nuke
vimto1
no2liberals
Robert D
Murder of Ravens
Beto Ochoa
swampie
thea
jseedubya
cesarzambrano
epicsurvivorA 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.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”
Filed under: Senator Gravitas Tagged: | global poverty bill
Sounds a lot like the global warming shiite rewarmed.
Or would that be rewormed?
It’s not too late for the GOP Senate to show some nads and filibuster this POS
All it takes is one Senator to grind this POS to goo.
Help us all.
Here’s the thing, as much as my hippie, love-thy-neighbour soul hates to say it: there is no such thing as ending poverty.
In the U.S. today, people are considered to live in “poverty” if a family lives in a 700 sq. ft. apartment with heating, running water, and nutritious food, and, often, with government-sponsored medical care.
That is better than, oh, 90% of the world. (For the record, I am a starving student. I share an apartment that is about 600 sq. ft., maybe a bit more, with a roommate. It’s old. It’s not glamourous. But rent and utilities is $650/month for the both of us, and I have a place to park my car, too. I consider myself pretty lucky.)
Once you’ve gotten that 90% of the world up to the standard of the poor Americans, who, let’s be honest, are doing better than most anyone was in 1850, what then?
The definition of “poverty” is fluid. It basically means “less than the median, by a lot,” which, by definition, will always change when you start to eliminate the left-hand side of the bell curve.
Not to say that we shouldn’t try to meet an objective standard of living for everyone – I think it would include nutritious food, sanitary living conditions, and heat in the winter – but we need to be honest about what we are trying to do, and when it will end. (To be flippant: we need a pull-out plan for poverty investment.)
Furthermore, there is no real limit to the amount of money that can be invested in ending poverty. To some extent, it is always selfish of us to retain our higher standard of living when others have it so much worse. If $20 could help to educate a child in Africa, aren’t we selfish to spend $20 on discretionary means until every single African child has been educated?
Oh, final point: I do not mean to be flip about American poverty, but the fact is, if you head out to, say, rural West Virginia, the poverty there is horrific. Why should those people pay even a cent in taxes to go to someone who is not necessarily any worse off than they are, but is in a more politically correct position? I doubt you would hear about the Washingtonians working to eradicate poverty in Appalachia and rural Mississippi…..
The fact is, I don’t give a rats ass about any third world country having trouble feeding their people anymore. When the tsunami hit some years back ,all we heard was how slow and selfish the USA was. When anyone needs help, the USA is there. What aid was offered from other countries when Katrina and Rita hit us? What was offered after 9-11? Until every family here legally, in the USA has a decent roof over their head, enough to eat, and a decent income, Africa can fend for itself..
Hell, most of the people yelling about it could fund a small nation themselves. Bono, Soros, Gates and all the others that have more money than they could ever use are the ones bitching about saving the poor third world nations, as long as The USA pays for it. America First! Then we can worry about some other places.
Read the bill. Not the pundit spin, the actual bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:
The bill is hot air really.
There is no global tax. There is no call for us to spend billions more.
Look at the bill yourself. Don’t listen to me, don’t listen to anyone else either. Figure it out for yourself.
Try to explain to me exactly what line commits the US to $845 Billion dollars. Including the ludicrous statement that somehow Obama passing a bill in 2008, would cause our total commitment from 2002 to 2015 to $845 Billion. Ummm.. how exactly does passing a bill in 2008 increase spending in 2002?
Please, just go read the bill itself.
Oh yeah and Robert, about other countries offering us aid after Katrina hit us? I guess you didn’t count the $854 Billion that was offered to us huh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html
Crazy.
Moonbat.
“Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face…”
2000 years ago, Jesus said, “we will always have the poor.”
“As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world…”
Why would we do that? That sounds like a small child after a scolding saying, “do you still love me mommy?”
Or like a father who is trying to be a friend to his child instead of a parent. If we have the responsibility of world leaders lets try for respect instead of begging to be liked.
“Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.”
So you expect to rebuild America’s image by saying, in your opinion, we only give billions in aid to the world for corporate greed. I can feel them loving us more already.
that was 854 Million, not Billion, marc the moonbat.
UN Millennium project, 0.7% GNP spending
Link
I guess it’s not fashionable to help the poor here in our own country. Charity begins at home, Obama.
God but you Republicans are jerks.
more from the party of tolerance, love, and open-mindedness.
Uh-oh…..they’re getting pretty close to calling us poopy-pants.