Obama: Tap U.S. oil reserves to lower gas prices

Where does McCain stand on the issue?

John this will be new production, which I believe is not a part of the strategic reserve.

Someone should have told Clinton that nothing is a quick fix fifteen years ago. If that bad mistake had approved drilling and research for alternatives at that time we would not have this problem today. Its interesting that he said McCain was wrong but a month ago when McCain spoke out for off shore drilling. This man is a bigger flip-flopper than anyone we have seen. His thoughts (or lack thereof on tapping our oil reserve is idiotic and shows that lack of his depth on this (and many other) subjects.

The US has *3%* of the world's oil supply. Why is it so hard for people to understand that we couldn't have, or can't now, drill our way out of this problem. Had we simply increased milage standard on autos by 1mpg per year, starting 15 years ago, we would have saved many times more oil than we could ever get out of drilling offshore and in ANWR. Yes, Obama is willing to compromise, it's not a "flip flop" like McCain's stance on offshore drilling.

Is it me or does he have any power to open the reserves any how .I didn't think so.

Bry counter this..

We hear every day from people who say that we cannot drill our way out of high oil prices. They say there is not enough oil to go around. They say that OPEC will merely reduce their output. They say that increasing demands from emerging markets are going to swallow up the rest of our oil in the next 50 years. In fact, this is just a politically motivated misrepresentation of the truth.

Let's begin with a figure, 20 million. That's how many barrels of oil the U.S. consumes in a day. Now let's move to a small, readily available source of oil: The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). So how much oil is in ANWR? I've done extensive studies and yet the range is still fairly large between the low and high estimates. Given recent advances in oil extraction, we'll tip to the high end (which I've seen agreed upon at some environmental sites) and guess that there are about 10 billion barrels of oil that can be extracted at ANWR.

Vinay Jain, a spokesperson for the National Wildlife Federation, is quoted by EcoWorld as saying, "The amount of oil in the refuge is marginal at best. It is not going to make a difference. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is symbolic of a larger effort. It's about getting into one protected area and using the momentum to get into another."

Forgetting the slippery slope garbage, on the surface of it, his dismissive statements regarding the totality of oil available in ANWR seem to make sense. After all, if you divide the 10 billion barrels in ANWR by the 20 million barrels we use every day, we'd only have enough fuel for 500 days. Hardly seems worth the effort, huh? Less than two years?

But that is pumping all the oil out in 500 days, which is not the way things work in the real world. What if the oil is pumped out in the usual manner? What if ANWR produces 1.5 million barrels a day? Now the equation is different. Now ANWR is producing 7.5% of our oil needs for the next 20 years.

That is, in fact, a huge amount of new oil coming on the market and a dramatic reduction in the amount of foreign oil we would be using. Now consider this. ANWR is a mere fraction of what is available.

Off-shore and Rocky Mountains has oil too. So how much oil is there? Republicans recently (second week of June, 2008) attempted to lift the ban against oil exploration between 50 and 200 miles off the U.S. shores. Most offshore exploration has been banned since 1981, and Democrats managed to stop this most recent attempt to open this area to drilling. Estimates say that there are 420 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas (remember your last heating bill?) and 86 billion barrels of oil that could be mined off our shores.

This could supply some 11.8 million barrels of oil a day, or 59% of our oil needs, for the next twenty years. For those of you keeping score at home, combining the offshore totals with the ANWR totals and the amount of oil we already produce means that we would need ZERO foreign oil over the next 20 years if these sources were opened. And we haven't even talked about the Rocky Mountains yet.

On May 14th, 2008, The Senate Appropriations Committee defeated Republican Senator Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. Estimates are that there are 800 billion barrels of oil ready to be extracted from oil shale. That's three times more than the rosy estimates of Saudi Arabia's current oil reserves. If you extract the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day, that will last us 110 years.

You may have heard people say that shale extraction was too expensive. In fact, at one time, people were saying that oil would have to go to $30 a barrel for shale extraction to be worth it. Ooops. With oil at over $120 per barrel, I think it might be worth it now. What is really behind the idea that "we can't drill our way out of it".

Sadly, as is often the case, the truth is not as important as a goal. Those who say that there is not enough oil out there are simply feeding us false information to make sure we buy their eco-agenda. It's all about the idea of anthropogenic global warming and gaining more control over a world economy.

It certainly isn't about oil reserves. The oil reserves are out there. They just won't let us at them. So the next time someone is dismissive about the idea that we can "drill our way out of it", just remember these figures

matthew_dyar Nice information would you object if I was to copy this to a word document for future reference?

The amount of proven natural gas off of the lower 48 states is 150+ million billion cubic feet and it has been known for over 40 years. see http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas?natural_gas/analysis_publications/natural_gas_1998_issues_trends/pdf/chaption

ANWR see http://www.anwr.org/case.htm good information and makes a convincing case.
But think about this. Last year Russia placed their flag on the sea floor under the North Pole. They claimed the oil and other natural resources as theirs. Based on a underwater mountain range that extended from their land mass. If we do not do anything, in thirty years there my not be any crude oil left to drill for. see http://www.countercurrents.org/penkeith030807.htm

Colorado oil shale, for a current first hand look and explanation of the different methods and problems involved. see http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/Oilshale.html

Here is the main reason not to tap the oil reserves. Later this year Thunder Horse(BP & XOM) is coming on line. The worlds largest oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico cost over $1.5 billion and taking over 6 years to build. It can pump up to 250,000 barrels of crude oil a day, plus natural gas. see YAHOO - Thunder Horse oil rig

And yes we need to develop economical and environmentally friendly alternative energy sources. IMO a National Energy Policy that looks forward to the next century and not the next election cycle, is the most important. Proactive energy polices NOT reactive politicians.

A very good and convincing post with a lot of info. If everything is about 100% accurate if we started drilling and extensive procedures to find alternative methods we would be in great condition now and in 20 years. People in the US should stop driving so much as well. I go through a tank of gas in 3 weeks and that is my goal and what I stick to. If everyone else could do around the same we would not be using the 20 million a day.

I think if we could start drilling and the gov. could help lower prices, maybe they could alot how much of US gas each household could have at a certain lower price and then after that amount have the price increase. Businesses would have to be a different thing because some businesses depend on driving and going place to place, but as far as households hopefully it would decrease the amounts used.

Why should the citizenry give the automakers a $1,000 just because they haven't figured out how to do business. Both Honda and Toyota are doing business just fine and haven't recorded the kind of losses that their american counterparts have because they learned a long time ago what consumers want. Its just taken our car companies a little too long and they are suffering as a result.

danielle,

They should be subsidized because it our governments over regulation that keeps them from being competitive. A lot of the regulation has to do with pollution. We are cleaner already than other countries in manufacturing. Do you just want to have the pollution in China and Japan so we feel better about "the planet?" Go to China and look at the pollution--you can hardly breathe.

If we want the regulations as a nation then we need to subsidize our industries (like autobus etc. in Europe/Asia) or we will soon have all our jobs exported to countries who don't mind polluting and letting us pay for it.

Many of these countries we are helping out, especially in oil, are our sworn enemies!

Perhaps Dan should look up the spelling of "word". It's not "work windfall" it's word....spell check works just as good as hooked on phonics.

Are you people serious... he makes a great point here, but you people don't have a clue what it is!

Thanks for catching the spelling error lilegend. Your are correct. Spellcheck does work, and I did use it, however work is also a legitimate word and spellcheck did not come up with an error for it. Will take the blame for the error however. To Danielle- my comment about the citizenry paying the auto industry was made tongue in cheek. I know that will never happen, I was just pointing out the absurdity of having the oil companies giving their profits to the public.

The foriegn auto plants building autos in the U.S. are located where the states don't have closed shop laws. They don't worry about strikes or the benefits of employees. Good ole foriegn no how, no how to turn a dollar while killing the domestic companies. If the auto companies of Europe and Asia can be aided by their governments why can't you see the need for our government to keep American companies American owned and operated. Our Congress gives tax breaks to foriegn companies who drive down prices to the point the U.S. companies can't compete. We buy more world goods than any Nation because they don't allow our products in, so we keep making the Asians and Europeons rich. I believe there is global warming, but I have come to believe that no matter what we do to conserve energy and fight pollution, it will cost us too much while the world keeps polluting. Congress hasn't allowed a new refinery in years, even if we do produce more oil where will we turn it into usable fuel. For those who say we need to eliminate oil, you don't seem to realize that petrolium products are a part of almost everthing we use.

By the way, it is interesting to note that when I did the spell check on my first post, the only word that came up as being wrong was Obama. When I did the spell check on my second post, the only error that came up was spellcheck.

Toyota is down 28% from a year ago

"They should be subsidized because it our governments over regulation that keeps them from being competitive. A lot of the regulation has to do with pollution. We are cleaner already than other countries in manufacturing. Do you just want to have the pollution in China and Japan so we feel better about "the planet?" Go to China and look at the pollution--you can hardly breathe"

Ummm, Honda and other foreign designers are held to the same regulations, as they are NOT made overseas and then shipped here. A foreign car means simply that it was designed there, not built there. Honda, Toyota, Ford...all have factories to build US sold cars here in the US and in Mexico. Therefore, over-regulation does not keep them from being competitive, as any over-regulation they see is the same regulation all other companies that sell cars in the US see. They have no other excuse for their sales figures outside of poor design quality, unreliablity, and attempts to cut corners that cause low approval ratings from purchasers. Since all regulations are the same for them as the other companies, the only ones to blame are the companies themselves.
That said, we are far from being cleaner than other countries in manufacturing. You put China and Japan in the same sentence as if there is any similarity between the two countries. As of 1990, Japan has had some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world, beginning to combat pollution on a federal government level since around 1970. Japanese autos tend to be designed with environmental risks well below US standard requirements. They saw environmental problems in the past, and still do from pollution carried across islands and pollution that has not yet faded from earlier time periods, combined with high populations crammed onto some very small islands, but in the manufacturing fields, their requirements are much stricter than that of their US counterparts, along with billions more spent in research of cleaner production methods, those methods being implemented where the US is still merely in talks.

danielleb55 says:

Why should the citizenry give the automakers a $1,000 just because they haven't figured out how to do business?------------------------

Well danielle, let's turn that around...why should we TAKE $1000 from the oil companies because they have figured it out? First of all, since they DO know how to conduct business, do you really believe that they will roll over and absorb this tax? Secondly, do we really want to send the message to the world that if you do business in America and we think you make too much money, we'll just impose a tax, take it from you and redistribute it to our citizens? Not much of a drawing card, I'm afraid. You think it sucks now that jobs are going overseas, wait until entire companies start following suit.

First from someone who worked for the last 7 years at a US automaker supplier let me say the previous comments by Beckwolf are dead on. Honda Toyota Subaru etc. all comply with the exact same regulations as the Detroit big 3. Also in regard to the non closed shop states made in another comment, Toyota and Honda both are building in the US and in UAW union plants. And last time I checked Honda was still in Ohio which I believe is a closed shop state, correct me if I'm wrong on that as I live in VA.

Second - The strategic reserve should be self explanatory it is an emergency reserve to be used when there is no other supply available. Sorry Obama but speculators driving up prices does not constitute an emergency supply problem. There's no shortage of crude oil on the markets at this time.

Third - A question for the big oil companies and the people who miss the point of domestic drilling and what it could accomplish. It is true that if you buy oil from the middle east or other import your paying whatever the market price is. But Exxon and other oil giants own most of the wells they drill from here so why are they charging for gas as if they were paying $150 a barrel for all their oil. Are they paying themselves $150 a barrel for the oil they drill from their own wells?

Obama flips and McCain flops. Before long, Obama will be the Republican candidate, and McCain will be the Democratic candidate. Neither one is consistant about anything but lying.

Hey, james sharp, surely you know that Sen. McCain was long opposed to offshore drilling until he "refined" his position in order to get the GOP nomination. In June, ol' John raked in $1.1 million of campaign contributions from oil company executives, so we know who President McCain is going to look out for. (Hint: It's not the American consumer.)

Obama received money as well!

"In June, ol' John raked in $1.1 million of campaign contributions from oil company executives, so we know who President McCain is going to look out for. (Hint: It's not the American consumer.)"

And Obama raked in something like $600,000. So one received a bit more than the other, but all from the same source. Does a bit more of a payout negate Obama's now all of a sudden? Funny that Obama actually gave a speech talking about those contributions that McCain has received, since Obama has received steadily from the EXACT SAME corporations. Now if McCain would only go after Obama on corn ethanol, and the few gallons of oil it takes just to produce a single gallon of ethanol which only provides a fraction of the mileage refined gas produces. There's one of the few entities only paying out big to one candidate, and we can all see how unethically it has motivated him.

Actually, Obama has received about $390,00 from oil company employees. Why is McCain getting almost three times as much?

There's nothing wrong with changing your stance on an issue, that's what correcting mistakes is all about.

Being stubborn and standing firm on issues is far more dangerous, especially when you realize you were wrong.

The sad state of our country is a direct result of that mentality.

DSVet:

I completely agree that candidates should be open to new ideas and have the ability to change their mind based on new information. The problem I see with Obama is that the situation has not changed from that long ago when he didn't want to drill or open up the reserves.

McCain changing his mind on tax cuts from 5 years ago, I can almost see as changing opinion on new info (though i still sense pandering).

Obama changing from month to month is scary... especially when gas prices have receded recently. Extra especially when he is suggesting a temporary fix when he called out McCain for the same thing (gas tax holiday). Super especially when the strategic reserve is for supply disruption which he we do not have. And if he is all about conservation, the high prices are forcing Americans to do just that. So if he could just pick a side, i might be able to respect him.

So would you consider 8% profit reasonable?

Exxonmobil profit is 8.5% for this year. The DOW Jones average is 11.6% profit.

Ripping us off and excessive profit?????? Read the articles, not just the headlines. see
Google - Exxonmobil corporation

Lets apply some economins 101 and Business 101 to this whole Idea of a 1000 for working families paid for by windfall profits tax.

Does anyone think that if you tax a business more it will just say "OK", never mind I make less money , never mind I am less cometitive than foreign competitors, never mind I cant pay DIVIDENDS to my stock holders. Sure I'll eat that expense"

WRONG, it get passed alonmg to end users through higher costs or less Dividend payout.

Now go look at your 401, IRA, or retirement plan, Figure out just how much of it is oil/energy stock.

Ecomomics 101: Obama Pays for your Rebate by taking future income from your retirement account. That money would have earned money for years but he just gave you a 1000.00. From your own money!

OBAMA 08 "The Smoke and Mirrors Tour" pandering for votes near you soon!

All your comments are right on the money.

Has the oil profits go ,up the percentage tax has increased what we pay by up to 25 cents more per gallon. Why doesn't the gov. have a flat rate tax no matter what the price of gas rises to.

Actually, if you look at Exxon Mobil financial statements, at their web-site, their profit percentage has grown to 10%. I do not know where in the world this 8.5% or 8% number came from. And, it is nice to use a small number like 8%, when that actually translates into a number that represents the largest quarterly profit of any US company ever. So, Exxon is not just passing the price increase along to the consumer.

Example - If it costs you $100 (all costs) to make a table and you sell it for $150, you have a $50 profit. Your profit percentage is 33% (50 / 150). Now suppose your wood supplier raised his prices. You the manufacturer would pass those costs along to the consumer. So, lets say the price increase is $10, so that now it costs you $110 to make a table. If you sell it for $160, you still make a profit of $50. You are not MAKING any additional profit off of the price increase. Your profit percentage if now 31%. However, if you increase your prices to $165 instead of $160, your profit is now $55. You have a gross profit percentage of 33%, so your profit percentage is unchanged.

See Exxon's profit percentage has AT BEST stayed the same, but I believe it has increased (please see those annual reports). They are not JUST passing cost increases on to the public, they are making extra profits due to the cost increases. But to actually try to complain about that is un-American??? I think it is un-American for Exxon to be taking extra money out of ordinary people's pockets so that they can generate the largest single quarterly profit ever!!!!

AC Robertson - the Dow is DOWN over 14% for the last year and is down more than that for the year-to-date. I have no clue where you get your numbers from, but even someone not paying close attention to the stock market knows that it has NOT been going up.

Folks, these facts are easily verifiable, they are not opinion. How can we have any sort of discussion if people are pulling numbers out of their butts!

I state my references where are yours????????

You can go to exxon mobil website or just google exxon.

Dow can also be googled. (Dow was roughly 13,200 a year ago and roughly 12,800 on jan 1. It is now 11,300).

It's really not that difficult AC. You just have to WANT to know the facts, not argue opinion.

B from D, The level of the dow and stock price has nothing to do with the value or profitability of a company/country.

See 22.6 for the exact quote and author or go to http://www.Heraldtribune.com/article/20080

A C Robertson -

Okay, I read the article. And I do admit that I misunderstood you point about profit percentage. While we are admitting mistakes, you said Exxon's profit was 8.5% for the year when the article clearly states that it was only for the most recent quarter (admittedly a nitpick, but wrong anyway).

Your article mentions that Exxon turned a profit of $11.7 BILLION for the quarter on sales of $138 Billion. And, for the quarter, that represents a 8.5% profit percentage FOR THE QUARTER. However, your FACT related to the level of profit percentage for the Dow is sourced from the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. Not exactly an unbiased source for information about the oil company.

So let's dig a little deeper, shall we? The following was extracted from Exxon's annual report to shareholders for 2003, page 32 and annual report to shareholders for 2007, page 4. The amounts listed below are for year, sales, profit and profit percentage:

1999 - 184.4 BILLION - 7.9 BILLION - 4.28%
2000 - 231.8 BILLION - 17.7 BILLION - 7.64%
2001 - 212.8 BILLION - 15.3 BILLION - 7.19%
2002 - 204.5 BILLION - 11.5 BILLION - 5.62%
2003 - 237.1 BILLION - 21.5 BILLION - 9.07%
2004 - 291.3 BILLION - 25.3 BILLION - 8.69%
2005 - 359.0 BILLION - 36.1 BILLION - 10.01%
2006 - 365.5 BILLION - 39.5 BILLION - 10.81%
2007 - 390.3 BILLION - 40.6 BILLION - 10.4%

So, there are two things that jump out. First, to say that Exxon is ONLY making 8.5% is misleading, since for the last 3 years running, they have been making over 10%. Again, 8.5% is only for the second quarter of 2007. Second, there has been a TREND of steadily increasing profit and profit percentage. Thus, Exxon is NOT passing costs on to us, and keeping their dollar amount of profit steady, they are making MORE PROFIT off of hard working Americans than ever before.

But lets not end there. You say that the Dow made 11.6% profit, again, as per the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. Okay, since the Dow is made up of 30 companies, I will accept that number since I really do not have the time to check on the calculations of the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. However, the question is whether profit percentage is the only measure of whether a company is generating a poor, adequate or exceptional level of profit. Since Exxon is the largest American company, by market value, lets compare it to the second biggest company, General Electric (all information from GE's 2007 annual report to shareholders).

