Do you agree with the Global Poverty Act (S.2433)?

Question

The House has already passed it. Will the Senate agree?

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/steven_foley/2008/03/12/obama_united_nations_scheme_to_tax_america

Answer 1

NO!  Will the money go to the poor or will it arm countries who are not our friends or simply be pocketed by evil dictators?  

I don't agree with this Bill at all and think that Obama is crazy for sponsoring it.  It would also give control of this country to the UN.  NOT GOOD!

The bill is the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) and is not just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill is directly tied to the United Nations and serves as little more than a shakedown of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. In fact, if passed, The Global Poverty Act will provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates are that it will add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money for welfare to third world countries, in addition to the $300 billion Americans spent for the same thing in 2006.

Answer 2

No, Obama and the other elitists and globalists want to give up our sovereignty and give the power to tax Americans to the UN. Hello people, we have a $9.5 trillion national debt, and we can't afford to increase welfare to foreign countries. Are there any sane people in Congress?

U.S. National Debt

    The U.S. government's debt is over $9,500,000,000,000.00 and they are still spending our tax dollars like drunken liberals. We should be flooding our U.S. Representatives and the presidential candidates with messages demanding that they cut spending and balance the government's budget. Let's stop putting the bill for today's expenditures on our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them. Shane.

    U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

    The estimated population of the United States is 304,409,460

    so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,321.18.

    The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

    $1.76 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

    Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House! http://w2.eff.org/congress/

Answer 3

suthrngal,

We spend more on the order of $16B/yr. on foreign development aid, not $300B.  The Act does NOT allocate funds.  The mainstream media isn't reporting on this because there's no allocation of funds to report on.  Fox and Rush have no problem making stuff up, but that's not good enough for the MSM to take it over.

It's not clear that there's any interest on politicians' part to increase that $16B, since the baseline for the act is, conspicuously, 1990 extreme poverty levels (where "extreme poverty" means those making, equivalently, less than $1/day; that's about 700M in the world, none of whom live in the U.S., not even our homeless, who make far more (dollar equivalent again) through panhandling, scavenging, shelters, and public and sectarian services).  That means, given the current rate at which extreme poverty levels are dropping, it should be expected that by 2015, the 1990 figure will be cut in half, which is the goal stated in the act, without significant increases in funding -- though improved allocation of the yearly $16B may be in order.

An example of more sensible allocation is to target food production, instead of just sending our food over there for free, subsidizing our own farmers with the food funds we send them (they're required to be spent on U.S. food only).  This subsidization, of both our farmers and their consumers, has led to a loss of farming skills in third world countries as farmers find it easier to wait for free food from the U.S..

This year the U.S. will give more than $800 million to Ethiopia: $460 million for food, $350 million for HIV/AIDS treatment — and just $7 million for agricultural development. Western governments are loath to halt programs that create a market for their farm surpluses, but for countries receiving their charity, long-term food aid can become addictive. Why bother with development when shortfalls are met by aid? Ethiopian farmers can't compete with free food, so they stop trying. Over time, there's a loss of key skills, and a country that doesn't have to feed itself soon becomes a country that can't.  The focus needs to be on the underlying problem: food production.  The band-aid is just making matters worse.

Such subsidies are no way to kick them out of the poverty trap and get them onto the first wrung of economic progress, so we can finally break free of being their caretakers.  The current crisis-intervention approach, expensive as it is, needs replacement with a longer-term, cheaper pre-crisis, preventive approach, but that entails commitment, which the U.S. is unlikely to muster.  

As for your concern about the cost, with the average American getting three times the tax reduction with Obama than with McCain, I don't think one needs to worry about this act being a source of increased taxes.

Answer 4

After WWII the U.S. Built up Germany and Japan After they tried to destroy us. Why is it bad to help those who have never lift a finger against us.

Greedy Republicans always want more and are never satisfied.

Answer 5

No because it doesn't offer solutions help help get people out of poverty at all!  I actually read it and all it talked about in vaccinating people, investing and loan schemes (to make third-world countries even more dependent and enslaved to other countries because they'll be forever in debt), managing other people's land and natural resources (which I'm pretty sure is for their own personal gain and won't feed anyone at all), and other forms of "population control."  I think the scariest line in the bill is this one (because of the way it's worded)!

"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal...

>>>>of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."<<<<<

Not reducing the illegal exploitation of those people (which is nowhere in the bill), but reducing the people themselves (with schemes that are in the bill)--the "useless eaters!"

Answer 6

No, once I read that, I wrote Obama off immediately. The rest of the reasons were just icing on the cake.  

Answer 7

That really is the agenda of liberalism:  to create a huge one-world government.  I don't understand the faith people have in our central government, much less the United Nations.  This really is scary.

Answer 8

Do you have a link to the actual legislation?

I prefer not to read clutter from partisan bloggers...

Answer 9

The US owes so much in back dues to the UN it isnt funny, this at least makes up for part of that.