Anyone want to talk through the whole Obama platform?

[KBecks]

As published on his web site?

I was looking at it and found it interesting. There is quite a bit of material there to review and chat about. I think it's more pertinent now after the election as it may be the outline to the CHANGE -- maybe..... if all the Democrats agree and if this is still the path and vision.

There's a ton of stuff there.

[Ceepa]

I'm leaving the house for a few hours and will check back in later, but yes, I'd be very interested in hearing what everyone has to say about the new administration's blueprint for America's future.

[Sugar Magnolia]

I will be watching and reading as well.

[KBecks]

OK, I'll start, and this is NOT in priority order, just in terms of what I've read and looked and find interesting / encouraging or weird.

1. Immigration -- securing the borders. The site says they will secure the borders. I find that encouraging, I don't know if it really will happen.

2. Immigration -- making legal immigration more attractive than illegal immigration -- love it, love the concept, completely agree with it big-picture. Will it get done? No details given.

3. Immigration -- details???? No real details about amnesty or path to citizenship or what to do about people who are already here....... oh, re reading, it looks like amnesty w/a fine, and providing federal services to help achieve citizenship.

Editorial -- I don't know if anything will get done about immigration or not. I'm guessing not since not much has been done in the past and it's a hot issue. I like how everything he's saying sounds, it's just a matter of what will the details be? How much is the fine? What enforcement will there be, and is prosecution of employers the ONLY enforcement, or what systems will be put in place? Will criminals be deported or not? There's a lot of details..... tons.

4. Women's issues -- AIDS -- this is just weird. He is supporting funding to develop a topical treatment women can use to avoid AIDS.

Editorial -- I am not really interested in topical treatments, they sound really really inconvenient and impractical. I was shocked this is detailed and so high on his list of women's issues. Shouldn't this be a private sector development?


I haven't gotten very far. I wish that when the web site (which is awesome for design) had links to the details of the specific acts they mention. Sowhen they say they will pass X Act, I could read about the details. They have an easy feedback mechanism. I'm not sure whether I want to use it or not.

[mamicka]

Thanks for starting this, Karen. I'm going to try to participate, but not sure I'll be able to due to time. I'll definitely be following along at minimum.

[bethie_73]

I will, DS seems to be feeling better today.

I have stated in the past that I am conservative, but that does not mean I want Obama to fail. I truly want to understand the policies. (As I posted before I am concerned about platforms built around http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204.html I know it is not an Obama policy, but it is something that the Democratic Party has been looking at). I'd like to really understand better what the next administration sees as the future.

[KBecks]

I just glanced at that article this am and feel concerned too

[Ceepa]

OK, I'll start, and this is NOT in priority order, just in terms of what I've read and looked and find interesting / encouraging or weird.

1. Immigration -- securing the borders. The site says they will secure the borders. I find that encouraging, I don't know if it really will happen.

2. Immigration -- making legal immigration more attractive than illegal immigration -- love it, love the concept, completely agree with it big-picture. Will it get done? No details given.

3. Immigration -- details???? No real details about amnesty or path to citizenship or what to do about people who are already here....... oh, re reading, it looks like amnesty w/a fine, and providing federal services to help achieve citizenship.

Editorial -- I don't know if anything will get done about immigration or not. I'm guessing not since not much has been done in the past and it's a hot issue. I like how everything he's saying sounds, it's just a matter of what will the details be? How much is the fine? What enforcement will there be, and is prosecution of employers the ONLY enforcement, or what systems will be put in place? Will criminals be deported or not? There's a lot of details..... tons.



So Obama says we should secure the borders, and those found living illegally in America should pay a "significant" fine, learn English and then go to "the back of the line" for citizenship. Fine. I'm still not clear how Obama defines the path to citizenship. I'm most interested in a timeframe for achieving citizen status. I understand it's hard to say considering the backlog of applications, but a general idea would be helpful.