The following numbers are for 2007 (again, I am not up to an exhaustive research just to combat you and the American Petroleum Institute). The following numbers are for profit percentage, return on equity and return on assets:

Exxon - 10.4% profit percentage, 33.4% return on equity, and 17.2% return on assets.
General Electric - 12.86% profit %, 19.2% return on equity and 2.8% return of assets.

Now, see how in this one example Exxon has an inferior profit percentage (as you quoted the "Dow" had a better profit percentage than Exxon), BUT A SIGNIFICANTLY SUPERIOR RETURN ON EQUITY AND RETURN ON ASSETS. These are all valid measures of a companies economic performance, with one not necessarily being superior to the other. As a shareholder, it is nice to know that Exxon is generating a 33.4% return on shareholder investment (equity) while GE is only making 19.2% for their shareholders.

So the point here is that the American Petroleum Institute cherry-picked a financial ratio that would serve the purpose of their member (the oil industry). And, you picked it up as a "FACT" to serve up on the blogisphere to make your point that the poor little oil companies are being unfairly treated and need our help. THAT IS PATHETIC. So I took the time and did my own research and COMPLETELY REFUTED YOUR POINTS. Since I am not off to bed and will probably not return to this site tomorrow, I accept your apology in advance.

Boy, getting into the facts is hard work!

B and D, Yea, the figure is low. But the main reason for this was Venasuala nationalizing XOM oil assets, which was factored in. Also the Valdise punative award was factored in. But as a investor you need to look beyond just the stock prices and dividens. These are just the price paid for being a world business.

You need to look to the future events. Thunder Horse is coming on-line by the end of this year BP 75% and XOM 25% owership, the largest offshore oil platform in the world. Built at a investment of over $1.5 Billion dollars over a 6 year time frame. Next year XOM numbers are going to be even higher. But again total money figures do not mean anything, you have to look at the profit verse sales percentages and multi year averages for a company that is valued in the Millions of trillions. And the business model has to cover projects and consumer trends thirty years or more in the future. see YAHOO - Thunder Horse

If crude oil prices determine XOM and others stock prices. Then why are their stock prices only seven times higher and the crude oil price is eleven times higher. Over the last twenty years????? see YAHOO - XOM stock price & Crude oil price history

I'm glad you took the time to do the research to back up your preceptions. But again you want to quote figures with out references. It is just sad and it is hard to get the correct figures.

Stating that XOM is making huge profits is missleading and wrong. What do you think you are a reporter & politician? Ha! Ha!

Have a good day and may luck and happiness follow you, AC Robertson,Jr

AC - clearly you work for the oil industry but you are babbling about economics. It is also interesting that in your first response (your post 5.9), you chastised me for looking at stock prices rather than profits and now you are asking me to look at stock prices.

Your ORIGINAL POINT was that Exxon ONLY MADE 8.5% compared to 11.6 for the Dow. I have refuted that point by explicit data including references. Now, in response to that, you start talking about "future" events, like Thunder Horse. Stay on point .... why would you claim that Exxon made only 8.5% when they are historically closer to 10%. Why would you claim a measure of profitability that suits your argument while ignoring other measures?

You say, "you have to look at the profit verse sales percentages and multi year averages for a company" while this is exactly the data I listed for Exxon over an eight year period. Not sure how you missed that. Also the fact that Exxon's historic stock price does not have an exact correlation to the historic price of crude oil proves what point???

You keep saying I have not provided references, but I have even gone so far as to provide page references, so another empty statement.

Finally, by stating the statement Exxon"is making huge profits is missleading and wrong" you clearly show your oil industry employer's bias. When a company makes the largest profit ever in the history of the US stock market, how can you claim that profit is not huge. IT WAS THE BIGGEST EVER!

By the way, how much do you get paid to blog for the American Petroleum Institute?

B and D,

You need to read my bio, which by the way you do not have. I do not hide behind a call-sign like a fighter pilot want-to-be or some college prep. And again where are your references, anyone can call names and pull stuff out of their sphincter.

An old military saying, "You can not teach a pig TQL."

Semper Fi MSgt AC Robertson.Jr UMSC ret

Since you keep referring to my not having references and I keep telling you I provided references, I think we could move this issue forward if you simply SPECIFIED what information I provided without a reference.

Just another brilliant Obama way of weakening our countries ability to fight back in case of major attack! Then he can help his 57 States (that would be Muslim states) take over the country even easier.

Don't believe his web page that he wasn't raised Muslim. The LA Times sent a team to Indonesia. They checked in with his teachers and old friends. Seems he did go to a public school and a Catholic school BUT he was registered in both as a Muslim. He took the Koranic classes his teacher said were usually for the most religious kids. His former school buddies said he attend mosque with him and in an interview with another magazine BO said, "The sweetest sound in the world is the evening call to prayer (Muslim of course)." While he claims to be Christian the Quaran excuses lies if it is to further the cause of Islam and though he claims to be Christian, he would not denounce Islam--many ways to get to God says he. So he won't say he's not a Muslim just that he is a Christian. We have a minister here in Seattle who says she is both.

Look at his actions in his other country (dual citizenship) Kenya if you want a clue as to why he wants to weaken our country by depleting the oil reserves. Google "Obama Odinga Kenya."

Marie - do you have proof of this "investigation"? Is it something you read, if so where, b/c "news" of this magnitude surely would have made top headlines, just like the one about Bush getting caught sniffing coke about 2 months back....send the link with your proof, if there is none then you are no better than the liars out there. That goes for both McCain and Obama...people love to lie in a race such as this.

abcd, the US gets the bulk of its oil from Canada, then Mexico, then central America.

He said he would use 10% of the oil reserve, that is roughly 70million barrels. Will it have a huge impact? I doubt it. It will not have a significant impact on price or on any strategic blah blah blah.

lilegend,

Yup! This is just something I read in the LA TIMES. Check the archives. There have been other articles detailing the same information. If I find the sources I'll share. Sorry I don't have the date on the Times either, but will check my files and post it if I find it.

From:

His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.

That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends

I believe we should be drilling

I'm thinking that you should run for President. You seem to know more than the guys that are. From a distance everyone can posture themselves to be brillant and all knowing. The world stage can appear like a cake walk. From a distance you can pretend you have the knowlege to be President. That under a microscope your life would be flawless. That you never mis-spoke nor changed your mind about anything, even when circumstances change. That without flenching you could speak flawlessly before thousands of people and keep your cool when being bashed by the media. So easy from a distance to posture yourself as perfect. That you and only you have the answers. Its truely a shame you are not one of the canidates. Perfection would be pausing to watch! And that you have such a command of English that the word jackass is what you chose is quite telling!

"That you never mis-spoke nor changed your mind about anything, even when circumstances change."

I think you're jumping to conlusions and putting words in his mouth there. When people talk about Obama's daily flip-flops, we aren't talking about changing your mind as circumstances change, as McCain did with drilling off shore. We're talking about Obama saying that he's pro "policy x" when in a room full of people who support it, and then the next day being anti "policy x" when in a room full of people who DON'T support it, and then switching right back the next day if he's with the first group again. His "solutions" have been nothing more than repetitions of what the majority has called for, without him or the majority knowing how to bring that change. That's why he can't provide numbers or explanations to his proposals, he merely repeats what people think may work, but the people know what change they want without knowing exactly how to get there, so when Obama repeats their words he's stuck in the same boat as well. Thus, we have flip-flopping versus changing your mind. Oh, and people talk about Obama's misspeaks because of his immediate attacks everytime McCain slips and says one word when he meant another, and since Obama slips up almost every time he doesn't have a teleprompter to read (not stating it as a major negative against him, he's new to the type of talks he has to give in public and slip-ups are to be expected for someone in his position), the natural reaction is to prove how much of a hypocrite he has become.
Changing your mind is to change a stance as a situation changes or more information becomes available to prove that another way IS better (it's always refreshing to find better ways and to see a politician support it), flip-flopping is to ignore which way is better and just change to try and gain votes. ie: as far as the majority of changes are concerned, the difference between McCain and Obama (not that McCain hasn't conceded on a few points for votes).

mis-spoke , is a new buzz word for lying your ass off.

Beckwolf -

Two days ago you spouting that hundreds of economists, including Dems and independents, thought Obama's economic plans were terrible. Today, you are saying that his plans, which I assume include economic plans, "have been nothing more than repetitions of what the majority has called for".

Dude, just admit you hate the guy and leave it at that. Don't try to make some logical argument because your logic is so twisted, your brain must look like a pretzel. "Flip-flops v. changing your mind" ... Obama is still for energy independence, helping the common people, reducing imports and helping the economy. Not sure where the major policy shift is, but this is far less of a dramatic change than not allowing offshore drilling for oil due to environmental concerns to screw the environment, we need some oil.

scarab,

Why don't you fill us in on how things work. In order to call someone ignorant you must be a very important person or a complete fool.

scarab,

So you're saying we should just continue to use oil forever because it is responsible for many conveniences? Then you call someone else ignorant? LOL

You mean conveniences like the advanced medical equipment and supplies that have increased our life expectancy? Are those the conveniences your willing to give up, bry33? Let your surgeon know that the next life threatening illness you have you want him to use 'petroleum free' equipment. Let him know that you would rather the inconvenience of stone knives and ancient equipment. And please, let us all know so that we can come and watch. That will be real entertainment.

The wind blows him about doesn't it. In his book he already says, "If the wind blows in an unfavorable direction I will stand with the Muslims." You can check this out if you like.

Nuf Said!

No wonder he wants to deplete our reserves in case of attack.

I don't think he even knows what depleting the reserves would do. 700m barrels of oil is not a long supply and he is ok with that. However, not drilling for vast reserves as one long term solution is not ok? The simple fact is that we need oil for the forseeable future. Maybe not as much as we currently use, but it is not going away 100%. So we as a country should stop saying all the things we can not do and start developing plans for ALL energy sources and maybe in 10 years, we will be a lot more secure than we are today. If only someone had the foresight and made a decision about energy 10 years ago, we would be solving the immigration and healthcare issues today. So the argument that "it will take too long" needs to end so we can start making it happen today!

Drill here! Drill Now and Keep US Oil (largely drilled in public lands) on US soil as part of the lease agreement to oil companies wanting to lease these oil rich lands in Utah/Colorado, Montana/Wyoming/Dakotas and off shore. The on shore is quicker to market!

Just don't let oil from public lands (belongs to US which I think is us) be sold on the world market to China and Japan etc.

US OIL for US! US OIL ON US SOIL!

Marie Thomson,

Do you have a citation for the quote you attribute to Obama in 14.1? "If the wind blows in an unfavorable direction I will stand with the Muslims."

It appears to be a rewording of something he wrote in The Audacity of Hope: "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

The point of this quote is actually that Obama will not stand for violence or unconstitutional attacks of a group due to race alone.

I have tried, but failed, to locate the exact quote you mention other than on internet myth sites which demonstrate its falsehood.

With so many real statements out there to attack each of the candidates on, I wouldn't want the argument to slip into falsehood.

I agree however that all must be done to fix the energy problem including drilling to meet demands.

Obama is not "thinking' through anything. He is just making whatever promises he thinks will get him a few more points in the polls. I will repeat myself. Obama is dangerously ignorant of how things really work. He is still living in his university days where ivory tower theories are given more weight than actual real world knowledge and experience.

PS. The reason we stockpile light crude is because it refines into a larger portion of the high end fuels required by our armed forces. The stock pile is for national security not politcal votes.

Thanks, didn't need the P.S. though. Well aware of that. Makes little difference as the overall amount is slight and the conditions upon which the reserves would be released en masse appear to be only in the event of world catastrophe or a massive war with the middle east.

Just curious how far we need to get before we consider economic collapse a threat to national security. The price of gas is soaring which already impacts people's ability to get to work. Following that, the price of food is climbing and will continue to climb as transportation costs rise. Airlines are suffering and with rising inflation, less and less people are going to be able to afford to fly which should eventually cause their collapse. The auto industry which provides thousands if not millions of jobs is in rapid decline which, when they're finally laid off along with the airline workers and trucking industry workers, will flood the job market and unemployment fly which will likely cause the collapse of the unemployment and welfare systems unless taxes are raised to compensate which will take those living as middle class and push them to lower class status living just above the newly risen poverty line causing an even greater rift between the haves and the have-nots in this country.

Meanwhile all the fatcats with the cash to invest will continue set the prices of things you need to survive at a point just within what the majority can afford so as to continue to milk them for the maximum amount of cash without killing their cow.

All the while paying idiots like Limbaugh and Hannity to cheerily tell you everything's okay in the world and this is the way things should be.

Economic collapse is due to the 19 months we have had a Democrat Congress. Before they took over we had $2 gas and the rest of the economy follows the price of gas--our clothing prices go up, our food goes up. Whole industries based on sustainable and reasonable gas prices are tanking. Here in Seattle the boat industry, fishing industry, trucking industry etc. are all going down the drain because Clinton didn't sign the energy bill 8 years ago that would have allowed more oil drilling on and off shore.

Obama thinks we shouldn't eat what we want or drive where we want cause other nations won't like it if we live better than they do. Well, our ancestors and we ourselves built this nation as an heritage for ourselves and our children. We want the American dream and Obama and his "I'm a citizen of the world" not of the United States of America can go to wherever traitors go. Sick to death of his face and his foolish attempts to look like he knows what he's doing.

jesus christ marie, bush should take no blame at all?

You're kidding right? You have to be kidding.

Oil prices are going up because of the bill Clinton DID sign allowing companies to tap into the commodities market on the (then fledgling) electronic trading platform without government regulation. Fast forward to now when electronic trading is open to a vastly improved number of people all buying up commodities futures in a bid to get rich and pushing up the perceived value (and therefore the price) of said commodities.

If all our troubles are due to an energy bill Clinton didn't sign then why wasn't this bill that would have saved all of us reintroduced during the years we had Bush AND a republican congress?!

Good Point ! I guess we can go back and live in the past with the rest of the o followers and when the invasion starts we will have to wait and shoot when we only see the whites of their eyes....o sounds like a kid getting a party ready for sat. nite and he's tring to get the most popular kids to attend by promising whatever they would like to have...he did a good job in berlin on speaking at a intermission of a concert where he paid for food and drink. smoke and mirrors....

Don't Worry about Marie ,guys she always spouts the same boring Republican talking points blaming congress for everything, what a joke?? Its bad enough Bushs policies have ruined this country ( now please don't start complaining you right wing nuts that what I am saying is a talking point too do a little research see who donated the most to Bush's campaign then you will see where his real interests lies) ) then to blame someone else . So you saying ,Marie that Bush has had no power to veto any laws that the evil democratic congress, has sponsored, (even though congress does NOT have the majority to override any veto) that as president of the United States for almost 8 YEARS and the most powerful man in the WORLD, with the brightest economic minds in this country at his disposal and still couldn't figure out that the US heading for economic trouble ???(even though all the top economist were predicting this as well) and couldn't do anything about it??? That means if he didn't know he must have been really out of touch and just didnt give sh&t and then if HE really did know why didnt he do anythng about it then when the Republicans were a majority. Either way blaming congress is the lamest excuse I have ever heard.Like the conservatives like say take responsiblity for your own actions dont go blaming some one else for the mistakes you made, fix them.

Don't preach to me about unions. My dad worked for GM for 36 years. My grandfather and my uncle worked their whole lives for Chrysler. Unions were the only reason they earned a living wage and didn't get screwed out of their retirements. Maybe you should ask the non-union auto WORKERS how they fare.

I drive an American car (Saturn), have had zero problems, and also get great mileage.

I am in Total agreement DmadCat if it wasnt for Unions ,workers would be making even less then they are now. Companies went overseas simply becasue they could, are you going to pay ANY american worker 50 cents an hour ??I drive a Saturn too have for 8 years and it works great. I am in a Union member of IATSE and thank god I am able to get decent health care because of it. a rarity now in America.

Here here,thank u. Unions have made America stronger.

Do not claim a 40 work week as a UNION get. Henry Ford gave it... To keep production 24 hours a day. Unions didn't "get it". As far as Unions getting people a living wage...maybe overseas..that where the job went when it was overpriced here. Charge what the market will bear, UAW has been above that for a long time. Compainies, like consumers, want the most for their dollars. If I can get three employees over there for the same as one here, guess what, I'm getting three. Union preach that they give jopb security. No they don't, not to American workers anyway. The UAW asked for a raise earlier this year and demanded job security in the same breath. They went on strike for it. What???? Cut the throat of the people paying your wage.LOL Stupid Unions don't understand at all. If you don't like the wage of the place you are at, GO somewhere else. If the place you left need more employees, it will raise its wages voluntarily. If it goes somewhere else to get them, it would have even if the Union had asked for a raise. Don't just give the Unions a pass. They are at fault here too.

I agree that the unions have been necessary to provide working Americans a living wage through the years. Those of you in the unions now, I wonder if you think that unions have priced you workers out of the international market with their constant demands for higher wages. Better to have less pay and a job or no pay with no job? Just wondering how you feel about this as the American automobile industry self-destructs under the weight of high wages and pension costs not to mention government EPA regulations.

What do you recommend? Some jobs at lower pay? No jobs at all? Government regulations on pollution etc. that also cost jobs because we aren't competitive.

Here we are, one of the cleanest of all manufacturers in the world and the environmentalists are chiefly the ones sending jobs overseas with over regulation. Does it make us feel any better when we buy cars built by non-union laborers abroad polluting along at a much worse rate than the US. We don't see the pollution so it's ok?

After talks broke off just before midnight Friday, union negotiator Jim Young said the mechanics would rather see the airline go into bankruptcy than agree to Northwest's terms. The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association represents 4,427 mechanics, cleaners and custodians, about 11 percent of Northwest's 40,000 employees. The mechanics average about $70,000 a year in pay, and the cleaners and custodians can make around $40,000.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166282,00.html

St. Paul, Minn. — The mechanics' union says 72 percent of the members who cast ballots voted to accept the settlement. Now the strikers have to make a choice. They can resign from Northwest and get ten weeks' pay. Or they can get five weeks' pay and go on a recall list for jobs as they open up at Northwest. "There are people who know there is no possible way they can work next to a scab. They know that. And I anticipate those people will move on."
- Union leader Jeff MathewsUniversity of Minnesota professor John Budd says there's little question Northwest won the battle. "Northwest was able to fly through the strike with very little disruption and was able to achieve everything it was looking for,'' says Budd. "Probably more easily than it thought it would be able to. It's pretty clear the airline won and the union lost." But union leader Jeff Mathews says the strike did bloody Northwest. "It's had a huge toll on the company also," says Mathews. "They spent large sums of money preparing for the strike. They had to downsize when the strike happened and then they went bankrupt. It's not to say we won the strike. But it sure wouldn't be accurate to say we were defeated either." The union went on strike in August of last year to protest Northwest's demand for a 25 percent cut in wages, and other givebacks. Mathews says some mechanics will return to Northwest because they love working on planes. But he says many will never return because they can't stomach working alongside people who crossed picket lines. "It will be a very difficult decision and very difficult thing for a lot of people to work with the scabs," says Mathews. "They have to decide before they go back there that they can do it. There are people who know there is no possible way they can work next to a scab. They know that. And I anticipate those people will move on." About 4,000 mechanics and cleaners walked off their jobs in August of last year. Northwest responded by sending their work to outside vendors or hiring replacement workers. About 1,600 strikers subsequently resigned or retired from Northwest -- or crossed picket lines to return to work. Paul Volker is one of the mechanics who walked and stayed on strike. In the past year, he's helped develop one business, an online service that helps divorced couples with children communicate and coordinate their lives. Now, he's working on starting up another business. Volker says he's glad to see some closure in the battle between Northwest and its mechanics. "I was looking forward to it being accepted,'' he says. "It's nice to see there's not going to be another Hormel, where it is open-ended. Hopefully, those who have chosen to move on will do well. And anyone with the opportunity to go back can." In 1985, 1,400 Hormel workers in Austin, Minn., took on the meat-packing giant -- without the backing of their union's national headquarters. Many financially exhausted workers eventually crossed picket lines to join replacements hired by Hormel. But some union members never accepted defeat. Northwest now has about 900 mechanics on its payroll and even fewer cleaners and custodians. With cuts imposed by Northwest, the top pay for a mechanic at the airline has fallen to about $55,000 a year. Northwest has now reached agreements on pay and benefit cuts with all of its labor groups except the flight attendants. They are still negotiating, but working under terms the airline imposed.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/11/06/nwamechanics/ Yeah, Union. Backrupted the company,and still don't have jobs. Plenty of people willing to do the work. For less and happy to do so. Unions get in the way and price the American worker out of a job. Poverty is what we got with unions. They cause the companies to increase the price of the product. It's been proven. Look around, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND! This country would still have a strong industrial base, inflation wouldn't be near as high, if the Unions wern't greedy. And today that is all they are about, GREED! Oh, By the way. I'm self-employeed.

I guess your perspective on the unions depends on where you live and work. I'll make a few comments from the union side as I have been a union officer for the last 6 years. One question was asked if we believed that we had priced ourselves out of work. If your looking at some of the UAW plants with the big 3 in Detroit maybe so, for other industries I'd say no. I worked in a foundry and was treasurer of a USW local and my personal experience is that the companies themselves mange to effectively waste their way into these bad times. We formed a cost cutting joint venture with management in our last contract talks. In the first year following that union proposals saved the company over 2 million in operating costs after our raises. In the second year we managed to work together to achieve another $900000 in savings by eliminating wasteful processes. So if you look at where we found the waste in their processes we cut the costs by working with them far more than what our benefits and wages cost them. In my region 95% or better of our factories are union. And while national unemployment is something like 5.4% now it's 1.9% here locally. But our unions work with our employers to make the companies profitable. When it's done correctly working together instead of the old school us against them mentality. Then unions very much benefit both the workers and the companies.

Did you miss the part were I said I WAS SELF-EMPLOYEED?? Unions have never got me anything!

My husband is in the pipefitters union and his employer, who is also my dad makes a very decent living. I know from both sides of the fence about employers who have union companies and having my husband be in the union. My dad is in no way going out of business he makes a lot of money and is extremely busy. His union employees make 90,000$ per year and have many benefits such as a company van and gas card. They have great health insurance, and retirement plans. The Union members and employers have to be extremely efficient to be worth the money. Both employers and employees are able to make the money that they deserve with this type of Union. Having Unions sets a bar and standard for what that type of trade should make so even people that are non union have higher wages. Unions are responsible to set a fair yet deserving price for themselves that employers pay and still make the money that they want. Union employees have to be worth their rate otherwise Unions do not work.

ummm --the laws can be changed and there is a problem with supply . There is not enough supply to meet demand hence the big debate on whether we should open up drilling.

Our laws are not written in stone. Bush just broke them anyway and was pissed that the Constitution got in his way (it's just a godda*n piece of paper to him) and is now trying desperately to avoid investigations by using "executive privilege".

Obama is part of the legislative branch --this is where they discuss these national issues and the laws that surround them.

The gas tax wouldn't have saved you sh#t ...even IF the gas oil companies didn't take the difference and keep the extra money for themselves.

You are incorrect. We have no shortage of supply. Do you see any rationing or "gas lines?" OK, so if Obama wants to release the reserves, he needs to get back to Washington and work at changing the law. Why is it wrong for Bush to break one law but right to break another? Looks like that piece of paper means nothing to either side if they think it can get them votes! You're right about the gas tax not saving us anything. Releasing the reserves will save us even less.

there is a problem with supply . There is not enough supply to meet demand hence the big debate on whether we should open up drilling

There is no problem with supply. Oil production worlwide is still increasing. The last time there was a "shortage" was due to the arab oil embargo of the 1970's.

Reducing the amount of our stategic reserves will result in a 2-3 cent drop for a period of TWO WEEKS.

And we will PAY MORE when we eventually replenish it.

The Gax tax holiday doesnt cost anything, nor are we spending money to replace staegic reserves.

By the way. If Israel decides to take out Iran's Nuclear capability, WE NEED THOSE RESERVES, because gas will be 12.00 a gallon overnight.

Another "grand plan" by Obama, sound good in a soundbite, just ignor the facts.

OBAMA 08 "the Smoke and Mirrors Tour" pandering for votes near you!!!

We don't need to be in dire straits to call it a supply shortage. A shortage is the difference between the amount demanded for a product or service and the amount supplied in the market.

if Obama wants to release the reserves, he needs to get back to Washington and work at changing the law.

Who said he was going to break the law? This would be the beginning of the process...discussing our options, a concept that has eluded some people.

Reducing the amount of our strategic reserves will result in a 2-3 cent drop for a period of TWO WEEKS.

And we will PAY MORE when we eventually replenish it.

I agree we shouldn't touch the reserves --for the very reasons you state.

The Gax tax holiday doesn't cost anything, nor are we spending money to replace staegic reserves.

I disagree here though. Our infrastructure is already in bad shape. These taxes help fund repairs and new projects. Therefore it does cost and imo it's not a wise idea to fore go funding earmarked for road and bridge repairs.

Your oil??? Once the oil company pays the federal government 45% in taxes for every barrel they pump out of the ground it is theirs to sell to anyone they want.

The oil companies take billions in corporate welfare and their product is supported with our tax dollars in lots of other ways as well. Not too mention they still owe billions in royalty payments to the government (and therefore the taxpayers) for drilling on public lands...YEP It's ours alright.

