Looking at the text of the "Global Poverty Act of 2007", it says right up front, that according to the Wold Bank, one billion people subsist each day on the equivalent of 1 U.S. Dollar, and that another 1.6 billion people live on 2 U.S. Dollars each day.

I'm not talking about poverty, and I'm not even referring to the legislation (all it does is "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": Mr. Obama could do that himself, if elected President: he wouldn't need the Act in question to do what it calls for), I'm interested in the fact that so much of the world's people live thier lives each day, on less than 2 U.S. Dollars... it's food for thought, not about poverty in the world, but about greed in the U.S., that so many of us have such a mad desire for a standard of living so high, and so beyond the simple needs of food and shelter, that it probably can't even be imagined by almost half of the world's people. The acquisition of wealth, and the incessant growth of the U.S. economy, are things we have just naturally incorporated into our political thoughts, and into our National Policy: look at how the U.S. economy is presently discussed in this presidential campaign: you'd think we were all hungry and homeless, the way people talk about our economy... all those billions of people in the world, getting by (however hungrily or without shelter) on less than two bucks a day, they must think us insane the way we complain about wages and prices in America: wages those people must think to be great, even at their minimum of $7.50 per hour ("why at that wage, I could live for a week on just an hour's pay" is what a billion people in the world could say), and prices we gripe about for things that those billions of people can't get at any price, like fresh fruits and vegatables, and fresh milk and other dairy, and fresh meat and poultry and fish... Americans aspire to more than just that: we aim madly at a standard of living hardly imaginable by most of the world's people, and we make that standard a matter of National Policy, and complain bitterly if our economy doesn't grow and grow larger and larger, to dwarf all the world's little countries and little hungry people. I hate hearing the economy brought into our political discourse presently... it just reminds me of how truly wealthy both it and we are, but also of how selfish and complaining and greedy we speak and act, politically.

 -- the bill does not impose a tax or allow any other body to impose a tax on the United States. Further, the bill would establish no specific funding source and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending. -- mmfa

Corsi is incorrect in stating that Obama has called for a tax to pay for the funding of the UN plan...but he was accurate in claiming that Obama's plan intends for the U.S. to spend the additional $845 billion.

mmfa tries to deflect the real intention with the word-smithing about Obama  not proposing taxes on the American public to support this initiative. Obama is just like the majority of gutless politicians today on increased spending...hell just spend it.

Don't worry about offsetting new spending with tax increases or reduced spending elsewhere...just authorize it and don't worry about going deeper into debt.

This is not a partisan argument...democrats and republicans alike have spent shamelessly while pandering to the public. Pres.Bush cranked up the printing machines to send everyone free money this summer and now Obama is proposing the same thing...only larger.

The wild-eyed spending and political huckstering has got to stop. This is not about Obama proposing...or not...taxation to pay for his bill. It's about support of the initiative...or not.

Obama supports the UN initiative and it's his responsibility to prove how we are going to pay for it...because his bill "clearly" proposes and supports that we increase our spending on foreign aid to the UN on this global initiative.

 

mmfa tries to deflect the real intention with the word-smithing about Obama  not proposing taxes on the American public to support this initiative. Obama is just like the majority of gutless politicians today on increased spending...hell just spend it.

What are you babbling about?  Obama has said that he will raise taxes on those of us making 250K.

And Mccain has not ruled off the table a payroll tax increase. i heard him say that. I have been predicting someone will have to stave off this massive spending spree GW Bush has this nation on. I was only wrong predicting it would come after GW leaves office and he can just sit there at his ranch and eat chips and salsa, with some beer. I think the next White House occupant is going to have to make some courageos choices that will undoubtably cost him the secong term.

AND THAT TAX HIKE WILL NOT PAY FOR 1/10th OF THE PROGRAMS OBAMA WANTS TO SPEND MONEY ON.  THAT's BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE MAKE $250,000.

It's about 2% of all taxpayers.  Even if you could impos a 100 percent tax on these people you would not have enough money.

Wesley is exactly correct Obama needs to explain where he gets the money.  Saying he gets it from taxing those at 250K does not cut it. 

The top 2% are drowning in money. This is an application of the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism: a rich person is still rich after taxes.

Don't pretend that spending cuts balanced the budget in the 90s. Spending cuts never (and never will) rise to the level of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The bulk of the budget (defense, social security, medicare, interest on the debt) can't be cut at all (defense can be cut, but it's political suicide).

The budget was balanced in the 90s by taxing the rich. And guess what, the rich were still rich enough to invest, create jobs, open new factories, and all that.

 -- Don't pretend that spending cuts balanced the budget in the 90s -- steeve

Ok I won't...but here's my obligatory shot at the democrat philosophy on budget restraint. When the republican majority in 1995 proposed a balanced budget amendment in the House...129 democrats opposed it...2 republicans opposed it.

In the senate...34 democrats opposed it...0 republicans opposed it...and that pretty well matches your contention about democrat's fiscal responsibility on spending.

On the revenue side...since the 1940's the federal treasury receipts have increased over the terms of every administration...hell, they even grew under the Carter administration.

The federal revenues have endured and expanded through both tax increases and decreases...yet today we are faced with ever more bloated expenditures on mandated entitlement spending...which we cannot sustain...unless they are reformed.

While not proscribing to your Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism...I can support some compromise on taxation. But what I cannot support is the continued runaway spending by our irresponsible government.

Here's an interesting take on the economy and taxes from Obama's own website...titled "Bush Senior Was Real Reason for 90's Economy Success":

 -- We all know there wasn’t much difference in how America did when Bill Clinton was President and how America’s done under President George W. Bush.  George Herbert Walker Bush was a much better President than both and actually laid the real economical/political groundwork for the 90's success.  After the newly established security from the war, and various actions to get the deficit down and economy in order for his second term, his actions lost him an election but served the greater good, America.  He put the country before himself and never took credit for the success of the 90's. --

Yep, I know the old saw "Liars figure and figures lie" and the issue can be debated endlessly...all supported by analysis and charts. So I'll just boil it down to this...the federal treasury has always produced enough money to operate a responsible government...including social engineering programs that I don't necessarily agree with.

A $3 trillion dollar budget is damn sure enough money...spending by feckless and gutless career politicians must be curtailed. I would even support responsible tax increases but unfortunately I don't see a way to curb the out of control spending unless we reduce the allowance we send to congress every year.

It's sad and shameful that our elected leaders appetite for spending can only be stopped by slapping their hand every time they reach for the cookie jar. 

 

Your (and every other conservative on this board's) #1 blind spot here is not seeing how small the pie piece "government waste" really is. Eliminating waste is cool, but it doesn't impact the big picture. Every penny of social security simply must be paid, and more will be needed every year. Every penny of medicare must be paid, and more will be needed every year. Every penny of defense must be paid until the republicans promise in writing not to trash the patriotism of the person who cuts it. Compare the cost of the "bridge to nowhere" with one year's deficit.

If you support a balanced budget, you need to either locate $400 billion of actual money in a single year to eliminate, or you must choose the class of people it is most morally right to raise taxes on.

I don't want to ramble much on your other topics. I'll point out the 0 republican votes in either chamber for Clinton's 1993 budget and the predictions of disaster if it passed. And I'll point out that George HW Bush's deficits grew all four years, ending in the largest in history.

 -- locate $400 billion of actual money in a single year -- steeve

Even a blind man could spot your strawman...support for a balanced budget does not mean that it has to happen in one year.

We can, however, balance the federal budget over the course of a few years. History has proven that federal revenues will increase year over year regardless of the party in office...producing an ever larger "pie".

Couple that with reducing govt. waste, rigorously vetting of all new expenditures (like Obama's stand on the UN's poverty initiative) and the budget can be balanced in a few years. While I don't believe higher taxes are necessary...I would be able to support some small, responsible tax increases if that's what it takes to get congress to reform their irresponsible spending habits.

What I can't support is your tenet that taxes should be based on morality. That is classic liberal socialism...even a blind man recognizes that. 

It's not a strawman. Expenses rise with revenues because both rise with population. You can't balance the budget by cutting less than the deficit.

Suppose you're going to raise taxes by $200 billion. Do you raise it on the rich, the poor, or everyone? Sorry, but that's a moral decision.

Wesley's not telling the truth, and Media Matters has already debunked his argument back on 2/21/2008.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210011

There are several UN Millennium Project Goals. One of them is an effort to reduce poverty worldwide. That was the goal from the UN that Obama's bill mentions. Another goal was to have nations around the world commit 0.7% of their GDP to fight poverty. Obama's bill doesn't mention that at all. We wouldn't be committed to any level of support by this bill, contrary to Wesley's allegations. Wesley states that Corsi "was accurate in claiming that Obama's plan intends for the U.S. to spend the additional $845 billion." Nope, he wasn't accurate. He was 100% inaccurate!

The person who supposedly did the research on this? Cliff Kincaid, notoriously from the Accuracy in Media(AIM) site. The person who promoted this false finding by Cliff Kincaid? Rush Limbaugh, another serial liar.

Need I say more? You owe us an apology for bringing up an already discredited talking point as though it's fact, Wesley. I think you might have been confused by the fact that there are multiple initiatives by the UN - that's no excuse for lying though.

here is what i found on this Corsi personality

Bio

Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles and is an expert on political violence and terrorism. In 1981, he received a Top Secret clearance from the Agency for International Development, where he assisted in providing anti-terrorism/hostage survival training to embassy personnel.

On March 17, 2005, Dr. Corsi helped found and launch the Iran Freedom Foundation, a non-profit educational and charitable organization established to educate the public about the Islamic Republic of Iran and to promote freedom in the region. The IFF is made up of American and Iranian scholars, professionals, philanthropists and human rights advocates who have joined together to support the rights of the Iranian people. Dr. Corsi is a principle founder of the IFF and will serve as a primary spokesperson for the organization.

There is much more on Mr Happy, Corsi...I guess he is just trying to appease certain Iranians and then convince them to overthrow their government. Make Ollie North will lead the charge with Seannie the Sissy at his side.

Wesley, nice try. Got to give you credit. As usual, attack the Dem but later on throw in the charge that it is not only the Dems... Why not start with the Republicans once in a while and then throw in the Dems?

This election may equal the Little Big Horn. I am not a fan of one party controling everything but it looks like that is the desire of the Cons, not the Republicans. Then the Cons can start working on 2012 reminding the Republicans that they should have listened to them.

The House version of the same bill-- H.R. 1302: Global Poverty Act of 2007 -- sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith, cosponsored by 84 Representatives, including some Republicans was passed on Sept 25, 2007.  The House collectively deemed it such a non-partisan, non-controversial issue to support this commitment made by none other than GEORGE W. BUSH on behalf of America, that it was passed in the House of Reps by voice vote without even a debate, and even the record of the votes was not preserved.  

Which raises the question, why did the exact same bill become such an explosive issue as soon as the Republicans and it corporate propaganda machine realized in January 2008, more significantly following Obama’s victory in the Iowa primary, that he was indeed a potential threat to them in the 2008 Presidential election? And why in heavens name is Obama, not Bush and his party members, not the ones responsible for promising to spend the American people’s money in foreign lands?  All that S.R. 2433, sponsored by Obama and cosponsored by 23 senators (including the same number of Republicans as its House version) does is simply reiterate America’s commitment to global poverty that Bush promised the world.  Bush did so in the interest of promoting democratic freedom, economic opportunity, and human rights in the interest of global security against terrorism and to promote the G8 mission to eradicate poverty through market liberalization.  In other words, S.R, 2433 was not Obama’s construction – all this legislation does is remind America about her commitments already made by the Republicans and for which the bill will come due in just 7 years.  It’s about time we started budgeting for that due date before the collectors come knocking! 

So, the questions S.R. 2433 should raise among voters are whether Bush and his grand party are now caught in yet another failure to deliver on a promise?  Are Americans willing to continue in the hypocrisy and double talking of the past 8 years, simply talk up “patriotism” “moral values” and “honor” OR will the citizens be true patriots and possess the moral values and honor to redeem their country and restore her core values of honor, truth, and justice that continue to be shamefully and brazenly corroded by blatant liars exploiting an ill-informed majority by misrepresenting Obama’s policy position, assassinating his character, and scoffing at his accomplishments.

And so the swift boating of Obama by the media, as it did against Kerry, has already begun since January. EVERY negative spin against Obama to date has come from this very same media – why should we expect any less effort going forward for this corporate media to steal the election?  Once again NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and of course FOX have been mainstreaming lies against Obama ever since January, and dismissing his accomplishments by a glib, “his resume is paper thin” narrative.  Even the line of public airwaves has been breached!   Therefore it is up to citizen-reporters to work furiously to take back “free press”!  Read on and spread the truth because the corporately corrupted media will certainly not. 

President Proposes $5 Billion Plan to Help Developing Nations

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020314-7.html#