[KBecks]

Yeah, I'm not even sure it should be expected that all immigrants want or need citizenship, when work or education or other visas may be more appropriate.

[buddyleebaby]

Yeah, I'm not even sure it should be expected that all immigrants want or need citizenship, when work or education or other visas may be more appropriate.

I think most immigrants would want citizenship or permanent residency. There's no point in going to school here only to then have to go back to a country with no jobs or opportunity.

[icunurse]

Here you go, more info than you probably ever want :) Available at your local Target, too (I saw it there last month, at least) -

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&EAN=9780307460455

[Ceepa]

Yeah, I'm not even sure it should be expected that all immigrants want or need citizenship, when work or education or other visas may be more appropriate.

I was referring to those who want to stay for good. But the topic of visas is unclear too.

[Fairy]

4. Women's issues -- AIDS -- this is just weird. He is supporting funding to develop a topical treatment women can use to avoid AIDS.

Editorial -- I am not really interested in topical treatments, they sound really really inconvenient and impractical. I was shocked this is detailed and so high on his list of women's issues. Shouldn't this be a private sector development?

On AIDS research, I do think there is a validity to putting Federal dollars into this research. This is becasue in my mine, HIV and AIDS is a public health problem. We're in much, much better shape now than ever from many perspectives, but erradicating this disease has to be considered a priority of some kind. The argument is that HIV is preventable, so prevention is the place to put our dollars, and I'd agree with that stateent. Primarily, we need to push prevention. However, the fact is that it's here, and it's devastating, and it's passed to other people who have been either trying to prevent it in vain or were not at risk but got it anyway. So, in my mind, I'm ok with federal funding.

[KBecks]

But doesn't a topical prevention treatment sound like a royal pain? I agree with trying to prevent AIDS but I'm wary of these specifics. I don't want to be crude, but just visualizing using whatever product they're looking at seems yucky to me, and not likely that women will choose to actually use the product. Then, is the product going to be free?

[Fairy]

I see what you mean. However, since there is no treatment for this at all, then barring the ability to innoculate and/or cure 100%, I think any treatment would be worth looking into, even if it's a bit yucky.

[KBecks]

Here you go, more info than you probably ever want :) Available at your local Target, too (I saw it there last month, at least) -

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&EAN=9780307460455

OK, so I need to spend $10 to find out what the specifics are? He's a capitalist after all! Is this just striking me as weird?

[KBecks]

I see what you mean. However, since there is no treatment for this at all, then barring the ability to innoculate and/or cure 100%, I think any treatment would be worth looking into, even if it's a bit yucky.


But it's not treatment for HIV/AIDS, it's to prevent transmission. So it sounds like a woman would have to, er, lotion up or whatever, every time she has intercourse. Does that sound practical? I just don't think it's practical, or more convenient than a condom. Who would really do that?

Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

[tarabenet]

But condoms require the cooperation of the male partner. Microbicides allow a woman to protect herself.

Do you count on everyone washing their hands appropriately, or do you use hand cleaners to protect yourself and your children from picking up germies?

[Ceepa]

What about female condoms or else a woman can protect herself by not having sex with a man who refuses to wear a condom.

[CAM7]

Speaking of sex... I think Obama is really cute.

...and I even voted for McCain! Lol!

[ellies mom]

OK, so I need to spend $10 to find out what the specifics are? He's a capitalist after all! Is this just striking me as weird?

Where were you planning on finding the specific of McCain's plan? Where did you find the specifics of Bush's plan?

[buddyleebaby]

Where were you planning on finding the specific of McCain's plan? Where did you find the specifics of Bush's plan?

Bush had a plan?

[KBecks]

What about female condoms or else a woman can protect herself by not having sex with a man who refuses to wear a condom.

Yeah, I don't understand. I am assuming this is used before sex not after.... it seems good for sex workers... I really don't understand the value or effectiveness coming out of this

[citymama]

Speaking of sex... I think Obama is really cute.

...and I even voted for McCain! Lol!

LoL. He's a cutie. :loveeyes:

And his daughters are going to break a few hearts too!

[Ceepa]

Where were you planning on finding the specific of McCain's plan? Where did you find the specifics of Bush's plan?

Their plans are irrelevant insomuch as they are not taking the reins for this country. And pp offered up the link to Obama's $10 book to help us better understand his platform.

[Georgia]

As published on his web site?

I was looking at it and found it interesting. There is quite a bit of material there to review and chat about. I think it's more pertinent now after the election as it may be the outline to the CHANGE -- maybe..... if all the Democrats agree and if this is still the path and vision.

There's a ton of stuff there.

Why does this feel like a set up?...or like being asked to let someone else copy my homework?...or like the McCain message that no one knows Obama was so convincing that people thought his policy plans were available only to those who had the super secret Democratic pass codes?

Kind of kidding, kind of just feeling cranky with a 102 fever and kids fighting the same, kind of really wondering What?! 2 days AFTER the election people now want to learn what his platform is?

Sorry if that's an overreaction but the past couple of political threads have felt a bit surreal. But again maybe that's the fever :(.

[brittone2]

Yeah, I don't understand. I am assuming this is used before sex not after.... it seems good for sex workers... I really don't understand the value or effectiveness coming out of this

Certain cultures also have issues w/ condom use, for example. They just won't use them for cultural reasons.

[Fairy]

Ok, I see. I read that wrong, I understand now. I dunno, I think the research is ok to fund. Women lather up for birth control, like with spermicides, so I can see them doing it for this, too. *I* wouldn't want to (the aforementioned yucky), but ... I can see funding the research, at least. I do, agree, however, that the private sector is probably better for this, simply cuz I think they'll get farther more efficiently.

[brittone2]

Ok, I see. I read that wrong, I understand now. I dunno, I think the research is ok to fund. Women lather up for birth control, like with spermicides, so I can see them doing it for this, too. *I* wouldn't want to (the aforementioned yucky), but ... I can see funding the research, at least. I do, agree, however, that the private sector is probably better for this, simply cuz I think they'll get farther more efficiently.

It is possible that it may not be profitable enough for the private sector though, kwim?

[mamicka]

Huh. I think its your fever. She's asking for a discussion of the information that is available. Who said anything about this information not having been available?

Not "now tell me what his platform is", its more like "this is what he's said he will do, let's discuss".

[Wife_and_mommy]

Speaking of sex... I think Obama is really cute.

...and I even voted for McCain! Lol!

LOL. I'd think he was hot too if I didn't know what he stood for.

Now, Denz*l Washingt*n is an AA conservative I can believe in. ;) And I don't want to know the political persuasions of Jason Tayl*r. Do. Not. Tell. Me. ;)

ETA: JT is the DWTS guy, right? Ooh, thought of another one...Emme** Sm*th. Don't tell me about his either. ;)

[kijip]

What about female condoms or else a woman can protect herself by not having sex with a man who refuses to wear a condom.

Topical preventions are being designed primarily (though not exclusively) to address the needs of women who for social reasons may not be able to refuse or may be very vulnerable to rape, where there are few legal protection from rape and may live in places where HIV is spreading rapidly. Both the female condom and male condom require the consent of the male. A topical treatment is something that women could use on their own if they wanted. Given that this is not a big money market, I do think it is worth public and foundation investment.

[kijip]

...or like being asked to let someone else copy my homework?...
:p

I see what you are saying here.

[KBecks]

Why does this feel like a set up?...or like being asked to let someone else copy my homework?...or like the McCain message that no one knows Obama was so convincing that people thought his policy plans were available only to those who had the super secret Democratic pass codes?

Kind of kidding, kind of just feeling cranky with a 102 fever and kids fighting the same, kind of really wondering What?! 2 days AFTER the election people now want to learn what his platform is?

