U.N. Sec-Gen: “Obama To Sign International Agreement To End Global Poverty”

This is a final push for the UN's post 2015 treaty goals. They all sound so altruistic till you start looking at the implementation details.

This is where the animals take over the zoo. They have been putting things in place, wrapping them in beautiful words of "peace and security", stirring up the wildings, creating diversions, and now the power grab will go forward.

The only problem is that the animals cannot manage anything! Brace for chaos and a big money and power grab. Those that have will now become the have nots, and the have nots will take, spend, lose it all, and go bankrupt.

How about ending poverty at home first?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

But every time Obama or the UN says they are going to do something it NEVER turns out like they say its going to....

Never? That's quite an absolute statement. Can you provide examples?

Lets look at past history of these two before we jump on board with the Rah Rahs and lauding them as saviors.....

I don't believe anyone is lauding anyone else as a savior. That's absurd to even suggest. I will say that I like the premise and it's obvious that some changes need to be made. While I may like the idea, I can still wait for more info to come out before I completely support it.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


Ahh yes , MANDATE charity......thats a good idea.......

Take what other people have at the point of a gun or through other nefarious means.......

This is the standard operating procedure we currently have, only it benefits the wealthy.

The current system is designed to benefit the wealthy and has been for a very long time, why not adjust the system to benefit more people??

If we had a fairer system that benefits more of the people you might not be needed at the soup kitchen.

a reply to: introvert

LOl u are so naive. That is the sell SLOGAN, we all know it's some diabolical plan to unite the NWO or some treaties that will put America at a disadvantage.

It's amazing to me that all one needs to do is use the proper buzzwords, and many will just sign right up.

There are plenty of ways to solve, actually solve, problems such as these. It's shocking to me that anyone would still believe organizations like these are working towards the betterment of humanity.

I guess it does make sense in a way. When the masses simply wait for solutions to be passed down from the top, it's not likely any other ideas will be entertained.

Of course, if you are wary about things like this or Agenda 21, you are probably a baby eating, racist, bigoted simpleton.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: introvert

LOl u are so naive. That is the sell SLOGAN, we all know it's some diabolical plan to unite the NWO or some treaties that will put America at a disadvantage.

I'm naive? Ok, I find that to be humorous, especially when you're the one talking about some 'diabolical plan to unite the NWO". There is not a NWO plot that can be proven to exist. Who's naive?

Also, I only said that I like the premise and will wait to pass complete judgement until the details come out. Wouldn't that be the reasonable position to take, or should I automatically cower in fear that the NWO socialist regime is coming for me and my family, and Obama will lead them towards the new communist era?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Yeah, because it is obvious over the last 6 years that Obama has the interests of the 99% in mind.

Ending poverty? Piece of cake. Look no further than the Georgia Guidestones and the ideas on population reduction. Wipe out 6.5 Billion people and poverty is pretty much a thing of the past. Heck, even Monsanto might pitch in on this one for Obama and the UN.

End poverty= End middle class

Redistribution of the middle classes pensions, bank accounts, and wages/salaries to raise the "Poverty Class" to "Lower Class", and as a result, the "Middle Class" joins the lower class.

Woohoo the end of Poverty!

/sarcasmoff

On another note, dome pretty interesting language used in the announcement, that made me raise an eyebrow.

"It further prevents eradicating poverty without breaching planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009, Gerst et al. 2013)." 

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: borntowatch

This isn't about fixing people, it appears that this is about resource allocation, income and wealth disparity and other issues.

Can you not agree that these issues need to be addressed?

That wasnt my point, of course the issues have to be addressed but by greedy politicians like Obama who earns squillions and others of his ilk

It seems the greediest most evil money grubbing power hungry people on earth are politicians and you think they are going to let anyone touch there amassed wealth.
that is silly in my opinion, they will come after the middle classes money and make us all poor

I read that about 99% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population, are they going to be the ones to give it up

NO CHANCE AT ALL

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Knowing how some in the UN act and feel, maybe they plan on killing off 6 or so Billion, that should "eradicate" poverty.

The masses are like little kids, selfish and self centered. No one wants to give anything to anyone unless it somehow benefits them. We figure that no one ever helps us, so why in the hell should we help anyone else?

Our species has a LONG way to go before some kind of global wealth-redistribution can be implemented. We're just not mature enough or ready for it.

We can't even decide who can/can't get married or who should/shouldn't have to bake a cake for someone.

originally posted by: introvert
There are many things that can be done, and I'm glad that we may begin that process. Again, we have to wait and see what happens.

originally posted by: introvert
Sounds good to me.

Coming together and working out a plan to combat hunger, poverty and other problems we face......count me in.

So you are both OK with the idea "mandatory purchases" and guaranteed minimum welfare? Because that's the only way to eradicate "poverty" in our current economic system, which WILL mean ONLY basic food, clothing and shelter for the middle and lower classes, no more, no less. Be assured that it will NOT mean adequate healthcare and stable employment, with wages that keep up with inflation for the working classes.

Remember this is America, we have no labor protection, no union representation and no access to collective bargaining.

Both consumers and employees, in the United States" will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory in some way. "Click-Wrap Agreements" and a cashless society will make that transition easier for the "Owners of Capital" to force on the general populace.

Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implement legislated purchases on a large scale. "Click-Wrap Agreements" coupled with a cashless society will only strengthen similar policies in the future.

