What do you think about Obama's Stances?

1) Tax Cuts: For right now, raising taxes is necessary. The reason our economy is in a mess is because the dollar's value dropped so precipitously. That is directly related to the National Debt; which got that high because of how Bush borrowed money to fund the Iraq War when he was unwilling to raise taxes.

Since later you say that you want to stay in Iraq (there are logical reasons for doing so), we either have to raise the money to pay for it or we will continue to deal with a failing economy (and eventual depression).

If you want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. And the honest fact is where most of our money is going is to this war in Iraq. The Iraq War is costing us more money than every entitlement program the Democrats push combined. So if you want lower taxes AND a good economy, the war will have to go. That, or we raise taxes to maintain the economy above depression. Or we combine both (get out of the war and raise taxes), and we pay off the National Debt and actually fix the economy entirely.

After we have paid off the National Debt, we then lower taxes on everyone and keep spending down. I believe in Conservative fiscal ideas, but they are not what is called for right now.

We have to raise taxes to fix what Bush did in spending; then cut them later to keep it fixed.

2) I partially agree with you on the Energy Plan. But what history has taught me is that if you allow the oil companies to get more to drill (they actually have 68 million acres in the continental US already and aren't drilling any of it), they will do so. But then they will fight every attempt to move on to a new energy source (since it costs them money), and they have the money to convince our politicians to stop any attempt to move to other energy sources.

In essence, if we give them the ability to drill in ANWR and further in the Gulf of Mexico, they will take it and then prevent any move to break off of oil. We won't do anything about the problem for at least 7-10 years; and then we will get the same problem again in less than 30 years (closer to 20 years).

We suck it up now or we suck it up in 20 years. Up to you which one you want; but if we suck it up now the sooner we can get off of oil and stop providing money to terrorists.

3) Universal Health Care. I really don't see how your point works out where its less profitable to become a doctor. Perhaps explaining that further (and I am completely serious on that, not making fun); its possible, but I don't see how.

What I do see is why the cost of health care is so high. The truth is that there are two major problems. One, there are poor who can't afford health insurance, but the law still requires they be taken care of. This drives up the cost when they don't pay.

The other cause of the high rise is health insurance companies themselves. They are a business; they don't make money if they always have to pay out money. Because of this, they fight paying every chance they get. This is especially true on big ticket items like heart attacks, strokes, and longterm care for cancer sufferers or the aging.

They know how long it takes to get court action on lawsuits, so they are willing to take a chance on getting sued. They know most people cannot wait it out because they need money now. So they refuse to pay. Well, the hospital already did the work and the lab tests and treatments and so on; and they need to be paid, so they go to the patient when the health insurance company bails.

Well, the patient thought they were covered, so they don't have the money to cover things like heart attacks or cancer. So they also skip out on the bill; and the hospital is stuck. They have to try to make it up somewhere, so they do so by sticking it to other patients in the form of higher costs on labs and treatments and so on.

So both those who are too poor to be insured and those who thought they were covered are screwed under our current system. Both problems are fixed under a Universal Health Care System.

4) I more or less agree with you on immigration. I disagree that if you get rid of the "jobs for illegals," that they'll stop coming. What will happen is that they will try to find new ways to get past it; and they have been rather successful so far in doing so.

I have a different plan for ending illegal immigration. But so far every attempt I've made to get it out and see how people like it shows that almost no one supports it. It will work, but apprarently people don't want to deal with the situation anymore and won't wait for how long it will take to work.

Every plan (including yours) will never end the problem altogether. Your plan has the best chance of limiting it, but it won't end the problem. My plan has a very good chance of ending the problem, but it will take at least 10 years and probably 20 years before it does.

I realize that no one would support my plan anyway, so I've decided to abandon trying to spread the idea. But know that your plan will not end the problem as you believe it will; nor will McCain's or Obama's. Your's has the most effectiveness of the three, though. So I'd agree with yours if those three were my choices.

5) Iraq: For the record, there were no terrorists in Iraq before we went in. Saddam Hussein kept them out. Not because he was a good guy; it was more jealousy.

Hussein relished his reputation as the man who had stood up to the US. Of course, that rep starts to pale when compared to those who not only stood up to the US, but actually attacked back. Basically, Hussein didn't want to be outshone by Osama bin Laden; so he kept them out.

He also did not have weapons of mass destruction. And that idea that he took them into Syria is bunk. Saddam Hussein was Sunni, Syria is mostly Shiite. They would not help him in the least. Saddam Hussein didn't have any, and we know because he had no where to send them (unless he sent them to Saudi Arabia--who would have told us if only to get further on our good sides and make more money off of us).

However, that is the past. And while they weren't there before, al Qaeda is in Iraq now. So there is logic to staying and kicking them back out. But as I said in the opening subject (taxes), if you believe we should stay in Iraq, we must raise the taxes to pay for it.

That, or we will have to deal with a weak economy (and possible depression).

And one must point out that Obama doesn't want to stop fighting the terrorists entirely. He just wants out of Iraq, he wants to stay in Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden is). There is a pretty good chance we still won't have to fight them here; because we will be fighting them in Afghanistan. We'll just have better luck finding Osama bin Laden if we are in the same country he's in...

