Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carter isn't the worst President in history. He is just the worst President since FDR. Not only did Carter show absolutely no leadership, he gave away half the store. More nations fell to communism/fascism while Carter was President that at any time before or since.
He couldn't negotiate a peace between Israel and Egypt, so he bought one at taxpayers expense, and we've been paying for it ever since. He was a coward with regard to foreign policy, particularly with Iran. He was completely ineffectual influencing his own political party that controlled Congress. Deficits soared bringing the National Debt to just over a trillion dollars for the first time in US history. Instead of increasing domestic energy production he told everyone to turn their thermostats down to 68°F. Meanwhile the lines at the gas stations got longer, gasoline prices almost tripled, long term interest rates were double digit, and inflation was out of control. There hasn't been a time when the morale of the US military was so low, as it was under Carter (except maybe when Clinton got reelected in 1996).
I could go on for hours, but I think you get my gist. We were very lucky Carter only served one term. The nation couldn't afford him for a second term.
President Carter has always been looked down upon by republicans. Unlike most republicans in office now Carter does not just talk about morals and values. I suggest those with a one sided view of him do a little research. If Carter had defeated Regan we would probably be a lot less dependent on foreign oil.
well that is the reason for the smear campain on Carter, Republicans all have stock in oil and they love the high oil prices and the dependancy on Foreign Oil
Before we get too carried away, people need to understand that Jimmy Carter was by no means the first President to look at reducing this country's dependence on foreign oil.
The process of turning coal into gasoline was pioneered by Germany in the early 1920's. This method was studied widely throughout the world by countries that had limited oil reserves but plentiful coal deposits. The Bureau of Mines in the United States experimented with the process from 1928 to 1944. On April 5, 1944, the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act was approved by Congress which gave the Bureau of Mines $30 million dollars to build and operate demonstration plants to produce synthetic fuels for military use during World War II. When the war ended, German scientists were recruited to work on the project. The synfuels project was abandoned in 1953.
It should be noted that in 1940, the United States was the leader in oil production, accounting for 65 percent of the world's oil. In 1940, the Middle East made up less than 5 percent of total oil production in the world. However, when World War II ended, the massive oil fields that were discovered in the 1930's and 1940's in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could finally be developed. By the early 1950's, so much oil was flowing that synthetic fuel programs were viewed as a waste of money. Synthetic fuel simply could not be produced for less than a regular barrel of oil.
Fast forward to the oil embargo of 1973. By 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 a barrel and was having a negative effect on the U.S. economy. To combat this, President Nixon kicked off "Project Independence" which through use of Alaskan oil, synthetic fuels, nuclear energy, and so forth, would make the United States energy independent by 1980. President Ford continued pushing the project, though he reset the year we would achieve energy independence to 1985. However, the oil embargo ended so the drive for freedom from foreign oil became less urgent.
When the Iranian revolution began in late 1978, oil prices again shot up and supplies were restricted. President Carter's answer was to propose a $142 billion energy initiative which would achieve U.S. energy independence by 1990. As part of this plan the Synthetic Fuels Corporation was created. It was supposed to produce 500,000 barrels of synthetic fuel a day by 1987, and 2.5 billion by 1990. However, by July 1985 after spending $1.2 billion dollars on synfuel projects, it was found that less than 2 percent of the expected target for 1987 would be met. This led to the abolishment of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation in 1986 by President Reagan. Once again, due to the fact that there was cheap and plentiful oil available throughout the 1980's, government investment in developing and producing synthetic fuel simply made no economic sense.
I am not trying to say that reducing energy dependence through use of synthetic fuels was not a worthwhile or laudable goal. But it could only happen when the technology was such that it could be done for cheaper then what it cost to buy a barrel of oil. Nixon, Ford, and Carter were right in a sense to propose the idea. In turn, Reagan was right to end the project, not because he wished the country to remain dependent on foreigh oil, but because the timing and economics of the day made it unviable.
Given the price of oil today, extracting and producing oil from tar sands and converting coal to gasoline are certainly more economically viable then say 10 years ago. But there are environmental concerns with these technologies that would run up against the other issue of the day, global warming.
Energy independence...an idea who's time may finally have arrived...but it still isn't going to be cheap.
I've seen Jimmy Carter blamed for 'killing the nuclear industry with his regulations.' But he has been out of office for nearly 30 years, and any of his successors could have repealed those regulations. I think that in general, politically-motivated people like to assign 'blame' for complex, ongoing processes to individuals they dislike, even though this doesn't make sense when you look closer at history.
Does anyone think that the Saudi’s may have had some effect on US energy policy? They still hold the sword of being able to profitably pomp oil at less than $5 per barrel.
Carter tried to restrain American excess but the militarists and hyper wealthy got Regan the actor into office and we went back to business as usual. The Saudi’s cheered and resumed control of the world’s energy policies.
I don't hate the man, but I do consider him a poor President and a poor Ex-President. His economic policies were a disaster. His foreign policy was a disaster. And, he has broken Presidential protocol by publicly criticizing a sitting President.
Well said. While he was a poor President he certainly doesn't make my "blood boil." He just wasn't that kind of President. He wasn't significant enough.
Especially compared to how certain republican presidents cause those on the left to seeth I would say I have a pretty tepid response to ole Jimmy.
so much? If you're a right-wing Jimmy Carter hater, what is it about the man, his presidency, or Habitat for Humanity that makes your blood boil into a seething cauldron of raw malevolence? Why do you, in all likelihood, consider him to be "history's worst president?"
I don't see anything written about him that makes anyones "blood boil into a sheething cauldron..." so my first question is where you got that conclusion?
I don't consider him histories worst president, but he was not a good president for some of the reasons already listed - particularly in his handling of foreign affairs. His legacy as president, fairly or unfairly, is tainted by the Iranian hostage situation.
He is mostly irrelevant now but he's made a few strange statements and analysis in the last 20 years or so on foreign affairs issues (the palestinian conflict, etc) - probably the last issues that he can credibaly debate with his polical record as it is. It's done nothing for his legacy.
He HAS done some good with his Habitat for Humanity work, he should stick with that. He seems to be a good man, just wish at this point he'd keep his mouth shut and his foot out of it.
so much? If you're a right-wing Jimmy Carter hater, what is it about the man, his presidency, or Habitat for Humanity that makes your blood boil into a seething cauldron of raw malevolence? Why do you, in all likelihood, consider him to be "history's worst president?"
Well, I actually supported Carter during his Presidency although I was only 11 at the time.
Firstly, his Presidency was a failure. He was a good man who did not understand how Washington worked and was notoriously indecisive. Was he history's worst? I tend to doubt that. Nixon or LBJ would get my vote for that.
Secondly, with regards to Habit for Humanity, I have never heard any criticism of that. I suppose there is some, but I have no problem with it.
I think the main thrust of criticism is that he has set up a "Presidency in Exile" of sorts. He is no longer an elected official, yet yields sometimes enormous influence on the world stage. This can be damaging as when North Korea sold him a bill of goods on his mission there. A mission that he had no right to take. I think he should stick to monitoring elections or other roles in which he has been invited. Alan Greenspan is seemingly guilty of something similiar.
Carter had his chance and it did not work out. The voters cast him out and that is that. Does not make him a bad person. Just a bad President.
Carter told us what was actually happening and it troubled us. Regan lied and made us feel good. No wonder some people hate Carter and love Regan. Kind of like a happy cheerful father telling how good things are while he is drinking the family into bankruptcy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
