Quote:Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
Posted: February 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"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," Obama said. "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. ...

He's got Electrolytes and he's gonna fix the Conomy

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
Posted: February 14, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"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," Obama said. "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. ...

He's got Electrolytes and he's gonna fix the Conomy

I oppose any and ALL foreign aid...It is immoral to take money out of anyones pocket and give it to others.
I do support charity and free market solutions to poverty.

Obama is ultra liberal...His record speaks for itself...This proposal is sheer insanity...Just where does he think this money will come from to fund this?

What a freakin joke... A republican bitchin' about someone's spending proposals. Where was the outrage when the Bush administration TOTALLY BLEW out the freakin budget? You two are like Flynt and Hef bitchin about a rated R movie because it showed too much skin. It's a total joke. The republican's better attack something else besides spending proposals or they'll be laughed out the freakin door in Nov. They have ZERO.... ZERO credibility when it comes to this stuff. GG has the better tack.

Get on Obama for the left of naral.

Get on Obama for wanting to give illegal immigrants driver liscenses.

Stop feeding from the party trough and see the light. Eiither party controlling all the bodies of govt. is bad. The country has taken a major left turn and the Democrats are favored in all the races. Hell they could even get to fillibuster proof 60 in the senate. You noticed all the R's retiring from the house. It's not fun being out of the majority. If this keeps up I'll start volunteering and contributing to McCain.

By races I meant in increasing their lead in the senate, house, and taking the white house.

Machiavelli Wrote:What a freakin joke... A republican bitchin' about someone's spending proposals. Where was the outrage when the Bush administration TOTALLY BLEW out the freakin budget? You two are like Flynt and Hef bitchin about a rated R movie because it showed too much skin. It's a total joke. The republican's better attack something else besides spending proposals or they'll be laughed out the freakin door in Nov. They have ZERO.... ZERO credibility when it comes to this stuff. GG has the better tack.

Conversely you b!tched and cried to the rooftops about it, yet you have no issue with this.

Hypocricy cuts both ways Mac.

I'd much rather see the money going back into our infrastructure and economy then into Iraq's economy (not to even mention the fraud and no bid contracts) and Tax Cuts.


The most bang for our buck. Try allocating some of that to developing an alternative energy resource.

I just passed over the type above and didn't even read it. I just back slapped the idea. Try getting your news from a different source other than a Limbaugh or Worldnet daily web sites. They're trying to make Obama the boogeyman and your tripping over your tongues lapping it up.

The next Worldnet exclusive:

Obama wants to date your teenage daughter! Seriously!

Machiavelli Wrote:The next Worldnet exclusive:

Obama wants to date your teenage daughter! Seriously!

What, you don't believe it because it came from WND?

Machiavelli Wrote:The next Worldnet exclusive:

Obama wants to date your teenage daughter! Seriously!

Is that a spinoff of Bill Clinton wants your teenage daughter to blow him??

Is that a spinoff of Bill Clinton wants your teenage daughter to blow him??

AAC!!

Starr's investigation. If the RNC had any standard of ethics they would reimburse the treasury 100 million. I know that's north of the investigation, but it's a nice neat number and it's probaly a tenth of 1% of the value Ken Starr has been to them. No add campaign. All movements pale in comparison. It truly is the gift that keeps on giving. I'll be 80 and still hearing blow jobs blowback from Clinton. The main characters all paid a price in the tawdry theatre, but the producers have been raking it ever since.

Machiavelli Wrote:Is that a spinoff of Bill Clinton wants your teenage daughter to blow him??

AAC!!

how are you doing with that ABK stock?

I've been in and out.

I currently have 500 shares of MBI and 200 shares of ABK. I'm up 7 dimes on the sector. Thinking about cashing out and going into agricultural commodities. In particular Mosaic. There a phosphorus play. It's the ingredient in fertilizers. I'm looking to see what oil does in the next two months. If it stays high farmers will plant more corn for ethanol. If oil falls below 80 they'll plant beans and you don't need as much fertilizer. That's my thinking right now.

Just bought 50 shares of Mosaic GG. Right after I typed that 2 you CNBC had a guy talking about Potash in an inflationary environment. 101.90, It jumped 50 cents right after I bought it. Fate mon frer'.

I got a little bit I need to put in something, bought a small amount of ABK couple weeks ago, down about 50 bucks right now...trying to decide if its going to tank or hold out for it to hit atleast 15/share...don't want to be a bag holder, right now I'm glad I didn't talk myself into risking alot on it.

I got in for 100 at 13.62 with ABK. Bought 200 at 8.50. My high point was 2000 shares of MBI. I sold the majority of it in the 15's. Problem is I got back in with my current 500 in the 13's. I think I'm just going to keep both my positions long. If they are down graded I might buy more. If they keep AAA this will be a 25 dollar stock tommorrow. I think we will know alot in the next 2 weeks. If they never write another policy MBI should have the value of 30 dollars a share. When I first got into this sector MBI was worth 45 dollars a share in a run off. With the recent dillution to Warburg Pincus to raise capital the value has been hurt. I'm long. I do have a limit sell at 17 for my 500 with MBI. I'm riding the ABK out. It could pay for my kid's education if it goes back to the levels of pre-sub prime crisis. BTW remember if there is any fraud by the banks in the CDO's sense. MBI and ABK won't have to pay a dime. The banks could be the ultimate bag holder. I do think there is a possibility of that.

Machiavelli Wrote:I'd much rather see the money going back into our infrastructure and economy then into Iraq's economy (not to even mention the fraud and no bid contracts) and Tax Cuts.


The most bang for our buck. Try allocating some of that to developing an alternative energy resource.

The infrastructure is badly needed too. Not like giving billions to Israel every year. I think they can afford to buy our weapons and have enough of an economy to sustain themselves. This only keeps up the tension in the ME. Investing in Africa can thwart the spread of Islam extremists throughout the continent but making life better.