Obama's Global Poverty Tax

[Milton Bradley]

National Ledger - Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

A 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.” The legislation itself requires 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 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.” The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.” In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

Well, there you go, evidence that the man is a full blown commie, and that his intentions are larger than his jurisdiction.


Anybody that votes for this clown can consider themselves no friend of mine.

[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.

[Rainbow]

"Global Poverty Act" needs to be supported by political decissions.
Otherwise, it is a waste.

[HelioPrime]

And what's wrong with a commie?

I guess giving aid is against the rules as said so by 200 year old dead men. But luckily we live in a democracy where the majority rules and the constitution is stepped over in the name of fighting poverty and other problems.

Obama 08!

[phoenix_fire]

If you tack this on with universal health care and whatever other handouts he can think of to spend money out of others' pockets....we're talking a dramatic tax increase here. And it's the middle class that's going to suffer. This will widen the gap between the upper elite and the blue collar grunts. Not only is he overreaching authority that he doesn't have, but this act is also entirely blind to domestic needs. We'll spend billions of dollars (that will ultimately land in the pockets of third world warlords and dictators) and what of the poor right on our doorstep? This is why I think Obama's lack of stated platform is scary. He needs experience or his grand, idealistic gestures are going to bankrupt this nation.

[Clarence]

idealistic gestures are going to bankrupt this nation.

too late

[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?

[Milton Bradley]

Gee, if he wold just stop American corporations from exploiting them them in the first place, he might actually be be able to affect some sort of change, but I suppose that's to optimistic an expectation from a guy running on a platform of change.


The proposition is ludicrous because the President/the taxpayer has no responsibility to people outside the borders, and should never assume those responsibilities.


This Bill also supports gun control measures, and I don't care how anybody attempts to spin that scenario, I'll discharge my firearm before I hand it over.


At least I'll have the satisfaction of nowing that they'll be prying a "dirty" weapon out of my cold dead hands, and the world will be minus at least one authoritarian puke.( Not to imply that I think a one to one trade is an acceptable trade ratio tot he libertarian position. )

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Clarence too late

That's another good point to make right about now.


We'll just tell the creditors to wait, cause we found found some worthwhile charities, and that we'd rather donate other peoples money there, instead of paying our bills.

[Compugasm]

After all the nonsense about peeps like Saddam spending the aid on weapons, or funds being mismanaged, is there anything in this bill about how the money donated is spent? I thought NAFTA was supposed to solve all the worlds poverty problems. Since they don't like Martha Stewart sweatshops, we simply hand them almost a trillion dollars to do with as they please? oh boy.

[G. Adams]

Hey, I have some charities I like and donate to, if I become a leading politician should I be able to force you to donate to them as well? no. Should a majority be able to force minorities to donate to charities against their will? No.

More over, such a tax is more likely to keep people in poverty in the first place. Say a state has to have 40% of it's population in poverty to be eligible to get aid, why would they let it get to 39% and lose funding? So it would encourage states to be dependant.

It's like the fair trade organisation. It only buys from family farms who work through co-ops. If one of those farms wants to be succesful and expand it's business, fair trade will no longer buy from you so your business is slashed. This encourages the farmers to remain small, needy and dependant.

[sevendogs]

"Global Poverty Act" is a silly and unrealistic idea. How you will control world population growth, African turmoils, booming economy and population in Southeast Asia? They all run towards a disaster and we should pay poverty tax? Give me a break, we have our own poverty problems, population is booming, immigration from Mexico and other countries...I was going to vote for Obama. Now, I will not, I would rather vote for Clinton, hoping she would make a smarter president.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: charlatan 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.

Quote by: MB Well, there you go, evidence that the man is a full blown commie, and that his intentions are larger than his jurisdiction. Anybody that votes for this clown can consider themselves no friend of mine.

Aww, and I was so hoping for a second date...(you decide your friends based on who they vote for? What the hell is America coming to where people get so locked in...ah whatever.)

I actually have no opinion on this because I don't pay taxes. However I think this needs a devil's advocate.

It isn't a huge tax increase, and it is in self-defense. If you think this is huge, you should know In percentage of GNP spent, America ranks not toward the bottom, you are the bottom.

We live in an interdependent world and we should act like it. Especially at time when people are complaining about immigrants crossing the boarders.

"We should cross borders to build sustainable Democracies that can banish privation and fear. And we should cross borders to bring food and medicine and roads and schools and teachers to parts of the world forgotten by all but the warlords...And America's going to lead the world and not just bully it."

Wouldn't that make a nice change?

Oh and I also want to dispel misinformation about foreign aid. The general average person thinks that 15% of the federal budget to be foriegn aid. It makes up less then 1% of the federal budget. It has been cut by 50%.

As for people relying on foreign aid...I'd rather that then have them pointing guns at us or others. Turmoil costs money and instability has political backlashes. The problem is that the people who benefit don't answer American polling questions.

Again, I actually don't have an opinion.

Quote by: clarence exactly

Thanks for clearing that up...(Yes, I'm psychic)

[Clarence]

Quote by: Compugasm After all the nonsense about peeps like Saddam spending the aid on weapons, or funds being mismanaged, is there anything in this bill about how the money donated is spent? I thought NAFTA was supposed to solve all the worlds poverty problems. Since they don't like Martha Stewart sweatshops, we simply hand them almost a trillion dollars to do with as they please? oh boy.

exactly

[Winter wind]

Quote by: pf He needs experience or his grand, idealistic gestures are going to bankrupt this nation.

I donno, didn't they say similar things about Bill Clinton? He lowered the deficit quite a lot.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Milton Bradley National Ledger - Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote Well, there you go, evidence that the man is a full blown commie, and that his intentions are larger than his jurisdiction. Anybody that votes for this clown can consider themselves no friend of mine.

Ah, yes, another attempt by the socialist-minded traitors in America to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations!

I don't have a problem with individual citizens donating to charities that often do some really good work in many of the third world countries; and I don't have a problem with individual citizens actually going to some of these countries to help; and I don't have a problem with corporations doing either of these; I do, however, object to the American government violating the Constitution and stealing money from hard-working American citizens to what amounts to Welfare to foreign countries. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to appropriate money for foreign aid (or even domestic aid in the form of social programs).

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Winter wind We live in an interdependent world and we should act like it. Especially at time when people are complaining about immigrants crossing the boarders.

Mr Devils advocate: The percentage of GDP isn't an all-inclusive measure of donations. There are constant reminders that such-n-such organization has donated X amount to relief and missionary efforts. I don't feel one bit guilty about my efforts reguarding the "international community" when I see TV shows about islands built in the shapes of a giant palm tree. Heck, I'd give the needy 2 trillion if the money did what it was intended. Roadbuilding, really? Or, is the intention to create some maniac with 15 palaces?

Federal money sent overseas seems to go down a hole to be squanderd on bribes and favors. At least if you spend the money domestically, there is oversight on where the money goes, whos got it, or doesn't get it. I don't see how increasing the funds to crooks and corruption will fix one thing. After all the money has been spent over the last 50yrs, why is anyone still dying of starvation? Is it really because enough wasn't given?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sevendogs I was going to vote for Obama. Now, I will not, I would rather vote for Clinton, hoping she would make a smarter president.

Heh, as if Clinton would oppose this legislation. I'll wager right now that when the legislation hits her desk, she'll support it.


The problem isn't limited to Barak, or Hillary, it's the entire entitlement mentality of the Democratic party.


True phalanthropoists give of their own money, and time to help solve the problem, not steal the wages of the working class to donate to the charity of their choice. Particularly since our government was never empowered to act in that manor.

[RVonse]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, there you go, evidence that the man is a full blown commie, and that his intentions are larger than his jurisdiction. Anybody that votes for this clown can consider themselves no friend of mine.

.7GDP seems like a really cheap way for the US to gain back some credibilty that the Bush neocons squandered away. I don't know what .7 GDP is exactly, but I bet its a lot less than the $trillion Bush invested down the Iraq rat hole.

So instead of a 2 bit tyrant bully, we have the opportunity look like the good guys again putting our best foot forward with world humanity. Obama is smart enough to see this.

Comunism has nothing to do with it.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, there you go, evidence that the man is a full blown commie, and that his intentions are larger than his jurisdiction. Anybody that votes for this clown can consider themselves no friend of mine.

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