Don't Let Them Spend Our Money!
by Marilyn Mackenzie
I got a message from GOPUSA today that deserves some attention. The information provided was also a part of the EXPOSEOBAMA.com website. (Check out that website for a list of Obama's beliefs and proposed policies.)
Here's some of what the email said:
"The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote... according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it onthe calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote."- Lee Cary, The American Thinker
If Cary is right, Senator Barack Hussein Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a United States Senator -- which according to some conservative leaders is potentially an $845 billion United Nations give away of your hard-earned tax dollars -- could be coming up for a stealth vote when Congress rolls back into town!
Is it really possible that our federal legislators are planning to pass Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act while they think we aren't looking?
And just how much is $845 billion?
Vincent Gioia, writing in Right Side News, translates this incomprehensible figure into language every American can understand:
"This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world."
Where do you suppose they'll get the $845 billion?
Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University -- Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations -- knows EXACTLY WHERE -- "through a global tax preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels."
He doesn't mean a tax on gasoline, does he?
OH YES HE DOES!
He doesn't mean a GLOBAL TAX, does he?
OH YES HE DOES!
In a 2005 report toKofi Annan, the Secretary General's old friend Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty .
Specifically Sachs advocated a GLOBAL TAX:
"We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes. A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin."
In other words, you get to pay even more to fill up your tank so some leader of a third-world country can build two or three more palaceswhile his people are starve to death -- all in the name of fighting global poverty!
**************
Remember the scandal of oil-for-food? Remember how the money we thought was going to help feed people was really lining the pockets of the already wealthy?
This bill will send our hard earned money to the UN to distribute. Of course we're all concerned about global poverty. But do we want the UN to decide how our tax dollars are spent? Do we want another oil-for-food scandal? How can we be sure that won't happen again?
Does the United Nations reflect YOUR values? A Fox News poll said that 54 percent of Americans think the UN DOES NOT reflect our values. And yet this bill proposes to let the UN decide how this money will be distributed to the hungry throughout the world. Where will the money really go? Are you prepared to give up more of your money with no control over where it goes?
The email I received included a link where you can have 50 faxes sent to the President and 49 Republican members of the Senate. Here's the link, but since the link provides the names of those Senators, you could write to them yourself without spending the $25. http://www.exposeobama.com/globalpovertybe.html
If you want more information about this bill, click here:
Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 63
This bill does not address poverty in America. The last statistics I saw said that we still have 37 million people in America who can hardly put food on their tables. Shouldn't that be our focus?
It is less than the amount wasted on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
That money was wasted, along with the lives of thousands of Americans. At least this program would provide a path from poverty for millions.
Stop murdering people globally and start helping people even if they are not our' poor.
Sorry Marilyn, but their lives were given in vain. We were conned into the invasion of Iraq, and that continues with its ongoing occupation.
The truth is that they died for nothing. Nothing but Bush's ego trip.
Bush was in a darned if you do, darned if you don't position the minute 9/11 happened.
You know what? I thank God every day that Bush was in charge and not Al Gore. The thought of what that man might have done to our country by now makes me cringe.
Thanks for this information.
I agree we do need to get our young men and women home from Iraq. I agree with the point you are attempting to make: The war in Iraq has nothing to do with funding this effort in spite of the futile attempt of some of our readers to link the two. The Congress had made numerous attempts to turn the tide of the war by including: 1) time lines for withdrawal, 2) Congressional approval needed before extending funding before a certain deadline; 3) withholding or targetting Defense appropriation bills. None of these bills have passes. In my opinion, those of you who want this war to end need to take it up with your Congressman / woman. That's the only real hope for ending the war at this time.
This Global Poverty Act will commit us to an additional $845 billion toward our record budget deficit. Do we really want to borrow more money from China to pay our bills? We have to make every effort to control spending in Washington. Up until now we have been blind to that deficit and the effects these deficits have had on our economy. Want to do something good for the future of our country and our childrem oppose this bill.
Apparently you take offense of using Candidate Obama's middle name than to the obscene amount of money our country will be committed to in the long room. Let me ask those of you who "sit" and decry the war, world poverty, and taxes: What have you done other than complain and use tactics that divert attention from the issue?
Inflate your tires?
You're right when you say, "In my opinion, those of you who want this war to end take it up with your congressman/woman."
And your last paragraph includes: "Let me ask those of you who "sit" and decry the war, world poverty, and taxes: What have you done other than complain and use tactics that divert attention from the issue? Inflate your tires?"
Amen to that as well.
Given what we now know, how can you possible justify Bush's invasion of Iraq????????
How about this scenario under President Gore:
No unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq.
No waste of over $1 Trillion on the above.
Thousands of American soldiers still alive.
Reduced instability in the world oil market (lower oil prices).
Reduced national debt
Tighter regulation of the financial markets (perhaps no recession).
Acceptance of the Kyoto accord (reduced greenhouse gases)
Faster move towards energy independence
More spending on reducing poverty
More spending on education
A president the world respects and admires
Unfortunately, this did not occur. Can't cry over spilt milk, but, Marilyn, this is what your president has given us. Debt, Recession, War, Death, Ridicule.
With Al Gore, we'd probably be paying $10 a gallon for gas, with most of that going to his programs to help that global warming that keeps being shown is not caused mostly by man.
But, as Soozan pointed out, "The war in Iraq has nothing to do with funding this effort in spite of the futile attempt of some of our readers to link the two."
This point aside, heaven help us if things like this get passed.
"As of March 2008, around $501 billion has been spent on the Iraq War"
"In 2004, the second-largest recipient of economic foreign aid from the United States was Israel, second to Iraq. In terms of per capita value Israel ranks first."
