Negative advertising in my opinion is a double edged sword in the sense, that although it may help people to educate themselves to learn the truth behind a 30 second factoid there’s also the harm that can come from it. Yes, some American voters may be intrigued to find more knowledge on the parties’ campaign but what about the other people who do not? Thus, here comes the predicament of falsely advertising information to the people and in a sense “brain washing” them. As Adlai Stevenson said “this isn’t Ivory Soap versus Palmolive (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952)” and that Americans shouldn’t base their opinions of a candidate simply on the warped information received from an advertisement.
The average American voter may not find the negative ads as effective simply because of their lack of knowledge. They only hear what’s in the commercial or whatever bits of information that are manipulated by their news channel. Some people don’t take the time to get themselves informed on what exactly each party is bringing to the table so the plan for negative advertising seems to me a bad idea simply because it has the more likely chance of backfiring in their faces. The average American voters’ highest education in 2004 was a high school graduate and the group with the highest voting percentage being in the age range of 65-74 according to census.gov. So how can we say that the average American who only has obtained a high school education can take the information from a negative political advertisement and learn to educate themselves? Yes make no mistake there are some that are able to and willing to learn about the facts behind the videos and flashing lights but for every one of these people there is probably about 5 or 6 people who are only influenced by the ads that are presented to them. Thus, the backfire of the campaign begins with each political party slandering each other while many Americans are oblivious to the facts but only aware of what each candidate wants them to hear.

Barack Obama should not have to accept public funding, especially if he did not need it. The main reason it seems that the John McCain campaign is upset about Obama’s decision is that Obama flip-flopped on a statement in November he made when Obama said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/obama.financing/index.html?iref=newssearch> Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, that is the only argument they have in their arsenal. There is nothing completely rotten about a politician changing their stance, it happens all the time. There is no politician who is not guilty of this vice. It should actually be seen as a positive characteristic because it shows the politician is able to adapt in accordance to the changing information that becomes available. Back in November, there was no way for Obama to have foreseen the amount of money he would be able to raise. Now that he has clearly demonstrated he has the capability to carry on his campaign without the aid of the government, he has no reason to accept the public fund. The McCain campaign is grasping at straws here trying taint Obama’s image. Obama’s decision is not a huge deal, especially when you analyze why Obama made that decision. Just from the figures, the Obama campaign has been able to reap in $266 million from 1.5 million donors through internet donations alone. He does not need to spend the American public’s tax money on his campaign because his supports are providing him with enough money to keep going. It is not Obama’s fault that within the same time span the McCain campaign only raised $93 million and has decided to take $84.1 million from the taxpayer fund. According to USA Today, that $84.1 million that McCain took from the fund is all that he is limited to spending while Obama can continuously raise and spend as much money as he can because he did not dip into the public fund. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-prezmoney_N.htm> It would seem McCain is more sore about the fact that Obama can have virtually unlimited spending power while he is restricted to the revenue he obtained from the fund. Although, there is nothing that prevents McCain from raising money for federal and state GOP committees that in turn can use the money they raised to aid his campaign. The maximum donation from one party to these committees is about $70,000. McCain is not at a loss of ways to raise money despite the fact that he took from the taxpayer fund, but these methods violate the reason the fund was created.

The reason the taxpayer fund was set up and reformed in 1976 was to prevent manipulation of the presidential election from private contributors. <http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml> The data shows that Obama has not violated these precautions: ninety-one percent of his internet donations have been less than $100, and none of his contributors have surpassed the $2,300 limit. He is not doing anything illegal, and he is actually acting in accordance to the American people. McCain, on the other hand, has “[sworn] off private money for his own campaign … but actively raising money for party organizations." It is ironic that McCain attacked Obama for flip-flopping on whether or not he would accept public funding while he is feverishly raising money from special interests after he had sworn he would turn it down. However, the fact that McCain took from the fund would hurt him in the polls because support for the taxpayer fund has plummeted. In 1976, twenty-eight percent of American taxpayers gave to the fund. In 2006 the percent was less than eleven percent. In a Gallup poll from August 2007, fifty-seven percent of Americans thought it was unacceptable to use public money to fund presidential candidates. According to these statistics, Americans are more concerned about corrupt use of funds than with a politician flip-flopping on a position. Many are not immensely concerned that Obama chose not to take the public fund. But what does catch their eye is how much money Obama was able to culminate from everyday citizens. This shows that Obama’s message appeals to a wider audience and that he is giving “American people a voice in our political process and has forever changed politics in this country by inspiring record numbers of Americans to participate in bringing change to Washington.” <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html> In the end, it is not whether or not he obtained from the fund or the fact that he had a change of face on a statement, McCain is most upset about the quote above, upset about the fact that Obama does have this amount of power to encourage millions of people, who had never shown interest in politics before, to suddenly get involved and on Obama’s side.

Healthcare is a monumental issue in the United States seeing as according to McCain and Obama there are 47 million Americans who “lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.” To me these numbers are a shock but I’m not all that surprised that so many people don’t have health insurance. I don’t even have health insurance because our family can’t afford it. We don’t qualify to get it free which means that we can’t really get sick which is impossible seeing as there are germs everywhere.

Both McCain and Obama are trying to help us Americans to find affordable health care but I realize that some parts of their plans will not be attainable. However I must agree more with Obama’s plan because it seems to be more beneficial and include much more detail of how he will attain health insurance for all of us not just one group.

In Obama’s plan he states that there will be “quality, affordable and portable coverage for all” and even McCain states “making health insurance innovative, portable, and affordable.” They are both on the same page on that but what McCain lacks is he doesn’t completely go into specifics as Obama does. Obama states that not only will he cover uninsured Americans but he will have National Health Insurance Exchange which would help individuals purchase a private plan, Employer Contribution where employers will have to contribute towards costs of national plan, support for small businesses that will provide a strong incentive to offer quality health care, MANDATORY coverage of children which will as stated require ALL children have health care coverage, expand Medicaid and SCHIP that will expand and ensure these programs continue, and have flexible state plans that states must provide at least the minimum requirements of the national health care plan.

Healthcare is very important to every American because everyone gets sick. Some people get it worse and others don’t but with Obama’s health plan, health care for everyone is attainable. Children are more susceptible to getting sick quicker because they’re still young and for those who don’t have insurance results can be catastrophic. With Obama’s plan he will make it mandatory. After all the children are our future so we must protect them with health care.

Not only that but he will fight for new initiatives to help discover new biomedical research to find new treatments and medications for diseases that don’t have treatments.

Obama will support Americans with disabilities which I saw nowhere in McCain’s health plan. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act: July 26 (attachment) there are 51.2 million people who have some level of disability which represent 18 percent of our population. According to the same article/act 11% of children 6 to 14 have a disability which rounds off to about 4 million children, 72% of people 80 and older have disabilities (the highest of any age group), and 20% of females have a disability compared to men who have 17%.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010102.html

All of these statistics can be changed with Obama’s plan. I believe that Obama is ready to take action and to proceed with this health care plan immediately if he wins. Obama’s plan not only benefits one group or even a few groups of people, but all Americans which is why I support Obama’s health care plan.

Gaby Alba

Oh healthcare!! One of the most difficult categories in the comment wiki. I must be honest on the fact that I don't have much to say about this topic, it's simply too complicated, therefore, urging me to maintain a neutral position, or as some would call it, apathetic. I must admit, I was appalled when I saw the figure representing the amount of people in America who don’t have health insurance. “47 million people living in the United States lack health insurance.” Based on the articles provided I seem to agree with John McCain. Everybody deserves to have health care. Health is a precious gift, and no one has the right to decide weather a person should or should not have this gift. To have your health taken away from you, and knowing there is a way to fix your disease and bring you back to a healthy being is just too much to bear and no one deserves to live that way. Yes, there are procedures which require you to pay, but if it’s a medical procedure most of the times deathly situations, people, no matter what status, race, or sex must receive aid. By carefully reading the article I noticed McCain has an organized to the point plan that will help with the situation. He plans to Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. Additionally, making insurance more portable, insurance that is always there, even if you retire early or doesn’t change if you take a few years off to look after your children. That’s the type of relationship I would want, one that I could trust for life.

He also has a plan for lowering the cost for healthcare in result making it more accessible to a greater percentage of people. I also like McCain idea of introducing generic drugs which are produced and distributed without patent protection, but contains the same active ingredients of the original formulation or brand only with pharmaceutical properties. The principal reason for the relatively low price of generic medicines is that competition increases among producers when drugs no longer are protected by patents. Companies also incur fewer costs in creating the generic drug, and are therefore able to maintain profitability while offering the drug at a lower cost to consumers. What I could say I liked the most about McCain’s plan is providing quality yet cheap services to people with chronic diseases. “Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can reduce health care costs.”. I could say that based on these two articles, McCain has a more detailed plan I can actually identify myself with. I like the way he thinks and they he is willing to approach this specific problem. I normally don’t agree much with him for his views are too conservative, but in this case I think this plan might actually be beneficial to the United States.

 Immigration

Lacey Croom

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have sponsored a new method for decreasing the amount of illegal immigrants in America. Ads show that undocumented immigrants should deport themselves and then apply to get a citizenship the legal way. The only problem is that a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not willing to simply turn themselves in to the government for being undocumented. This method is a little too idealistic but not logically planned out. Illegal immigrants know that if they are caught without a green card, they will be taken back to their country and into the life that they were trying to improve. The people who surprisingly do turn themselves in will then be sent to their former country and will have to wait about 10 years for access into the Unites States. Their citizenship and visas are also not guaranteed. Undocumented immigrants may not be educated in American classrooms but they are not stupid. They know that they can make a lot more money in the U.S. and help out the financial situation back at home where their families are. The ICE has spent $100,000 dollars to send back six individuals who obviously wanted to go back home. Six people being sent back to their country are not enough to make an impact but it is a start.

America is a very diverse nation that started with legal immigrants from all over the globe and checked in at Ellis Island. I am all for immigrants coming to America and making a better life for themselves, if they do it in the correct manner and are LEGAL. Gomez Gochez is an El Salvadoria immigrant who came to America when he was twenty five years old. He had three dollars to his name and worked his way up the ladder and became a U.S. citizen. He is thankful for all America had to offer him and now lives in a Salvadoran community. His hope is to establish the same type of democracy that the U.S. has to his hometown try to make a difference in his own community. Stories like this should inspire people to become U.S. citizens and not sneak their way around the legal system. If every undocumented immigrant acted as Gomez Gochez did, then our system would be a lot more efficent.

I also think that our nation would be in a better economic state and would be healthier without undocumented immigrants. It is illegal for a person to be denied medical attention in an emergency room and therefore illegal immigrants flood the hospitals for free. This costs our nation a lot of money to care for people who are breaking the law to be here in the first place. Fox news had an article on illegal immigrants in emergency rooms, this was taken from the article, “Mike Antonovich, the Los Angeles County supervisor, said the system has been "basically bankrupted." The Department of Health has a $1.2 billion deficit. Caring for illegals is siphoning money from other services and forcing clinics, trauma centers and emergency rooms to close, he said.” We cannot afford to have an open-door policy to encourage illegals to continue to come here and receive all the medical care, because it's too expensive," he said.” Our country can barely support itself financially right now and does not need the burden of illegals. Harmful diseases are also brought here when illegal immigrants come into contact with people who rightfully belong here, U.S. citizens. In an article describing the impact that illegal immigrants have it was stated, “Legal immigrants are required to have medical screening to ensure that they do not bring any contagious diseases into the United States. Illegal aliens are not screened and many are carrying horrific third world diseases that do not belong in the USA. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and will infect citizens that come in contact with an infected illegal alien. This has already happened in restaurants, schools, and police forces.” It is risking everyone’s health simply by allowing illegal immigrants to live here.

Every morning when I drive to school, I pass at least five guys that ride around on their bikes looking for work. Sometimes I even answer the phone to hear a man at my gate asking if I need work. I do not think that these people have bad intentions for being here for most of them wave and say hi with the little English that they know. I know I am generalizing illegal immigrants as if I know them all but those are my experiences with the ones who live among the rolling hills of Tenaja. They do not pay taxes on the money they make and send most of it to their wives and children in Mexico. Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, but in our area I would say that a good percentage of them are. This is definitely a personal issue for me because I see the effects of it everyday. They have never done anything wrong to affect my family or me directly, but that does not waiver my decision that undocumented immigrants should not be here. When Border Patrol is seen driving up the main streets, they scatter. They should be punished for their actions, and I do think that all men should be created equal. If I was to break the law and get caught, there would be consequences for my actions, why should illegal immigrants get away with breaking the law? The system that handles all immigrants is openly flawed by the answer is not as simple as “Self-Deportation.” Why do you think illegals go through such great lengths to get here in the first place? People hide in trucks and boxes and even compartments in cars. They may not all want to be here but they sure think that they need to be here.

