WTF Obama? Global Poverty Act?

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: RichardE


As I said earlier, the bill is more of a "were already spending X amount of dollars inefficiently, lets spent it with a plan". Yes, the 0.7 was taken out of the authors ass, there is no mention of any amount of money.

With the current problems in debt, you would think the politicians would stop playing the "shell game" with money. None of them are actually thinking about cutting spending, they just want to move it from here to there. Thats not good IMO.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: RichardE


As I said earlier, the bill is more of a "were already spending X amount of dollars inefficiently, lets spent it with a plan". Yes, the 0.7 was taken out of the authors ass, there is no mention of any amount of money.

With the current problems in debt, you would think the politicians would stop playing the "shell game" with money. None of them are actually thinking about cutting spending, they just want to move it from here to there. Thats not good IMO.

I agree totally. On the other hand though this isn't a spending bill that is going to increase spending, its a bill that will make it more efficient. Its hard to cut spending with the current admin (a repub one too, go figure ) but this does put in framework to ensure that the spending that is being allocated is being used efficiently.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
WTF? This is why I don't like Obama, he's just like the rest. Take money out of MY wallet and send it overseas. It is not charity when there's a gun to your head.

What gun is to your head when the voters vote for the representatives who pass the policy?

Sorry, but your desire to live in a nation without democracy, where every person has no obligations to the policies the majority chooses, doesn't work that well.

Your 'who cares' position implied in your post about the human race - including when the US has hurt so many to gain its wealth - I think reflects poorly on your values.

Just be glad you're in a position to give the 0.7%. What greed some people have.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You are quite likely the world's WORST representative of democracy. You literally have no clue what democracy is beyond a catchphrase. If your little vision of democracy was reality, gerrymandering districts would involve death camps, and dictators-for-life would be called "elected leaders." Let me tell you for the millionth time: it is NOT democracy when the people vote their democratic rights away. It is NOT democracy when the majority vote to strip away the rights of a minority. You cannot bleat "democracy!" every time someone voices a legitimate concern about individual and/or non-majority rights. Get a clue.

Okay, that said, bamacre and most of the posters in this thread (including you to this point, craig) are completely wrong about this bill. And that because the OP's article was a crock of lies. All this bill does is say, we're already spending all this money on foreign aid, how about we make sure that it goes to do what we want it to do? That's it. And that is why it has overwhelmingly bipartisan support in Congress.

I think I just heard double... multi... ultra... MEGAKILL!...

 

[cwjerome]

Obama's words (specifics and generalities) and deeds paint a fairly Liberal picture. His voting records and ratings indicate the same. So is this really surprising? (if it's true)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I predict this is the first of many threads in which right wing people who stated that they support Obama will become horrified at some minor statement/policy of his (that may or may not even be accurate) and suddenly rescind their support.

So what? Do you suppose they would have supported Billary instead? Of course not.

And if this is the best that can be done, to post a complete fabrication about a bill with broad bipartisan support, I'm not worried.

To you "right wing people," I ask the following questions:
- How have the Republicans done with your money? Not good, eh?
- If you're so worried about our money being spent overseas, then why don't you complain when the Republicans spend your money on all those bombs we drop around the world? You think those are free or something?
- And finally, why do you think that spending money on those bombs is better foreign policy? You complain about the govt's frequently unjust use of force in our domestic policies, but have no problems with it in our foreign policies?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I predict this is the first of many threads in which right wing people who stated that they support Obama will become horrified at some minor statement/policy of his (that may or may not even be accurate) and suddenly rescind their support.

So what? Do you suppose they would have supported Billary instead? Of course not.

And if this is the best that can be done, to post a complete fabrication about a bill with broad bipartisan support, I'm not worried.

To you "right wing people," I ask the following questions:
- How have the Republicans done with your money? Not good, eh?
- If you're so worried about our money being spent overseas, then why don't you complain when the Republicans spend your money on all those bombs we drop around the world? You think those are free or something?
- And finally, why do you think that spending money on those bombs is better foreign policy? You complain about the govt's frequently unjust use of force in our domestic policies, but have no problems with it in our foreign policies?

