Ralph Greene

Congrats.....I believe you do have the most recent factory installed software. We also like our Limited Edge. Maybe we should have got EB also.

I use the "sensitive" because I don't have the facts. I suspect some of those areas are more "sensitive" than others. Personally....I thnk you could do some drilling in the currently off limits Alaskan areas. Not sure I want more oil and gas rigs off Florida coast. Where we disagree......I just don't see a conspiracy in Washington from current administration to either keep prices high or limit drilling. After all.....they want to get reelected. What I do see is a democratic administration, one that is more liberal than we may be, who gives environmental issues more importance than republicans might do. Just a natural difference between parties. Just democrats doing what democrats do, tax and spend, etc. BTW.....also favoring unions where they can, something I don't like. They are just being democrats. Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it doesn't. Same for republicans.....sometimes they act stupid I think, especially over social issues. But usually they act like republicans do, cut taxes, fight change, borrow and spend, etc. I expect it. That's why I'm a registered independent.

Just the opposite. Current higher oil prices have nothing to do with government action. (at least not our government action) They are world markets at work. However.....governments can, to some extent cause currency fluctuations, and as our dollar weakens energy in our curency goes up in price to us. Weak dollar does help us with exports of energy products though. And that's growing fast also. Bush and now Obama mostly have had same policy with regard to drilling. Current situation is basically econ 101 at work. I am saying there is no need to approve drilling in sensitive areas, because we will soon be awash in oil from currently approved ONSHORE sources. One way Newt may be right. If crude builds to a big surplus in world, and along with it refined product, then our gasoline might very well be $2.50 per gal in our currency. But Newt, or any other president, won't have caused it.

Another thing. In addition to increased employment, higher oil prices seem to be encouraging a huge increase in entrepreneurism in the oil industry. I'm seeing reports of huge increases in crude production as a result of these higher prices. From ONSHORE facilities. So no need for any President to have to approve drilling in sensitive areas. This is free enterprise at work....probably sowing the seeds of over supply in US amd eventually some lower prices at the pump. Kinda like the Nat gas situation. A few years Nat ngas was over $10 per M cu ft. Those prices caused intense speculation and production increases.....this AM, Nat gas was about $2.35 per M cu ft.

I didn't say high energy prices are great. Just saying they are helping more than they are hurting our economy. Stock market thinks so too. The way investors look at this is changing. Sure there is a price point where demand destruction occurs. But it's higher than before. Maybe $4.50 per gallon gasoline. Only a recession can bring them back to where Newt talks. I follow RBOB gasoline.....It looks to me like it's peaking early (maybe now if far east cools off)....before driving season. Europeans think our gasoline prices are rediculously low at $4-5 per gallon. Others think same. They are not scared off from investing in US.

After thinking about it some, and studying the data......I conclude that high oil prices (in US dollars) and with it high gasoline prices are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in US. High oil prices are making all kinds of other energy sources viable, wind, solar, geo thermal, alge, etc and making formerly expensive processes viable (shale oil), and also making it economic to work on old wells, etc. High oil prices are putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. Auto manufacturing....hybrid and electric, and on and on and on. It's hard to turn on TV without seeing evidence of this in some part of country. High oil prices are a big driver of the rising employment numbers we have been getting the last few months. We used to think hi gasoline prices were a tax on Americans and would kill the economy and job creation.....and some still think this way.....but evidence shows it is not so (at least to a point), and Americans are adjusting to higher energy costs. It's true lower income folks are hurt by higher energy prices, but US as a whole benefits. Investors already understand this....politicians will figure it out soon. Not saying hurting one group at expense of another is right or good, just saying that's how it is. And it's rediculous to think if RBOB gasoline is trading for $3.00-$3.50 US in commodity markets all over the world, it can sell for $2.00 here at same time. (RBOB gasoline goes across screen on CNBC all the time.....it's commodity price before blending, taxes, or mark up). A world wide recession could bring down world prices......but who wants that? We've seen that picture.

Problem is.....we didn't know how far right you were. Won't make that mistake again. I have a lot of friends who feel same way I do. We're looking for a middle course. Someone to get things done.....who can bring people and country together, not divide us with social issues. Take Rick Santorum for example. Wife and I really like that man. Like his hard work, like his family, like his political background and experience. We don't like his constant reference to religion as he tries to get votes from far right. We're supposed to have freedom of and from that kind of thing. Social issues not part of government to us. We think government has no say on issues about abortion, etc. We also know what a marriage is, and think current laws adequate. Not much need for further discusion. I hate this race to see who is the most conservative on social issues between Santorum, Romney, and Newt. It's killing the republican Party. It's what drove us from the party. We are the same conservatives we were 30 years ago......we believe in balanced budgets, being tough on crime, the idea government can help insure equal and fair opportunity but not handouts, great education for our kids, enough revenue to have good roads and parks, etc...The party abandoned us, we didn't stop being consevatives in the traditional sense. We're like most voters, it's not black or white to us. Like you....we don't exactly fit in some mold.

You didn't do it yourself. Some of us independednts joined you.

As a registered voter with no party affiliation, my understanding is the person who is to be the next president has to win my vote (or the vote of single white women). The Republican base is so far to the right, they can't elect a president. Don't think there are enough Dems to do it either. I was hoping for a choice of someone a tad more conservative than Obama, but not so far right as the republican base. Romney could do it, but he's being dragged way off to the right. He could lose me if he keeps this up to beat Santorum. I would have difficulty voting for someone who totally changes his message from the primaries to the general election. And to answer the original question....a white knight would not have the time (or money) to put an organization together to win. And a 3rd party won't work either. Looks like Obama wins to me....by a landslide.....probably carrying a lot of Dems back to the house with him. The Republicans have worked hard to reelect Obama. Other independents I know think generally the same. I think John Huntsman would have made a winning contender against Obama, he was my choice and I thought the most sensible, but the republican base couldn't stand him. He was too liberal, too experienced in the real world....Being Utah Governor a couple times and Chinese Ambassador, etc..

I'm just saying the engines, while they are still making improvements, are fairly well developed at this time. They make a lot of reliable power. And i'm sure they make cam and power/TQ curves for different tracks....as well as getting the rear gear dialed in. Transmission gears changed around also....for different pit lanes, etc. But NASCAR keeps chnging the rules about the body. If the teams don't get the aero changes worked out, HP don't matter. They all make enough power to spin the rear wheels now coming out of the corners....but some get the power down better than others. I know what you mean about old engine. Roush worked miracles.

I don't think the American people are this stupid. Presidents have no control over gasoline prices. Bush said he couldn't control them, and Obama can't either. Our refineries can't process the crude they can get now...more crude would solve nothing. More drilling would solve nothing. More pipelines would not solve current gasoline problem, but would carry some crude from Dakota and Canada to the refineries. Where it can be stored until used. I agree Obama should hurry and approve this new pipeline, although short term it will solve nothing. You can blame supply and demand inequality, but that doesn't seem to be the whole answer either. We're using less gasoline every year. You can blame speculators on commodity exchanges for running up price for future delivery, but they can just as easily be short sellers, driving prices abnormally low, so blaming speculators doesn't seem to be the answer. The only answer that makes any sense to me is fear of war in mid east, causing hoarding by some nations. Another reason for us to be energy independent from mid east. But we mostly are now anyway. So even though I have some experience in trading oil futures, I can't explain these prices either. Maybe this is where they need to be. RBOB gas closed at $3.34 per gallon today. (RBOB is before blending, taxes, and profit). Big oil companies says the gasoline business is unprofitable....they have sold most of their retail outlets. Best advice I an give is when you trade.....get something with great fuel economy. BTW....When everyone (especially experts) gives up and assums gasoline prices can only go up from here......they'll come down. That's how markets work.

