Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

[New Governor Of Alaska]

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.

READ MORE - http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote

http://www.gabrielmichael.com/obama-change.jpg

He is a NWO guy.

[zach]

His brand of change is sickening.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!!
This is 100% Comminist idea. This is what the USSR was all about untill one day in 1991.....


Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Amy Brundage (OBAMA), Jordan Stark (HAGEL), Ciaran Clayton (CANTWELL), or Derrick Crowe (Rep. SMITH)

Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House in September.

“Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day,” said Senator Obama. “We can – and must – make it a priority of our 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 legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.”

“Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century,” Senator Hagel said. “This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world.”

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

READ MORE - http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/

Washington D.C. Office

713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2854
(202) 228-4260 fax
(202 228-1404 TDD

[jlaker]

The Senate better sure as Hell NAY that one.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

So how did they vote?

[TheEvilDetector]

This is INSANE.

Let me explain why:

Right now, US economy is buckling with the present levels of irresponsible and unconstitutional expenditure and cannot under any circumstances satisfy the future (currently unfunded) obligations to its OWN retiring citizens which are over 50 TRILLION dollars (unless they resort to a SEVERE hyperinflation to satisfy nominal cost)

With this in mind, this presidential candidate wants to tax the US taxpayer to help every poor person in the entire world?!

Do the people in washington live in another universe or something?

If I didn't know better, I would say the aim is to send the US middle class straight to the bottom of the economic barrel and do it as quickly as possible.

There is just no going back from the necessary pain that must be felt because people sat on their asses and did nothing while the wealth was sucked out of the public.

There is a HUGE economic crisis on the horizon. HUGE!

[manny229]

So how did they vote?




It seems (S.2433) has not been voted on yet. However, as it says in your article (H.R. 1302) was passed. It had 84 co-sponsors. But we don't know how the rest of our representatives voted because it was a "voice vote" so a record of the vote was not kept!

H.R. 1302: Global Poverty Act of 2007
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.


Bill Status
Sponsor: Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]show cosponsors (84)

Bill Text: Summaries (CRS)
Full Text
Status: Introduced Mar 1, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Jul 31, 2007
Passed House [details] Sep 25, 2007
Voted on in Senate -
Signed by President -

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Jan 26, 2008]
Last Action: Sep 26, 2007: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Show All Related Votes

Votes on Passage
Sep 25, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

Link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302#votes

[New Governor Of Alaska]

Pardon my ignorance, manny229, but what is "voice vote"?

[Dustancostine]

Pardon my ignorance, manny229, but what is "voice vote"?

It is a vote taken by voice, kind of like you have in small organizations. You read the proposal and say everyone in favor say "aye" (the people in favor say aye) then you say everyone opposed say "nay" (the people in favor say nay) and if the speaker decides whether there were more aye's than nay's. If one of the members doesn't trust the result they can ask for a recorded vote.

--Dustan

[manny229]

Pardon my ignorance, manny229, but what is "voice vote"?

No problem, I am learning a lot on this forum myself! Below are some official definitions but basically the Speaker of the house asks the congress as a group : All in favor of HR say "yes" Then he/she asks: all opposed say "no" whichever group is the "loudest" wins. How each member voted is not recorded. They do this whenever there is an issue to vote on which can be controversial. You can see why it is beneficial to them! I can't believe this is legal...


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/voicevot.htm

[CurtisLow]

No problem, I am learning a lot on this forum myself! Below are some official definitions but basically the Speaker of the house asks the congress as a group : All in favor of HR say "yes" Then he/she asks: all opposed say "no" whichever group is the "loudest" wins. How each member voted is not recorded. They do this whenever there is an issue to vote on which can be controversial. You can see why it is beneficial to them! I can't believe this is legal...


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/voicevot.htm

That's just crazy!

[CurtisLow]

bump

[New Governor Of Alaska]

It is a vote taken by voice, kind of like you have in small organizations. You read the proposal and say everyone in favor say "aye" (the people in favor say aye) then you say everyone opposed say "nay" (the people in favor say nay) and if the speaker decides whether there were more aye's than nay's. If one of the members doesn't trust the result they can ask for a recorded vote.

