This is better, now we're getting somewhere. I think that having adequate schools should be a top priority, and we are nowhere near that, so I strongly support any well thought out spending on that issue, something that you have railed against Obama for. There are some ways to find help if you are particularly ingenious/dedicated, but it really shouldn't be the responsibility of a nine year old child to find a way to get math textbooks for free (remember that many of these children are disadvantaged because of their parents, so it will fall entirely on them).
We may need to stay in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that we need to keep handing out ridiculous no bid contracts, by simply changing that I'm sure we could dig up at least a couple billion a year if not more to contribute to education. Further, the fact that we are in Iraq doesn't mean that we shouldn't change our foreign policy to avoid similar situations in the future. The actions of the bush administration and the republican party, (patriot acts, illegal wiretapping plus recent pardons, general terrorism fear-mongering) have brought us further and further from the constitution and made it more and more likely that we will involve ourselves in things we should stay far away from. Checks and balances are the heart and soul of our system, and we are doing away with them at an alarming rate of speed while pandering more and more to special interests.
Sorry about the animosity, and thank you for re-reading my post. The sensationalist, Obama = communist Russia argument just really infuriates me as it is pretty ludicrous and really discredits any other legitimate points made.
On that note, remember that Russia's problems stemmed as much as if not more from the fact that it was a dictatorship than it's communism. Then think about how the losses of personal freedoms, and checks and balances in America and the triumph of special interests could be perceived as a far more dangerous step down that road than any amount of social spending programs.