The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

::

C'Mon ... you know you wanted it ... he's your man!

So ... bring all your good news about the great things Obama is doing and how he's fighting hard for WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America.

CHANGE BABY!!!

Here ... let me start.

The nation is on the brink of insolvency , we're borrowing billions from China , the USDollar is in the toilet, people are losing jobs by the 10's of 1000's and our banks look to be a straw away from failure ... but GOD BLESS HIS SOUL the insanely Generous Barack Hussein Obama wants to add nearly 1TRILLION more dollars to the money we already give to other countries to help the poor impoverished children of countries that hate us.

What a fucking genius!
:bears:
=================
Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.



A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.



Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.



The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.


According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.


A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."



The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."



The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).


The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."



In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations 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.



The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.


Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.



The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.



It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.


The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.
Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.



More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."



It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."


Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

• Americans who would like their senators to know what they are voting on can contact them through information at this official Senate site.

 

Oh ... and in case you didn't read that article ... Requires us to basically pay those taxes to the UN.

:bears:

 

???? what?

 

I am getting tired of Osama not addressing the major issues. I think he once said he would be prepared to Bomb pakistan. My guess is he said that so he could be quoted on it when people say he is soft on terror. Of course, Osama is a Jihadist sleeper anyways so it doesn't surprise me he wants to fund his scumbag fellows in shitholes like Egypt and Syria.

 

this is the biggest bit of dirt you have on him?

It seems there are two types of political posters on here, retards and trolls.

 

Biggest bit of dirt ?

This is The OBAMANation thread baby ... this is just todays NEWS!

:clap:

Feel free to post all the good things he stands for ... you know CHANGE!

Economic policies , healthcare , taxes .... C'mon , BRING IT!

Convince everyone how great he is ... cause he's more than just a charismatic speaker ! :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Obama is prolly the best one left..

would you rather Hilary?
McCain?

 

your criticism is that he wants to give more foreign aid? so you guys can cut back on your widescreen tvs and designer clothes, and someone can get some rice?

 

If we didn't buy all those widescreen tv's and designer clothes, sweatshop owners in Korea and Thailand would be going broke right now. :nono:

 

like I said from early on

I like Paul..

but I'm realistic, he does not have a shot in hell..

we have to pick between Obama/Hilary or McCain

 

but a tiny proportion of a tv's retail price is nowhere near as good as giving a larger amount in aid. you cut out the fatcat middle-men.

starbucks lattes, 4x4 cars, a new decor in your kitchen, ... give just half that money to foreign aid and we can save some serious lives.

 

I bet you'd like that rooster.. I bet you'd like us to send you all our money so you can buy rubbers to sodomize piegons with!! sick o

 

Hippie!! You'd rather the children of Cambodia go to school rather then create luxury goods for us for mere pennies? :dunno:

I would die without my IPOD. Can the common Rwandian say the same thing about clean well water? I don't think he rightfully can. :nono:

 

I don't think foreign aid is the priority right now. Obama should focus on the local economy. To put an end to the war, or at least make sure that money the taxpayers "invested" don't change to money "spent" or even worse, "lost".
And to promote laws to save the environment, not because of that "blobal warming" bullshit theory, but to stop deforestation, which is costing us a lot.

 

Aint that the truth ::

Instead it's America going broke. And pretty soon , many will be glad to get a bowl of rice. :doh:

 

More fear mongering from a Ron Paul supporter. Typical.

 

What fear mongering exactly ?

I have posted a bill Obama wants passed. It's a brilliant plan to bankrupt the country and open us up to paying taxes to the world through the UN.

Do you like that ?

 

Like I said before, I'm probably gonna end up voting for the most qualified 3rd party candidate. As an American, I feel it's my duty to vote, but I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary, Obama or McCain. Whoever wins is gonna make a terrible president, and things will get worse before they get better.

I just wonder, if Hillary or Obama win, will the anti-war sentiment switch over to the Republicans. We all know, that no matter what they say, Hillary or Obama will not end the war and bring our troops home. I'd be willing to bet that many of the same people that were for the war will suddenly be against it, and many of the same people that were against the war will suddenly be for it.

TFK

 

^^I was always against the war so I doubt my sentiment will change regardless of whom is president.

 

Ron Paul wants the US to leave the WTO a move that would guarantee the destruction of our economy .

Dont ever EVER presume to talk about another economic plan while being a supporter of a man who want to wreck our economy by leaving the WTO.

 

:eeeek:

 

"The country will be bankrupt unless Paul is president."

"We're giving money to the enemy," when someone wants to give aid to the poor.

"We're going to be shot at if we can't have our anti-aircraft missiles," when someone feels that it's a bit unnecessary and excessive for people to own heavy weaponry especially when you consider the statistics that show a majority of violent crimes involving a weapon, obtained said weapon from someone that bought it legally.(FYI: Ron Paul recieves support from white supremacists. I wonder who they think is doing the shooting.)

"The mexicans are ruining the country," when someone actually comes up with a realistic answer to the immigration issue as opposed to the dumbass idea of building a wall and putting them all in jail. (FYI: Ron Paul recieves support from white supremacists)

"Get the government off our backs," as if the government really wants to hear me order a pizza or their intentions are to do so as many of you point out.


and then of course....


"9/11 was an inside job. The government will kill us at a moment's notice."

"Chemtrails put together by the government will kill us all."

yadda

yadda

yadda

...the fear mongering never ends.

 

Boy oh boy ... you sure like to twist peoples words ... I don't think you got a single point right ::


BTW ... it's not fear mongering when it's true.

The country is going bankrupt. Don't think I ever said the only solution was RP , but I'm sure that's the way you saw it. I'm pretty sure I've said it's a problem that may be unsolvable at this point.

Didn't say we're giving money to the enemy ... though that IS a true statement. The USA give lots of money to what could be called enemy nations. I said countries that hate us which is most of the world these days.

Your next comment about anti-aircraft missiles and white supremacists just doesn't make any sense at all ... so I'm not gonna even bother to try to tell you were you went wrong... The only one that understands that mess is you ::


To be honest ... the rest of what you wrote there made little sense and certainly didn't come from me.

Mexicans are ruining the country? I know I never said that.

The Government issue is true and much more complicated than the idiotic statement that their on our backs and don;t want to hear me order a pizza ... :doh:

None of which is relevant to this thread.

Anything else you want to get wrong ?

Or can we get back to focusing on everything Obama is so great about. :dunno:

 

Yeah, ok buddy. Keep telling yourself that.

You've been doing nothing but fear mongering while promoting Ron Paul.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul is someone who gets support from white supremacists, has no knowledge of foreign nations, has no healthcare plan, and has never actually answered how he plans to implement any of his ideas.

NOT TO MENTION the fact that he was in on shennanigans and political maneuvering in West Virginia which made votes not count! Meanwhile, his stupid supporters (like you), cry foul when votes aren't counted right. How ironic.



To top it all off, Ron Paul probably won't win the OTHER race that he is in....for his congressional seat!

And you want this guy to lead our nation? Pathetic.

 

Here Petre, my gift to you...



::

 

:clap:

 

I'm not telling myself that ... I told you. I don't get confused like you do ... sorry.

As for your other claims on Paul ... In an Obama thread , since you can't stick to the subject at hand ...

Once again ... if the biggest dirt you have on Paul are these lame claims ... the man is a SAINT compared to the others!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2gKXyBgr24c&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2gKXyBgr24c&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As for the seat you think he won't win .... you mean the one he's had for 10years running that he also had 30 years ago ?

Great points Arben ... :clap:

Now ... how bout we get back to how great Obama is ? Shall we ?

 

you guys are missing the point, getting caught up in the classic liberal "what you dont wanna help STARVING people?"

gimme a break, sure, itd be nice to give money to charity, but that should be my choice if i want to or not

the point is that a tax of that would be an infringement of my property, plus on top of that, its not even going to our govt its going to the UN

 

:bears: Somebody that gets it !!! :bears:

I knew I could count on you ADogg! :cheer: