Feb 16, 2008 05:15PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - Other
Do you think Senate Bill 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007, sponsored by Barack Obama is a good bill for the American Taxpayer?
SENATE BILL 2433 – GLOBAL POVERTY ACT OF 2007A 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, was trying to rush Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the US 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 US already spends," on foreign aid. "It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Conservative Senators have now put a 'hold' on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote." The House passed this bill in September. It's now getting rushed through the committee in the Senate, to soak the US taxpayers again to fund global, liberal, feel-good garbage legislation.
Senator Obama wrote the bill. This is just the tip of the iceberg, should he win.
Now, the bill has defined the term millennium development goals as the goals set out in the declaration given by the United Nations. Just so you know, those Millennia’s goals not only care about poor starving children, there's other ideas in there as well. For instance, the declaration commits nations to ban small arms and weapons, ratifying a series of treaties including the International Criminal Court treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity.
All this comes from the candidate who says we should be helping Americans first?
Loading...-
Answered No
This is ridiculous. We can't afford this. I personally sponsor a child in Africa for around $32 a month. I pay an extra $8 to help with AIDs medication to Africa through Compassion International. If every family who afford to do this in the world would do it, then poverty would be lessened. Poverty will never be gone. There are too many corrupt governments who starve their people on purpose to keep them in power. Taxing us more and having the government do this is wrong. I pay enough taxes already and am considered "rich" to the Democrats which is a joke. I am just trying to save for my retirement and have something. We all know social security won't be there for anyone in 20 years. -
Answered Yes
The bottom line is nobody wants taxes raised and everyone is tired of taxes being raised. However, they should not have raised taxes for most of the things the raised taxes for and they should have raised taxes for poverty. I was not going to vote for Obama, but the more comments I read like this one, the more I am thinking about voting for him. -
CR...why do you want a tax bill that is over ONE TRILLION dollars?
Try this link: http://www.cfiflistmanager.or... -
Answered No
Un-constitutional Proposal!
MUST READ:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
RETURN TO REASON -
Answered No
Absolutely not! Our tax dollars need to take care of things at home first before we begin helping any other nation. Just a few examples: 1) Repaying, with interest, all the money "borrowed" from the Social Security fund. I think it would go a long way to solving the funding problems; 2) taking care of our own people in poverty; 3) rebuilding our infrastructure which is crumbling around our ears ... look at the roads and bridges!; 4) health care; 5) paying down our national debt.
As far as the UN goes, I'd just as soon see it leave the US! -
Answered No
http://www.newswithviews.com/...
This is the link for the full article on the bill. It i NO WAY helps our country. I have already notified everyone I know and my Senators about how I feel. We will no longer be a sovereign nation. We would lose our 2nd ammendment rights. We would be further in debt. Our country needs to fight this with all we have in us. I do not want to be answering to the UN at all. That organization has seen it's better day and it isn't now.Anyone who reads this should contact their elected officials and let them know where we stand before we have no say anymore. -
Lady... you are so right. Here is a link you may be interested in.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.or... -
You know Tess my feeling is while we still have so many people misplaced and displaced from disasters, two wars going on and foreclosures at an all time high it is very difficult to say that we should tie up 7% of our GDP for any fund to take care of poverty elsewhere. We should use that sort of money to upgrade our own lives. Better schools, better nutrition, better affordable health care and dental care. A disaster relief fund that actually puts the money in the hands of those who need it so they can rebuild. How much money was put into Haliburton after Katrina and Rita and what do we have to show for it? As a taxpayer it ticks me off.
-
Answered No
The United Nations has many flaws, the lest of which is the ability to act responsibly and swiftly. The U.S. subsidizing the U.N. is not the answer for the world's most impoverished nations.
If the U.S. has issues solving poverty domestically and we are one of the world's richest nations, why does Mr. Barack believe that earmarking a percentage of our GNP for use by a 3rd party institution will solve it or at a minimum, even come close to better addressing it?
In my opinion, by focusing our efforts domestically first and identify a working solution, we can then offer to ease the pains of the rest of the world. Spreading your resources thin rarely provides the desired outcome.
*note: My only familiarity with this bill is from this question, I reserve the right to stand corrected =) -
It won't come from manufacturing It will be more taxes on everyone. Plus we would have to answer to the International criminal court. Our laws would pretty much be pointless. It won't be our justice system anymore. Please look at the link :
http://www.newswithviews.com/...
to get the details of the bill. -
That sounds good but the bill is not looking at anything like that. It is a monetary thing plus the fact that it states the treaties and programs that we would have to sign. It is a very dangerous bill. Plus you have to consider how many manufatuers are really in the states anymore. I don't know to which question I had posted but I couldn't even get a pregnancy test made here. It stated "Made in UK, assembled in China and packaged in the United States. We bought a PUR water filter today It said distrubutaed from a company in Cincinnati OH but further down past the patents it finished off by stating MADE IN CHINA. Even if they did try to get some kind of tax onto American companies who do you think they will pass it along to? We are the ones penalized for these things either way you look at it.
Answered No
What the Hell? And people want him to be our President? What a nutcase.