Why do you support your paticular candidate?

[hoosiercubsfan]

In reading many of the posts in this forum this morning I see a lot of bantering back and forth but want to go a little further. Why do you back McCain/Obama? I know there is the whole Democrat vs. Republican debate but there has to be more than that. Is there something about either candidate that really strikes a cord with you that you completely agree with. I fully admit that I really do not like either candidate. I am a conservative at heart but do not like the thought currently of voting for McCain. I certainly think that Obama would hurt the country by all the programs he wants to institute. I understand his reasoning for wanting these programs but my question is how is he planning on paying for these programs. I guess the point of my post is if you are solidly behind a candidate why do you support them?

[ari1013]

I've gone in depth about why I support Obama over McCain, so instead I'll answer your other questions.

Between Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson, Republicans were getting angry at the fact that Democrats had been able to effectively reshape the federal government in the Wilsonian-model, i.e. treating the Constitution as a "Living Document" intended to help the every-man. So they began to initiate programs that would effectively run up enormous deficits and therefore they would be able to "defund the left."

Reagan and Bush did it to Clinton. Recall that Clinton had vast plans of improving national infrastructure, increasing the minimum wage, scaling back the anti-Labor executive orders left behind by Reagan, etc. Instead Clinton was forced to balance the budget and could only carry out a shell of his original plans. In fact, back in 1992, his economic advisors told him that if he tried to go through with his plans, the economy could sink into a situation similar to that of the 1970s.

Fast forward to today. Bush has run up record deficits that have caused the national debt to double -- such that it's possible that when Obama is sworn in as the next president, the debt will be at $10 trillion. At that point, Obama's going to get the same memo Clinton did. Scale back, or be ready for a Depression.

Anyway, Obama's never going to be able to fund all of his programs. And that's a good thing. Just like an individual person, the government needs to make decisions as to what is really important -- and then target those 2 or 3 things. This time around, a national infrastructure project will be well timed and beneficial to the sinking economy. So figure on that one. Also count on our military spending to decrease over the next couple of years. But if you really think that health care is going to be dramatically expanded, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Similarly, if it's a President McCain who takes office, you can expect to see something similar to the first President Bush -- a lot of promises that he just can't keep. Bush I was unable to cut taxes because of the reckless fiscal policies leftover from the previous administration. The only thing we need now is for McCain to say "read my lips: No new taxes!"

[SmthBluCitrus]

Well, let me preface this by saying that I'm generally a Democrat first. It's not a party-loyal thing or even a party-blind thing. There are Republicans that I like, Republicans that I've liked, and Republicans that I'd vote for (if in my districts). The reason I'm a Democrat first is because the party ideology tends to align with my own. I'm an old-school FDR Democrat with a few modern twists (free trade being one of my bigger deviations).

That said, I'm voting for Obama. And, I'll give you a basic laundry list as to why ... we can go into more detail, if you'd like, later on.

Why? It's because he's for advancing the idea of progressive health care. Although I'm not a huge fan of his plan (as opposed to other Dems plans -- John Edwards) I believe he's at least moving the health care conversation in the right direction.

He's for a responsible end to the Iraq War, but with greater focus on actually pursuing those that perpatrated the attacks. I was anti-war from the outset. I guess that's my Northern California liberal bias coming out in me, but I'm generally against war. And, let me tell you, it was tough being anti war in the Midwest. I got a lot of grief for that opinion. My husband was actually for the war (and was a Bush supporter because "he was a guy he could sit down with" -- and he was very disgruntled coming out of the Clinton era). Oh, and to clarify ... I was FOR Afghanistan. I just think Obama has a more responsible approach to that issue, and Joe Biden just strengthens that.

I prefer the way he wants to pursue foreign policy. He was at the forefront of the discussion of sitting down with other leaders throughout the world. And, it's a policy that the current administration has begun to follow the past 18 months.

After reading that article that DB posted yesterday, I've become a bit more focused on learning about exactly what it is he advocates. But, if McCain is for continuing the Bush tax cuts while overspending in Iraq, then I'm voting against that.

Hope that helps ... there's more. But, I think that's good for now.

[hoosiercubsfan]

Well, let me preface this by saying that I'm generally a Democrat first. It's not a party-loyal thing or even a party-blind thing. There are Republicans that I like, Republicans that I've liked, and Republicans that I'd vote for (if in my districts). The reason I'm a Democrat first is because the party ideology tends to align with my own. I'm an old-school FDR Democrat with a few modern twists (free trade being one of my bigger deviations).

That said, I'm voting for Obama. And, I'll give you a basic laundry list as to why ... we can go into more detail, if you'd like, later on.

Why? It's because he's for advancing the idea of progressive health care. Although I'm not a huge fan of his plan (as opposed to other Dems plans -- John Edwards) I believe he's at least moving the health care conversation in the right direction.

He's for a responsible end to the Iraq War, but with greater focus on actually pursuing those that perpatrated the attacks. I was anti-war from the outset. I guess that's my Northern California liberal bias coming out in me, but I'm generally against war. And, let me tell you, it was tough being anti war in the Midwest. I got a lot of grief for that opinion. My husband was actually for the war (and was a Bush supporter because "he was a guy he could sit down with" -- and he was very disgruntled coming out of the Clinton era). Oh, and to clarify ... I was FOR Afghanistan. I just think Obama has a more responsible approach to that issue, and Joe Biden just strengthens that.

I prefer the way he wants to pursue foreign policy. He was at the forefront of the discussion of sitting down with other leaders throughout the world. And, it's a policy that the current administration has begun to follow the past 18 months.

After reading that article that DB posted yesterday, I've become a bit more focused on learning about exactly what it is he advocates. But, if McCain is for continuing the Bush tax cuts while overspending in Iraq, then I'm voting against that.

Hope that helps ... there's more. But, I think that's good for now.

Thank you that is exactly what I was looking for. I do not believe in the whole us versus them thing. At the end of the day we are all the same and have issues that we face in our own lives on a day to day basis.

I personally am against the progressive health care. I would rather see the massive insurance companies be forced to sell insurance much like life insurance is sold. Get away from the massive policies that are only available to corporations. Let the individual consumer be allowed to pick from a laundry list of services. If you are in your 70's you don't carry maternity insurance and things like that. Let the companies compete for clients and let the free market dictate what the premiums are going to be.

I won't say I was against the war but have not agreed with how it was run. We did a great job at winning the war but a TERRIBLE job at winning the peace. To think that the Iraqi's where going to come out and just fall all over us with adoration was just completely short sighted. Why should those people believe anything that has been told to them by the U.S. We left them to be slaughtered at the end of the first gulf war. So I am with you on a "reasonable" end to the war. I think Bush finally gets that as well and that is the reason there is finally talk of a time table of when the troops will come home. To little to late for him but at least it is a step in the right direction. It is time to let them sink or swim on their own with limited help by the Americans.

On the flip side I disagree with how he wants to lead his foreign policy. We need to sit down and talk to certain leaders but you have to be selective on who those leaders are. Sitting down to talk to the Iranian president would be foolish at best. It would be strewn all over as the mighty US cowing down to him. He is a master at propaganda and I am just weary of what would happen in sitting down to talk to him. Putin on the other hand is someone who needs to be dealt with.

Bush tax cuts being reversed would be terrible for the economy. We are a nation spenders not savers. If you take more money out of peoples pockets it will be less than they are able to spend. If they are made permanent and we cut way back in Iraq leaving only a skeleton of what is there to assist where needed would in my opinion help the most. But again this is all just my opinion. I enjoy the good banter back and forth and enjoy learning about others opinions so I thank you for your response.

[NotVeryOriginal]

I personally am against the progressive health care. I would rather see the massive insurance companies be forced to sell insurance much like life insurance is sold. Get away from the massive policies that are only available to corporations. Let the individual consumer be allowed to pick from a laundry list of services. If you are in your 70's you don't carry maternity insurance and things like that. Let the companies compete for clients and let the free market dictate what the premiums are going to be.

This doesnt affect me, but I disagree with the notion that human life is traded as a commodity.

I won't say I was against the war but have not agreed with how it was run. We did a great job at winning the war but a TERRIBLE job at winning the peace. To think that the Iraqi's where going to come out and just fall all over us with adoration was just completely short sighted. Why should those people believe anything that has been told to them by the U.S. We left them to be slaughtered at the end of the first gulf war. So I am with you on a "reasonable" end to the war. I think Bush finally gets that as well and that is the reason there is finally talk of a time table of when the troops will come home. To little to late for him but at least it is a step in the right direction. It is time to let them sink or swim on their own with limited help by the Americans.

On the flip side I disagree with how he wants to lead his foreign policy. We need to sit down and talk to certain leaders but you have to be selective on who those leaders are. Sitting down to talk to the Iranian president would be foolish at best. It would be strewn all over as the mighty US cowing down to him. He is a master at propaganda and I am just weary of what would happen in sitting down to talk to him. Putin on the other hand is someone who needs to be dealt with.

Iran isnt a serious threat. Going to war with them will only make your economy (and by the transit of propperty, my economy) worse, it will drive up oil prices and further radicalise a nation that has a large minority of moderate voters. The only reason Mujinadkhsagds managed to get to power in the 1st place was because of the nationalist vote, people see the US waving its dick around in Iraq and vote accordingly. The real threat is pakistan, they actually HAVE nukes, one of the only pro western guys is goverment is out of power, and several high ranking officials are Jihadist sympathizers. Even if they dont give nukes to a terrorist cell to use against you, a war with India seem likely, which will bring the worlds economy to a halt. You wana do dick waving, do it with Pakistan.

[/quote]
Bush tax cuts being reversed would be terrible for the economy. We are a nation spenders not savers. If you take more money out of peoples pockets it will be less than they are able to spend. If they are made permanent and we cut way back in Iraq leaving only a skeleton of what is there to assist where needed would in my opinion help the most. But again this is all just my opinion. I enjoy the good banter back and forth and enjoy learning about others opinions so I thank you for your response.[/QUOTE]

For thousands of years leaders have raised taxes in times of war and it worked out well for them, once they stopped the income and continued the war they fell. See the partition of Romeas a prime example. Nobody likes paying taxes, but is the way of the world.

[hoosiercubsfan]

This doesnt affect me, but I disagree with the notion that human life is traded as a commodity.



Iran isnt a serious threat. Going to war with them will only make your economy (and by the transit of propperty, my economy) worse, it will drive up oil prices and further radicalise a nation that has a large minority of moderate voters. The only reason Mujinadkhsagds managed to get to power in the 1st place was because of the nationalist vote, people see the US waving its dick around in Iraq and vote accordingly. The real threat is pakistan, they actually HAVE nukes, one of the only pro western guys is goverment is out of power, and several high ranking officials are Jihadist sympathizers. Even if they dont give nukes to a terrorist cell to use against you, a war with India seem likely, which will bring the worlds economy to a halt. You wana do dick waving, do it with Pakistan.

Bush tax cuts being reversed would be terrible for the economy. We are a nation spenders not savers. If you take more money out of peoples pockets it will be less than they are able to spend. If they are made permanent and we cut way back in Iraq leaving only a skeleton of what is there to assist where needed would in my opinion help the most. But again this is all just my opinion. I enjoy the good banter back and forth and enjoy learning about others opinions so I thank you for your response.[/QUOTE]

For thousands of years leaders have raised taxes in times of war and it worked out well for them, once they stopped the income and continued the war they fell. See the partition of Romeas a prime example. Nobody likes paying taxes, but is the way of the world.[/QUOTE]

First off human life being treated like a commodity isn't quite what I have in mind. It is more the fact that the insurance policy's being treated as the commodity it is. If people where able to go out and pick out their own insurance and pay for it like a typical life insurance policy. Allowing people to take the same policy from job to job as they wish. Not tieing them to a job for the mere fact that it is the only way they can get insurance. With allowing the free market to dictate the prices of the insurance policies.

Let me be clear that I want no part of a war with Iran. I believe they can be dealt with through economic sanctions. The biggest mistake we could do would be to invade a country like Iran. If somehow we can leave Iraq on a semi stable footing that may very well change the opinion of the U.S. as an occupying force. I agree with Pakistan being a threat but I feel Iran is also a threat that can be dealt with without going to war with them.

[SmthBluCitrus]

Bush tax cuts being reversed would be terrible for the economy. We are a nation spenders not savers. If you take more money out of peoples pockets it will be less than they are able to spend. If they are made permanent and we cut way back in Iraq leaving only a skeleton of what is there to assist where needed would in my opinion help the most. But again this is all just my opinion. I enjoy the good banter back and forth and enjoy learning about others opinions so I thank you for your response.

Quick question for you ... did you read Obama's economic overview that DB posted yesterday? It's long, but you might want to take a look at it.

So, we're a nation of spenders not savers. Well, I suppose that's true. But, who is it that's doing the spending? I would assume that you're going to say the middle class. Because, the wealthy tend to save and invest.

If that's the case, you might want to consider voting for Obama, because he's proposed tax cuts for the middle class that go deeper than the McCain plan of continued Bush tax cuts.

Also, the Iraq War isn't part of the official books that Washington is keeping. Those war cost isn't in the budget.

Take a look at this ... it's from wikipedia, but it gives pretty good insight.

Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills. Senior congressional leaders have contended that those war costs, as much as possible, should go through the regular budget process, which provides for greater transparency. Determining the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is complex. CBO has estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion." (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2007, Box 1-1, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8565&type=0>) See Below for total defense spending.

Then follow this link to show what exactly was spent in the federal budget.

First off human life being treated like a commodity isn't quite what I have in mind. It is more the fact that the insurance policy's being treated as the commodity it is. If people where able to go out and pick out their own insurance and pay for it like a typical life insurance policy. Allowing people to take the same policy from job to job as they wish. Not tieing them to a job for the mere fact that it is the only way they can get insurance. With allowing the free market to dictate the prices of the insurance policies.

Or we could just have a national health care system that covers everybody everywhere. Individuals don't have to worry about being pre-qualifying for insurance -- because they're just covered. And, businesses don't have to worry about that in their benefits package -- nor do they have to worry about negotiating with major insurers for a package for their employees.

That, and they don't have to worry about the added expenses it will cost them to keep people insured; freeing up money to train and hire a larger work force.

Let me be clear that I want no part of a war with Iran. I believe they can be dealt with through economic sanctions. The biggest mistake we could do would be to invade a country like Iran. If somehow we can leave Iraq on a semi stable footing that may very well change the opinion of the U.S. as an occupying force. I agree with Pakistan being a threat but I feel Iran is also a threat that can be dealt with without going to war with them.

Fair enough.

[Lady's Man]

i dont support politicans, i support my beliefs. No candidate appeals to my beliefs in entirty. I tend to favor republicans on the eononomy because i support free open markets. im more liberal when it comes to social issues.


However, most people become attached to a party or a person and will always bias their reasoning when giving the explanation as to why, just like everyone does on here. People believe in different things so its only natural. If a republican is in office, all democrats will do is complain and argue how the country is better off under a lib. If a democrat is in office, republicans will argue the same thing,, when in reality its all the same ********. Most people's lives wont change one bit. You may pay a little more or less tax, but at the end of the day, your always going to have to work to get where you want.

Im not old enough to vote, but if i did, i would probably vote mcccain because i have family members that run their own business and i know how hard they work and have had to work to make to where they are today. I dont believe the government has any right to punish them or other people with more taxes when most of the time that money will go to complete waste. I fear that if government continues to expand and if it imposes more taxes and regulations, then Americans will be even more afraid to go out on the limb to create business in this country.

[RogerRomo]

McCain: anti-abortion, small gov, independent healthcare (no handouts from my pocket), protects the constitution that liberals want to piss on, has a back bone, helps keep money in my pocket (like most I make over $42,000 a year), supports Bush tax cuts, REALLY wants to go about War in Iraq in a responsible way, doesnt flip flop his views after every "attack ad". Theres plenty more I just have to get back to work. Work harder people! Millions on Welfare are counting on you!

[b1e9a8r5s]

Well, I'm generally a conservative republican, especially socially. So there's the pro-life, against gay marriage, and pro capital punishment list that almost every republican brings to the table. (Oh, and I hate the poor, DB, lol).

As to McCain specifically, I think he showed a lot of courage and judgement in his support of the surge. He really put his neck on the line, and if the surge hadn't worked, there's no way in hell he would be the nominee. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think the Iraq war was a mistake, even in hindsight, but thought it was severely mishandled, which McCain got on board pretty early on. I think he does have a maverick streak in him, although he has admittedly fallen in line with the republican message on a lot of issues to secure the nomination.

