Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Barack the neoliberal

Someone has suggested that Obama has expressed support for "neo-socialism" as opposed to neo-liberalism, but I don't see evidence for that. Wikipedia says "The USF describes neo-socialism as a form of democratic socialism that replaces capitalism with economic socialism while rejecting Maoist or Stalinist dictatorships in favor of democracy." Obama is definitely a so-called "free market" capitalist, as the quote in this article says ---- that's the definition of neo-liberalism, not neo-socialism. So I think it would be wise to change it back to neo-liberalism. Organ123 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think neosocialism is a far more accurate term, at least as far as the wikipedia definitions of these terms go.

From the neosocialism page:

"...support for a regulated free market economy, democracy, redistribution of wealth through taxation, and liberal social policies."

From the neo-liberalism page:

"...[neoliberalism is] associated with the theories of Friedrich Hayek, economics departments such as that at the University of Chicago (and such professors as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger), and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund."

Despite supposed support for free markets evidenced by his quote, are Obama's economic views truly in line with Milton Friedman's? Saying I'm a toaster doesn't make me one. I'll let it stand as neoliberal as I doubt this will turn into anything but a revert war. OBDM 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the term Neosocialist is that it's somewhat misleading in American Culture. Socialist brings up the idea of Totalitarian regimes, and complete regulation of the economy. Barack Obama seems to indeed have many socialist ideals, just as George Bush does, but doesn't possess the same absolute socialism that, say, Hugo Chavez does. He also has many somewhat right-wing personal-social viewpoints, but has a more libertarian approach toward dealing with them.

In the end, Neoliberalism doesn't really apply. A neoliberal purist is libertarian. Yet, New Democrats (Bill Clinton, so forth) are described as Neoliberals, despite being called 'socialists' in the American Lexicon. Neosocialism has the problem of containing so much baggage, and I don't just mean politically. Neosocialism can refer to so many different forms of governance and policy, ranging from libertarian economics to downright socialism economics. As a result, I think possibly this could be resolved by describing Barack Obama's leanings as a combination of different philosophies. He has obvious social-libertarian (Abortion, Gay Rights), neosocialist (schools, health insurance, SS), neoliberal (free market economy, limited government intervention in most industries), but also personally traditionalist (is against abortion personally, doesnt' support Homosexual Marriage, only unions). If someone wishes to parse that more thoroughly, feel free and I'll comment further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AltonBrownFTW (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Further thought. As it is, that section is also disorganized. Eh. Perhaps say, Barack obama has supported a variety of viewpoints, depending largely on the issue. In some instances (Blah). Then specify, "For neoliberalism (place quote here) for neosocialism (Quote here)" And so on.AltonBrownFTW 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I don't think that the sentence in question is incorrect as it stands, since it states only that Obama has expressed support for elements of neoliberalism, protectionism, and social welfare -- not that Obama is a neoliberal, protectionist, or socialist. But yeah, I'm not opposed to the idea of that being better clarified or organized. All of these terms mean different things to different people, so in fact, I might advocate eliminating them altogether and just letting his quotes speak for themselves. Would that be a good compromise?

As a side note, I would argue that neoliberalism and libertarianism are not the same thing. People and countries commonly associated with neoliberalism preach "free trade," but practice it only to the extent that it helps multinational corporations. The reality is that basically every competitive US industry has been cultivated with heavy government support and protectionism (for instance, the aviation industry, the computer industry). Poorer nations are the ones who must submit to "free trade." So I would argue that neoliberalism is a doctrine for government-assisted corporate oligarchy, whereas libertarianism, specifically libertarian capitalism, would be a complete submission to the market, if that were possible, which it isn't. I happen to dislike both of those philosophies, but I think Obama's stands correspond to neoliberalism most, given his stance on "free markets" and his hawkish positions on Israel and potentially Iran. Organ123 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren’t neo-liberalism and protectionism pretty much opposite views? How does he support both? KettererE 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is a defining neo-liberal. In one of his speeches, Obama claimed to support "free markets" (from my mind-reading, in the sense of Third Way (centrism) - still short of a Dictatorship of the proletariat), while extolling the virtues of policies (like everything under the New Deal) that are anything but free-market in any regard. Normally one could defer the choice of wording to an examination of his record, rather than his self-descriptions in speeches. Humbug! Come to think of it, the Democratic Leadership Council is said to represent Third Way (centrism) in America; to say Obama is a neo-liberal is to put him economically to the right of the DLC (whose adherents include Bill Clinton). I suppose it makes little difference if you reside on the extreme economic left, but that corresponds to the loss of a lot of resolution over the breadth of the spectrum. OBDM 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that I understand what you're saying, it makes sense to me, but I disagree over the definition of neoliberalism. There are at least two officials from the DLC-type Clinton administration who considered themselves neoliberals, and they identified themselves as such in a Washington Post article [1]. According to them: "Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort." But in any case, after trying to edit the neoliberal page a bit, I've come to accept that there is nothing near consensus over the term's meaning. So that's part of the reason why I'd support removing the identifying terms. Organ123 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're all conducting original research into this, which is against Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter how we each define these terms; what matters is what news reports or third party sources say about Barack Obama. I would leave out any term until someone can come up with a source.--Gloriamarie 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing his individual political views within established taxonomies is adding encyclopedic context, not original research. As for the "neo-liberal" thing he is turning out to be "neo" in the sense of Neocon. I would find it hard to place his war mongering with Iran and tacit approval of Israel's occupation of Palestine in a classically liberal context. GrEp 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid putting labels on people that are not universally accepted or self-identified. Even having one source on this wouldn't be sufficient in my mind unless it was something he himself wrote or said. CoW mAnX (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How should sections be organized?

I think the current set up (three super-headers with multiple sub-headers) may not be the best. My concern is that some issues are not easily categorized. For instance, net neutrality is an economic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue, as is universal health care. Obama's position on the Iraq war, while a foreign policy decision, certainly pertains to domestic policy as well -- a good chunk of US taxes go to fund it, leading to a lack of funding for, say, universal health care. So ... at the moment I most support the idea of not having any super-headers at all, just having the issues laid out in alphabetical order. I don't think people would be particularly confused by such an arrangement since there aren't all that many topics. I'm concerned that any given super-header might not comply with WP:NPOV. I might be convinced otherwise though. Do other people have thoughts? Organ123 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Economic policy
• Foreign policy
• Social policy

These are pretty self-evident. I disagree that there aren't all that many topics, and anticipate many more topics as we draw closer to the election. Hillary Rodham Clinton's article is even longer, for reference. Italiavivi 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As per my above comments, while those three super-headers may be definable, I don't think that many sub-headers in this article can be neatly placed under exactly one of those three concepts. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Organ123 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise, then, that political positions are not easily classified/defined under these three realms. Just so I'm clear -- your primary two concerns are that 1) there are not enough individual positions to warrant classification and 2) an unexplained NPOV concern? Also, could you assist myself and others in keeping some consistency between all these "political positions" articles; for example, you changed Sen. Obama's health care section to read "health care" instead of "universal health care," so why not take the time to make the same uniform change at Hillary Clinton's positions article?Italiavivi 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Italiavivi's efforts to improve this article and other "Political positions of" articles. Unfortunately my energy is limited and until now I have not gotten particularly involved in Hillary Clinton's page. I am very familiar with this particular page and am more comfortable changing header names on it. I'll try to branch out though. I also don't have a well-formed opinion at the moment about whether all the "Political positions of" articles should have identical header names. My NPOV concern is that by placing issues under single, particular categories, the article takes a stance on what the issue is. For example, maybe I think net neutrality is primarily a social issue, but you think it's primarily an economic issue. With the current setup, we have to pick one to the exclusion of the other. So it's taking a stance on something, which I think might be POV. Organ123 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the consensus about the term Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the consensus is in the fact that that's what the article on that very controversial subject is called. The other term that I could be OK with is Arab-Israeli conflict, which refers to the wider problems in the region. However, at the moment, I think the section is entirely about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organ123 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was moreso asking where you found the Wikipedia-wide consensus on the phrase "Israel-Palestinian conflict" you mentioned in your edit summary. You wrote: Changed to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" in accordance with WP consensus on that specific term, and I'm not sure where the broad WP consensus can be found, is all. Italiavivi 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How is net neutrality a civil rights issue?? Is it now a civil right to have access to the Internet from a certain Internet service provider?--Gloriamarie 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposed reorganization

The three categories currently in use are:

1. Economic and social policy
2. Foreign policy
3. Social policy

I propose a change to:

1. Economic and fiscal policy
2. Foreign policy
3. Social policy
4. Governance

There are three reasons for this change. First, it puts social policy unambiguously into one section, instead of splitting it over two; second, it makes a subtle, but important, distinction between economic and fiscal policy; and third, it adds a section on governance, without which this article is incomplete.

Under Governance, I would put the existing section Lobbying and add sections Campaign finance reform and Election reform (both of which have been requested here in the discussion). In addition, I would add a section for Obama's positions on Government secrecy (some of which is included in the article currently under Foreign policy) and another section for his position on the Powers of the presidency (such as his opinion on signing statements and other instruments of the unitary executive). I believe there is plenty of documented source material to flesh out all these sections. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, this article simply is not complete without a full survey of Obama's views on governance. Those views substantiate his call for "change".

Santa Barbara TC (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug Policy

I noticed that under Joe Biden's political views, they have a section on drug policy. It might be informative to have the same for Sen. Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgreen (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to request a section for this. A few of the other candidates for the Democratic Party have such sections; I think it would be fully fitting to have that information here as legalization of marijuana and the war on drugs are prevalent issues for voters to consider when researching and reviewing candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I came to this page to look up his views on this as well. I know he has done drugs in the past, even though he says it was a mistake. He also currently smokes, but is trying to quit. I would be very interested in knowing, in addition to his stances on the war on drugs/legalization of drugs/penalties for drug offenders, what his stance is on whether to raise the national cigarette tax or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.226.219 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This site can answer your questions (not only on this candidate, but on others too): http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/medical-marijuana-and-drug-policy/1/

0xFFFF (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article could provide more info on this topic. The current section on "Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana" ought to be expanded to cover drug policy generally. Why focus narrowly on only only one drug?

Here's an Associated Press article from January 16, 2008 in which Obama answers a question about drug policy by saying that people who are arrested for a first cocaine offense should not spend any time in jail. This seems like a very notable position. The questioner mentioned that Obama could have been arrested for his own cocaine use as a teenager.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was my section removed?

I started a subsection regarding Barack Obama's views towards NASA and the section was quickly deleted soon after it was submitted, why did this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.70.175 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read up on Wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be good, however, to have material about Obama's views on space exploration, if we can find reliable sources. Tvoz |talk 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the education it has some on his views on NASA saying he plans cuts. But I have also read on the internet that on Jan. 11th he quietly made an about face with NASA saying he would fully fund the space program. There is a PDF on it here: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf I can't find this file on his site so I am not sure if it is real or not, but it sure seems real. I really hope it is, any other input on this or confirmation would be appreciated.Rukaribe (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gay Individuals?

Is there any way we can edit this? While I'm sure Donnie McClurkin may be opposed to LGBT issues and homosexuality, I'm not so sure about Mary, Mary and Hezekiah Walker. They may have stated that they don't support it, but is anti-gay too harsh? Keithbrooks (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those opposed to LGBT rights wouldn't think the word antigay is too harsh, but if you think it is, do you have a better word? --Armaetin (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

> do you have a better word?

Better phrase,yes: allegedly anti-gay. Actually it's quite clear from the Wikipedia articles on those mentioned that McClurkin and Mary Mary, at least, would maintain something like a Biblical Christian view that one hates the sin but loves the sinner. They would not agree that this should be characterized as anti-gay. Of course if one considers one's sexual orientation to be an innate or essential part of one's identity, then anyone calling one's identity a sin looks quite hateful. The cited story "Obama's Anti-Gay Gamble" from the Gay City News clearly takes a hostile position to these persons and points of view, for good reasons from their perspective, but Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. I added "allegedly" as that is what the cited article is doing: alleging. Wikipedia is not in a position to determine the truth of such disputed claims, but only to report them. —Blanchette (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Donnie has called homosexuality a "curse". And there are many publications that quote his various anti-gay comments. And the Gay News are a real news source, there are over 40 gay newspapers, you can't discredit them as not being real sources just because they're for a gay audience. There is also a news article about Obama ignoring the gay media by the Philidelphia gay news. I think both these things should be included, it'd not be fair to only talk about the things that make him look good. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag Burning Position

The previous statement in the article was "He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006 on the grounds that it was a violation of freedom of expression.[91]" But upon following link 91 we find an article in which Obama appears to say that he voted against the amendment because he would prefer to outlaw flag burning with a law rather than a constitutional amendment. I have changed the stated position in the article to reflect this. Chigorin (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 7

Reference 7 is a dead link. Anyone want to find a new site? --Armaetin (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with a uchicago.edu link (Press Citations 2004 archive). —Blanchette (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PAYGO description makes little sense

In the Budget deficit section PAYGO is described as a "policy that prohibits increases in federal spending without a way to compensate for the lost revenue." But of course an increase in spending does not per se result in lost revenue, though it may reduce a surplus or increase a deficit. Taking a look at the PAYGO article it appears that it would be more accurate to describe PAYGO as a policy that prohibits reductions in taxes that reduce revenues or increases in spending that increase deficits. But I came here looking for information on Obama's policies, not with any insight into them, so I would like to see any comments on this before I change it. —Blanchette (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Foreign press

Der Spiegel, a leading German news magazine, has again a very critical report about Barack Obama. German article It compares the momentum of his campaign with the hype of the New Economy in the 90s. Especially his positions in foreign policy are attacked as "landmines in foreign policy". His warfare in Pakistan, a state with nuclear weapons, is called insane. His immediate withdrawal from the Iraq is pointed out as most likely resulting in civil war with al Qaeda and Iran profiting from the situation. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how editorial criticism of Obama can or should be incorporated into an article on Obama's own political opinions. Anyone have a thought on this? · jersyko talk 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't read German, so not sure how this specific criticism should be included in the article, but to exclude reactions to Obama's political opinions would seem to be against WP:NPOV. The lack of opposing responses to Ron Paul's political positions was one reason why he article had a quick fail.[2] Obviously don't want to overdo it, but some critical response is probably a good thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I could translate the parts for you and you implement what is useful. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar article on Der Spiegel in English as of Feb 19. Sleepyone (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article certainly doesn't belong on a page about Obama's political positions. If it should be included anywhere, it is on Obama's biography page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They sent me here since the article is about his political positions and not his biography. btw what's this sockpuppet case you are involved? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Political Positions of" articles should have criticisms IF they are criticisms of the specific policy of the person and not just of the general ideology the person subscribes to. For example, if a conservative commentator said that raising taxes is a bad idea then it shouldn't be included. However, if the criticism was that "Obama's specific plan to raise taxes would bankrupt the nation" or so, it should be included but of course written in NPOV and attributed to the person who said it. Arnabdas (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. In any event, can you clarify this for me Arnabdas? Have I misread the source? I'll concede that it should be included if I've merely read it incorrectly. · jersyko talk 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea Jersyko, I undid your revision because if we actually read the report line by line, the NTU does say that it's an additional cost. Certain items they say "unknown" but other items they cite their estimated costs. If we have Obama or his campaign officially saying that it won't raise it by that much, then of course we should include it Arnabdas (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The source does not say anything about Obama's proposals increasing spending though. All it says that they estimate the costs to be X. While that is an extra cost, the source does not and obviously can not know if those cost increases will be couple with cuts in other areas. So while it is true that the source can be used to say Obama's campaign promises will cost at $300 billion, it can not be used to say it will increase spending at that amount. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's logic seems pretty sound to me. I don't think we can legitimately say it will increase spending by 300 billion without a little original research. Do you have another source, Arnabdas? · jersyko talk 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in this link: http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF we see that the title states that all the leading presidential candidates (at the time this was assessed) would raise the budget by different amounts. The link I posted in the article was an update to this, which can be accessed from the link at the bottom of the page I just referenced. Arnabdas (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that, though I suppose one could make an argument about NTU being an unreliable source for this. In any event, I'm happy to leave it at that, though I agree with Arnabdas that more sources (whether from the campaign or third-party) would be useful. · jersyko talk 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun control

I added Obama's F rating by Gun Owners of America in addition to his rating from the NRA. --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On 11:45, 25 February 2008, IronAngelAlice deleted Obama's ratings from the NRA and GOA claiming: nrapvf.org and gunowners.org are not reliable urces. I have restored these ratings, since NRA and GOA are reliable sources about their own ratings. Feel free to add his ratings from the Brady Campaign or other sources. kevinp2 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend removing or to change source link for this statement: "He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." The source provided is not a signed document and has been addressed in the article that Mr. Obama did not in fact fill out the questionnaire. As quoted from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html: "A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out." shoetick 21:00 04 March 2008 (EST)

There is a new story today that says that the questionnaire was in Obama's handwriting. I have added the link to the claim. kevinp2 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the information about how much money the Joyce Foundation awarded to certain gun control groups is sufficiently related to Obama's positions. It makes no assertion as to whether Obama voted for or against any of these awards. I think that saying the Joyce Foundation supports gun control makes the point intended, but the money awards have not been sufficiently linked to Obama's political positions. Harvardgirl33 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This material is taken from a recent article where the reporter paints a larger picture that Obama's tenure on the board of the Joyce Foundation and the grants it made during that time were to groups whose activities contradict his stated position on the Second Amendment and individual gun rights. I think the point is valid and should stay, although we could probably reword the paragraph better. Perhaps we can add a counterpoint from the Joyce Foundation where, in the article, they dispute and/or downplay the significance of the connection. kevinp2 (talk)

Also, why was the endorsement of an Obama removed with the reasoning that it has nothing to do with Obama's position when the NRA's criticism of Obama is still included? Harvardgirl33 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was fine with the AHSA endorsement of Obama being in this section and helped format the entry. However, someone else moved the endorsement here. I suppose that I can see their point - that there will be so many endorsements that this article would drown in them. This structure has already been set up and I suspect it would be hard to change course now. I added a Brady Campaign voting record to this section for balance and have been looking around for other voting records or ratings. kevinp2 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms"- Is this for real? Is it meant to say "automatic" instead of "semi-automatic"? That just seems a little over the top to me. Mostly every modern gun these days is semi-automatic ie. shotguns, handguns anything. If he wants to completely ban semi autos, why not just ban all guns in general. 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtbendele (talk • contribs)

The questionnaire used the phrase "semi-automatic firearms" which is what we have to report. Many people are unfamiliar with firearm terminology and I would not be surprised if Obama was one of them, but we can't make assumptions about what he intended. If he disavows or clarifies this position in a reliable source, we can certainly update the section. kevinp2 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many gun grabbers do not know anything about firearms. I remember one said he had fired a fully automatic rifle. he did not know the proper terms, but the rifle was a standard self loading rifle. There was also a senator that claimed a self loading rifle could "put a bullet into every chait of the senate" Again, not knowing the proper terms. Bottom line is, Obama has no idea what he is doing. banning guns in Chicago has only lead to more violent crime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point about a possible misunderstanding, but please try to keep political bias out of discussion pages.Squirrellyone (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Election Reform

On Hillary Clinton's website she claims she wants to make Election Day a national holiday to make it easier to vote, has Barack taken a position regarding this? I can't seem to find it on his website.

At any rate an Election Reform section may be warranted as he does say on his website "Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote." (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/#voting) As well he mentions his opposition to photo ID laws and wants to improve election machinery. CoW mAnX (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarized positions in leads

The lead for this article was too short so I added some of Obama's notable positions. If someone wants to switch up which positions go in the lead, I wouldn't be opposed to that (I'm not as familiar with which issues he speaks most about) but a one-sentence lead was too short and this seemed like a reasonable way to expand it. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

I added a couple of sentences regarding Obama's health care plan. Obama's plan includes guaranteed eligibility, but does not require universal insurance coverage according to the sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone discuss the alleged unconstitutionality of health insurance mandates? Obama's plan has less than Clinton's, but still has some. He was a Con Law professor, so he must be aware of this.75.144.97.185 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this article. The article enumerates his political positions but is not a forum for analysis or criticism of those positions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the constitutionality of his positions is very relevant, but you're right that it may not belong on this specific page. Any ideas on where to put it? I would very much love to get a response from Obama (the former Con Law professor) as to the constitutionality of his programs.Jewpiterjones (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're seeking is a political discussion, in which case there isn't really any place on Wikipedia that would be appropriate (but there are thousands of other places out there on the internet that are). It's an interesting notion and it may very well be true, but since the source is simply a single editorial it's not very notable.--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and contraception section

It seems to me that this section is awfully long on the "Born Alive Infant Defined" bills. I propose we edit that down to include more comprehensive information? Eg:

In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[79]

While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council[80] for his support of abortion rights, family planning services, and requiring health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.[81] Since his election to the United States Senate Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005).[82] Obama opposed, as did the Illinois State Medical Society, a legislative package of three bills restricting abortion.

Obama voted against banning partial birth abortion, saying "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy." Obama also voted for a $100 million dollar education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs)

I'm not opposed to cutting down the subsection a bit, it was getting a bit too weighty. I still think that a bit too much text is expended on abortion policy and not enough on contraception policy, but I'm not in a bad way about it. · jersyko talk 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of trimming the section. Abortion is one of those issues that, because so many people have an ax to grind, ends up becoming the longest section of many politician's articles (even if it's not one of their major issues).--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Illinois Bill Position vs Federal Position

Hey jersyko, I saw you reverted an edit regarding someone's adding Obama's stance on the Illinois bill based on them having nothing to do with each other. I must say I have to disagree on that particular assertion. This article is his political positions article, not a federal policy position article. Federal positions should get more weight due to the office he is seeking, but if it's the opposite of a position he had at one time in the past it should definitely be noted.

With that said, I do support you removing the paragraph as it was written. It was severely POV worded. However, should it be included in a more NPOV form I must say I would support its inclusion. The editorial source is ok too as long as it is attributed as such IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The text as written didn't connect Obama's stance on the IL bill to the federal bill, if I remember correctly; it just went straight into a discussion of the federal bill (sans Obama) after noting Obama's stance on the IL bill. Furthermore, the description of the IL bill in the text added was incorrect, or at least incorrect in its explanation of Obama's position on the bill. If Obama's position on the IL bill has been discussed in reliable sources, and if an accurate description of the IL bill according to those sources is provided, feel free to include such text. I have no objection to that. · jersyko talk 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording on the Illinois law and added its proper name. The conservative newspaper, currently source #101, doesn't say that they're the same law, only that they're similar. A Virginia state version of a similar federal abortion law was just overturned. (<url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/21abort.html>) That seems to show that this distinction can be important. Does anyone know where I could get a source on differences between the Illinois law and the federal one?Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parental responsibility section

The last line of the quote in this section seems to be a fragment...

I also know that if folks letting our children drink eight sodas a day, which some parents do, or, you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch, or Popeyes for breakfast.

It is taken directly from the article it is referencing, but it just doesn't sound like a complete sentence. Since it is a quote and cannot be rewritten, I'm thinking it should just be removed. The rest of the quote is fine. Cafeganesha (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images?

I was wondering what was the point of having the images on this article? Several articles I know already have taken out images that have been used solely for decorative purposes. Personally, I am for including different images even if for just decorative purposes, but wiki policy states otherwise. I think we may have to get rid of them. Arnabdas (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which images in this article are fair use? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not fully verse in the whole fair use of images policy, which is why I am just bringing it up as a discussion. I think according to the policy that none of the images give fair use in this article. It may belong in the main article or the campaign article, but as for Obama's political positions, it may not. Arnabdas (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Fair use is a term used to described images that are not free (i.e. copyrighted) but being used under an allowable provision. For instance, a sport's team owns the rights to its logo but the logo can be used on Wikipedia in the article for the team as long as Wikipedia rules are followed. However, that same logo cannot be placed on a userpage of someone who is a fan of the team. All of the pictures in this article are free so fair use restrictions do not apply. (See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more info.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I never quite understood the policy until now, despite trying to understand it. You should ask wikipedia to use your explanation haha! Arnabdas (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. One thing I've learned about Wikipedia is, even when the policies boggle the mind a bit, there's always an editor that will take the time to help you out. Plenty have helped me. So, I'm happy to help others. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric System

What is Barack's position regarding the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.138.138 (talk • contribs) 17:50, April 19, 2008

He feels strongly that it's a system of measurement that uses decimal units. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun Control emphasis

Anyone else see issues with this article devoting as much text to Obama's position on gun control/rights as it does to Iraq? I say as much because, well, one set of issues (guns) has hardly registered on the national radar in the last several years, while the other is one of the main cleavages between the parties right now. Consider that Democrats haven't even done anything on guns in Congress since they took power--they don't want to mess with the issue. The only time I've seen guns in the national news lately was when the SCOTUS took up the DC handgun ban case. My point is that the gun issue just isn't something Obama or the nation is really focused on right now, so I'm curious as to why this article focuses on it so heavily. · jersyko talk 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important issue to some people; in fact it's the only issue to some people. But this article isn't about them, it's about Obama and it's not a huge issue to him. The section should probably be trimmed to match other sections and briefly summarize his position. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been one of the contributors to the section. Gun control (and many issues), for better or worse, will always figure in elections even if the candidates would prefer to de-emphasize them (witness the whole mess about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, for instance). In this case, Obama has a sizable track record of voting and expressing preferences on the subject as a state and national legislator, and that is what the section records. Comparing it to the Iraq section, which is about the same size, I see only 3 recorded votes / legislative actions on Iraq, compared to 8 such actions on gun control. So I think the size is appropriate for this topic. In fact, it could grow even longer if it included non-legislative events, such as his recent statement about people "clinging to guns" - which is NOT in the section today. I did take a look at trimming the section, but it would consist of removing recorded positions on various gun control measures, and it is hard for me to see why one should be removed over the other.

I partially agree with Loonymonkey that the article is about Obama, but I want to point out that the title is the Political positions of Barack Obama, not just the ones that he chooses to emphasize in his campaign. Ultimately, all his positions will be discussed by the electorate whether he wants them to or not. This is the fate of all candidates. kevinp2 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the article should cover the issues (rather, Obama's positions on issues) with appropriate weight. I'm certain we could find more information about Obama's stances on the sewer system in the state of Illinois or (insert another issue he undoubtedly dealt with in the IL legislature), but that doesn't mean it would be appropriate to discuss it in much if any detail in this article. Unlike some IL legislature issues, however, gun control is an encyclopedic topic. However, it is not by any measure a topic of national interest on the level of Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc. right now, and it really hasn't been for several years. At the very least, it is not being afforded as much coverage in reliable sources as many other issues are. Nor have Obama or his opponents chosen to emphasize gun control to any appreciable degree in the campaign. I agree, Kevinp2, that gun control should be discussed here. Nonetheless, I would still posit that it is being afforded too much weight at present. · jersyko talk 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But what is "too much weight" in the context of this article? You are not providing any clear definition of that. I am open to discussion on this subject, but you have to show why this section has "too much weight" compared to other sections. "it is not by any measure a topic of national interest" is an assertion without evidence. I did a crude Google search for the alternative issues that you mention and here are the results in descending order:

* Obama "iraq": 3,850,000 results

* Obama "gun control": 2,360,000 results

* Obama "economy": 1,340,000 results

* Obama "health care": 568,000 results

So "gun control" is clearly up at the top of the issues you mention. By all means, please increase the coverage of the other issues that you mention. However, I do have a problem with reducing the size of the gun control section when, as it is, it only consists of clearly recorded positions taken over the years. There is a lot more fluff that has happened in the campaign, like the "clinging to guns" comment that is not represented in this section (and probably shouldn't either).

WP:UNDUE generally deals with the prominence given to one viewpoint to the disparagement of other competing viewpoints. The gun control section essentially consists of publicly recorded positions taken by Obama and they are uniformly recorded. There is a vague reference in WP:UNDUE to An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but is a stretch to apply it to this article which by definition consists of a laundry list of all political positions taken by Obama. Note that the article title is Political positions of Barack Obama, and it begins with this preface:

“ U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, has taken positions on many political issues through his public comments and his senatorial voting record. ”

So anything that he has done in his past should be represented here, regardless of what he is running for right now. In fact, I will point out that using only the issues that Obama is emphasizing in his campaign amounts to POV on behalf of his campaign, something we certainly do not want to do here. All candidates do this; they want to talk about the stuff that they think will help them, and avoid talking about the stuff that they think will hurt them. We should fairly represent all their history, without regard to their campaign goals. kevinp2 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The premise that "anything that he has done in his past should be represented here" runs directly contrary to WP:UNDUE and the Wikipedia's goal to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of random facts. Given the prevalence of gun advocacy (for and against) on the web, the straight-up Google test probably isn't the best way to find reliable sources covering Obama's position on gun control. Rather, a Google News search brings up 901 hits for Obama "gun control"[3] and over 27,300 hits for Obama Iraq[4], 24,400 for Obama economy[5], and 11,000 for Obama "health care"[6]. Google tests should be taken worth a grain of salt, of course. Nonetheless, this one certainly confirms my suggestion that reliable sources aren't so hot on the gun debate right now but are discussing many other issues more thoroughly. · jersyko talk 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is an interesting data point, the election is still 6 months away (although it seems like it has been going on forever ;-) ). There will naturally be an ebb and flow of issues and discussions through the campaign. In addition, the issues discussed before and after the Democratic primary is concluded may well be very different, due to the different audiences involved. I argue that the section on gun control has been maintained over several months and consequently has become comprehensive. If you feel that it is unduly large compared to other sections, then I suggest that the proper solution is to make the other issues and sections comprehensive as well. This is a better solution than to cut down the gun control section, which will inevitably lose information that is actually fairly objective and NPOV considering the passions this debate usually engender. Let's be inclusionists, not deletionists :-) I am happy to help increase the coverage of the other issues subject to my competence and understanding of them. kevinp2 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Down to specifics: kevinp2, do you have any objection to either of these changes? Feel free to discuss. · jersyko talk 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jersyko, sorry, real life caught up with me. I took a look at the change you made, and it is fine with me. kevinp2 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Autism

Re this, I would still reference WP:SYN regarding the second half of the paragraph. Additionally, I would point out that Lou Dobbs isn't a reliable source for whether autism is caused by vaccines. For the record, I have little to no interest in the autism/vaccine controversy. · jersyko talk 03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama ignoring gay media

I said this in the main Barack Obama article but am posting it here since I think this is a better place to talk about it: Throughout his campaign he has been ignoring the gay media, even in important states like Ohio. None of the twelve member newspapers of the National Gay Newspaper Guild had been granted an interview with Obama, even though all of them had asked. He has only recently talked to a few gay media sources, and even then has been reluctant. And you’ll notice that he only started talking to gay news sources after he has been called out for not doing so by the Philadelphia Gay News in Pennsylvania. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found a quote from the Philadelphia Gay News:

"At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we're able to view the candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them...

The fact is that Obama has spoken with the gay press only twice, and one of those interviews...was in 2004, before he became a U.S. senator. The other limited interview occurred after controversy erupted when his campaign added an anti-gay minister to his tour of the South. It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community."

QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Trade

I was surprised to find no mention of his views on trade in this article. Surely NAFTA and other free-trade agreements are contentious issues in American politics that need to be covered. --Bjarki (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - I was just about to write the same thing. Brisvegas 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee?

As likely as I think an Obama victory is, it's ridiculous for this article to call him the "presumptive nominee" at this point. The sources quoted are three blogs, simply quoting two partisans and one Fox News commentator offering their opinions on the matter. These are not reliable sources. Reliable sources would be newspaper articles (other than opinion colmns), and the articles would have to give that description themselves, not just quote others. 136.152.224.31 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed it. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to remove it yesterday, but got distracted. He's the likely nominee, but "presumptive nominee" usually refers to a candidate that has already crossed the delegate threshold but not yet been nominated (like McCain). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would not be surprised if Clinton fights on all the way to the convention. If she concedes the race before that, then it may be OK to call Obama the presumptive nominee. kevinp2 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still the presumptive nominee. He stays that until he's officially named. Accurate newscasters still refer to both Obama and McCain in that way; won't change until the conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.80.35 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: He is now the presumptive nominee. The above discussion took place before he had reached the delegate threshold (and before Clinton ended her campaign). --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and contraception

Why are they grouped together? They're two seperate issues, no other two social issues are grouped together. Anyone mind if I break them up? - Schrandit (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)~

Why is there no information about the Freedom of Choice Act? This should definitely be in here. He is strongly in support of this and it revokes ALL restrictions on abortion federally.

Partial Birth Abortion Position

He supports the return of partial birth abortion for sure, but the way it´s stated it seems that he supports it without any restrictions, unlike Hilary Clinton. Is that true ? 85.244.52.116 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is against all restrictions on it. This should be in here after 6 months of noone addressing this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.250.218 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gender issues

Please add something about gender roles, equal pay & opportunities, domestic abuse etc. I didn't see anything refering to that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.207.208 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

His positions about abortion and partial birth abortion seem quite anti-Catholic. I think it should be mencioned in he article the fact that he never opposed anti-Catholicism and his pastor was an well knwon anti-Catholic.85.244.52.116 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

support for public financing

A person cannot support and reject the same thing at the same time. But some apparently believe that supporting the public financing system and "using" the public financing system are meaningfully distinguishable such that there is no contradiction. One reverter responded to my observation that Obama "does not support public financing of his own campaign" by claiming that "he can support it without accepting money". So he supports public financing of his own campaign except for the public financing part? I'm sorry, but if you remove the "accepting money" part, you have nothing left! Another reverter says, "He can support it without using it." That's entirely true BUT ONLY BY SUPPORTING ITS USE BY OTHERS AND NOT HIMSELF. It is impossible to support public financing FOR HIMSELF while not USING IT HIMSELF! If someone calls on the world to NOT USE the public financing system, WHAT IS BEING SUPPORTED? One cannot say there is support for a system if no one wants to "use" it!.

Indeed, many reliable sources say that Obama's decision to "not use" the system "threatens" the system. Even if it wasn't logically self-evident that Obama does not support public financing of his own campaign, these sources would dispute the contention that Obama "supports" the system. If Obama supports the system for campaigns "other than his own" is objectionable phrasing (and I readily grant that it looks like an unseemly shot at the candidate to have that "other than his own" carve out), then I would say the claim that he supports ANYONE'S use of public financing is disputed (indulging the constraint that there are no alternatives other than support for all users or support for no users). Whatever sources indicate that he supports it, there are thus many reliable sources that say he "threatens" it. If he simply SAYS he supports it, that is not determinative. If a candidate says he supports abortion, but he voted against it 50 times straight including this morning, Wikipedia should not say, without qualification, that he supports it. It should either reference his ACTIONS or make no claim at all about his stance on the issue given that there is a great deal of evidence to question his avowed support.Bdell555 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as complicated as that. The article doesn't say that he "supports receiving public financing" it says that he supports the public finance system. The fact that he opted of receiving public funds doesn't contradict this support (one can, for instance, support the federal highway system without ever driving on it or support food stamps without ever receiving them). This article isn't the place for editorial criticism, it is for his political positions and his position on public financing is that he supports it (and if he becomes president it is highly unlikely he will try to dismantle the system). That said, the fact that he opted out is probably worth a mention. If there is an inherent contradiction, then the reader will infer as much but we don't need to spoon-feed them editorial positions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Obama supports public financing for everyone, for everyone but himself, or for no one, is an issue of fact and reliable sources. An accurate account of his position is not "editorial criticism". The only thing that is "complicated" is the convoluted reasoning that tries to say the public finance system can be supported by the same party that independent observers (and logic) say is "threatening" it.

Your food stamp analogy is false. Neither Obama nor anyone else has to make a trade-off with respect to driving on the highway or receiving a food stamp such that they have to give something up in order to get it (if you want to argue that taxes must be given up, I would respond that one cannot refuse to pay those taxes and simultaneously claim to support the public system that provides the benefits). No competitive advantage obtains to a non-user of the food stamp system relative to a user of the system, unlike the case with a non-user of the public financing system. A non-user of the public financing system is not subject to spending limits, which constitutes an advantage.

re "highly unlikely", where are your sources? Many sources directly contradict you, indicating that Obama "threatens' the system, and has perhaps even delivered a "death knell" to it. It is unnecessary to take further action to "dismantle" the system beyond politicians opting out whenever advantageous to do so.Bdell555 (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also note that I'm willing to compromise or accomodate another's preferences such that "his support" can stand without the "other than his own" clause. But in that case there ought to be some indication that whether Obama in fact supports public financing is disputed. Your preferred presentation of his "opt out" does not challenge the idea that he fully supports public financing for everyone including himself and thus leaves the reader with the impression that the "opt out" does not raise any questions about his avowed support. That's misleading: it has raised questions for MANY observors. There HAS been a challenge, in other words, and there are many reliable sources for that fact. Keep in mind here that my original edit was solely about the "political position" of Obama's support for public financing for HIS campaign. I've never disputed that he supports it for others (and has accordingly encouraged others to "use" public financing).Bdell555 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your edit comment: I did say something here: [7] and today Loonymonkey explained my point comprehensively enough. If you don't understand it, I see no reason for me to repeat it again especially when you contradict yourself in your own comments. That's it, no offense, --Floridianed (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "something" there as well. So why direct me to the Talk page if what's good enough from you is also good enough from me? Loonymonkey has not responded to my response to him. Do I take it, then, that you concede everything I note above, which explains why although one can support some things without using them, a politician cannot claim to support public financing for his campaign while not "using" it? "Use" is a word choice of yours that does not apply here and is misleading, because "use" suggests just a taking of a benefit. Obama's "non-use" decision here did not involve the forgoing of a benefit (like a food stamp) as you wish to (mis-)characterize it but the obtaining of an advantage. This is not just my view but that of reliable sources. See articles like "Obama’s Decision Threatens Public Financing System" NY Times There are many other articles out there in a similar vein. Omitting "nonetheless" denies that there is any link despite all of the reliable sources out there that allege there is. Produce some countering sources that argue that the "non-use" decision does not have negative implications for the prospects of the public financing system going forward if you want to continue to claim that Obama's non-use decision raises no questions about his support for the system. Where is/are the contradiction(s) you allege?Bdell555 (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear to me that if we mention Obama's support of public financing we have to mention that he chose not to use it. Beyond that, I'll let you guys work out whether "nonetheless" or "however", etc. is appropriate. Everyone should be aware of WP:3RR and try to keep revert wars out of the article. Oren0 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor to compromise (w/o compromising WP) and propose the following change that especially puts "the opt out" sentence in the appropriate place:

"Obama supports public financing of political campaigns but opted out of receiving public financing for his general election campaign. Furthermore he has maintained that he will not take contributions from federal lobbyists and special interests during his 2008 presidential campaign."

Please let me know if you can accept/like this version. --Floridianed (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'd like it to say "...opted out of receiving public financing for his own general election campaign" but I think that's mostly a style concern. Oren0 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in all respects with Oren0.Bdell555 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I consider this as having consensus and a go ahead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridianed (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I support Floridianed's language. It reads very neutrally. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll change it then. --Floridianed (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Contraception

That section is only one line and as far as I know it really isn't a presidential issue. Anyone mind if I remove it? - Schrandit (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we merge it into the previous section (which could be renamed "Abortion and contraception"). I'll make the change. If there are any objections or reversions, we can discuss it here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do. Abortion and Contraception are two very different issues that people have tried to tie together. Why not just take out the sentence about contraception. Is that really a federal issue anyway? - Schrandit (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Very different issues? I'm not really sure if that's true. As policy, they are generally closely linked and discussed together (and often discussed under umbrella terms such as "family planning"). I wouldn't support removing the sentence as it does show his position on the issue (and, whether you personally agree or not, contraception is an ongoing political issue). Let's see what others think. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Family planning is used as an umbrella term for politicians who want to dodge the abortion issue. Legislation on abortion is hotly discussed and contraception usually isn't in the picture, it defiantly isn't in the court rulings. The federal government doesn't do much with contraception beyond the FDA. I will be shocked if this comes up in the debates. While removing this would take away information I think its information that isn't pertinent to the Presidency so its for the best. More importantly, contraception isn't mention in the political positions of HRC, McCain, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson or John Edwards. In any case, I too would like to see what others think and won't move before there is consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Though McCain's political position page does not have a section on contraception, the word "contraceptives" appears in the "Abortion" section in a sentence saying that he opposed the exact bill that this article says Obama supported. Also, right above the "Abortion" section, there is a mention of McCain's support of funding for abstinence programs.

Furthermore, I do think that contraception is a political issue that is relevant as it pertains to the contested issue of abstinence-only programs, which I've certainly heard talked about a lot on the news. Thus, I think that this sentence should remain in this article (if it is decided that it should be removed, then the corresponding sentences in the McCain article should also be removed).

As to what specific sections to include these statements in, I don't think I really have a strong opinion either way. RobHar (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing debate over Obama's FISA position and time sensitivity of issue

It is next to impossible to "type" on one of these little Chicklet-size keyboards of a handheld device. Of course, I meant to type "weasel" and Words of Estimative Probability, but you can't correct an edit summary that's almost impossible to preview on a two-inch screen. The mention of Obama's changed stance on a possible filibuster (not mentioned elsewhere) is critically important, if you can count to 40, know what a "cloture vote" is and presume Obama is now the putative leader of the Senate's majority party. Plausible to deny (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact remains that you are trying to add language which is not WP:NPOV. Please read abbout weasel words and words to avoid for a further explanation of this, but you can't phrase sentences like "Despite an earlier promise..." That is pure POV. Just stick to the facts and let the reader decide. Rather than edit war, why don't you wait for others to weigh in before unilaterally adding this again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I actually just re-removed the passage before noticing that a discussion was going on. The passage was not appropriate as sourced since the claim that he "promised to filibuster" is only mentioned in the cited article in a quote from some random person. I remember that the obama campaign's statement at the time was that he would "support a filibuster", not necessarily initiate a filibuster. I think the proper way to do this is to quote that statement beforehand, giving its date, then explain the current situation. It would then be unnecessary to have say "despite bla bla", and the contentious passage is moot. RobHar (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. "Support" or "initiate," you choose. If you were a political party's nominee to be the next President, would you be a leader or a follower? I've never run up against 3RR, and don't want to now over this. It sould nice if someone else could work in the truly important word filibuster without the loaded campaign word "promise" - which admittedly can be difficult to accurately source and is subject to being retroactively parsed - I would consider this all to be amicably resolved. Of course, if "filibuster" gets added to the article after a floor vote on the full measure, it is more like a post-mortem, rather than actually keeping the article up-to-date. I'll slink back to editing the articles where I don't get hassled. Plausible to deny (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think the president (or nominees) should be the leader of every single movement on the activist side of their party, so yeah I'd want to be a leader, but not just for the sake of it. But this is neither here nor there. My understanding of the situation is that initially, back in october of last year, Dodd was going to filibuster the original bill, then Obama said he would support the filibuster[8][9] (and Hillary was still without clear opinion). Then, this wasn't enough for moveon.org and "a dozen liberal bloggers"[10], so the obama campaign said "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" (see previous ref). Now a new bill is in town. Apparently Dodd and Feingold are setting up a filibuster, and Obama has not since responded with a new opinion. It also seems as though the new bill only offers retroactive immunity on civil (not criminal) cases to telecom companies, and no immunity to the administration. RobHar (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds utterly reasonable, and if I came across as being a little (which I think I was), I apologize to everybody who read my words that way, too. I have spent some time and effort keeping the FISA article itself updated, and am probably "too close to the patient" to be truly objective, neutral and detached. Obviously, the time frame in which Obama expressed some sort of support for a filibuster is an important consideration, as this legislation and the political calculus associated with it has been shape-shifting for years. My observation about 'initiating' or 'participating' in a filibuster was not meant to be case-specific to this situation; it was intended be an observation on the unique leadership role any presumptive Presidential nominee would have in this circumstance. This is why Senators caucus by party, and I am not invited to those meetings, but am curious about their group dynamics. And that is much as I want to 'type' with my right index finger. I will try to keep all ten of them off of this article for awhile. Plausible to deny (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Also, to update, obama a few hours ago released a statement on his community blog site [11]. He doesn't mention the filibuster, but mentions working on removing the immunity and explains his position of support for the bill (amongst others: without it, provisions to legally survey people will run out this summer). RobHar (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article flow and organization

