Global Poverty Act

[MorningGlory]

Hellloooo! People!

We would be giving the money to the UNITED NATIONS!

Have you forgotten about the oil for food scandal?

All of the money that was stolen to line the pockets of the UN delegates?

The UN is a farce!

OH, and this is not about the war.

This is not about "Oh yeah, well the republicans did it too".

Look, pay attention here!

The USA is in dire economic stress right now.

It is not the time to go and just give away millins let alone billions to ANYONE!

We have a struggling housing market, a struggling social security program and prices of goods and services are over the roof.

The general population is having a hard time making ends meet. And a hard time affording medical care.

We are in debt both as a nation and as individuals.

We have GOT to start taking care of ourselves!

Absolutely spot on! The U.N. is THE most corrupt organization on earth.

[OneLight]

If we really wanted to help, we would teach how to feed themselves. The old saying still stands ... Give then a fish and you feed them for one meal, teach them to fish and they eat always.

As for the state of the US. Nothing will be done as long as those in Government stay untouchable. They have stopped fearing being removed. They have the backing of big time business that will bleed anyone who tries to take legal action against them. So, what can we do?

[Richard_yaash]

we loose total control of how it is used.

Pardon me OneLight, and no offense intended.

If we give something: Does it become a as a gift. If so, should we really try to maintain control of how it is used?

I mean, if we give something, it is no longer ours but rather theirs. If I gave John Doe a hundred bucks, should I also tell him how and where to spend it? Now, if I know that John Doe is an upright man and is going to use the money wisely, I have no need to "control how it is used".

OTOH: If I know John Doe is unreliable and likely to use it for booze/drugs/gambling, whatever it may be, then in my opinion, I am the one in the wrong, for I have given carelessly and not shown good judgment myself.

So rather than handing the money over to John Doe, I should maintain 'stewardship' of it and distribute it as I deem necessary. Thus 'controlling' the manner in which it is used.

With regard to this thread though, while I have no problem with such a 'gift', it is my opinion though that such should be placed within the hands of those who have proven to be reliable, trustworthy, integrity, honesty... IOW: Are a good steward.

In His love,

Richard

[Richard_yaash]

We would be giving the money to the UNITED NATIONS!

I wonder, how would people vote upon this:

Confident of good stewardship?

Or:

A vote of 'no confidence'?

For myself, I have my own thoughts/opinions with regard to the U.N.. Those however shall remain my own, but my silence speaks volumes in itself.

Overall, well said Giaour.

[Richard_yaash]

And the Native Americans are always forgotten....

Hi Nebula,

While there was a time I would have been in agreement. In my neck o' the woods, some are doing quite well for themselves. Regrettably that is not as of yet true for all of them, however I am seeing improvement on a yearly basis around here.

[forrestkc]

Why don't we look at the bill itself.

The following is the summary for the bill:

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.

9/25/2007--Passed House amended.

Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1 per day.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...amp;tab=summary

Does anyone disagree with that premise? Does anyone disagree with the premise that a major priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to reduce global poverty and eliminate extreme poverty?

If you do, please speak up.

The text of the bill is here:

HR 1302 RFS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1302

←→

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 26, 2007

Received, read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

AN ACT

To require 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 United Nations 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than one billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1.6 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.

(3) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(4) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.

(5) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of United States international policy.'.

(6) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.

(7) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.

(8) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25 billion annually to $50 billion by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

(9) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(10) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

(11) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(12) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.'.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations 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.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the Government of the United States, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall 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 United Nations 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.

(b) Contents- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include, but not be limited to, specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

[OneLight]

we loose total control of how it is used.

Pardon me OneLight, and no offense intended.

If we give something: Does it become a as a gift. If so, should we really try to maintain control of how it is used?

I mean, if we give something, it is no longer ours but rather theirs. If I gave John Doe a hundred bucks, should I also tell him how and where to spend it? Now, if I know that John Doe is an upright man and is going to use the money wisely, I have no need to "control how it is used".

OTOH: If I know John Doe is unreliable and likely to use it for booze/drugs/gambling, whatever it may be, then in my opinion, I am the one in the wrong, for I have given carelessly and not shown good judgment myself.

So rather than handing the money over to John Doe, I should maintain 'stewardship' of it and distribute it as I deem necessary. Thus 'controlling' the manner in which it is used.

With regard to this thread though, while I have no problem with such a 'gift', it is my opinion though that such should be placed within the hands of those who have proven to be reliable, trustworthy, integrity, honesty... IOW: Are a good steward.

In His love,

Richard

It depends Richard. have you not ever received a gift with conditions? It's like someone giving you money for your bills, but made it clear that you must pay your bills with it, or you must give it back. A gift is not always given unconditionally. Take salvation. It is a gift from God, but we first must believe in Jesus. There is the condition.

[faith pleases God]

Hellloooo! People!

We would be giving the money to the UNITED NATIONS!

Have you forgotten about the oil for food scandal?

All of the money that was stolen to line the pockets of the UN delegates?

The UN is a farce!

OH, and this is not about the war.

This is not about "Oh yeah, well the republicans did it too".

Look, pay attention here!

The USA is in dire economic stress right now.

It is not the time to go and just give away millins let alone billions to ANYONE!

We have a struggling housing market, a struggling social security program and prices of goods and services are over the roof.

The general population is having a hard time making ends meet. And a hard time affording medical care.

We are in debt both as a nation and as individuals.

We have GOT to start taking care of ourselves!

Absolutely spot on! The U.N. is THE most corrupt organization on earth.

I agree entirely.

[irishcowboy]

Obama has a bill up before congress called the Global Poverty Act which gives $845 BILLION to the United Nations so that they can dispese to the poor around the world as THEY see fit. Oh by the way, the United States does not qwualify to receive ANY of the poverty money.

Now, why in the world would we go and spend $845 BILLION dollars of money we borrow from China and give it to the United Nations for poor children when we have poor right here in AMerica?

Besides, if we had that kind of money, we could start to balance the budget.

another reason to say NO to voting for Obama....

[irishcowboy]

we loose total control of how it is used.

Pardon me OneLight, and no offense intended.

If we give something: Does it become a as a gift. If so, should we really try to maintain control of how it is used?

I mean, if we give something, it is no longer ours but rather theirs. If I gave John Doe a hundred bucks, should I also tell him how and where to spend it? Now, if I know that John Doe is an upright man and is going to use the money wisely, I have no need to "control how it is used".

OTOH: If I know John Doe is unreliable and likely to use it for booze/drugs/gambling, whatever it may be, then in my opinion, I am the one in the wrong, for I have given carelessly and not shown good judgment myself.

So rather than handing the money over to John Doe, I should maintain 'stewardship' of it and distribute it as I deem necessary. Thus 'controlling' the manner in which it is used.

With regard to this thread though, while I have no problem with such a 'gift', it is my opinion though that such should be placed within the hands of those who have proven to be reliable, trustworthy, integrity, honesty... IOW: Are a good steward.

In His love,

Richard

It depends Richard. have you not ever received a gift with conditions? It's like someone giving you money for your bills, but made it clear that you must pay your bills with it, or you must give it back. A gift is not always given unconditionally. Take salvation. It is a gift from God, but we first must believe in Jesus. There is the condition.

and when was the last time anyone that received a "LOAN" from the USA ever repaid it? or for that matter the interest on that loan?

when Frances rail roads were failing, the USA bailed them out, no repayment, no interest, barely a thankyou.

when the USA rail roads were falling on hard times, who bailed them out? come on, any one????? nope, no one.....

just a single example of many, rebuilding Germany after WW2, helping out flood victims through out the world, war victims, so forth and so on.....

should we give the monies over to the UN to pass out???????

NO, we should not.... if there are funds to be passed out, We Should be the ones saying where it goes and what it is used for.

this is no different then me handing my paycheck to you and saying do with it as you please, I have some bills and house payments, but you do with it as you please........ a bunch of hogwash...... cause the items i need took care of will not be taken care of....

if we hand it over to the UN, it will end up like so much of the past monies have..... suppose to be going for food and meds, will end up in the hands of the terrorist that we are trying to rid our selves of.... supplying ticks and fleas with anti-tick and flea power protection.....

I honestly believe that the monies would actually end up in the wrong hands, and the bullies would be the ones with it..

No, do not give to the UN, do not allow Obama to do as he wishes.... is this really what the people want? or a way to circumnavigate the system and get the monies to the people he wants to support???? i wont vote for him

mike