Sorry if that's an overreaction but the past couple of political threads have felt a bit surreal. But again maybe that's the fever :(.

I see it totally differently. I think a lot of people are fired up about issues and politics, so why not dig in? Yes, various viewpoints will be shared, and not everyone will agree. There may be some criticism of Obama's platform, and some praise. That's diversity of opinion. I am thankful for it. There's no deadline for when it stops. It shouldn't stop.

[Ceepa]

I see it totally differently. I think a lot of people are fired up about issues and politics, so why not dig in? Yes, various viewpoints will be shared, and not everyone will agree. There may be some criticism of Obama's platform, and some praise. That's diversity of opinion. I am thankful for it. There's no deadline for when it stops. It shouldn't stop.

:yeahthat: Why not discuss it? I'm sure there are those who decided their vote on selective isssues that struck a chord in them but did not delve into a number of others. Here's a chance to examine a little bit more. Who knows, it may change some minds, and in the least, may help raise understanding and involvement. What's wrong with that? ;)

[kcandz]

:yeahthat: Why not discuss it? I'm sure there are those who decided their vote on selective isssues that struck a chord in them but did not delve into a number of others. Here's a chance to examine a little bit more. Who knows, it may change some minds, and in the least, may help raise understanding and involvement. What's wrong with that? ;)

*shrug* - I guess I would like to give the man a chance to get his setup going and actually get in to office.

[Laurel]

I'm not sure where everyone is getting their Obama info- but wanted to post his new transition website here in case others have not been there:

http://www.change.gov/

[KBecks]

I'm not sure where everyone is getting their Obama info- but wanted to post his new transition website here in case others have not been there:

http://www.change.gov/

Thanks, good to know. Their internet stuff is slick. I have been reading at barackobama,com so far, still unsure if I will purchase the book. It would make an interesting book club forum.

[KBecks]

from the transition site,

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.




I don't like this, the govt deciding to just take an industry's profits. This is redistribution of wealth.

[ellies mom]

from the transition site,

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.




I don't like this, the govt deciding to just take an industry's profits. This is redistribution of wealth.

Sarah Palin does it in Alaska. Each person receives over $3K a year. That is a heck of a lot more than Obama is talking about.
If you consider that some of these profits are made off America's resources that the people of America own, I'm not sure if it isn't such a bad idea.

[KBecks]

The state of Alasa doesn't tax oil co profits, it makes money from the pipeline and land leases.

[o_mom]

The state of Alasa doesn't tax oil co profits, it makes money from the pipeline.

No, under the plan she proposed (and that was passed) they tax oil company profits and she supported raising that rate from 22.5% to 25% as well as a 'windfall' provision that kicked in when oil went above certain levels.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/9379552p-9292890c.html

[srhs]

I've been wondering this and haven't run across anything definitive online...
Is the Adoption Credit considered one of the "Bush Tax Credits" that will be stopped under the new administration?
From what I recall, it started in 2001 and has been repeatedly renewed but is set to expire each year. It's ~$10,000 credit towards adoption expenses.

[bubbaray]

This is redistribution of wealth.

Any country with a progressive income tax system has "redistribution" of wealth.

[KBecks]

Sure, but the question is how much? We are looking at increasing what is taken.

ETA: And how evenly or unevenly it is distributed.

It feels more Robin hood to me when you are handing out cash than say, funding infrastructure.

[KBecks]

No, under the plan she proposed (and that was passed) they tax oil company profits and she supported raising that rate from 22.5% to 25% as well as a 'windfall' provision that kicked in when oil went above certain levels.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/9379552p-9292890c.html

OK, but the permanent fund was created in the 70s, not recently.

Still, handing out a company's profits seems wrong. Why do you think its ok?

[bubbaray]

Why do you think its ok?

Really? I'm struggling with why anyone would seriously ask this -- and I'm not trying to "start" something, I just don't understand.