My wife has a 2012 Edge Limited with Nav, and we're one of those "old" people you speak of. However....we have no problem understanding the system the car came with. We have had a few lock ups, and the Nav is slow to load. And everytime my wife goes into the arm rest, she dislodges the SD chip....and Nav won't work until I take it fully out, and put it back in. And my portable Garmin NUVI works much better anyway....even though screen is kinda small compared to the Edge. Our complaint, if we had one, is the (to us) unnecessary controls just to operate the vehicle. Hands free calling is about the only feature of the Synch and MFT controls we use. Got no use for other voice controls, traffic and weather uodates, and some of the other features. Do plan to keep Sirrius going. I'm capable of turning temp up and down with my fingers, and dialing radio. Actually I think the car's default old fashioned controls are much faster and mostly less distracting to use. I actually prefer the extremely simple controls of my Honda Element. Wish it had hands free calling like the newer Honda's. And then there is the issue of "do you want to own this thing when it's a few years old"? I won't buy extended warranty....but if we keep it after lease end....wife will probably want to stick a few thousand in envelop (our version of extended warranty) to use for repairs. I leased this Edge (keeping purchase price invested), figuring if wife liked it we would buy it at lease end, but now not so sure. We just wanted a nice car with leather and memory seats. Nice radio, good seats, etc. This is our view, maybe because we're retired folks, but I do understand how it works. It is not a confusing system to me, just an unnessesarily complicated one. To us....it's just a vehicle. Already got smart phones, IPad, and laptops around our house. I understand Ford's market research says we are in the minority with regard to what we want in a car. Edit addition.....I should probably add.....I really like driving the Edge. It drives great. Not one build or drivability flaw that I can tell. Fuel economy about as advertised.

Working out the aero stuff.....and how that relates to handling.....is more important than engine development....once you get the basic engine HP and reliability dialed in. They all make plenty of HP.

I heard his testimony....and I sure didn't get that impression. He could have been more clear I suppose....so as not to give the nut jobs this propaganda opportunity..

I remember well that fall and winter of 08 and 09. Economy falling off the cliff......I watch bonds trade, and we were only a few days away from your credit card not working at the gas station....bank not accepting obligations of other banks, etc. Bush and his guys saw what was happening and acted. Obama came in a saw what was happening, and acted. They had the data, and both did what they thought had to be done....at the time. The average American has a short memory and either didn't/doesn't undersand what was happening, or doesn't believe how close we were to a banking collapse. Especially the far right who still clamor "we should have just let the market work it out". I'm glad we had people running the ship who didn't want to take that risk. I hope we do get back to the point where no business is to big to fail....so the market can work it out. That's something Congress should work on. But conservatives not likely to allow Congress to attack big business. I suspect McCain, who is an intelligent man, would have made the same decisions as Obama with regard to financial decisions and our involvement in our two wars. Federal debt W/B about the same I imagine. Some administrations borrow and spend, some tax and spend. I haven't noticed Republicans any better at managing spending than Dems last few administrations....no matter the rhetoric from the right. It's one thing to be critical when you'e not involved, it's another to make decisions on your watch. I give Bush and Obama the benefit of them being there to make those decisions. No blame from me to either one. I will blame the next President for not taking our Nation forward, as we come out of this recession. It's time for leadership....no excuses.

Another reason why it's important we have a President not so quick with the war trigger. Let this stuff be China and India's problem. They are the ones with fast growing energy appetite....needing the oil of the region.

Probably. Not sure about wife. She keeps reminding me second year of dem president usually good for stock market. And first year of Romney he would just be running for second term. And her main rant to me is "we made our retirement money under Clinton".

Well.....I'm an independent. I don't think Obama has got the job done. Not necessarily because of his philosophy, but more because he hasn't turned out to be the leader many hoped for. I think a big problem for Romney is his religion.....and no one wants to talk about that. My family Doc told me recemtly he likes Romney, but didn't know if he could vote for a Mormon. Unbelievable. But that's out there. I think Romney looks and sounds Presidential....whatever that's worth. I liked John Huntsman the best.....but he had no support.

I'm not necessarily trying to defend "Obama Care" on this forum. I even doubt if I vote for him next election. But I suspect you could provide some basic health care to about 4-5 people for every one who gets that care from an emergency room. So wouldn't a system that emphasizes peventive care thru a system of private policies, discourages emergency room visits, like Bush proposed and now Obama sorta got enacted, even if Gov't pays for some of them, be better than the system we have now? Again.....those who are against "Obamacare" should google subject and read the original intent of act, before Congress twisted it up, and read just what it tries to do. The good, and even to me, the bad. I don't think most know what it's about. They just know what they have heard. And sure....Like Ron Paul says....Gov't should stay out of it entirely....good luck with that from either side! I personally W/B in favor of an amemdment that forces Congress to balance the budget (with very few exceptions). Then the argument would only be what percent of revenues go toward healthcare. And Congress could fight over that. A balanced budget would probably restore our AAA+ credit rating, restore confidence in US, encourage investment in US, create jobs, and I think would solve a lot of our problems.

It probably comes down to how far right the GOP candidate has to go to win the nimination. It will be difficult to win over the independents if the nomimee has to pander a lot more to the ultra conservatives over social issues. Romney's fomer position on health care is not a problem with many of us independents who see our current system as a mess and overly expensive.

I was trying to say......The system we have now is universal free emergency care for the critically Ill uninsured. The uninsured tend to not go for medical care until they are very sick. They get little preventive care. Those who fear "Obamacare" will lead to Universal health care.....isn't that what we have now? In it's most expensive form? What we have have now is the system we can't afford IMHO. BTW....I appreciate your respect for my view (on this fairly conservative forum). Being a registered Independent voter does not make me a screaming liberal. I'm just bringing up the question.

As I mentionede above.....Most Americans who say they are against the Affordable Health Care Act haven't read it and don't understand what it says and does.....or in my opinion what it attempts to do. I think it needs some more work. I know you know this but for others.....Generally the idea is to get the uninsured to stop getting their medical care from emergency rooms and other expensive public health care facilities. If we can figure out a way to do this....there W/B savings. If all medical care people can get their records in a form where they can click the mouse and get a list of their patients who have hi blood pressure, who smoke, who have diabetis, who are obese, etc....and then offer and track their care, there W/B savings. So I'm on board with the general idea of preventive health care ....and there W/B savings. If you can eliminate thousands of $150,000 heart attacks, you can afford to offer health care to a lot of people. I think the problem is how the Act goes about making some employers offer the coverage and how it forces some to get it. Like I said....it needs some tweaking. (I would favor those not wanting to buy coverage to sign something saying they won't show up at the hospital when they need care) Seems to me about any plan is better than the one we have now.....Universal free health care at emergency rooms for those critically ill with no copayments for poor people. We now offer free health care to the uninsured in the most expensive way possible. Stupid. We can't afford the current plan. BTW.....Before Obama the republicans (Bush) offered a similar plan as the Affordable Health care act. You can't just blame the Dems for the Act. In my view, "Obamacare" is a step in the right direction. Better yet.....jut decide...as a nation, that we don't mind having people die in the streets from desease and starvation. Don't offer them health care. That would be cheaper yet!

I used to be a republican. Now I'm registered to vote wih no party affiliation. The republicans moved to the far right, leaving me without a party. They forgot the issues of fiscal responsibility (look at debt of past Republican Presidents....not just Obama), and instead focusd on the issues of the religious right in their bid to get votes. or....that's how I see it. I will vote for either party that promises to work toward a balanced budget.....and restore our AAA+ credit rating with a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts. IMHO that would restore confidence in the US curency, encourage a lot of US investment that would result in jobs, and geneally be good for most folks. The so called "Obama care" needs to be tweaked some, I'm OK with about 3/4 of it, and the rest (IMHO) needs to be worked on. We gotta do something to get people from getting their medical care at emergency rooms. I suggest everyone "googling" subject so know what it really is. Most who say they are against it, don't know what the Act is or does. Seems to me we need a 3rd party to represent folks who don't like either side. Currently that would only siphon vote away from the right. So won't really work.

It could also make Chrysler/Dodge reconsider their involvement/investment in NASCAR racing. Their vehicles seem to be going in the direction away from the traditional Dodge type vehicle and customer. Maybe, with Fiat involvement and products, they see their potential customers a little different from the "RAM" crowd. I can't inagine many NASCAR fans buying the little "500". It's normal and natural for businesses to make these decisions.

Yep.....Got mine. Percentage wise.....not so great. But better than zero. Sure do appreciate it. Hopefully it will be increased regularly over time ....at least at the inflation rate or greater. Thanks....Ford.