Obama's Global Poverty Tax

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Flame bait, and totally untrue as well. Do try better next time, Mr. Instigator.

Actually, quite true and relevant. Ron Paul never saw a foreign aid bill he didn't vote against, hence his "Dr. No" title. And since we are talking about foreign aid on this thread, it's relevant to note the consistent opposition to it of its author. I know it stings Paulistas something awful, but that's life. And life isn't fair.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: MB There is only the illusion on money here, ans I indicated before when you refuse to accept bankruptcy as a legitimate answer to your question. How much money have you given?

Unsure because I don't have to do the tax work on my charity, and I'm not sure it counts because the money is my parent's originally. But I give five hundred Hong Kong dollars away for Christmas (normally to heifer international), buy food and such things for Bethune House, for abused Filipino helpers and my parents let me help sometimes with their active role in the "Rockefeller Brother's Fund" (I think that's the name, that or some other big name's fund).

Oh and if you think I'm special, I'm not. Most kids in my grade do some kind of service, monetary is just a small fraction of it. From a cynical point of view, they do it for college, but I think many of them feel a social responsibility. (I know I'm opening a hole in my argument, but the truth is the truth)

I'm unsure about what you mean by the bankruptcy explanation.

Quote by: Compug .the West spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over the last five decades and still had not managed to get twelve-cent medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria deaths...

The real question is why? Is this foreign aid going to getting twelve-cent medicine to children?
I don't know, but it isn't fair to say that this is the sole reason, especially when the medicine companies yell free trade when ever the above is attempted. Congress does the same, and I'm not sure that the above was properly attempted by Congress (probably most of America's foreign aid went to Israel).


I would also like people to remember, I'm still undecided on foreign aid, so don't make this personal. I've just heard both sides for a long time.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime And what's wrong with a commie?

Commies all want to share the misery with everybody. The problem is, we don't all wish to share in your misery.

Quote by: HelioPrime I guess giving aid is against the rules as said so by 200 year old dead men.

Wrong, they just thought that gifts should not be coerced, as do I.

[Domino]

Foreign aid is an investment whose return may take longer than a human life. Given that no human can reasonably expect a return on the investment, and most businesses need to see returns even sooner than that to consider them worthwhile, governments and religious institutions are the only parties remaining who are capable of benefiting from the investment, as they are the only parties that are likely to be around when the investment pays off. Of course, such investments certainly can pay off much sooner, it's just not reasonable to expect so.

In any case, you can bet that those foreign people are just like us people, and they will get what they want. We can give it and be friends, or we can withhold it until they come and take it. It's simply unreasonable to expect that you can have plenty while your neighbor has none, and that your neighbor's gonna be fine with that forever. I'm not saying it's reasonable for the neighbor to come and take what they want, but it's certainly unreasonable to believe that they never will, or that you can keep them from getting it. If they can't get some food, they'll burn the house down, and they won't care what reason dictates.

Of course, once again, it's a long-term problem, and it's entirely reasonable to believe that you'll be able to hold onto what's yours all your life, but your children will inherit the problem, and it'll just keep getting worse. Severe economic disparity is simply unsustainable, though it may last longer than a human life. We can bury our heads in the sand, and we may be safe as long as we live, but eventually the choice will have to be made: share, or lose everything. The sooner we share, the sooner the investment can show returns.

[kingmea]

The real question is what can this do for the USA?


It's nice to see people aren't starving, but its not our job to feed the needy. Just how people argue the US shouldn't police the world, wouldn't this be an over-exertion of US power?

[adam10312]

THE US GIVES THE MOST OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (not the bottom, like winter wind said)

From that same website:

Country Aid amount by dollars
Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Saturday, April 07, 2007

If you are viewing this table on another site, please see US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues for further details.

USA 22,739
UK 12,607
Japan 11,608
France 10,448
Germany 10,351
Netherlands 5,452
Sweden 3,967
Spain 3,801
Canada 3,713
Italy 3,672
Norway 2,946
Denmark 2,234
Australia 2,128
Belgium 1,968
Switzerland 1,647
Austria 1,513
Ireland 997
Finland 826
Portugal 391
Greece 384
Luxembourg 291
New Zealand 257

[Apeman81]

Workers of the world unite!

Same old sorry song. The "rich" should give to the "poor" according to the dictates of what just has to be a benevolent world government.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: adam THE US GIVES THE MOST OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (not the bottom, like winter wind said)

There is a Biblical parable that is applicable to this.

Who gives more, the rich man giving a sack of money or the poor woman who gives all she has, two coins?

It is that the United States has the most potential out of it's huge economy to give, yet it doesn't give according to it's potential.

actually it kind of fits the sentiment of apeman (though he would disagree)

Quote by: apeman From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Quote by: apeman Same old sorry song. The "rich" should give to the "poor" according to the dictates of what just has to be a benevolent world government.

again, it is less a matter of benevolence but a matter of practicality.

"It doesn't matter what is fair and what isn't. It matters whether we can avoid another world war II like crisis or stop another region of the world from hating us (Middle east). It saves lives and money, as was proven by WWII and "the War on Terror"."

[GHook93]

Quote by: Charlatan Global poverty bill which would reduce the suffering of those in need? Well it sounds like a good idea at first, but what would that cost people? Very little, and it would alleviate lots of people's suffering, so it is a good idea, at first glance. But like I have said a lot of times, give a man food and he will live to see tommorow to seek food from you again, bearing children that do the same. It all stems from urbanisation, where people see the city as a way out of doing their daily things, and that leaves us with people who no longer take care in what they do as they know that there will be a aid wagon along shortly, and hence the 'poverty' grows. That is the problem, if they were all dead there would be no problem would there? So do you keep people in poverty or set them free? In time they may return to living the way they were before the poverty, hopefully.

(1) That is easier for you to say because you will not be fronting the bill.
(2) Why not worry about the poverty here first
(3) Just like welfare this doesn't work. Its like treating a gun shot to the head with an aspirin!

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider But I thought Ron Paul was supposed to save America from the commies? How is Dr. Ron doing these days?

Ron Paul would have been 10 fold better than anything that coming out of the Demosocialist party. The more I am hearing what the Demosocialist are proposing the more I think good old Milt might have been right about RP!

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 Ron Paul would have been 10 fold better than anything that coming out of the Demosocialist party. The more I am hearing what the Demosocialist are proposing the more I think good old Milt might have been right about RP!

Well, you and Milt better get down to Texas. Dr. Ron needs all the help he can get to keep his congressional seat. The Revolution needs you!

[Kite]

Since when is it our responsibility to feed the poor of the world? Its not as if other countries don't have money. And since it is our hard earned money we should be the ones to decide how and when it is distributed to aid programs instead of some committee at a UN summit. Its basically giving them permission to spend our money however they like.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider Well, you and Milt better get down to Texas. Dr. Ron needs all the help he can get to keep his congressional seat. The Revolution needs you!

We can't go vote in Texas, unless the corrupt election process is even more pflawed than I currently believe it to be.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind There is a Biblical parable that is applicable to this. Who gives more, the rich man giving a sack of money or the poor woman who gives all she has, two coins? It is that the United States has the most potential out of it's huge economy to give, yet it doesn't give according to it's potential.

Of course, the rich man in the parable was still alive a week later to cotninue helping, while the poor woman was dead in the street.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: G. Adams Of course, the rich man in the parable was still alive a week later to cotninue helping, while the poor woman was dead in the street.

The poor, from my experience, tend to be less generous then the middle class and rich. Depending on them you'd be waiting a looooong time. That poor woman was probably hiding her assets, or put them in someone else's name.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe The poor, from my experience, tend to be less generous then the middle class and rich. Depending on them you'd be waiting a looooong time. That poor woman was probably hiding her assets, or put them in someone else's name.

I think that must be cultural. People were much more relaxed about buying a round of drinks back home in poor old Middlesbrough than when I went to a university full of wealthy types.

[Winter wind]

Of course, the rich man in the parable was still alive a week later to cotninue helping, while the poor woman was dead in the street.

You were the kid in Sunday School class no one wanted the teacher to call on.

Join the club we have jackets. But America is not going to go cold and hungry from giving 1% of it's federal budget.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: G. Adams I think that must be cultural. People were much more relaxed about buying a round of drinks back home in poor old Middlesbrough than when I went to a university full of wealthy types.

I think poor is a subjective term. Someone who makes a million dollars might be poor to someone who makes a million and one dollar. If anybody watches the "Real Housewives of Orange County" those people do it, and all the time from what I saw. One got a $40,000 Rollex for her birthday, so one said, "I have two like that that I never wear". Another said, "I don't have a Rollex and she gets one". It's human nature to play roles and be jealous.

I know the rich can be cheap, but it works for everybody is pretty much what we're saying. Generally we are all selfish. This is why if you don't forceably take the money via taxes, it ain't gonna come voluntarily.Problem as I see it is it needs to go to our own people first. I'm not impressed with giving away other people's money to make yourself look good.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind You were the kid in Sunday School class no one wanted the teacher to call on. Join the club we have jackets. But America is not going to go cold and hungry from giving 1% of it's federal budget.

On a theoretical level, a government doens't have the right to take from you to feed others, unless we accept that might makes right. In which case, there is also no justification other than whim that governemnt should at all be giving it's money to poor states.

On a law-based level, I'm pretty sure it would be currently unconstitutional for the government of the US to give any of it's tax raised revenue to a foreign state. Obama would have to secure an ammendment first to make it lawful.

And finally, I would argue that you are simply keeping foreign states in a state of dependance rather than fostering their own growth through such measures. But this law wouldn't be about helping poor people, it'd be about making rich people feel good.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I think .7% of the GDP hardly constitutes Communism. Though I don't see why we need to use the UN to give out our money. Why can't we merely commit to .7% of our GDP to give to those we want?

This is just the start. Just wait until the most liberal and inexperience Congressmen becomes President. We will have socialism, we will have 10 fold higher corporate and individual taxes and lastly even more corporations (and jobs) will flee the United States of Taxica!