Global Poverty Act S.2433

I think it is funny that nobody has even mentioned the economic consequences of this. At least when the money is funding wars overseas, it is sent to American companies producing military equipment with American employees. I'm not saying I agree with the war, because I don't, but just flushing that money out of our economy through foreign aid would be disasterous economically for our country. The dollar has been flooding the foreign exchange market for a long time now because of our trade deficit and just dumping over $850,000,000,000 more into it may be just enough to cause a global collapse of the dollar. For anyone to support this would be the same thing as supporting the collapse of the US economy.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Again - take the empty hands and go knock on OPECs door.

OPEC OPEC OPEC OPEC
Not America.

May I add that many European countries enriched themselves through hundreds of years of colonialism of these poorer nations.

Many European countries carved up lands without thinking of the different ethnic groups. Easy example. The reason why Iraq has three different factions is not because of Bush, or Saddam, or American corporations but because the British didn't think that the differing ethnic groups was a consideration.

The Europeans created most of the world's problems, I say they should be the ones paying for it.

I always frond these political threads funny. People want desperately t o believe that there would be some fundamental way to characterize the idea in a light either to speak ill of some party or candidate.

This is not what it appears. First of all the idea of 'extracting' wealth from the American economy to make the U.S. pay it's fair share is ludicrous considering this is not ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT (yet).

Our fair share is whatever we, as a sovereign nation of free people say it is, no more. There is no measure by which the GLOBAL COMMUNITY can make such a determination for us, unless we AS A NATION agree to surrender our money (and sovereignty). NOTICE that a 'TAX' based solution eliminates the RIGHTS of the people to object because, as a tax, it will fall under the fiat control of the IRS (not a federal entity). And the financial 'holding' entity will be the Fed (not a government agency either). We all KNOW how transparent they are.

Also, notice that the TAXES thus collected are not specifically controlled by the US. They are surrendered to an outside, foreign agency for disposition (the U.N.). Further, since these are TAXES, we are agreeing to establish a de facto precedent that our income is partially to be assessed and withheld for a beneficiary not of the United States - when did that become part of the Democratic agenda? The fruits of our labor will be further divided as 'property' of a foreign agency. (Can anyone say "hey Obama, your CFR agenda is showing" ?)

You know, this nations VOLUNTARILY, via public groups, already gives at a very generous level. You'll see no television ads of a guy holding an Baltimore inner-city child who's dad just got put away in the slammer for eight years for selling pot, saying "This poor guy has no one to take care of him, we will get him to school, dress him, make sure he has doctor care, and a safe place to live" like you do for the foreign kids. You barely see the media calling attention to the 60,000 American citizens living in tent-cities outside LA. Nor the Louisiana catastrophe anymore.

I would suggest making the Super Citizen corporations pay the tax. They are the one's killing and exploiting those people on a global scale anyway. No wait! They'll just be allowed to 'pass the cost' onto us, as always.


By the way, Who get s this money? How long is it held in interest bearing accounts? Who 'earns' the interest? Where does the money get sent and to whom., exactly? Would it be used as a diplomatic tool? A carrot to make other countries abide by 'larger desires?' What if the country isn't a subscriber to the Codex? Oops, no aid for your starving and suffering? We want military bases on your land, NO? No aid for you. We want you to accept the 1.9 million refugees from your enemy next door, NO? Fine - go hungry. Open your borders or starve.

This list of tricks goes on and on. Why give this kind of leverage to the UN in the first place? What more are we expected to surrender? Care to guess?

Whomever you vote for will be the final nail in the coffin of the empire.


At $120 a barrel and with so much debt caused by the wonderful useless and fake wars of Georgy W. Bush, there is no other way for the US, but to go down and forever.

Let´s face it, having dollars is to import inflation, and countries will avoid dollars like the plague, which means that the dollar will eventually find its true value: NOTHING!, which eventually you will pay for imports a lot more that the nothing you currently pay for imported items.

The problem with America is this: You grew accostumed to get things almost for free, and you spit on those who fed you, clothed you, and provided you with everything you needed: The third world. America is accostummed to live in comfort, on credit, and working a lot less than any other nation. The time has come to get leveled. In the future, America has to work like the rest of the world: Work harder, and still go hungry.

America has got to wake up and smell the coffee. No politician will be able to solve what you have done in the past.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The problem with America is this:

The problem with America is this: we have to put up with anti-american drivel and whackadoos who don't understand international economics.

Bu-bye.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by johnsky
I don't think anyone's saying "Fund the poor through higher taxes."

Obama is. That's exactly what he's saying.

If you want less of something - tax it.
If you want more of something - subsidize it.

He's wanting to tax the hell out of us working Americans and he wants to send all that money overseas (instead of into our own economy) and subsidize the poor.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I think it is funny that nobody has even mentioned the economic consequences of this. At least when the money is funding wars overseas, it is sent to American companies producing military equipment with American employees.
...
For anyone to support this would be the same thing as supporting the collapse of the US economy.

What is sad is that many of the Obama Heads actually believe that when their saviour becomes Prez, everything under the Sun will be free, free, free.

On the bright side, the sooner we get our next Jimmy Carter, the sooner we'll next have our next Ronald Reagan.

Personally I wish currency didn't exist at all. Sadly (for me at least,) it does. Since it does, I also wish that I had more direct influence on how my country's leaders choose to (and are allowed to) spend it. I don't, though. Since I don't, if I had to choose (which I'm not allowed to unfortunately,) I'd rather be paying billions in the hope that death and misery might be somehow averted or ameliorated, than paying billions for a war which I neither believe in, support, nor perceive any fruit in thus far.

As always however, this is a personal opinion. I understand where others are coming from too. I understand not wanting to be forced to spend hard earned income on something without any input or option to spend it in other ways. This is only what I'd choose to do with my money, given the choice, since it still exists for now.

It sure would be nice if the economy let us have a vote in it the way the political system purports to. (Whether it really does or not is a matter of conjecture at this point, in my opinion.)

HONESTLY, what is MONEY going to do for these helpless countries?

If America really wanted to do good, we would stop WARS, and instead send our troops out to get these starving people farming or something. Show them how to farm the land. Make them self-sufficient instead of just throwing money that we dont have, at the problem.

Really, maybe they just need some *snip*ing PLOWS and vegetable SEEDS? Who the heck is denying these people fruit and vegetable seeds?!?!?!?!?!

I take it that NOBODY has read this bill S.2433... and if they did, then they clearly didn't understand ALL of it!

The bill isn't about feeding world hunger ... it's about pushing forward the World Government agenda. Think I'm full of sheit on this??? READ IT!

The bill refers over and over throughout it to the term 'Millennium Development Goals' which are the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration. That declaration would commit the US to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I believe i'm more pizzed off about this bill wanting to disarm Americans and turn the courts over to the UN. This bill is very dangerous for America.

reply to post by thecandyman


What the heck does all this mean??? This bill CANNOT include all of that ?? These might be the last of our "freedoms" we actuall have ?!

Someone clarify. Is this serious? The end of the "American way", as we know it?

reply to post by thecandyman


www.abovetopsecret.com... Here is a discussion on this bill that already exists.

What would this bill do to help the American people? We could use those billions of dollars to help fight poverty in our nation. If the government really cared about people they would address the peoples needs in their own country. This money is going to be wasted on over-inflated products and would have little effect in the world. At this point i don't see a difference in the Democratic party or Republican party. They both claim to be different, but there both going to BANKRUPT this country. Whether it is ridiculous spending, like this bill, or endless wars. People need to start looking past the party and look at the candidate.

On a side note, I think it is sad that lately you can't read a thread without having to read 10+ posts of back and forth bickering. It takes away from the discussion and is pointless.

There was another thread on here while back that talked about the disarmament angle. I'm looking for the link right now.

The disarmament isn't mentioned specifically in the Global Poverty Act, but the GPA is linked/attached to another treaty by the UN which would disarm US citizens along with making us answer to the UN. When the GPA passes, the other passes too.

I'm sorry, but I've been searching and searching. I even flagged the thread. I cannot find it at this time. But it didn't have this in the title, it was something about Obama and the UN because Obama was going to sign the treaty when he gets into office. There are pages and pages of threads in the search I did and I must not remember the title well enough for key words because it's bringing up all kinds of stuff I'm not even looking for. Maybe someone else here remembers the thread I'm talking about?

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Jessicamsa]

Here's a thread about his being opposed to hand guns. Still looking for the thread I typed about.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Jessicamsa]

I happen to not disagree with most people here in saying that I dont think its our job to feed or police the world so to me I think this bill is a waste of money. With that being said if you put it into perspective its over 13 years which is 65 billion a year. Do you know how much money we are giving the banks this year on all the money we borrowed to spend? 450 billion this year alone or 22% of the governments revenue to support the good old banking industry. So I say to myself well we gave 450 billion to the FED owners and China banks so why not give a little to help the people who cant feed themselves....

Once again my opinion is get rid of fed and quit paying all that interest and quit policing the world and feeding it but when you put it into perspective there is another picture to look at.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

America is accostummed to live in comfort, on credit, and working a lot less than any other nation.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on ATS. We may lag behind communist Korea in hours worked per year, but the USA is absolutely no slouch where working is concerned.
www.yoursdaily.com...
www.swivel.com...
From this Americans work on average 1,800 hours per year, a figure that internationally speaking means we only work significantly less than Korea (who logged an astonishing 2,350 hours a year), Greece, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Mexico. We compare about equally with Italy, Japan, and New Zealand, and we utterly blow away most of the western European nations like France, the UK, Sweden, and Norway. We even work a week and a half more than our friendly neighbor Canada.

www.shorterworkweek.com...
The US is the only developed "free" nation on Earth with absolutely no government mandated paid days off for its workers. Compare that with France, who's workers are required by law to recieve 30 paid days of personal leave per year or Belgium who also gets the 30 personal days plus 13 government mandated paid holidays.

So take your "Americans are used to working alot less than any other nation" and cram it, because there is absolutely NO truth to your statement.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Bird this is the ONE time I agree with you...ONE time so soak it in...the Americans work harder than any European nation. We dont get August off and 3 months vacation no we all work 40 to 60 hours a week to make ends meet. That statement is crazy sorry I just disagree..We have become lazy but not when it comes to work.

And when we work that hard, we deserve to keep our hard earned money.
Obama 's marxist 'redistribution of wealth' plan is not fair.

For any who think that the Trilateral Commission does not steer our legal system, this topic was brought up in their lApril meeting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
Sounds good to me. I'll gladly pay to help the brown people rather than bombing them.

That is a cool thing to say. I think Obama's plans are not only good for us in the US, but could help out the rest of the world , too.

He admits he isn't perfect, but will do his best to steer us in a better direction.
I think thats good, he is honest with us. I am not on the Ron Paul bandwagon, seems like a guy with good values, honesty, but I see an inability to lead. I like how he publicly speaks about neo-cons, but he will not win the election, and if you vote republican you're basically voting for another Bush term. At least thats how I see it.

As far as spending all this money goes, we've spent so much in Iraq, why not help out some people? What about creating millions of new jobs? I think if we boost our own economy, take care of our own we will be able to help out, which makes this Global Poverty Act sound not too bad.
If we can afford to help more, we should. Lead by example right?