K

Alright let's run with this. Marijuana is a extremely important issue in this years election, because it won't have another shot for four more years.

The President really has fuck all to do with legalization, so this might be a little bit misleading. That's really the legislative branch's job. However, that really wasn't the crux of that paragraph, which was as follows:

I just want the medical industry to be stable. I think it's unfair to have crippling disabilities, and not have access to marijuana, because the guy we voted in ran 180 on his platform.

This is certainly a valid point, and Obama has not done a very good job of it, obviously. However, I reiterate that voting out Obama is not going to change that - we have a better chance with him than we do Romney. Typically, Republicans are full on against any sort of legalization, medical or not. I don't see why Romney would be any different. Therefore, it doesn't matter who we vote for, I think it's a wash. So on to the economy:

How is Obama going to improve the economy? Obama is not a believer of the free market, and thats what our country is built on. Money has to be able to easily flow, this is obviously not the case.

In regards to the free market, Obama is mainly talking about government regulation of such entities as insurance companies or financial institutions. The thing is, money = power. If we let the those who already have a shit ton of power do as they wish so that they can acquire more power, well there's fuck all the average person can do to stop them. The type of thinking that letting huge corporations do as they wish, often illegally, would be good for the average American or good for the economy as a whole is foolish. That's what has got us into this mess in the first place. It leads to further inequity of the American populace, which you note as an important issue further down. Money does not flow freely when the majority of it is stuffed away in billionaires' pockets.

Obama is also a debt train, hes added more debt that Presidet Bush and that's incredibly hard to do.

Ok, here's the thing. Don't attribute debt run up based only on the time when someone is in office. It's foolish, as past policies take years to come into effect, and others are inherited and are extremely difficult to end. There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in. With Bush, please consider: the Bush tax cuts, the Wars, a variety of other taxes tallying in at about 480 billion dollars, other defense spending, TARP and HERA, the prescription drug bill, and non-defense discretionary spending. That brings the total deficit spending by Bush to about 5 trillion after he left office (sources below). For Obama: deficit reduction policies projected through 2017 - the healthcare bill is projected to reduce 123 billion dollars from the deficit on net. There are also cuts for defense and other automatic spending cuts. Legislation that adds to the deficit: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, Two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, and other mandatory spending. According to the Washington post, that brings the total to around 1 trillion. So, no, Obama has not run up the deficit more than Bush.

[Romney will] lower the capital gains tax which will increase the equity in our country as a whole, just because he is allowing the volume to expand.

According to Erskine Bowles, Romney's plan would be impossible with out some sort of increase in taxes on the middle class. So, the deal is, lower taxes for the wealthy and high taxes for the average American. That wouldn't increase equity, it would further harm it. Has tax plan coddles the ultra rich, as according to a report it would save him nearly 3.4 million a year. This guy doesn't represent me, and I'm certainly not voting for him.

But hey! Health care was a good idea right? He cause doctor rationing, will kill at least 7 mill jobs a year, and he will drive the cost of it through the roof.

The thing is, Obama's spending policies are always front loaded while his saving policies are backloaded. In fact, the Healthcare bill is projected to save a trillion dollars in its second decade. So your qualm with cost isn't much of an issue.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

http://business.time.com/2012/01/25/romneys-tax-plan-would-save-him-millions-but-not-as-much-as-gingrichs/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-24/romney-s-love-fest-with-business-is-sometimes-a-mismatch.html