Oil companies not paying royalties should be taken to court immediately as they are so profitable the country should share since it is oil on public lands. Also leases should be renegotiated to force the US oil to stay here in the US until the price can be supported at $2 or less. This is in the national interest!

Not going to happen, we live under capitalism not Communism. The oil companies are the government, or should I say, run our government along with the rest of the corporations. can you say make money money.

Could you give the reference for the amount of royalties owed to the USA by the oil companies????

The only thing I have found that was current. "2 Democrats back off on fixing $10 Billion flaw in oil deals." Mentioned the money was lost due to government error, dated 16Apr07.

This is not the companies fault, look at you congress again. Great job guys...Ha! Ha!
see Yahoo - oil royalties owed to the USA

You may be missing something in your theory. A fundamental aspect about economics.

The thing that will drive oil prices down?

Is someone willing to sell for lower.

OPEC is a cartel that controls the price of oil by collusively determining output. It's a fixed game in other words. And their power comes from the fact that ALL major oil producers are part of OPEC pretty much. This allows them to fix prices, which they do, and which is why the cartel was created in the first place.

All it would take is an oil producing country to break free of the cartel, increase output, and sell for less, and what happens is the price will drop across the board if the breakaway producer has enough oil.

It's somewhat similar to how the stock market works. Somebody wanting to break away and sell, and willing to sell for less. He can drop the price of the stock he's selling if he has enough stock.

The United States, if it can produce enough oil, can sell for lower and thus drop prices.

Maybe if Iraq's reconstruction went much smoother the new government would have picked being friends with us over opec, thus putting a strain on opec because they would be competing with 2-3rd largest oil reserve in the world. Just a thought.

No.

We should be STEALING OIL from IRAQ which is what libbies purport that we're already doing right? I'm fricking pissed! I want to be cut in! Are only the brownshirts getting free gas?

Why buy when we can OCCUPY AND TAKE!

Hey, libs? I'm being sarcastic. OK? Text is tougher on the noggin than cartoons so it behooves me to make that clear.

Seriously Though ...

If Iraq is stabilized and rebuilt and the oil goes to the nation rather than Saddam? We would have made a friendly oil producing nation friend in the middle east. An albeit reluctant ally ... for the next fifty years or so.

Hey guys! As a matter of long standing international law (which is a misnomer--the only law in this world is who has the power) "To the Victor go the spoils." By anyone's analysis this Iraqi oil belongs to us. If Russia had just prevailed over Iraq do you think they would take the oil? Of course!

Not saying we should take it. We can hope that a stable Iraq is friendly, but when Libs say this was blood for oil they are crazy.

As Collin Powell pointed out, America has won a lot of battles (wars) and have not taken land nor treasure. All we have ever asked for is enough soil in which to bury our dead!

DRWHOO

You could also look at the other side of the coin and they could reduce production of oil to drive prices up.

DRWHOO

You could also look at the other side of the coin and they could reduce production of oil to drive prices up.

You mean OPEC I take it? To try to fight off Iraq lowering their prices I assume?

If so, this is why it won't work:

People won't buy the more expensive oil.

There.

Sure, economies of scale are involved and it's more complicated than that but that's the gist of it.

It's like this.

Walmart shakes up the Sony Walk-Men market by selling their own Wall-Man brand of Walk-Men and they sell them for 10% cheaper than anyone else.

The Walk-Men Cartel of Sony, Panasonic, and GE? Combat Walmart by reducing production and raising prices. That doesn't work!

The thing that makes a cartel a cartel is BUY IN. Every major producer must buy into the collusion or it fails.

Dr-----

ROFL..... well said. :-)

May this year Iraq was the number 6 importer of oil to the USA. Ha! Ha! LMAO

Thunder Horse BP & XOM is coming on line later this year. The largest oil platform in the world, can produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day. That should lower the world price. Ha! Ha!

Again tapping the oil reserves is just stupid.

This past week the Democrates Blocke voting on an"All of the Above " bill that would have included wind, solar, improving effecincy, increacesed production of domestic oip, and bio. But as I said the democrats blocked the vote. They would not allow a vote. Talk about manipulation!

The oil company's pay 45% taxes on every barrel they pump out of the ground.

Exxonmobil (XOM) profit this year is 8.5% compared to the Dow Jones average of 11.6%. see google - Exxonmobil corporation. Sounds like they are ripping us off to me. Ha! Ha!

AC Robertson----

regardless of whether Exxon-Mobil made 3% less in profits than the Dow-Jones, the fact remains that they MADE RECORD PROFITS for their company. You are comparing apples and origins and profit margins in one industry do not translate across all industries..... try harder.

LGMD<<<

See my post at 5.6 which totally refutes AC Robertson.

I can see all the paid Republican bloggers are out in full force today. These posts are full of easily disproved lied and misstatements. Again, just see Post #5.6. My numbers can be easily verified through "the Google".

B from D

Again I give my references, where are these numbers you refer to??? You need to take ECON 101 & 102 and maybe English. Read if you can the financials for Exxonmobil XOM and a few of the DOW industrial companies. Total numbers by dollars of profit mean nothing when you have trillions of dollars invested. Compared to business that may have a $100 million invested.

Or in terms you can understand. The route Popsicle man only made $300.00 today on his investment of $10,000.00. But the Taste-Freeze business made $2,000.00 on their $1,000,000.00 investment. Does that mean the Popsicle man should get some of their money????? LMAO

"XOM - 8.5 cents earnings per $1.00 sales. Dow Jones Industrials - 11.6 cents earnings per $1.00 sales," John Porretto AP Business Writer, 'Exxon Mobil takes heat for historic profit,' dated 1Aug08 see http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080

Have a nice day, AC Robertson,Jr

AC -

See my post at 5.10, which refutes your numbers with detailed sources. I note that you do not mention in your post that the source of your information regarding Exxon and the Dow is from the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. Nice (snow) job!

I may have to re-take "Econ 101 and 102 and maybe English", but perhaps you might want to take an ethics course!

Just as a side note - what does LMAO mean?

As for your example, it is funny that you would compare PROFITS to the amount INVESTED. Literally, that is called return on equity. And, if you see my post at 5.10, you will see that Exxon's return on equity is much than a sample (of one) from the Dow. So, you actually reinforce my point. Thanks!

See my post at #5.6 in regard to your first paragraph. If you are a CPA, you should know better.

OP isn't a CPA. OP is pretending that the complete transformation Obama has in mind isn't just turning America into a Communist.

Extremely well said!