--Dustan

I see... OK...
But when you say - the speaker decides whether there were more aye's than nay's - does it mean that he actually count all ayes and nays? I assume he does.
But how do the Congressmen know that he counted the "voices" correctly if it's not even recorded?



No problem, I am learning a lot on this forum myself! Below are some official definitions but basically the Speaker of the house asks the congress as a group : All in favor of HR say "yes" Then he/she asks: all opposed say "no" whichever group is the "loudest" wins. How each member voted is not recorded. They do this whenever there is an issue to vote on which can be controversial. You can see why it is beneficial to them! I can't believe this is legal...


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/voicevot.htm

Thank you, manny229.


Wiki says:

------------

A voice vote in a legislative body refers to a vote taken on a topic where the participants merely respond verbally to a question with a spoken "yea" (yes), "nay" (no), or "present" (abstain) vote. Typically the chairperson or speaker of the assembly will ask a question to the effect of "All in favor?" followed by "All opposed?" and so on. The decision is then decided based on the chairperson or speaker's discretion, although it can be challenged. In such a case, if a certain proportion of the assembly agrees, a recorded vote or division vote takes place.

As a result—when utilizing the voice vote procedure—no names or numbers on who voted for what are recorded due to its impracticality, and the record will often stand as something to the effect of "unanimously approved by Voice Vote." This tactic is used when the matter in question is either uncontroversial or paradoxically when the matter at hand is quite controversial and participants wish to enjoy "political cover."

------------

So again - how do they know that their votes are counted correctly?
I think this IS a controversial issue - it smells like a Communist idea to me.

[cageybee]

we need to get these zionists out of our government. USA will be so much better off without them.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm



QUOTE:
voice vote - A vote in which the Presiding Officer states the question, then asks those in favor and against to say "Yea" or "Nay," respectively, and announces the result according to his or her judgment. The names or numbers of Senators voting on each side are not recorded.

Is this a joke?

So the votes are not counted at all. The decision is made by a person who thinks that he heard more "Yea's" let's say.
So what if there are more Republicans in the House but the Democrats scream louder? Then the Democrats win?

:D

[danberkeley]

I suppose there's nothing wrong with helping the poor in foreign countries. Oh, that's right,
people in this country are starving to death and Obama would rather send 0.7% of our GDP
to other countries. It's policies like these that make me cringe when I see some gaze at Obama.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/

To me this sounds like a Soviet propaganda.

[Dr.3D]

Think I'm going to throw up.....
Here we are with our economy going down the toilet and Obama thinking about Universal Health care and now sending money all over the world....

Where in the heck is he planning to get all this money?
Oh yeah... I forgot, the FED can just print it out of thin air.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

Think I'm going to throw up.....
Here we are with our economy going down the toilet and Obama thinking about Universal Health care and now sending money all over the world....

Where in the heck is he planning to get all this money?
Oh yeah... I forgot, the FED can just print it out of thin air.

Obama has typical Communist mentality. And for the Communists, as we know, it doesn't matter where will money come from and it doesn't matter if money are actually available.
Just the good sounding ideas is what blocks their thinking and makes them move....

If Obama gets elected then he could drive US economy to complete bancrapcy with his Let's Feed All Hungry People In The World programs. Obama is full of hot air - just take a look at his face.
It seems like his head is in the sky...

The government of the Soviet Union had plenty of obamas. The Communist leaders of the USSR didn't like to count money as well untill one day it was all over.....

http://www.fearthebeard.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/barack-obama-bw.png

http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/02/medium_20080213-barack-obama-democrat.jpg

Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty:

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

Hey, Obama, there are many hungry people in America too.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Obama has typical Communist mentality. And for the Communists, as we know, it doesn't matter where will money come from and it doesn't matter if money are actually available.
Just the good sounding ideas is what blocks their thinking and makes them move....

If Obama gets elected then he could drive US economy to complete bancrapcy with his Let's Feed All Hungry People In The World programs. Obama is full of hot air - just take a look at his face.
It seems like his head is in the sky...

The government of the Soviet Union had plenty of obamas. The Communist leaders of the USSR didn't like to count money as well untill one day it was all over.....

http://www.fearthebeard.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/barack-obama-bw.png

http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/02/medium_20080213-barack-obama-democrat.jpg

Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty:

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

Hey, Obama, there are many hungry people in America too.


Ha, it's bad when Russians are criticizing us for having Socialist policies.

Well, I'm glad you can see through Obama's BS, Gov. I only wish more Americans could do the same, but unfortunately the only thing most Americans know about Obama is that his campaign slogan is simply "change we can believe in".

Yeah, Change would be nice, but not his kind of change.


Check out this link to Obama's church, Governor.

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

You can bet Obama has big plans to "help" Africa, in the same way we are "helping" the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

[familydog]

I'd be very suprised to see this get anywhere. No way most Republicans and moderate democrats would go for this. There aren't completely hopeless (yet).

[New Governor Of Alaska]

Ha, it's bad when Russians are criticizing us for having Socialist policies.

Well, when I watch him speak I just see Lenin or Gorbachev instead of Obama.
I don't know how to explain it.... but it looks like someone else is speaking by using Obama's head.

And these are not even social policies actually. Obama is fresh Senator but already is pushing some world-wide issues. I am NOT against helping people in other countries but there are other ways to help the world's poor.....

It seems to me that his goal is not just to help some hungry people. I can see what Obama really has in mind - his prime goal (which is not even his) is to set up a system that can be used to spread the Communist ideas throughout the world. What he proposes is just the beginning.
Tomorrow he will come up with new stuff.

I don't know what sort of people are helping him to get elected, but all his speeches remind me speeches of Soviet leaders like Khrushchev or Gorbachev.

Obama, just like Gorbachev and Khrushchev before him, keeps saying that he plans TO CHANGE THE WORLD.

Obama : Let's go change the world:
And if you will stand with me in seven days — if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you’re ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win this caucus, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and the real journey — to heal a nation and repair the world — will have truly begun.
http://www.mnblue.com/node/981

How come nobody is asking him to explain this statement?

Today Obama wants you to pay a tax to feed some hungry people. But tomorrow Obama's people will ask you to change your mentality. They will tell you to get rid once and for all of the mentality of individualism and adopt the mentality of collectivism. That is what the Soviet Communists tried to do in the USSR.

They wanted to create a new person which can own nothing but care about everyting.

Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev can be Obama's mentor:

"We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all; we must… return to and actually practice in all our ideological work the most important theses of Marxist-Leninist science about the people as the creator of history and as the creator of all material and spiritual good of humanity... [We must] continue systematically and consistently the work done by the Party's Central Committee during the last years, a work characterized by minute observation in all Party organizations, from the bottom to the top, of the Leninist principles of Party leadership... characterized by the wide practice of criticism and self-criticism. [We must] to restore completely the Leninist principles of Soviet socialist democracy, expressed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, to fight willfulness of individuals abusing their power. The evil caused by acts violating revolutionary socialist legality which have accumulated during a long time as a result of the negative influence of the cult of the individual has to be completely corrected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/archives/Peto0019.jpg


Let me say it again - I am not against helping people.
I am against using people's good will to fool them in order to spread Communist ideas which were designed to imprison human beings.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Let me say it again - I am not against helping people.
I am against using people's good will to fool them in order to spread Communist ideas which were designed to imprison human beings.

I didn't mean to imply that at all, I was just pointing out the irony that America is on the road to becoming similair to the USSR in ways.



I can see what Obama really has in mind - his prime goal (which is not even his) is to set up a system that can be used to spread the Communist ideas throughout the world. What he proposes is just the beginning.
Tomorrow he will come up with new stuff.

Indeed, he's a globalist, just like the rest of the people that belong to America's Council of Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html

Sovereignty and globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations


February 17, 2006
Project Syndicate

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

[CurtisLow]

///

[Roxi]

bump.... why does this story only have 27 diggs?

http://digg.com/politics/Why_is_anyone_surprised_about_Broke_Abomination