The Border Patrol is a “Federal Agency” and does no have anything to do with specific cities in the Unites States. The people in Lake Elsinore should not be getting offended when they see more Border Patrol officers. I hope that I begin to notice it more often because then it will be clear that the federal government is stepping up its efforts in this issue. Lake Elsinore put aside an entire street (Spring Street) for laborers to have a designated area to get work. The city manager Bob Brady had confirmed that the city did not get contacted by the Border Patrol and did not encourage more officers to maintain the city. Brady stated "But if federal laws are being broken, the city is supportive of those laws being enforced." As a city manager it is his responsibility that all laws are enforced and should not be criticized for his remarks. The people of Lake Elsinore are just angry with Mayor Daryl Hickman and the city officials for deporting 250 illegal immigrants from their city (though the amount may not be exactly correct). Instead of marching through, they should stick to Spring Street and not push their limits.


http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html

http://mobile.latimes.com/detail.jsp?key=180228&rc=top&full=1

Okay. So far, it seems that every single response to this prompt has been in favor of Obama. I don't know if yall have read eachother, or if you guys got on the subject with too much predisposed opinion to actually read the opinions laid forth by the candidates, or if you really are as clueless as your posts indicate, but (for the sake of sounding redundant) YALL ARE COMPLETELY WRONG! Dustin's appraisal of what he read is completely the opposite of Jose's appraisal! Dustin sites that McCain wants to stimulate the Iraq economy through use of foreign aid including the United Nations and also through internal programs such as hiring Iraq citizens (instead of American paid mercenary corporations) to rebuild such basic structures as schools and hospitals. He also believe that this is a "good idea" and has "some merit", but still dismisses that Barack Obama's plan is better. He somehow determined that Barack Obama's plan is to make the Iraq government work for itself in some kind of "liberating but hardwork" economic stimulus plan. This opinion was most likely created by the COMPLETE LACK OF REFERENCE TO THE IRAQ ECONOMY on Sen. Obama's page. However, it seems that Jose is privy to some kind of information that he neither sites nor shares with the rest of us, claiming that "What I like about Obama’s plan (John Bidden also deserves the credit) is that he wants to help Iraq to become stable instead of ending the war by force (i.e. a-bomb in WWII). He is willing to donate money to rebuild Iraq economically, socially and health-wise." Jose, could you point out that passage on Obama's page, or in some foreign article? All I read was some cryptic reference to a think-tank proposal and the claim that they were going to spend $2 Billion on providing Iraq's with housing and such. And that's just the economy. As for the actual fighting of the war and withdrawl, I think yall need to re-read both candidates positions regarding that. Basically, Obama says that he wants to be out by 2010. I agree. However, take a closer look. Obama also reserves the right of large military intervention should genocide or atrocious human rights violations begin to take place in Iraq. And who decides when genocide is taking place? The president. Also, he openly admits to keeping a force in Iraq for the purpose of combating terrorism......and then he claims that the US will not build or sustain any bases in Iraq. Where are those forces he openly supports and calls for going to sleep? Is this a return to our colonial days when the british were housed and quartered in civilian houses? Or is obama making gestures of peace with his right and hand and signing contradictory directions of orders with his other. Obama is taking all of the votes of a person set on withdrawing, and none of the responsibility. McCain, however, EMPHASISES the need to be OPEN AND HONEST with the American people about Iraq. He found it so important that he devoted a section to it on his page! At the same time, he isn't claiming to withdraw troops while subtly putting ideas in his later statememnets the way only a lawyer who plans on flip-flopping can do. He supports withdrawal of American troops from Iraq (more specifically the moving and descaling of forces from Iraqi cities to American Bases on Iraqi soil.), but openly and realistically asserts that it is impossible to set a deadline. It's a war zone. If you could entirely read the opponent and there moves, there wouldn't even be a war. The enemy could at anytime attack or change the name of the game in Iraq, and all Obama's opining about how we should get out of Iraq by 2010 will be shattered to bits and blown to the wind. And, just for the record, I tend to believe that a retired officer of the United States military knows more military history abroad and is better informed and prepared to speak with military officials then a community organizer and constitutional lawyer. Call me crazy. As for the point brought out by Jose that McCain was "vacationaing" and "relaxing and having a piña Colada" while thousands of US troops, and the brave and courageous Sen. Obama, were risking their lives to solve the problem in Iraq, I have one thing to say: You must be joking. McCain has made several visits to Iraq, both before and since the current "war", and Obama has made two. While McCain speaks to ordinary folks and other politicians about how we need to strengthen the Iraq economy, Obama entertains radical left wing guests at a fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand costing a wopping $20,000 per plate. Don't be hoodwinked by the media into believing that Obama is some tireless problem solver on the situation in Iraq and McCain is some rich fluzy who spends all of his time vacationing with other rich white dudes. They are both guilty of the charge of relaxation and self-preserving tendencies. The brigands! In conclusion, I have not seen a single valid argument for Obama's foreign policy plan. It's all of the promise with none of the accountability, which is nothing new, and seems a bit like lipstick on a pig (had to say it). At the same time, McCain seems to offer a well thought out, honest and precise plan for rebuilding an Iraq with the ability to support and defend itself. It may not be what the people of America want to hear, but I believe that honesty and conviction for what is right should trump deceit and ideology any day. Damn me for being a realist.
-Alex Thompson (decided to sign so that there would be no confusion as to whom you are going to yell at for being republican tomorrow)

