• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

More opinion with no facts to back it up. Have you given up on "Drill baby Drill" being the answer to our energy problems? :sun

Seems you keep using and using the same old tired argument, of reaching peak oil in 1971, while that might or might not be true in the US, it certainly isn't accepted as fact world wide .. even the IEA has come out and said that conventional crude oil peaked in 2006

you also have to remember that peak oil is defined on existing oil fields and the amount of oil being pumped from them, whenever a new oil reserve is found and tapped, that changes the peak oil numbers

Now, in 2008 and 2009 oil production was up in the US Why?
Projections from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) indicate that the primary driver for this year's U.S. oil production resurgence is actually just getting started. That driver is the Gulf of Mexico, where operators have begun launching a group of new fields, fulfilling what has been a decade-long focus on unlocking the promise of deepwater exploration there .

Of course this had to stop, and Obama falsified reports to make sure he could put his ban on gulf coast drilling
 
Seems you keep using and using the same old tired argument, of reaching peak oil in 1971, while that might or might not be true in the US, it certainly isn't accepted as fact world wide .. even the IEA has come out and said that conventional crude oil peaked in 2006

you also have to remember that peak oil is defined on existing oil fields and the amount of oil being pumped from them, whenever a new oil reserve is found and tapped, that changes the peak oil numbers

Now, in 2008 and 2009 oil production was up in the US Why?
Projections from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) indicate that the primary driver for this year's U.S. oil production resurgence is actually just getting started. That driver is the Gulf of Mexico, where operators have begun launching a group of new fields, fulfilling what has been a decade-long focus on unlocking the promise of deepwater exploration there .

Of course this had to stop, and Obama falsified reports to make sure he could put his ban on gulf coast drilling

How did Obama falsify reports?
 
Seems you keep using and using the same old tired argument, of reaching peak oil in 1971, while that might or might not be true in the US, it certainly isn't accepted as fact world wide .. even the IEA has come out and said that conventional crude oil peaked in 2006

It is fact. We have never produced more than we did in 1970 in the US. The US military warned last year that we are approaching world peak oil as well, and that it could be as soon as 2015. Cheney and the oil companies also warned us back in 2002 in their report Energy Challenges for the 21st Century. Even president Bush spoke of our addiction to oil.

you also have to remember that peak oil is defined on existing oil fields and the amount of oil being pumped from them, whenever a new oil reserve is found and tapped, that changes the peak oil numbers

Not in relation to our demand in any significant way. That is why there has not been a single year since 1970 that we have produced as much as we have consumed.

Now, in 2008 and 2009 oil production was up in the US Why?

But did we produce more than we consume?

Projections from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) indicate that the primary driver for this year's U.S. oil production resurgence is actually just getting started. That driver is the Gulf of Mexico, where operators have begun launching a group of new fields, fulfilling what has been a decade-long focus on unlocking the promise of deepwater exploration there .

Well you be sure and let us know if we produce more oil than we consume. So far, it hasn't even made a blip in the price at the pump.

Of course this had to stop, and Obama falsified reports to make sure he could put his ban on gulf coast drilling

The drilling stopped because of the sloppy work by BP that resulted in the worst oil spill in history. Just because the country neglected to address our energy problems for half a century does not mean that we now have to sacrifice our environment to try to feed our voracious addiction to a declining fossil fuel.
 
Last edited:
How did Obama falsify reports?

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,”

Black said he didn’t have any issues with the White House edit; he and his staffer both told the IG it never occurred to them that an objective reader would conclude that peer reviewers had supported the six-month moratorium.
Nevertheless,*Interior apologized*to the peer reviewers in early June after some of them complained they were used to support the controversial ban.


Interior inspector general: White House skewed drilling-ban report - Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

Now I know this is not a good site to be pulling from, but I'm just to damn tired to otherwise .
 
Catawba;1059333010]It is fact. We have never produced more than we did in 1970 in the US. The US military warned last year that we are approaching world peak oil as well, and that it could be as soon as 2015. Cheney and the oil companies also warned us back in 2002 in their report Energy Challenges for the 21st Century. Even president Bush spoke of our addiction to oil.

Your right ... we haven't .. I wasn't agruing that point, what I was saying was that we were making gains in our production, in both 2008 and 2009 .. is that a bad thing or a good thing??



But did we produce more than we consume?

nope, but does that mean we shouldn't be trying?

Well you be sure and let us know if we produce more oil than we consume. So far, it hasn't even made a blip in the price at the pump.

-chuckles- okay .. I'll be sure to keep that in mind .. -grins- and I'll try to remember to keep you updated every time we make gains okay ??

The drilling stopped because of the sloppy work by BP that resulted in the worst oil spill in history. Just because the country neglected to address our energy problems for half a century does not mean that we now have to sacrifice our environment to try to feed our voracious addiction to a declining fossil fuel.

agrees 50%, it also was the worst oil spill in our history, because regulators did not do their jobs... read up on how many violations had been issued to that rig, and how many inspections by government regulators we missed. That rig should have been shut down with the violations it had, and I still can't understand why inspections seemed to stop for nearly 6 months prior to the accident. thats why I say we don't need new regulations we need to enforce .. enforce .. and enforce some more those that we have . .

As for getting off the need for so much oil, you and I have had this discussion before .. and we agree that we need to .. we just don't agree on what we should do until we begin to wean ourselves from oil.
 
The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,”

Black said he didn’t have any issues with the White House edit; he and his staffer both told the IG it never occurred to them that an objective reader would conclude that peer reviewers had supported the six-month moratorium.
Nevertheless,*Interior apologized*to the peer reviewers in early June after some of them complained they were used to support the controversial ban.


Interior inspector general: White House skewed drilling-ban report - Dan Berman - POLITICO.com

Now I know this is not a good site to be pulling from, but I'm just to damn tired to otherwise .

From your own article, you missed this part, "“There was no intent to mislead the public,” Barkoff said in a statement to POLITICO. “The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House.”

And this part, "“As the report makes clear, the misunderstanding with the reviewers was resolved with the June 3rd letter and a subsequent conference call with the experts we consulted,” Barkoff said."

Read more: Interior inspector general: White House skewed drilling-ban report - Dan Berman - POLITICO.comJ2
 
More opinion with no facts to back it up.

LOL!

Senate Democrats to W.H.: Drop cap and trade - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

Senate not seen passing climate bill in 2010 | Reuters

Dems drop cap-and-trade to woo GOP - POLITICO.com Print View

Manchin actually puts a bullet through Cap and Trade bill – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

one note sallies also are probably unaware of what's going on regarding the epa

Rockefeller Seeks to Suspend EPA Carbon Regulations - Businessweek

dogmatists and doctrinaires probably aren't real sensitive to the crucial role played in the caucus by the likes of health care warriors rockefeller and mccaskill

and combat boots webb is necessary to the success of any legislation, webb's what's known as swing
 
Your right ... we haven't .. I wasn't agruing that point, what I was saying was that we were making gains in our production, in both 2008 and 2009 .. is that a bad thing or a good thing??

Gains in production but not more than the increase in our consumption. Its good if we use that production to lower our costs in building renewable energy alternatives. Not so good, if we continue to think there is always going to be cheap oil so there is no need to conserve or transition away from fossil fuels. And, not so good if we continue to burn it so wastefully, or spill it so recklessly that we create other problems for ourselves or future generations.

nope, but does that mean we shouldn't be trying?

As long as we are simultaneously taking the proper conservation and environmentally sound practices at the same time I would agree.

agrees 50%, it also was the worst oil spill in our history, because regulators did not do their jobs... read up on how many violations had been issued to that rig, and how many inspections by government regulators we missed. That rig should have been shut down with the violations it had, and I still can't understand why inspections seemed to stop for nearly 6 months prior to the accident. thats why I say we don't need new regulations we need to enforce .. enforce .. and enforce some more those that we have
.

And I will agree that Obama did not change the shoddy regulatory process leftover from the last administration fast enough. But it surely would not have made since given the sloppy permitting of those deepwater rigs to let them continue until it could be determined it would be safe.

As for getting off the need for so much oil, you and I have had this discussion before .. and we agree that we need to .. we just don't agree on what we should do until we begin to wean ourselves from oil.

There is not enough time anyway to save us from what is going to be a very bumpy ride. The longer we wait to conserve and transition to other forms of energy the more painful it will be.
 
From your own article, you missed this part, "“There was no intent to mislead the public,” Barkoff said in a statement to POLITICO. “The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House.”

And this part, "“As the report makes clear, the misunderstanding with the reviewers was resolved with the June 3rd letter and a subsequent conference call with the experts we consulted,” Barkoff said."

Read more: Interior inspector general: White House skewed drilling-ban report - Dan Berman - POLITICO.comJ2

barkoff said...

LOL!

meanwhile, obama's VERY OWN spill panel:

Public misled on spill, panel says- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

"not fully competent or not fully candid"

ouch

the spill panel report landed ON TOP OF interior's ig's similar findings which salazar's spokesperson assures us was completely innocuous

White House Altered Offshore Drilling Safety Report, Falsely Appeared That Scientists Supported Moratorium: Interior Inspector General Report

too stuck in 1971 to see, apparently
 
Last edited:
Here we go on our way to another manufactured crisis from Obama, and the radical leftist in this country.

I hope we last two more years.


j-mac

Whaaa?

How the F' did Obama have anything to do with speculation driving the price up? Especially considering Libya's oil ONLY goes to Europe & Saudi Arabia said they'd increase to compensate for any loss.

Do you guys know anything about the basics of the oil cartel game? Er the commodities black market sub game? Thought you all where fiscally 'saavy'.

I'd think after the war of Choice called Operation Iraqi Liberation you'd have a Freakin' clue.
 
Yes, of course it was my discussion of peak oil before you interjected yourself with your attempt to change the subject.



Yes, I do and I have even placed bold emphasis so you can see it too.



Now why should I be apologizing to you?

Now you are lying. I quoted the post I replied to that was ONLY about oil reserves, NOT peak oil.

Your dishonesty is very telling, but typical of you.

You are dismissed. I don't discuss political topics with blatant liers.
 
and replaced him with Ronald Reagan who out of sheer spite dismantled the one right thing that Carter did, implement an energy policy. Every republican president since has said we need an energy policy, but that appears to be empty rhetoric on their part.
don't let your blind hatred of all things "liberal" make you unable to see the wisdom in having an energy policy....
there is nothing liberal about having an energy policy, it is just good common, yea verily even good conservative thinking.

Ahhh yes, the "engineer" with no engineering degree. Let's see what his wonderful "energy policy" accomplished:

He lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. Now there's a great accomplishment. He managed to piss off millions of drivers.

He installed a solar system on the white house as a symbolic gesture. Dems are big on symbols and light on action.

He proposed an energy policy to Congress that emphasized the increased use of coal. The Democratic controlled Senate shot him down.

He tried to force striking coal miners to accept a contract they didn't want. They refused resulting in thousands of businesses and schools being forced to close due to lack of electricity.

And finally, his coup-de-grace.... he totally bungled relations with Iran, resulting in greatly increased oil prices.

Yep, where would we be without ole Jimmy.
 
Whaaa?

How the F' did Obama have anything to do with speculation driving the price up? Especially considering Libya's oil ONLY goes to Europe & Saudi Arabia said they'd increase to compensate for any loss.


I am sure that will illicit another bow at the waist, and kiss of the ring from our weak ass President.

Do you guys know anything about the basics of the oil cartel game? Er the commodities black market sub game? Thought you all where fiscally 'saavy'.

I know this, subscribing solely to Keynes as your basis for determining fiscal acuity is a huge historical mistake. Second, if we announced that the exploration gloves were off and America is getting back in aggressively to the exploration, and extraction game, oil would fall in price be half over night.


I'd think after the war of Choice called Operation Iraqi Liberation you'd have a Freakin' clue.


Great, another Bash Bush Obama leftie that thinks he knows all...:roll: Welcome I always knew that the regulars on here needed reinforcement against the best and brightest of DP.....:2wave:


j-mac
 
Ahhh yes, the "engineer" with no engineering degree. Let's see what his wonderful "energy policy" accomplished:

He lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. Now there's a great accomplishment. He managed to piss off millions of drivers.

He installed a solar system on the white house as a symbolic gesture. Dems are big on symbols and light on action.

He proposed an energy policy to Congress that emphasized the increased use of coal. The Democratic controlled Senate shot him down.

He tried to force striking coal miners to accept a contract they didn't want. They refused resulting in thousands of businesses and schools being forced to close due to lack of electricity.

And finally, his coup-de-grace.... he totally bungled relations with Iran, resulting in greatly increased oil prices.

Yep, where would we be without ole Jimmy.

He has a bachelors of science from the Naval Academy..in physics. So I guess you are right, his degree is not actually an engineering degree. It is better....
He completed the Navy Nuclear power school program, a year long school. To get a job as a reactor operator at a civilian power plant, you must have a degree in engineering or science, OR have completed Navy Nuclear Power School. So enlisted ranks like me have the equivalent education as an engineer when it comes to doing that job.

This thread isn't about his failed foreign policies, why do you bring that up? If you weren't so blindly addicted to the conservative flavor koolaid, you wouldn't be dissing Jimmy. Or are you getting burned about some of us saying that Reagan shouldn't have spit on the only energy policy we ever had?

BTW, what degree do you have? from where? Or is that classified still?

I know 2 guys working as civil engineers, one has his PE license. One has a degree in accounting, the other in something else that I don't remember, but it isn't engineering.
Maybe that PE exam isn't so hard?
 
Last edited:
Here we go on our way to another manufactured crisis from Obama, and the radical leftist in this country.

I hope we last two more years.


j-mac

What makes this such a problem is that Obama doesn't give a **** . . . in fact, that plays right into what he *wants* and he's spurring it on - intentionally -through his actions.

He wants us to be less dependent on oil (he says "foreign oil" but he doesn't want to merely replace their oil with ours, you know).
And he doesn't care who suffers from this issue.
 
He has a bachelors of science from the Naval Academy..in physics. So I guess you are right, his degree is not actually an engineering degree. It is better....
He completed the Navy Nuclear power school program, a year long school. To get a job as a reactor operator at a civilian power plant, you must have a degree in engineering or science, OR have completed Navy Nuclear Power School. So enlisted ranks like me have the equivalent education as an engineer when it comes to doing that job.

This thread isn't about his failed foreign policies, why do you bring that up? If you weren't so blindly addicted to the conservative flavor koolaid, you wouldn't be dissing Jimmy. Or are you getting burned about some of us saying that Reagan shouldn't have spit on the only energy policy we ever had?


Oh yes, it was wonderful.....21% interest rates on new cars, and homes. Artificial shortages of gas. Only being able to fuel up on odd or even days. Being told if you're cold put on a sweater.....What a genius.


j-mac
 
Oh yes, it was wonderful.....21% interest rates on new cars, and homes. Artificial shortages of gas. Only being able to fuel up on odd or even days. Being told if you're cold put on a sweater.....What a genius.


j-mac

Interest rates have what to do with an energy policy?
I don't even have an engineering degree, but I pay far less in energy bills than most, and most includes a lot of engineers.
I don't wear sweaters, but do sometimes put on an extra layer of clothing.
Conservation of existing energy sources should be a major part of any energy policy. Or do you like wasting energy and money?
Google Carter energy policy, lots of great organizations praise him for the effort. But I suppose you have the skills to do better? If so, tell us your energy plan...
 
Last edited:
He has a bachelors of science from the Naval Academy..in physics. So I guess you are right, his degree is not actually an engineering degree. It is better....
He completed the Navy Nuclear power school program, a year long school. To get a job as a reactor operator at a civilian power plant, you must have a degree in engineering or science, OR have completed Navy Nuclear Power School. So enlisted ranks like me have the equivalent education as an engineer when it comes to doing that job.

This thread isn't about his failed foreign policies, why do you bring that up? If you weren't so blindly addicted to the conservative flavor koolaid, you wouldn't be dissing Jimmy. Or are you getting burned about some of us saying that Reagan shouldn't have spit on the only energy policy we ever had?

BTW, what degree do you have? from where? Or is that classified still?

I know 2 guys working as civil engineers, one has his PE license. One has a degree in accounting, the other in something else that I don't remember, but it isn't engineering.
Maybe that PE exam isn't so hard?

Glad you finally admit he wasn't an engineer. I would call him a peanut farmer since that's what he did most of his life before going on the public dole.

This thread is about the price of oil. Carter's failed foriegn policies laid the groundwork and enabled OPEC to become as powerful as it is today.

Do you mean the energy policy that his own party refused to implement ???

If your buddy has a degree in accounting, he can't take the PE exam and can't be a civil engineer. You can't claim to be a civil engineer unless you have passed the PE exam and are registered by the state.

I have a degree in engineering, but that is all you will get from me. I only disclose limited personal information here.
 
Glad you finally admit he wasn't an engineer. I would call him a peanut farmer since that's what he did most of his life before going on the public dole.

This thread is about the price of oil. Carter's failed foriegn policies laid the groundwork and enabled OPEC to become as powerful as it is today.

Do you mean the energy policy that his own party refused to implement ???

If your buddy has a degree in accounting, he can't take the PE exam and can't be a civil engineer. You can't claim to be a civil engineer unless you have passed the PE exam and are registered by the state.

I have a degree in engineering, but that is all you will get from me. I only disclose limited personal information here.

