|
Sick of Fck-ing Obama-hood!!!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
It's no surprise why all these other countries love Obama... ing Robinhood is promising to buy their affections too with American taxpayer money. What the ! $50 billion? $845 billion by 2015? Who thinks giving out free cash to people living in ultra squaler around the world is going to cut the world's poverty in half? As the article points out, what are the chances the actual people get the money and not the people in the power structure of these poor ass places? He wants this to be a nanny state that takes care of the world too now? Liberals sure are giving.... WHEN IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY they are dishing out. ing outrageous.
| quote: | Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program:
By Bill Sammon
Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that “we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline,” is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.
“The short-term weakness in the capital market is a reflection of long-term problems that we have in our economy,” Obama told reporters in Florida. “We have been loading up enormous amounts of debt.”
Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping “Millennium Development Goals” the U.N. adopted in 2000.
“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal,” the candidates vow in their campaign platform.
Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.
“It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”
Hanke said such expenditures are especially unwise in the wake of significant expansions of government and spending during President Bush’s tenure.
“We’ve been spending like drunken sailors and making obligations into the future like drunken sailors,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path in terms of the fiscal situation in the United States because of massive spending growth and commitments.”
Obama said he wants to curtain at least one of those costly commitments.
“We have spent well over half a trillion dollars — soon to be a trillion dollars — on a war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqis are now running surpluses,” the Illinois senator said Friday. “We’re still spending $10 billion a month there.”
But in December, Obama also sponsored the Global Poverty Act which, if passed, would require the president to commit to cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion.
Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations.
|
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Not that there's anything wrong with philonthropy but he has got a LOT to fix before even thinking about this should he get elected... |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Big freakin deal. We spent at least 500 billion TODAY on corporate welfare to bail out sick banks... Our government has taken over Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.. There's another trillion++ in liabilities. And just today the government also promised to insure another $2 trillion in money market accounts..
A few trillion in corporate welfare from Dubya and another trillion in world welfare from Obama. What's the difference? We are going to end up bankrupt either way.. Might as well help out other countries while they still think our little green rectangles are worth something. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| According to LatinLover the average american earns About 250k a year, so given that an average american is so well off ( i cant say wealthy because 250k a year isn't enough to qualify you as wealthy) whats a few buck here and there to help some other countries. You know the ones that aren't as well of as the us. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
I thought that this was an interesting op-ed from IBD:
| quote: | Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.
You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?
Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.
The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."
As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.
"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.
His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.
The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.
While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.
(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.
As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."
His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."
Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.
(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)
In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.
(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)
With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."
He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.
Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."
He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.
Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.
The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.
But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.
Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArt...302137342405551 |
|
|
|
| Lira |
| Being Brazilian, it would be more intelligent to support McCain, as far as I know... he thinks we're the ultimate Anti-Chavez shield :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Cutting global poverty in half by 2015 is definitely detestable. Good thread. 
Down with international development assistance!!! |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Cutting global poverty in half by 2015 is definitely detestable. Good thread.
Down with international development assistance!!! |
lol... I never said it was a detestable act. It's just rediculous, that's all. And the UN has more internal corruption problems than you can shake a stick at. It's just as realisitc as the war on poverty here, the war on drugs, etc.... AND adding to the growing pile of americans are being "asked", so to speak, to bail out or pay for. did you read the original article posted? no good points in there? nothing that gives you cause for concern? Or does the thought of Utopoa make you smile and say "Yes We Can!"? |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| Oh is that from the point of view of the far left the US is responsible for all the problems and misery in the world. So since their candidate, Obama, that poudly labeled himself as the most "liberal" is the primaries, thinks that we must go out and heal the world. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
lol... I never said it was a detestable act. It's just rediculous, that's all. And the UN has more internal corruption problems than you can shake a stick at. It's just as realisitc as the war on poverty here, the war on drugs, etc.... AND adding to the growing pile of americans are being "asked", so to speak, to bail out or pay for. did you read the original article posted? no good points in there? nothing that gives you cause for concern? Or does the thought of Utopoa make you smile and say "Yes We Can!"? |
The original article, in fact, didn't make any good points about development. The one economist it quoted is none other than one of the founding fathers of neoliberal economic policy under the Reagan Administration, so surprise! He's against development assistance.
The World Bank has (thankfully) got away from conditionality as a prerequisite of development aid - something that ruined economies across Latin America and Africa. That article still seems to think conditionality is an active practice when in fact it hasn't been since the early 90's.
Read this report on the MDG's and you'll gain some understanding into their importance and attainability:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf
Furthermore, calling the UN a corrupt vehicle is rather naive. You may have qualms with the Security Council that are quite legitimate. I know I do. But to conflate the tied hands of the Security Council or the corruption of the Oil for Food Programme with the Millennium Development Goal program just screams ignorance. The UN system is the only reason that since 2000 500 million people have climbed out of extreme poverty. Never forget that - more people than the population of the United States have doubled their income since 2000 as a result of the programs sponsored by the UNDP and the World Bank.
So call development "utopia" all you want. It just makes you look callous and uneducated. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Read this report on the MDG's and you'll gain some understanding into their importance and attainability:
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf
Furthermore, calling the UN a corrupt vehicle is rather naive. You may have qualms with the Security Council that are quite legitimate. I know I do. But to conflate the tied hands of the Security Council or the corruption of the Oil for Food Programme with the Millennium Development Goal program just screams ignorance. The UN system is the only reason that since 2000 500 million people have climbed out of extreme poverty. Never forget that - more people than the population of the United States have doubled their income since 2000 as a result of the programs sponsored by the UNDP and the World Bank.
So call development "utopia" all you want. It just makes you look callous and uneducated. |
I'll check out the article and get back to you. But the first question that pops in my head is, if more people than the U.S. population have doubled their income as a result of the UNDP/World Bank program, what is the relativity of that? Because... if millions of people that fit this standard of ultra impovershed live anywhere between 10 cents and $10 a month, what does doubling that paltry amount of money actually do for them? Anyway I'm not callous, just realistic... working to fix corrupt regimes, greedy money hoarding government systems (a la N. Korea), infrastructure, and so on would be better than just giving cash away. And I didn't say the UN is a vehicle for corruption, but there is a lot of document corruption within it. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| That's something I disagree with Obama on. Still doesn't mean I'm going to change my vote. The Iraq and Afghanistan occupations are my #1 issue, and I will vote for the candidate who will end these unjust occupations. |
|
|
|
|