Post #2

Thank you Sammie. I'm glad to see that someone actually read the suggested candidates pages. I would like to submit however that McCain does not promise more American funding for rebuilding, which Obama does ("He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary." according to his website), but rather emphasizes the need for Iraq's who are out of work to be hired by the government to rebuild there own country, giving them both houses and the money to buy them with, as well as schools and hospitals. However sammie, having read your post, I must disagree. The purpose of this forum is not to blindly spout opinions or half-baked notions, it is to determine who's foreign policy plan regarding Iraq is more appropriate and reasonable. I get heated and attack others opinions because they have not offered any validation for them. I respect that you respect me disagreeing with you.....? I think that your stance is largely swayed by popular media however, and beseach you to re-examine your arguments. Yes, Obama says that he will work to get the bulk of our military forces out of Iraq by 2010. I completely agree with you that that would be a good thing and I would personally love it if every soldier in Iraq came home today, but that is unrealistic, as is Obama's 16 month plan. Yes, he has based his position on the best case scenarios laid out by the commanders in Iraq. But he refuses to openly state what he will do should his plan prove ineffective. McCain has always said that he wants the bulk of the United States military out of Iraq AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. He has been videotaped, soundbited and quoted in print to this effect. McCain's time line is exactly the timeline laid out by Obama..... withouth the bull. McCain says that he will work with the commanders on the ground to determine when Iraq is secure enough, economically, politically and militarily, for a withdrawal of US forces. McCain knows there is no such thing as a political deadline in a war. Obama refuses to acknowledge that. I emphasize again that you CANNOT ANTICIPATE ALL OF YOUR ENEMIES MOVES! Stop flooding to Obama and saying he's got a better plan because he smiles more and looks more pensive when talking with interviewers who are as equally enamored as you are!! He is using a catch phrase to win votes, plain and simple. His plan is not flexible enough to allow for it to be exactly carried out nor is it rigid enough to pin him down when he keeps the military there for another 8 years because the situation has become worse or there is some "human rights violation" occuring.
Guys, and Ladies, please, I beg you, do not blindly put your faith into the best smile. Give me a reason for trusting Obama and dont feel offended if I examine and way it. It is true that I do not give you a reason to trust McCain, but then again I have yet to claim, as Sammie and Lauren have regarding Obama, that McCain is a trustworthy person. I just believe that he is honest for a politician, open about the reality that is Iraq, and is kind enough not to attempt to acquisition votes by using best case scenarios that may change at any moment, with any sudden surge of aggression in Iraq. Again, call me crazy. Or passionate, if you prefer. But I still have yet to read any response that has anything more substantial to say then "Well, Obama knows what hes talking about" or "we can trust Obama" or "Obama is better because he wants to get our troops out and McCain just wants to keep them there". Think about what you're saying....well, typing.

