One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Can you identify the Russian trolls on here?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
Apr 18, 2018 10:19:16   #
son of witless
 
permafrost wrote:
Those gas lines were due to OPEC, how did OPEC come to be? Kissinger/Nixon.. Needed the Saudis to buy military from us, so with a huge increase in oil revenue, they were able to spend over a trillion dollars on

their military via the USA..

Carter constructed the agreement to free the hostages, his name in on the agreement, it was arrived at prior to Reagan being in office..

For the record, Carter also was the architect of the most successful ME peace agreement. Egypt dropped out of its attacks on Israel and remains so to this day..

do you recall the slump in employment also Under Reagan? over 10%... Do you remember he stole the SS fix to finance his failing economic policies??

Selective recall mean anything to you??


The world is full of unanswered questions...
Those gas lines were due to OPEC, how did OPEC com... (show quote)


OPEC was merely doing what sovereign nations do. They acted in their best short term interests. As usual you are missing the fundamental problem. Not your fault. You are not trained to look for the deeper reasons of why things happen. That is my role. To help you along in you evolution away from surface answers.

Around 1970 or America stopped being able to produce 100 % of it's own oil. From then on we had to import. That put us at the mercy of world market forces. That OPEC would exploit that is no big surprise or crime. The crime was that our government and industry did not anticipate it or have any answers ready. To be sure it started before Carter. Nixon and Ford had no answers either.

However, Jimmy Carter's answers were destructive. He tried to manage demand by strangling it. Stagflation ensued.

" Carter constructed the agreement to free the hostages, his name in on the agreement, it was arrived at prior to Reagan being in office.. "

Way to go Mr. Peanut. Getting our hostages back only took 444 days. Now for the real explanation. Iran released our hostages because there was no more value to be gotten out of holding them. They had made their point. Reagan was an unknown to them. They had gotten all of the mileage from Carter that America could give them.

" For the record, Carter also was the architect of the most successful ME peace agreement. Egypt dropped out of its attacks on Israel and remains so to this day.. "

Egypt made the decision it was in their own best long term interests to get along. Besides new fissions in the Islamic World had opened up. Egypt went over to the American-Saudi Arabia side against Iran.

" do you recall the slump in employment also Under Reagan? over 10%.."

Unlike your worthless hero Obama, Reagan did what was necessary to fix things. You dare, you dare say this to me ? " Selective recall mean anything to you?? " WELL? Lets us explore YOUR SELECTIVE recall, shall we ? ? ? ???

You forget something with YOUR SELECTIVE memory. The overriding trouble Ronnie Raygun inherited from Jimmy Carter was Rampant Inflation. Why did you leave that one out ? ? Why why why ? Funny how you history revisionists always leave out inflation when you speak about the late 1970s.

Anyway the only way to wring that inflation out was with higher interest rates to cut the money supply. That was painful, very painful. That is where the 10 % unemployment came from. Once Reagan and Volcker fixed inflation, the economy boomed. Now try to shoot down that argument.

" The world is full of unanswered questions...". Like how America was stupid enough to choose leaders like Carter and Obama.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 10:34:23   #
debeda
 
son of witless wrote:
When I read the history of the Carter years, it is like what I remember never happened. The odd-even long gas lines. Prices going up like crazy. America being disrespected by having our diplomats being held hostage by Iran. Then Reagan comes in and Iran lets our people go, gas prices come down, and 2 years into his Presidency the economy zooms. No wonder Reagan slaughter Mondale in 1984 and then Bush beat Dukakis. Dukakis sure was cute riding in a tank with his big boy tank helmet on. He looked like somebody's kid.
When I read the history of the Carter years, it is... (show quote)


Lol yes he was cute. Yeah it's disheartening when you get old enough to see revisionist history being written and taught innit?

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 10:35:10   #
debeda
 
permafrost wrote:
Those gas lines were due to OPEC, how did OPEC come to be? Kissinger/Nixon.. Needed the Saudis to buy military from us, so with a huge increase in oil revenue, they were able to spend over a trillion dollars on

their military via the USA..

