Since 1867 with the National Appropriations Bill, Federal government has attempted to regulate campaign financing. Limits include the Taft-Harley Act for example, where contributions to candidates from union, corporations, and interstate banks were banned. Starting with the 1976 election, the Revenue Act of 1971 created a public campaign fund for eligible presidential candidates, where people give one dollar to the fund on tax returns. The idea of this was to level out the playing field amongst the candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) set the framework for government regulation on campaign financing. (campaignfinancingsite.org). Basically, candidates can either take the 84.1 million offered them but that would be their spending limit, or have a choice to raise their own money. Obama promised he would take the money if his opponent did the same. Obama is now saying that he will not take the money and will raise on his own terms. Obama has already raised over 250 million dollars for his campaign.

It was a great decision not to take the money. Over 90% of what Obama’s campaign has raised has come from donations of a 100 dollars or less. His campaign has mastered in campaign advertising, internet, and other ways to collect money. However, he said he would take the money from the fund then went back. The problem is that he is like other politicians. He does what is best for his campaign to move forward. However, he may have ‘lied’ or changed but the public won’t hold it against him. First, because a 1990 ABC/Wall Street Journal poll collected information where 55% of the population is against the fund. Obama’s campaign defends that the system itself is undemocratic. I believe it has lost its force because in 2005 only 9% of taxpayers voluntarily gave 3$ to the fund. In 1980, 29% had given the contribution. The fact is Americans don’t support this fund or they don’t care. A 1990 ABC News/Washington Post Poll showed that 30% of the people opposed it compared to 20% in favor. The other shock is that 49% where undecided or didn’t care. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)

Obama has been attacked for having such an about-face decision. This is true, but in the end, Obama is a politician like McCain. There is no candidate above competing, or this is for “America and not the party”. They say that, but in the end they are both there to win. Now, to address this offense Obama’s lawyers Gibbs and Bauer have offered to meet with McCain’s lawyers to discuss a public financing agreement (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/6/19/obamas-campaign-defends-decision-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.html). The bottom line is that Obama’s about face is a low concern for American’s. Only about 20-30% supports this public financing, and that was in 1990. More than half the population either doesn’t care or are undecided. Okay, Obama changed his mind. His lawyers have offered to discuss with McCain but politicians are allowed to change views as long as they take a stand and aren’t wishy-washy.

After listening attentively to the audio interview to James T. Hayes I’ve come to learn a variety of new information I did not know of before. By listening to Hayes, acting director for ICE’s office of detention and removal operations, I became more informed about how ICE works and additionally about the Ad Campaign consisting of Immigrants Self Deportation. I was surprised by how specifically planned this organization is. To be honest, I always found unjust the way the deportation system worked, I did not agree with the rights officers were enabled with. Like for example, how it mentions in the interview that immigrants got dragged like animals from their houses in underwear and forced to leave the country immediately. Yes, I understand these “aliens” are committing a crime by living illegally in the country but the whole process to manage the situation is simply too harsh. Off course, I would take a different perspective if these illegal immigrants had records of crimes, if this was the case I would completely understand. However, if the only crime these people are committing is living illegally in the US I believe they must be understood. One must take into consideration the reason why they are there in the first place. We must take a moment and put ourselves in their situations. Think about the sacrifice they are taking; do you think they are simply risking their lives just to break the rules? No, they simply want a better future for them and their families. These people have fled from their country looking for either political freedom which they don’t have due to an oppressed government or economic success, which they can’t find in their country. I’m not saying I am pro immigration, I’m just suggesting the idea of another way of approaching the problem for they do not deserve this.

The Self Deportation Act is a great step to improving the ICE. At first I pondered in confusion. Who would anyone admit to committing this crime and dealing with the consequences, when they decided to risk their lives in the first place for a better future? Why give that up so easily when you risked so much for it in the first place. Well, Hayes proved himself to be a true expert by the way he answered the question. It’s the benefits you get in return. Yes, you will be asked to leave the country, but you will get benefits in the sense that you will get more time to prioritize your issues and set up your own schedule based on how you want to go through the process. It’s very different being literally forced and dragged out of your house asked violently to leave, rather than you admitting to the crime you committed and getting some time. After all, it is true what Hayes says, “People won’t cease looking for you”, therefore you might as well beat them to the punch and get your benefits. This is exactly what I am talking about, finding alternatives to strengthening the quality of the ICE. I also like this self deportation idea, because Hayes clearly mentioned that yes, illegal immigrants with a criminal record are the main priority but there is no harm in finding an alternative to fixing the problem by seeking those whose only crime is living in the US. It’s not like this method is a complete substitution for finding these immigrants, they are still on the lookout for them. But with the minimum cost of less then $100,000, why not? By creating this method, the problem will decrease with time. Yes, I agree with Charles Kuck, the current statistics are very convincing at the moment considering the fact that only 6 out of 600,000 immigrants have actually self deported themselves. This is literally nothing, but I take into consideration the fact that this program has only been active for 3 weeks, so in comparison its not bad at all, it actually gives me hope that with time people will slowly realize they shouldn’t in the US and decide to become part of this orderly mannered process. I also remain puzzled with Charles Kuck allegations in respect to the Self Deportation. He mentions that the ICE must carry out their duty to deport those people who are not legal citizens, but at the same time claims that the ICE has absolutely no statistics on the whereabouts of all these people. I can quite understand what side he’s on. However, as he clearly states, the laws are not actually being carried out. There is not proof that these people have been asked to leave the country for the notice they receive is by mail. If this is the case then the ICE is not being effective whatsoever either. I truly admire the attempt to creating another alternative to fixing the problem, and I honestly think that with time it will work. Additionally after reading the article about the local government’s response to the illegal immigrants, I came to conclude that they handled the problem properly. Mayor Hickman said “the issue has nothing to do with race. I think the U.S. Border Patrol is doing their job. It is true, they are not trying to get rid of the immigrants because they are being racist to them, it’s simply because they are not legally in the country, and it is a crime, nothing else. I do stand firmly on the fact that this process should be less harsh. No taking children away from their family while they are at school, no going into people’s private properties and taking them out of the house in underwear. They still have their privacy rights and are equal to other people. The only way I think this problem has a chance of being solved slowly is with the self deportation ad. This method might not apply to the majority of the people but it can still help those that have not committed a federal crime and improve the problem in a more effective manner.

The war in Iraq has been ongoing for five years now, thats right... five years. I don't know if people have just ignored this realization or don't care, but that's a really long time to be in a war. The Iraq war has been going on for longer than World War II and even the Civil War, which makes the war in Iraq a much more serious war than most people probably think. But there is something even more dangerous that has gone overlooked. The Iraq war is approaching the same time lengths as the Vietnam war, and we all know how that turned out. With the current lack of morale and the economic crisis, it's pretty surprising that there isn't a second counterculture movement, to be honest. Though, in a lot of ways you could argue that the Iraq war is the modern day Vietnam.
Either way, I think the fact remains that the Iraq war has gone on a lot longer than it should have. I really hope that the United States wasn't planning on being in Iraq for the rest of America's existence as a country, but I'm beginning to have my doubts that Republicans want out of Iraq at all anymore. I don't even see the point, it only seems stubborn to me. There is seemingly no longer any benefit to being in Iraq for us. We already made half the countries in the world hate us for what we perceive to be a mission of peace and freedom (yeah, other countries really do hate us, I've been all across Europe and all my relatives are European, trust me... they don't really like us much up there). Besides, going into Iraq for oil doesn't even seem beneficiary when the national debt is in the trillions, and it seems pointless to be in Iraq trying to fix their economy and political structure when we are experiencing a crisis of our own. So why are we still in Iraq? Well... obviously theres very few supporters of the war, and I'm not saying that we haven't done anything for Iraq, but come on. It's time to get out. And once we have all agreed we need to get out, which I really hope everyone, or at least most people, agrees with at this point, the next question is which presidential candidate will best take us out.
On Obama's website, the first thing he says is this: “Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.” Immediately I see one thing: a candidate who not only agrees with me, but plans to fix all the above mentioned problems with one simple thing: getting our troops out of Iraq. And to me, it really seems like Obama has a much better plan than McCain to do this. I must say that the fact the Obama has spent some significant time in Iraq makes me feel a lot better about his opinion on the subject than I would have before. Previously, Obama has had very little foreign policy experience and it is things such as this that he really needs to make a correct and effective plan. But that certainly doesn't mean his experience has somehow walled him from making a good decision. Obama wants to undergo a 16 month process to take troops out of Iraq, which really seems like the only viable option this far into the war. America has done its part, we liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam, and now Iraq needs to build up a democracy from the ground up, which is supposed to last them the next few hundred years. This is obviously no easy task, but now the participation of America in Iraq seems pointless to me. We have to eventually let Iraq go on its own, just as a mother eventually lets her kids out of the house.
Now, McCain wants to do what Obama wants to do, hes seemingly not mislead in his goals. But the way he wants to do it doesn't seem nearly as practical as Obama's way. McCain wants to watch over Iraq, and leave in a timely manner that depends entirely on how the country is progressing. This may seem fair, but with a war that has started with the mindset of lasting an undetermined amount of time, it doesn't seem logical to have a plan that will set in within an undetermined amount of time. I want a day, or at least a year time frame. Otherwise, I honestly don't know how long to expect to stay in Iraq. And everyday we are in there, our deficit grows, the Iraqi people continue to have trouble building their independence with America always near, and the morale of the American people continues to lower. In the news article, it says “[McCain] has said it would be "reckless" to pull U.S. troops from Iraq in the 16-month time frame envisioned by his rival.” However, I thoroughly disagree with this, and I think that having a general time frame of when to go out doesn't set anything in stone, which is a problem. The Iraqi government isn't opposed to Obama's plan at all either, the article even says “the Iraqi government outlined a possible schedule for a U.S. troop withdrawal that is similar to the plan the Democratic presidential candidate has pledged to follow if he is elected.” The Iraqi people need a plan like this. They need a time line. They need a date. This way it is far easier for them to plan how they will fully realize their plan to start a working democratic government. Besides, McCain thinks that things in Iraq are improving, but after watching the video attached by one of the past posters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06hR2EGpl4o), I'm honestly not too sure how accurate McCain's opinion is on that.
I'll end my post the same way that the news article ended, “Underlining the persistent threat, police said seven people were killed and eight others wounded Monday when a tractor rigged with explosives detonated as members of a U.S.-backed local guard force drove through a rural district of Diyala province.” Clearly the problems in Iraq are still ongoing, and by the time McCain sees fit to release our troops, things will probably still be in a bad state. So, the only real answer is to get out now, as systematically as possible. Getting the troops out of Vietnam worked for Nixon, and hopefully it will work for Obama if he is elected. As Obama's website says, “more than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments,” and its definitely time to try and keep those numbers from rising as much as possible by getting our troops out of Iraq in a quick and timely manner, while still trying to help the Iraqi government sustain and progress. McCain says “The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists,” and in this sense he is completely right. I only disagree with his method of doing so.

I was in my study hall period today and I was telling a few friends (most of them are in my AP gov class) that I was supposed to write about same-sex marriage this week. We were talking about how we felt about the issue: a lot of them were for same-sex marriage, but one. She believed that marriage is a sacred unity between a man and women, not of homosexuals. I am for same-sex marriage, but I really did appreciate her being so open about her beliefs because they are so different from the others in the group and you guys writing in this message board. I wanted to talk about her because it heats up a debate and that is basically the point of this election message board. To support her belief she also said that even though God created man and loves every man, the bible never stated that homosexuals can get married. If homosexuals do get married it will become an abomination (I’m not sure if those were her exact words.) The rest of the group were upset that she felt that way and she admitted that she is a very conservative and religious person. I didn’t fight against her like the others did. I did point out my beliefs that gays should be given the right to marry, just like any ordinary heterosexual couples, though. I just appreciated about her openness and that her debate actually came with some support.
If I were able to vote in November, I would vote to allow same-sex marriages in the United States. This topic has been one of the most controversial debates for year. The reason there only few states allowing same sex marriages is because the U.S. is ONE NATION UNDER GOD. Religion is playing a role on the decision of this law. Why should same sex marriage be banned because of religion? A lot of Americans are atheist or have other faiths. Most States allow something like “court unions” instead of marriage and if they are similar, why do they have to have different names. If America bans same sex marriage, they should just ban gay people. It would be like the segregation era all over again, when interracial couples could not get married. Most straight couples take the sacredness of marriage for granted. I bet you that a lot of gay couples would become better, long-lasting married couples that most straight people. If the sacredness of marriage and religion is so important why are there Las Vegas chapples with Elvis as a priest giving drunk fools the right their wedding license? Naïve teens get married, too and why doesn’t the government set limits for underage couples? Why do all the laws have to be set on the gays? If a certain percentage of the population consists of homosexuals, can’t they be granted their civil rights to wed? It is disappointing that the California marriage law is temporary. If you make up a law, you should keep it or abolish it according to people views and I’ve read that a bunch of gay couples have set their dates. What happens to those who got married? Do they become a married couple or just a couple? There are so many questions being unanswered because the government is not providing any good reasons for this action. If same-sex marriage becomes illegal in November, then all the work that these homosexual couples put on buying property together or preparing for their wedding was a waste of time. The government should not decide on same-sex marriages based on religion and the bible. I’m pretty sure that in the future same-sex marriage will become constitutional. If women and black people are allowed to vote and if interracial couples are allowed to wed, then gay people will be given that same right. Every man was created equal and they deserve equal rights.

I would also like to add that marriage was originally defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” However, several additions were made to this definition including “the mutual relation of married persons” and other descriptions not specifying the gender of the individuals being united. The M-W dictionary makes changes and additions based on researched popular belief which would lead one to believe that the majority of citizens do not see legal marriage as strictly the bonding between two members of the opposite sex due to societal changes.

It is no question that the American economy is in a state of deterioration and rapid downfall. In 2007, one year ago, the national debt was a whopping $8.7 trillion, and in 2008, those figures have escalated to approximately $9.8 trillion. An estimated $2 billion per day is being shoveled onto the pile of deficits that are becoming nearly too much for the U.S. to handle. Americans are most effected by issues that involve their wallets; the majority of individuals and families across the nation are being touched (or kicked) by this economic failure. To add to the concerns caused by increasing debts associated with military spending, major financial institutions are amid crises of their own, which could potentially catalyze catastrophic events in the banking industries. Even President Bush has recently admitted that, “The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.” Bush is currently urging Congress to pass a ‘bailout’ deal estimated at $700 billion to rescue the plunging businesses, or else the economy will face a “long and painful recession.” However, much disagreement among the five Democrats and four Republicans of the Senate is preventing a solution from being reached. Democrats are in favor of rewriting bankruptcy laws to enable judges to renegotiate mortgages, while Republicans are not. Despite altercations, the proposed plan will include a board to oversee the bailout, protection for taxpayers, and a limit on the amount of money the federal government gives to the executives of the bankrupt businesses.

In my neighborhood alone, fifteen of seventy-five homes flaunt signs reading ‘Bank Owned’ in the desolate, decaying lawns. Gasoline prices have improved, yet still bear a heavy burden on millions of Americans. In addition, the price of simply putting food on the table has skyrocketed. In my opinion, there is no greater issues facing our nation than these just described, so why should they not be considered valid concerns? The only other issue I can present that even holds a candle to the scope of the condition of the economy is the War in Iraq, which goes hand-in-hand with this financial decline. Therefore, I believe that the economy should be the main focus of the presidential election, due to the fact that a typical voter will vote in accordance with their financial situation. It is absolutely absurd that the United States, a leading world power, is allowing its people to fall into such a deep hole, that is beginning to resemble the Great Depression of the early 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt is praised for mitigating the pressures Americans faced after the stock market crashes of October 1929, after Herbert Hoover was labeled a lame duck president. Roosevelt is considered a great president due to his composure of confidence and ironic strength that nearly all Americans could feel and take part of. I believe that our country today needs an FDR, to extend a hand to the people, and at least instill a hope that their lives will get better. President Bush practices hypocrisy when he gives speeches urging someone else to fix this problem, when he is the one who has let the economy go to hell in a hand basket, and done nothing productive to help.

Since the United States is obviously experiencing economic troubles, what solutions must be made? On the topic of bankruptcy, Obama and McCain have very general and vague opinions. Senator Obama hopes to change the bankruptcy process, and ultimately help those in ‘financial distress.’ Not only is this proposition cloudy, but Obama offers no clear methods for doing so. John McCain has voted for legislation to decrease the number of bankruptcy filings. When I viewed the website from the link provided that compares Obama and McCain’s platforms on the issue of bankruptcy, I was shocked to find how little information was given. This topic is becoming a major focus of the economic struggle, and I believe the future presidents should take a stand and outline ways that they would provide aid. I believe that neither McCain or Obama has a better plan, because no plan is provided. I suppose I would favor McCain if I had to choose, because he has at least taken action in voting for less bankruptcy, while Obama claims he has “fought against a bankruptcy reform bill.”

The economy is the foundation of a nation's power, and if no action is taken on the worsening matter, I am afraid to see what the future has in store for the United States of America.