Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Obama's Global Tax Proposal $845 billion

  1. Jul 31, 2008 #1
    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

    Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2008 #2
    Also, while it is a nice gesture, I think we already have enough problems here at home that need to be worked on.
  4. Jul 31, 2008 #3
    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
  5. Jul 31, 2008 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  6. Jul 31, 2008 #5
    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
  7. Jul 31, 2008 #6
    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!
  8. Jul 31, 2008 #7
    How about we put that $845 billion into the US educational system over a 13 year period? I'd agree with that move.
  9. Jul 31, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  10. Jul 31, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
    http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/can%20foreign%20aid%20buy%20growth.pdf [Broken]

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  11. Jul 31, 2008 #10
    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
  12. Jul 31, 2008 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The source of the $845 B seems pretty clear to me, jimmy....what part didn't you get?
  13. Aug 1, 2008 #12
    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
  14. Aug 1, 2008 #13


    User Avatar

    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
  15. Aug 1, 2008 #14
    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
  16. Aug 1, 2008 #15


    User Avatar

    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.
  17. Aug 1, 2008 #16
    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
  18. Aug 1, 2008 #17


    User Avatar

    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
  19. Aug 1, 2008 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.
  20. Aug 1, 2008 #19
    Pay for what?
  21. Aug 1, 2008 #20


    User Avatar

    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.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook