Senate Bill 2433 - Obama's Global Tax

[Tigermike 3,053]

A bill from Barack Obama which commits the US to paying a Global Tax to the United Nations.

February 19, 2008

Obama's Global Tax

By Lee Cary

Senator Barack Obama's sponsorship of Senate Bill 2433 aligns with the emerging core theme of his general election campaign. The change he promises will bring much-needed relief, not just to America's victims of economic injustice, but to victims worldwide.

On December 7, 2007, Obama introduced the Senate version of the Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433). On February 13, the bill cleared the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on which Obama and 6 (Biden, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Lugar, Menendez) of the bill's 9 co-sponsors serve. The House version of the bill (H.R.1302) passed by a unanimous voice vote last September 25.

Here's an abstract of the proposed legislation:

"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 [u.N.] 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."

If enacted, how much of a financial commitment would that represent to taxpayers?

One estimate is 0.7% of gross national product, or an additional $845 billion over 13 years in addition to existing foreign aid expenditures. So far, this proposal is barely on the MSM radar, but we're likely hear more about it as a full Senate vote approaches.

Here's how Senator Obama's website frames the bill:

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere." (emphasis added)

In other words, other nations will like us better if we give them our money. And, our trade agreements should not be about business profit, but benevolent social action.

The Global Candidate's sponsorship of the Global Poverty Act thematically aligns with the oft-told story of his life as a child of international parents, as well as with his elliptical juxtaposition of hope and change. He not only offers hope to his U.S. audiences, but to poor children, workers, and small farmers across the globe. George W. Bush's grand theme of spreading democracy globally evolved after 9/11. Obama's grand theme is to spread America's wealth to the world's poor, as the onetime community organizer from the streets of South Chicago goes global.

The species of hope that Barack Obama preaches is a first cousin of disappointment. He speaks to his followers as though they are victims, and it resonates with them because victimhood is a latent element of their collective self-image. Most of the younger ones in his audiences face historically unprecedented educational and vocational opportunities. Within the reasonable grasp of their individual initiatives is a future that is the envy of most of the world's youth. Yet they look longingly for someone from the government to offer them hope.

He says, "It's not too late to claim the American dream," and they cheer wildly, and some even cry.

Don't they know that the American dream isn't a wish granted by a politician, or an entitlement from the government? Do they need a political seer to tell them what to hope for, and dream of, because they are unable to find it for themselves?

In his most recent victory speech, delivered in Madison, Wisconsin on February 13, Obama named some of those guilty of creating America's victims. They included:

Exxon, turning record profits from high pump prices;

Wall Street, whose agenda smothers Main Street;

NAFTA, where the American worker has no voice at the negotiating table; and

Lobbyists, who drown out the peoples' voice.

At the end of the list, he did what he will do for the next eight months if he is the Democrat nominee: he linked John McCain to Bush-Iraq and the past, while he, Obama, is the future. How do you debate a self-proclaimed personification of the future?

Those who feel like victims want the guilty exposed and loathed. In Texas, the Obama campaign is airing radio ads where their candidate claims that "some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year." The claim may be literally accurate, in that "some" need only be more than one. It does make an emotional appeal to fairness, but the math doesn't work. In 2005, the combined income of the CEOs of the 500 largest U.S. companies was $5.1 billion. Their average pay for 10 minutes work, based on a 40 hour work week, was $961.50. The minimum wage yields an annual salary of about $12,000. Sure, the gross disparity between CEO and average worker pay is a valid issue. And, for a relatively few CEOs and other mega-earners like Oprah Winfrey, top professional athletes, and major Hollywood movie stars, Obama's claim may be mathematically accurate. But as a blanket assertion, it's a level of derogatory rhetoric that only works when adulation kills critical thinking.

In the days ahead, the Global Candidate will cite multinational corporations as the leading exploiters of the world's poor, with Wall Street's favorites leading the pack. He'll call for America to spread its wealth abroad, rather than its weaponry. He'll summon us to dispatch across the globe the young workers of the Peace Corps, instead of the young warriors of the Marine Corps, as lions lay with lambs, and we beat our swords into plowshares.

All the while, the adoring crowds will grow larger, and more will cry.

"Hope is a good breakfast, but a bad dinner." Sir Francis Bacon

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the...e_proposes.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

"economic injustice " ???

[Tigermike 3,053]

"economic injustice " ???

You will need to ask the dims on the board, I really don't understand all of Obama's Socialist Lite BS.

[lukeduke 8]

I'm waiting on runinred's explanation

[Tigermike 3,053]

I'm waiting on runinred's explanation

He is ignoring me as well as the truth. Either that or he has to get a rebuttal from his masters.

PS - I know this has only been up for 20 + hours but the dims are silent on this aren't they? Would that be crickets?

Crickets?

[arnaldoabru 11]

I'm sure the article must bea acccurat, it comes from a right wing magizene( it quotes from a Wisconson vitory speech given"Feb 13".)

Anyway,2 Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill.Where's the outrage?

A similar version passed in the House.Co-sponsored by 3 or 4 Republicans(including your own, Spencer Baucus)

During the voice vote in the House not a single "no" vote was heard.

Where were all the fiscal responsible Republicans during the vote? Oh I know they were helping to find the missing 9 BILLION Dollars in Iraq.

[AURaptor 1,126]

"economic injustice " ???

You will need to ask the dims on the board, I really don't understand all of Obama's Socialist Lite BS.

'Injustice' implies a wrong doing, or tort, done by one party onto another. It also presumes a perpitrator and a victim. Then there is also the issue of intent. Obama's bill seems to be laying the ground work for basically accusing the US of intentionally causing 'economic injustice' on the poorer nations of the world, when facts are quite the opposite. I have to think that there are ways in which we could help the poor in the world w/ out falsly laying the burden of blame on us, an innocent party to the situation. I dare say, were the roles reversed, those other nations would be doing far less to help us out than we've done to help them.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm sure the article must bea acccurat, it comes from a right wing magizene( it quotes from a Wisconson vitory speech given"Feb 13".) - What does a right wing magazine have to do w/ anything ? And why the "Feb 13" in quotes ??

Anyway,2 Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill.Where's the outrage? - They aren't running for President ? Does that take away from the content of the bill ? No, it does not.

A similar version passed in the House.Co-sponsored by 3 or 4 Republicans(including your own, Spencer Baucus) - Wow...3 or 4 Republicans, out of how many ? 200+ ? Wooooo!!

During the voice vote in the House not a single "no" vote was heard.

Where were all the fiscal responsible Republicans during the vote? Oh I know they were helping to find the missing 9 BILLION Dollars in Iraq.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I'm sure the article must bea acccurat, it comes from a right wing magizene( it quotes from a Wisconson vitory speech given"Feb 13".) - What does a right wing magazine have to do w/ anything ? And why the "Feb 13" in quotes ??

Anyway,2 Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill.Where's the outrage? - They aren't running for President ? Does that take away from the content of the bill ? No, it does not.

A similar version passed in the House.Co-sponsored by 3 or 4 Republicans(including your own, Spencer Baucus) - Wow...3 or 4 Republicans, out of how many ? 200+ ? Wooooo!!

During the voice vote in the House not a single "no" vote was heard.

Where were all the fiscal responsible Republicans during the vote? Oh I know they were helping to find the missing 9 BILLION Dollars in Iraq.

The article says Feb 13 victory speech in Wisconson.Wasn't the Wisc. primary Tues the 19th.

A right wing magizene which is slanted(very heavily) toward the right wing agenda.

There are not 200+ members on a committee.

The whole bill actually has a lot of stuff.Maybe you should read it rather than relying on some right wing rag sheet Hile Hitler

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

Save the insipid Hitler references. They only make you look incapable of intelligent debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[channonc 466]

It's nice to see you just take the word of some article as opposed to actually reading the text of the bill.

No where in the bill does it require a "global tax." But requires the Secretary of State to develop a strategy with the objective of reducing global poverty and writing a report that is submitted to Congress on the strategy. I have included the text of the bill, as introduced. The only amdt in Committee requires the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator to oversee and draft the global poverty reduction strategy report and would make technical changes to the bill.

S.2433

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.'.

(14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote 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.

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.

(B ) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

© Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:

(1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

(d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

(B ) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:

(i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).

(ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving 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.

(iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving 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.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B ) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

[CCTAU 3,345]

It's nice to see you just take the word of some article as opposed to actually reading the text of the bill.

No where in the bill does it require a "global tax."

Tomaytoes....tomahtoes. Who the hell is gonna pay for it inthe end? We are. This is just one step closer to allowing the UN to have more control over the US. If we let the UN get one foot in the door, it will try to rule us instead of us being a member. Any dealing with the UN should be done in a cautious manner. Achmed Obama (as all dims) seems to have a real comfort dealing with them. The actual wording may not be there, but if you are smart, you can always see the intent.

[channonc 466]

It's nice to see you just take the word of some article as opposed to actually reading the text of the bill.

No where in the bill does it require a "global tax."

Tomaytoes....tomahtoes. Who the hell is gonna pay for it inthe end? We are. This is just one step closer to allowing the UN to have more control over the US. If we let the UN get one foot in the door, it will try to rule us instead of us being a member. Any dealing with the UN should be done in a cautious manner. Achmed Obama (as all dims) seems to have a real comfort dealing with them. The actual wording may not be there, but if you are smart, you can always see the intent.

Don't you realize we already give money to the UN? Also, do you not understand that this legislation is supposed to only be a follow up to a commitment we have already made to the UN?

Again, I don't see where this legislation is embarking on anything new. Giving to the UN in support of reducing global poverty is already a US policy.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm sure the article must bea acccurat, it comes from a right wing magizene( it quotes from a Wisconson vitory speech given"Feb 13".) - What does a right wing magazine have to do w/ anything ? And why the "Feb 13" in quotes ??

Anyway,2 Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill.Where's the outrage? - They aren't running for President ? Does that take away from the content of the bill ? No, it does not.

A similar version passed in the House.Co-sponsored by 3 or 4 Republicans(including your own, Spencer Baucus) - Wow...3 or 4 Republicans, out of how many ? 200+ ? Wooooo!!

During the voice vote in the House not a single "no" vote was heard.

Where were all the fiscal responsible Republicans during the vote? Oh I know they were helping to find the missing 9 BILLION Dollars in Iraq.

The article says Feb 13 victory speech in Wisconson.Wasn't the Wisc. primary Tues the 19th.

A right wing magizene which is slanted(very heavily) toward the right wing agenda.

There are not 200+ members on a committee.

The whole bill actually has a lot of stuff.Maybe you should read it rather than relying on some right wing rag sheet Hile Hitler

The victory speech was held in Madison , Wisconsin, celebrating the victories in D.C. , VA and MD The Wisc. primary was coming UP, and had not taken place yet.

You didn't read the article or follow the available links, so you ASSUME the magazine is slanted. It wasn't, it gives just the facts.

There are 198 Republicans in the House, my bad. I never said 'committee'. Big deal that a bill is co-sponsered by 3-4 Republicans.

The bill says, in part...

United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, jb]shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy [/b]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.

Which is code for spending $$ to get the job done.

Hile Hitler ?

What's that even suppose to mean???

[MDM4AU 336]

I'm sure the article must bea acccurat, it comes from a right wing magizene( it quotes from a Wisconson vitory speech given"Feb 13".)

Anyway,2 Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill.Where's the outrage?

Luger and Hagel aren't exactly emraced by most Republicans.

A similar version passed in the House.Co-sponsored by 3 or 4 Republicans(including your own, Spencer Baucus) During the voice vote in the House not a single "no" vote was heard.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

Canada Free Press

IMO, I think it quite stupid to vote for anything to do with the UN without knowing what it's about.

[MDM4AU 336]

Something stinks about this bill. It appears to tie in too close with the UN.

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration. The declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and commits them to the Kyoto Treaty among some actually worthy treaties and causes. It establishes the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.” REALLY? Sounds kind of nutty to me. Seriously. Especially in light of some of the things the UN sees as "good" and "acceptable."

The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending and add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. The only way to raise that kind of money, according to the head of the Mellinum Project, is through a "global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels." And when we all go to cleaner fuels, then how do we fund this? It's like a smoking tax to get people to quit and to fund "X" project. How are you going to fund it when the plan works and Americans stop smoking.

I got most of my information today from the Canada Free press article I sourced before but I have read it other places, too.

I think foreign aid is a great thing, especially considering all that we as American have. But I don't know that this is the way to go about it.

Maybe someone can sell me on this better than everything else I've read.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Godwin's Law:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

Save the insipid Hitler references. They only make you look incapable of intelligent debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Hitler I know....Who the hell is Mike Godwin?

[arnaldoabru 11]

It's nice to see you just take the word of some article as opposed to actually reading the text of the bill.

No where in the bill does it require a "global tax."

Tomaytoes....tomahtoes. Who the hell is gonna pay for it inthe end? We are. This is just one step closer to allowing the UN to have more control over the US. If we let the UN get one foot in the door, it will try to rule us instead of us being a member. Any dealing with the UN should be done in a cautious manner. Achmed Obama (as all dims) seems to have a real comfort dealing with them. The actual wording may not be there, but if you are smart, you can always see the intent.

Helicopters,flying overhead,.....anyone,anyone....

[autiger4life 3]

Oh no Oh no helping those who are extremely poor. NOOOOOOO!!!! I understand that a lot or people don't trust the UN and I don't necessarily either, so if that is why you don't like it fine. But if it because we are giving money to people who live on less than a buck a day then I don't agree with that. As a Christian I believe I am called to help those in poverty and those who are less fortunate than I am and I will do it with a smile on my face.

As far as the paying people so that they will like us, its not a new concept. Bullets for Dollars is one example. We really do it all the time. Oh, and if you haven't heard the Geiko commercial, if you want friends giving away money isn't a bad idea.

[Tigermike 3,053]

As a Christian I believe I am called to help those in poverty and those who are less fortunate than I am and I will do it with a smile on my face.

Nothing wrong with that thought.

So you are OK with this bill demanding and obligating everyone to this great Christian give away program? Will the atheists, agonists and secular progressives all step up and be for this Christian program?

If you would actually read something rather than knee jerk condemnation you might learn something. MDM4AU provided some useful information that didn't come from one of those pesky right wing web sites you and Obamaboy condemn so quickly.

Have you bothered to check out what the United Nations Millennium Declaration is all about and what the consequences would/could be? Here I will even give you a link.

Maybe if they had used some of the UN oil for food money for the betterment of mankind rather than to fill up their pockets,,,,, no never mind that would have been too grand of a gesture when all they needed was a socialist elected President of the United States.

Something stinks about this bill. It appears to tie in too close with the UN.

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration. The declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and commits them to the Kyoto Treaty among some actually worthy treaties and causes. It establishes the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.” REALLY? Sounds kind of nutty to me. Seriously. Especially in light of some of the things the UN sees as "good" and "acceptable."

The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending and add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. The only way to raise that kind of money, according to the head of the Mellinum Project, is through a "global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels." And when we all go to cleaner fuels, then how do we fund this? It's like a smoking tax to get people to quit and to fund "X" project. How are you going to fund it when the plan works and Americans stop smoking.

I got most of my information today from the Canada Free press article I sourced before but I have read it other places, too.

I think foreign aid is a great thing, especially considering all that we as American have. But I don't know that this is the way to go about it.

Maybe someone can sell me on this better than everything else I've read.

[autiger4life 3]

So you are OK with this bill demanding and obligating everyone to this great Christian give away program? Will the atheists, agonists and secular progressives all step up and be for this Christian program?

See the great thing is that these are just good morals to live by, not a Christian program. Helping those who are in extreme poverty is something that Christians and non-Christians alike feel a desire to tackle.

If you would actually read something rather than knee jerk condemnation you might learn something. MDM4AU provided some useful information that didn't come from one of those pesky right wing web sites you and Obamaboy condemn so quickly.

Have you bothered to check out what the United Nations Millennium Declaration is all about and what the consequences would/could be? Here I will even give you a link.

I agree with about 95% of what your link said, possibly more. I don't see where that showed how terrible this would be for us.

The only way to raise that kind of money, according to the head of the Mellinum Project, is through a "global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels." And when we all go to cleaner fuels, then how do we fund this?

Luckily we decide how to fund it, not them. That is our congress who makes that decision, not someone else. If we deem that to be a terrible idea(which I do) then we can fund it another way. Maybe even by cutting federal spending on frivilous projects. It doesn't have to be a tax, but if it is we can decide what tax it is.

[Tigermike 3,053]

See the great thing is that these are just good morals to live by, not a Christian program. Helping those who are in extreme poverty is something that Christians and non-Christians alike feel a desire to tackle.

So legislating morality is OK if for a good cause. Or just a cause that your side likes?

[autiger4life 3]

So legislating morality is OK if for a good cause. Or just a cause that your side likes?

No see TM, I support legislation that aligns with what I believe in. If it is supported by something God says, or that I feel is best for the country, and then best for people of the world then I will support it. I don't support it just because others might not. I don't base my support on what is popular or if I am afraid that one group won't agree with it.

I support any legislation that I feel is best for the people. I believe that this is best for the people on all sides, it lines up with my morals, and my religon. This is a win-win for me. However, on a practical sense I think someone without my religon or my specific morals can see the cost benefit is in favor of this legislation.

Now we may disagree on what is best for the people, but I think we do both line up with issues based on what we think is best.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I'm not interested in giving my money away to anyone, which is why I voted Ron Paul in the primary election. Foreign aid is another form of thievery where a few are enriched at the expense of many. It's socialist in it's origin.

MCA encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it will force economically devastating "public-private partnerships" in developing nations: if the private sector is to see any of the money it will have to be in partnership with government. There should be no doubt that these foreign governments will place additional requirements on the private firms in order to qualify for funding. Who knows how much of this money will be wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power. The MCA invites political corruption by creating a slush fund at the control of foreign governments.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul180.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

So you are OK with this bill demanding and obligating everyone to this great Christian give away program? Will the atheists, agonists and secular progressives all step up and be for this Christian program?

See the great thing is that these are just good morals to live by, not a Christian program. Helping those who are in extreme poverty is something that Christians and non-Christians alike feel a desire to tackle.

If you would actually read something rather than knee jerk condemnation you might learn something. MDM4AU provided some useful information that didn't come from one of those pesky right wing web sites you and Obamaboy condemn so quickly.

Have you bothered to check out what the United Nations Millennium Declaration is all about and what the consequences would/could be? Here I will even give you a link.

I agree with about 95% of what your link said, possibly more. I don't see where that showed how terrible this would be for us.

The only way to raise that kind of money, according to the head of the Mellinum Project, is through a "global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels." And when we all go to cleaner fuels, then how do we fund this?

Luckily we decide how to fund it, not them. That is our congress who makes that decision, not someone else. If we deem that to be a terrible idea(which I do) then we can fund it another way. Maybe even by cutting federal spending on frivilous projects. It doesn't have to be a tax, but if it is we can decide what tax it is.

Yea, but it should not be by force.