Corporate and personal taxes are part of governing. Without money from somewhere, how is gov't supposed to provide services? The roads you drive on, the civic infrastructure, etc. The money has to come from somewhere.

Every gov't struggles with the balance between corporate and personal tax rates. But, to say that taxation in and of itself is wrong -- well, I just don't get that. Unless you live in a cave and never leave it, everyone uses gov't services/infrastructure to some degree.

[KBecks]

I am talking about specifically targeting a particular industry (oil) to take their profits, specifically to give cash money to middle class people. Obama says he will use the windfall tax on oil companies to give $1000 cash now and probably annually.

Why is THAT a good idea?

I remember Obama coming out against the economic stimulus checks -- this sounds like nearly the same thing. What makes it OK for his administration when it was criticized before?

I think all these rebates are lame -- the focus should be on responsible spending and reducing taxes for everyone rather than the government handing out checks.

[kijip]

I am talking about specifically targeting a particular industry (oil) to take their profits, specifically to give cash money to middle class people. Obama says he will use the windfall tax on oil companies to give $1000 cash now and probably annually.

Why is THAT a good idea?

I remember Obama coming out against the economic stimulus checks -- this sounds like nearly the same thing. What makes it OK for his administration when it was criticized before?

I think all these rebates are lame -- the focus should be on responsible spending and reducing taxes for everyone rather than the government handing out checks.

Where are you getting the "probably annually" thing? Definition of windfall is that it does not happen all the time. I think this is his way of making his $1000 tax relief for families happen sooner- ie paying for it in the first year, then segueing into a different system. I personally may or may not agree with this, but as for why people don't want to talk through the whole Obama platform...it's not much of a discussion when 1 person pulls, piece by piece each thing they might raise an issue with and wants others to explain it to them. You disagree with progressive tax structures, you disagree with anything that seems to be a redistribution of wealth. That is fine, but there is nothing anyone can say to explain it to you "how this is a good idea"- you have made your decision that it is not a good idea. And that 100% a-ok, but so are those that fundamentally disagree with you and see it differently.

On a very basic level, regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of a windfall tax or a progressive tax, if you know some people are cold in their houses and it is getting colder and some people going with less food to pay for gas to get to work, what would you prefer to see done?

[KBecks]

We are talking about this specific tax. Why is THIS a good idea?

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

I think it's a bad idea to start targeting specific industry profits and turn around and redistribute them to certain groups of people. I think it's wrong.

This isn't about the government providing services, it is the government handing money from one group to another group.

[Ceepa]

I think it's a bad idea to start targeting specific industry profits and turn around and redistribute them to certain groups of people. I think it's wrong.

This isn't about the government providing services, it is the government handing money from one group to another group.

Absolutely.

[kijip]

I think it's a bad idea to start targeting specific industry profits and turn around and redistribute them to certain groups of people. I think it's wrong.





On this note, do you oppose taxes just on cars, strip clubs, alcohol, restaurants, gaming/gambling, or just on tobacco too? We have a lot of those sorts of industry specific taxes all over this country. Is it ok to tax certain consumers but not certain businesses?

What about buyouts for wall street and banks that occurred under GOP administrations in the 80s and of course just recently? Is that wrong too? Why is it ok to transfer my tax dollars (or my great grandchildren's tax dollars) to people that did a bad job?

[bubbaray]

I think it's a bad idea to start targeting specific industry profits and turn around and redistribute them to certain groups of people. I think it's wrong.

This isn't about the government providing services, it is the government handing money from one group to another group.

Well, IMO, it IS gov't providing a service or tax relief in a different form. Whether its a tax cut for individuals or a cash back program, ultimately d/n matter.

Gov't takes with one hand and gives out with the other. That is what gov't does. Redistribution is what gov't does. Take income tax. Progressive income tax targets wealthier individuals and takes more tax from them and provides services to society as a whole (roads, infrastructure, etc), as well as to targeted groups (based on age, low income, etc).