That's up to you to decide if the Iraq War is worth higher taxes OR a weak economy. But we will have to suffer one or the other if we stick with the Iraq war.

I agree with alot of what you said, his plans just aren't very well though out in my opinion. I would like to address your idea of a fair or flat income tax though. The tax system has been the same for over 150years many people have attempted to change it, but this system is going nowhere. And i completely agree with you about the drilling. Though he is right that we need an alternative source of energy, we will never get there if all our money is going toward foreign oil. If we can drill our our own land then we can have inexpensive fuel for many years to come in which by that time hopefully an alternative source of energy can be implemented. BOB BARR 08

Yes, that is somewhat the same way I feel.

Yet when I read Obama's web site, I do not get the feeling that Obama actually wrote those positions. It talks about him in the third person.

Also the fact that he paid 1.5 Million to have his facebook page done scares me. He is willing to over pay for something he could have done for free, but will not pay to find out how much oil will be gained by drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf.

I don't know Obama's views on ebonics, but if I were to hazard a guess, Iwould imagine that his stance is that it's a non-standard dialect of English which, like any dialect, is perfectly natural. All we should be doing about it is educating the speakers of "Ebonics" on the differences between their dialect and the standard and let them figure it out for themselves how they wish to talk, kind of like we do with kids in the South.

You very aptly describe the empty suit, socialist, with very litttle agenda who wants to lead our country. Perhaps you should be running for President as opposed to him. He could be a disaster for this country, for reasons you have cited and more. All in the name of CHANGE? The change would destroy us. Additionally, the least involvement we (the Government) has in programs, such as the health care program, the better. We over staff these programs and then make a mess of things, with the developed bureacracy, which is neither efficient or effective.

None of Obama's Ideas will solve anything....they have all been tried before and failed!

The thing is, just about everything Obama says is the same old 'clap track' we have been hearing from socialist politicians for over 60 years.

"Hillary-care" / Socialized medicine is not new.

"Cripple the Military's Morale" by reducing funding and capabilities is not new.

"Accuse all whites of racism'" is not new.

"Raise Taxes" is not new.

"Redistribute Wealth" is not new.

"Amnesty for illegals" is not new.

Create gun control laws contrary to the constitution has been tried before

We already have Affirmative action and racial quota programs the effectively lower standards and have been proven to actually increase predjudice.

Since all of these ideas have been tried and have failed in the past how are these old ideas going to solve all america's problems???

Tax cuts: I think Obama has this one right. I do not trust wealthy people to reinvest their tax cut savings into our economy. I believe it is much more likely that wealthy individuals try to keep as much of their extra income from the tax cuts and likely spend it on foreign goods. I don't believe 'trickle down' economics is nearly as effective as Republicans claim; it's just an excuse to decrease their tax burden.

Energy Plan: I like Obama's position on this issue as well. I think the land where oil companies are already allowed to drill is sufficient. By the time we see any oil from new drilling sites, we could get an alternate fuel source up to efficient and effective production levels. The call for more drilling is just a ruse to allow oil companies more opportunities to profit. Oil production is limited by a lack of refining compacity, not a lack of drilling sites, and the oil will still be drilled by private companies who will sell it on the usual oil markets. Why should we ruin our natural beauty to let private companies sell us back our own oil?

Health Care: There are some good arguments for and against universal health care. A lack of doctors is a new one for me. I don't understand why fewer people would want to be doctors if universal healthcare is instituted. Do they prefer having to treat people who can't pay? Do they prefer treating people with advanced disease states rather than relatively healthy people in preventive check-ups? Personally, I prefer a healthcare system where everyone can afford regular check-ups to nip diseases in the bud rather than one where only the wealthy can afford decent healthcare.

Immigration: I also prefer Obama's plan here. We have been too lax on our border patrol for too long to ever hope to track down and prosecute all of the illegal immigrants. The only practical solution I see would be to offer them a little bit of amnesty to get them to come forward willingly. It would be cheaper than paying for ICE to track down 13 million people.

Iraq: The Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq was faulty and invading Iraq has been one of the biggest mistakes our country has ever committed. We were already fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda had its headquarters). Why did we need to invade a country with very few terrorists (Saddam did not tolerate religious zealotry) in order to have a place to lure terrorists to? Most of them were already in Afghanistan. There is no noble justification for our Iraq invasion; trying to invent one is a fool's errand. I agree with Obama and the Iraqi President, continuing to stay in Iraq with our current troop levels is doing more harm than good.

These are my views on these issues and why I am considering casting my vote for Obama instead of McCain. I've been a long-time fan of McCain, but since becoming the nominee, his rhetoric sounds too much like Bush's. I'm afraid McCain will mistake his victory as some kind of validation for, and a desire to continue, Bush's policies.

Vote McCain

Very well said and thought out, my opinions on Obama's stance is very simple, Obama is does NOT have the experience, wisdom, maturity, and judgement to be our next President and will not get my vote.

McCain in 08

McCain 08 because we will have cheap gas right away

I agree with most of Obama's proposals though not all. I certainly prefer him to McBush.