Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're right...it is far more expensive to drill offshore than on land. What's REALLY expensive is deep water drilling. But our drilling companies have been forced to drill in deep water because they couldn't get permits to drill in shallow water. Why? Because environmentalists like you lobbied hard to keep new drilling away from the coasts. So even though the shallow water drillers have an incredible safety record with practically zero oil spills they were deemed a "threat" to the environment. So instead of wells in shallow water that DON'T cause spills...we got wells in extremely deep water that we couldn't repair when we had an accident. Instead of wells that never spill oil we got a well that spilled millions of gallons of oil. So tell me again who it is that's being "stupid"?
You guys are missing the point.
Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?
Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...
Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?
The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.
We look offshore because no one allows us to look closer. There is TONS of oil that is far easier to get to but the libs won't let us get to it for environmental reasons. The sad part is that it causes MORE harm to the environment as that oil is then gained from places that have zero environmental standards.
In another note, you claim that oil rights that we sell does not mean that the oil is sold to us. What the libs are going for is NO drilling but if the recipient is the issue then why not lease the drilling out and put in stipulations in the agreement? Is that impossible for some reason?
You put up "rationalrevolution", and "wikipedia" as sources, and we're supposed to take you seriously?All one has to do to see the greatness of Ronald Reagan, is look at how many dem's proclaimed themselves 'Reagan Democrats" as his presidency moved forward.Obama likes to compare his approval numbers to Reagan's. It's how he fools himself into thinking that everyone will love him again. You see at this point in their presidencies those approval numbers are actually rather similar. The problem for Barack is that Ronnie had already done the work to turn things around and the economy started coming back with a vengeance. That's what got him a landslide victory for his second term.
Unlike Ronald Reagan who had a plan going in...Barack Obama doesn't have a clue how to turn this economy around. You only have to look at the latest CBO numbers to see that four more years of Obama is going to mean four more years of a stagnant economy and high unemployment.
Ya.....but they left in droves as soon as it became clear his economic policies put us on a path to destruction (his own Budget Director said so) and his administration turned into one of the most corrupt in history.
Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reagan was a good actor. Nothing more.
.
You get a completely different reaction. - a mantra for morons. You guys are missing the point.
Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?
Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...
Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?
The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.
We look offshore because no one allows us to look closer. There is TONS of oil that is far easier to get to but the libs won't let us get to it for environmental reasons. The sad part is that it causes MORE harm to the environment as that oil is then gained from places that have zero environmental standards.
In another note, you claim that oil rights that we sell does not mean that the oil is sold to us. What the libs are going for is NO drilling but if the recipient is the issue then why not lease the drilling out and put in stipulations in the agreement? Is that impossible for some reason?
Like national oil? I'd be for that to an extent; Repubs would never, ever go for it... They'd whip people into a riot-frenzy with accusations of communism. It's big oil and big business that puts them in power, and they can take it away just as fast.
We look offshore because no one allows us to look closer. There is TONS of oil that is far easier to get to but the libs won't let us get to it for environmental reasons. The sad part is that it causes MORE harm to the environment as that oil is then gained from places that have zero environmental standards.
In another note, you claim that oil rights that we sell does not mean that the oil is sold to us. What the libs are going for is NO drilling but if the recipient is the issue then why not lease the drilling out and put in stipulations in the agreement? Is that impossible for some reason?
Like national oil? I'd be for that to an extent; Repubs would never, ever go for it... They'd whip people into a riot-frenzy with accusations of communism. It's big oil and big business that puts them in power, and they can take it away just as fast.
Sure...let's put the same people who can't run what they have now in charge of our oil industry as well. By the time we're done gas will be eight bucks a gallon and you'll only be able to purchase it every other day from 9 to 4 and never on Sundays or any of about 40 National holidays. Yeah, that sounds like a plan! Sign me the heck up!!!
I don't think we should compare ourselves to any other. We either stand on our own or fail. We are unique and uncomparable. If you believe the comparison is absurd, I agree. A totally different planet with differing variables prevail in both time periods. There is no comparison.
Now how do we make things better? It may help if we get off the divide. That just makes things very cyclical.
We compare actual results, and use what works.
Reaganomics produced unprecedented growth lower unemployment, and general prosperity. Obamanomics produced flat growth, higher unemployment, and general economic loss.
You can prove that you are actually looking for facts by speaking up and saying you prefer good results to bad ones, or you can prove you are a hack by insisting that things are different know,m and we have to keep trying something that does not work.
One could argue that Reagonomics just introduced the 'bubble era'.
!!!You guys are missing the point.
Why are we looking offshore? Why are we looking at arctic climates? At shale? At tar sands? Why are we even looking at these areas where it's 10,20,100x more expensive to bring oil to market?
Because the low-hanging stuff is gone...
Let's say I stipulate that shallow water and alaskan drilling are being blocked by progressives. Suppose we lift the corresponding bans and it's open sesame. How long until those reserves are tapped and we're back to looking harder, deeper, and more expensive still?
The truth is we probably peaked in the 70s. The rest of the world is industrializing, and global consumption is increasing exponentially. Even with all our high-hanging fruit, we still have only a small fraction of what the ME has in low-hanging fruit. Our ability to influence the global market price is a joke.
We look offshore because no one allows us to look closer. There is TONS of oil that is far easier to get to but the libs won't let us get to it for environmental reasons. The sad part is that it causes MORE harm to the environment as that oil is then gained from places that have zero environmental standards.
In another note, you claim that oil rights that we sell does not mean that the oil is sold to us. What the libs are going for is NO drilling but if the recipient is the issue then why not lease the drilling out and put in stipulations in the agreement? Is that impossible for some reason?
Like national oil? I'd be for that to an extent; Repubs would never, ever go for it... They'd whip people into a riot-frenzy with accusations of communism. It's big oil and big business that puts them in power, and they can take it away just as fast.
If the economy we had was like the economy that Reagan had when he came into office our recession would be long over.
It isn't, so comparisons like these just show us how ignorant some of us really are about all things macro-economic.
Ironically, we now have what is closer to what free market conservatives want. The market is taking jobs away from 'overpaid' Americans and moving them to 50 cents an hour type labor markets in classic free market fashion.
Mention Reagan's name and you get a variety of reactions. Almost all are positive. The man was an excellent president and extraordinary leader. He took us from the dismal and dark days of Jimmy Carter, to "morning in America". I loved his optimism. He was a giant.
Now mention Obama.
His name is quickly becoming a synonym for fetid fecal matter, trash, and failure.
"Sorry I was busy and couldn't answer the phone. I had to clean out the "obama" that was stuck on the toilet seat from that bout of severe explosive diarrhea I had after reading the economic news. "
"Whoa!! He really "obama'd" that one!! (after a massive choke or fuck up) "
"Honey I told you to take out the "obama". It's starting to stink!"
That's right liberals, your hero is a failure. "Hope and Change"
The economy was in worse shape; interest rates were staggeringly high, and the unemployment rate was climbing as Reagan took office and had not yet reached its zenith due to certain chronic trends endemic of the Keynesian policies that his administration discontinued. It was under 8% by 1984, and the country was at full employment statistically before the end of his term, approximately 5.5%. And then . . . almost twenty years of bada-bing-bada boom! Under Obama unemployment has gone up and is stuck on up. It ain't going down because Obama doesn't know how to make it go down. Indeed, this imbecilic administration has employed the very same kind of policies that the Reagan Administration had to rescind in order to get things under control!
Unemployment wasn't climbing when Reagan took office it fell from 7.8 in July 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980.
Wrong. . . .
U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%
1980-04: 6.9%
1980-05: 7.5%
1980-06: 7.6%
1980-07: 7.8%
1980-08: 7.7%
Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.
1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%
1980-12: 7.2%
1981-01: 7.5%
1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%
1981-04: 7.2%
1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%
1981-07: 7.2%
1981-08: 7.4%
1981-09: 7.6%
1981-10: 7.9%
And so on from there. . . .
1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%
1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%
1983-03: 10.3%
1983-09: 9.2%
1984-09: 7.3%
And so on. . . .
1988-12: 5.3%
The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:
1978-10: 5.8%
1978-11: 5.9%
1978-12: 6.0%
1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%
1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%
1979-05: 5.6%
1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7
1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%
Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The economy was in worse shape; interest rates were staggeringly high, and the unemployment rate was climbing as Reagan took office and had not yet reached its zenith due to certain chronic trends endemic of the Keynesian policies that his administration discontinued. It was under 8% by 1984, and the country was at full employment statistically before the end of his term, approximately 5.5%. And then . . . almost twenty years of bada-bing-bada boom! Under Obama unemployment has gone up and is stuck on up. It ain't going down because Obama doesn't know how to make it go down. Indeed, this imbecilic administration has employed the very same kind of policies that the Reagan Administration had to rescind in order to get things under control!
Unemployment wasn't climbing when Reagan took office it fell from 7.8 in July 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980.
Wrong. . . .
U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%
1980-04: 6.9%
1980-05: 7.5%
1980-06: 7.6%
1980-07: 7.8%
1980-08: 7.7%
Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.
1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%
1980-12: 7.2%
1981-01: 7.5%
1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%
1981-04: 7.2%
1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%
1981-07: 7.2%
1981-08: 7.4%
1981-09: 7.6%
1981-10: 7.9%
And so on from there. . . .
1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%
1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%
1983-03: 10.3%
1983-09: 9.2%
1984-09: 7.3%
And so on. . . .
1988-12: 5.3%
The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:
1978-10: 5.8%
1978-11: 5.9%
1978-12: 6.0%
1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%
1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%
1979-05: 5.6%
1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7
1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%
Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.