Carter constructed the agreement to free the hostages, his name in on the agreement, it was arrived at prior to Reagan being in office..

For the record, Carter also was the architect of the most successful ME peace agreement. Egypt dropped out of its attacks on Israel and remains so to this day..

do you recall the slump in employment also Under Reagan? over 10%... Do you remember he stole the SS fix to finance his failing economic policies??

Selective recall mean anything to you??


The world is full of unanswered questions...
Those gas lines were due to OPEC, how did OPEC com... (show quote)


pure bloviating again..

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2018 10:37:23   #
debeda
 
lindajoy wrote:
Well its certainnTrump does not..

In all candor, I would think having someone so confused over their own g****r would not lend trust in their ability to perform on the front line....The not knowing something not needed for our soldiers...

I also understand Trump is or has taken heat over this from the dems.. I say put them on the front line and see if they feel Comfortable in trusting someone so confused.. And no, I do not say this because they are t*********r but rather their “ head being messed up”... A true concern..
Well its certainnTrump does not.. br br In all ca... (show quote)


Good morning LJ. Your assessment of this is right on, thank you!

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 10:38:33   #
debeda
 
lindajoy wrote:
If 7/11 are open 24/7 why do they need locks??

Why do they call airports terminals ??
When you get to the airport are you departing or arriving??


Lolololololol PERFECT

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 10:43:24   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
lindajoy wrote:
If 7/11 are open 24/7 why do they need locks??

Why do they call airports terminals ??
When you get to the airport are you departing or arriving??



LOL i will have to add those...

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 11:02:08   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
ghostgotcha wrote:
Sraightup appears overly impressed with himself and his knowledge. I suspect he stands in the middle of the swamp and the water rises around his knees while he is hoping in vain that anyone will throw him a rope.

That happens to folks who just cannot see past their own nose.

Poor thing.


Why don't you debate my points instead of hiding you're ineptitude behind your childish insults?

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2018 11:19:04   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
son of witless wrote:
OPEC was merely doing what sovereign nations do. They acted in their best short term interests. As usual you are missing the fundamental problem. Not your fault. You are not trained to look for the deeper reasons of why things happen. That is my role. To help you along in you evolution away from surface answers.

Around 1970 or America stopped being able to produce 100 % of it's own oil. From then on we had to import. That put us at the mercy of world market forces. That OPEC would exploit that is no big surprise or crime. The crime was that our government and industry did not anticipate it or have any answers ready. To be sure it started before Carter. Nixon and Ford had no answers either.

However, Jimmy Carter's answers were destructive. He tried to manage demand by strangling it. Stagflation ensued.

" Carter constructed the agreement to free the hostages, his name in on the agreement, it was arrived at prior to Reagan being in office.. "

Way to go Mr. Peanut. Getting our hostages back only took 444 days. Now for the real explanation. Iran released our hostages because there was no more value to be gotten out of holding them. They had made their point. Reagan was an unknown to them. They had gotten all of the mileage from Carter that America could give them.

" For the record, Carter also was the architect of the most successful ME peace agreement. Egypt dropped out of its attacks on Israel and remains so to this day.. "

Egypt made the decision it was in their own best long term interests to get along. Besides new fissions in the Islamic World had opened up. Egypt went over to the American-Saudi Arabia side against Iran.

" do you recall the slump in employment also Under Reagan? over 10%.."

Unlike your worthless hero Obama, Reagan did what was necessary to fix things. You dare, you dare say this to me ? " Selective recall mean anything to you?? " WELL? Lets us explore YOUR SELECTIVE recall, shall we ? ? ? ???

You forget something with YOUR SELECTIVE memory. The overriding trouble Ronnie Raygun inherited from Jimmy Carter was Rampant Inflation. Why did you leave that one out ? ? Why why why ? Funny how you history revisionists always leave out inflation when you speak about the late 1970s.

Anyway the only way to wring that inflation out was with higher interest rates to cut the money supply. That was painful, very painful. That is where the 10 % unemployment came from. Once Reagan and Volcker fixed inflation, the economy boomed. Now try to shoot down that argument.

" The world is full of unanswered questions...". Like how America was stupid enough to choose leaders like Carter and Obama.
OPEC was merely doing what sovereign nations do. T... (show quote)


https://historicalreview.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/mirzadegan.pdf

NIXON’S FOLLY
THE WHITE HOUSE AND
THE 1970S OIL PRICE CRISIS
AMIN MIRZADEGAN
41
“I will do everything I can to hold down the price of foreign oil. The American
people cannot aford to pay such prices, and I can assure you that we will not have to pay
them.”1
President Richard Nixon’s address from the White House about the national energy
crisis on January 19, 1974 called upon millions of Americans to have faith in their
president’s eforts to curtail the skyrocketing price of oil and end its ravaging of the American
consumer’s wallet. Just a few weeks earlier on October 20, 1973, the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had declared an oil embargo on America and
much of the Western world while also instating massive production cuts that quadrupled
the price of oil by 1974.2
Nixon’s eforts to hold down oil prices were ultimately futile: by
the time he lef ofce in August 1974, prices were still 215 percent above the pre-embargo
level, even though the embargo ended in March 1974.3
Oil prices continued to increase
from 1974 to 1978, rising by 18 percent during President Gerald Ford’s time in ofce.4
There were, of course, limits on the extent to which the president could control foreign oil
prices. But did Nixon and Ford do everything in their power to attempt to lower prices?
This paper will argue that Nixon’s claim that he would do anything he could to decrease
oil prices was disingenuous and that he did not in fact consider lowering oil prices an immediate
strategic objective. Internal correspondence and meeting records from the Ford
Memoranda of Conversations show that the White House carefully weighed the value of
pressuring Iran to lower oil prices against the benefits of maintaining strong relations with
Iran for the sake of fighting c*******m in the Middle East.
Nixon and Ford, along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, possessed the power
to exert pressure on the Shah and fight the oil price increases from 1974 to 1976. Yet
both administrations abstained due to political calculus: to them, the value of maintaining
positive relations with the Shah of Iran outweighed the adverse economic efects of higher
oil prices. These men believed that a short-term increase in oil price was a necessary trad

https://estore.archives.gov/Carter/ProductInfo/C1008.aspx

Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.

These economic pressures created a crisis of political identity for the Democratic Party, moving it toward the political center. Full employment, the traditional priority of Democratic policy, requires an activist government willing to increase public spending and cut taxes. The anti-inflation policy that was forced on Carter by the economic realities of the day included controlling public spending, limiting the expansion of the welfare state, and postponing popular tax cuts. Moreover, according to Biven, Carter argued that the ambitious policies of the Great Society were no longer possible in an age of limits and that the Democratic Party must by economic necessity become more centrist. Although he faced severe criticism during his term, says Biven, Carter accurately perceived the changed fiscal landscape and the need for a shift in Democratic policy.



https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/world/ac-six-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-iran-hostage-crisis/index.html

4) The hostages were released only after President Reagan was sworn in.
Ted Koppel described this as the Iranians' last act of cruelty toward President Carter. Even though the United States and Iran had come to an agreement to free the hostages in December, the Iranians waited literally until the hour President Reagan was sworn in before allowing the plane with the hostages to take off. The Iranians had a deep hatred of Carter and wanted to deny him this last moment of victory as President.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 12:20:01   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
ghostgotcha wrote:
What happens to our military (history lesson) when liberal Democrats run the nation. They do their very best to destroy it.

Well Carter could not even muster enough forces to rescue the hostages held in Iran so Reagan had to rebuild it into a functioning force.

