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

[Kramer26]

The UN has proven itself to be a corrupt organization. To give money to them would be highly irresponsible.

 

[DadsDream]

So, the Global Poverty Act was passed through Senate committee by voice vote with no public hearings...it was essentially a multi-billion dollar, long-term "no bid contract" huh?

With AIM crying "media cover up" and Limbaugh throwing his weight around on the matter, Google News still shows no major media outlets picking up the story.

Overseas, the stridently right-wing portions of the British press have grabbed it. Yes, it's big news in Israel too.

I normally don't impose Limbaugh on people. Personally, I can't stand him, I'm not going to a pay a subscription to read his tripe and I don't listen to his junk on the radio. But, I think it's important that those who support Senator Obama know what he's putting out there.

Limbaugh: "Senator Obama wrote the bill. This is just the tip of the iceberg, should he win. This is the kind of stuff he wants to do: Blame the United States for the problems of the world; meet with all the thugs and the bad guys, and say, "What's wrong with us? What can we fix to make you like us?" while he's out there talking about these platitudinous, vapid change speeches where he says nothing."

 

[RebSaint]

This $845 billion number might have been plucked out of the air--although with a commitments such as this one, I can see it having this high of a price tag.

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

I'm assuming it's based on this proposed legislation, which really doesn't specificy any specific cost.

And I love so-called "conservatives" hand-wringing and outrage over $800 billion, which is what the US has spent in Iraq alone--and the price tag will ever-grow; all in the name of "helping" that country But we get upset over maybe funding a UN measure to help global poverty. Hell, we're already doing it one country.

I really don't think it's a good idea nonetheless, let's get back to focusing on problems here at home. Let's stop ******* money away on boondogle nation-building projects and not fight a "war" on global poverty. Stupid.

 

[DadsDream]

Severum, the only places I'm seeing it being talked about on the web are AIM, Limbaugh and a wad of far-right bloggers. That's it, so far.

Reb, you're right. The $845 billion number seems to be AIM's estimation of a 13-year committment to the Global Poverty Act, based on the percentage called for in the UN Millineum Declaration.

Not to be too jingoistic here, I will say that at least when we pour the kind of money that we've poured into the Iraq War, we're mostly pouring into the pockets of American workers, American contractors and the American military structure...mostly.

Pouring that kind of money into the UN, based on their track record, means it goes to the relatives of the Secretary General.

 

[City Champ]

no...

 

[DadsDream]

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.

Whoops! Missed this before my first cup of coffee! OK, the 0.7 was not in the UNMD, but in the conference held later and Bush agreed to it. Got it.

So, it's fair to say that even our current president at least paid lip-service to the UN on this matter.

Thanks for clarifying, Severum. Well done.

 

[RebSaint]

Not to be too jingoistic here, I will say that at least when we pour the kind of money that we've poured into the Iraq War, we're mostly pouring into the pockets of American workers, American contractors and the American military structure...mostly.

Yeah, not to thread jack but no I don't agree. At all. No, monetarily, it's just as foolish. Most of that money won't be going to American workers, it'll be going to large shareholders of those companies and CEOs. Don't be naive. So-called conservatives are just hypocrites in this regard. We want to talk about smart, rational government policies and wasting taxpayer money. Well, this UN funding scheme to "end" global poverty is just as stupid, imo as nation-building in Iraq.

We can quibble all day about the differences, but as far as I'm concerned the two things they have in common is that they're a black hole for taxpayer dollars with little or no return or benefit to national interest while a couple of fat-cats (politicians, CEOs, whatever) get rich off of a government program with so-called good intentions but is really a racket.

Workers benefitting my ***. You really think those in poverty will see real benefits from this supposed boondogle? No, of course not. Sure, maybe more "Americans" will benefit from Iraq, but both are wasting taxpayer dollars.

But of course, some boondogles are acceptable while others aren't.

Meanwhile, infastructure here can be improved, and then there's levees in New Orleans, etc. etc. Priorities, priorities.

 

[MackeyM]

For historical perspective on U.S. foriegn assistance,

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

refer to figures 3,4,7,8,9,11, and 12 for statistical relevance.

Figures 3 and 4 describe top recipients of the Aid.

Figure 8 describes historical %GDP spent since 1945 and figure 12 provides a snapshot of the %GNI of the aid in 2002 compared to other nations.

The "Global Poverty Bill" would re-direct or increase funding to the most impoverished nations that receive the least funding from the U.S.

The $845 billion is total over the next 13 years and is derived from increasing the current spending of 0.2%GDP to the prescribed 0.7%GDP by the UN. It is not a lump sum payout.

Misleading title to the thread and poll.

 

[JimEverett]

Google News still shows no major media outlets picking up the story.

[/i]

Of course not. There is just no time left after praising Obama's "movement" and speaking skills along with cynically dissecting every move Clinton makes as 100% poliltically calculated, how would they have time to point out some of Obama's faults?

Everyone will hear plenty of this type of stuff come summer and fall - and then Democrats can cry like they were blindsided by the evil Republicans as they go on to lose another election. Doesn;t everyone see this coming?

 

[DadsDream]

Workers benefitting my ***. You really think those in poverty will see real benefits from this supposed boondogle? No, of course not. Sure, maybe more "Americans" will benefit from Iraq, but both are wasting taxpayer dollars.

But of course, some boondogles are acceptable while others aren't.

If the Iraq War was a poverty abatement program, I'd agree with you. Of coure, it's not.

The UN Act, on the other hand, is supposed to be exactly that. However, I'm extremely doubtful about throwing money at the UN to accomplish anything except lining the pockets of corrupt internationalists, rather than corrupt U.S. nationalists.

Besides, with all the technological advances in the Iraq War, we can now have our enemies mysteriously explode in a fireball from a missile from nowhere!

We've got cool GPS navigation in our cars now too...giving money to the UN wouldn't provide that kind of nifty return on our investment.

 

[DadsDream]

For historical perspective on U.S. foriegn assistance,

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

refer to figures 3,4,7,8,9,11, and 12 for statiscal relevance.

Figures 3 and 4 describe top recipients of the Aid.

Figure 8 describes historical %GDP spent since 1945 and figure 12 provides a snapshot of the %GNI of the aid in 2002 compared to other nations.

The "Global Poverty Bill" would re-direct or increase funding to the most impoverished nations that receive the least funding from the U.S.

The $845 billion is total over the next 13 years and is derived from increasing the current spending of 0.2%GDP to the prescribed 0.7%GDP by the UN. It is not a lump sum payout.

Misleading title to the thread and poll.

So, AIM did skew the numbers! I'm shocked!

You're absoluutely correct, chatawaclan. If we only examine things in the way in which AIM and Rush Limbaugh present them, it's just as bad as taking Media Matters and Daily Kos at face value.

Good work! lus-un2:

 

[RebSaint]

We've got cool GPS navigation in our cars now too...giving money to the UN wouldn't provide that kind of nifty return on our investment.

Not necessarily. One can make an argument that the UN program is designed to elevate poorer nations which will invariably make the United States stronger by creating more stable trading partners, diminish terrorism, which leads to economic prosperity in all kinds of different ways--including technology. But I think in both cases, it's tantamount to throwing money in a hole.

The Iraq war isn't a poverty abatment program but it doesn't make it any less wasteful.

 

[DadsDream]

Not necessarily. One can make an argument that the UN program is designed to elevate poorer nations which will invariably make the United States stronger by creating more stable trading partners, diminish terrorism, which leads to economic prosperity in all kinds of different ways--including technology. But I think in both cases, it's tantamount to throwing money in a hole.

The Iraq war isn't a poverty abatment program but it doesn't make it any less wasteful.

Yes, if the money was properly administered and not siphoned off into boondoggle get-rich-quick schemes and dubious "investments" by UN acolytes.

Then too, there's the good old days of the UN stacking its human rights overwatch committee with countries like Libya to condemn the US and printing up and distributing Cuban Marxist propaganda under the guise of childhood "education" programs.

Overall, I find the UN's record is far more dubious than that of our own national leadership, Democrat or Republican...

...that says a lot! :1053176569:

 

[Goatman Saint]

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!!!!!!!!

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[tenordas]

I am not against the bill in and of itself. I just have no faith in the UN's ability to oversee the distribution of the wealth to the impoverished nations. So much of our foreign debt relief is wasted, I'm sure this will be too.

How about we cut the middle man and appoint an American task force to send our money when and where we, as Americans, see fit?

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.

Well, seeing as the bill apparently dictates that we can spend money globally only where the UN decides, I'd say that just adds another scary aspect. It's bad enough as it is with congress, who supposedly has American interests at heart, deciding where to waste our tax dollars. The UN has no American interests, in fact, in some ways it seems the UN is decidedly against American interests, so to have them deciding such matters is just frightening to me.

As to Obama's pie-in-the-sky politics, this is just another example of his over-the-top budget that will bankrupt America (which is already pretty much bankrupt as it is). Look through his "Detailed plan" and look at all the ridiculous spending ideas. Education, environment, this UN proposal, etc., etc. It all sounds nice. I mean, what can be wrong with spending money on education and the environment, right? The problem is in his plan the money isn't coming from anywhere. If pressed, he will claim that repealing the Bush corporate tax breaks will fund all of this, which is laughable at best. The repealing of those taxes won't even bring in 1/4 of the wild expenditures he is proposing. I could go on about specific expenditures, but I think I'm thread-jacking enough already...