristine land (good luck finding that in E. Ky.) once the land is found and for it to be profitable you need to bring in tourist, which they in turn start traveling across the property harming the plants and evnvironment and before long the area is no longer pristine.

4) You keep referring the high poverty rates here in E. Ky. so I have to ask, What would the poverty rates be without coal, since it is the only major industry in E. Ky.?

5) First you said in post #5 that the unemployment rate had not changed in 2 decades, then in post #10 you asked PHS why she wasn't complaining about the huge unemployment rise due to MTR. So which is it, unemployment hasn't changed in 2 decades or that the huge unemployment rise is due to MTR. Pick one and stick with it you can't have it both ways. BTW if you were to open up a local newspaper or turn on a local radio station, you would see where mining companies along with State and Federal agencies across the coal fields are holding job fairs every other week trying to attract more employees, some are starting to offer nearly $30 per hour plus bonus, gas cards etc. and they still can't find enough workers.

6) "Over the past 2 decades coal mining jobs have decreased by almost 70%" Where do you keep coming up with these numbers? This is the same trash you brought up last fall, go back and check you info. Because according to MSHA web site in 1986 there were 185,167 coal miners and in 2006 there were 122,975 coal miners, that's a 34% decrease not 70% as you stated. I corrected your error then, so there is no reason to keep using false information.

7) Advances in technology have not only improved production, it has also improved safety. Are you suggesting that we go back in time and use the same mining methods that were used in 1910 when there were 2,821 men killed in the mines, or let's say to 1940 when 1,388 men were killed, so more people can work in the mines. I really don't think that what you want, or at least I hope not. Mining is not the only industry that uses fewer people today than they did 30 to 50 years ago. So what's you point?

8) You said "BB was right when he said that other business will take the place of the mining industry, but big coal doesn't want you to think that". Why do you say that? What makes you think that coal doesn't want other business in this area?

9)You keep going on and on about surface mines using fewer people than underground mines (I remember you saying that MTR jobs only required 3 employees to operate). Let me try to break this down so you can understand, a surface mine with 1 spread of equipment operating 2 shifts per day will need 30 employees, while a single underground miner unit operating 2 production shifts and 1 maintenance shift will need 33 employees. A surface mine with 2 spreads of equipment operating 2 shifts pr day will need 64 employees while a underground mine operating with an super section would require 45-50 employess, so in the real world there's not much difference between the two.

[Old School]

What happened to those stats you where supposed to provide?

No one is saying that losing a job is a good thing, or that anyone deserves to lose thier job. We need jobs for the future that will help develop this region, without destroying our environment.

If you want to complain about job loss, talk to the coal companies who are using machines to replace miners.

Back on topic

No one has answered my question.

Does this change anyones opinion of McCain, especially the super coal friendly posters on here?

McCain, is known for his environmental views, so this doesn't surprise me at all, even though McCain was not my first or second choice for President I will vote for him in November.

BTW did anyone hear Biden say that there would be no new coal fired plants in the U.S. if he and Obama were elected, Biden said we could mine coal and ship it to other countries so they could use for electricity but not here in the good ole U.S.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach, I've come to realize that you are into recycling, because you keep using the same info. over and over, do us a favor and get some new information. IMO if anyone is brainwashed it's you, here you are around 20 or 21 years old and you think you know everything "like you know all of coals dirty little secerts, remember that one". lol

1) What are "The many things to build an economy on".

2) If there are so many thing to build an economy on as you say, then Why aren't they being implemented today?

3) According to some true environmentalist you would avoid ecotourism, especially if your trying to generate revenue from it. Experts say that you need unspoiled, pristine land (good luck finding that in E. Ky.) once the land is found and for it to be profitable you need to bring in tourist, which they in turn start traveling across the property harming the plants and evnvironment and before long the area is no longer pristine.

4) You keep referring the high poverty rates here in E. Ky. so I have to ask, What would the poverty rates be without coal, since it is the only major industry in E. Ky.?

5) First you said in post #5 that the unemployment rate had not changed in 2 decades, then in post #10 you asked PHS why she wasn't complaining about the huge unemployment rise due to MTR. So which is it, unemployment hasn't changed in 2 decades or that the huge unemployment rise is due to MTR. Pick one and stick with it you can't have it both ways. BTW if you were to open up a local newspaper or turn on a local radio station, you would see where mining companies along with State and Federal agencies across the coal fields are holding job fairs every other week trying to attract more employees, some are starting to offer nearly $30 per hour plus bonus, gas cards etc. and they still can't find enough workers.

6) "Over the past 2 decades coal mining jobs have decreased by almost 70%" Where do you keep coming up with these numbers? This is the same trash you brought up last fall, go back and check you info. Because according to MSHA web site in 1986 there were 185,167 coal miners and in 2006 there were 122,975 coal miners, that's a 34% decrease not 70% as you stated. I corrected your error then, so there is no reason to keep using false information.

7) Advances in technology have not only improved production, it has also improved safety. Are you suggesting that we go back in time and use the same mining methods that were used in 1910 when there were 2,821 men killed in the mines, or let's say to 1940 when 1,388 men were killed, so more people can work in the mines. I really don't think that what you want, or at least I hope not. Mining is not the only industry that uses fewer people today than they did 30 to 50 years ago. So what's you point?

8) You said "BB was right when he said that other business will take the place of the mining industry, but big coal doesn't want you to think that". Why do you say that? What makes you think that coal doesn't want other business in this area?

9)You keep going on and on about surface mines using fewer people than underground mines (I remember you saying that MTR jobs only required 3 employees to operate). Let me try to break this down so you can understand, a surface mine with 1 spread of equipment operating 2 shifts per day will need 30 employees, while a single underground miner unit operating 2 production shifts and 1 maintenance shift will need 33 employees. A surface mine with 2 spreads of equipment operating 2 shifts pr day will need 64 employees while a underground mine operating with an super section would require 45-50 employess, so in the real world there's not much difference between the two.

1.) Tourism (Doesnt have to be environmental, could be for music, or arts and crafts)
Bring in some factories, maybe a mobile home manufacturer.

2.) Most arent being implemented today because we dont have the work force to bring in high paying, high tech jobs, most people with college degrees move off, because there is not much to do here outside of mining, or the medical field. This hasnt happened over night, coal kept jobs from coming in many decades ago, and the people moved off.

3.) tourism could never harm the land as much as MTR has, I dont think the Caudills on their family vacation are going to flatten thousands of acres of "pristine" land. I was just saying that we could have other things to build an economy on, and in order to increase business in an area, you need people here to spend money, tourism could do that.

4.) Poverty rates would probably be the same without coal, just compare coal producing counties to non-coal producing counties, there isnt that much of a difference.

5.) Unemployment rates havent changed much, but the number of miners employed has. That was my point, she was saying that I was wanting to take away jobs from miners, which isnt the truth.

6.) That should actually be a 60% decline in jobs (typo). The jobs I was talking about are in eastern kentucky, and should be relevant because this is where most mining in Ky occurs. The stats come from the report released by the office of energy and the Kentucky Coal association. in 1979 there was 35902 mining jobs in eky, in 2006 (last report I could find) there was 15,010 (9,303 are underground mining jobs) mining jobs in EKY. 58% decrease in jobs.

http://www.energy.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C9...acts08.pdf

7.) I never said we should go back in time, everyone deserves a safe place to work. And I hope the all miners surface or undergound, have the opportunity. I just think we deserve to have jobs for the future.

8.)For the same reason they didnt want workers spending money outside of the camps in the early 1900's, they want to keep control over the economy so that we think we cant survive without coal.




Does this change your mind about McCain? Does it bother you to know that both candidates are against MTR?

[Old School]

1.) Tourism (Doesnt have to be environmental, could be for music, or arts and crafts)
Bring in some factories, maybe a mobile home manufacturer.

2.) Most arent being implemented today because we dont have the work force to bring in high paying, high tech jobs, most people with college degrees move off, because there is not much to do here outside of mining, or the medical field. This hasnt happened over night, coal kept jobs from coming in many decades ago, and the people moved off.

3.) tourism could never harm the land as much as MTR has, I dont think the Caudills on their family vacation are going to flatten thousands of acres of "pristine" land. I was just saying that we could have other things to build an economy on, and in order to increase business in an area, you need people here to spend money, tourism could do that.

4.) Poverty rates would probably be the same without coal, just compare coal producing counties to non-coal producing counties, there isnt that much of a difference.

5.) Unemployment rates havent changed much, but the number of miners employed has. That was my point, she was saying that I was wanting to take away jobs from miners, which isnt the truth.

6.) That should actually be a 60% decline in jobs (typo). The jobs I was talking about are in eastern kentucky, and should be relevant because this is where most mining in Ky occurs. The stats come from the report released by the office of energy and the Kentucky Coal association. in 1979 there was 35902 mining jobs in eky, in 2006 (last report I could find) there was 15,010 (9,303 are underground mining jobs) mining jobs in EKY. 58% decrease in jobs.

http://www.energy.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C9...acts08.pdf

7.) I never said we should go back in time, everyone deserves a safe place to work. And I hope the all miners surface or undergound, have the opportunity. I just think we deserve to have jobs for the future.

8.)For the same reason they didnt want workers spending money outside of the camps in the early 1900's, they want to keep control over the economy so that we think we cant survive without coal.




Does this change your mind about McCain? Does it bother you to know that both candidates are against MTR?

1) Tourism has never been a big draw in E. Ky, and any attractions we do have are basically used by local residents and not from those out of state. I really don't see this trend changing enough to help stabilize the local economy.

2) Your right when you said we don't have the work force needed, but it's not the fault of coal. IMO there are 2 main reasons we don't have the needed work force, one is because of the drug problems we have, most companies require a pre employment drug screening before hiring and a random drug screening during employment. Many people cannot pass these test therefor they try to get government aid, which brings me to my second reason, it is to easy for able bodied people to collect government aid, these are the ones that are able to work but are to lazy, they are perfectly content living off of 10 thousand dollars a year from the government than to go out and work every day.

4) I think the poverty rates would be higher without coal, even if other business were to locate to this area there would have to be enough jobs not only to replace 15,000 coal mining positions but enough to replace another 75,000 support jobs created by mining throughout E. Ky. It's also unlikely that these new business will have a similar pay and benifit package.

5) There's no doubt that the numbers of miners have decreased, but so have the number of mines, in 1986 there were 633 surface mines in E Ky in 2006 there were only 202 that's a 68% decrese. In 1986 there were 802 underground mines in E. Ky. and in 2006 there were only 214 that's a 73% decrease. Regardless of the industry whenever you decrease the number of factories or mines in this case you will decrease the number of employees. You said you don't want to take jobs away, but you want to stop surface mining, which would put 5,700 surface miners plus another 28,000 people in support jobs out of work. Could you clarify? What will happen to these 33,700 workers?

8) In the early 70's American Standard moved into Johnson County and employed over 500 workers, these workers came from all over E. Ky. and as I recall there was no opposition from any coal company.


Does this change my mind on McCain.....See post 17.
Does it bother me that both canditates are against MTR. .... Political candidates will tell the people they are talking to what they want to hear, if they are in a group of environmentist then they will preach environmentalism, when they are in an area that produces coal they will praise the importance of coal.... and so it goes.

[thecavemaster]

Had Kentucky, years ago, had the Appalachian Mountain Authority (AMA), like Tennessee had the TVA, tourism would be hugh in eastern Kentucky (see Harry Caudill in Night Comes to the Cumberlands). Instead, resource and people exploitation reigned, and, once again, profits trumped human and environmental well being.

[Coach_Owens87]

1) Tourism has never been a big draw in E. Ky, and any attractions we do have are basically used by local residents and not from those out of state. I really don't see this trend changing enough to help stabilize the local economy.

2) Your right when you said we don't have the work force needed, but it's not the fault of coal. IMO there are 2 main reasons we don't have the needed work force, one is because of the drug problems we have, most companies require a pre employment drug screening before hiring and a random drug screening during employment. Many people cannot pass these test therefor they try to get government aid, which brings me to my second reason, it is to easy for able bodied people to collect government aid, these are the ones that are able to work but are to lazy, they are perfectly content living off of 10 thousand dollars a year from the government than to go out and work every day.

4) I think the poverty rates would be higher without coal, even if other business were to locate to this area there would have to be enough jobs not only to replace 15,000 coal mining positions but enough to replace another 75,000 support jobs created by mining throughout E. Ky. It's also unlikely that these new business will have a similar pay and benifit package.

5) There's no doubt that the numbers of miners have decreased, but so have the number of mines, in 1986 there were 633 surface mines in E Ky in 2006 there were only 202 that's a 68% decrese. In 1986 there were 802 underground mines in E. Ky. and in 2006 there were only 214 that's a 73% decrease. Regardless of the industry whenever you decrease the number of factories or mines in this case you will decrease the number of employees. You said you don't want to take jobs away, but you want to stop surface mining, which would put 5,700 surface miners plus another 28,000 people in support jobs out of work. Could you clarify? What will happen to these 33,700 workers?

8) In the early 70's American Standard moved into Johnson County and employed over 500 workers, these workers came from all over E. Ky. and as I recall there was no opposition from any coal company.


Does this change my mind on McCain.....See post 17.
Does it bother me that both canditates are against MTR. .... Political candidates will tell the people they are talking to what they want to hear, if they are in a group of environmentalist then they will preach environmentalism, when they are in an area that produces coal they will praise the importance of coal.... and so it goes.

1.) Cavemaster answered that question pretty well.

2.)Same ole BS scapegoating reasoning all pro-coal people use, just blame the dumb hillbillies who cant get off thier butt, or quit taking drugs. You claim there are 75,000 people with a job in who can pass a drug test, so if coal goes away, these people should have no problem finding a job.

Drugs are a problem, but most of the people that have the drug problems dont have the training required for some of the high paying jobs we need here, so that's not really the issue. Coal has such a monopoly over the job market that a lot of people with a college education have to move off to find a job. This is the direct fault of coal. Also, most coal jobs now only require a GED, or high school diploma, I also know a lot of people who don't have either and have a job. A lot of kids quit school to go to the mines, and when they lose their job, they dont have the education to get another job, which is the direct fault of coal.

3.) I really dont think poverty rates would change much, as most of the people working in the coal mines arent in poverty. The ones working in the mines, would have other jobs if Coal wasnt here. People that want to work, usually find work.

4.) Youre right that the number of mines has decreased, and with good reason. in 1986 Kentucky produced 52 million tons of coal from Surface mines, in 2006 we produced 45 million tons, and this occurred with 400 less mines. Machines are replacing people, and the scope of the mine site has increased dramatically. MTR sites are HUGE, so less mines are needed since they are now mining more land.

5.) So one company moves in and I should thank the coal companies for not fighting it? I never said coal directly stops jobs, but when the workforce is not here, jobs wont come in. The workforce left, and is still leaving because coal dominates this region, there just isnt a diverse job market here.

[Benchwarmer]

McCain on tuesday, told an audience in Florida that he supported ending MTR, and supports other forms of mining.

How does this make the pro-mtr, pro-republican voters on here feel.

Obama has also expressed similar sentiment, and even mentioned last year in Lexington, that he was against MTR.

http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitnes...7e6b.shtml

So there must be a lot of MTR in Florida and Lexington.

[Benchwarmer]

Did you get this from friends of coal, or did this just come to you? They didnt say they wanted to stop mining, just MTR, so I dont really see the big deal? They just realize, like most people, that MTR is destroying this region, we need jobs that dont destroy our land.

This "We have to have coal", "we have to strip mine" is the same BS I hear from all MTR supporters. You're brainwashed into thinking that coal is the only way we can live. This couldnt be further from the truth, we have many things here to build an economy on. This region is full of natural beauty, and ecotourism could be a big draw, but the amount of land left to tour is decreasing every day. The economy in our region is not booming, never really has been, we have high poverty rates, and unemployment rates that haven't changed for decades. Most of the counties in EKY rank among the poorest in the country, is this the economy you want. IMO both candidates realize we need to do something about this energy crisis, and also realize the MTR is a much to damaging method of mining to let it continue.

So doing away with jobs (MTR) will help poverty in the mountains? I can see my dad now. Giving up 45,000 a year MTR job to work at a $7.50 an hour sky lift job.

[Benchwarmer]

1) Tourism has never been a big draw in E. Ky, and any attractions we do have are basically used by local residents and not from those out of state. I really don't see this trend changing enough to help stabilize the local economy.

2) Your right when you said we don't have the work force needed, but it's not the fault of coal. IMO there are 2 main reasons we don't have the needed work force, one is because of the drug problems we have, most companies require a pre employment drug screening before hiring and a random drug screening during employment. Many people cannot pass these test therefor they try to get government aid, which brings me to my second reason, it is to easy for able bodied people to collect government aid, these are the ones that are able to work but are to lazy, they are perfectly content living off of 10 thousand dollars a year from the government than to go out and work every day.

4) I think the poverty rates would be higher without coal, even if other business were to locate to this area there would have to be enough jobs not only to replace 15,000 coal mining positions but enough to replace another 75,000 support jobs created by mining throughout E. Ky. It's also unlikely that these new business will have a similar pay and benifit package.

5) There's no doubt that the numbers of miners have decreased, but so have the number of mines, in 1986 there were 633 surface mines in E Ky in 2006 there were only 202 that's a 68% decrese. In 1986 there were 802 underground mines in E. Ky. and in 2006 there were only 214 that's a 73% decrease. Regardless of the industry whenever you decrease the number of factories or mines in this case you will decrease the number of employees. You said you don't want to take jobs away, but you want to stop surface mining, which would put 5,700 surface miners plus another 28,000 people in support jobs out of work. Could you clarify? What will happen to these 33,700 workers?

8) In the early 70's American Standard moved into Johnson County and employed over 500 workers, these workers came from all over E. Ky. and as I recall there was no opposition from any coal company.


Does this change my mind on McCain.....See post 17.
Does it bother me that both canditates are against MTR. .... Political candidates will tell the people they are talking to what they want to hear, if they are in a group of environmentist then they will preach environmentalism, when they are in an area that produces coal they will praise the importance of coal.... and so it goes.

You make some great points.

[Old School]

Had Kentucky, years ago, had the Appalachian Mountain Authority (AMA), like Tennessee had the TVA, tourism would be hugh in eastern Kentucky (see Harry Caudill in Night Comes to the Cumberlands). Instead, resource and people exploitation reigned, and, once again, profits trumped human and environmental well being.

In 2006 Tennessee received about 13.4 Bil. in toursim, with attractions like Nashville, Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg and Bristol, on the other hand Kentucky received 9.1 Bil. in 2006 mainly from the horse industry and the parks in Central and Western Kentucky.

Mr. Caudill from what I gather was an environmentlist who disliked coal mining, so I'm sure you and CO would enjoy his writings, but I seriously doubt that E. Ky. would prosper from tourism.

[Old School]

1.) Cavemaster answered that question pretty well.

2.)Same ole BS scapegoating reasoning all pro-coal people use, just blame the dumb hillbillies who cant get off thier butt, or quit taking drugs. You claim there are 75,000 people with a job in who can pass a drug test, so if coal goes away, these people should have no problem finding a job.

Drugs are a problem, but most of the people that have the drug problems dont have the training required for some of the high paying jobs we need here, so that's not really the issue. Coal has such a monopoly over the job market that a lot of people with a college education have to move off to find a job. This is the direct fault of coal. Also, most coal jobs now only require a GED, or high school diploma, I also know a lot of people who don't have either and have a job. A lot of kids quit school to go to the mines, and when they lose their job, they dont have the education to get another job, which is the direct fault of coal.

3.) I really dont think poverty rates would change much, as most of the people working in the coal mines arent in poverty. The ones working in the mines, would have other jobs if Coal wasnt here. People that want to work, usually find work.

4.) Youre right that the number of mines has decreased, and with good reason. in 1986 Kentucky produced 52 million tons of coal from Surface mines, in 2006 we produced 45 million tons, and this occurred with 400 less mines. Machines are replacing people, and the scope of the mine site has increased dramatically. MTR sites are HUGE, so less mines are needed since they are now mining more land.

5.) So one company moves in and I should thank the coal companies for not fighting it? I never said coal directly stops jobs, but when the workforce is not here, jobs wont come in. The workforce left, and is still leaving because coal dominates this region, there just isnt a diverse job market here.

1) I seriouly doubt that E. Ky. would benifit from Tourism. It hasn't in the past so what makes you think it will in the future.

2) Drugs are a problem and you can't deny it, I've talked to business owners not associated with mining even they are having trouble finding people to pass drug screening. If coal were to go away where would these 75,000 go to find a job? That's my point you say other business's would take their place but what are they and where are they?

Are you saying it's coals fault the kids quit school? A person has to be 18 years old to work in the mines, if they are 18 years old they should be either a senior in high school or just had graduated. Have you ever seen coal companies talking kid into quiting school, I don't think so. Do you think these coal companies want their employees to be unable to read or write, I don't think so.

3) The disscussion point is if there was no coal. Again where would these people work? How many jobs would be available? Would there be enough to hire the coal miners and the support jobs (75,000)? How much would they make? If it's not comparable to what they make now then there's no doubt that poverty rates would be higher.

4) Technoogy is a great thing it has enabled the world to increase production, improve safety, be more efficient among other things, not only in mining but in every aspect of life. The size of mining permits are really not any larger than they were 20 or 30 years ago, actually with all of the permitting restrictions caused by environmentalist they are smaller, so the permit can be obtained quicker.

5) Do you want to stop surface mining/MTR or not? That's all you talked about for the last year or so is stopping MTR, well my friend if you stop surface mining/MTR then you will put about 75,000 people out of work like it or not. BTW if they discontinue the use of valley fills itwill more than likely do away with underground mining also.

[Coach_Owens87]

1) I seriouly doubt that E. Ky. would benifit from Tourism. It hasn't in the past so what makes you think it will in the future.

2) Drugs are a problem and you can't deny it, I've talked to business owners not associated with mining even they are having trouble finding people to pass drug screening. If coal were to go away where would these 75,000 go to find a job? That's my point you say other business's would take their place but what are they and where are they?

Are you saying it's coals fault the kids quit school? A person has to be 18 years old to work in the mines, if they are 18 years old they should be either a senior in high school or just had graduated. Have you ever seen coal companies talking kid into quiting school, I don't think so. Do you think these coal companies want their employees to be unable to read or write, I don't think so.

3) The disscussion point is if there was no coal. Again where would these people work? How many jobs would be available? Would there be enough to hire the coal miners and the support jobs (75,000)? How much would they make? If it's not comparable to what they make now then there's no doubt that poverty rates would be higher.

4) Technoogy is a great thing it has enabled the world to increase production, improve safety, be more efficient among other things, not only in mining but in every aspect of life. The size of mining permits are really not any larger than they were 20 or 30 years ago, actually with all of the permitting restrictions caused by environmentalist they are smaller, so the permit can be obtained quicker.

5) Do you want to stop surface mining/MTR or not? That's all you talked about for the last year or so is stopping MTR, well my friend if you stop surface mining/MTR then you will put about 75,000 people out of work like it or not. BTW if they discontinue the use of valley fills itwill more than likely do away with underground mining also.

This back and fourth bickering gets us no where.

Yes I want to stop MTR, the negatives of it far outweigh the positives. We all know the irreversible damage it is causing, but some want to overlook that because it gives them a job. You also keep giving the same bs crap that we cant make it without coal, but thats not the truth, it's only what you choose to believe becuase it benefits you. If you weren't affiliated with the coal industry, maybe your views would be different.

This has also gotten off topic as You have still never directly answered my question.

[Benchwarmer]

You say MTR is destroying the beauty of the mountains and it's people. What irreversible damage are people causing the world. Coach owens87 how far do you walk to work? Because, if you are driving a car I wished you would stop. You are destroying the air I breath.

[Old School]

You say MTR is destroying the beauty of the mountains and it's people. What irreversible damage are people causing the world. Coach owens87 how far do you walk to work? Because, if you are driving a car I wished you would stop. You are destroying the air I breath.

:Thumbs:

[DevilsWin]

You say MTR is destroying the beauty of the mountains and it's people. What irreversible damage are people causing the world. Coach owens87 how far do you walk to work? Because, if you are driving a car I wished you would stop. You are destroying the air I breath.

The same can be said about supporting a mining practice that destroys:

1) The water I drink for nourishment.
2) The water in which I bath.
3) The water I use to wash my clothes, car and other property.
4) The water that is supposed to nourish my crops with minerals so I have the ability to feed myself.


Now how are we gonna change that?

Because the car pollution thing is a very simple fix. In fact there is already a market for these "Green" products.

MTR is a whole different problem that needs attention.