At the end of the day, I trust him and I can't say the same about Obama. Obama to me, despite all the rhetoric, has proven to be just a cut throat politician like anyone else. If you look at how he won his first election here in Illinois, or how he stood by Wright only to desavow him when it was clear it would hurt him, or public financing. I'm not saying that most politicians wouldn't have done a lot of the things he has done, but that's what he's running on, that he's different than the rest. If you take that a way, he's a severely inexpierenced candidate who has not accomplished much in his time in the senate. Add to that, he's way to left for me to ever vote for him.

So that's why I am where I am in this election.

[NotVeryOriginal]

McCain: anti-abortion, small gov, independent healthcare (no handouts from my pocket), protects the constitution that liberals want to piss on, has a back bone, helps keep money in my pocket (like most I make over $42,000 a year), supports Bush tax cuts, REALLY wants to go about War in Iraq in a responsible way, doesnt flip flop his views after every "attack ad". Theres plenty more I just have to get back to work. Work harder people! Millions on Welfare are counting on you!

Patriot Act? Gay Marraige Ban?

[SmthBluCitrus]

McCain: anti-abortion, small gov, independent healthcare (no handouts from my pocket), protects the constitution that liberals want to piss on, has a back bone, helps keep money in my pocket (like most I make over $42,000 a year), supports Bush tax cuts, REALLY wants to go about War in Iraq in a responsible way, doesnt flip flop his views after every "attack ad". Theres plenty more I just have to get back to work. Work harder people! Millions on Welfare are counting on you!

I hate to say that you're ill-informed. But ... you're ill-informed.

Obama isn't raising taxes on people that make over $42,000 per year. That's a fallacy perpetrated by the McCain campaign machine. In general, Obama is giving those under $125,000 a bigger tax cut than they got under the Bush administration ... and bigger than McCain is advocating. So, there's that.

And, you'll be remiss to know that the McCain health care plan (although stresses independent health care) will actually have a greater toll on your wallet then you would care to admit. In the long run, the McCain health plan will cost more than the Obama plan. Sorry.

But ... you're right. Us liberals really do want to "piss" all over the Constitution. We were born that way.

[hoosiercubsfan]

Quick question for you ... did you read Obama's economic overview that DB posted yesterday? It's long, but you might want to take a look at it.

So, we're a nation of spenders not savers. Well, I suppose that's true. But, who is it that's doing the spending? I would assume that you're going to say the middle class. Because, the wealthy tend to save and invest.

If that's the case, you might want to consider voting for Obama, because he's proposed tax cuts for the middle class that go deeper than the McCain plan of continued Bush tax cuts.

Also, the Iraq War isn't part of the official books that Washington is keeping. Those war cost isn't in the budget.

Take a look at this ... it's from wikipedia, but it gives pretty good insight.



Then follow this link to show what exactly was spent in the federal budget.




Or we could just have a national health care system that covers everybody everywhere. Individuals don't have to worry about being pre-qualifying for insurance -- because they're just covered. And, businesses don't have to worry about that in their benefits package -- nor do they have to worry about negotiating with major insurers for a package for their employees.

That, and they don't have to worry about the added expenses it will cost them to keep people insured; freeing up money to train and hire a larger work force.




Fair enough.

Ok I just got done reading the entire article. And to be honest it kind of frightens me more than makes me want to vote more for Obama.

Families are now making less than they did during the economy that was being falsely propped up by a technology bubble that was bound to burst. With all the money being made by all the dot com stocks of course the economy was in a better position albeit it an artificial position. And Americans are still buying what the cannot afford is a problem for our society for which I made the statement that we are a nation of spenders and not savers. That is a problem for the individual not for the government to save. That is why Indiana leads the nation in bankruptcies and I am sorry I don't feel sorry for those who knowingly put themselves in the situation.

Do you honestly believe that raising the income tax on the "high" income earners is not going to adversely affect the people he is trying to help? I am firmly within the range that would be "helped" by Obama. Who do you think is making the $250k+ incomes in this country? It is far less the corporate fat cats you think and more the small business owners who are the backbone of this economy. So if you go in and raise their taxes it will cost people jobs those same people that Obama is trying to help.

The windfall profit tax is absolutely hilarious to me. You really think that Exon or Shell have anything whatsoever to do with the price of gasoline? The people who are manipulating the price of oil is the sheiks in OPEC.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html
That explains it much better than I could.

I am a Reagan conservative so completely disagree with just about every part of that part of the article. That is also why I don't believe your idea on universal health care will work. The government is terrible at running the things it does now do you think it is all of the sudden going to become good at running a health care system? I don't at all and would expect our health care system to become worse than that of Canada's. There is no moral element to capitalism. The idea is to produce the best product the cheapest and to drive your competition out of business what is moral about that.

And as far as putting in infrastructure isn't that the states job? To build and maintain highways is not something I want the federal government part of. OK that is about enough of surmising the article.

[yaowowrocket11]

Education: Will give money to Department of Education to make sure all schools are currently updated with the best technology to that the students, this country's future, are fully equipped for their education. He will also reform the No Child Left Behind act, by improving standardizing testing, and to improve the schools that need it. Education is especially important to me, seeing that I start my teaching career tomorrow.

Obama will also create jobs, especially where needed, in the science fields. Investing in science will help the US economically, since we will be able to compete with the overseas countries for topics such as alternative fuel, or better car manufacturing.

Obama will be helping immigrants, who have no had the opportunity to work, by giving them the job skills they need to be a productive member of society, make a living for their family, and assimilate into their community.

He will be giving tax rebates to workers who need it. Tax cuts for working families.

My personal favorite thing that Obama will do:

Create jobs BY IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Wants to advance the study and improvement of biofuels. Making jobs in the "clean technologies" field, to improve the environment.

Obama will create over 5 million new "green" jobs for Americans.

And this is only a part of why I am voting for Obama.

The only huge thing I disagree with Obama, is he believes in "pro-choice". I am absolutely against abortion. But, there isn't a candidate who believes everything exactly what you do.

[hoosiercubsfan]

Education: Will give money to Department of Education to make sure all schools are currently updated with the best technology to that the students, this country's future, are fully equipped for their education. He will also reform the No Child Left Behind act, by improving standardizing testing, and to improve the schools that need it. Education is especially important to me, seeing that I start my teaching career tomorrow.

Throwing money at the problem will not solve the problems of our education system. My wife is a teacher and her biggest issues have been with the parents and the children who have absolutely no manners or respect than the lack of technology. She works in a low income school district here in Indianapolis so I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on. Good luck with your teaching career I truly wish you the best. No Child Left Behind has been a dismal failure no doubt about it.

Obama will also create jobs, especially where needed, in the science fields. Investing in science will help the US economically, since we will be able to compete with the overseas countries for topics such as alternative fuel, or better car manufacturing.

How is he going to do this? Isn't the investing in the fields of science primarily done by the private sector? So unless he is going to give tax incentives to these people then I don't see how you can see he will develop these jobs.

Obama will be helping immigrants, who have not had the opportunity to work, by giving them the job skills they need to be a productive member of society, make a living for their family, and assimilate into their community.

Is this the federal governments job?

He will be giving tax rebates to workers who need it. Tax cuts for working families.

But at what cost? Will these tax increases on those dreaded rich people not have adverse affects on the people who will be receiving these rebates?

My personal favorite thing that Obama will do:

Create jobs BY IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Wants to advance the study and improvement of bio fuels. Making jobs in the "clean technologies" field, to improve the environment.

Is the current investments in bio fuels adding to our soaring food costs? That I am not sure of but needs to be looked at before we spend more on research of it. Farmers are not producing the same corn they used to now are going towards the more profitable hybrid for ethanol.

Obama will create over 5 million new "green" jobs for Americans.

My question here is how?

And this is only a part of why I am voting for Obama.

The only huge thing I disagree with Obama, is he believes in "pro-choice". I am absolutely against abortion. But, there isn't a candidate who believes everything exactly what you do.

This we agree on. I am most definitely not pro choice. Our daughter was born at 25 weeks at a time I imagine you could probably still receive an abortion. I don't know that for fact never nor do i care to research it. She is perfectly healthy with only partial hearing loss as her only issue. Spending that much time in a neonatal intensive care unit really changed my view on this issue.