Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Global Poverty Act would require the U.S. 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,........."
I'm trying to wrap my brain around the above wording. How do we accomplish these things - develop, implement, promote and eliminate - WITHOUT allocating any funding?
Well, that's the catch.
When the bill was first introduced (in the House, and therefore NOT by Obama), there was no corresponding request for funds. I have NO clue what source, if any, the OP looked at when taking about billions and billions of dollars for this.
About 9 months after the bill was introduced in the House, Obama introduced it in the Senate. I don't know the political affiliation of every U.S. Senator, but of the 30 Senate co-sponsors right now, there are at least a couple of Republicans, and I suspect the same is true of the 84 House co-sponsors.
If this bill passes Congress and is sent to the President ... well, if it's sent to Bush, he'll veto it. If it's sent to Obama, I would think he would sign it. But in signing it, he then has to develop the strategy and then implement it. I would assume that this would involve some funding, and Obama would have to request such funding from Congress.
However, this all goes back to last year. If, given the Wall Street bailout and the economy in general, this endeavor would mean substantial funds, I doubt neither Congress nor Obama would be in any hurry to proceed with it. We have more than enough fiscal problems right here at home to worry about right now.
When the bill was first introduced (in the House, and therefore NOT by Obama), there was no corresponding request for funds. I have NO clue what source, if any, the OP looked at when taking about billions and billions of dollars for this.
About 9 months after the bill was introduced in the House, Obama introduced it in the Senate. I don't know the political affiliation of every U.S. Senator, but of the 30 Senate co-sponsors right now, there are at least a couple of Republicans, and I suspect the same is true of the 84 House co-sponsors.
If this bill passes Congress and is sent to the President ... well, if it's sent to Bush, he'll veto it. If it's sent to Obama, I would think he would sign it. But in signing it, he then has to develop the strategy and then implement it. I would assume that this would involve some funding, and Obama would have to request such funding from Congress.
However, this all goes back to last year. If, given the Wall Street bailout and the economy in general, this endeavor would mean substantial funds, I doubt neither Congress nor Obama would be in any hurry to proceed with it. We have more than enough fiscal problems right here at home to worry about right now.
every program he suggests is very expensive and he does not understand economic issues at all! our country cannot afford a spending crazy president. he got the bailout through, even though the public protested, so he might get the global poverty act through under a democratic congress. he might try for the world debt forgiveness bill again as well. you cannot say with certainty that he will not do it!
by the way, if there are republicans backing this global poverty 850 billion bill they need to go as well!
Last edited by floridasandy; 10-17-2008 at 01:45 PM..
this bill proposed by obama would cost taxpayers as much as the proposed cost of the bailout! (although we know that the bailout will cost substantially more when implemented since they have already run out of their initial money!) do we really need to spend 845 billion (or more) to fight global poverty now when our own country is in so much trouble??
what about taking care of americans first!
Why are you still saying that Barack Obama designed and pushed the bailouts? You've said that in other forums, too - why?
The Global Poverty Act "simply asks for a refocusing of resources toward this goal, not new spending, essentially mandating more efficiency and focus in meeting this huge problem. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year. It would, therefore, take 8,450 years for the Global Poverty Act to spend the money the RNC claims it would spend."
by the way, if there are republicans backing this global poverty 850 billion bill they need to go as well!
The Global Poverty Act passed in the House last September and by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last February, both unanimously - that means by every Republican member. You'll see why in the second para. of this interesting conservative take on it:
However, the facts are somewhat more mundane. The text of the bill, HR 1302 RFS that has been approved by the House and sent to the Senate, contains no spending provisions. Section 4 of the bill, as currently written, requires the White House to develop a "comprehensive strategy", with "measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables". There is no specific language that requires anything besides generating some documents.
In short, the measure is completely toothless and illustrates Obama’s supposed commitment to "ending global poverty" as nothing other than smoke and mirrors - a fact that should disappoint many Democrats. This is something that legislators can sign on to, and later advertise their poverty-ending efforts to their constituents. The Global Poverty Act is nothing more than a piece of paper that demands other pieces of paper.
- conservative pulse.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
every program he suggests is very expensive and he does not understand economic issues at all! our country cannot afford a spending crazy president. he got the bailout through, even though the public protested, so he might get the global poverty act through under a democratic congress. he might try for the world debt forgiveness bill again as well. you cannot say with certainty that he will not do it!
Obama's not going to seize the reins in January and start dictating a lot of "crazy" spending. He and Biden both have said that in this economic climate many plans made back in the palmy days will have to be scaled back, postponed or abandoned.
Last edited by delusianne; 10-17-2008 at 02:37 PM..
every program he suggests is very expensive and he does not understand economic issues at all!
Huh??? I've provided links that will lead you to the actual bill, and the bill contains NO funding. How in blue blazes can you say how expensive it will be, assuming it ever comes to fruition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
by the way, if there are republicans backing this global poverty 850 billion bill they need to go as well!
Again, the actual bill says NOTHING about funding.
Please provide a link that shows this "850 billion" that you keep taking about. Or did you just make that up?
It is important to support and alleviate poverty around the world so they don't care of America first. The seeds of poverty produce the roots of terrorism.
Right. There are alot of homeless Arabs walking around
It is important to support and alleviate poverty around the world so they don't care of America first. The seeds of poverty produce the roots of terrorism.
Sounds like something from a comic book.
Please feel free to elaborate. I'm way over 14 so Yoda-esque blurts without any substance are not going to make me bow in awe to your sage wisdom. I want facts and examples.
Arab and or Muslim terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Last time I checked, the Bin Ladens were oil billionaires. It's not even religious though religious fervor has always been a rally useful weapon. It's all political and business. The Arabs don't like the Jews and since we support Israel, they don't like us. Israel was forced upon the Arab world mostly by the Brits but solidly reinforced by the US. We needed a military base and/or a nation of friendlies close to all that nifty oil.
This is one of the main flaws in the average liberal's logic. They tend to sum up all the worlds problems and attribute all the heartaches to poverty. They tend to take an incredibly myopic view of the world and sum it all up with comic book logic. When anyone disagrees, they throw insults much the same as some 6-year-olds. Well, I've got some real sad news for you, poverty is a symptom, not a disease.
Sounds like something from a comic book.
Please feel free to elaborate. I'm way over 14 so Yoda-esque blurts without any substance are not going to make me bow in awe to your sage wisdom. I want facts and examples.
Arab and or Muslim terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Last time I checked, the Bin Ladens were oil billionaires. It's not even religious though religious fervor has always been a rally useful weapon. It's all political and business. The Arabs don't like the Jews and since we support Israel, they don't like us. Israel was forced upon the Arab world mostly by the Brits but solidly reinforced by the US. We needed a military base and/or a nation of friendlies close to all that nifty oil.
This is one of the main flaws in the average liberal's logic. They tend to sum up all the worlds problems and attribute all the heartaches to poverty. They tend to take an incredibly myopic view of the world and sum it all up with comic book logic. When anyone disagrees, they throw insults much the same as some 6-year-olds. Well, I've got some real sad news for you, poverty is a symptom, not a disease.
Get real you know better and know that the seeds of Jihad are rooted in Middle East poverty. The leadership that manipulates may be wealthy but those willing to give their lives are all to often living in poverty and dispair. There has been enough scholarly articles on that, so I have no doubt you know that and are just trying to manipulate thought.
Sounds like something from a comic book.
Please feel free to elaborate. I'm way over 14 so Yoda-esque blurts without any substance are not going to make me bow in awe to your sage wisdom. I want facts and examples.
Arab and or Muslim terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with poverty. Last time I checked, the Bin Ladens were oil billionaires. It's not even religious though religious fervor has always been a rally useful weapon. It's all political and business. The Arabs don't like the Jews and since we support Israel, they don't like us. Israel was forced upon the Arab world mostly by the Brits but solidly reinforced by the US. We needed a military base and/or a nation of friendlies close to all that nifty oil.
This is one of the main flaws in the average liberal's logic. They tend to sum up all the worlds problems and attribute all the heartaches to poverty. They tend to take an incredibly myopic view of the world and sum it all up with comic book logic. When anyone disagrees, they throw insults much the same as some 6-year-olds. Well, I've got some real sad news for you, poverty is a symptom, not a disease.
BBC News | WORLD | Poverty 'fuelling terrorism'
World leaders meeting at a development summit in Mexico have called for increased aid to poor countries to help stamp out extreme poverty as a motivation for terrorism.
"Poverty in all its forms is the greatest single threat to peace, security, democracy, human rights and the environment," the head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Michael Moore, told delegates.
Finally, A Not-So-Bad Bush Doctrine: Poverty Breeds Terrorism
At the confab in Monterrey, Mexico, Bush said the United States would gradually increase its assistance to poor nations by 50 percent--which would mean in several years a $5 billion boost over current levels. "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror," he declared.
Get real you know better and know that the seeds of Jihad are rooted in Middle East poverty. The leadership that manipulates may be wealthy but those willing to give their lives are all to often living in poverty and dispair. There has been enough scholarly articles on that, so I have no doubt you know that and are just trying to manipulate thought.
Actually, I'm not trying to manipulate thought. You're just wrong. There have been many attempts to place blame on poverty but again, poverty is just a symptom and treating symptoms is useless. The world isn't nearly as simple as some would like to believe and there is no magic pill.
I never suggested that the poor and uneducated were not used as pawns, in fact I clearly alluded to that so I'm not sure why you're arguing that point unless you're just having another hissy-fit. The point I'm making is that the poor don't just decide to be terrorists, they are in fact used as cheap and expendable soldiers but poverty isn't the root of that problem. The world isn't a comic book and problems aren't that simple. We can't end world poverty because we have finite resources and there's simply not enough for everyone. Do you really want to end world poverty? I'd suggest you figure out how to sustain a fusion reaction. That would be unlimited virtually cost free energy and the whole world could quit their day jobs. It would be great for awhile.
We all want that cool idealistic world where there's enough for everyone and everyone lives in peace but there are only two ways to do that, Increase the amount of stuff (impossible at this time) or drastically reduce the number of people (that's a pretty high price to pay for an end to poverty). However, even if we had unlimited stuff for everyone, it still wouldn't end war and terrorism and greed because greed is part of our survival instinct and it's hard wired in to every animal on the planet, including humans. We all want more and are willing to hurt others to ensure our survival. The sad reality is that the problems of the world are unsolvable.
BBC News | WORLD | Poverty 'fuelling terrorism'
World leaders meeting at a development summit in Mexico have called for increased aid to poor countries to help stamp out extreme poverty as a motivation for terrorism.
"Poverty in all its forms is the greatest single threat to peace, security, democracy, human rights and the environment," the head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Michael Moore, told delegates.
Finally, A Not-So-Bad Bush Doctrine: Poverty Breeds Terrorism
At the confab in Monterrey, Mexico, Bush said the United States would gradually increase its assistance to poor nations by 50 percent--which would mean in several years a $5 billion boost over current levels. "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror," he declared.
Argue with world leaders including Bush.
Are these sources supposed to add credibility to your argument?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