United States military and economic aid for Israel
Seems those in charge at the Whitehouse have their priorities screwed up.
"The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."
BTW, I totally agree with you regarding more aid to the UN!
I suggest people really think about it...
The reality is that Bush has said that the best weapon to combat terror is to combat poverty around the world. If we don't combat poverty in Africa and other places around the world, we will spend the money there someday, waging a war on terror against them. It will not just be money. It will be money and blood. Poor people are future recruits of terrorists.
Think about that before you participate in this propaganda. I am not saying sending 500+ billion to combat poverty should not be debated. Read Richard link and think about how you can combat terrorism without helping poor people.
Come on, liberal media?? Can you actually say that with a straight face?
So, where are the alleged WMD's? You can actually type what you did without falling out of your chair? You seem far to intelligent to fall for the Fox propaganda.
What did Iraq have to do with 911 anyway? Nothing, that is what.
Bush got what he wanted, massive profits for his friends, Mission Accomplished.
I brought up Iraq in the first place to show that before you yell about possible 'future bleeding', you must first stop the massive hemorrhaging now occurring.
When I was a single mom, I faced homelessness myself when Worker's Comp decided that I could not get any better, so they stopped paying me. And the doctors would not release me to work. And the only government help I could get was $11 a month in food stamps. I applied for disability 5 years ago and still don't have it.
When I didn't know where to turn, I found that the poor and homeless are the most generous people - with their "things" and whatever money they have, and with their knowledge of the "system." When one government agency turned me away, for instance, a woman waited outside to tell me of another program for which I might qualify. The state agency would not give info about a county one, but a lovely woman stood in the hot sun waiting to tell me about it because she had overheard my frustration.
I've also helped quite a few people create resumes, using volunteer activities of proof of their abilities when there were few jobs to list.
Tag, you're it, Sarah. What have you done for the homeless and poor and hungry lately?
The WMDs? Have you read the interviews with the general who worked for Saddam? Or seen the videos of trucks leaving Iraq and going to Syria before we got there?
In an article last month, I wrote:
This week, the Washington Post reported:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
Interestingly, the Washington Post article also mentioned "radioactive 'hot zones' entomed in concrete during Saddam's rule." Dave Gaubatz, who mentioned having seen those bunkers in 2003, has been labeled a "racist and a loon" by bloggers because no one else ever came forth and verified his findings. I believe he has now been vindicated. That's from You Know What Bothers Me?
Everything that the Federal Government has done for the last 30 years has been with the APPROVAL OF THE REPUBLICANS.
PS: where is this liberal media I hear so much about? Perhaps those stations are blocked on my cable service. All I seem to get is Fox and Friends.
Liberal media - try CBS, NBC, ABC. :-)
Wilma, I applied for worker's comp because I had no choice. I was injured at work. Certainly not a choice. My regular doctor would not treat a work injury. My company wouldn't let me work. I was a single mom and needed income. Did I have a choice? That doesn't make me a liberal.
Same with disability. If I could work, I would choose that, of course. The "system" has this program of disabioity. I need the income. Applying didn't make me a liberal.
Stick to the point people! Do you want to add $845 billion to the national debt or don't you?
Priorities
""US gives a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty"
"As of March 2008, around $501 billion has been spent on the Iraq War"
Imagine if we spent $501 billion on eradicating poverty around the world. That would serve to eradicate the causes and recruitment for militant terrorism.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be taxed from people, but, neither should criminal wars of aggression. The UN does not sanction torture while we do...just to name one value I share with the UN and the civilized countries it represents.
Scandals...well, no bigger scandal than the mass murder of innocent Iraqis...oh, wait, they don't count...they're not Americans.
Global Poverty Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)
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.'.
I say yes, $30 billion per year is worth it.
Frankly, even if the number is a bit high, or even if it's only half as much...I don't like giving tax dollars to the UN and allowing them to decide how our money will be used. And since it will be a huge amount, the only "tax" being considered is a global tax on carbon-emmitting fossil fuels.
I've read everything I can find about this. From both sides.
"It's important to note that the price tag doesn't appear in the bill. But this doesn't mean it does not commit us to spend $845 billion. This is one of the most deceptive pieces of legislation I have come across in my 30 years in Washington. A serious analysis of the bill discloses not only the price tag, which can be ascertained through reading the documents and statements of the U.N. and its mouthpieces, but the fact that it subordinates a key aspect of U.S. foreign policy-foreign aid spending-to the United Nations."
"Be careful about quoting the $845 Billion figure. It includes 7 years that have already passed in which we didn't pay what the Global Poverty supporters wanted, and forgiveness of junk loans that won't be repayed anyway. I crunched the numbers myself for a mail out on this for our local RLC, and came up with about $450 Billion including the forgiveness of loans, and $250 Billion excluding that."
I'll look at that. But all one has to do is read the bill. Then, since it mentions ""achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015", you have to discover what that means. When you discover what that means, it shows how the figures come about. It's simple math.
I also don't understand why if people think this Bill is bad, that you don't agree with helping with world poverty or something. It's more about "how" that is done to me. Good ideas don't always make good law...
No unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq.
No waste of over $1 Trillion on the above.
Thousands of American soldiers still alive.
Reduced instability in the world oil market (lower oil prices).
Reduced national debt
Tighter regulation of the financial markets (perhaps no recession).
Acceptance of the Kyoto accord (reduced greenhouse gases)
Faster move towards energy independence
More spending on reducing poverty
More spending on education
A president the world respects and admires
Have to agree with Con Job on this one.