Until this thread, I have never heard anyone (and I run in some pretty conservative circles) defend the obscene profits of Big Oil.

[Ceepa]

Who determines what are "excessive oil company profits?" What does that mean?

[kijip]

Until this thread, I have never heard anyone (and I run in some pretty conservative circles) defend the obscene profits of Big Oil.

And it is worth noting that public money or resources have from time to time help them earn and protect those profits in the first place.

[KBecks]

you may think I am not open to opinions and info but that is your assumption, it is not fair to me to judge me like that.

[KBecks]

let's try to stay on topic.

[kijip]

you may think I am not open to opinions and info but that is your assumption, it is not fair to me to judge me like that.

I never said that you were not open to hearing opinions, just that it's not an explanation sought or possible to give, because it is a matter of very different world views. I can't fathom prioritizing oil companies keeping all their profits over cold, cold houses and you can't fathom taking industry profits for social benefit in the form of a tax and credit program. It's really very simple and just a matter of different views, not one right or correct answer.

[kijip]

let's try to stay on topic.

So the topics are as you decide to set them? ;)

[KBecks]

So the topics are as you decide to set them? ;)

Well, the idea is to discuss Obama's agenda. There's tons of other government issues but I think Obama's agenda, platform and what he's laid out on the two Web sites (barackobama.com and change.gov) is meaty enough..... :)

[KBecks]

I never said that you were not open to hearing opinions, just that it's not an explanation sought or possible to give, because it is a matter of very different world views. I can't fathom prioritizing oil companies keeping all their profits over cold, cold houses and you can't fathom taking industry profits for social benefit in the form of a tax and credit program. It's really very simple and just a matter of different views, not one right or correct answer.

That's still an assumption (and spin) of what I think.

[kijip]

I've been wondering this and haven't run across anything definitive online...
Is the Adoption Credit considered one of the "Bush Tax Credits" that will be stopped under the new administration?
From what I recall, it started in 2001 and has been repeatedly renewed but is set to expire each year. It's ~$10,000 credit towards adoption expenses.

I have not heard or read that it would be cut. But I don't know specifically. The Bush Tax cuts are the main thing that will be revised/eliminated.

[Ceepa]

Obviously I have a different set of views than those arguing for the windfall tax, but that does not mean I personally want people to live in "cold, cold houses."

Is that the thinking? This is too important not to clarify. Is that the conclusion being drawn from my stand on a tax issue? The alternative to supporting the windfall tax for oil companies is that I'm choosing for people to live in "cold, cold houses?"

[kijip]

That's still an assumption (and spin) of what I think.

Your words say you think it is wrong/not right, I say you think it is wrong based on reading your words, how is that spin? It is pretty plain that it is a matter of different ways of looking at the world.

[kijip]

Obviously I have a different set of views than those arguing for the windfall tax, but that does not mean I personally want people to live in "cold, cold houses."

Is that the thinking? This is too important not to clarify. Is that the conclusion being drawn from my stand on a tax issue? The alternative to supporting the windfall tax for oil companies is that I'm choosing for people to live in "cold, cold houses?"

I am not saying that you do want people living in cold houses, just that the way of looking at the various considerations, the most important thing that springs to mind for the person making their opinion, in the topic is different. What is the first thing that resonates? For some perspectives, it is that energy assistance is desperately needed. For other perspectives it is that windfall taxes are wrong. For still others, it could be any number of first resonating factors. I asked what alternative solutions one might come up with for the issue in place of a windfall tax and that is apparently off topic. I am quite sure you have some other solution to the issue of the the need for energy assistance, but I don't know what that is.

Frankly, I don't think we will see a windfall tax on oil and I don't think it's the best solution to the issue at hand. I just don't see it as fundamentally wrong to tax oil companies on profits and use the money to help people with energy costs.

[Fairy]

i'm trying to think of something controversial and contentious to throw in to the mix to talk about to bring a more calming effect to this thread.