Post #3

Because Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world C P, and our economy NEEDS oil and will NEED oil for a long time. Alternative fuels and political bs aside, oil drives us, literally and metaphorically. As for the last minute posts that prevented me from rebuttal, all that I have to say is that I don't recall reading that Obama wants to cut spending for the war. He just wants it to go away. And McCain wants us to "win" the war ,Mr. Diamond, by providing a safe enough environment in Iraq for the people to practice there freedoms of choice and property that are incumbent with democracy. The people of the middle east don't seem to have the cultural capacity, historically, to handle democracy, true. However I challenge that those people have never been given the protection of law to practice freedom the way we do in the US. And flute girl, McCain does not want to follow bush's plan. Bush DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN! McCain wants to keep the Iraq's safe so that they understand the expectations they should have of their government when we "leave" (in case no ones understanding that, neither candidate plans to leave Iraq in the time period of there presidency), and as soon as they get that and the Iraq's can provide it, we will start sending those Iraqi troops into Afghanistan to fight the terrorist forces there. People, our troops arnt coming home. This issue is a matter of where the troops are gonna be, and how long the troops are going to stay there before they change locations. And McCain acknowledges that and accounts for it. Obama plays on emotions that are frankly irrelevant and ignores the reality of the matter. Therefor, simply because he is honest about it, McCain wins my vote ON HIS PLAN FOR IRAQ.

Marriage in today’s society is very different from what it used to be in the past. Marriage used to be defined as the only acceptable way for two people to enter into sexual relations. What marriage has become in the twenty-first century America, according to law, is a voluntary contract between a man and a woman with no assigned roles or responsibility. The social understanding about marriage includes the perception that the spouses love each other and plan to enter into a marriage for life. Why should a gay couple not be allowed the same right to marry? Gay couples deserve the legal and social recognition of their committed relationships just as much as any straight couple needs their relationship recognized. Without their legal right to marry gay couples are denied over 1,000 federal and 400 state tax and other benefits that the government awards such committed couples. There are many other controversial issues in the world today that involve a degree of suffering and victimization on either side of the argument, such as abortion, the death penalty, and gun control. Gay marriage is not an issue that involves death or injury, as do these, it is merely an issue of acceptance, equality, and freedom.

I think that gay marriage should be considered a legal issue more than a moral issue because the government has the authority to consider what rights should be given to people rather than the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. Our constitution gives all people the right to liberty and consequently should include the right to gay marriage. Because we are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, gay couples should receive the same rights as straight couples.

If I were able to vote in November, I would vote against the amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. Many people ask if a gay couple loves each other so much why do they need to get married? William Safire from the New York Times wrote an article, “On Same Sex Marriage” and stated, “The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an individual’s civil rights; but marriage connotes society’s full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed.” For two individuals who love each other there is no greater recognition from family and society together, then that of marriage.

During this election I think that the economy is a very real concern especially now. If you look around you see all the signs saying “going out of business” or “low prices” and what do you really think that means? That they are just having an amazing sale or they’re just in the process of getting a better store somewhere else (in the ‘going out of business’ case)? No, it means that there are not enough customers coming in and paying money to the store to keep it running, this means the people who own the franchises are paying out of their pockets to keep there stores alive and they can’t do that for very long, so what do they do? They start to cut the employees hours and thus people are making less money and they can not afford to go out and buy dinner or go to a movie or even have enough money to fill up there gas tanks or pay their mortgages, and so the economy suffers.

Without money going into the government there is no way to bring back the economy to a well functioning point. The government spends money everyday on things that we do not even need to be spending money on. The war is an example, yes we need the money to support the troops and pay them and for food and things like that but they do not need money to campaign to join the military. The government spends tax payers dollars to create commercials and advertisements so that kids want to join, they think it’s cool; they glamorize what it really is. Those advertisements don’t need to be there because that’s just money out of the governments pocket and thus it is out of ours and we can’t afford that. Also on the 2008 campaign the amount of money used for marketing and advertising the candidates is unbelievable (in the billions of dollars) and we could be using that for our debt problems, maybe put some of it into getting the country out of debt.

The candidates for this years election both have different plans one of which, McCain’s, coasting the U.S. $5 trillion which puts us that much more into debt; while Obama’s plans costs $3.4 billion putting us that much back into debt. Even though Obama’s plans seem to have an effort to bring the country closer to when we get out of our debt to the world it still is bad, think about it 3.4 billion dollars more into debt than we already are, like that’s going to help anything at all.

This issue of Medicare is a widely controversial subject that in reality would benefit the U.S. to have a Medicare system like that of Canada. All people should, in theory, be covered and be able to take their children to the hospital and not have to worry about coming up with the money to pay back the hospital, I mean what if their child has cancer? What then, are they going to declare bankruptcy while paying for chemotherapy or are they going to let their child die? McCain’s policy on making the rich pay more for their prescription drugs than the working class is a very good idea, unless you’re rich and then it’s a terrible idea. I believe that we should start looking at Mexico and Canada for an aid for cheap prescription drugs so as not to stress the economy out anymore as we have to. However, Obama’s plan for reducing the costs of Medicare is more of what this country needs right now so that more people can afford it and be covered. This might put a stress on the economy but one that it can recover from because if we do sell it for cheaper it’ll be less money in the governments pockets but over time it will turn out to be more because of the numerous amounts of people who will be now purchasing it for their families. I think that we should take aspects from both in order to create a system that works for the American citizen and the economy.

America spends more than $200,000 per minute on foreign oil -- $13 million per hour. More than $25 billion a year goes for Persian Gulf imports alone. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, must realize that these kinds of numbers are only detrimental to our economy and security. Many issues must be addressed.

1. First of all, the president must have good knowledge of the source of high gasoline prices. The root cause of high gasoline prices is soaring demand, caused in large part by increasingly fuel-inefficient cars and trucks. The U.S. passenger vehicle fleet alone accounts for one-tenth of world petroleum consumption. This high demand has sparked an increase in oil prices in three ways: Firstly, there is very little excess global oil production capacity. The only significant spare capacity is in Saudi Arabia, making this politically unstable country the critical “swing producer.” Secondly, high demand has reduced the ability of suppliers to respond quickly if a sudden supply disruption occurs, and thus traders and speculators have bid up oil prices on the spot market based on the fear that the global oil supply chain may be disrupted by terror attacks. As a result, the oil industry has profited generously over the last few months and passed the high costs to consumers at the pump. Finally, U.S. gasoline demand has outstripped our domestic refinery capacity, leading to a tight market for gasoline and other refined products.

2. The next president must realize that American cannot drill its way to energy independence. A “drill first, ask questions later” strategy largely supported by the Bush administration is not an effected sustainable solution. The supposed 16 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska really isn’t more than 3.2 billion barrels, says the U.S. Geological Service. Rolling back pollution protections, as some advocate, to allow refinery expansion is also not the answer either. The next presidency cannot make similar mistakes to the Bush administrations wholesale weakening of the Clear Air Act’s preconstruction permitting requirements for refineries. The Bush administration, in doing so, disregarded the conclusions of EPA staff and ignored information from the DOE, which concluded that environmental requirements accounted for only a very small share of the refining industry’s decline in profitability in the early 1990s.

Once these, along with a few others, issues are understood, the president can lessen our dependence on foreign oil by taking some of these steps.

The president should take steps in reducing heavy duty truck idling. Reducing truck idling at overnight truck stops by providing electrical hookups or fitting trucks with fuel cell auxiliary power units could save 50,000 barrels of oil per day. The president can weatherize homes that use home heating oil. These homes heated by fuel oil produced average net savings of 18 percent. Efforts can be made to reduce oil use in industry as well as improve air traffic management. Better air traffic management can rationalize air traffic and reduce time wasted waiting for take-off and landing slots.

There is absolutely no reason why our elected leaders should not make a national commitment to reducing America's dependence on oil by investing in energy efficiency. This goal can be achieved through increased fuel economy for automobiles, greater use of renewable fuels, and other readily available measures. Based on today's oil prices, taking these commonsense steps would save Americans more than $20 billion dollars in annual crude oil costs -- while also reducing smoggy skies and combating global warming.

The site that I used: http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Steffany Flook

Addiction: A word that means something you cant live without. A word that has cost so many people their futures and led them into dispair. This word means the same for every person, every animal, and every nation. The addiction that is leading the United States into dispair is that of oil. The beautiful country that people once fled to for freedom and the hope for a better future is now being roamed with depressed people and those wishing to leave. For years the United States has not broken this addiction, leading every year to a bigger number of consumed oil. Oil that in the present is being depleted. Due to this very fact, costs of food, home heating, electricity, healthcare, and airline fares are increasing immensly. Not only does this change numbers on reciepts and boards but also it changes the citizens lives. It makes them struggle daily and hope that tomorrow things get a little bit easier. Sales are decreasing, house values are decreasing, and job options are also decreasing; when it comes to tomorrow for these citizens, it only gets harder. Finally, after a few years of being hounded, the government finally admits their addiction to foreign oil, however, an action to aid this problem has not been heard or seen. The greed for power and money, has clouded Americas eyes for several decades, now the storm is passing and all that is headed for them is a hurricane. Bush is soon going to have to give up his position to either senator McCain or Obama. A position that includes a burden. That of financial crisis in all the states. "Not since at least 1980...the economy been in a worse shape heading into the heart of the presidential campain." A burden that has already head into the hearts of the American people.

The next president of the United States NEEDS, not should, decrease the countries dependance on oil. Oil either foreign or local. The United States has been using foreign oil since before the 1930's. Using other countries oil for over 80 years and their clouded judgement believed that they would never have a problem obtaining in the future. Countries such as Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, and Russia. Now those countries are also suffering because they are producing less oil and will that will remain decreasing. This had definitley caused problems such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. A man named Osama Bin Laden didnt agree on America taking over their land, which he considered a "war against God." A conflict that then drove Americas dependance on Persian Gulf oil directly to bin Ladens creation of Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and the attack on the World Trade Center on Septermber 11. An attack that left thousands dead and thousands mourning.

When it comes to McCains view on the issue of our dependancy on oil, he supports president Bush and also his call for oil drilling offshore and in the Artic National Wildlife. If McCain wins as president of the United States of America, how is he suppose to fix their addiction of oil, if he believes we do not have one, or if he is also addicted to the power and wealth the oil brings. The man that McCain is backing warned the world that the weapons of mass destruction were a growing threat to the world peace, but a few months after that statement on March 2003 American troops invaded Iraq for the second time putting millions of innocent souls on the line. The troops were ordered to protect the oil ministry and not much of anything else. How are you going to have a president who backs those who put oil before people, a man who backs someone who wants world peace and then declares war?

Senator Obama, however, has a different outlook on the situation. The troops that were sent to Iraq to find the "weapons of destruction" that were never found, he wants them out. If senator Obama is elected to be the next president of the United States, he wants to propose a tenyear plan of $150 billion as a US investmant. He is thinking ahead and wants to decrease this dependancy on oil. A man who wants his country to investigate the development of renewable fuels and low emission coal plants so that the widespreat plant and animal extinction rate would slow. A plan that would prevent such oil prices and the effective burning of such fossil fuels that will damage our world.

There are many things that can be done towards this issue. Things that have been done in other countries but not in the United States due to the greed and ignorance of those in power and those who can make the significant difference. As Detroit has done they can successfully raise resistance against automotive fuel-efficient standards. Instead of spending over 3 million dollars on finding new oil fields, they can use that money towards the people and research for a more economic and efficient way of transportation and energy. 3 million dollars that can go towards the development of climate-friendly renewables like biofuels,wind, solar, and geothermal. We can conserve, something declared by the vice president in 2001, not sufficient. However, this measure wouldnt of had to be taken if it wasnt for the ignorance of the government. They need to find ways of renewable energy source. That is the only way. Not by drilling more fields in the United States or foreign lands. As Yamani once said "the stone age didnt end because there were no more stones.It ended because people became more intelligent," and with this intelligence they can change the future of the United States that has already been predicted. First and foremost the United States of America need to rely on themselves. They need to break such an addiction to oil and instead have an addiction for love or hope.