Obama sponsors "Gobal Poverty Act" Bill...Let's Discuss! (1 Viewer)

(Poll Closed, Bad Premise) Should the U.S. give the UN $845 billion under the Global Poverty Act?

  • Yes, it's a worthy endeavor.

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • No, we should not.

    Votes: 34 75.6%
  • Something else, I'll explain.

    Votes: 6 13.3%

  • Total voters
    45

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
This is a surefire topic to come up as a campaign issue, should Sen. Obama be nominated..

The Obama-sponsored "Gobal Poverty Act" (Senate Bill S.2433), is part of the "United Nations Millennium Declaration" which calls on all nations to provide 0.7% of their GNP to the UN.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended passage of the Act yesterday.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that sure sounds like a GNP-based tax to me.

The sponsors of the bill thusfar include: Senators Barack Obama, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez.

First, let's hear from Senator Obama.

Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House in September.

READ MORE
http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/

Now, the conservative-backed Truth In Media folks.

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

So, what do y'all think?

I'm very, very leery of handing another $845 billion to the UN for them to spread around among their relatives...again.
 
Last edited:

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
I'm very, very leery of handing another $845 billion to the UN for them to spread around among their relatives...again.
I agree. This is a terrible idea.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,504
Reaction score
43,859
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
The people sponsoring this bill and the UN want the American people to think, "it's just .7% of our GNP". Americans should think, no ****ing way should we give more than a third of our annual budget to the UN when we are in extreme debt, social security is looking to go bankrupt, Americans can't afford health care, the middle class is hurting, we are suffering from inflation on food and energy and our infrastructure is lacking. The more Obama talks the less I like him.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
I say no - $65 billion a year is too much money.

But I am open to arguments on why it is a good idea.
 

Sabine

Thicketeer - Bottomite
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
6,847
Reaction score
1,470
Location
Big Thicket
Offline
You're a little late DD. See the Obama picking up endorsements thread, pages 3 & 4.

Oh never mind that. Basically, V Chip is all for it and provides a long list of supportors without highlighting the number of times it failed to become law. FWTex is of the position that Obama is all style and no substance, and doesn't want to highlight how he will bleed us dry saving the world, which is why he doesn't stump on the $845 Global Poverty Act. SBTB says poppycock (even though he's against the GPA), and that everyone stumps on "vision", and if FWtex wants to know the details he should look in Obama's Blueprint for the Future. However, the Blueprint doesn't actually mention the "Global Poverty Act" but there is a paragraph on page 57 that waters down the actual amount it will cost us.

There, I think that should catch you up. :ezbill:
 

champ76

Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
7,640
Offline
The domestic War on Poverty was such a rousing success, let's try it on a world scale, and let the UN run it. Mighty fine idea, that.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,117
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
So, what do y'all think?
"Something else" since AIM is the only organization claiming the $65 billion per year increase and they have a history of distributing right wing lies. I don't see anything in the bill that requires the US commit to the 0.7 number.

Obama's stated policy says he would increase annual foreign assistance by 25 billion.
 

hammernnails

Super Forum Fanatic
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
8,639
Reaction score
524
Age
47
Location
The beautiful Pocono Mts...
Offline
How about AMERICAN FRIGGIN POVERTY ACT BILL!!!!!!!! Bridges falling down !! The electric grid in the north east!! KATRINA still not addressed properly!!! and we are going to send 840 BILLION to other countries!!! That is simply absurd!!!!!!!!
 
OP
DadsDream

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
You're a little late DD. See the Obama picking up endorsements thread, pages 3 & 4.

Oh never mind that. Basically, V Chip is all for it and provides a long list of supportors without highlighting the number of times it failed to become law. FWTex is of the position that Obama is all style and no substance, and doesn't want to highlight how he will bleed us dry saving the world, which is why he doesn't stump on the $845 Global Poverty Act. SBTB says poppycock (even though he's against the GPA), and that everyone stumps on "vision", and if FWtex wants to know the details he should look in Obama's Blueprint for the Future. However, the Blueprint doesn't actually mention the "Global Poverty Act" but there is a paragraph on page 57 that waters down the actual amount it will cost us.

There, I think that should catch you up. :ezbill:
I thought we should put it to a vote in a poll with both sides of the issue clearly stated up front. You'll note the Senator Obama's website was cited first, before the rightwing media watchdogs. :9: .
 
OP
DadsDream

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
"Something else" since AIM is the only organization claiming the $65 billion per year increase and they have a history of distributing right wing lies. I don't see anything in the bill that requires the US commit to the 0.7 number.

Obama's stated policy says he would increase annual foreign assistance by 25 billion.
AIM is the Right's version of Soros' & Hillary's "Media Matters," True. :hihi:

The 0.7 number is the goal of the United Nations Millennium Declaration (UNDM).

If I recall correctly, Hillary and Walter Cronkite and a parade of folks have cozied up to various aspects of the UNMD.

Cronkite's view is the most extreme, with the ultimate goal of a world government.

The notion of world government or abdicating U.S. authority is an absolute anathma to the Right and most Americans in general.

The mere hint of a mention of such a thing was one of John Kerry's biggest blunders.
 
Last edited:

gavinj

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
11,200
Reaction score
9,741
Online
I just hope that another country doesn't decide to invoke the Bush Doctrine and invade the US since we haven't complied with UN Resolution 2626.
 

mpadow

Rookie
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
63
Reaction score
9
Offline
More ideas like that and Obama can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

DMaestro

Sucker Puncher
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
1,097
Offline
"Something else" since AIM is the only organization claiming the $65 billion per year increase and they have a history of distributing right wing lies. I don't see anything in the bill that requires the US commit to the 0.7 number.

Obama's stated policy says he would increase annual foreign assistance by 25 billion.
Seems like a fairly loosely-restrictive bill, requiring only that the president devise a "strategy" for achieving the Millennium Development Goal. Thanks for the info.

As for Obama's personal vision, I'm not sure throwing more dollars at the problem is gonna make a difference. Score one for the fiscal conservatives.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,117
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
AIM is the Right's version of Soros' & Hillary's "Media Matters," True. :hihi:

The 0.7 number is the goal of the United Nations Millennium Declaration (UNMD).

If I recall correctly, Hillary and Walter Cronkite and a parade of folks have cozied up to various aspects of the UNMD.
The 0.7 commitment actually originated 35 years ago and was not included in the UN Millennium Declaration Goals mentioned by S.2433. It was, however, recommended in the 2002 Monterrey Consensus which President Bush agreed to.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom