Barack Obama's choice to reject public funding for his campaign was a poor decision on his part. Had he wanted to avoid speculation about his surplus of funding he would've just accepted the public funding like every other candidate does. Instead, he chose the more questionable route.

The purpose of the election finance reform legislation was to curtail the influence of Political Action Committees, or PAC's, that were solely representing interests that could directly benefit from favors from politicians. When candidates accept public funding they automatically agree to an audit. An audit allows the government to keep tabs on how the finances are used and when. When a candidate, such as Obama, independently supports his campaign then he isn't subject to an audit. So, where is his money for his campaign coming from? As the graph in the article clearly demonstrates, there has been a 66% decline in income tax check-offs that funds public financing. This surfaces the question; If less than 10% of the people aren't willing to give a few dollars to public financing how is it possible that Obama can be so charismatic to win millions of dollars month after month out of apathetic electorates? I'm not saying that he's associated with evil doers. I'm just presenting the facts. Americans already question his background, and his income for his campaign not being monitored only further enhances some people's doubts about his credibility to be president. To add, the economy as it is only makes me question further how people could be generously giving money to a presidential campaign when there's funds set aside for this very event. In other words, there isn't an excess of additional cash to be given away to campaigns other than what has already been allotted. Americans are loosing jobs, and our nation as a whole is in the worst economic state since the Great Depression. If times were more inflated it would be more probable that more people than in the past could contribute to a candidate. Yet, with the economy in recession, this is obviously not the case. As a final and closing thought, the article inconspicuously says that Obama has been getting over 90% of his financing "...nearly at will..." in increments less than one hundred dollars. Whether this is a slip, typo, or opinion of the author it makes me think something is suspicious. How is Obama so capable to get the money exactly when he needs it, or, as the author wrote, "...nearly at will...?" Obama himself has told the public that his funds come from those who contribute through the internet. Even though the internet was created by man there are still many ways in which to bypass any cyber supervision. Obama could be getting funds from American supporters, past associates, or even himself, only saying that a multitude of people have been contributing. The point is, we don't know who his sources are and how Obama is so influential over them so as to receive money when needed. There is no real way to trace who these people could be, making it again reflect negatively on Obama. Being that we've never had a minority president one has to expect voters to question every move he makes. It's not that his sources are allegedly bad, or good for that matter, it's just that there's lots of questionable aspects to where he gets his money.

Looking back, it would've been in Obama's best interest to accept public financing. He could've avoided lots of unneeded speculation from voters, making his campaign even stronger than it is now.

To add to my post above Obama also agreed with McCain that they would both accept public financing, according to the article. With Obama controlling his own finances he is, in a sense, more capable to advertise himself in profusion compared to McCain. More ads is a result of more money, and more ads leads to increased probability of action from electorates. Strategically, I see where Obama was coming from. Yet, he made a deal with McCain, and him going back on his word makes me think he might do the same when president. Even though this is menial compared to decisions he would make as president, this reveals his character. He's wasn't very committed to his deal with McCain, showing a possible tendency for him to say one thing and do another. I don't want him to promise the American public change, and then take office only to do other than what he claimed were his goals if he were president. Had Obama simply accepted public funding this wouldn't have been an issue.

Seen from the perspective of a 10 year old boy who lives in extreme poverty:

I wake up every morning with a rash on my back from the dirty rock hard floor, and as I look down I have red bumps on my legs from different animals from which had come out the night before. Even though I have no blanket, I am warmed by the arms of my father, which sleeps right next to me every night while my head lies on his rapidly beating heart. My father opens my eyes to the new day with a mere kiss on my young, smooth head. I walk 3 feet to the old plastic chair on the other side of the room to put on my daily uniform that I wear o my school in my little neighborhood of equals and brush my teeth with the frail, brown sink right next to the plastic chair.

My name is Sam and the only thing left I have in the world is my father. It was December 3, when I lost not only my mother, but my friend, and my father lost the love of his life. We hold each other close every day not to forget her memory but to reassure ourselves that we can get through the day without breaking down. The picture of her smiling face is in that same room where my father and I sleep. It was a few months before that picture was taken that she came home with a piercing headache. My father rushed her to the second closest hospital as it was the only one he could find the money for to see what was causing such pain. The next day as my mother put the phone down; she began to sob while she whispered to my father. I was 7 years old and I still remember that day 3 years later. She had an operable tumor; however, the cost was a six digit numbers which we could not reach. We tried to look for help, but having a backbone of health care was not provided for people like us, people with no bank account.

I ask myself everyday why this happens to me, but then I realize it happens to so many other just like me. Other families who just cant afford to pull out thousands of dollars from their pockets, so the opportunity at a second chance at life is lost completely. How is this fair? We are still the American people. We live, breath, and learn on American soil. It’s in the American constitution that “all men are created equal,” but once you have a footprint on earth it all changes. It is the amount of money you have in your bank account, how many credit cards you have, or what brand your wallet is which now defines you in America and all around the world. However, I believe that some people are made stronger, while others smarter, but it’s our beating hearts that make us all the same. My mom deserved a second opportunity at life, and because of the government who promises to do what is best for the people but don’t include those labeled as impoverished, she was denied life. We are one of the 47 million people living in the United States which lack healthcare.

I didn’t really know anything about healthcare but my father decided to talk to me about government and policies, so that I can comprehend the world I live in. Though, no matter what he says, I only comprehend that my mother was taken away from me and I could have her right now by my side and see my father smile again if the government actually cared about us and provided health care for the less fortunate. My dad took me on a walk about a week ago and we stood outside a store like zombies watching on the television the different speeches given by McCain and Obama about their healthcare plans. I was captivated by every word that rushed out of their mouths.

A man of old age who my father said was McCain said he wanted to provide access for every American to have healthcare. As I heard these words my heart skipped a beat and my smile shined brighter. I was then told by my father to not jump to any conclusions and instead hear every plan.

The man who seemed very frail and old wants to provide such health care for every single American which calls there home. He said he knew how expensive health care was and wanted to bring down the price by taking action today. However, as hours and days go by, I see no such thing. It has been a week since I took the long walk and learned so much about the country I live it, and presently I see no difference. My father still comes home from a long double shift job and struggles to put food on the table, and always manages to do so. He wants to ensure drug companies, hospitals, and every other insurance company to bring down their prices by competition, but even I know as a 10 year old boy that we have competition everywhere you look today. It is the reason of competition why people go to work everyday, to compete for their jobs and the amount of money that they make. My father says that Senator McCain wants American families to choose their plan to meet their unique needs, but my father says that it’s the job of the government to know what is best for the people, because the people don’t always know best. McCain wants to increase quality by promoting research with new treatment models and investigate in technology which will result in a variety of different plans. We believe that instead of spending money on a variety of plans; spend it on a variety of more people. To give to those who need it, before it’s too late. He wants to then create a health saving account but America can right now afford taking it one step at a time. Even though we think that his eye is to big for his stomach, we liked that he wanted to work with governors to have a better practice of the model which my dad says is a great idea, as communication is the best solution to a problem. It was for me… I get to talk about my mother everyday and I will never forget her memory.

The darker man, who kind of looks like my father, believes that two extremes are wrong. He is working together with his vice president to not make people pay higher taxes, or have an unorganized health care without rules, but a perfect one which lies in the middle. They proposed a plan to strengthen employer coverage, where insurance companies are accountable and the patient gets a choice of his or her doctor. They will then provide affordable health care for all Americans as well where they build on the existing healthcare program, involving the same doctors and plans. To those whom healthcare is given to at the moment it is working well, so why fix what is not broken but instead extend it from certain Americans to ALL Americans. If one already has the plan you can remain with the same one but instead the amount of yearly tax goes down, which is something that the whole nation needs presently with such economic crisis. He will make such a dramatic change in price by importations from developing countries and tax cuts from Bush’s plan which has gotten us into the ruckus we are in today. Small businesses where my dad is working will have tax credits and employers will then be able to have healthcare and these strategies have been proven.

As I soaked in all the information I just flashed back to all the memories of my mother. If the United States would have had such plans in the past then maybe my mom would still be here by my side. If Obamas plan which my father likes the most would have been put into action a few years ago, he would still have his soul mate in his life and a smile on his face. I feel that Obamas plan is written out more precise and more promising. Not only this but retrospectively looking at this candidate, i want a man in office who will look out for the best of my family and i, instead of trying to get four billion dollars to spend on finding more oil. Any of the two plans is better than the one the United States has today but Obamas plan seems more realistically doable, and doesn’t promise too many things at once. Instead to help the American people by lowering costs and allowing it to be in the reach of all the other 47 million people who were just a statistic before. By putting such plan in motion the insurance companies could save thousands of people’s lives, and if not I can guarantee it would at least have saved one: my mothers.

47 milliom people of the people living in America do not have health care. This clearly demonstrates how massive of a problem health care is in our country, and the next president really needs to tackle this issue head-on with an accurate solution.

McCain states that he wants to help every American have access to health care. The problem, he says, is that health care is too expensive. His solution is "ensuring that drug companies, doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and every other aspect of the health care system competes vigorously to respond to their needs. " To me, I think that this is not a solution, and just goes around the question. Ensuring that will not make health care cheaper, Bush has attempted that, and it obviously has not worked considering the problem has not gone away, as even McCain states on his page. But, McCain also says that he wants Americans to have the choice to their health care, and I do believe that is a good idea and should be in action no matter what president is elected. John McCain also says he would like to make health care quality better by promoting new research. I like this idea as well, but it does not seem to follow McCain's solution to the economy of freezing spending across the board. Therefore, his solutions on the economy and health care don't seem to match up, and so to me it seems he won't follow through with many aspects of the reform he hopes to start. Another part of McCain's solution for health care is competition, but he does not say as to whom will be competing, so I assume he means the companys selling health care. I like this idea as well, but it is something that has been in action in the past to improve health care, but once again, as his other ideas, it has not worked. The center of McCain's health care plan, though, is giving individuals a $2500 tax credit for health care, and families a $5,000 dollar tax credit. I do not like this idea because 5,000 a year is not enough for most families, and most health care plans cost way more than that. So, it does not make sense to me how it will work accurately.

In order to make health care more affordable, McCain Presents the ideas of lowering drug prices, providing quality care for chronic diseases, promoting coordinated care, expanding access to health care, and many other steps. But, many of them seem vacant and nothing stands out or has mush impact while reading over them. FOr example, he said that "Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets", but no where is there an actual solution to expanding accress to health care, it just says he wants to. I would like to see more details and concrete ideas that McCain has in mind and is passionate about, because this issue of health care is a very demanding one currently.
TO put it simply, McCain has many ideas, but they are more like general outlines that have been tried in the past, showing that his ideas are not "mavericky" as he claims so much to be.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden has a different approach. They say that the best way to tackle health care is by being in the middle, compared to the two extremes: "government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules". I like this statement, and I think it is true in not only the health care problem, but many other issues America currently is struggling with. It is always more than not better to work out a compromise between two extremes, and find a balance. The plan also will build on the current health care system, use many of the same doctors and providers, and help make health care more accessible to all Americans. Also, under the plan if any American would prefer to keep their current plan, they can, and the best part is that the costs might even go down $2500 a year. I really like this, and it seems like it will be a great thing for America, as long as Obama and Biden can really make it happen. And, if someone does not already have health insurance at all, the government will provide options to get it. Obama will require all insurance companies to follow through with pre-existing conditions so all Americans can get coverage they paid for no matter what health status they can so every American can have fair coverage. I think this isn't really an innovative idea, but it something that already should be required of insurance companies, so I appreciate Obama's tactic of approaching this issue. Obama then goes on to say that he will lower the costs and hopefully even by $2500 a year (I like how he did go back and fill in the blank I wondered of "how") by lowering the drug costs, an idea McCain agrees on, and by reforming the insurance market to increase competition by taking on "anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care". This is another place that both Obama and McCain agree on, but Obama actually explained simply how he could increase the competition, while McCain did not.

Lastly, Obama explains how he will pay for all of this health care reform, which will cost up to 65 billion dollars. He will do this by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for those who make over 250,000 a year. I think that this is a very important part of Obama's plan, and is definitely one that has been creating much anguish for those who do make over 250,000 a year. Some of these people even go to the lengths to call Obama a "Communist" or "socialist" because of his rollbacks, which I really do not understand. The people making over 250,000 a year obviously are those who can afford being taxed a little bit more than those making under it. Taxes are a necessary part of government, and because of the huge, huge debt our country is currently in, how else to American's suppose we get out of it? McCain continuously has used Obama's tax roll back as a negative thing, and promises he will not increase taxes, but to me I just don't see how we can possibly NOT increase taxes and even have a chance of having a balanced budget and surplus in America ever again.