Your numbers say excactly what I say unemployment went down from 7.8 in
july 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980. Remember Reagan didn't take office until Jan. 1981
Wrong. . . .
U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%
1980-04: 6.9%
1980-05: 7.5%
1980-06: 7.6%
1980-07: 7.8%
1980-08: 7.7%
Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.
1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%
1980-12: 7.2%
1981-01: 7.5%
1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%
1981-04: 7.2%
1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%
1981-07: 7.2%
1981-08: 7.4%
1981-09: 7.6%
1981-10: 7.9%
And so on from there. . . .
1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%
1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%
1983-03: 10.3%
1983-09: 9.2%
1984-09: 7.3%
And so on. . . .
1988-12: 5.3%
The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:
1978-10: 5.8%
1978-11: 5.9%
1978-12: 6.0%
1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%
1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%
1979-05: 5.6%
1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7
1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%
Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.
Your numbers say excactly what I say unemployment went down from 7.8 in
july 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980. Remember Reagan didn't take office until Jan. 1981
What an economic illiterate. Read up on the 1981-1982 recession (and what it did to tame inflation), and then get back to us.
Your numbers say excactly what I say unemployment went down from 7.8 in
july 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980. Remember Reagan didn't take office until Jan. 1981
What an economic illiterate. Read up on the 1981-1982 recession (and what it did to tame inflation), and then get back to us.
What has 1981-1982 got to do with what I said? Reagan fans always try and throw insults because they don't have numbers and facts on their side.
The economy was in worse shape; interest rates were staggeringly high, and the unemployment rate was climbing as Reagan took office and had not yet reached its zenith due to certain chronic trends endemic of the Keynesian policies that his administration discontinued. It was under 8% by 1984, and the country was at full employment statistically before the end of his term, approximately 5.5%. And then . . . almost twenty years of bada-bing-bada boom! Under Obama unemployment has gone up and is stuck on up. It ain't going down because Obama doesn't know how to make it go down. Indeed, this imbecilic administration has employed the very same kind of policies that the Reagan Administration had to rescind in order to get things under control!
Unemployment wasn't climbing when Reagan took office it fell from 7.8 in July 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980.
Wrong. . . .
U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%
1980-04: 6.9%
1980-05: 7.5%
1980-06: 7.6%
1980-07: 7.8%
1980-08: 7.7%
Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.
1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%
1980-12: 7.2%
1981-01: 7.5%
1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%
1981-04: 7.2%
1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%
1981-07: 7.2%
1981-08: 7.4%
1981-09: 7.6%
1981-10: 7.9%
And so on from there. . . .
1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%
1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%
1983-03: 10.3%
1983-09: 9.2%
1984-09: 7.3%
And so on. . . .
1988-12: 5.3%
The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:
1978-10: 5.8%
1978-11: 5.9%
1978-12: 6.0%
1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%
1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%
1979-05: 5.6%
1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7
1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%
Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.
Your numbers say excactly what I say unemployment went down from 7.8 in
july 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980. Remember Reagan didn't take office until Jan. 1981
What an economic illiterate. Read up on the 1981-1982 recession (and what it did to tame inflation), and then get back to us.
What has 1981-1982 got to do with what I said? Reagan fans always try and throw insults because they don't have numbers and facts on their side.
Further proof that you are an economic nincompoop. The country was put through a recession via Fed policy (the Volcker recession) to get rid of the double digit inflation that was decimating the country. That recession, which ended in Nov. 1982, had high unemployment just like the 2007 one. The difference in recoveries is telling. Reagan's policies led to high GDP growth, increased labor force participation, and high levels of job creation.
Obama's have basically resulted in the opposite. Other recoveries have taken 2 to 3 quarters to regain the lost GDP. We're still under water after 8 quarters of Obama's Endless Bummer of a Recovery.
Wrong. . . .
U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%
1980-04: 6.9%
1980-05: 7.5%
1980-06: 7.6%
1980-07: 7.8%
1980-08: 7.7%
Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.
1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%
1980-12: 7.2%
1981-01: 7.5%
1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%
1981-04: 7.2%
1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%
1981-07: 7.2%
1981-08: 7.4%
1981-09: 7.6%
1981-10: 7.9%
And so on from there. . . .
1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%
1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%
1983-03: 10.3%
1983-09: 9.2%
1984-09: 7.3%
And so on. . . .
1988-12: 5.3%
The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:
1978-10: 5.8%
1978-11: 5.9%
1978-12: 6.0%
1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%
1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%
1979-05: 5.6%
1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7
1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%
Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.
Your numbers say excactly what I say unemployment went down from 7.8 in
july 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980. Remember Reagan didn't take office until Jan. 1981
another amateur with a hate on and doesn't even know why, except the media has told him to protect the messiah.
you have not the slightest idea of the topic.....hence of what you are discussing, 30 seconds of Google can take one only so far eh? ...go read a friggin book,..... dopey.
The national debt is an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.
Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.
Repeating something doesnt make it true.
