Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree29Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 1st, 2018, 10:12 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,968
[QUOTE=Athena;1138332][QUOTE=guy39;1138141]

Quote:
Carter did respond to OPEC. It was not the military response of Reagan. He told us we need to conserve and look for new sources of energy. Which response do you think is the better one?
What military response against OPEC was done under Reagan?
Quote:
I think you are mistaken about Carter not allowing an increase in oil production. He asked us to reduce our consumption and we would not be the evil nation if we had listened to Carter instead of turning to military force to take back control of oil. Why do you think an increase in production was possible?
Carter actually pushed for less oil and more coal lol.
Jimmy Carter: National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.

Quote:
Yes, what I said is true. How do you explain why the US gave Saddam and Bin Laden arms and military training, and then they became our enemies
?
That does not in anyway shape or form even begin to justify your statement that Bin Laden only targeted MIC targets. Wait are you one of those 911 truther morons?
Quote:
The US was on very good terms with Iran until, during the Eisenhower administration, the US used the CIA to stir up a revolt, overthrowing Iran's elected leader and putting a tyrant in his place?
Eisenhower?? Well I guess any minute there will be riots in Spain and people chanting death to America.


Quote:
Are you aware that the mid-east countries we talk about are less than 100 years old and the result of how the Allies decided to divide things for their own self-interest? This is about oil and who controls it. And it is about Israel and why we defend it and why Arab countries oppose that. Israel is not a democracy with equality but is for Jews. Israel is strategically important.
Yes I am aware. Are you aware until they realized they had oil, after the west found the oil they were mostly living in tents and shitting holes?

https://www.ueunion.org/ue-news-feat...for-ue-members

Quote:
Reagan and war for oil
Name the Reagan war please? Grenada? Panama? Which one



Quote:
This is one way Reagan paid for our military buildup
I think you might need a civics lesson.


Quote:
He also slashed domestic budget and poured money into military spending.
Who controlled the House of Representatives? Do you understand how spending happens? I would recommend some remedial civics.

This will be great for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EISWIY9bG8
Thanks from Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 07:03 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,719
[QUOTE=guy39;1139234][QUOTE=Athena;1138332][QUOTE=guy39;1138141]


Quote:
What military response against OPEC was done under Reagan?
Before I go any further in responding to your post, I want an indication that you know some important facts. You appear to have ignored the information in the links because your questions would be answered if you read the links. Ignoring information is the very meaning of ignorance.

Reagan slashed domestic budgets when we were still in a recession with high unemployment and people needed help the most. He poured money into military spending, including using Social Security money to pay for this. He sent the navy to the Persian Gulf and it was used for military action.

Quote:
U.S. STRIKES 2 IRANIAN OIL RIGS AND HITS 6 WARSHIPS IN ...
http://defendingthetruth.com/economi...s-over-mining-...
Apr 19, 1988 - The attacks began when six American ships destroyed two Iranian oil platforms in what the Reagan Administration said was retaliation for the mining that damaged a Navy vessel last week. The worst fighting between Iranian and American forces coincided with heavy clashes in the
Quote:
Persian Gulf war ...
U.S. Sinks or Damages 6 Iran Ships in Persian Gulf Clashes : Tehran ...
articles.latimes.com/1988-04-19/news/mn-1394_1_persian-gulf
Apr 19, 1988 - WASHINGTON — U.S. warships and aircraft sank or heavily damaged six Iranian navy ships Monday as a major confrontation erupted in the Persian Gulf in the wake of the United States' early morning strike against two Iranian oil platforms, the Reagan Administration said. U.S. and
And the US granted arms to mid-east countries.

Quote:
The Reagan-Saddam Connection: “We Create These Monsters And ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/...tion_we_create
Jun 9, 2004 - Then the sad story of how it got out of control, how Vice President Bush was deeply personally involved in illegal arms transfers to Saddam Hussein in the ... And the same people used the same funds to support Osama bin Laden in the late 1970's and early 1980's in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.
One last comment, do you know what the word conserve means? It means you stop using something as though you have a finite supply of it. The alternative was war on mid-east countries. Reagan took us to war and 911 is the result of that.
Thanks from RNG

Last edited by Athena; February 2nd, 2018 at 07:12 AM.
Athena is online now  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 11:15 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,968
[QUOTE=Athena;1139292][QUOTE=guy39;1139234][QUOTE=Athena;1138332][QUOTE=guy39;1138141]




Quote:
Before I go any further in responding to your post, I want an indication that you know some important facts. You appear to have ignored the information in the links because your questions would be answered if you read the links. Ignoring information is the very meaning of ignorance.
Thats lovely. Lets see what you have learned then.

Quote:
Reagan slashed domestic budgets when we were still in a recession with high unemployment and people needed help the most
. Nope you still fail at basic civics.
Quote:
He poured money into military spending, including using Social Security money to pay for this.
Yes, you still need a civics lesson.
Quote:
He sent the navy to the Persian Gulf and it was used for military action.
Well, that was his Constitutional duty. The Mullahs were attempting to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Now you may not understand what that means, or maybe your a regressive leftists (which I suspect now)






Quote:
And the US granted arms to mid-east countries.
You mean sold?



Quote:
One last comment, do you know what the word conserve means? It means you stop using something as though you have a finite supply of it. The alternative was war on mid-east countries. Reagan took us to war and 911 is the result of that.
Well, it would appear to me that Jimmy Carter wanted to Conserve oil and increase coal production. So, tell me about this finite thing again?
guy39 is offline  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 03:23 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,719
[QUOTE=guy39;1139375][QUOTE=Athena;1139292][QUOTE=guy39;1139234][QUOTE=Athena;1138332]
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post

Thats lovely. Lets see what you have learned then.

. Nope you still fail at basic civics. Yes, you still need a civics lesson. Well, that was his Constitutional duty. The Mullahs were attempting to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Now you may not understand what that means, or maybe your a regressive leftists (which I suspect now)

You mean sold?

Well, it would appear to me that Jimmy Carter wanted to Conserve oil and increase coal production. So, tell me about this finite thing again?
Why are objecting to me saying, Reagan, slashed domestic budgets and increased military spending? That was his administration's policy, just as it is Trump's policy today, only I don't think Reagan was calling the shots. I don't think Reagan was well informed of anything, but he was an actor and his best role being president. I do think Trump does call the shots. What is your problem with that?

Simple, oil is extremely vital to our transportation, food supply, economy and national defense. Until fracking, our available supply of oil didn't come close to meeting our needs. This was a very serious economic problem and obviously a national defense problem, because of our past dependence on imported oil.

Our supply of coal is strong, and the way to relieve the oil supply problem was to use coal instead of oil for generating electricity and heating homes. At that time CO2 was not that concern that it is today. But even if it was a concern, the need for energy, other than oil, would mean increasing the use of coal and reducing the demand for oil. Get it? When it is not possible to meet the demand for something as important as oil, it is essential to reduce the demand.

Keep in mind the 1920 warning, "Given our known supply of oil and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war."
Carter chose to avoid war and Reagan was used to lead our country into war. It is that simple. What went with that decision was a nuclear arms race and Trump most definitely is pushing for reactivating the arms race. Having the best weapons does not prevent war. Having the best weapons only means others strive to have those weapons too. It is about control of finite resources.
Athena is online now  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 04:39 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,968
[QUOTE=Athena;1139458][QUOTE=guy39;1139375][QUOTE=Athena;1139292][QUOTE=guy39;1139234][QUOTE=Athena;1138332]

Quote:
Why are objecting to me saying, Reagan, slashed domestic budgets and increased military spending?
Because it is impossible for a President to slash or increase spending and the house of representatives was controlled by the Democrats with Tip O'neal being the speaker.
Quote:
That was his administration's policy, just as it is Trump's policy today, only I don't think Reagan was calling the shots.
You are right, the President can only submit a budget. The President then administers a budget that Congress approves, with spending origination in the house.
Quote:
I don't think Reagan was well informed of anything, but he was an actor and his best role being president.
LOL, I have no doubt you believe that.
Quote:
I do think Trump does call the shots. What is your problem with that?
I explained it through a civics lesson.
Quote:
Simple, oil is extremely vital to our transportation, food supply, economy and national defense. Until fracking, our available supply of oil didn't come close to meeting our needs. This was a very serious economic problem and obviously a national defense problem, because of our past dependence on imported oil.
Fracking has been around since the 1950's. We chose to be dependent on foreign oil because regulations and pricing did not make it viable to produce it here anymore. That dependency is why Ronald Reagan had to order the United States Navy to keep sea lanes open for trade. Which is a Constitutional requirement by the way.

Quote:
Our supply of coal is strong, and the way to relieve the oil supply problem was to use coal instead of oil for generating electricity and heating homes. At that time CO2 was not that concern that it is today. But even if it was a concern, the need for energy, other than oil, would mean increasing the use of coal and reducing the demand for oil. Get it? When it is not possible to meet the demand for something as important as oil, it is essential to reduce the demand.
It was possible to meet the demand. It became possible when Reagan made damn sure the sea lanes were open for trade out of the Persian Gulf.

Quote:
Keep in mind the 1920 warning, "Given our known supply of oil and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war."
That really means a lot of nothing.
Quote:
Carter chose to avoid war and Reagan was used to lead our country into war. It is that simple. What went with that decision was a nuclear arms race and Trump most definitely is pushing for reactivating the arms race. Having the best weapons does not prevent war. Having the best weapons only means others strive to have those weapons too. It is about control of finite resources.
Carter was a weak President and his policies allowed the Persian Gulf to become a contested choke point with the bulk of the worlds oil trade as hostage. Reagan WON the cold war with his policies.
Thanks from Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old February 3rd, 2018, 07:18 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,719
Good you have some understanding of how things work, but it is incomplete. There would be no point in electing presidents if they did not move decisions in one direction or another. A lot of things do not get done without a president pushing for them, right?

Good you do understand something about oil. You hide what you know very well. In his 1975 state of the union address, President Ford promoted the development of shale oil resources, as part of his overall energy plan, as a means of reducing foreign oil imports. Fracking can be traced back to civil war but that would not be the hydraulic fracking the we use today. Hydraulic fracturing got underway in 1947 but shell oil was still a better choice because of the problems with fracking. So what else do you know? How does it become cheaper to develop the technology for oil and energy than for military weapons and war?

Since this thread is about jobs, what are the good reasons for the military industrial complex and what are the alternatives?
Athena is online now  
Old February 5th, 2018, 09:33 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,719
I posted this in the thread about nuclear war, but it also belongs here with other Military Industrial Complex decisions.

Quote:
https://www.brookings.edu/the-econom...clear-weapons/

American people were never given the opportunity to, for example, with the B-2, decide whether they would prefer $100 million of extra spending for schools in 20 additional American cities or one B-2 bomber.

Now there were a number of strategies we could have pursued. Each one carried with it the types of opportunity costs that the B-2 bomber I just cited, illustrate. Unfortunately an open discussion of these costs were precluded by, first of all, the lack of information that accompanied the Cold War environment and the secrecy that was attendant to that; the common misconception that nuclear weapons were cheaper, and, hence, needed no further rationale; the fact that weapons were so complicated in the nuclear arena; and that deterrence was such an esoteric concept that Congress was forced to rely on the advice of the very individuals who stood to profit if the programs were funded. Independent reviews such as this one were inordinately difficult to perform. And, finally, this massive level of spending was very narrowly focused on a few production sites around the United States and this made nuclear weapons spending ideal for pork-barrel projects.
Athena is online now  
Old February 5th, 2018, 09:38 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,719
The US did not treat war as a business until the Eisenhower administration made it so. We demobilized after every war, until the Korean War. Our national pride was not our military might, except in short periods of war and following WWII books warned against what has happened as a result of making war a taxpayer paid business.

Quote:
The Military-Industrial Complex in the United States: Evolution and ...
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/.../...ed-states-evol...
by AM Kone - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
Their most important common interest is intensifying defense expenditure. War profiteering in itself is not new – wars have always been fought at least in part for economic gains. Today's military-industrial complex is different in that it treats war as a business: the ruling elite's goal of having a large military establishment is not ...
Athena is online now  
Old February 5th, 2018, 10:06 AM   #59
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
The US did not treat war as a business until the Eisenhower administration made it so. We demobilized after every war, until the Korean War. Our national pride was not our military might, except in short periods of war and following WWII books warned against what has happened as a result of making war a taxpayer paid business.
That criticism is not totally fair. At the time, the threat of both the Soviet Union and what was then always referred to as Red China were very real, current and ongoing threats. It was needed.

But IMO that situation has since diminished greatly and the US continues to over-react, primarily to keep the MIC rich off taxpayer's money.
Thanks from imaginethat
RNG is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 10:10 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That criticism is not totally fair. At the time, the threat of both the Soviet Union and what was then always referred to as Red China were very real, current and ongoing threats. It was needed.

But IMO that situation has since diminished greatly and the US continues to over-react, primarily to keep the MIC rich off taxpayer's money.
With the collapse of the old Soviet Union and China's embrace of capitalism, the "cold war" has been replaced by the "war on terror".

Same shit, different enemy.

Quote:
“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

– Hermann Goering
BubbaJones is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
jobs, returning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump tells Black citizens he will protect their jobs and create new jobs johnwk Current Events 10 August 26th, 2016 04:10 AM
US Troops Will Not Be Returning To Iraq skews13 Current Events 6 January 5th, 2014 03:25 PM
Media interest in returning war dead wanes CNN Current Events 1 April 9th, 2010 07:20 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.