So nothing really, I just said it awhile back that I believed the professed support for Obama from those people was not genuine. I don't think they would actually vote for any Democratic candidate, I just wish they would come out and say it. Just because I defend Hillary here from some of her more frothy critics doesn't mean that I prefer her or anything, I voted for Obama on super tuesday.

 

[Dufusyte]

How about a Bill to Stop War on the globe? "The President has to put together a comprehensive plan to stop war throughout the world, and report to Congress on progress toward measurable goals, etc..."

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
shens until I see a link on drudge

I hope that this was a joke b/c it made me LOL.

One a side note to RichardE and Haybusa Rider:

Quit interrupting the Obama-bash fest with stupid facts. The conjecture and supposition of a rumor started by the opposition are so much easier to believe. Why, they've even drawn all of the conclusions for you. There is no need for pesky facts.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Charity begins at home and I live alone. I want all my money for me. I am the only family that counts. I me me mine as far as I can see. I give lots of money away all to me. I am generous to myself.

It is not charity when there is a gun to my head forcing me to pay.

Please stop that tired, weak, argument. There's no gun to your head. Paying taxes is part of living in this country. I don't like paying for a lot of crap the government does with my tax money but I don't get to pick and choose where my money goes. Neither do you. That's life. If you don't like it try another country that fits your needs. That or cry about it on an internet forum. Whatever works for you...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I predict this is the first of many threads in which right wing people who stated that they support Obama will become horrified at some minor statement/policy of his (that may or may not even be accurate) and suddenly rescind their support.

So what? Do you suppose they would have supported Billary instead? Of course not.

And if this is the best that can be done, to post a complete fabrication about a bill with broad bipartisan support, I'm not worried.

To you "right wing people," I ask the following questions:
- How have the Republicans done with your money? Not good, eh?
- If you're so worried about our money being spent overseas, then why don't you complain when the Republicans spend your money on all those bombs we drop around the world? You think those are free or something?
- And finally, why do you think that spending money on those bombs is better foreign policy? You complain about the govt's frequently unjust use of force in our domestic policies, but have no problems with it in our foreign policies?

So nothing really, I just said it awhile back that I believed the professed support for Obama from those people was not genuine. I don't think they would actually vote for any Democratic candidate, I just wish they would come out and say it. Just because I defend Hillary here from some of her more frothy critics doesn't mean that I prefer her or anything, I voted for Obama on super tuesday.

I consider myself a bit right of center, and I'm still planning to vote for Obama.

However, if he ever does propose something as ridiculous as giving 0.7% of our GDP to the UN in addition to our existing foreign aid, then I would consider it a very reasonable decision to withdraw my support for the man.

In this case, I'm smart enough to realize that this bill is all fluff. The only ones who seem to read too much into this are the resident Paulbots -- which shouldn't surprise you -- unless, of course, you honestly believe that there is a huge neocon conspiracy to lie about supporting Obama...?

Well, do ya?

I voted for Obama in Virginia's primary.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Well whats the bill do?

"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"

Bingo!

After reading that it makes more sense. We aren't just giving the money away. It's being used as an incentive to get those countries to do what we want them to. China's pollution is so bad it is affecting the western U.S., from across the Pacific. This basically says we'll pay them to clean up their act, and if they don't, they don't get the money.

I don't like it, in fact on principle its a bad idea setting a horrible precedent, but at least it's not as idiotic as the OP makes it sound.

Most impoverished nations have corrupt governments. Bribery, kickbacks, etc... are needed just to get anything done. All this will do is allow .0000001% of any money handed out trickle to those who need it. The rest will buy some nice mercedes, yachts, or villas for the ruling family/group.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So nothing really, I just said it awhile back that I believed the professed support for Obama from those people was not genuine. I don't think they would actually vote for any Democratic candidate, I just wish they would come out and say it. Just because I defend Hillary here from some of her more frothy critics doesn't mean that I prefer her or anything, I voted for Obama on super tuesday.

I won't argue any of this. I've never felt their support for Obama was genuine. But OTOH, I think they shot themselves in the foot in their desperation to attack Hillary. So why not use it, eh? Now that they're finally waking up to Obama being the real deal, it's kind of funny to watch.

Anyway, look at who they have left. McDoofus and Theocrabee. Romney was their best candidate, the only true conservative, and they got rid of him out of religious intolerance. And is McCain going to meet their agenda of lowering taxes, cutting the budget, and securing the borders? Hell no. Don't make me laugh. While Huckabee is utterly and completely unelectable.
So all the Pubs are left with is to cry "liberal!" and hope that the far left polarizes the election to pit the mainstream against the Dems. And for what? To try to elect yet another borrow-and-spend endless war neocon like Bush who will do absolutely nothing for actual conservative causes besides lies and lip service.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: shinerburke
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the prof noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.'

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax cuts, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

You forgot the FW:FW:FW:RE:RE> READ THIS on that story.

:laugh: That was good! :laugh:

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: bamacre
This is a man who understands and respects the Constituion.

*sigh* Are you serious? This is why no one respects you Paulbots.

Dead serious. Those in Congress need to realize and appreciate that it is OUR money they spend.

Dead serious about what? Posting Ron Paul BS in a thread about Obama's idea?

This is exactly why everyone hates the Paulbots. Not because you come in and disagree with Obama's views, because you come into a thread about Obama's views and post a link to an article about Ron Paul. We get it, you like Ron Paul.

 

[piasabird]

UN = Anti-Christ

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
-snip-

Good story/analogy.

Meh, I'm not sure what to make of this legislation.

Overall I'd like to see foreign aid reduced (military and otherwise). We don't have the money to give away. Plus, it's usually wasted or mis-directed etc. Projects like these are better left to non-profit organizations.

It's not OUR governments job to cure poverty in OTHER countries. While I don't object to some limited programs, I do think our government should focus on doing a better job with their domestic responsibilities before running around the world acting as the World's Welfare agent. I'm already tired of us being the World's policeman.

Fern

 

[AnitaPeterson]

From what I read, the bill would only enforce commitments made by the U.S. from 2000 onwards...

YOU already MADE the committments - the bill would only ensure you RESPECT them!!! You got a problem with that? Way to go! Learn to be thrifty, spend less in the Iraq adventure, understand that you can't crow in all four winds that "We're the GREATEST nation on Earth" (like a rooster on top of a manure pile) without taking some responsibilities seriously. Or, as Uncle Ben would've put it, in Spider-Man: "With great power comes great responsibility!"

The ignorance, greed and lack of any basic human decency, manifested by some of the people who posted in this thread is staggering!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Dead serious about what? Posting Ron Paul BS in a thread about Obama's idea?

This is exactly why everyone hates the Paulbots. Not because you come in and disagree with Obama's views, because you come into a thread about Obama's views and post a link to an article about Ron Paul. We get it, you like Ron Paul.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Paulbots, DEACTIVATE! :laugh:

 

[Carmen813]

(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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.(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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.

(b) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

(c) Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:

(1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

(d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

(B) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:

(i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).

(ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving 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.

(iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving 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.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

The bill doesn't seem to be as horrific as the author of that article made it.

If less people are living in poverty, isn't there the theoretical potential for more consumers of our goods, and thus a boost to our economy?

Isn't everyone worried about the economy?

Seems to me we make an investment in fighting world poverty, and we would hope to reap the benefits of said investment (more consumers, less terrorists).

All this does is require the United States to come up with a plan to fight global poverty, which seems good to me. We could spend this money building bombs to fight terrorists, or we could try to address the root cause of terrorism (one of the leading ones which is poverty)

Anyway, this bill doesn't cost anything. From what I can tell it simply requires the president to make a recommendation to Congress within 1 year of this act being passes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The ignorance, greed and lack of any basic human decency, manifested by some of the people who posted in this thread is staggering!

Anita, if IIRC you are not from the USA. Here we follow a different philosiphy about government and charity. We do not like to mix the two, preferring instead that charity be handled by nonprofit, non-governmental organizations.

Governments have a very poor track record in this area. We prefer ours generally stay out of it.

Fern

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The ignorance, greed and lack of any basic human decency, manifested by some of the people who posted in this thread is staggering!

Anita, if IIRC you are not from the USA. Here we follow a different philosiphy about government and charity. We do not like to mix the two, preferring instead that charity be handled by nonprofit, non-governmental organizations.

Governments have a very poor track record in this area. We prefer ours generally stay out of it.

Fern

You might have a different philosophy. Personally, I see the US government as capable of doing an incredible amount of good in the world. A policy that invests money abroad to provide people with food, shelter, educations, and clothing will only benefit our country, and the world, in the long-term.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The ignorance, greed and lack of any basic human decency, manifested by some of the people who posted in this thread is staggering!

Anita, if IIRC you are not from the USA. Here we follow a different philosiphy about government and charity. We do not like to mix the two, preferring instead that charity be handled by nonprofit, non-governmental organizations.

Governments have a very poor track record in this area. We prefer ours generally stay out of it.

Fern

You might have a different philosophy. Personally, I see the US government as capable of doing an incredible amount of good in the world. A policy that invests money abroad to provide people with food, shelter, educations, and clothing will only benefit our country, and the world, in the long-term.

Just a general reply along this particular chain of discussion:
The US is already far and away the world's leader in nonprofit, non-government charity abroad. We give more privately than most countries do publicly. And then we give more than most publicly too. So I'm sick of this "Americans are greedy" bullshit.
However, all this bill does is require that our government be more accountable with our publicly-funded foreign aid in doing what it was set up to do in the first place (instead of ending up in the hands of dictators and gun runners). That's it.
Posters here can argue all they want about the pros and cons of that public foreign aid, whether we should give more or less, but that has nothing whatsoever to with this bill or this topic.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All I said was that I'm a selfish bastard whose sense of family extends only to myself. It's you bastards that seem to want to attack me for that, as if, somehow, I was saying something different than you. You may be stupid enough to create some big difference between the guy on the other side of the world and a family member but they are all parasites to me. Fuck them and you all. My money is for me. Honor thy father and mother, take care of my brother, screw that. You people are chumps and fools. I me me mine is all that matters. Any charity at all sucks. You give because you feel guilt and get pissed at the government when they take because they remind you how pissed you are to have to give at all. I'm just better than all of you because I live in the reality you pretend to, no?

Nah, if you want to live life as a selfish, miserable, bastard well have at it!

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The ignorance, greed and lack of any basic human decency, manifested by some of the people who posted in this thread is staggering!

Anita, if IIRC you are not from the USA. Here we follow a different philosiphy about government and charity. We do not like to mix the two, preferring instead that charity be handled by nonprofit, non-governmental organizations.

Governments have a very poor track record in this area. We prefer ours generally stay out of it.

Fern

You might have a different philosophy. Personally, I see the US government as capable of doing an incredible amount of good in the world. A policy that invests money abroad to provide people with food, shelter, educations, and clothing will only benefit our country, and the world, in the long-term.

Just a general reply along this particular chain of discussion:
The US is already far and away the world's leader in nonprofit, non-government charity abroad. We give more privately than most countries do publicly. And then we give more than most publicly too. So I'm sick of this "Americans are greedy" bullshit.
However, all this bill does is require that our government be more accountable with our publicly-funded foreign aid in doing what it was set up to do in the first place (instead of ending up in the hands of dictators and gun runners). That's it.
Posters here can argue all they want about the pros and cons of that public foreign aid, whether we should give more or less, but that has nothing whatsoever to with this bill or this topic.

Vic, I think the arguement people give in response to what you said is that proportionally (on an individual percentage basis) Americans give less than other countries. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've definitely heard it someplace.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Vic, I think the arguement people give in response to what you said is that proportionally (on an individual percentage basis) Americans give less than other countries. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've definitely heard it someplace.

I guess we could just take foreign aid totals and divide them by the sources' populations, thus deriving the "foreign aid per capita" amount for each country...

Anyone in the mood to do a little extracurricular math?

edit: Here's a link to some 2002 figures

Interesting figures... but what does it tell us beyond seeing that Norway is by far the most charitable place in the known Universe?

hmm...

edit 2: This site here has the U.S. listed as 9th in the world, as of 2004... and once again Norway is KICKING ARSE!