Carter (a former commander of a nuclear submarine) actually did order a rescue... It was called "Operation Eagle Claw", but the operation failed. That does happen - unlike your "Hollywood reality" in the real world, military operations often do fail. So you're lying about Carter not mustering enough forces - he did in fact muster enough forces - they just failed to do the job. Reagan (a former Hollywood actor) didn't do anything. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was elected, most likely as a signal to America that Iran isn't going to cooperate with a U.S. President that uses force. Releasing the hostages right at the moment the old president is gone and the new one hasn't acted yet, was their chance to make that point.

ghostgotcha wrote:
Clinton spent his presidency hiding his aid under his desk and his military in the woods while he promoted his social programs so Bush had to rebuild our military to take on the Talaban in the sand boxes around the world.

Clinton commanded U.S. forces in the Balkan Wars, the ONLY war the U.S. actually won since WW2 and he did it without breaking the bank. Bush on the other hand, allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in U.S. history... oops. THEN used that to justify an invasion of Afghanistan, starting a war that 17 years later we STILL haven't won, Oh, and of course the illegal invasion of Iraq, a country that was already defeated, had no defenses and was vise-gripped between two no-fly zones. Bush tried to claim this broken, defeated nation had WMD and was therefore an immediate threat to the U.S. It turns out that claim was a lie and main reason for kicking Iraq while it was down was to control their oil industry and for that Bush utterly destroyed our economy.

ghostgotcha wrote:

Then there is Obama who dressed our male troops up in high heels so they could identify with the girls better. Now Trump is in the process of rebuilding our forces once again...

First of all, the only "troops" wearing high heels were ROTC cadets at various schools that were, I guess trying to make a point about respecting women. Obama had nothing to do with that and according to the ArmyTimes, no one has been able to identify ANY order that granted the cadets the right to violate Army Regulation 670-1, which states, in part, that "wearing a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited, unless prescribed in this regulation or directed by the Secretary of the Army."
Obama just happened to be the President at the time, though he *was* concerned about the male-chauvinism and the raping of woman who have volunteered to serve, which is a valid concern. People need to get over their i***t hangups, sex or even sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's effectiveness in combat. One of the most formidable fighting forces in the world, the Israeli Defense Force, features women soldiers any one of which could probably take you down and plant your face in dirt for making such a stupid, male-chauvinist comment, that anyone would suggest men need to wear high heels to better identify with them.

ghostgotcha wrote:

What a waste of money. Treasury lost due to the idiocy of Democratic liberals.

Almost 100% of the debt created through the U.S. Treasury is from Republican leaders like Bush who prefer to borrow money than piss off their half-witted v**er base by levying taxes. The Democrats however, tend to fund their spending the way the Constitution says they should, by levying taxes - fortunately for them, their v**er base has the intelligence to understand cold hard reality.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 12:30:08   #
Mikeyavelli
 
straightUp wrote:
Almost 100% of the debt created through the U.S. Treasury is from Republican leaders like Bush who prefer to borrow money than piss off their half-witted v**er base by levying taxes. The Democrats however, tend to fund their spending the way the Constitution says they should, by levying taxes - fortunately for them, their v**er base has the intelligence to understand cold hard reality.


You really work at dispensing bullmueller.
Sort out the morals and the expense after the war is won.
You lefties work to reverse the results of any war fought and won by America. including the Revolutionary War.
We'll win the next war too, even if we don't have to fight it. Trump is kickin ass, not kissin ass like obama does.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 19:11:58   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
son of witless wrote:
OPEC was merely doing what sovereign nations do. They acted in their best short term interests. As usual you are missing the fundamental problem. Not your fault. You are not trained to look for the deeper reasons of why things happen. That is my role. To help you along in you evolution away from surface answers.

Your role? What exactly *IS* your role, that you have to train for? Or are you just bulls**tting?

son of witless wrote:

Around 1970 or America stopped being able to produce 100 % of it's own oil. From then on we had to import. That put us at the mercy of world market forces. That OPEC would exploit that is no big surprise or crime. The crime was that our government and industry did not anticipate it or have any answers ready. To be sure it started before Carter. Nixon and Ford had no answers either.

So right after telling permafrost that he's missing the fundamental problem because he isn't trained to look for deeper reasons like you are... you state the obvious and dive no deeper. (You're so convincing).

First of all, I think you're wrong... America was still "able" to produce 100% of it's own oil in the 70's. It just wasn't as profitable for the oil companies to do so. Technically, an oil peak is the point where the oil that's left in the ground can no longer be extracted at a cost low enough to profit and that's what happened during the Nixon era... we hit our oil peak and so the oil companies decided to invest in overseas operations where high grade oil is cheaper to extract, or in some cases like Enron the game was to simply buy cheap foreign oil and sell in on the American market for an easy profit.

So the correction here is that we started to depend on foreign oil, not because we didn't have enough domestic oil, but because oil companies made the business decision to invest in foreign oil instead of domestic oil.

son of witless wrote:

However, Jimmy Carter's answers were destructive. He tried to manage demand by strangling it. Stagflation ensued.

That's it? All your training in looking for deeper causes and all you can come up with is that Carter tried to manage demand... and THAT caused stagflation?

First, you incorrectly blame the switch to foreign oil on America's supposed "inability" to produce, THEN you call it a "problem" without actually saying WHY it's a problem, (starting to sound like a strawman argument) THEN you blast Carter for trying to manage the supposed problem, so yes a strawman argument that you take the finish line where you blame the strawman for stagflation.

After Nixon lifted restrictions on foreign oil allowing it to be leveraged by oil companies, the oil industry made good business decisions ran with it. Investors made good investment decisions and ran with it. This was free enterprise - not something a president has much control over. The dependency on foreign oil was created by the oil companies investing in foreign oil... it's called demand. Now, if that's a problem, then you should consider the impact of the free-market. It didn't seem to be a problem for America until the OPEC embargo happened.

What Jimmy Carter was "managing" was the encouragement of anything that could reduce our dependency on oil, such as funding research for alternative energy. This is because Jimmy Carter saw the danger of our increasing dependency on oil, not just the immediate problem, which could have been remedied with trade policies, but also the long term sustainability of consuming so much carbon. This concern for the future of the American people was in direct conflict with the investment growth on global energy and so they cranked up their their right-wing media machines and attacked Carter's liberal "foolishness". ...and I guess it worked... on people like... you.

son of witless wrote:

" Carter constructed the agreement to free the hostages, his name in on the agreement, it was arrived at prior to Reagan being in office.. "

Uh - yeah - who doesn't know that? As I mentioned he had an entire military operation going on.

son of witless wrote:

Way to go Mr. Peanut. Getting our hostages back only took 444 days. Now for the real explanation. Iran released our hostages because there was no more value to be gotten out of holding them. They had made their point. Reagan was an unknown to them. They had gotten all of the mileage from Carter that America could give them.

You seem to be catching on... Yes, their point was made... Carter leaving office was the OPTIMAL time to release the hostages because the whole point was that the U.S. can't force them and Carter's exit was at least symbolic of U.S. leadership giving up.

son of witless wrote:

" For the record, Carter also was the architect of the most successful ME peace agreement. Egypt dropped out of its attacks on Israel and remains so to this day.. "

Egypt made the decision it was in their own best long term interests to get along. Besides new fissions in the Islamic World had opened up. Egypt went over to the American-Saudi Arabia side against Iran.

Carter has a well-founded reputation for diplomacy.

son of witless wrote:

" do you recall the slump in employment also Under Reagan? over 10%.."

Unlike your worthless hero Obama, Reagan did what was necessary to fix things. You dare, you dare say this to me ? " Selective recall mean anything to you?? " WELL? Lets us explore YOUR SELECTIVE recall, shall we ? ? ? ???

Yeah, this sounds more like something between you and permafrost.

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2018 19:29:34   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
You really work at dispensing bullmueller.

if that's what you're calling the t***h, sure...

Mikeyavelli wrote:

Sort out the morals and the expense after the war is won.

Is that like thinking about the safety AFTER you blow your knee off?

Mikeyavelli wrote:

You lefties work to reverse the results of any war fought and won by America. including the Revolutionary War.

That's probably the child inside you getting all huffy when people tell you Captain America isn't really an invincible superhero.

Mikeyavelli wrote:

We'll win the next war too, even if we don't have to fight it. Trump is kickin ass, not kissin ass like obama does.

Yeah, there we go - Trump can win all your wars for you.

http://deans.us/plan-z/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DonnyGoOhhh.png

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 21:01:12   #
Mikeyavelli
 
straightUp wrote:
Yeah, there we go - Trump can win all your wars for you.

http://deans.us/plan-z/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DonnyGoOhhh.png


In our debate, you put the audience on their phones.
Trump, by the way, is winning the wars.
Ask Kid Kim, or Xi the China Guy. Or, Vladimir Putin.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 21:29:25   #
son of witless
 
permafrost wrote:
https://historicalreview.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/mirzadegan.pdf

NIXON’S FOLLY
THE WHITE HOUSE AND
THE 1970S OIL PRICE CRISIS
AMIN MIRZADEGAN
41
“I will do everything I can to hold down the price of foreign oil. The American
people cannot aford to pay such prices, and I can assure you that we will not have to pay
them.”1
President Richard Nixon’s address from the White House about the national energy
crisis on January 19, 1974 called upon millions of Americans to have faith in their
president’s eforts to curtail the skyrocketing price of oil and end its ravaging of the American
consumer’s wallet. Just a few weeks earlier on October 20, 1973, the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had declared an oil embargo on America and
much of the Western world while also instating massive production cuts that quadrupled
the price of oil by 1974.2
Nixon’s eforts to hold down oil prices were ultimately futile: by
the time he lef ofce in August 1974, prices were still 215 percent above the pre-embargo
level, even though the embargo ended in March 1974.3
Oil prices continued to increase
from 1974 to 1978, rising by 18 percent during President Gerald Ford’s time in ofce.4
There were, of course, limits on the extent to which the president could control foreign oil
prices. But did Nixon and Ford do everything in their power to attempt to lower prices?
This paper will argue that Nixon’s claim that he would do anything he could to decrease
oil prices was disingenuous and that he did not in fact consider lowering oil prices an immediate
strategic objective. Internal correspondence and meeting records from the Ford
Memoranda of Conversations show that the White House carefully weighed the value of
pressuring Iran to lower oil prices against the benefits of maintaining strong relations with
Iran for the sake of fighting c*******m in the Middle East.
Nixon and Ford, along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, possessed the power
to exert pressure on the Shah and fight the oil price increases from 1974 to 1976. Yet
both administrations abstained due to political calculus: to them, the value of maintaining
positive relations with the Shah of Iran outweighed the adverse economic efects of higher
oil prices. These men believed that a short-term increase in oil price was a necessary trad

https://estore.archives.gov/Carter/ProductInfo/C1008.aspx

Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.

These economic pressures created a crisis of political identity for the Democratic Party, moving it toward the political center. Full employment, the traditional priority of Democratic policy, requires an activist government willing to increase public spending and cut taxes. The anti-inflation policy that was forced on Carter by the economic realities of the day included controlling public spending, limiting the expansion of the welfare state, and postponing popular tax cuts. Moreover, according to Biven, Carter argued that the ambitious policies of the Great Society were no longer possible in an age of limits and that the Democratic Party must by economic necessity become more centrist. Although he faced severe criticism during his term, says Biven, Carter accurately perceived the changed fiscal landscape and the need for a shift in Democratic policy.



https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/world/ac-six-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-iran-hostage-crisis/index.html

4) The hostages were released only after President Reagan was sworn in.
Ted Koppel described this as the Iranians' last act of cruelty toward President Carter. Even though the United States and Iran had come to an agreement to free the hostages in December, the Iranians waited literally until the hour President Reagan was sworn in before allowing the plane with the hostages to take off. The Iranians had a deep hatred of Carter and wanted to deny him this last moment of victory as President.
https://historicalreview.yale.edu/sites/default/fi... (show quote)


I want to stick to energy policy under President Carter. My posts are becoming far too long . Carter inherited declining American Oil production and increasing prices for imported oil. Okay what should he have done about it and what did he do about it ? He should have done everything possible to increase domestic oil production. Did he do that ? Somewhat, maybe, perhaps. He proposed letting the price of oil go up to market prices. Good because that would encourage oil companies to explore and increase production. Very good, except then he put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, which as everyone knows they are evil and do not deserve all of that money.

So on the one hand he lets oil go to market prices yet he takes away the extra money going to oil companies. Meanwhile foreign oil companies are free to make all of the money they want. So okay what are the results ? Gasoline and heating oil and diesel fuel for trucks go up. These added costs dampen the economy right when people needed to make more money. The extra money from these increased cost doesn't go to the oil companies because of Carter's i***t wind fall profits tax. So what ? Well American oil production actually goes down.

What else is Mr. Peanut doing not to fix the problem. Well he makes a big speech about Solar energy. Stupid. First of all the technology is not that good. Second of all the real energy shortage is in t***sportation, which is oil. Even if Solar was fantastic, which it ain't going to mean anything for cars and trucks, which is most of the problem. It might make a microscopic difference for those heating their homes with heating oil.

Anyway the story has a happy ending. Ronnie Raygun road into town. He lowered taxes, encouraged more domestic oil production. Then the price of oil dropped. Then in 1989 Ronaldus Magnus road off into the Sunset. I wanted to thank that masked man.

Reply
Apr 18, 2018 22:02:14   #
son of witless
 
straightUp wrote:
Yeah, this sounds more like something between you and permafrost.


" Your role? What exactly *IS* your role, that you have to train for? Or are you just bulls**tting? "

To educate Permafrost. It sounds as if I can help you also.

" So right after telling permafrost that he's missing the fundamental problem because he isn't trained to look for deeper reasons like you are... you state the obvious and dive no deeper. (You're so convincing). "

It is only obvious now that I have stated it. I have dived deeper than anyone else so far. ( I am glad you are convinced ).

" First of all, I think you're wrong... America was still "able" to produce 100% of it's own oil in the 70's. It just wasn't as profitable for the oil companies to do so. Technically, an oil peak is the point where the oil that's left in the ground can no longer be extracted at a cost low enough to profit and that's what happened during the Nixon era... we hit our oil peak and so the oil companies decided to invest in overseas operations where high grade oil is cheaper to extract, or in some cases like Enron the game was to simply buy cheap foreign oil and sell in on the American market for an easy profit. "

Me wrong ? That is not possible. American oil companies are for profit enterprises. When something is not profitable in a large way, then it is not possible to be done. All corporations must raise capital. If you do not make a profit on that capital you go out of business. What part of that statement do you not understand ? ? ? ? ? Only when Reagan let Oil companies make all the money they wanted, did oil production go up and the price come down. A FREAKIN AMAZING how that worked.

"
That's it? All your training in looking for deeper causes and all you can come up with is that Carter tried to manage demand... and THAT caused stagflation? "

YES YES YES ! ! ! ! Just cutting demand would not cause stagflation. It was Carter's methods of cutting demand that did it. Carter had a way of ordering things to be done without considering the peripheral damage he was doing. Wh**ever methods a President employs he must be aware of side effects. Carter seemed to have no comprehensive vision for blending the results of his various policies. Okay allowing prices to rise to discourage consumption. Fine, but poor working classes bore the brunt of that pain. That caused those people to cut back their spending in other areas. They could not just trade in their gas hog for a brand new high mileage car.

" What Jimmy Carter was "managing" was the encouragement of anything that could reduce our dependency on oil, such as funding research for alternative energy. "

Jimmy Carter was an i***t. The drop in oil prices in the 80s and 90s proved Carter was wrong. It is now 40 years later and alternative energy is still dependent on welfare to survive. It was not Carter's job to manage the next 40 years. it was Carter's job to manage the late 70s and he failed miserably.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.