This article is (like most of the "political positions of..." articles) a hard read. I'm wondering if there's a better way we can organize and phrase it. Perhaps:

• Actually say what the positions are rather than giving a sometimes scattershot list of statements, speeches, and incidents - if there are two or more things that support a claim that Obama's position is X, rather than describe both why not say his position is X and then footnote the sources?
• Minimize direct quotes as much as we can in favor of summary
• Try to eliminate most attempts to show flip-flopping, change, contradiction, lack of clarity, etc., and get to the heart of what the position is (if there is one)
• Being clear what the basis is of calling something a position: (1) legislative or other record; (2) campaign promise; (3) speech, writing, or stumping; (4) official platform; (5) other source?

A couple I found that seem to be better: Political positions of Mike Huckabee and Political positions of Fred Thompson. Maybe just because they're shorter and less heavily edited, but they're more coherent.

For what it's worth the McCain article is only marginally better. I think it reads a little better despite being longer, mainly because the sections and paragraphs tend to have an introductory paragraph that summarizes the position - more of that is a first step that would help here.

- Wikidemo (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

People are censoring this article. They are erasing legitimate things.

In the gun control section, the article said:

"He voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, for which arguments pro and con were heard by the Supreme Court in March 2008 in the case D.C. v. Heller."

I added the following right after that part:

"However, according to a June 26, 2008 article in Time magazine, after the court overturned the ban, Obama stated, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms... The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view." "

Since Time magazine is a legitimate source, and it quotes Obama as having switched his position, it's very relevant to this section of the article. So I added it.

But then someone erased it.

So I added it back in again.

But then someone erased it again.

I also added the following to the abortion section:

"However, a July 3, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights." "

Since Associated Press is a legitimate source, and since it says Obama has adopted a new position on this issue, it's very relevant to this section of the article. So I added it.

But then someone erased.

So I added it again.

Then someone erased it again.

The same thing happened when I added similar types of things to other parts of the article.

People are censoring this article.

For the record, Obama has shifted to the right on unwarranted wiretapping, Israel, free trade, gun control, the death penalty, faith based programs, welfare reform, the Iraq war, abortion, the Patriot Act, campaign finance, and the Cuban embargo. Here is a list of sources for all of those things.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I believe some the problem with what was removed was not necessarily that the subjects you were inserting were deemed not admissible to article, but rather that the way they were inserted was incorrect/inaccurate. For example, the "wiretapping without warrants section": that content is already included in the "intelligence section", where the events are more explicitly explained, and in a more unbiased point of view (with edit summaries like [12] "Obama supports ... unwarranted wiretapping" people are more likely to be convinced your edit is POV pushing.) As another example, the iraq war: you added a paragraph right in front of a paragraph that already had the content you were adding (again yours was more biased, and less complete). RobHar (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You ignored the two examples that I just quoted - the ones about gun control and abortion. Erasing those two things from the article is censorship. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I ignored those two examples, it was that they were two examples that I did not know anything about, so I spoke about examples I had already informed myself on. I'm looking into the above two now. RobHar (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gun control

So here's a summary of what I've found out on the gun control part (note that emphasis provided by italics is my addition)

• 1) On Feb 15, Obama said "There's been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." ([13]).
  
• 2) On Feb 15, he also said "The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC (...) The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." ([14])
  

From statement 2), the author of the AP article quoted in this wiki article ([15]) infers that obama "voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns" though Obama never explicitly said anything about the DC handgun ban. In an article ([16]) from april 7th, Robert Novak attempts to figure out Obama's position on the DC handgun ban, and discusses statements 1) and 2). He mentions that in a march 13 column, he said that obama "weighed against" the DC handgun ban because of statement 1) since, according to Novak, the Mayor of DC's "brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment 'protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.'" So, the notion that Obama supported the dc gan ban appears to be at least contentious. Novak says he attempted to get Obama's position on the DC gun ban, but never got a clear cut answer. It appears as though Obama may not have had a (public) position on the subject (though he has a public position on gun control).

• 3) On June 26th, Obama released a statement (available in its totality here ([17])) the first half of which is: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
  

The article, by Time, that you referenced in your edit stops after "has now endorsed that view" leaving this statement as cryptic at best. With the full first paragraph unedited, the statement makes much more sense: Obama and the supreme court agree that the constitution supports the individual's right to bear arms, but this right is not absolute.

So from what I've seen it seems as though Obama's position on gun control has not changed. Obama's position on the DC handgun ban seems to have never existed and still doesn't (and one could criticize him for not coming out for or against, but that's probably not the place of this article).

Parenthetically to this discussion, I would just add that Statement 1) certainly begs the question "what are common sense measures?". The second half of Obama's june 26th statement gives two examples: "closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system".

I hope this helps, and I am welcome to further discussion. I will look into the "abortion" thing at a later time. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that helps a lot. So Obama hasn't changed his views on the gun issue. You explained that very well. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, RobHar. Thank you for the clear, well-referenced explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the compliments. btw I removed the statement that he supported the DC gun ban, in line with what I've said above. RobHar (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"properly sourced"

Blogs are RSs now? — goethean ॐ 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not and they never have been. That particular paragraph will have to be removed unless the ref is replaced with a WP:RS. In general we don't use opinion pieces as the only source for factual claims, but we especially don't use blogs. There is often confusion about the blogs that are hosted on major news sites. People often mistakenly feel that, say a blog hosted by ABC News is as reliable as ABC News itself. However, they are not part of the news organization and not subject to the same editorial oversight or fact-checking that journalistic pieces are. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Looneymonkey, blogs do qualify for being RS when they are authored by recognized, published authors on the subject. Please read over the SPS policy more fully. The ABC blog is by a nationally known writer, and qualifies under the SPS guidelines. Trilemma (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, I will paste the policy here for future reference: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." From [18] Trilemma (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you stop reading after that sentence? Because immediately after it says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." Seems pretty clear to me. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter, because the ABC blog isn't self published. It is an extension of a professional news agency, managed by a large corporation. Like the New Republic's blog, there is accountability and a factchecking structure (see:Lee Siegel) Trilemma (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So why did you bring up "self-published sources" in the first place? You're the one who quoted that section in this context, not me. And no, the ABC blogs are not run by the ABC News department. That's why they're distinguished as blogs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "run by"? They are a facet of a professional news agency. They are hosted by the ABC news website, maintained by the professional web developers, etc. this is rather plain to see. Trilemma (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looneymonkey, I have no choice but to report you to wikiquette for your latest edit. You either didn't read the source or purposefully lied about it. Either way, I am tired of your POV warriorism. Trilemma (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look etiquette is that it's upon you to make the case for something before adding it and you haven't done that. Blogs are not reliable sources for information about a living person. If the information is true, you should have no problem finding a legitimate news source as a ref. I'm not going to edit war, if you insist on doing so I'll leave it to others to revert you yet again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, they do not have editorial oversight by ABC news and are stories are not prepared by the news department. Where it is hosted or who the "web developers" are has nothing to do with whether it is part of the news department. It's not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your revert of a news article from politico, with a libelous explanation, pushes you toward 3RR territory, and if I corrected it, I would be in 3RR territory. So, I'll leave it to another responsible editor to correct your mistakes. Trilemma (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Libelous? Politico is a blog. Did you not know that? Just for the record, please read WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. It couldn't be more clear: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." I don't oppose including the information if true, I oppose your incorrect sourcing of it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Politico is a professionally run, widely sourced resource that contains news and blogs. So, again either you're being deceitful or ignorant.Trilemma (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So now you're simply arguing about the definition of blog? Oh, brother. Look, it's not a newspaper, not a magazine, not a TV or radio outlet, it's a blog. The article you linked to wasn't reprinted (as they sometimes do) from AP or the Washington Post or whatever. It was one of their writers. If the information is true, you should have no problem finding a legitimate source. Alright, there's nothing left to say on this subject. Good ahead and hurl a few more personal attacks though, if you feel like it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

rent control

Apparently Obama supports rent control and some observers believe this position is a telling "sign about his political convictions." Is this position too minor for a mention for a national candidate?Bdell555 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama supported rent control, but the cited source doesn't establish that -- only that he voted against a state law that prohibited localities from adopting rent control. Even a rent-control opponent might have voted that way, out of a conviction that each city should be left free to make its own decision. There's an analogy to the much more prominent issue of reproductive rights: Opposing the overruling of Roe v. Wade doesn't mean you're pro-abortion, it means you're pro-choice. JamesMLane t c 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget deficit plans?

The taxation and deficit section section seemingly doesn't cover Obama's intended handling of the national debt. This section handles taxing different classes of people, but in a way that's hard interpret. The first sentence, for example: Obama has proposed a tax plan which includes an $80 billion tax cut for poor and middle-class families and repeal the tax cuts for the richest one percent of taxpayers. That sounds great, but how much do the aforementioned poor and middle classes make each year? How thinly will the tax cut be spread among them? How many dollars does the government expect to make by taxing the rich more? How thinly will the tax increase for them be spread?

How much will the deficit shrink or expand during his expected four years? We don't need exact figures here, but some expected deficit values plus or minus some tolerance value would be nice.

It is not enough to say His tax plan would bring in an additional $700 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. We should have his spending plans too.

A-Day ^(c)_(t) 07:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added a citation-needed tag to that section when the sentence above is already cited in the refs. If there is additional information you want to see, adding cite tags to cited material is the wrong way to go about it. As for his deficit plans, do you have any specific information from Obama's platform or proposed policies that you wish to add? If so, discuss it here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So can we add the tire pressure/tune-ups comment or no?

It's part of his energy policy and plan to reduce oil consumption, but I suspect it would start an edit war with Obama supporters. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a political position it's just a quote out of context. There will be several such "attack quotes" (by and for both candidates) every week until the election. There's absolutely no reason to consider including such campaign fluff on Wikipedia unless it crosses a much higher threshold of notability. Even in that case, it would be a campaign development, not a political position. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely a political position. Obama has said instead of increasing drilling for oil (which he was against before he was for) we should increase our tire pressure. The quote was not out of context in any way, it was just easily attacked. Cwagmire (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The context is that a questioner asked him what individuals could do about the energy problem. I wouldn't mind including the quotation if that context were provided. The Republican charge that inflating tires is a major part of Obama's energy policy, however, is a distortion of the truth. JamesMLane t c 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the initial "Republican charge" was slightly distorting, but by defending the statement multiple times at rally's, going as far as saying it would do more than drilling ever could, it became a part of Obama's energy policy. I think it is absolutely appropriate to have a sentence or two about it, but any more than that would be too much IMO. Cwagmire (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with including it. I'm just saying that to include it without mentioning the context would be misleading. Obama brought it up in the first place because he was asked specifically what individuals could do. He's brought it up thereafter (in the instances you mention) because of the attacks from the Republican noise machine. We should include it but not in a way that gives the false impression that Obama saw it as the centerpiece of his energy policy. It's just one part of his call for conservation, which in turn is just one part of his determination to break our dependence on fossil fuels. JamesMLane t c 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Policy

Does anyone know his policy on Russia? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama no longer supports NASA budget cuts

Orlando Sentinel

"TITUSVILLE - In a dramatic reversal of policy, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Saturday told supporters on the Space Coast he no longer favors slashing NASA's budget, declaring that the United States "cannot cede our leadership in space."" --Itwilltakeoff (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to include this. --Itwilltakeoff (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's daughters

Obama said the following about his daughters: "if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”[19]== POV and Criticism ==

This article is highly POV and needs checking over.

And doesn't the page require a criticism section? there are tons of criticisms from a lot of people about his policies and so a section headed 'Criticism of Obama's Policies' is required. Uwaisis (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the article would turn into a presentation of pro-and-con arguments on reproductive rights, on progressive taxation, on the occupation of Iraq, etc. Both here and in Political positions of John McCain, the community has thought it more useful simply to present the candidate's positions, without outside commentary except as is helpful in further understanding. JamesMLane t c 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is specifically designed to explicate Obama's positions, not controversies or analyses of them. For that, see Cultural and political image of Barack Obama. Oren0 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

even if this article is designed to explicate Obama's positions, there can still be a criticism section on him. People critique his policies and so he should have a criticism section, as do many other politicians. 93.96.18.30 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take the examples I mentioned. Do you mean that this article should include reports of the POV of those say that Obama's support for reproductive rights means condoning mass murder? Should the article report the argument that the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy? Would it then include explanations of the opposing POV's, e.g., the numerous economists who say that the stimulus effect of the Bush tax cuts could have been achieved much more powerfully and less expensively if the tax cuts hadn't been so heavily skewed toward the rich? Should this article try to explain the details of criticism of Obama over Iraq, recounting how Republicans say it would embolden terrorists, and then (to be fair) explain the opposing POV that our occupation of Iraq is generating hatred for the U.S. and thereby facilitating Al-Qaeda recruiting? I hope you see my point with these questions. To start down the road you suggest would turn the article into a sprawling mass that would be useful to no one. By the way, the parallel article on McCain's political positions also does not set out the extensive criticisms that have been of him. People also critique McCain's policies. Right now we're treating the two of them the same. JamesMLane t c 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital gains tax rate

Currently the article states that Obama would impose a capital gains rate of 20-28 percent. This is not true. As fact check state: "Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all." Fact Check The stated position of the campaign is that only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate of 20%. See WSJ op-ed ("The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986."). Could someone please change this. Remember (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual speeches by Obama state 20 to 28% range. See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 . In his speech at http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520 , he give the for example rate of 25%, not 20%. These are more authoritative since they are actual speeches. Fact check is actually incorrect and seems to be politically motivated website. 71.131.24.161 (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from your CNBC source"BARTIROMO: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?...Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number.... And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making." So in this source he does not say he was going to chooses a 25% rate. He said that when talking to Buffet and others they say that rates between 20 to 25% would not distort the market. That doesn't mean he is chosing that rate. I can't open the youtube link to see what that supports. If someone else would analyze that, I would appreciate it. Remember (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't chosen an exact rate. He always gives a range of 20% to 28%. Fact check is a political blog site which contains a lot of POV and some of its "facts" are not consistent with actual television speeches (a downright lie or non-fact) and should NOT be used as reference. The You Tube video is of Obama and is the the one broadcast on network television of Obama actually speaking. It is verifiable and authoritative and is actually Obama speaking. If I were you, I would look at the video and see for yourself that it is Obame speaking to news reporter with Hilary at the next podium in the world wide televised Democratic debate. Get the facts from the horses mouth as the old saying goes, not from a rumor website. Please remove the verify-reference tag. Thanks for your concern. Sorry, that was Oren not Remember who added the verify tag. Can somebody remove it? I don't want get into a revision war. 71.131.24.161 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Insourcing of labor via H1B and other visas

I added: "Obama (and McCain) voted to allow more labor to be imported via H1B visas, cite: http://www.theoutsourcingblog.com/can-obama-stop-outsourcing-wave." But LooneyMonkey wants a better source. Any way to find the actual voting record? Seems that deleting this is a non-neutral pro-Obama edit. 71.131.4.46 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith in matters of discussion. That said, we don't use blogs as a reference for factual material as they are not considered reliable sources. This is particularly true in a biography of a living person. You will need a reliable, verifiable third-party source for this before we can even begin to discuss including it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism has already been debated. See Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. The content I added could easily be checked by going to a search engine, typing "Obama H1B" and looking at a few of the 22,000 articles that say "Obama wants more labor to be imported via H1B visas". The correct thing to have done would to be add a tag "{ {cite_need:see talk page} }" (not sure of correct formatting, sorry) to the sentence that was deleted. I would rather that people improve the article by finding a cite that is better rather than delete content that is said to be true by 22,000 articles (and some of those would meet either the inclusionist standard or deletionist standard). In my opinion, to delete it is fraud by omission. It's not just you. You seem to be a very nice person. But wikipedia has really gone downhill with all the deletionists. Volunteers will quit contributing if the situation does not improve. 71.131.20.156 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a Deletionist, and Deletionism has nothing to do with this anyway (deletionism or inclusionism generally refer to arguments relating to keeping or deleting articles, not to the content of those articles). As for cite tagging the paragraph (rather than removing it), that's not how it works in a biography of a living person. As it says at Wikipedia:RS#Biographies_of_living_persons "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." If you want to come up with better sources and make the case here that this is an actual political position, than please to do so. It may warrant a mention in the immigration section, but I doubt it deserves its own section (and the phrase "insourcing" is a loaded term that would need to be changed to something more neutral). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think this article has almost reached GA criteria and propose to nominate it. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxation

I read through this whole section, but missed the taxation part. But I think the graphic from CNN is misleading. It shows tax cuts for people with low incomes, but ignore the fact that more than 40% of the population doesn't pay taxes. Should Wikipedia make clear that Obama's claim of tax cuts for 95% of the population is self-contradictory? How is this possible? Can you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes? (Wallamoose (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

What is your source for this 40% figure? Anyway, we do not conduct original research including not synthesizing two sets of sourced facts to draw a conclusion. We indicate what the reliable sources have already stated, nothing more. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Table 6 at this source says that in 2006, the bottom 50% only paid 2.99% of all federal income tax.

I added these two paragraphs, but someone else took them out. I am not going to add them back in, but I am interested in hearinig other people's opinions on them. Does anyone else think these things should be included? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"However, an August 19, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal claims that because Obama's tax cut for the poor and middle class consists of sending out checks instead of cutting marginal tax rates, and because some people would receive checks in amounts larger than what they actually paid in taxes, it's more accurate to classify Obama's plan as a spending program instead of as a tax cut. "

"A September 13, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal states, "Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses. In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America." "

RE: Grundle2600 and Wallamoose, I created an account for the purpose of leaving your comments on the taxation comment. I would suggest also that the graphic include the present average tax liabilities for each group. McCain gives the top bracket a big break while Obama hikes their taxes by 3 times as much. What gets lost is that they already pay a lot of money in taxes. I would also break the current tax cut number into tax cuts (for the amount by which the liability is decreased) and benefits from refundable tax credits (any excess in their current number beyond the average liability). Clarkdownum (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Today The Wall St. Journal has this new editorial on the same subject. It says that Obama wants to give a $4,000 tax credit to pay for college tuition, even to people who don't pay taxes. The source says that this is a spending program, not a tax cut, and that Obama is not being accurate when he calls it a tax cut. (Oops! This was me. I forgot to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

This Taxation section seems more a snapshot of the highlights as described by Mr Obama. I was hoping for something more comprehensive, even if it were from their point of view. As have some of the commentators above, I have heard that some proportion of the tax cuts are actually additional Earned Income Tax Credits, which are not really the same thing, and if true does greatly concern me, but the article doesn't mention that claim even to deny it. Ekac (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the common practice is on "political position" articles regarding editorial of those positions. It seems to me that Obama's web site would not be the best thing to cut and paste into this article (which is what was done here on taxation), but instead rely mainly on third party publications of those political positions, and do so presenting both sides for neutrality. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know that I have enough interest to follow this, as I'm more focused on tax and economics articles, but I thought I would make a comment here for the talk record regarding the removal of my edit by LoonyMonkey with the comment "we only include political positions here, not editorial opinion about those positions." Of course, Obama's statements regarding his political positions are pov opinion themselves and should have some form of balance.

The Tax Foundation argues that it would be a dramatic redistribution of the nation's tax burden, stating that more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers, with the number of zero liability income tax filers increasing from 33 percent to 44 percent.