Well, barring one of those, I'll get up and find a seat at the table supporting taxes on the top richest folks to give teh middle class and below a break. I would still feel this way if i were The rich person in question gettingn hit with the tax.

[kijip]

I would still feel this way if i were The rich person in question gettingn hit with the tax.

A lot of people agree with you. Which is why Warren Buffet is a strong supporter of estate taxes and why Obama won a majority of voters who make over $200K a year. :wink2:

[icunurse]

I've been wondering this and haven't run across anything definitive online...
Is the Adoption Credit considered one of the "Bush Tax Credits" that will be stopped under the new administration?
From what I recall, it started in 2001 and has been repeatedly renewed but is set to expire each year. It's ~$10,000 credit towards adoption expenses.


This has been discussed a lot on the adoption boards I visit, but both candidates had said that they will continue the Adoption Tax Credit. I'm not sure if it is one of the Bush Tax Credits, though. I didn't keep the link, but a google will give you the info that both planned to keep it at least.

[mommy111]

Just posting to say, I love this thread, being a financial dummy, I am really learning a lot about taxation, and I love that you guys are presenting different viewpoints and disagreeing but still staying cordial.

[HannaAddict]

This has been discussed a lot on the adoption boards I visit, but both candidates had said that they will continue the Adoption Tax Credit. I'm not sure if it is one of the Bush Tax Credits, though. I didn't keep the link, but a google will give you the info that both planned to keep it at least.

The Adoption Tax Credit is already scheduled to expire in 2010 as currently enacted. And there is no tax credit for those making over $195,000 in any case.

[mommylamb]

This has been discussed a lot on the adoption boards I visit, but both candidates had said that they will continue the Adoption Tax Credit. I'm not sure if it is one of the Bush Tax Credits, though. I didn't keep the link, but a google will give you the info that both planned to keep it at least.


There were a lot of things in the 2001 tax cuts that Dems liked, and a lot they didn't. I think this was one agreed to by both parties. It was the 2003 tax cuts that a lot of Dems found entirely (or mostly) problematic. Obama is only planning on rolling back a portion of the tax cuts from both years, not everything. Really though, he doesn't have to even do anything because most of these taxes expire in 2010 anyway, so unless Congress acts to renew them, they automatically revert back to where they were.

[KBecks]

I'm curious why you think there won't be a windfall tax. I would think that with Obama listing it as a goal and having Democratic support in congress that it would happen, but I'm not as up with it as you are.

[KBecks]

As for why to talk about Obama's plans now.... I think that Obama would be pleased to have people involved and engaged in what's going on. It's a very exciting time and I think there may be lots of change..... I don't know for sure. In some ways it seems like government moves so slow, but not always (like the bailout). A lot can happen and it seems Obama and congress may be poised to do a lot, fast.

I don't know, but it will be interesting and there are several issues I want to follow. I also want to be more active locally and I think that's good too.

[kijip]

I'm curious why you think there won't be a windfall tax. I would think that with Obama listing it as a goal and having Democratic support in congress that it would happen, but I'm not as up with it as you are.

I think it has a good chance of either being blocked in the Senate or it just won't be the first priority of new year. Windfall taxes and the opinions on them don't seem to be down strict party lines...I think some Republicans would support and some Dems would oppose.

Of course I could be totally incorrect.

[KBecks]

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

[KBecks]

I don't know where they went, it was all there a few days ago. hopefully just a glitch b/c it's interesting

[Ceepa]

I don't know where they went, it was all there a few days ago. hopefully just a glitch b/c it's interesting

The issues are still listed on Barackobama.com.

[KBecks]

The issues are still listed on Barackobama.com.

Good, but I had looked at both and the change.gov site had different info and some more specific issues -- at least I thought so. I may have to go buy the book after all!

I was surprised that anything was laid out so far, but it was interesting to see the ideas. I am looking forward to seeing more info and more details.