One other thing...

Oil companies, using new technology have found vast oil reserves that they didn't know existed 20 years ago.

So why the hell don't we go get it?

Instead of theorizing about whether or not gas prices will go down...why don't we put people to work with high paying oil company jobs and go get the damn oil and find out in REAL life if gas prices will go down?

Instead all we are seeing is theorizing and negativity and doom and gloom.

How about we just do it and find out for real?

I had four other candidates in my absentee ballot that I got to choose from besides these two clowns that most of you are spewing about.

Someone from the Green Party (I would cut my arms off to prevent myself from voting before ever voting for the Green Party.)

Someone from the Constitution Party (Virgil Goode)

Someone from the Socialism and Liberation Party (Peta Lindsay. Most of you are clueless who she is or someone would have mentioned there is another black candidate on the ballot)

Finally the Libertarian Party.

My choices sucked so I was thinking of using the write in space. In the end I decided my vote of protest would better be served voting for one of the candidates on the ballot. But I can tell you it was neither of the two idiots that were in the debate.

One of our biggest exports is gas and you dont see the price going down. Its traded on the open market, as the chinese keep trading in their bicycles for cars its going to keep going up.
We need to get off these old ass technology.

I read somewhere the green party candidate got arrested at the debate last night.I think the bar is too high for them to get in.

I didn't say anything about exporting anything.

I said PRODUCTION and it's effect on speculators in the oil market.

And why don't we just let the oil companies hire a bunch of new people with high paying oil jobs and go get that oil and see what happens?
The worst thing is that more people get high paying jobs and lift the economy.

The best thing would be gas prices coming down, oil independence, and the price of EVERYTHING coming down as the costs of transporting it from place to place drops.

So why not just go get it? It's insane not to.

We dont have that much oil, you wouldnt create enough jobs and its not an open ended resource. Why not focus on the future and creating jobs for that? Also it will not drop the price that's a fact its the open market.

It would be a true story film. You know what they say. The truth is stranger than fiction.


State Department denies concluding film sparked consulate attack in Libya

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz29azv0N67


"One of the Americans killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya Tuesday told ABC News before his death that he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-d...ry?id=17229037

Did Obama have a plan in 2008? I honestly do not remember.

Sounds EXACTLY like every candidate ever.

I'm not sure if we should say he failed. He sure did make some big promises, and he sure did fail on some of those promises. The deficit comes to mind. But it's easy to say one thing and then it's another thing to do it.

I wonder if we should do that - a ten year one term president. This way the president isn't spending time campaining or worrying about it.

Why should the oil companies change anything? They are pulling in billion dollar profits.

They did. If I read the article correctly, they demanded they be allowed access AND to participate.

I didn't know this really... For the Presidential debates you have to be expected to get at least 15% of the popular vote before they will consider letting you participate.

Kind of sucky, but it has to be done like this. If not, everyone and their mother will open up their own party and demand to be on stage. Fuck, Rosanne Barr is running.

You keep saying all of this as if it's "fact". Not enough jobs, etc.

The oil companies say differently. They have found vast new reserves. But you are just denying it. It's not me saying it...it's the experts saying it. You don't have a clue what their top experts do.

And you say it won't drop the price and that's another "fact"? What school of economics does that come from?

And even if you think that...then what are you so scared of? Let's go get that oil and find out in REAL life. Not your theories or "facts"...let's just go get it and see what happens.
The oil companies want to go after it. They say it's there. The laws of supply and demand say it WILL drop market prices.
Why would you or anybody be AGAINST going after it and finding out?

It's the open market but it won't drop prices?

If it was a fixed market, you would have an argument. Acknowledging that it is an open market and stating an increase in supply will not impact prices in the same sentence is rather… bizarre.

Robert:O

I posted the same two links together in a discussion I was having on facebook about 30 minutes ago. They disappeared. Seems someone is trying to keep this hush hush. Just posted again so lets see what happens.

Price is NOT set based on availability. OPEC could pump out enough oil to flood the market and drop gas to 50 cents a gallon if they wanted to... they don't. Instead they set a price and then won't sell below that price. That is why 'dependence on foreign oil' is a bad thing. Here in the United States, when Exxon pumps a barrel of oil, they don't charge based on what it cost them with a markup... they get 'as much as they can for it' on the open market. That is why 'speculators' who gamble on the commodities market can also directly affect the price of oil artificially and make gas prices higher than the supply of oil would normally dictate.

Gas prices have NOTHING to do with 'oil availability.' Price is a function of what the market will pay, not a function of 'how much oil is available.' It's always fun when people decide pure unregulated capitalism is the way to go with essential products and services like oil or health care. Easier access to oil and more drilling means more money... how much of that money becomes lower gas prices and how much of that money becomes more oil company profit is almost entirely up to oil companies. :2 cents:

I had read a while back part of it is also determined by their ability to refine it into gas. They can drill and pump all the oil they want they still have to refine it and getting a new permit then building more refineries is such an expensive ordeal they haven't built any new refineries since 1975.

To me the bottom line is that gas is this price because that is the price the gas company wants to sell it for. They could sell it for a lot less and still make huge profits, but why should they? We have shown that they can jack the price up and while we will complain we will still line up at the pump to buy it.

Oil production is up, the oil companies are making huge profits, and gas is nearly as expensive as it was during Bush's administration.

The oil companies don't want more oil. They don't want to change a thing. Why would they? Billion dollar profits.

No wonder why we don't have electric cars.

This +1000

The top 10 Obama Lies... :disgust


10. "I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I?d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have." President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact--such as the temporary payroll tax holiday--were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare "penalty," and his taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" would hit small businesess.

9. "...[H]e was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver....And he said, yes, I think that?s fair." Obama was referring to Romney's recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already--a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.

8. "He called the Arizona law a model for the nation." Obama tried to knock Romney's immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law--the requirement of instant verification of workers' legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole--which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants' documentation--but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.

7. "I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here." For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he was not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer--much longer--than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night's debate--and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.

6. "They rely on it for mammograms." Obama attacked Romney's proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It's been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it's just untrue--and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama's misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women--a cheap shot to which Romney was given no chance to respond.

5. "You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it." We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it--because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S.--and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.

4. "And the production is up....What you?re saying is just not true." Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right--exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama's claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.

3. "In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?" The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: "Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience."

2. "He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open." After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama's retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business--a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

1. "He did call it an act of terror." The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley's intervention in favor of Obama caused the president's cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong--Obama's reference to "acts of terror" in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn't long before she walked back her own comment.

Wrong. Oil prices are set by market speculators. Opec can manipulate prices by how much oil they deliberately produce or not produce. That is the reason for the existence of Opec. They have agreements amongst the members to NOT flood the market so they can keep prices high.

IF we were to flood the market with our own oil...prices will drop. It's simple supply and demand economics.

Again...a barrel of oil is controlled by speculators in the market place. What they trade on the market for it is the price it goes for on the market.
The oil companies only make "huge profits" because of the vast amount of oil used. The actual percentage of their profit is very small...one of the smallest in any major business.
(of course, when the liberals talk about percentages VS actual dollars...they only think that percentage counts on tax returns...not profit)

So yeah...the oil companies have a lot of reasons to want to produce more oil. And the MARKET will respond to supply and demand economics. The oil companies will make bigger profits from more oil being sold and gasoline prices will come down.

None of the twisted economic theories that some of y'all are trying to spin into this are valid. Supply and Demand always works.

Robbie, I use to think the same way, but when I seen how much OIL we exported, and the price is still high, I was like dang.

If we were a Closed marked, did not Import or export oil, then yes. Energy independent I guess it is called! We can pump as much oil as we want, but it will just get sold to other countries and Opec will reduce the amount they produce, thus keeping oil prices high.
Why do we import oil when we export oil??? Heck shipping prices alone must suck.
I did hear someone say one is crude oil and one is something like light sweet oil or something... Anyway!!!

One reason you will see us as a major oil importer is because we refine most of the world's oil. Not many countries have the oil refining capabilities that we do. So when you look at the United States importing oil, that needs to be considered.

Then why is Romney telling us about how oil production is down and the cost of gas is up and blaming it on Obama when both are not true?

Damn. I picked the wrong poll option. Sorry about that.

http://i46.tinypic.com/rwt7cm.png

Ok..... Yeah I did know that, but I was also meaning barrels a day we USE, and we still ship out oil.

One thing for Robbie is also we can NOT produce enough oil to Flood the market.... Otherwise then maybe, supply and demand would work.

They said natural gas in the USA, we had so much of it, that all the storage places were full because of a Mild winter. While natural gas prices were down, not like you think they would be!!

He said Oil Production on Federal Land is Down.
Private land oil production is up!

Why would exxon and mobil and bp want to do that? What benefit is there to them? These arent gov owned companies,if mobil drills in your backyard its not USA oil its mobil oil they can do with whatever they want.They paid for the permit to drill there, they took the gamble. Also you dont seem to understand demand is up all over the world by countries with alot more people than us who have no problem paying alot more for gas.
This is the freemarket at its best. Most love the free market until it affects them.

no these arent lies these are right wing talking points . Candy didnt walk it back , you can see with your own eyes.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...wley-wa/190691 the last video.

He didn't say that. He said oil production on FEDERAL lands is down. And it is. Obama has made sure of that.

It's UP on private lands and state lands. Not up enough to flood the market and bring prices way down.

I'm telling you...the U.S. is a big player. If we so much as hinted that we were going to flood the market with our own oil production...prices will go down.

It's the market. And it works on supply and demand. Obama wants to push forward on Green Energy. And the only way to really make that happen is to force the world to stop using oil.

But as noble as that sounds...what it does in the meantime is drive the cost of everything up. Meaning that people are paying more for food and clothing for example. Not very helpful for the poor people is it? Or the middle class people who are struggling.

Rich people don't give a shit how much gas costs. This is affecting the very people Obama professes to want to "help"
They would be better off if he would stop "helping" and get the fuck out of the way and let the oil companies go to work (which will produce jobs and yes...cheaper gasoline)

Tony you just proved my point...

Yes demand is up. So your solution is to keep supply LOWER than it could be?

No matter how you cut it..when supply goes up...price goes down.

And why should you or Obama give a shit? Let them drill and let's see for ourselves what happens. At least it would give some people some very high paying jobs in this fucked up economy.

And the market doesn't work the way you are describing it. If the market is flooded with oil...the price goes down. That's how it works.

You dont seem to understand they dont want to drill. They are sitting on permits. I really dont give a shit either way to be honest. But people are living in this fantasy that if we start drilling gas is going to be 50 cents they are kidding themselves. You are a successful business owner why would you incur a cost to drive your price down? Think about it as Robbie the business owner not Robbie the guy going Jesus fucking Christ after he fills his car up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...rop-gas-price/
"A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March.

Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them -- whether Republican claims now or Democrats' charges four years ago -- is not supported by cold, hard figures. And that's especially true about oil drilling in the U.S. More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.

That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline."

Just in case you say cbs they are liberal
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...asoline-prices

"The U.S. is currently producing 6.6 million barrels of crude oil daily, compared with 5 million when Obama took office. The last time the U.S. was pumping this much oil was in May 1995, when the national average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.17. Today, it?s $3.81. The difference is the price of a barrel of oil. In 1995, a barrel of oil was $19. Today, it is around $92."

That's because we haven't been producing enough over the last 36 years.

And as for "Robbie the business man" I already pointed out that oil companies make a tiny percentage of profit. So the MORE they produce the MORE money they make.

That is why they are working so hard to get those permits and to drill. They aren't "sitting" on them. Where there IS oil and they have permits...they are drilling for it.

IF we drill and we flood the international market with oil...the price will go down. You can look up silly "analysis" of our country over 36 years (which would be 1976 in the middle of the OPEC oil crisis) and realize that the U.S. wasn't producing enough during the last 36 years to affect the world market.

THAT just proves my point. If we drilled and increased supply worldwide...prices will go down.

Tony, guys who are a lot smarter and a LOT richer than you and I that are experts in the oil business are the ones you should listen to. Not some guy making an analysis that I could have told you myself: If the U.S. hasn't been producing much oil..then of COURSE we couldn't affect the price of gas.
Let us flood the market then we will affect it.

And again...why is Obama (or you) so against it?

I think Romney nailed him perfectly when he looked at him in the debate and said: "Why in the world wouldn't you let the Keystone Pipeline be built?"
I thought the exact same thing when he blocked it.

It stopped jobs from being created and was just a dumb thing to do.

Obama's answer? "we have enough pipelines to go around the world 5 times"
WTF??? That is NO answer at all.

Oops!
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...esults-2012-10

"Republican nominee Mitt Romney took his biggest lead yet in today's Gallup daily tracking poll, expanding his lead over President Barack Obama to an astounding 6 points among likely voters."

After the election, when Obama wins, we really need to bump all these posts that keep predicting a Romney win. It'll be so funny.

Keep in mind..that can work both ways.

Yes, it can. I realize, but I'm talking about the contradiction between all these polls and the electoral count sites too. When the final results are in, we'll see how well these polls were at predicting.

Are there any Republican sites or famous talking heads that predict Romney WILL win? Not those who say Romney "could" win but actually predicting he will take it? I've heard a few saying Obama will win.

I don't know of any. I believe that it's a lot closer than any democrat wants to admit.

But why does Romney keep pointing out that oil production on Federal Land - Oil production is up over all, oil imports are down, and according to you the President has no control over the market.

Oil speculation on the futures market where they buy and sell delivery contracts keeps the oil prices high. Blame Wall Street in my opinion.

Oil is bought and sold around the world in American dollars, the high price of oil keeps the US dollar alive. Iraq started selling oil not using US dollars they got invaded. Libya started selling oil without US dollars and Gadaffi got wacked. Now China and Russia are starting to sell oil without US dollars marginalizing the global currency monopoly USA has enjoyed for a long time. You think oil is expensive now, just wait till the US dollar is worthless.

and both parties are responsible for this, so save me the left / right sermons

After losing 1/3 of my IRA just after the recession hit, It is now worth more then ever.

The economy is growing again.

My gut feeling is Romney will win the popular vote and lose the election.
Obama has a lead in key swing states. Romney is surging nationally but losing California by 2% instead of 11% only affects the popular vote, not the electoral college result.

More polls to watch daily.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/

The reason he keeps talking about the oil production on Federal land is to rebut Obama for taking credit for oil production being up in America. Obama has DECREASED permits and production is DOWN for the areas that Obama has control over.

And you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the President has no "control over the market". To the contrary...I've said over and over that IF the United States were to even hint that we were going to pursue an energy policy that will effectively increase supply on the global market...then we would see the price of a barrel of oil plummet. And gas prices along with it.

But oil production is up.

This is nothing more than politics. Romney is taking the truth and distorting it to make Obama look bad. Oil production on federal land is down. Oil production over all is up and oil imports are down - win win win. Yet Romney is trying to make it look bad.

And there is nothing I hate more than when someone takes the truth and twists it into something it's not.

cant view the results :1orglaugh Obama must of won