Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View What do you think of Obama's research pledge?
5 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 12:17PM #1
horse_69
Posts: 17
Hello, all:

What do you think of Obama's plans for scientific research and education?  Here are some of his platform highlights on these issues:

    * Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths - our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism - to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.


# Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment: Barack Obama knows that we need to rely on technology to help solve the critical energy and environmental problems facing this country. As he announced in his energy policy, Barack Obama will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to enable American engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. This investment will transform the economy and create millions of new jobs. Obama will:

   1. Double federal science and research funding for clean energy projects, relying on the resources and ability of our national laboratories, universities and land grant colleges.
   2. Invest in the development of the next generation of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol.
   3. Increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies.
   4. Create a Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund, funded by an annual $10 billion investment for five years, to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S.
   5. Use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency and stability of our economy and improve our national energy intensity 50 percent by 2030.
   6. Invest in a digital smart energy grid.


Obama also believes that we must strengthen math and science education to help develop a skilled workforce and promote innovation. He will work to increase our number of science and engineering graduates, encourage undergraduates studying math and science to pursue graduate studies, and work to increase the representation of minorities and women in the science and technology pipeline, tapping the diversity of America to meet the increasing demand for a skilled workforce.


# Create New Jobs: An Obama administration will foster home-grown innovation and ensure that we can retain and grow high-paying jobs in fast-growing sectors in the sciences and technology rather than exporting those jobs to lower cost labor markets abroad. As offshoring becomes more of a long-term workforce management strategy and less of a perceived short-term cost savings, it presents a significant challenge to young people growing up in America’s historically low-income and working-class communities. An Obama administration will invest in human capital to ensure that our young people have the skills to fill the growing number of information technology jobs being created globally and will also support pilot programs that provide incentives for businesses to grow their information technology workforce in inner-cities and rural communities.


These are some of the points of Obama's vision for change in this nation.  What do you think?

horse :)
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 4:36PM #2
geologist
Posts: 3,143
I think it won't work.  Obama wants to raise taxes on private sources of R&D capital so that the government can spend more on R&D.   That makes no sense.   The government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful.    If Obama thinks there needs to be more investment in R&D he should lower the capital gains tax, instead of raising it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 29, 2008 - 10:23AM #3
Agkistrodon
Posts: 21
[QUOTE=geologist;304343]I think it won't work.  Obama wants to raise taxes on private sources of R&D capital so that the government can spend more on R&D.   That makes no sense.   The government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful.    If Obama thinks there needs to be more investment in R&D he should lower the capital gains tax, instead of raising it.[/QUOTE]

Where did he say that he would "raise taxes on private sources of  R&D capital"?   He seems to be saying that he would grant tax breaks for capital that is already in energy R&D programs.  Lowering capital gains taxes won't change anything with regard to enhanced research in energy alternatives.  Just more and bigger tax breaks for those who don't need it.  The people who would invest the extra would follow the same old procedure of investing for the quick pay-off and that is not energy alternatives.  If it were not for government funding AND R&D by government scientists and engineers,  none of the programs that require long-term investment and commitment before seeing a benefit would ever happen.  Some things are inherently required to be done by the government.  But I'm a retired federal Environmental Scientist, so I'm probably being egocentric by your measures.

As far as the efficiancy of government, it doesn't seem that Obama's programs are to be conducted by government but by private concerns who would either gain more for doing the research or would be started up under the advantages his program would give to new organizations.  Besides, even if government were to conduct the research, it seems that such things as the Manhattan Project, the lunar landing, and the development of velcro are indications that government has a pretty reasonable history of efficiency and success in research and development.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 29, 2008 - 2:10PM #4
geologist
Posts: 3,143
[QUOTE=Agkistrodon;322071]Where did he say that he would "raise taxes on private sources of  R&D capital"?   He seems to be saying that he would grant tax breaks for capital that is already in energy R&D programs.  Lowering capital gains taxes won't change anything with regard to enhanced research in energy alternatives.  Just more and bigger tax breaks for those who don't need it.  The people who would invest the extra would follow the same old procedure of investing for the quick pay-off and that is not energy alternatives.  If it were not for government funding AND R&D by government scientists and engineers,  none of the programs that require long-term investment and commitment before seeing a benefit would ever happen.  Some things are inherently required to be done by the government.  But I'm a retired federal Environmental Scientist, so I'm probably being egocentric by your measures.

As far as the efficiancy of government, it doesn't seem that Obama's programs are to be conducted by government but by private concerns who would either gain more for doing the research or would be started up under the advantages his program would give to new organizations.  Besides, even if government were to conduct the research, it seems that such things as the Manhattan Project, the lunar landing, and the development of velcro are indications that government has a pretty reasonable history of efficiency and success in research and development.[/QUOTE]

Obama wants the government to decide who gets R&D capital to invest in alternative energy.    He plans to raise taxes on capital gains, dividends and corporations, which reduces the R&D capital available through private sources.    The government has no business investing in alternative energy, in my opinion.  The billions being spent on ethanol have only caused food prices to go through the roof while doing nothing to bring down energy prices.   The vast government subsidized windmill farms I have frequently driven by in West Texas are an outrageus eyesore.    I can't imagine putting something as ugly as a solar panel on my house, even with a tax credit from the government.    I think it's best to let energy companies find solutions to energy problems.  Increasing their taxes and and the taxes on other private sources of capital reduces the chances of finding timely, efficient  and economical soutions to our energy needs.    Government agencies handing out billions to various organizations and groups as political favors or to advance an agenda is not the way to go about solving these problems.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2008 - 1:13AM #5
n0parkin
Posts: 2,350
Obama has lots of plans on how to spend money.  Too bad he doesn't give any details on how he's going to pay for all of his programs.  It's a good thing he doesn't believe in reducing the deficit because he'll have to borrow more money from China to pay for all of his plans. 

He's already said he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but that will only cover some of his non-universal health care plan. 

I wish just for once realistic people could elect a president.  The republicans got their GW because they believed the media-hype.  Now it's the democrats' turn to elect someone equally unqualified, apparently.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2008 - 10:04PM #6
LittleBuddha73
Posts: 1,399
[QUOTE=n0parkin;324090]Obama has lots of plans on how to spend money.  Too bad he doesn't give any details on how he's going to pay for all of his programs.  It's a good thing he doesn't believe in reducing the deficit because he'll have to borrow more money from China to pay for all of his plans. 

He's already said he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but that will only cover some of his non-universal health care plan. 

I wish just for once realistic people could elect a president.  The republicans got their GW because they believed the media-hype.  Now it's the democrats' turn to elect someone equally unqualified, apparently.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I mean the guy inspires, he's got charisma. But he doesn't say how he's going to pay for things and how he's going to make things happen. He doesn't have the experience necessary.
Hillary has clear-cut plans and the experience necessary to lead this country out of it's current messes.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook