Obama's Global Anti-Poverty Act
raszputini
Posts: 119
I've talked about it a lot. It has noble goals, which is to reduce poverty worldwide, but it also represents a global tax on US citizens which is unconstitutional, and also eliminates Congressional oversight, and therefore accountibility, on foreign aid. Here's an article about it, I recommend you read the bill itself. It has already passed the Senate and will cost the average American $2500 each.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308
What do you guys think about it?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308
What do you guys think about it?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But getting US citizens to pay for it doesn't make any sense. We already pay the largest military bill in the world-instead of supporting dictatorships around the world or sending gunships to drug dealer governments in South america, or starting wars in thre middle east-we could be spending these tax dollars on things like this.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Anyway, Obama might have introduced it, but it's not like he imposed his will on the people. I would think at this point, we would be better served by holding our current elected legislators accountable for something we don't like. Like your OWN senator who votes for/against it. I will let Obama be accountable to his constituents in Illinois.
He also had several co-sponsors on the bill. So, I feel to lay the blame squarely at his feet is really kind of narrow sighted.
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
You mention no oversight, however the bill I'm reading talks about the fact that there will be several federal and private entities that would develop and implement the plan. Oversight is NOT even mentioned. So, how can one assume that there won't be any?
Yeah, i also saw an add for "conservative t-shirts". i think the one in the add had a picture of Obama with mickey mouse ears or something. Sheesh. Nice objective resource the OP has stumbled upon here :rolleyes:
This is exactly what i mean by pseudo intellectuals who have never learned how to filter "information" they find on the internet.
This is almost as bad as the guy here who one time went on rant about Black-on-white violence, and used a white-supremacist web site to support his claims. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Ann Coulter is an idiot. The fact that there is an ad on the page means nothing. I just googled it and posted a link because it is obviously so few people knew anything about it. I also suggested you read the BILL.
Yeah it PASSED. Obama wrote and sponsored it. Most of the individuals on this list are other "globalists" form the Demoratic and Republican party. It was voted on by verbal vote in the Senate, because verbal votes have no records. These are just the folks that didn't care if someone knew.
I agree that we need to hold our legislators accountable. ABSOLUTELY! But, we have very little record to go on with Obama, and I think it's important to evaluate what kind of policy decisions he has made in the past as a predictor for the type of administration he would have. Logical, right?
This is very consistent with a lot of other decisions he has made, including selling vital infrastructure to foreign firms.
Oversight will be by whatever sub-organizations the UN deems appropriate, meaning that once we transfer the money, the decisions on where, why and for what are made by individuals that are not accountable to US citizens. My understanding is once the bill becomes an Act, the only thing the US decides is how to come up with that money. It has been proposed that it be based around carbon-emissions (like everything else), maybe a gas tax, maybe an increase in the sales tax, etc. Once we transfer the funds, they are UN resources to use however it pleases.
Most estimates, again, put this at $2,500 per individual.
It has PASSED the Senate FR Committee and if Obama is elected, it will be enacted on his coattails. He, again, sponsored and co-wrote this bill.
Most people didn't think their civil liberties would be as trampled as they are when they heard about the Patriot Act. I don't think believing it won't pass is a justification for overlooking this. It is also indicative of the types of policies he would enact as President.
No name-calling, no shittiness. Why do you support this policy? Please don't say that you think fighting global poverty is important - I do too. The idea BEHIND this policy is a noble one. It's the policy itelf that smells.
Why would you be willing to be "locked up" over this policy?
I read bill.
I think you're making some assumptions regarding the potential outcome and oversight. Considering how the program hasn't even been set up yet, I don't see how you can assume anything other than what is in the bill and a fact at this point.
You keep saying stuff like "since we don't know much about Obama...", I've posted about 5 various links on this forum to his voting record, bills he's introduced and legislative accomplishments, both State and Federal, over the 12 years he's been in public service. I'm just curious, do you read those?
i won't BE locked up for supporting this bill. Its called sarcasm. Usually by fifth or sixth grade the human brain can recognize it. My 9 year old son already can. Some genius earlier dropped a little nugget of pure brilliance about how anyone supporting this bill should be "locked away for many years". My response was "lock me up". Seen?
And then there's the "Answer my question, but you can't use the most obvious, sensible answer", debate tactic. Freakin' brilliant. (That last part was more sarcasm by the way).
People like you never cease to amaze me. All you do is complain about how the government has too much power, spies, wiretaps, tortures. Yet it is ok with you if they take more of our money to do whatever they please.
It is not my job to take care of the world. My job is to take care of my family, if there is anything left over I already have my own designated charities that get it. I don't need my money going to buy food that some African Warlord is going to take and distribute how he pleases.
I agree. You hear so much about lost liberties, Patriot Act, blah, blah, blah, but people don't realize that taxes are really the greatest loss of liberty in general that the government can force on us.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Maybe. I'm not really sure which assumptions you mean, but I'll try and guess.
I'm making assumptions about what the US GNP will be, and for that I'm going with what most of conventional wisdom is. It will transfer .7% of whatever that is to the UN.
The administration of the program IS up in the air, but I make no assumptions about it. It WILL be administered by the UN, not the U.S. - we don't know at this point which organization within the UN will administer it, but that is really irrelevent. My issue is that the US will have no say as to where the money goes once it is provided to the UN. That much is not an assumption.
I am making assumptions about how we'll fund it, but I said that. I went with the types of revenue-generating programs that have been discussed by the actual sponsors: gas tax, sales tax, etc., but again, we don't really know.
It IS an assumption that it will pass, but the bill has momentum, and so does Obama. If he's elected I believe he'll get it passed.
The only other "assumption" that maybe you would be talking about is the estimated cost per individual of $2500. I didn't make that up, it is an estimate based on projected GNP and projected number of taxpayers, and is obviously an estimate. Based on how the funds are raised that amount could be distributed disproportionately.
I'm glad you've investigated his record. I think that is incredibly important, and a lot of Obama (and probably every other candidate's) supporters haven't done that.
At the national level, we still don't really know that much...
I have researched just about every vote Obama has made in both the state legislature and US Senate. I didn't follow your links, but the info is available everywhere. His experience, as well as voting record, on foreign policy issues, in particular, IS incredibly limited. In the state legislature, foreign policy issues are largely non-existent, which leaves his three years in the Senate. Because of his state experience, we can make some pretty reliable guesses as to what his view on most domestic policies are, i.e. he supports the death penalty only in cases of murder , but feels it is cruel and disproportionately applied from a racial perspective, and, therefore, wants its use curtailed and possibly eliminated on other issues. On foreign policy issues, however, we are largely in the dark.
During his US Senate term, he ducked a lot of controversial votes, and from 2007 on, he missed 1/3 of them due to the campaign (so did McCain-but he has nearly 20 years of other activity to look at). Of those that were left, many are just "present" votes. This is one of the few initiatives that he actually took a serious leadership role on, so to me it is very important to evaluate. It also seems to be consistent with his views on globalism.
But this thread isn't really about Obama's record, however. We've beaten that to death on other threads. This is about this particular bill. I think it is sets a disastrous precedent for the reasons I've outlined earlier, it is unconstitutional but they have framed it as anything but a "tax" to avoid that, and it undermines our diplomatic efforts in a lot of areas, specifically bilateral relations.
We learned long ago that handing a blank check to a repressive regime (most of the poorest nations ARE respressive) pretty much guarantees that the funds never reach the people you were trying to help. In the best cases, it is squandered on luxuries by the elite of the nation, in the worst cases it is used to by equipment to further repress that country's population. That's why in most examples of bilateral foreign aid we earmark the money, we mandate certain conditions (human rights, elections, right to property, etc) in return for the aid. That's not to say that we make the best decisions on foreign aid, we certainly don't - but at least there is some level of electoral accountability.
Regardless to how it is applied, the UN will administer it, and the UN has an incredibly poor record of success in terms of these kinds of programs.
So, in the end, we put more economic hardship on the average American,
we set the precedent that it's OK for a global body with no electoral accountability to our citizens to essentially tax our citzenry, we hand the money over to an historically very inefficient and very often counterproductive organization which very often has very different goals than our nation does, and the end result is very likely nothing positive in terms of reducing poverty. The UN sent BILLIONS to LDCs in the 80s and 90s and has largely nothing to show for it, but crippling debts.
who wouldn't.........
oh yeah........ those people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66COez-8jpk
For some this is brilliant...Jesus has spoken the very words of god.
For other this is sad sack Barak playing the international violin strings for votes.
feed the world....bomb Iran...
Go Barak!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
cornnifer - please say something of substance
You've made Toby Keith jokes,
you've made Hannity jokes,
you've said smartass things about Cindy McCain
you've called people names,
you've labelled people as rightwingers and pseudo intellectuals
We're trying to have an issue-oriented discussion here about a very real policy and all you've done up this point is demonstrate repeatedly that you think you are witty and know very little about anything substantial. I am very aware of what sarcasm is, but do you have a contribution other than that?
Can you point out to me where that "sensible answer" was? Please just copy it here from your previous posts. I must've missed it.
So would I, if I knew it would have a positive impact
i havn't called anyone names. point out where i have. This is the second time you've accused me of saying something about cindy macain when i HAVN'T ONCE MENTIONED CINDY MCCAIN! NOT ONCE! Get that weak stuff straight.
The Hannity thing wasn't a joke. You stole his talking points and then admitted you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
I'll give you the Toby Keith thing. That was a joke. (By the way, i think that other guy is saving you a seat right next to him in the front row of that show).
You know its sad. i used to have some respect for the general lot around these parts. i see little to respect anymore. Maybe when highschool is back in session it will get better. Until then time for a break.
I'm sorry, you quoted inmytree in one of your posts that had the Cindy McPills remark.
No I didn't, I have no idea what Hannity says, but evidently you somehow know what I read? And you are correct, I backed off of the Thesis thing because it isn't available for anyone to read. You'd think she'd be proud of it though
I certainly wouldn't want to change your opinion of this board, simply because I'm asking you to stop being sarcastic and actually speak intelligently. But there has been at least 4 threads in the past few days over Obama and his policies, and all you seem to want to do is make "baiting" remarks. I actually looked, because no matter where I am, there you are, making some sarcastic but meaningless remark.
I try to begin a thread to discuss a specific issue to try and avoid that, because it seems to be one that should be talked about. Some seem to agree, we are having a pretty in-depth conversation and then you start calling people "pseudo-intellectuals unable to filter google" and pretty much call me a redneck (that's how I interpret the Toby Keith remark-it certainly wasn't meant as a compliment).
I don't really know anything about you, but the only contribution you've made that I've seen so far to what WAS a pretty reasoned discourse is baiting sarcasm that doesn't even qualify as "pseudo-intellectual", then you suggest I'm from high school. I've got a MA in political science and a BA in communication studies if you were curious, but that's pretty irrelevent.
All I'm saying is, do you have anything to contribute to a discussion about the Global Anti-Poverty Act?
That IS what this thread was about.