WTF Obama? Global Poverty Act?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Hahahaha! Yep...steal from your own citizens to help the rest of the world. Sounds good, noble and like something that should be done by the wealthiest nation in the world.

BUT

If you want to do than then make damn sure that nobody, not one single fucking person, in this country is impoverished, lacking education, lacking healthcare, living in substandard housing or goes to bed hungry at night. Until then...fuck the rest of the world.

We're never going to eliminate impoverished people in the United States. Just like we're never going to eliminate global poverty. That being said, ignoring the rest of the world is probably the stupidest thing we could possibly do.

The United States needs to be a world leader. We should care about the well-being of people around the world because it is in our best interest. Maybe we should slash into that 500 billion dollar defense budget and use some of that to do something productive in the world?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Cut it any way you want or call me a selfish prick but I think tax payer money should only be allocated for the benefit of American citizens, even if its a stupid idea like welfare. T

While I see your larger point, you assume in your argument that giving US dollars towards foreign poverty is not to the benefit of American citizens. Corporations have one goal, to make profit, yet almost all of them see some benefit in donating to charity. And that's money that would normally be reinvested or kicked back to investors as dividends. Why? Because they think giving away this money does in fact benefit their shareholders and the corporation in general. It earns good will, it improves reputation, and it may be the difference in the long run whether or not investors decide to stick with it as an investment vs another similar corporation.

So I accept you disagree with the decision, but the grounds that donating to foreign charity is not in any way beneficial to americans, is I think incorrect.

Steven Colbert on the poor: Jesus said "the poor shall always be with you." If there will always be poor people, doesn't that mean we should just give up on them as a lost cause?" LOL
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
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.

You don't like Obama because you're a Paulbot. All the rest is fluff.

And you like Obama because you're an Obamabot. See how dumb that sounds?
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh great, the "messiah" wants to export our "war on poverty" which is a total disaster. Great idea...

:roll:

Lets give him two fish and a couple loaves of bread and see what he can do :laugh:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Deeko

*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.

And that money is better spent on helping people rather than killing Arabs.

It is better spent paying off our debt. To think we can leave this financial mess to our children is immoral, and that's if we aren't bankrupt by the time they are old enough to work. To think we can ignore that problem and pile more onto it is insane.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2140534

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Deeko

*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.

And that money is better spent on helping people rather than killing Arabs.

It is better spent paying off our debt. To think we can leave this financial mess to our children is immoral, and that's if we aren't bankrupt by the time they are old enough to work. To think we can ignore that problem and pile more onto it is insane.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2140534

No argument. Cut military spending and use that money to reduce the debt and to make a difference in the world.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Introduced in Senate: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.
Text of Legislation

S 2433 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 2433

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 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.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 7, 2007

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

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 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.

(3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.

(4) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(5) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.

(6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.'.

(7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.

(8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

(10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(12) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(13) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.'.

(14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote 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.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

(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.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

This material is Open Knowlege
GovTrack is not affiliated with the U.S. government or any other group. You are encouraged to reuse any material on this site. For more information, see About GovTrack. Feedback (but not political opining) is welcome to operations@govtrack.us, but I can't do your research for you, nor can I pass on messages to Members of Congress. This website is just a pet project of a regular joe.


So there is no "0.7% gdp" requirement. It's a number that the author pulls out of his rectum. The costs depend on how things are implemented.



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.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Why dont we give the poor people of the world subprime loans with low teaser rates. When their income increases in a few years theyll be able to pay off the new high priced loans, and the US will make lots of money.



:)

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Why dont we give the poor people of the world subprime loans with low teaser rates. When their income increases in a few years theyll be able to pay off the new high priced loans, and the US will make lots of money.



:)

I think that's what China is already giving to us. :p
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
http://www.nationalledger.com/...rticle_272618845.shtml

Obama just proposed legislation to provide the 0.7% of our GDP to be given to the U.N. to be used towards poverty.

Cut it any way you want or call me a selfish prick but I think tax payer money should only be allocated for the benefit of American citizens, even if its a stupid idea like welfare. There are dozens of organizations anyone can donate to if one felt the need to help the less fortunate around the world. We need to worry about our own deficit right now and stop this kind of spending..

obamas idea is stupid.

welfare is not stupid it had big problems before Clinton signed the welfare reform act which cleaned a lot of it up. is it a perfect solution no it isnt but its better than people with true problems going hungry or living on the streets like you do in 3rd world countries.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
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.

Well when you are one of the many Americans struggling to make ends meet for whatever reason, do you really give a sh*t about some other poor family that is suffering in Honduras? North Korea? Africa?

I seriously doubt it.

Besides, there is enough money going to other countries from here through federal and private organizations and businesses....the amount of money is not the problem, the problem is the management of the funds.

Everyone that has anything to do with any charitable donations has their own agenda as to what is important ans where the cash should flow.

Throwing more money at things is not how you solve it, managing effectively is how you solve it, but it is easier and looks like you are doing something if you just hand over a bigger check.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Obama is just fashionable and not made of any substance. He has demonstrated that he has no concept of a budget.

Quote from where his stimulus money would come from as an example.

Vitello: Where's the money coming from that will be like a tax rebate?
Obama: Well, there are two separate aspects to this. The tax rebate, that is a one time thing. And that just comes out of general revenue. And, you know?
Vitello: Is there money still in general revenue?
Obama: Well, you know, I mean it depends on sort of, you know, it's all paper money, right? It's, we're already in deficit.



To Obama its all just ?paper money? he doesn't seem to care that we had to work for it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Just be glad you're in a position to give the 0.7%. What greed some people have.
Well ya see, the thing is, we are NOT in "a position to give the 0.7%" away.

Thankfully, from what I can tell so far, this "Act" is all fluff. It essentially states that some President, someday, must do something, to combat global poverty. I'm not even sure where the 0.7% figure comes from.

I'll need to go study the text of the bill a bit, but it doesnt appear to be anything more than empty fluff. If it IS more than that, and it definitively allocates a percentage of our taxes for the UN, then Obama would probably lose my vote; because we are certainly NOT in any position to increase foreign aid at the moment. There are much more pressing matters to attend to with the limited amount of $$ we have.

More research is required... so I'll be back later with another post.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Deeko

*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.

And that money is better spent on helping people rather than killing Arabs.

It is better spent paying off our debt. To think we can leave this financial mess to our children is immoral, and that's if we aren't bankrupt by the time they are old enough to work. To think we can ignore that problem and pile more onto it is insane.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2140534

No argument. Cut ALL spending and DON'T use that money

:)
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
spend spend spend. that is the only thing our government knows how to fix things. economy is slowing, here is 600 bucks go spend it. yea spending fixes everything.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Deeko

*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.

And that money is better spent on helping people rather than killing Arabs.

It is better spent paying off our debt. To think we can leave this financial mess to our children is immoral, and that's if we aren't bankrupt by the time they are old enough to work. To think we can ignore that problem and pile more onto it is insane.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2140534

No argument. Cut ALL spending and DON'T use that money

:)

I am not advocating cutting military spending by 250 billion and putting that 250 billion directly into foreign aid.

I want our government to slash military spending and use the vast majority of that money to pay down the debt. SOME (very little) of what is left should go abroad. The reason I only want a small amount is because, for our country, $50 million dollars isn't a lot, but that $50 million can do a lot of good abroad.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
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.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,802
126
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?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,807
136
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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: rpanic
Obama is just fashionable and not made of any substance. He has demonstrated that he has no concept of a budget.

Quote from where his stimulus money would come from as an example.

Vitello: Where's the money coming from that will be like a tax rebate?
Obama: Well, there are two separate aspects to this. The tax rebate, that is a one time thing. And that just comes out of general revenue. And, you know?
Vitello: Is there money still in general revenue?
Obama: Well, you know, I mean it depends on sort of, you know, it's all paper money, right? It's, we're already in deficit.



To Obama its all just ?paper money? he doesn't seem to care that we had to work for it.

First, NEWSFLASH it IS paper money. Like he said, we are already in deficit. I could go on for days about the nature of money.

Second, you seem to be comparing Obama against a personal ideal instead of reality. I suggest you look to how our other leaders have handled our money.