JP: Don't most of his beliefs contradict the basic principles of libertarianism, beliefs like fewer taxes, less government intervention in personal lives and business and the individual?

TS: One of the things I love about Barack Obama is his support of the individual. He knows that people have to make individual choices, that there can't be one imposed choice. Barack Obama has promised a tax cut that will actually help the middle class of America. His work on behalf of civil rights and his work as a community organizer in Chicago show me that Barack Obama understands the rights of every individual, and when he's President, will do all in his power to ensure the protection of every individual.

If you look at Barack Obama's healthcare plan, it uses individual choice over government intervention. Barack Obama wants to create universal access to healthcare, but his plan doesn't impose a mandate that would force you to participate. He believes the problem is not that people don't want healthcare, but that individuals can't find an affordable plan that doesn't impose pre-existing conditions and that will remain in place in the event that the person is laid off from work.

JP: But his proposal still increases government interference in health insurance by expanding subsidized insurance plans?

TS: If by interference you mean that more people can be covered, then yes. Many Americans are unable to afford health care, especially health care that isn't directly related to having to maintain ones job. The Obama plan would ensure that every American has the possibility to be covered, without suffering a penalty if they choose to opt out.

JP: On issues such as taxation, Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which lowered tax rates across the board. He wants to remove the wage cap on Social Security, which by itself is a $1.3 trillion tax increase. His answer to entitlements is creating a new entitlement, universal healthcare. He has voted against repealing the death tax and the AMT. He also supported PAYGO, where new spending made up for by increases in revenue (tax increases). It seems to me that he is the typical tax-and-spend Democrat.

TS: Barack Obama does believe in rolling back taxes for those in the top income bracket but would maintain and even lower the tax rates for most working Americans. PAYGO ensures fiscal responsibility by requiring the government to allocate enough revenue to cover all expenditures. The last thing this country needs is more debt and I am proud that Barack Obama advocates fiscally responsible measures like PAYGO and repealing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. As you well know, many people who fall into that bracket such as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and even Bill Clinton say that they could make do just fine without them. At a time when working class families are struggling to pay for healthcare, college tuition, and mortgage payments, it is outrageous for anyone to advocate for tax cuts that would only benefit the financial elite.

JP: I would agree that the last thing we need is more debt, but part of the problem is entitlement debt. He has not proposed any thing other than a tax increase, not only on rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which benefits all brackets of income earners, but by increase the payroll tax. He just sounds like the stereotypical Democrat.

TS: Actually, Barack Obama has proposed a tax cut that would benefit middle class America. As far as the debt goes, the first thing we have to do is stabilize the debt. Under the Bush Administration our national debt has grown to record highs, under an Obama Administration the government would work to stabilize then reduce the debt.

JP: There are some positives about Obama. I agree with him on exiting from Iraq, he worked with Senator Tom Coburn on transparency in earmarks and there is no question that he is a very well spoken and exciting candidate. But is that enough to sacrifice more economic liberty to Washington? He talks about "change," I think that's great, but what does he mean by it?

TS: Barack Obama is the candidate of change because Barack Obama does not represent recycled Washington politics that we see every four years. Instead of bringing the views of Washington to America, Barack Obama will bring the views of America to Washington.

Barack Obama has demonstrated this not just through words, but through decisive action. He has personally not accepted a dime from lobbyists during his presidential campaign. For example, a volunteer came into the GA office a few weeks ago and made phone calls for a couple of hours. Afterward, she wanted to purchase a few t-shirts and bumper stickers and we could not sell her any of those items because we found out that she was a registered lobbyist. It isn't everyday that you hear of presidential candidates turning down money!

JP: Obama opposes any form of Social Security privatization. Social Security faces several trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. Like I said earlier, Obama's answer is to lift the wage cap on the payroll tax. The average rate of return in the private sector over the last 80 year is 8%. The average rate of return for Social Security is less than 2%. The mentality is that the private sector cannot be trusted…and I'll give him credit, I haven't heard him using the "corporate greed" line that Edwards is using, but the mentality remains the same. Why not trust the private sector? Or an even better question is, why trust government, an entity that routinely squanders taxpayer dollar?

TS: First off, to help seniors on a tight budget, any senior making less than $50,000 per year would be exempt from the income tax, in addition to other reforms to Social Security suck as lifting the wage cap on the payroll tax.
Personally, I don't fully trust the private sector just as I don't fully trust government. Social Security is in jeopardy and we must work to ensure that the promises made to everyone by Social Security are able to be kept. Not only to the generations of our grandparents and parents, but to people like us, who have only been working a relatively short amount of time, but have seen our hard earned income invested into Social Security. The purpose that Social Security serves is valuable, and we should work to protect it and ensure its continuance.

Anyone who suggests that Social Security should be privatized or scrapped altogether should seriously go back and study American history. Sure, the rate of return for Social Security isn't currently as high as the rate in private investments and seniors should seriously consider alternative investments in addition to their supplemental Social Security income. Social Security is meant to provide a stable income but in most cases it isn't enough to provide a very comfortable quality of life.

However, if we listened to those on the Right who want to make the rash decision to privatize Social Security then what would happen when, and it is a matter of when, our economy suffers another major depression. All investments in the private market would evaporate and most Americans would find themselves in a major financial crisis.

So what would happen in that scenario? Well, most likely the govt. would co