Obama's Global Poverty Act

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
WTF

Senate bill S-2433 authored by obama and being shoved thru by Biden requires the USA to give 0.7% of GNP to the UN, forces the USa to surrender sovereignty to the UN. Part of the plan commits USA to banning " Small arms and light weapons as well as force USA to sign treaties that we have refused to in the past, many of these treaties would negatively affect our sovereignty.

This is in committee now . Why has there been nothing about this is MSM?
We don't need to worry about voting on banning guns. The UN has decided for us if this passes.

We are all for helping poor countries. The money the gov't and private sector as well as the physical help we give is well documented.
WHO thinks it is ok for the UN to take our money and use it as they see fit?
Who wants to cede to the UN the decision on small arms?

Obama is much scarier that hillary No One is paying attention. They are swooning at his speechifying
 
I call BS. Maybe you have access to some other bill, but the one that I've read is mostly weak-fisted acknowledgment of and consideration for poverty, to try to meet the UN's Minimum Development Goal.
The Link

Edit: Fixed link
 
Weak fisted?
so are you saying this won't require USA to give 0.7% GNP TO the UN?
it won't forece the USA to accept the ban on small arms and light weapons?
it won't force the USA to sign treaties is so far has not signed?
 
Maybe people should read the Unired Nations Millennium Declaration to see what all the USA would agree to with S-2433 instead of posting snide remarks
Are you all ready to cede control to the UN billions of our money?
Why?
Are you willing to have the USA sign all the treaties, ALL of the ones listed in the agreement, you don't get to pick and choose?

And if you actually read it there is a clause in there that would give the UN authority over our small arms and light weapons lncluding the right to ban them
All of you who have said for years in here that the UN is worthless Why now would you now want to make the US subservient to the UN ?

all of you who have cried out for years about slippery slopes how funny that when it is a slippery slope YOU are willing to chance all of a sudden it is ok?

The USA has a long history of helping the poor in the world and we will continue to do that. We will never ignore our " duty" to help the world.
The UN has a hisotry of being markedly anti USA
so why would you get all warm and fuzzy for the UN Now?
 
did you read the text of the actual bill? none of your stuff is in it.

and the 0.7% is something the US agreed to do 35 years ago. why should we not want to honor our own pledge?
 
Geex Louise Do NONE of you people read?
IN obama's bill does it reference the UN Millennium Declaration?
why yes, yes it does. did any of you read the UN declaration his bill would tie us to before you righteously started with the sniping?
His 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.
If you read the declarastion it also lists the treaties that must be signed and it gives authority to the UN to ban small arms and light weapons. do I thinkthis would happen overnight . NO but it is one slippery slope I don't want to stsandf on top of

But you people keep on insisting we would be giving up any control to the UN and keep on with your petty insults

I did notice among all your insults NO ONE explained why they thought it was OK to surrender billions of our dollars to UN control. I'd be anxious for someone to explain why that is a good thing and why it is a good thing the UN can force the US to sign treaties.
let's not confuse the USA's policy of helping poor countries with what this bill does. That is something we have always done and will continue to do.
I am just not for msurrendering anymore sovereignty to the UN has shown over and over to be anti American.
Why are any of you?
I did not know this story had gotten out onto talk radio but thank goodness it has. thanks for letting me know. I am glad all you Dems listen to it
 
Show us again where this bill requires the US abide by the entire Millennium Declarations.

The bill deals with some of the GOALS that are outlined in the Declaration...but in no way does it mandate the US to follow all the Declarations.

Also, since we, the USofA, pledged 0.7% 35 years ago, why do you have a problem with actually coming through on that pledge?

We should either deliver what we promise or not promise something we can't deliver. Perhaps it would help our image.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Johnny
you posted. "and the 0.7% is something the US agreed to do 35 years ago. why should we not want to honor our own pledge? "
That is an excellent question, why haven't we for 35 years?
I am sure you agree the USA gives foreign aid every year, right?
so why wouldn't we allow the UN to force us to give it?

doesn't that kind of question nag at your attorney mind? there have been what 7? Presidents in that time Dem and Repub. so why didn't the USA EVER follow through?
 
I don't know about others here, but one of my major concerns with Obama is that he will continue to give over more power to the UN. I can't say I have any knowledge of any specific legislation, but I can say I that I believe the US should resign our membership from the UN, and we should no longer allow them to meet in NYC.


PS I am tired of people who are in the UN buildings in NYC and claim they are on UN soil and not US ground. Makes me sick.
 
maybe y'all are willing to think this- taken from the4 text of obama's bill- "and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal " does't mean we are to be tied into something that we have refused to honor for 35 years
but I am not> give me proof this doesn't mean we aren't now tied into the declaration.
BTW
this is what Jeffery Sachs says, notice the use of the word Force?
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

If 7 presidents and who knows how many partisan congresses ( but we know for sure some of them were Dem) refused to let the UN force this on us there MIGHT be a GOOD REASON, don't ya think?
are you even willing to consider this might not be good for the USA?
 
Johnny M
YOu posted >"actually, no. you give us proof that this in any way mandates that we follow all of the declarations."
UH? I did not write the bill
The use of the phrase in Obama's bill should give pause to ask least ask the question.
biggrin.gif
OES this bill committ us to accepting UN contro as outlined in the Declarationl?
don't YOU think that is a reasonable question to ask?

and then YOU ask me why we , USA, have not once in 35 years dollowed this declaration and allowed the UN to FORCE us to give them 0.07% of our GNP? You are the one who said we should be " honoring our agreement" right?
so if YOU think we should have been under UN control for 35 years but we were not
gee wouldn't YOU be the one to wonder why not?
I am happy we have not put our nation under their control
YOu are the one thinking we should " honor" it

one last question
would You be ok with being USA under UN control on this declaration?
 
I remember well the sociology prof I had in my frosh year who said that if we each tried to empathize with all the misery in the world, we would all collectively go insane.

By that definition, Barack is insane.
 
I like how Horn67blahblah hasn't listed a single source this entire time.

"I HEARD IT ON TALK RADIO MY GOD IT MUST BE TRUE!"
 
For those complaining there are No links

Here is the text of the bill S -2433 which a simple google would have proided BUT that would deprive you of accdusing me of only listening to talk radio or reading right wing sites
The Link
this bill passed committee yesterday

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.

sp does does saying the President shall do all this include asdhering to the un Achievement of Millennium Goal ?

I have an issue with the USA giving its' entire amount of foreign aid to the UN to control. Actually this also would mean we'd have to increase the amount of money we give just to reach the 0.7%
here is the full text of the Un Declaration

The Link

Again I ask WHY it enrages so many of you that I question exactly what this bills means?
OR do you just trust the gov't to make the right decision and then trust the UN to control and use our money wisely?

.
I why the USA through 7 presidents have chosen NOT to be part of this declaration ? Is it simply that they were all wrong and now obama is doing the right thing. AS if all 7 presidents and congresses chose not to without some reason.
Why wouldn't anyone want to know why?

This has nothing to do with our role ih helping poor nations. We have . We should . We will
The personal attacks are rude and signal an amazing willingness to lash out at the one asking the questions instead of wondering what questions should be asked.
For anyone who finds reading my posts tiresome. ain't free speech grand, that same free speech that allows you to NOT read my tiresome poorly written posts

Now Off to Waco
 
your quoted text is from the 'strategy" section, which does absolutely nothing, legally. the actualy mandates and "action" parts of the bill is what people should be analyzing.
 
2 things:

1) I would love for the US to do something about global poverty. 1% of gdp seems fine to me (and I'm going to be the one paying the tax so whatever) I'd love to be a force of good in the world

&

2) If it has anything to do with the United Nations I think it's a total and complete crock of ****. Those shitbag, dictator loving, corrupt, raping, pillaging, murdering, degenerate scumbags shouldn't get a frigging red cent from us, we might as well piile the money up and burn it.

jmo
 
Scott
SO that button on the first page of mylink that said"
READ FULL BILL TEXT meant nothing to you? Really?

This is from the first page of the FULL BILL TEXT:
"
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. "

is this still a summary? does the usage of the word REQUIRE mean anything?

I am asking, I do not know BUT I also do not want a bill passed that we later learns requires the USA to cede control of our money to the UN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top