Both McCain and Obama agree on many aspects of the health care issue, but McCain will have the tax credit, and Obama will tax those making over 250,000 a year to pay for his plan, making taxes a huge part of this issue. I believe that McCain's plan has no spark in it, nothing that will change anything. Obama's, on the other hand, has somewhat of a turn in the positive direction, I believe, by using more substantial and direct ideas and steps to creating a cheaper health care and guarenteeing health care for everyone, while McCain shows more of a appreciation for that idea, but does not actually say he will do it.

Valleygirl:

"Obama's plan is logical. Although he is wanting the raise the peoples taxes to what they were before Bush got into office that is what this country needs to get out of debt and to start getting some of his plans rolling. Obama gives the people a choice to keep their old plans, the only difference being that the rates go down and it could save people up to $2500, or to start or get a new insurance plan for an affordable rate. The tax breaks that Obama is going to do are going to help those people who do not have that much money and who could never afford to buy health insurance be able to afford it. Obama also has a logical way to pay for all of this and that is probably why i believe him more where as McCain is just saying "oh yea that's a great idea! Health Insurance, let's do it!"
I completely agree with you!

I believe that ICE's new program is good the aspect of giving illegal immigrants more control over their departure back to their country, but at the same time, the way James Hayes talks about this program seems like it was intended to benefit them, more than illegal immigrants. Because either way when it comes down to it, like James Hayes said “either we show up at your door, or you can come to us.” James Hayes might as well have said ,”You can run but you can't hide.” Since the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has been criticized in the past for the way they conduct fugitive operations, this program makes them “look better” in a sense so they are not seem in the light of day taking illegal immigrants out of their homes, or work places. I know if I were an illegal immigrant, I think it would be extremely unwise for me to not take up this program. I would NOT want to be deported back to my country when I least expected it, or possibly be incarcerated when I least expected it. I would take advantage of this program.

And just a side note..it doesn't seem like James Hayes is completely truthful when he says that they conduct fugitive operations humanely. Really? It seems like to me that if they have ALWAYS conducted fugitive operations humanely, than the ICE would have never been criticized in the beginning. Either way, every human should be treated with respect.

As for the situation in Lake Elsinore, you can't come to America as an illegal immigrant and expect to not be deported if your found out. You broke the law, and something has to be done about it. The real problem is the businesses in America. It's OUR fault that we have illegal immigrants(not 'everybody'') but it is because we are hiring illegal immigrants, that they keep coming back. They take all the jobs that we as Americans don't want, and so if their employed here...their going to want to stay here. The article on Lake Elsinore seems like it is a lot of “he said, she said.” The city manager says that they have nothing to do with border patrol activity. Then he is called a liar. And back and forth it goes. I definitely believe it's a possibility that there is a connection there. I think it's ridiculous how people can complain there are “Hispanics” working on street corners. This isn't a utopia. I think it's even more ridiculous that city officials actually wanted them to leave the street that they were on, as to just 'shove up in the back so nobody will see them.'

It is the border patrols job to deport illegal immigrants...do the city officials have connections with the border patrol? I don't know. Is it fair that the border patrol “rounded up” illegal immigrants because people were complaining that there were Hispanics standing on corners, of course not. But the bottom line is they are not US citizens, and therefore should be treated like all other illegal immigrants and be deported.

In Postville Iowa, the first thing I would like to know is why the heck are illegal immigrants being shackled and sent for processing at the National Cattle Congress? After reading this article, the protests in Riverside almost fall on deaf ears(my own)..comparing them to whats going on with these people in Iowa. Now especially after reading that ICE said that, “the responsibility for any disruption lies squarely with the law violators, not with the agency responsible for carrying out the law," ICE spokesman Tim Counts said in a written statement.”...it leads me to ask, is there no regulation on the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Apparently not...there are just 'law violators' out there and ICE is not taking responsibility for them or their actions, or even any apologies. I agree with Goldsmith in the article when it should have been done step by step...it's inhumane having a raid of almost almost 1000 immigration police to arrest 389 people? That's at least 2 immigration police per person. It's unnecessary.

I don't really know if I'm for or against the almost immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. But I DO know, that they can't just stay here and continue to be illegal. Just how it all started, if there were no businesses that would hire illegal immigrants, they wouldn't be here. And if any illegal's are never deported, than more will keep coming...and coming. We can't just do NOTHING. I'm just not sure what another alternative 'something' would be.

Post #2:

I don't agree with Tri nguyen & Christina when they say that it's pointless for illegal immigrants to "turn themselves in" because if they have a chance to not be found out as illegal then they should keep it that way. But the reality is, the immigrants that are eligible for this program are ones who have final deportation orders. They are already known to the ICE to be illegal, and like Hayes said either you(the illegals) come to us, or we will come to you.

To compare pure numbers, I would say McCain has the better timeline...if you can call that a timeline. By that, I mean his idea that the war in Iraq could essentially be ended in 2013 is much more logical than Obama's fanatic plans to remove most U.S. troop from Iraq by 2010. This simply is not possible. Troops are literally embedded within Iraqi society at this point. They have become a pivotal point for Iraqi economy, safety, and government as the country attempts to rebuild its foundation. In retrospect, the 2010 withdrawal may seem like a better option because we have spent so much time in Iraq, nearly 6 years, but progressively, what is left on the to-do list? Ira is still very unstable. The military still finds itself struggling itself to suppress Al Qaeda and other aggressive terrorist groups. For any stability in Iraq, these factions and violent parties need to be eliminated.

This is the more detailed fine-print that actually cause me to shift my favor to Obama's plan. McCain is surely the maverick on this one, determined to create a sub-America community in Iraq. His site discusses pushing local entrepreneurship within Iraq. He also want to provide boats of electricity, garbage control, and water resources to the Middle Eastern wasteland. As kind as this is, it seems as though America is just becoming philanthropists. Is this really going to help US's bruised economy? Is this type of funding going to last with respect to the amount of these resources not available within Iraq. There are plenty of places with these EXACT same issues and shortages. Does America need to start giving aid to every single one. It seems that McCain is heavily pushing for sturdy, detailed principles that he has personally created for the country, something Bush cannot be credited for. His ideas have a good background, but it past the idealogical level that they crumble. Iraq is Iraq; cultures are different, and people may not desire to follow the same principles followed in America. Anyhow, is this vast amount of funding needed without a doubt?

I liked Obama's position more in the sense that it gave a lot of agency without giving over total control to Iraq just yet. I like his simple plans to slowly train a larger Iraqi troops army; I also like his ideas to keep the corruptive neighboring countries out of the picture for awhile. If Iraq comes born again, it needs that time to grow and protect itself. One factor Obama still need is a more comprehensive exit strategy. I am aware he wants to move some troops to Afghanistan, and it should be assessed if this country truly possesses a terrorist, but what other ideas does he have for Iraq then "stop it"? Obama needs to wait. He needs to assess how well the country can suffice on its own, how economy will hold, how much economy can function independently, and if the terrorist population has been depleted completely. McCain may have the right ideas in this sense, but he needs to allow Iraq to make their own decisions. This is what I liked about Obama's decsion: it leaves plenty of agency to the trustable officials of Iraq to make decisions. Obama even said he has a withdrawal plan, but it is the Iraq's prime minister's that really makes an effect.

As of now, I believe we need to tie loose ends in Iraq, but we cannot be hasty. We need to cover all areas of government, in turn to be governed by Iraqi natives. Additionally, Iraqi officials need to take the reigns in these areas of government. If takes a year great, but it does not spell withdrawal. Stabilize the country, watch it grow, check for bugs, and then let it free. After waiting for a government to stabilize, US troops can then leave the country, leaving only very few scouts. Alas, all these facets need a timeline so as US can aid this country while aiding itself in the impending economic crisis.

If I was able to vote in November I would be extremely torn between the two viewpoints regarding this issue. I believe marriage is a complete and total choice and even for same-sex couples, marriage is a sign of complete and total devotion towards someone you believe you will remain faithfully together for the rest of both of your lives. For example, with allegedly 500 homosexual couples signing up to be married in San Francisco in the interim period between June and November when marriage is legal in California, I personally question whether or not these couples are truly in love and how many are simply trying to use their orientation to prove a point of tolerance.

Not with any bitter remark was that last sentence stated, minded, but if the estimated 500 per day were to be married ONLY in San Francisco (according to the article) between that time-frame roughly 70,000 gay couples will be married (taking into account a lessening progressively, not 500 marriages everyday for approximately 6 months) in that period out of the 225,832 who married in California in the 2007 year, according to the National Vital Statistics report. This is roughly 31 percent of the total marriages in California occurring in a single city to a minority group. Either the data gathered and approximated by the San Francisco city officials was completely askew or California is at least now more than 1/3 homosexual with all of those couples wanting to get married immediately. If marriage is a moral question, which I believe it is, than why would SO MANY homosexual couples be so ardent to get married? Of course it could be explained by a logical fear of never having that opportunity again to get married, but if marriage is a right to be given to all people regardless of anything that could be deemed imperfect or whatnot, than why sunder its validity with a rush to the marriage courts? It is statistically extremely improbable that so many homosexual couples are truly devoted to each other enough to get married in the numbers that are accounted for - in at least San Francisco.

However, heterosexual couples have also never been prevented from marrying each other as homosexual couples have. In a scientific study (link followed at the bottom of the page) Homosexual and Heterosexual couples tend NOT to differ in levels of love and satisfaction in association with standardized test scales. Homosexuals also, despite propagated myth, are not extremely promiscuous and have very similar numbers of infidelity accounts as Heterosexuals do. Furthermore the study shows that roughly the same number of gay and straight couples tended to break up after a study following 18 months of relationship observations between the two groups was conducted (again, see link at bottom). If these statistics are indeed true to form and the heterosexuals in San Francisco, for the sake of argument, are indeed deeply committed and in love, than preventing them from marriage is unsound in the moral aspect of the issue.

In the legal aspect of the issue I believe same-sex marriage should not be allowed to be amended into the constitution as it would enact full faith and credit of this into every state that the United States is part of (President statement) and lets be frank, many states are simply not ready or willing to allow even the discussion of this to break household dining conversation (if it even gets to that point). It is simply not an amendment ready to be applied to the country for obvious reasons of intolerance, etc.

However, I do believe that if homosexual couples desire a marriage license it could be issued individually by states that vote and pass, in accordance with popular and state governing officials, legal right to do so. Although this would technically not have the couples recognized in states that did not legalize this, I’m sure that if homosexual couples desire to be together in a state of marriage, they will reside in an area where it is allowed and usually those areas are a more welcoming environment for the couples anyway.

It is not without trepidation that I stated those last avowals or this one but in my minds eye I believe that it is no ones right to impose beliefs upon everyone at once in favor to support those who follow the new ideal. There is a dichotomy to this in that heterosexuals are trying to preserve marriage as it currently is defined to, in their minds, protect marriage as sacred (stems from popular religious association with marriage), and homosexuals believe they are being discriminated because their beliefs cannot be allowed alongside heterosexuals. I don’t completely understand the rationale behind either case for instance why not just allow the gay couples to get married or vice-versa why cant homosexual couples be happy simply by being together, but I’m probably not the only one in this mind-frame.

Without the facts stated and going by personal opinion on the matter, if I could vote in November on this issue I wouldn’t support same-sex marriage as I personally believe that the sheer amount of homosexual couples requesting to be married in the interim period in California (in San Francisco, ALONE) could not be each couples who are devoted and in love and ready to spend a lifetime together. It is a rare thing to see a heterosexual couple who are truly ready and mature enough to get married, to see a homosexual couple in the same fashion is even rarer, but to see truly incredulous amounts of homosexual couples in that approach is just too far-fetched for me personally.




–National Vital Statistics Report-
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_21.htm#T2

-Homosexual vs. Heterosexual relationship studies report-
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom

-President statement on Same Sex Marriage amendment-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

The next president needs to show complete and total leadership when it comes to the environment and energy. Action needs to be taken immediately and monthly checks should be made in order to track the amount of progress that has been made during the president’s term of office. We all know that the United States has an “oil addiction,” but it does not seem like anything has really been done in order to fix it. I hear the Chevy commercials that say, “Gas friendly to gas free” which does show initiative from the automakers to help our current state of gas dependency. I do understand that it will take many years for our country to eliminate its dependency of foreign nations but sooner or later the supply of oil will run out for everyone and that is inevitable. Energy is everlasting and renewable, oil is not. The next president needs to focus on temporarily participating in off-shore drilling, as well as investing into alternative forms of energy. If those tasks are accomplished, then our nation will have a brighter future ahead of us.


Off- shore drilling is something that people should support for the good of our nation. I believe that if we want our nation to flourish economically, we should start out by eliminating ties with foreign nations that “Do not like us,” as Governor Palin repeats over and over. I do agree with Palin for we should not be sending our money to nations that support the destruction of the United States and home to terrorists. I know that it will take a while for off-shore drilling to take place, but having that sense of support will help with get our nation back on its feet. It’s simply like the old mercantilist ideals of government, keeping the wealth inside the nation. Although this deals with gas and not gold, it is quite similar for we should sustain our wealth by supplying more of the barrels for our citizens. We are obtaining almost seventy percent of oil from foreign nations. Seventy percent of consumed oil costs the nation billons of dollars that is sent to other countries instead of keeping it here in the United States. That money could be used to help support research and methods of alternative forms of energy. We have four percent of the world’s population, yet we consume twenty-five percent of its oil. That is a ridiculous amount of oil that I think it unnecessary. Our nation needs to learn to sacrifice a little bit and not get greedy. I believe that our nation should switch to natural gas and help out the Earth as well. I do not think that we should stop at off-shore drilling, but instead head that direction in order to have a temporary fix that we all need. If we can be put into a situation that will help sustain our wealth, our economy will only go up after that. If we have more funding for energy research, our country would finally be ahead of all the others. Also, if we participated in off-shore drilling, then we would significantly hurt the economy of nations that supply our source of oil and their prices would have to come down. If we do not want to use all of our oil or have the pollution in our nation, then we could always buy from the oil suppliers for a cheaper price.


The different domestic energy resources that we have are: natural gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind power, hydro energy, coal, tide, and bio fuel. Although I agree that nuclear energy is something that our nation should invest in, it will take too long to put into action, especially in California for there are too many regulations in our state. We are already getting energy from hydro through the Hoover Dam that it supplying some electric in many states, California included. Tide energy is simply using the power of the waves to produce energy as well. Natural gas is something that should get rid of foreign oil for natural gas can be used to power our cars. This would help with the current transportation issue due to high gas prices for it is cheaper. Natural gas is also cleaner than oil and is domestic. Also, coal based fuel will help reduce green house gasses that is thought to cause global warming and also will help with the issue of foreign oil. Solar energy is something that is really expensive which is why most people do not have it. Most Americans also think that solar panels make their homes less attractive. As Mr. Chavez stated in class, we should get some solar panels on the moon that direct energy to different satellites. I do not think that people will support this for it seems way too advanced for our country and if it did work, it wouldn’t be put into action for many years. Bio fuels are only considered if they are made of eighty percent renewable materials. As the video shows, the usage of algae could possibly replace oil altogether if it was supported by the nation.

When I drive to Palm Springs, I always pass the rows of wind mills that take advantage of the wind for energy. T. Boone Pickens put together “Pickens Plan” that gives wind a change to account for twenty percent of the nation’s energy. Simply by using the nation’s strong wind in the center of the country by stretching from the south end of Canada to the tip of Texas, we could significantly help out our nation’s energy consumption. Pickens invested in a 4,000 mega watt wind farm in Texas. If his plan works, it could save three hundred billion dollars a year for the country and help out our economic situation by a lot. I also support off-shore turbines that will use wind for energy off the coast of our nation.

There are many people who have visions for the future success of this nation. However it should not take a crisis for those visions to be validated and put to use. We all know that the supply of oil will one day run out, our nation should be proactive and prepare for that day. Until then, drilling off shore should be used as a bridge from old technology of oil in foreign countries to the new technology of solar, coal, natural gas, etc. I believe that the next president should support that!


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/28/business/coal.php

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

http://news.cnet.com/t-boone-pickens-energy-plan/

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/downloads/ge_36_brochure