Where is the good faith... I deleted the part where you got carried away with extra information that takes attention away from out discussion which I thought was to be about the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act.
the discussion was spawned by your desire to talk policy and not personality or intuition.. correct?
so please, lets begin by removing your intuition from this small post of yours.
Your example for Cuba does highlight a certain Irony. However, you'd have to agree that supporting an initiative that creates irony does not a bad man or bad policy make.
I think supporting a policy that "undoes" other policies is a little counterproductive. I used the Cuba policy as an example. I'll provide another. We have serious sanctions against the Sudan, who are also one of the poorest nations, due to documented terrorist camps and it's role as training ground for anyone who wants to be an African Warlord when they grow up. Killers from Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Zaire, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries are trained there. The Sudan would certainly be eligible for assistance from the UN on this one, even though bilaterally we have them cut off. This would be counterproductive to what our NATIONAL policy is. While an ironic move may not always be a bad one, these seems as though would be
You make a claim that this is taxation without representation. Can you please explain. As I see it, the bill was already passed the body that represents every American. The money will be spent at the discression of the United Nations - a body which has the United States as a voting member with a voice and the right to review their expenditures and its rationale.
Our rep to the UN is not elected first of all, so we have no direct representation there. It probably is not unconstitutional in a legal sense, because they are dressing it as an Act, not a Tax. Effectively, though it ends up being a tax by an organization that has no elected official. But the real issue, is that long after the act is passed, the tax on the US people remains. I can vote the guy out of office, but the tax remains.
they you reiterate by saying we have no Oversight.. what do you mean by oversight? because we certainly get to see what is being spent and comment. and even vote.
We don't. We have a UN rep who has a vote. In comparison to our bilateral foreign aid (which is what foreign aid REALLY is) we have no oversight. Foreign aid is a diplomatic tool as well as assistance for the country that receives it. We currently can provide foreign aid to a country like Armenia, and to ensure that Armenia remains non-totalitarian, we can make it conditional on free and fair elections. We can also pull the plug on the aid the second we feel it is ineffective at whatever it is for. Which means if the countries elites are syphoning off the aid money, we can cut it off. We have the ability to do neither once the we transfer it to the UN. It's up to them to decide whether it is effective or not, and we lose any oversight we would've had in a bilateral arrangement. Our only recourse is for our rep to bitch.
Do you want to discuss the merits of the bill, or make a point about a man with whome you seem to intuitively object? Lets debate the law - prior to your making these sweeping unsupported accusations.
???? I'm not sure which part of any of this is based around my intuition. There's certainly a greater issue there with Obama's globalist streak, but I'm comparing it to foreign aid, I'm talking about the precedent it sets in being taxed by a global, nonrepresentative organization. I'm talking about the cost to us as individuals and as a nation, and I'm talking about the UN's history of ineffectiveness in these types of programs.
You seem to have your shit together, don't resort to pretending like these aren't very valid positions.
But the act, like most legislation is nothing more than statistical findings on poverty and malaria, and lofty goals. I'm not really interested in arguing semantics - our interpretations are just that. My issues are in application and administration, which are certainly a tangible part of a policy, I'll try and summarize them:
1. The UN is the acting organization, the organization that created the Millenium Development Goals that the Act is trying to meet. There are problems there on multiple levels:
a. the UN is horribly inefficient, thereby making this less effective than bilateral initiatives,
b. we have no elected official at the UN, yet they will spend our taxdollars how they see fit,
c. it creates a precedent for US citizens to be taxed by a global organization
2. This transfers funds from US tax payers to non-US citizens, and while some may agree, I'm sure many taxpayers do not.
3. This transfers an estimated 875 billion dollars out of the United States by 2015 (in order to reach the .7% of the GNP outlined in the MDG), which certainly trades off with existing programs or results in a tax increase (which is what the sponsors have suggested).
That's a start as to why I think the Act sucks. Why do you like it?
I think supporting a policy that "undoes" other policies is a little counterproductive. I used the Cuba policy as an example. I'll provide another. We have serious sanctions against the Sudan, who are also one of the poorest nations, due to documented terrorist camps and it's role as training ground for anyone who wants to be an African Warlord when they grow up. Killers from Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Zaire, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries are trained there. The Sudan would certainly be eligible for assistance from the UN on this one, even though bilaterally we have them cut off. This would be counterproductive to what our NATIONAL policy is. While an ironic move may not always be a bad one, these seems as though would be
Our rep to the UN is not elected first of all, so we have no direct representation there. It probably is not unconstitutional in a legal sense, because they are dressing it as an Act, not a Tax. Effectively, though it ends up being a tax by an organization that has no elected official. But the real issue, is that long after the act is passed, the tax on the US people remains. I can vote the guy out of office, but the tax remains.
We don't. We have a UN rep who has a vote. In comparison to our bilateral foreign aid (which is what foreign aid REALLY is) we have no oversight. Foreign aid is a diplomatic tool as well as assistance for the country that receives it. We currently can provide foreign aid to a country like Armenia, and to ensure that Armenia remains non-totalitarian, we can make it conditional on free and fair elections. We can also pull the plug on the aid the second we feel it is ineffective at whatever it is for. Which means if the countries elites are syphoning off the aid money, we can cut it off. We have the ability to do neither once the we transfer it to the UN. It's up to them to decide whether it is effective or not, and we lose any oversight we would've had in a bilateral arrangement. Our only recourse is for our rep to bitch.
???? I'm not sure which part of any of this is based around my intuition. There's certainly a greater issue there with Obama's globalist streak, but I'm comparing it to foreign aid, I'm talking about the precedent it sets in being taxed by a global, nonrepresentative organization. I'm talking about the cost to us as individuals and as a nation, and I'm talking about the UN's history of ineffectiveness in these types of programs.
You seem to have your shit together, don't resort to pretending like these aren't very valid positions.
You posted the link to wikipedia, here's the actual act itself
But the act, like most legislation is nothing more than statistical findings on poverty and malaria, and lofty goals. I'm not really interested in arguing semantics - our interpretations are just that. My issues are in application and administration, which are certainly a tangible part of a policy, I'll try and summarize them:
1. The UN is the acting organization, the organization that created the Millenium Development Goals that the Act is trying to meet. There are problems there on multiple levels:
a. the UN is horribly inefficient, thereby making this less effective than bilateral initiatives,
b. we have no elected official at the UN, yet they will spend our taxdollars how they see fit,
c. it creates a precedent for US citizens to be taxed by a global organization
2. This transfers funds from US tax payers to non-US citizens, and while some may agree, I'm sure many taxpayers do not.
3. This transfers an estimated 875 billion dollars out of the United States by 2015 (in order to reach the .7% of the GNP outlined in the MDG), which certainly trades off with existing programs or results in a tax increase (which is what the sponsors have suggested).
That's a start as to why I think the Act sucks. Why do you like it?
I haven't said I like it. I was only wondering how you are concluding that Obama was so bad for the country - and this was your leading example.
I believe you have seriously mischaractorized this issue. If our representatives choose to participate in a United Nation's initiative - then we are represented and we have oversight.
Noone can ever agree with everthing about a huge undertaking of an organization like the United Nations. I believe the UN to be necessary, and I believe we need to be more committed and honest partners.
Surely the details of this Act are not perfect, and could be better.
Surely Global Poverty should be a concern of ours. No one has a perfect solution to such a complex problem.
Taken from Wiki:
Kincaid of Accuracy in Media wrote that the Global Poverty Act (S.2433) "would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid." [1] Other outlets ran similar stories, including WorldNetDaily[2], which cites Kincaid as a source. This, however, is false. The bill requires the president to develop a plan to implement the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the amount of people who live on less than a dollar a day. The bill makes no policy statement regarding the implementation of other Millennium Development Goals and no mention of how the bill would be funded.[3]
For a man so outspoken against intuition, you sure push innuendo, and mixing your opinions presented as facts.
We can not talk issues if you pepper them with so much opinion,
are you supporting McCain or just being a fat assed Troll?
...or are you living in some fantasy land where Nader, Paul, or whoever are viable candidates.
What are your solutions?
All I read here is pissing and moaning and no real intelligence beyond the given circumstances.
The guy that said he was going to start destroying the interstates has at least fronted a better solution than any of you.
As an outsider I have a question. Do you have to be American to think that there is a difference between the two major parties and their elected candidate? It is amusing reading the arguements being made and really there is no difference except skin colour between the two presidential runners.
Comments
I think supporting a policy that "undoes" other policies is a little counterproductive. I used the Cuba policy as an example. I'll provide another. We have serious sanctions against the Sudan, who are also one of the poorest nations, due to documented terrorist camps and it's role as training ground for anyone who wants to be an African Warlord when they grow up. Killers from Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Zaire, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries are trained there. The Sudan would certainly be eligible for assistance from the UN on this one, even though bilaterally we have them cut off. This would be counterproductive to what our NATIONAL policy is. While an ironic move may not always be a bad one, these seems as though would be
Our rep to the UN is not elected first of all, so we have no direct representation there. It probably is not unconstitutional in a legal sense, because they are dressing it as an Act, not a Tax. Effectively, though it ends up being a tax by an organization that has no elected official. But the real issue, is that long after the act is passed, the tax on the US people remains. I can vote the guy out of office, but the tax remains.
We don't. We have a UN rep who has a vote. In comparison to our bilateral foreign aid (which is what foreign aid REALLY is) we have no oversight. Foreign aid is a diplomatic tool as well as assistance for the country that receives it. We currently can provide foreign aid to a country like Armenia, and to ensure that Armenia remains non-totalitarian, we can make it conditional on free and fair elections. We can also pull the plug on the aid the second we feel it is ineffective at whatever it is for. Which means if the countries elites are syphoning off the aid money, we can cut it off. We have the ability to do neither once the we transfer it to the UN. It's up to them to decide whether it is effective or not, and we lose any oversight we would've had in a bilateral arrangement. Our only recourse is for our rep to bitch.
???? I'm not sure which part of any of this is based around my intuition. There's certainly a greater issue there with Obama's globalist streak, but I'm comparing it to foreign aid, I'm talking about the precedent it sets in being taxed by a global, nonrepresentative organization. I'm talking about the cost to us as individuals and as a nation, and I'm talking about the UN's history of ineffectiveness in these types of programs.
You seem to have your shit together, don't resort to pretending like these aren't very valid positions.
You posted the link to wikipedia, here's the actual act itself
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110217BC4::
But the act, like most legislation is nothing more than statistical findings on poverty and malaria, and lofty goals. I'm not really interested in arguing semantics - our interpretations are just that. My issues are in application and administration, which are certainly a tangible part of a policy, I'll try and summarize them:
1. The UN is the acting organization, the organization that created the Millenium Development Goals that the Act is trying to meet. There are problems there on multiple levels:
a. the UN is horribly inefficient, thereby making this less effective than bilateral initiatives,
b. we have no elected official at the UN, yet they will spend our taxdollars how they see fit,
c. it creates a precedent for US citizens to be taxed by a global organization
2. This transfers funds from US tax payers to non-US citizens, and while some may agree, I'm sure many taxpayers do not.
3. This transfers an estimated 875 billion dollars out of the United States by 2015 (in order to reach the .7% of the GNP outlined in the MDG), which certainly trades off with existing programs or results in a tax increase (which is what the sponsors have suggested).
That's a start as to why I think the Act sucks. Why do you like it?
I haven't said I like it. I was only wondering how you are concluding that Obama was so bad for the country - and this was your leading example.
I believe you have seriously mischaractorized this issue. If our representatives choose to participate in a United Nation's initiative - then we are represented and we have oversight.
Noone can ever agree with everthing about a huge undertaking of an organization like the United Nations. I believe the UN to be necessary, and I believe we need to be more committed and honest partners.
Surely the details of this Act are not perfect, and could be better.
Surely Global Poverty should be a concern of ours. No one has a perfect solution to such a complex problem.
Taken from Wiki:
Kincaid of Accuracy in Media wrote that the Global Poverty Act (S.2433) "would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid." [1] Other outlets ran similar stories, including WorldNetDaily[2], which cites Kincaid as a source. This, however, is false. The bill requires the president to develop a plan to implement the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the amount of people who live on less than a dollar a day. The bill makes no policy statement regarding the implementation of other Millennium Development Goals and no mention of how the bill would be funded.[3]
For a man so outspoken against intuition, you sure push innuendo, and mixing your opinions presented as facts.
We can not talk issues if you pepper them with so much opinion,
As an outsider I have a question. Do you have to be American to think that there is a difference between the two major parties and their elected candidate? It is amusing reading the arguements being made and really there is no difference except skin colour between the two presidential runners.
I was unaware words had an expiration date...;)
I bet you use it in conversation soon...