# News Obama's Global Tax Proposal $845 billion Tags: 1. Jul 31, 2008 ### B. Elliott This is the last thing the US needs to be worrying about. When he said that he's wanting to better relations with other countries, how did I know that it would also end up costing the US money for these 'improved relations'? This man is going to tax us to death. Obama bill:$845 billion more for global poverty
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

2. Jul 31, 2008

### B. Elliott

Also, while it is a nice gesture, I think we already have enough problems here at home that need to be worked on.

3. Jul 31, 2008

### Jimmy Snyder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_poverty_act" [Broken]

Which provision of the bill are you complaining about?

Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
4. Jul 31, 2008

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
That amount is taken over 13 years.

After spending over a trillion dollars to invade the wrong country [oops], how does 65 billion a year compare?

The Republicans have proven to be the biggest spenders in history.

5. Jul 31, 2008

The entire bill it's self. The US is already providing aid to foreign countries, which is fine by me, but I don't agree that we need to spend $845 billion to support a global 'welfare' system... whether it's over one, ten or twenty years. Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017 6. Jul 31, 2008 ### B. Elliott Comparing it to the cost of 'invading the wrong country' doesn't relate. Vietnam cost the US$584 billion. The Korean conflict cost the US $295 Billion. It's already cost us a lot, so lets spend more! More, more, more! Because hey, it's small compare to that other bigger expenditure! 7. Jul 31, 2008 ### B. Elliott How about we put that$845 billion into the US educational system over a 13 year period? I'd agree with that move.

8. Jul 31, 2008

### edward

9. Jul 31, 2008

### mheslep

Big foreign aid to eliminate poverty projects are a mistake, or at least difficult in the extreme to make effective instead of harmful, and there is ample data showing development aid on the average does harm as Sen. Obama should know. What is needed is economic reform, not aid, which is why the recent collapse of the Doha round is a disaster - no matter to either pandering candidate AFAICT.
— William Easterly, The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good

Why does this happen? Example:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb88.pdf, Pg 7.

Edit: aid vs growth in Africa graph attached.

#### Attached Files:

• ###### aid vs growth.png
File size:
40.3 KB
Views:
131
Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
10. Jul 31, 2008

There is no mention of $845 billion, no mention of$8.45 billion, no mention of $8.45. http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1302:" [Broken] The article you linked to is full of lies. Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017 11. Jul 31, 2008 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor The source of the$845 B seems pretty clear to me, jimmy....what part didn't you get?

12. Aug 1, 2008

### Jimmy Snyder

What part did you get? I posted a link to the bill. Here it is again.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1302:" [Broken]
It requires the US to develop a strategy. It mentions no deliverables except two reports. Show me the money.

Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
13. Aug 1, 2008

### Staff: Mentor

The explanation was pretty lengthy. Should I copy and paste the whole thing? Did you read the article? The short versison is the bill would require us meet the "Millenium Development Goals", which call for .7% of our GDP going toward poverty reduction. From there, the math isn't very difficult... Did you see that part of the article and bill? Are you just being catty here or did you really see it and not understand it?

Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
14. Aug 1, 2008

### Jimmy Snyder

No. I read the bill. There is no mention of 0.7% of anything.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to say I hadn't read the article, just that my comments all along have been directed toward the bill, not the article. The bill does not commit us to do anything except come up with a strategy and submit a pair of reports. The US is already a signatory to the Millenium Development Goals.

Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
15. Aug 1, 2008

### Art

The UN Millenium Development Goals did not specify any amounts of GDP from any country. It simply outlined what the targets are. The purpose of the Global Policy Act was to put pressure on the president to develop a strategy to help deliver the goals the US signed up for in 2000.

The individual 'rich country' target of .7% GDP by 2015 was agreed not at the UN but at the Scotland G8 summit in July 2006 so far from being a 'new tax' Obama's stance is simply a reaffirmation to stand by what has already been agreed to by Bush.

16. Aug 1, 2008

### Jimmy Snyder

None of what I have written so far gives you a clue as to what I think about the goals themselves. Here they are:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/goals.html" [Broken]
I have not read this document fully, I am only interested in the first bulleted item in the first goal:
Without clarification, this goal is ridiculous. Here are some points to consider:
1) The amount $1 is arbitrary. 2) The drop in the value of the dollar in the past year has probably gone a long way toward achieving this goal without improving anything. 3) It is much easier to achieve this goal by helping only those who live on more than 50 cents a day than by helping those who live on less. It encourages us to help the richest of the poor. But why should I break a sweat over giving a penny to someone who has 99 cents? 4) People who live on less than a dollar a day have nonmonetary sources of income. Will these be held constant while the monetary source increases, or will these people end up paying for the dollar they get? 5) Are we going to stand on street corners in Darfur and hand out dimes? The dollar a day issue is not the biggest thing on Darfurian minds. Those dimes will only end up in the pockets of the Janjaweed. Anyone else care to pile on? Are there any other goals that are ridiculous? Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017 17. Aug 1, 2008 ### Art Jimmy, I think you're interpretation of the first goal, to reduce poverty, is a little too literal. It is not a matter of handing out the difference each day between what a person makes and$1. The principle behind the goal is to develop 3rd world economies to a point where people have jobs resulting in rising income levels thus lifting people out of abject poverty.

The $1 a day is indeed entirely arbitrary but chosen primarily as a slogan more for it's impact on 1st world citizens than for any specific economic reason though in the absence of any better metric it is also a useful measure of whether poverty trends are improving or disimproving. Most people would be horrified at the idea of having to live on$1 a day and it is that sense of horror that the folk leading the drive to combat global poverty are trying to harness to garner support for aid programs. If the UN were to launch an anti-poverty drive based on detailed explanations of GDP PPP etc... people's eyes would quickly glaze over as they fell asleep whereas the dollar a day is a simple and catchy slogan.

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2008
18. Aug 1, 2008

### chemisttree

Not to worry. I'm sure that if we all just inflate our tires and tune up our cars we can more than pay for it.

19. Aug 1, 2008

### WarPhalange

Pay for what?

20. Aug 1, 2008

### BWV

The industrialization of China and India will likely half the number of people living under \$1 a day without us doing a thing.

I have yet to see a single thing published by World Net Daily that is not riddled with distortions and inaccuracies.

The best thing the West could do to alleviate global poverty is to abolish agricultural subsidies, something Obama, the agribusiness senator from IL is very unlikely to do.