This does not go into the multiple opinions on in these areas, such as whether it is desirable to have so many Americans disconnected from the cost of government and what the consequences are of using the tax system as a vehicle for social policy. I thought it relatively brief and factually attributed. Since it ties in with the request above regarding the number of non-filers, I thought I would post its removal so it didn't get lost in the article history. Morphh ^(talk) 14:43, 07 November 2008 (UTC)

Home sale tax

Has Obama come out and said what tax rate and any exemptions he will have on sale of a family's home? All I could find was he was raising the rate on capital gains, but is he intending to have the same tax rate for hedge fund managers and for sale of your home? I can't find it in this article and there are 1 million articles on the web and too hard to find the answer. I need to tell a friend whether to sell his house or not this year. 71.131.12.3 (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please address your question to the Obama campaign. This talk page is for discussing the content of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quit deleting the link to the video of the Democratic debate

The guy speaking is Obama. The woman beside him is Hillary. It was shown on National TV. It is a real speech at Democratic debates. You also deleted the interview with Maria Bartoromo and put in some incorrect information that Obama will go to 20% rates, but in this and other speeches you see he has a range from 20% to 28%. The link you keep putting in is to a political blog site which has incorrect information. 71.131.22.208 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Youtube links are not allowed for use as references. It needs a reliable source (and one which reflects his actual position, not editorial criticism of his position) to be included. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But when you did the revert, you put back in a political blog which has incorrect information about his capital gains rate and is a political blog. The dude speaking in the speech is Obama and he is not criticizing himself. Please keep wikipedia facts correct and keep out political blogs which have incorrect facts that do not agree with video recorded speachs. OK, if youtube video is the only bogus gripe, I have text transcripts of speechs that work also. OK? 71.131.31.5 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here [20] and here [21]. --Floridianed (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at his speeches here [22] and here [23] . That is straight from Obama rather than twisted and turned by a political news writer. If you can find any speech where Obama said it would be 20% or if his official website said that, that would be believable. 71.131.31.5 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Both, the transcript and the recording of the debate is outdated. Both major candidates have changed and/or "detailed" some of their positions since then. --Floridianed (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. So where is the speech or official campaign website that says this? (not some website that says it heard this somewhere from somebody who thought they heard it from some other person, you know rumors and junk like that) The 20% rumor was started by a junior staffer and never said by Obama as far as I can find in any televised speech. 71.131.31.5 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you can't use a youtube link as a reference. This is true for all of wikipedia, but it is particularly true on any article about a living person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rule in about wikipedia on the webpage you referenced: living person. And you deleted a full days of editing by 3 or 4 authors. There is a prohibition against blogs and you, sir, added that back with your massive revert along with a lot of other info not referenced by youtube. The polite way to delete one edit at a time rather than wiping out a day of work at at time. Keep in mind that the main goal is to be truthful. That is Obama and Hillary in the video. That is Obama speaking. There is no rule in wikipedia about web videos as a source or youtube in particular as far as I know and if there is it should be changed in order to make wikipedia more truthful. 71.131.31.5 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:YT states that decisions about adding YouTube video must be made on a case by case basis. WP:RS states that sources must be reliable, and WP:BLP states that the highest possible standard of sourcing must be used. YouTube video does not meet this standard. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

James A. Johnson was asked "to lead the process" for selecting Obama's running mate should he be in here someplace?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Johnson_(businessman)

OxAO (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this a "political position" of Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this Obama quote on his economic policies should have been removed

I added something to the "Economic policies" section.

Loonymonkey, the person who removed it, said, "rvt- out of context quote, not a political position (and the wikilink within the quote is particularly tendentious. Please read WP:SOAPBOX."

and then

"(multiple problems. 1)it's doesn't go at top of economic policy section 2) don't need long quote from audience member 3) your wikilink is tendentious and POV 4) The quote does not describe a policy!)"

I disagree with all of those things. The quote is accurate, so it is in context. The quote is about his economic policy. The source The New York Post is legitimate. It should go back in the article.

Here's what I wrote:

On October 12, 2008, at Toledo, Ohio, in response to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber who said to Obama, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?... I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream," Obama responded by saying, "It's not that I want to punish your success... I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Come on, are you going to pretend that wikilinking to Redistribution of wealth within the quote is NPOV? No, it's completely tendentious. As for the other points, there is already a section covering "Taxation" so why are you trying to put this quote at the very top in the middle of the summary of Economic policy? There isn't any reason to have a long critical quote from the audience member as it has nothing to do with this article. If we were going to use the quote, we could simply say "Responding to a question about taxes..." or something similar. But then the question becomes why are we even adding this quote? What does it add to the article that isn't already said in more detail elsewhere? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because:

1) Obama is saying that he believes that raising taxes on the people who create jobs is somehow beneficial to the people who need those jobs.

and

2) Obama is saying that he believes that the redistribution of wealth is more important than the creation of wealth.

and

3) Obama is showing that he has a very strong anti-achievement attitude.

The internal link that I added is very relevant. Wikipedia policy says that we are supposed to add internal links, and that's exactly what I did.

It was Obama who used the words "spread the wealth," so my adding the internal link to "Redistribution of wealth" is NPOV.

It is you, not me, who is violating NPOV, because you are trying to hide the fact that Obama wants to "spread the wealth."

The introduction to the section already had a quote from Obama saying that he favors the free market. This new quote suggests that Obama has flip flopped, and no longer favors the free market. Readers should be made aware of this change in his position. Since the other quote was already there, the new quote should be added for balance.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. He hasn't said any of those things. That's your own personal opinion and the tendentious nature of your edits is quite apparent. Please read WP:SOAPBOX before continuing. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to air your political grievances. Maybe you should start a blog? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want his new quote to be listed in the same section as his older quote, where he said he believed in the free market. Why do you think it's OK to have one quote but not the other? Why not let readers see both quotes? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you expressed concern about the source, I have found other sources. Here is the video at youtube which was broadcast on Fox News. Here is the quote from the Christian Science Monitor. And here is breitbart. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The source was never at issue. The relevance of the quote, the improper formatting and your failure to adhere to WP:NPOV in your edit were the issues. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I made a mistake - you never said my source was bad. It was the wikilink you said was bad. But the wikilink is not bad, because I linked to the exact thing that Obama was talking about. Your concern about me quoting the other person seems valid. If I put Obama's quote in the tax section, and don't quote the other guy, would that be OK? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any other Obama quote from the past 30 days is being discussed on the internet more than this one. To not have it in the article is a disgrace to the very reason why wikipedia was created in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey - Oh wow! Even though I followed all your suggestions for properly adding it back into the article, you still put a thing on my talk page threatening to ban me. And even though you also added a message there telling me to discuss this on the article's talk page, you haven't responded to my recent statements here. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how this edit addresses any of those concerns. In fact it's far worse. Get off the soapbox. It doesn't matter if the McCain campaign and a bunch of blogs are talking about this quote, that doesn't magically transform it into a political platform. Maybe the argument could be made that this is a campaign issue (although even that would be a stretch as it's likely nobody will be talking about this in a week), but it's certainly not a political position. Oh, and I didn't "threaten to ban you." I was just reminding you of the WP:3RR policy as you seem to favor edit-warring when nobody agrees with you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It addresses your objection of "doesn't go at top of economic policy section." It's not just "the McCain campaign and a bunch of blogs" that are reporting on this. It's also been reported on by U.S. News & World Report, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Reuters, The New York Times, and Time Magazine. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a political position. Consider these examples:

• "Obama supports tax cuts for the middle class." - political position
• "Some Republican plumber dude complained to Obama about his tax policy, after which McCain turned it into political theater during a debate." - not a political position

Does that help to make it clearer? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that does not make it clearer, because, as I already explained, the "Economic issues" section already has a different quote from Obama where he said he believes in the "free market." Why is it OK to have one quote, but not the other? Why is it OK to quote Obama saying he believes in the "free market," but not OK to quote him saying he wants to "spread the wealth"?

And although I can't put this next thing in the article because this source is not good enough, it appears that Joe the plumber is not a Republican, because, apparenlty, he is not registered to vote. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that not only is he a registered Republican, his name isn't Joe and he isn't even a plumber! Clearly "Joe the Plumber" is just being used as a rhetorical device which, while a minor campaign issue, has absolutely nothing to do with this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to post this, which says he voted in the Republican primary. Just because he doesn't have a plumber's license or belong to the plumber's union doesn't mean he's not a plumber. But there's no way the owner of a plumbng business with only two employees could have a net income of $250,000. That amount must be the gross sales, which is a completely different number. So this guy would not get a tax increase under Obama's plan. His name isn't even Joe - that's hilarious! But none of this changes the fact that Obama wants to "spread the weatlh." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

None of you have answered my question: Why is it OK for the introduction of the "Economic issues" section to quote Obama saying he believes in the "free market," but not OK for the same section to quote him saying he wants to "spread the wealth"? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It has now been 40 hours since I first asked why it's OK to have Obama's "free market" quote but not his "spread the wealth" quote. 40 hours! And no one has answered by question. Therefore, I have put the quote back in the article. This is not a violaiton of the 3R rule, as I waited 40 hours for someone to answer my question, and no one answered it. Wikipedia policy requires that articles be balanced. Since it's OK for his "free market" quote to be in the article, his "spread the wealth" quote should also be there for balance. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed reverted this edit, but I have partially restored it because it seems appropriate in the context of the quote preceding it. I've removed the non-neutral aspects of the addition, and de-linked the rather contentious blue link to redistribution of wealth. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's apples and oranges. What does a conversation about taxes have to do with the free market? How is it a contradiction? Unless one was an extreme Libertarian that believes all taxes are socialism or something, I don't see that connection could even be made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is a political position. It might be appropriate in the campaign article, since the McCain campaign is trying to make something of it, but it's not a statement of a new position. There's no contradiction between believing in a free market and believing in progressiive taxation, and Obama's (and virtually every Democrat's) support of progressive tax rates is nothing new or surprising. —KCinDC (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing comes down to the offhand phrase "spread the wealth" which some pundits and the McCain campaign (as well as Wikipedia's POV warriors) have latched onto. Basically, it's an attempt to spin as being synonymous with "wealth redistrubtion" or even, absurdly, socialism. That's what this whole argument is about. It has nothing to do with improving this article or adding a new political position on taxes (there isn't one). It's just about trying to insert that phrase in there for partisan reasons and letting the spin do the rest. (and before I get accused of being an "Obama campaign worker" or some such nonsense, I have fought against similar things on John McCain's articles.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone removed the part about "spread the wealth," while leaving the rest of the quote there. Why are you editors so afraid of those 3 words? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article wrongly refers to Obama's spending proposals as "tax cuts"

According to this and this, Obama's so-called "tax cuts" for the middle class are not really tax cuts, because he does not propose cutting marginal tax rates. Instead, he wants to give people tax credits to pay for college and other expenses. These things are not tax cuts - they are spending programs. Obama even wants to give these "tax cuts" to people who do not actually pay taxes. These things are spending programs wrongly being labelled as tax cuts. I think the article should address this. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that argument comes down to your own personal interpretation of what constitutes a "tax cut." You seem to be arguing that "cutting taxes" is not a "tax cut" and that only a cut in the marginal rate can be called a tax cut. But that's just your personal opinion (and isn't supported the reliable sources which actually refer to this as a tax cut). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the government gives $4,000 to pay for college tuition to someone who doesn't even pay taxes, that's a spending program, not a tax cut. And that's a specific example of Obama's plan which is cited in my second source. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If that tax credit comes in the form of a rebate check, just like it did with the Bush "tax cut", it's a tax cut. This is just a silly semantic argument, in my opinion. What matters is that Obama wants to give tax breaks to people, and McCain wants to give tax breaks to businesses. Both ideas have their merits, and the country will decide which they favor in about 19 days. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving $4,000 to people who don't pay taxes is a spending program, not a tax cut. Think of all the money the government gave to Halliburton. That wasn't a tax cut. It was a spending program. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is an irrelevant argument over semantics. Only a few of the people receiving this tax credit will not be paying tax in the first place, so it is still classified as a tax cut because it applies to anyone who files taxes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The money for Halliburton was for contracts (often noncompetitive) for doing things (even if the things were badly done), not a tax credit. —KCinDC (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't argue your personal opinions on wikipedia. Mind you WP:NPOV for both sides. That's what the blogs are for. We need to write articles as independent view points. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just added this information from ABC News to the article. This proves that Obama did indeed want to give "tax cuts" to people who did not pay taxes. And Obama has now altered his proposal to address this issue. This verifies what my two Wall St. Journal sources have been saying all along. Therefore, it is not my "personal opinion." It is a fact. And I now have ABC News to verify it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Private Accounts for Social Security mislead?

The first paragraph of the economic section says "Speaking before the National Press Club in April 2005, he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, associating Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security with Social Darwinism.[5]" - Now... I'm not sure where this came from - maybe I'm reading it wrongly - but Obama is constantly speaking against privatizing Social Security as a bad idea, among other things. So why is this included? Is it accurate? Is this something Obama has refined his view on or is it a misquote? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil Liberties

There are several items under "Social Policy," one of which is "Civil Liberties." However, some of the issues under social policy are generally considered to be civil liberty issues. Disability is on the face of its title. Abortion hinges on the issue of civil liberties (right to privacy) as does gun control (the "Right to keep and bear arms" as stated in the Constitution). Can we talk about a slight restructuring to separate the civil liberties issues from the non-liberty related issues such as sex education and environmental policy? As it is, civil liberties is woefully small, only including "war on terror" related items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuilaBird (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with John McCain

The article gave a couple of figures about Obama's voting record on government waste, giving figures of 10% for 2007, and 18% lifteime. I added in McCain's figures (100% and 88% respectively), mainly to give some context (it's not always easy to know what these "independent" groups' figures actually mean). It's been removed, arguing that this is a page on Barack Obama, not John McCain. I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but I thought it might be a good idea to have some context for such figures. Maybe not comparing him with John McCain (although I think that makes more sense than any other senator, given that they are being compared) - maybe give an average of all sitting senators? -. But any thoughts? I won't add it back in unless concensus is for giving context in this way.Darimoma (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On a general election article that would be fine. However, this article is based solely on Barack Oabam's political positions. Brothejr (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's not all that clear what 10% and 18% mean without giving it some context. 10% and 18% could be quite standard for politicians for all this article states. I just think it's worth giving some context, because it better explains Obama's position. Doesn't have to be compared with McCain - could be an average of the senate. Darimoma (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "political position", so I am unclear as to why you are trying to add it. Voting records rarely correlate with political positions, thanks to partisan/bi-partisan "deals", etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add Obama's voting record. I do think his voting record is relevant to his political positions, and so would advocate it remaining, but what I am arguing for is giving some sort of context on what the numbers actually mean. Darimoma (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The numbers themselves do not represent a "political position" for the reasons I described above. There is no reason to have either the numbers, or the "context" for the numbers. This is not the right article for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting records are, I believe, permissible in this kind of article. They're used in the rest of the article. Moreover, if a politician claims their stance to be something, but their voting record suggests otherwise, I believe that is relevant to an article on the politician's stances (for example, if Bush had claimed in 2004 that he was a pacifist, his actions concerning Iraq and Afghanistan should certainly have been mentioned). If voting records are bad indicators of political positions, that's fine, but I believe the numbers should be put back in, with a mention that voting records are misleading in that way, with a reputable source to back it up. Darimoma (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons previously stated. Assuming that this information was even relevant (which it isn't), you would need to find the necessary reliable sources to explain the common mismatch between position and voting record, and then build a consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the edits prior to mine, though, it does seem that there is an implicit belief that voting records are relevant to this article. The lead says Obama "has declared his position on many political issues through his public comments and his senatorial voting record." Other sections include statements like:

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Obama voted for the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

In September 2006, Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act

In June 2007, Obama voted against declaring English as the official language of the federal government

Obama's decision to vote in favor of a bill containing an immunity provision attracted criticism from some of his activist supporters

Obama voted for an amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the bill

On July 9, he voted for the entire FISA amendments bill

Obama was however one of 14 senators who voted against the successful passage of H.R.2206

Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council

Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005)

Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Obama voted against a bill that made it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion

Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people

The Sierra Club has described Obama as having a "strong record of support for clean air, wetlands protection, and clean energy."

Obama has made pro-environment votes on 10 of 15 congressional resolutions

His lifetime environmental voting percentage given by the LCV in 2007 is 86

The League of Conservation Voters has given Barack Obama the highest lifetime rating of anyone currently running for president

Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment

As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with violating local laws

He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection

Obama voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from certain liability suits

Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment

Obama is rated F by the National Rifle Association

He is also rated F by Gun Owners of America

Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the USA PATRIOT Act

He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006

and later voted to restore habeas corpus to those detained by the U.S.

He voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006

the ACLU has given Obama a score of 80% on civil liberty issues

He voted against extending the USA PATRIOT Act’s Wiretap Provision

later voted in favor of a compromise bill that included such provisions

He also voted in favor of the 2007 bill lifting restrictions on embryonic stem cell research

If voting records are considered irrelevant to this article, then all this would go too. Voting records are often taken to imply political positions (e.g. [24], [25], and [26]), and thus the burden of proof should be on someone who wishes to remove information based on a claim that voting records say nothing about political positions. Darimoma (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It always falls upon the editors who wish to include information to demonstrate why something should be added, not the other way around. If you are unhappy with the voting record data you presented above, go ahead and delete them. Editors wishing to put them back would need to go through the same consensus-building process that you would need to go through. My mantra has always been this: If in doubt, leave it out. The same standards should apply on everything. The problem comes because you wish to include information about someone else's voting record. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If the problem only arises because I want to include info on McCain's record, then Obama's record can go back in. Darimoma (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who created the section. And for the next 5 weeks, it remained. Then someone added McCain's position, which was soon removed because this article is about Obama, not McCain. But then someone also removed Obama's rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. That had been there for 5 weeks, and no one had complained then, so why remove it now? If a politician says one thing, but votes the opposite way, the article should cite both of these things, and then readers can determine for themselves what the politican's real position is. Also, the person who removed the rating from Citizens Against Government Waste doesn't seem to have any problem with the article including ratings from Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters. That seems a bit odd. Why is it OK to have ratings from those organizations, but not from Citizens Against Government Waste? Either remove none of those ratings, or remove all of them. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The addition you have proposed is not a political position, and so it is not relevant to the article. I have reverted your edit, which is borderline disruptive given the conversation you ignored above. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

It is inappropriate to include a tiny snippet of what Obama has said on his economic policy (in comparison to everything he else said on the subject, let alone in that single conversation), as if it represents his entire economic ideology. It was presented at the top of "Economic policy" section. See this article from CNN's Fact Check, when they examine the question Obama said he would 'spread his wealth around'?. They conclude:

Misleading. McCain's remark was an oversimplification of a five-minute-long conversation. Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the "spread the wealth" remark was one small part of the conversation.

Therefore, it is also misleading to include a small portion of what Obama said and present it like this. Khoikhoi 09:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's New Energy Plan: Create energy from car batteries to power the grid.

Quote: "we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that's generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy."

We're gonna need a lot of car batteries... ;-) Source: [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind you it's not the totality of his energy plan. There is much more I'm sure in the article, which should be sourced from his website where he lays out the plan ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It should not be ANY part of ANY plan. Car batteries to do not CREATE energy. Car batteries STORE energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just slightly misspoken [the quote]. It sure means to resell unused energy generated by hybrid cars which is stored in batteries. Should we use this quote and then have to explain it by violating WP:OR? I don't think so.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you'd posted the whole sentence for context that would be clear.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper said "It sure means to resell unused energy generated by hybrid cars which is stored in batteries." lol WTF??!! You took a mispoken quote and made it ridiculous in a completely novel way which I had not thought of. Once again, I have failed to predict the astonishing ignorance of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

graph of Obama and McCain tax-cut plans

I created a graph of the data in the table on this page comparing the proposed tax-cut plans of Obama and McCain. But instead of the actual graph appearing under the table, it is simply a link to upload the file. If you copy and paste the URL into a browser it will go to the correct image of the graph. Can someone please fix this so that the image appears on this page where it should? Thanks. -Monz (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The image is here: [[28]]. -Monz (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, it worked for me. Just type in [[Image:Obama-mccain tax-plans 1.svg]]

This graph needs some fixing, whoever created it, would it be possible to slant the bottom row(x) numbers to an angle of about 45 degrees to the left? It would make it easier to read.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kyoto?

Hi. What is Obama's position on the Kyoto protocol? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obamanomics - new article?

Currently, the term "Obamanomics" points to Political positions of Barack Obama#Economic policy. Considering there are many and significant aspects of Obama's economic vision of, and proposed policy changes to, the U.S. economic system, I think that it should have it's own article where the topic can be expanded from merely a litany of campaign rhetoric, to a meaty article comparing and contrasting Obamanomics with Reaganomics in particular and Clintonomics to a (possibly) lesser degree. Thoughts? JBarta (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing patent protection for pharmaceuticals?

This statement needs a better citation. I followed the citation at the end of the sentence which I pretty sure just applies to employer contributions and closest thing I could find on the page unless I mistaking is this: "Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market." This is very different to removing patent protection, which would effectively destroy the pharmaceutical industry overnight (say good bye to all new drug development) I either what a crash hot source for this or for the statement to be removed by someone with the power to do so. --219.89.11.49 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

National Service

I'm surprised not to see a section here on national service. Obama has called for a plan to "require 100 hours of service in college,"[29] as well as giving funding to states' schools on the condition that they implement a community service requirement. His chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, has called in his book "The Plan" for universal, mandatory government service. This information belongs in the article. -Kris Schnee (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite the gist of the plan. He didn't say he wanted to simply "require 100 hours of service in college," those 100 hours are in exchange for a $4,000 grant and certainly not mandatory (an important distinction). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment for WP:WikiProject Barack Obama

With 282 references carefully worked into the text, I've given this article the highest possible rating - but unfortunately, that is only B-class, because it hasn't gone through the WP:good article process yet. I think it is time for this article to receive recognition, and I encourage editors here to nominate this article at their earliest convenience. (But don't forget to write a lead paragraph or two!) Mike Serfas (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)

This article is way too long, here's one way to break it down... I would suggest the following Economic policy positions of Barack Obama, Foreign policy positions of Barack Obama, andSocial policy positions of Barack Obama.--Levineps (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is a little long; however, I believe it would be better to trim some of the fat than split it into separate articles. A quick scan of the article reveals unreferenced passages and items where political opinion is based on voting record (two things which do not always correlate). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing

While the article goes to great lengths to state Obama's pro-outsourcing pledges to woo Indian community during his presidential campaign, it should also mention the actions undertaken by his administration and Obama's hypocrisy. The article must mention Obama administration's strong stance against outsourcing and its possible consequences. The issue has already been covered extensively by international media [30] [31] [32]. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)