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the "owners of capital", can and will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time or some scheme involving a "negative interest rate". When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy, in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc, one day, they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season (the current Healthcare dependent, Flexible Spending Account, FSA, is just the pilot program, one day we will have an FSA for ALL goods and services, and you can bet they will be use-it or lose-it). Also, since you won't own these new "digital cars" or "digital media" that means you could be billed for "damage to the vehicle or product" from the "real owners" at any time.

You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties" or other method (cashless, digital currency,, negative interest rate, deductions from bank accounts whenever the "owners of capital" see fit). A cashless society, dominated by "click-wrap agreements" is the easiest way to structure "forced purchases" into the larger economy. Another scenario in the future is when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon, etc, to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).

a reply to: introvert

Never? That's quite an absolute statement. Can you provide examples?

Not going to play your game of splitting hairs.......just like in other threads........you know exactly what I mean and I stand by my statements........

Anyone with a lick of sense can look at the UNs records and see this......you just like to argue...

I don't believe anyone is lauding anyone else as a savior. That's absurd to even suggest. I will say that I like the premise and it's obvious that some changes need to be made. While I may like the idea, I can still wait for more info to come out before I completely support it.

Do as you wish and ill keep my skepticism...........at least some of us learn from past mistakes.......

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


Ahh yes , MANDATE charity......thats a good idea.......

Take what other people have at the point of a gun or through other nefarious means.......

This is the standard operating procedure we currently have, only it benefits the wealthy.

The current system is designed to benefit the wealthy and has been for a very long time, why not adjust the system to benefit more people??

If we had a fairer system that benefits more of the people you might not be needed at the soup kitchen.

A fairer system? Whats more fair then working hard to get where you want to be?

Im aware that there are many many unfortunate cases of homelessness in the world.....

one of the reasons im sympathetic, and also very critical? I was homeless once.....Lost my job, lost my house....a rapid series of events that left me out on the street, I didnt even have a car to live in.......

What I didnt do was stay there, I made sure the clothes I had were clean, I put myself in a shelter, I found a job at a Goodwill store, and I fought my way back.......

I now own my own business and provide very well for my family........

And NO ONE will take that from me or them........

ive been that poor guy on the street, so when people try to get on a soap box with me I laugh.......

The system is broke in many places yes, but wealth distribution is not the answer.........

We have a work ethic problem in this country, I saw ALOT of that when I was on the street and in the shelter.....

As to the rest of the world, there are definite conditions that need to be taken care of to help them out, because their situations, in places like Africa, cannot be fixed with hard work because theres none to be had, and I agree we need to figure out a way to do that.......

Wealth distribution will not fix that.........

Again, while Obama and the UN lil show sounds nice, Ive learned from experience from both entities, to not trust what they say, because more often then not it turns out exactly the opposite.......

Figure out how to fix the issue here first before tyring to do it somewhere else

a reply to: boohoo

I think you're looking in to this too much and should wait to see what is proposed before you go to far the "it can't be done" rabbit hole.

So you are both OK with the idea "mandatory purchases" and guaranteed minimum welfare? Because that's the only way to eradicate "poverty" in our current economic system

There are many things that can be done to help with hunger and poverty.

For example, we could stop corporations from taking resource-rich lands from people in other nations. That would allow them to control the resource and profit for their communities.

We could also stop subsidizing ethanol that we use to dilute our gasoline, and instead send those resources to nations that need the food. And we could stop these senseless wars that destroy lives, communities and their lands.

We have options, but to say that there is only one way to go about doing something is very shortsighted. Again, all I'm saying is let's see what they propose. It's not like we have much of a choice other than to wait.

originally posted by: introvert
I think you're looking in to this too much and should wait to see what is proposed before you go to far the "it can't be done" rabbit hole.

For example, we could stop corporations from taking resource-rich lands from people in other nations. That would allow them to control the resource and profit for their communities.

We could also stop subsidizing ethanol that we use to dilute our gasoline, and instead send those resources to nations that need the food. And we could stop these senseless wars that destroy lives, communities and their lands.

We have options, but to say that there is only one way to go about doing something is very shortsighted. Again, all I'm saying is let's see what they propose. It's not like we have much of a choice other than to wait.

Since these options are currently available, why haven't the "Owners of Capital" stepped up and just done it already? The first reason why they have NOT, is, as I said, because of our current economic system. Without changing that, FIRST, no change can actually occur. Its not a "rabbit hole", its an ACTUAL HOLE, that we are all living in.

LBJ made the same declaration and promise for the US 50 years ago. How's that working out?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Not going to play your game of splitting hairs.......just like in other threads........

Asking for proof of what you claim is splitting hairs? I see. Just like in other threads, you make absolute statements and when asked to provide evidence to support those claims, you deflect and say things like "you're splitting hairs".

I thought one of the main principles of ATS was to back-up your words and not just throw crap at the wall. Perhaps I was wrong.

you know exactly what I mean and I stand by my statements........

Yes, I know what you mean. I just believe you didn't think about it before you said it. It's a "mouth acts before the brain kicks in" sort of thing.

Anyone with a lick of sense can look at the UNs records and see this......

Indeed. I have looked in to quite a bit of the UN's action and that's why I'm puzzled at your statement. Many, many UN programs have worked-out as intended and designed. So when you say they NEVER work out as intended, I become confused and worried that you didn't actually do any research in to the topic. But anyone with a lick of sense can look at the records.

Did you not look at the records?

you just like to argue...

I do love a debate, especially with those that are easy to pick apart because they like to just make stuff-up as they go.

Do as you wish and ill keep my skepticism...........at least some of us learn from past mistakes.......

What part of your position is skeptic. You are automatically rejecting it outright. My position aligns better with a skeptic view as at least I'm waiting to see what is proposed before I make a decision.