You can't even say what your major was? What are you really? An engineer by day and super hero by night? :2razz:
Google PE, wikipedia says in some states you can bypass step 1...the engineering degree.
Yes, the thread is about oil.
The fact that only one president ever tried to implement an energy policy is more related to this thread than your opinion of his "failed" presidency.
 
You can't even say what your major was? What are you really? An engineer by day and super hero by night? :2razz:
Google PE, wikipedia says in some states you can bypass step 1...the engineering degree.
Yes, the thread is about oil.
The fact that only one president ever tried to implement an energy policy is more related to this thread than your opinion of his "failed" presidency.

Yes, a couple of states still allow one to take the PE exam with 25 years of experience, but the number of states allowing this is getting less and less. Furthermore, other states don't recognize their license, so it is virtually worthless.

No, at night I am a husband, father, and grandfather. That's why you will almost never see me post here on nights and weekends.
 
Oh yes, it was wonderful.....21% interest rates on new cars, and homes. Artificial shortages of gas. Only being able to fuel up on odd or even days. Being told if you're cold put on a sweater.....What a genius.


j-mac

Not to mention, no record deficits, no housing collapse, no uneccesary wars, no worst attack on US soil in history, no bank bailouts, no record number of foreclosures and bankruptcies, no record unemployment, no loss of millions of jobs overseas, no massive consumer debt and no trade deficit.
Only a total moron could blame a president for interest rates. The FED sets interest rates. Hello?
As for high gas prices and shortages, they began during the first arab oil embargo under Nixon and so did runaway inflation.
It's funny how fools clamn Carter was such a horrible president by constantly pointing out his high interest rates and gas prices, two things a president has no control over.
Put a sweater on? Another ignorant statement.
Carters
Proposed Energy Policy

Other Primary Resources
That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

-Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

-Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

-Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

-Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

-Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

-Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

-Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million house
s.
.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a couple of states still allow one to take the PE exam with 25 years of experience, but the number of states allowing this is getting less and less. Furthermore, other states don't recognize their license, so it is virtually worthless.

No, at night I am a husband, father, and grandfather. That's why you will almost never see me post here on nights and weekends.

you post from work?
 
Interest rates have what to do with an energy policy?
I don't even have an engineering degree, but I pay far less in energy bills than most, and most includes a lot of engineers.
I don't wear sweaters, but do sometimes put on an extra layer of clothing.
Conservation of existing energy sources should be a major part of any energy policy. Or do you like wasting energy and money?
Google Carter energy policy, lots of great organizations praise him for the effort. But I suppose you have the skills to do better? If so, tell us your energy plan...


My energy plan? I wasn't aware I needed to have hammered out my own policy. Isn't that what we elect people for? See Bill, this is that equivalence argument, or should I say fallacy that you liberals love to hang on to. I don't need to be a cop or lawyer to argue laws and policies, I don't need to be a Nuclear engineer to hold an opinion on Nuclear energy, I don't need to be a real estate expert to buy a house, I offer my opinions on things using what God gave me, and that is a sense of reason, and the ability to learn things. What you do is only try and stifle that opinion by using the silly argument of equivalence that only serves the purpose to show reasoned persons that you have lost the argument.

Thanks for playin'.....


j-mac
 
Not to mention, no record deficits, no housing collapse, no uneccesary wars, no worst attack on US soil in history, no bank bailouts, no record number of foreclosures and bankruptcies, no record unemployment, no loss of millions of jobs overseas, no massive consumer debt and no trade deficit.
Only a total moron could blame a president for interest rates. The FED sets interest rates. Hello?
As for high gas prices and shortages, they began during the first arab oil embargo under Nixon and so did runaway inflation.
It's funny how fools clamn Carter was such a horrible president by constantly pointing out his high interest rates and gas prices, two things a president has no control over.

No record unemployment ???? You really need to read up a little on the late 1970s.

Don't you remember reading that unemployment under Obama is the worst it's been since the early 1980s. That's the recession that Carter started and Reagan ended.

Carter also had the highest Misery Index of any president in history.
Misery index (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Not to mention, no record deficits, no housing collapse, no uneccesary wars, no worst attack on US soil in history, no bank bailouts, no record number of foreclosures and bankruptcies, no record unemployment, no loss of millions of jobs overseas, no massive consumer debt and no trade deficit.
Only a total moron could blame a president for interest rates. The FED sets interest rates. Hello?
As for high gas prices and shortages, they began during the first arab oil embargo under Nixon and so did runaway inflation.
It's funny how fools clamn Carter was such a horrible president by constantly pointing out his high interest rates and gas prices, two things a president has no control over.

please don't demean morons in this way....:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom