News – Angry Iranian motorists queued for gasoline on Wednesday hours after the world's fourth largest oil exporter imposed fuel rationing, sparking chaotic scenes and the torching of two pump stations in the capital.
good news
Surely there has to be some way to blame this on Bush?
It was probably his wife this time?
I watched the gas scare in America several times.
It's all a matter of who's in charge squeezing out
the peons who live there. It's the I-A-TOLLA-U
philosophy?
I watched the gas scare in the 1970's, too.
I remember where the oil that broke the embargo came from, and I remember who sold it to us after.
Marc Rich convinced Iran to break the embargo, and sell the oil. He then marked up the oil, and became a multimillionaire.
So, it came from Iran.
Even though Rich was wanted by the US for breaking US laws against dealing with embargoed countries, the US Mint was kind enough to do business by buying all the zinc he had to make those new pennies in the 80's.
By the way, he's a hero in Israel.
Why aren't we also doing this? Does it need to be $6 a gallon? What's OUR tipping point?
"Why aren't we also doing this?"
Because we have a much better economy.
Long lines at the gas stations and 17 percent inflation - it sounds like Jimmy Carter is running the show over there.
They should be thankful it's not Ronald Reagan.....21% interest rates, 25% inflation, trickle down theory, record deficit spending (until Bush) and although he ran on a less/smaller government ticket (like Bush) he increased government size and spending more than any of his predecessors in history. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...."Today I have deregulated energy. This will result in increased supply and lower prices." Nice try, Ronnie......didn't happen....like he knew it wouldn't. Now let's bring up Clinton and get it over with.....oh my god...he told a lie!!!!!
Child, child. Please do not besmirch the times of the Gipper. 25% inflation? Get a grip.
He has his Presidents mixed up.
It was Jimmy Carter.
You can back up the trolly on this trek...
He was a nice man but leader he was not.
For those of you who are too young or suffer from selective memory...NIXON implemented a "wage and price freeze" to try to combat the rampant inflation during his administration (unsuccessfully),well before Carter came along.So ,please,let's not "mix our presidents up".
mntnman444 - you are correct, I really liked the price freeze. Unfortunately it didn't last long enough.
The price freeze in Venezuela is working out nicely. You cannot by food that cost more than is allowed now.
There is a reason for that. All the price controlled food has disappeared from the markets.
Price controlled oil in America had the same effect.
It is terrible the way the price of gasoline rises and falls. Except for the fact that you can buy it when you need it. Price stability by government fiat comes at the price of availability.
A woman comes into a butcher shop. She tells the butcher she wants some chickens. But she wants to pay the same price as the butcher across the street advertises in his window. "Your prices are too high", she says. The butcher asks, "Why don't you go across the street for your chickens?" "They haven't got any she replies."
mntman,
Remember Ford's initiative WIN? That was the result of the end of the Vietnam War and the beginning of a long recession.
I wonder what economic chaos will be cause by the end of the Iraqi war?
Probably not much. Remember we brought home over 500,000 service people in a fairly short period of time. We only have 160,000 or so in Iraq.
And all the ones in Iraq are volunteers.
Where that makes a difference is that they are more likely to stay in and not flood the economy with young unemployed men.
spaz,
The majority are guardsmen. But the war economy will undoubtedly slow down and that will probably include all those construction projects to rebuild Iraq; the money will stop flowing.
Not sure where your numbers are from My recolection is that it is less that 50% are guard. And guard is the easy part to integrate back into the community, they are coming back to protected jobs.
RA is a larger prob, since those coming out will be looking for a job, but it should be fewer then previous, because most already concidrer themselves lifers.
spaz,
Every war we've been involved in has had an effect on the economy after they ended, so I don't see why this one won't have the same effect. The arming of our troops, from weapons, fuel, medical, and food, have a degree of cost that affect the industries that produce those materials. It would be illogical to believe that when government procurement for those products end that it won't have an economic impact. The other problem that we will encounter is the support we're providing the current Iraqi government. The amount of money going there will stabilize, but the private companies that are working there will pull out. What's a mercinary to do after the bullets stop flying?
I don't think I said it would not have an effect. I was just talking about the soldiers coming off duty.
I'm not sure why you think the economy will slow down, look at what happened after WWII and the Cold War. The money that is going into the war will now be free for other uses. With Vietnam, Nixon so messed up the economy with wage and price freezes that it took until Reagan for it to start thawing.
spaz,
After WWI and WWII we had recessions followed by inflation. What didn't happen after WWII was that inflation grew too big. That was because by 49 we were in Korea. After Korea we went through the same recession/inflation which cost the GOP the majority in 58. What eventually turned the economy around was the development of the Space Program and all the technology sorrounding it - computers, jet transport, automobiles, and highways. The bottom line is, jobs have a smaller affect on the economy than the reduction of production of military goods and services after a war. The fact that there'll be some sort of economic adjustment when the war in Iraq ends depends on how much effort and spenditures will be provided to keep going in Afghanistan, the war that's been forgotten about since Iraq got started but the most important then.
Unfortunatley for your point, people like me still remember the the gas lines and fuel rationing, rampant inflation, and "that peanut farmer" (to use the European's expression for Carter). Mix our president's up? Seems you are confused about who was in charge when things went to hell in a hand basket.
Actually, europeans, especially those that read the news and know about the world have great respect for Carter. I read your post and just called two people, a former Communist party member, and a person who supported movements toward the west. They both though highly of Carter.
But if you start to mention the "Yahoo Cowboy", they DON'T think LBJ.
The oil embargo in the 70's wasn't the fault of Carter, and actually, the Camp David talks fixed things pretty well in regards to our oil supply.
When Reagan came in Carter ALREADY had inflation through the roof.
Regan put us in debt to the wazu. We were in a serious situation because of the remains of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and a mess that Ford left behind. Don't blame Jimmy for interest rates upto 14% and higher. The Iran revolution was a mess. Regan came in and it looked like he was a hero, but he stepped in poop. The Soviets were all ready over spent and the seams were busting all over. I'm not saying that Regan was a good president, but I think Carter was in deep doo doo before he took office. I think he had some good policies and some not so good ones. Every president except the current one has had good policies and bad ones.
Amazing how "Day 444" was almost smack dab on RayGun's inauguration day.
Not amazing about day 444... It's public knowledge that was the start of supplying weapons to Iran through Israel, and helping the Contra's with the money.
It's pretty well documented in congressional proceedings.
Basically, Reagan and the GOP dealt with Iran for the hostages. Carter wouldn't deal with terrorists.
Under Carter (and Ford before him), we had stagflation...the economy going nowhere and high inflation at the same time. Inflation worries gradually disappeared under Reagan, despite the defict spending.
And it's very unfair to blame the deficts of the '80s on either side. Every year, the Dems would submit a budget that increased the deficit, then Reagan would insist on higher military spending. We went into deficit spending because we essentially bought guns and butter at the same time.
The tactic was successful, though. The Soviet Union was spent into oblivion, and much of the deficit disappeared when the economy finally got better...this started at the tail end of Bush 41's administration, then really picked up under Clinton.
If I blame anyone, it would be the Democratic Congress during the 80's, for large (and fruitless) increases in social spending, followed by the Republican Congress of the 00's, who spent like drunken sailors.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
popperous
yarrkz24
shawnmartinez1960
daviannewton651975
adrielh791966
adamhowe1980
rontravel
wijahenu
paqivule
miloqyka
bexiwymu
owurify
rusakyno
hujeboxa
wekasonu
iworany
rofydepi
Yammer
modpul
qilla
uncogito
Jomarie
themeek
odyssey69
pismo
saltyveruca
scabbio
HarryKnutts
sailr
swasdiva
Malaika111
Nowalive
susanaii
prburner
TomChicago
mere_bystander
madebiskye
ozobozob
HMMace
manjul
lovelytxwoman
jimyboy
nbdd
SeanIM
JDOCHNAL
AmericanIdiot
Aidenag
krismort
calvinwoon
TipsOfAllSorts
225)
Vote
Poor, poor Iran.
Welcome to the real world suckers!!
They were paying 40 cents per gallon (aprox.).
No wonder why they have to ration the stuff.
Although they have huge oil reserves, they have little refining capabilities.
I'd be alarmed, if I were some one in "power projection" in the government.
Why do you think they are saving all their gas? Not for petrol-bombs, I'll say.
They are anticipating, and preparing an attack on their land. They are filling up the tanks, jeeps and trucks.
If that's not the case, and they are rationing gas for lack of it, it justifies their need for nuclear energy. Both sides of the sword are sharpened against the US on a fight of words, or of weapons... Obviously they are prepared for both.
"If that's not the case, and they are rationing gas for lack of it, it justifies their need for nuclear energy."
Yep. Just load up your gas tank with neutrons and you are good to go.