However, the point in my original post (in which he was responding to) was to eliminate ONLY those who are abusing the system.  You will undoubtedly come across those who fail the drug test who really need it and may as well not be one who regularly use drugs.

Most green policies are no better for the enviroment than the natural fuels they are trying to replace. The material used in solar panels in mined in China under some bad conditions. Wind power is bad for birds and wind patterns. Better to use what have in more efficeint and less enviremntally destructive ways than to force "green" energies on us that are not yet ready. The "green" industry is like any other and people are in it for the money not to save the world. Natural gas and clan burning coal plants and nuclear power are the way to hold us over until we get actual green energy sources. Saving the earth is a great thing, green policies are not as they do not save the earth in any meaningful way but like most advancments just move the pollution to a different spot.

With the materials mined in China, you have to think of that vis-a-vis coal, where you're going to be mining under bad conditions anyway, and then spewing smog off into the atmosphere later. With the solar panels, you're only looking at one of the two.

I'm not opposed to nuclear, though. We should be building more Thorium reactors.

Some green policies are aimed at making those things more efficient or safer to use.  The stuff we do currently is worse anyway.  In comparison, green policies are better than the whole coal plants we have that give the neighboring people lung diseases.  

as long as
1. Cut taxes
2.????
3. Profit
he is not going to do a good job

Usually because most environmentalist are labeled as nut jobs, job destroyers, etc..  While there are some that policies would result in a lot of job losses there are other more moderate environmentalist (like myself) that believe business and nature can coexist.  However,  I don't believe in the total raping of the land for profit.  There has to be a balance.  Sadly, most republicans (like Rush Limbaugh) go on and on about the nutty environmentalist.  If you don't believe in sticking up for the planet with balancing nature and business then I am not sure what to say.  Not all environmentalist are crazies.  It would be like thinking all Muslim are terrorist.  Sadly, this is acceptable in USA political climate.  The teachings of early environmentalist founders such as Aldo Leopold are not the ramblings of a crazy person.

This is what is problematic with voting. It is personal, but your case is quite unique. Cost of living is higher, and wages are the same or lower for most. I cannot fault for you attributing your situation to policies currently in place, but I can alert you to the uniqueness of your good fortune.

If Romney can lower unemployment to 6% using the U4 numbers, begin reducing the deficit by a good amount, and control the cost of living I will have no hesitation to support him in 4 years.

...pigs will fly.

Not really.

It's totally possible to improve the economy and increase the number of people on foodstamps/welfare.

It happened under clinton as I recall.

Improving the economy in its current state would more likely than not decrease the overall number of people having to be on welfare.  That's the way I see it.