| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama Bill: $2500+ From Every American To World's Poor via UN |
| 2008-07-25 |
| The U.S. Senate soon could be debating whether you, your spouse and each of your children -- as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America -- each will be spending $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world. The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the office of president, is estimated to cost the United States some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe. S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives, and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate. WND previously has reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations." He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends." The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require." A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. "Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued. Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease." Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N. Objections have remained strong. On a posting also available at the All American blogger, a commentator warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty. "On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?" He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor." Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said commentator Duane Lester. "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote. Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president. DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 ION REDDIT/FREEREPUBLIC > SCIENTISTS: MORE GLOBAL WARMING WILL RESULT IN LESS/FEWER WEATHER STORMS. IOW, More SOLAR HEAT will overwhelm the Earth's natural mechanisms for producing storms; + REDDIT/RENSE > PERSONAL LAPTOPS CAN NOW BE CHECKED AND DOWNLOADED AT US BORDER CHECKPOINTS. *BREAKING NEWS > MSM - POTUS Dubya has once again utterly failed to prevent TERROR ATTACKS BY THE SUN ON THE MOTHERLY OWG USA = USSA/USR. D *** NG IT, MSM > JUST BECUZ WE DEMANDED DUBYA NOT ATTACK THE SUN DOESN'T MEAN HE HAD TO LISTEN TO US, THUSLY ITS DUBYA's FAULT FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE REALLY MEANT WHEN WE DIDN'T TELL HIM = DEMANDED HE DO THE OPPOSITE! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-25 21:07 |
| #16 We've already paid through the nose for their benefit due to globalization and increased immigration. Just think how much better off this country would be if we had never had the post-1965 immigration reforms. Population would be down, gas demand would be down, societal cohesiveness would be up, budgets would be in better shape...the list is endless. The rest of the world brought a lot of its garbage to us and dumped it. Thanks for nothing. Screw them and the horse they rode in on. I've already said that if Obama gets in two things will rise exponentially: taxes and the number of anti-black racists. I was wrong: it's three things: taxes, anti-black racists, and tax cheats. |
| Posted by: Jomock Platypus9662 2008-07-25 20:33 |
| #15 If it's our money, yet we have no say in what is done with it, how close is this to "taxation without representation"? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2008-07-25 18:15 |
| #14 Fuck NO!!! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-07-25 17:41 |
| #13 I think it depends on the country, the UN is not the intermediary you want handling it regardless. But there are people in this world that are grateful and hardworking, and don't chant Death to America in the streets. They just have a shitty govt. or economy and need an extra bump to get them started. I have no probs at all with giving to people like that. Ukraine is a good example I think. Israel is another. Columbia is starting to look that way, still some probs with corruption there, but they are working hard to turn it around. So I think the UN is out, but there are a few countries that can do good for themselves with a little help. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-25 16:17 |
| #12 $2,500? $250? I wouldn't give these dopes $.25. Here's a news flash to the rest of the world - get off your own asses, raise the children you were grown up enough to produce, fix your govt's and quit asking us for handouts. Oh, and fuck you to Obama. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-07-25 15:09 |
| #11 Foreign aid has generally polled as one of the least popular programs. Nevertheless, Transi and most StateDept apparachniks have been successful over the past decades in increasing this item. It will be more difficult for them in the next administration. There is now plenty of academic research which correlates foreign aid with dictator longevity, plenty of documentation of foreign aid being stolen, being diverted to terrorist support, etc. A future president Obama would have a tough fight on his hands to drastically increase foreign aid even with a democratic majority in both houses. If the McCain people are smart, they'll let Obama make this a centerpiece of his campaign and then hammer him on it. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-07-25 14:46 |
| #10 Well I think the point here is that this is taking charity from a voluntary thing to a govt. mandated asset grab. And eventually to a UN mandated grab on American citizens' money. Once they get their hooks into us they will bleed us dry. Americans have always dug deep and given big to the rest of the world, without being forced to give by law. This should be snuffed out immediately and without the slightest ambiguity. We are rapidly approaching the need for another whiskey rebellion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion |
| Posted by: bigjm-ky 2008-07-25 13:39 |
| #9 Nawlens has proved that pouring money into any place willing to sit back and accept largess without any effort is a waste of $. Screw them all. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-07-25 13:32 |
| #8 The point is not to do anything about poverty but to feel good about ourselves whatever the cost. Pouring money into places without free markets or the rule of law is such an obvious, glaring waste of resources it can't have anything to do with economics. The explanation lies in psychology, particularly the minds of over privileged elites who have no clue as to how their privileges arose or what keeps them afloat. It is balm for the conscience of the ignorant. |
| Posted by: Baba Tutu 2008-07-25 13:11 |
| #7 Considering the UN administered Oil-for-Bribes program, its a UN bureaucrat's lotto. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the Chicago way, of buying votes of the elite. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-25 11:33 |
| #6 Why does the U.S. have to bankroll the entire world? Norway, Sweeden, Belgium, CHINA, Russia, Australia, and a host of other countries all have plenty of bank too. So why does this ballsack want to soak us and nobody else? Divide it between 10 countries and ding us for $250 apiece. Americans dont mind helping people, we never have minded, but we don't like getting hustled either. |
| Posted by: bigjm-ky 2008-07-25 11:20 |
| #5 gorb's right. It's not like they'll like us more for the money or hate us less for the conquest. Let's get something for the money. Oh and obammy's an idiot. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2008-07-25 10:31 |
| #4 I say if we're going to dig everybody's hole $2500 deeper, then we might as well get something for it. I say use it to take out the remainder of the countries on the planet who are just a thorn in everyone else's side. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-07-25 10:24 |
| #3 This guy, along with a bunch of others need to have an accident. The Call to Arms point is getting closer and closer. |
| Posted by: Grease Dark Lord of the Algonquins9226 2008-07-25 10:16 |
| #2 Kiss my skinny white ass, Barry. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-25 09:37 |
| #1 Keep your commie, wealth redistribution to your self, asscheese. You wanna redistribute wealth, use your own. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-25 09:29 |