March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Making stuff up | Main | Gravity »

Mar 04, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fred Gregory

This is not looking presidential. A Sam Donaldson day.

Obama Avoids Questions About Rezko

Hillary suggests he lacks the experience for the job.
He admits it

Spag

If the fight comes here, I might switch my party registration so I can vote against Hillary.

Jeffrey Sykes

She's done.

Gedeon Maheux

Quite a bit has changed in four years Fred. He obviously thinks he's ready and the majority of democratic voters agree with him. He *will* be the nominee. Get used to him.

Fred Gregory

Ged,

"Obamania has reached new heights (or depths)of mindless drivel. This pitiful video clearly reveals the emptiness of his campaign.

We Are The Ones

If he is the nominee, by November, stuff like this will really be wearing thin on the average skeptical American voter"

( H/T to Real Clear Politics)

Ed Cone

What is the intended result of insulting people who support the guy?

Spag

Fred, even if four years of Obama turn out to be a disaster, there is a whole lot of possible long term gain for the country and conservatives as well with an Obama presidency.

At this point, I don't really care too much whether it is McCain or Obama. I think McCain is better in the short term, but Obama may be better in the long run. One day if I have more time, I will write a thesis about why a right winger could support Obama despite glaring policy differences without feeling like a traitor to the movement.

Anthony

I'd like to read that Sam. (I'm hoping it's not something along the lines of "His anti-American socialist agenda will drive the country into the ground ensuring that Americans elect only Republicans for all eternity. :) )

Roch101

I've heard this reason expressed by a very conservative friend who I think really might vote for Obama for this reason. It goes something like this: The election of an African-American to the presidency won't happen without the support of a large portion of white voters, and that would go a long way toward ameliorating the culture of victimology as perpetrated by the likes of Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton. To me there is no doubt that the election of Obama would be inspiring to a generation of black youth, whether that appeals because it would dampen the divisiveness of "identity politics" or because of the good that would come from inspiring a generation of black youth, it's all good.

Spag

That is part of it Roch, but I think it also opens the door for more blacks to vote Republican in the future as the Democratic lock on the black vote is weakened as identity politics fade. There is more- Obama preaches a message of self reliance and responsibility when it comes to children- black youths in particular- that is very conservative. Similar to Bill Cosby. Having such a role model with such a good message has many benefits. You can cut and raise taxes every year, shaping a generation is far more difficult and has far longer consequences.

It's also not just about ending "victimology", but moving society as a whole past racial politics and the suspicion that most white Americans are inherently or secretly bigoted. Getting past race frees up so many issues for debate.

Anthony, you are only partly correct- but that isn't unique to Obama. Going too far left would be a problem with Hillary as well. But she is a compulsive power hungry liar and is unacceptable under any conditions. My argument for Obama isn't that he would go too far to the left although he probably will, but closer to what Roch wrote as I explained above.

Gedeon Maheux

Funny Fred. Where you see emptiness, I see people having something they've lacked for the last 8 years.

Hope. It's a powerful emotion and you and others like you would do well not to underestimate its power.

Fred Gregory

Ged,

Like Ed usually swears, I simply posted the Real Clear Politics piece ( i.e. not Fred's words) to promote discussion and not necessarily reflective of my own views. (Disclosure: I am a registered Republican). BTW, GED freedom is a powerful aspiration also and without economic freedom there is no real freedom. I am not ready to accept Obama's nice sounding bill, S.2433, which commits the US to spend $845 BILLION over what we are now spending to "eradicate" poverty around the world. It is being pushed by liberal religious groups.

Global Poverty Act

You probably are in a higher income bracket than my self, GED, but if the Bush tax cuts expire that will cost an individual making $50 K a year $2,100.00. That is not the top 1 %, Ged. That is pure middle class. The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts have demonstratively brought in more revenue.

Ed,

Who is insulting who ? Really ? Am I flirting with banishment ? ( If that was being asked of me ) How is posting the RCP column which includes this song created as a show of support and inspiration for the Obama campaign by Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas, an insult to his disciples ? Unless, of course, you somehow think it is banal and find that giving it exposure is a smear. Wow !

HopeActChange

Sam,

I don't want to argue with you publicly over the importance of tax policy but haven't Republicans been preaching the message of self reliance and personal responsibility for a long time without any measureable shift of black votes awy from the Democrat party. And as an attorney how do Supreme court appointments figure into your decision process. You didn't touch on that aspect of an Obama presidency (either four to eight years )?

It's late (almost 1:00 AM and the FOX just called Texas for Hillary ) but it appears, Sam, you might to still get to vote against Hillary in the general. election. Huge night for the Clintons. But as Ed says , pass the popcorn.

Gedeon Maheux

Fred, your willingness to insult by using the "Democrat Party" is clear. I'd expect better than name calling from you.

Ed Cone

Fred,

Political barbs usually are aimed at the candidate, not the supporters. You have posted comments with the general message that Obama supporters are vapid fools.

My query is, what is this meant to accomplish? Is it supposed to get Obama supporters to change their minds? Keep other people from supporting him? Rally opponents?

It's an unusual tactic, I'm just trying to understand it.

Fred Gregory

Ged,

As I said I am a Reublican some times refered to from people of your party as fascist, evil, heartless, Nazi etc, thus I can't understand why you could posibly be offended/insulted at being called a Democrat. As Bill Press used to say " I am a proud Democrat" . Get over it if that is all you can come up with while ignoring just a few of the substantive policy differences I pointed out in my comment.

Ed,

As for you. Stop floundering.
Trying to understand? Puleeze. I am not going to bother to search but have you not, in the past, attacked supporters of conservatives as neanderthal or worse ?

Ed Cone

Fred, I don't think I've made that kind of attack, and I don't make a habit of going after supporters rather than issues or candidates.

In any case, going after Obama supporters seems to be a pretty significant meme. You are a commenter who advances that line of attack. I'm simply asking you what it is you hope to accomplish by doing so. It's not meant to be a trick question, or a hostile one. I'm curious, so I'm asking you.

Fred Gregory

Yes, Ed, I THINK you have but it ain't worth the trouble to comb through your writings to come up with examples. If you say you haven't then that will have to be the last word.

What do I hope to accomplish ? Well let's review what I did on this thread. I linked an ABC video where Obama bolted from press conference rather than answer questions about Rezko. I also linked a video of Obama saying in his own words that he lacked the experience for national office. I put up a link to a bill he introduced in the Senate and was critical of it. So far no attacks on supporters.

I did link an Obamba supporter's positive video/song which a contributer to RCP called mindless drivel and predicted that such stuff would soon wear thin. Not exactly an attack on all of his supporters. The song can be judged on it's message and merit. I saw it for the first time on RCP.

What you, I and other commenters say here doesn't have much reach or impact on the workings of our republic. The point of any political campaign is to persuade supporters of one candidate, and those undecided to switch to another candidate,
Knowing full well the mindset of the regulars here that is a fools errand. And most of all I haven't the faintest hope of rallying his only opponent that used to visit here, but he alas was banned recently. I suspect that the events of last night have some folks upset and are in a perverse way taking their frustrations out on me.

I doubt if this answered your " not hostile " question satisfactorily or provided the " understanding " you were seeking but it suggests that any speech that pokes at the conventional wisdom on this site will be unwelcome and ridiculed.

Spag

Fred, the Court appointments are the biggest strike against Obama in my book and I have written that elsewhere.

But I also believe that getting past race will help conservatives in the long run because it will free blacks from their dependence on the Democratic party. The identity politics is what has kept many of them loyal to Democrats even when much of what they have been sold appears to me to be against their interests.

Ed Cone

Fred, my friend, I don't understand why you feel that I'm picking on you. You are hardly alone in the "Obama cult" thing, but you bring it here, so I asked you what it's meant to accomplish (and did so before last night's results were known). It's really not even a question that rests on party preference -- Hillary supporters might make the same claims. It just seems to be a consistent theme in this race, and one that's a bit different from other themes in other races, and I'm curious about it.

Mick

Me thinks that "Red Telephone" ad may come back to haunt the Dems in the general election.

Fox asked a group of college voters at Ohio U this AM about Obama's accomplishments. Most couldnt name anything but one came to the rescue with his Illinois State Senate work.

I dont fear the hope stuff but nationalized health care is scary to me.

Spag

Oh, c'mon Mick. You know that health care is a right. Hillary said so and it's right there in the Constitution, isn't it?

Anthony

Fred,

Here is the text of S.2433, the Global Poverty Act:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Can you please point me to the passage that "commits the US to spend $845 BILLION"?

Anthony

Sorry, forgot to make it a clickable link... here's the bill.

A.F Ticker

Anthony, as to Fred's alluding to the Senate Bill which Obama has sponsored if you will actually look at the bill you will perhaps understand where the dollars come from. They are not spelled out in the Bill because Obama wants the Bill to pass. Put the cost in a Bill and especially one which gives a ton of money away over and above what we already waste on foreign aide would doom such.
He based it on the GDP estimate which came from an article by Cliff Kinkaid. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/ Fred didn’t come up with the numbers, this guy did...

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.
So as you can see it is figures based on UN numbers and you can bet your sweet ass that they will make sure these numbers are low rather than just a norm. In other words we will be paying more.

The 0. 7% came from here so it proves that you didn’t read the entire article and just cherry picked. You have to click the links to understand it all and you evidently didn’t. Here is what the UN link said: What is the 0.7 commitment, and where did it come from?
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


Country Aid as % of
GNI Country Aid as % of
GNI
Australia (*) 0.25 Japan (*) 0.19
Austria 0.24 Luxembourg 0.85
Belgium 0.41 Netherlands 0.74
Canada (*) 0.26 New Zealand (*) 0.23
Denmark 0.84 Norway 0.87
Finland 0.35 Portugal 0.63
France 0.42 Spain 0.26
Germany 0.28 Sweden 0.77
Greece 0.23 Switzerland (*) 0.37
Ireland 0.39 United Kingdom 0.36
Italy 0.15 United States (*) 0.16


Five European countries already devote 0.7% or more of their gross national income to aid. In a historic declaration on 24 May 2005, the European Union announced plans and timetables to reach 0.7 before 2015, which means that 16 of the 22 OECD DAC countries (the EU-15 plus Norway) are on track to meet the commitments they made in Monterrey. The six remaining countries – Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and the United States – have not set out timetables to reach 0.7. If the wealthy nations do now what they have already promised to do, the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved in even the poorest regions.
Now Anthony read the Definitions as found in the bill especially the last one on the 4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). There is where the money catch is and of course you would not expect Obama to put that in writing so that the Senators who would vote against such could see it. He expects it to ride through with little or no discussion. In other words hide the truth from the American People and the stupid do nothings that we have elected who would vote on such without a total and full understanding of it.

Now do you understand?

A F Ticker

GED says: "Hope. It's a powerful emotion and you and others like you would do well not to underestimate its power."

There is really nothing mysterious nor does what Obama has to say really contain any real power except the emotional power found at old time camp meetings that soon wore off as soon as a "pretty skirt" passed by and the jug was passed. Karl Kraus summed up the situation very well when he said:

"A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is."

Unfortunate as this is, it is being played out across America and is so plain, at least to those who are not caught up in the moment of emotionalism, that Obama is doing just this.

Anthony

Hi Ticker - thanks for the reply.

Here is a link to the text of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. I don't know about you, but I can't find any reference to 0.7% of anything in there, or any dollar amount whatsoever.

The commitment to provide 0.7% of GNP towards fighting poverty appears to be from a different agreement back in the 80s - not the Millenium Declaration. The passage you quote from the 0.7% page is simply saying that if countries such as the US actually followed through on that earlier agreement, it would be easier to meet the Millenium Declaration goals.

So it would seem that neither the bill in question nor the Millenium Declaration commits us to provide 0.7% of our GNP. In fact, if you look at the discussion in the House that preceeded the passing of the bill there, an amendment was added making it clear that the bill does not necessarily require foreign aid to work towards the goals - other methods such as promoting trade and investment may be used: "The bill, in the amended text before us today, Mr. Speaker, will allow the greater flexibility in deciding what might work best at a given time, in the particular circumstances, rather than insisting that he devise a strategy that assumes that more foreign aid and debt relief are always required."

And the idea that the UN is going to "force" us to do anything is kind of laughable. They can't even get us to pay our dues.

Finally, I'll note that the bill simply requires the President to lay out a plan to meet goals that his administration already agreed to. It's interesting that there was no outcry when we reaffirmed our commitment to the Millenium Declaration in 2005, but now that Obama actually wants the president to come up with some benchmarks for a goal he already agreed to, suddenly the UN supposedly has a choke collar on us. Don't you think your time would be better spent worrying about the $3 trillion dollars we'll be spending in Iraq?

Ged Maheux

Yeah, you're probably right Ticker. Obama is just a passing fad. A loud-mouthed blow hard that won't be able to connect or inspire much longer. After all, his 2004 convention speech that started it all is already a whole four years old, and we know how poorly that went over.

Continue to underestimate him at your own (and your party's) peril.

Fred Gregory

Yes, thank you Mr. Ticker . I was going to do the in depth research but you saved me the trouble. I am sure Anthony and Ged have complete trust in the Democrats and the UN to expand this like all other balooning domestic entitlement programs and Obama wouldn't be satisfied with $800 billion. Remember the Oil For Food Program.. Nuf said .

Anthony

Fred, all Ticker did was post excerpts from the article you linked to, and its links. You should take his advice and actually read the links, because as I outlined above, Kincaid is actually pulling a fast one in his article. He slides from the Millennium Declaration to the 0.7% figure, glossing over the fact that there is no connection between the two. You've been duped.

A F Ticker

What part of 0.7% is not clear in this quote? The link was provided in my previous post which evidently you did not read. Cherry picking time is over.
As to spending money in Iraq and giving it to the UN.Hell yes, I 'd rather spend it in Iraq. At least I know that something is being done with my money there that is useful.

And No Anthony I did not just use Fred's information. I wrote the original article that Fred used to get his information. It appeared on my blog.
As to forcing the US to pay. If we are unlucky enough to elect the fool who wrote this bill then you can be assured that he will see that it is paid. Just another step down the ever shorting road to the demise of sovereignty of the US.

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.

Information from this article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

A F Ticker

AS for your comment GED. I have no party so do not attempt to squeeze me into one of your nice little compartments that your progressives like to do with folks. I am an independent, always have been. I don't like McCain and I damn sure don't like the other two socialist running either.
Your boy Obama is an empty suit who will soon have to answer some hard questions where bullshit will not suffice. So far it has been... On change: Blah blah, unified to bring about change... working coalition for change... bring this country together... America be as good as its promise... agenda for moving change forward... comprehensive reform... we’ve got to fix that... how change comes about... bring people together... mobilize and inspire... change is going to happen... I intend to change when I am president... debate that I’m happy to have... blah blah blah blah.

On society: Blah blah, racial divisions and religious divisions... they’ve been shut out... a sense of common purpose again and higher purpose... more competitive and more safe... on behalf of families having a tough time... delivering for the American people... debate that I’m happy to have... blah blah blah blah.

Now I suppose you believe this is something of substance. It is pure blah blah blah.(and that's nice for bullshit!)

You certainly fit within the group described by Kraus.

Anthony

Ticker,

The 0.7% figure is clear enough. What you are missing is that it does not come from the Millennium Declaration. The 0.7% figure comes from a completely different 1970 U.N. General Resolution that has no relation to the Millennium Declaration. that number is not binding, and would not be made so by this bill. As you quoted, "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)", however, the 0.7% is not part of that resolution.

You talk about cherry picking, but it's evident that you yourself haven't read the Millennium Declaration. For instance, you uncritically quote Kincaid's allegation that the declaration, 'commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons"'. But this is false. The declaration actually says countries will "take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons" (emphasis added). Why do you think Kincaid left those words out, and why did you not notice that?

I've gone over this in detail at my blog. Your source, Cliff Kincaid, is running a shell game here with the 0.7% number. Neither the bill nor the declaration it references require any dollar amounts or percentages to be committed, which is plain to see by actually reading them.

Gedeon Maheux

Ticker, Obama has plenty of substance if you care to look. Obviously you are coming at him from a position of bias and so won't even do your homework. Don't bring your holier-than-thou attitude if you have not bothered to seriously look at the candidates first.

A F Ticker

Anthony says: "It's interesting that there was no outcry when we reaffirmed our commitment to the Millenium Declaration in 2005, but now that Obama actually wants the president to come up with some benchmarks for a goal he already agreed to....."

Two reasons: Number one the HR1302 was slipped through in one of the hurry up deals and had it been completely discussed and disclosed as to what it contained it might not have passed. Second: This is what the HR1302 says: d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the strategy required by subsection (a).

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not less than once every two years after the submission of the initial report under paragraph (1) until and including 2015, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

Seems like bench marks to me and not a lot of difference in what Obama is repeating(?). I find it unnecessary and more of a grandstand play than anything else. I was against HR 1302 but the elected do-nothings passed it without full disclosure and full discussion.
In other words it's pure blah, blah, blah and you know what that is nice for!

The .7% comes from Sach's and is derived from the chart that is posted.(The six remaining countries – Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and the United States – have not set out timetables to reach 0.7.) That came directly from Sach's and his design on Global Poverty. You can call it what you wish but it is still nothing more than further eroding the sovereignty of this country. Any agreements with the UN do just this. This bill would tie us to that .7% if you study the charts which Sach's includes in his study.

A F Ticker

GED I have looked at all the candidates and find Obama to have been the least qualified of all the Democrat candidates. He is , as I said , an empty suit who appeals to the emotional, fuzzy feel-good progressives. I could name at least three on the Democrat side who were much better qualified and would have had a much better chance of gaining the independent vote than Obama. Bill Richardson of NMex was much better qualified than either of those the Democrats put forth and would have certainly received serious consideration for my vote. As it stands the Democrats won't get it this year. I see no reason to vote for "Bush in a pants suit" and a socialist who has zero experience at anything other than making speeches.

Anthony

Ticker,

Thanks for the response and explanation - I'm glad we can discuss this in a calm, reasonable manner.

Regarding the similarity between the house and the senate version - they are indeed very similar, and I certainly agree that there should have been time for discussion allowed. That's the fault of the entire legislature though, and the way they do business. I read the entire bill in about 5 minutes, so there's no reason they shouldn't have known what was in it.

Again, regarding the 0.7 - I know that you found it in the chart that was posted. I've looked at the chart several times. My point is that the chart is based on a resolution that was agreed upon back when Nixon was president. That resolution is the original source of the number. However, neither that 0.7 percent - nor the agreement from which it originated! - are referenced in any way by either the text of the bill or the Millennium Declaration. The chart is not the Millennium Declaration.

I'm not sure how I can make that more clear. The bill simply cannot tie us to that 0.7 percent because there is no connection between the two. The bill references only the Millennium Declaration, and the Millennium Declaration does not reference the 1970 resolution where that number was pulled from. If the bill is implemented, the U.N. has no say in the benchmarks that the President will set up.

There may be legitimate reasons to be against the bill - maybe you don't think we should be putting any of out taxes towards global poverty. But it is demonstrably false to say that the bill would tie us to any specific percentage or dollar amount.

A F Ticker

Anthony if you read both the House bill and the Senate Bill they both contain language that references the original agreement which you dispute as part of the agreement. Given that it is included in the bill and if they bill would be passed then we would be bound by the language of that bill.
That is as simple as I can make it. You can argue all day long as to what is in the Global agreement or not but what is in the language of the bill and any reference to such agreement be it in 1970 or 2005 makes it binding.

Gedeon Maheux

"That is as simple as I can make it."

And what of the deceptive wording about "small arms"? You didn't admit that the original point was deceptive. Do you agree with Anthony on that point?

A F Ticker

GED said: "And what of the deceptive wording about "small arms"? You didn't admit that the original point was deceptive. Do you agree with Anthony on that point?"

GED I believe in keeping things on the subject rather than jump around to half dozen other things. Our discussions was on the Senate Bill and has nothing to do with what ever the hell you are trying to stir up. Now either you may join in our conversation on the Bill which your boy presented, which both of us found to be a bit repetitive, or stay out of it. I hope I make myself clear.

Percy Walker

The Kincaid piece is quite the paranoiac display.

The Obama bill would not, as Kincaid contends, "commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid." The bill simply calls for the president to prepare a plan to promote the reduction of global poverty. Such a plan might call for more foreign aid, but it might also call for less. Reducing or eliminating U.S. farmer and exporter subsidies, lowering trade barriers, overhauling or eliminating wasteful or ineffective programs and tweaking the tax code to eliminate incentives for "bad" charitable giving are examples of things that might appear in a plan to help reduce global poverty that would result in less government spending and, if successful, less foreign aid.

Yes, the term "Millenium Development Goals" is defined in the bill, but what of it? The term isn't used in any way to suggest that we are somehow agreeing to U.N.-mandated foreign aid increases or submitting ourselves to U.N. governance or interference. The point of citing the Bush and Clinton-approved Millenium Development Goals (only one of which is relevant here) -- like the point of citing the National Security Strategy and statements and actions of George Bush, Condi Rice and others in the bill -- is to establish that the U.S. policy of promoting global poverty reduction is well-established and bi-partisan.

We first agreed to exert our best efforts to commit 0.7 percent of GNP to development assistance in 1970, almost four decades ago. We've managed, to no great harm to ourselves, not to live up to it. If the Obama bill contains some kind of secret reaffirmation of the 1970 commitment -- a reaffirmation detectable only by "one world government" conspiracy types, apparently -- I'm sure we can manage, to no great harm to ourselves, not to live up to it for another four decades.

Ged Maheux

"Now either you may join in our conversation on the Bill which your boy presented, which both of us found to be a bit repetitive, or stay out of it. I hope I make myself clear"

Yes, you've made yourself crystal clear. You don't want to deal with the central points that Anthony raised regarding the deceptive nature of the report on the bill in the first place. You didn't manage to refute Anthony's point about the specific numbers not being in the bill and you *totally* avoided the question about the deceptive editing of wording concerning the "small arms".

I consider your opinion of this matter biased and untrustworthy since you obviously are looking at the issue how YOU want to see it and not as the facts present themselves. Either show us where the bill says we'll be giving the UN $800+ Billion dollars, or where they'll be banning small arms or deal with the fact that your interpretation of this legislation is yet another piece of canard that the right is trying to foist on the American public because they can't stand to see anyone but Bush and or his successors in office.

Am I making *myself* clear?

Spag

It is not the role or Constitutional function of the United States to reduce global poverty. Those who advocate such policies have no business complaining when the U.S. acts as the world's police force, because the more responsibility we take for the chaos in the rest of the world, the more we will be expected to act.

Such policies ultimately commit us to interventionism abroad regardless of our national interests. This stretches our finances to the breaking point, forces us to spend more on the military to protect foreign nations, draws us into conflicts, and often results in anti-American sentiment and ungratefulness. The American taxpayer is not responsible for the woes of the rest of the world and history shows that such actions lead to empires that ultimately collapse under their own weight.

Anthony

Ticker:

"if you read both the House bill and the Senate Bill they both contain language that references the original agreement which you dispute as part of the agreement."

They do? Then show me what language in the bill you think references the 1970 resolution that the 0.7 % figure came from. Quote a specific sentence or passage from the bill that references that agreement please.

As for the discussion about the "small arms" passage - to be fair, you are the one who originally brought that up by quoting Kincaid's claim about it in your 10:06 am post on March 6. It's all part of this discussion, which revolves around the fact that your source is playing fast and loose with the facts here.

Anthony

Sam:

Thank you. That's what I'm talking about. If you want to argue against this, argue against the principle of the matter, or at least argue against the actual contents of the bill rather than making stuff up as the Kincaid article has done.

I (and President Bush, according to the findings in the bill) disagree with the idea that we shouldn't try to do something about global poverty, but that's just my opinion.

Fred Gregory

Antony & Ged,

This should clear things up if you can understand Professor Irwin Corey:

Obamaspeak

A F Ticker

GED here is where the money figures came from. Now if you are too damn stupid to read and understand a chart put forth by Sach's ,not Kinkaid, then you are beyond any help that I or anyone else can offer.
As to the weapon ban. I did not offer that as part of the discussion, have no interest in what Kinkaid may have said or not said on the subject.

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.
So as you can see it is figures based on UN numbers and you can bet your sweet ass that they will make sure these numbers are low rather than just a norm. In other words we will be paying more.

The 0. 7% came from here so it proves that you didn’t read the entire article and just cherry picked. You have to click the links to understand it all and you evidently didn’t. Here is what the UN link said: What is the 0.7 commitment, and where did it come from?
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


Country Aid as % of
GNI Country Aid as % of
GNI
Australia (*) 0.25 Japan (*) 0.19
Austria 0.24 Luxembourg 0.85
Belgium 0.41 Netherlands 0.74
Canada (*) 0.26 New Zealand (*) 0.23
Denmark 0.84 Norway 0.87
Finland 0.35 Portugal 0.63
France 0.42 Spain 0.26
Germany 0.28 Sweden 0.77
Greece 0.23 Switzerland (*) 0.37
Ireland 0.39 United Kingdom 0.36
Italy 0.15 United States (*) 0.16


Five European countries already devote 0.7% or more of their gross national income to aid. In a historic declaration on 24 May 2005, the European Union announced plans and timetables to reach 0.7 before 2015, which means that 16 of the 22 OECD DAC countries (the EU-15 plus Norway) are on track to meet the commitments they made in Monterrey. The six remaining countries – Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland and the United States – have not set out timetables to reach 0.7. If the wealthy nations do now what they have already promised to do, the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved in even the poorest regions.

A F Ticker

Anthony here are the two requirements from both the House Bill and the Senate Bill which show the tie to the numbers from Sach's chart which determine the money to be spent called the Millennium Development Goal. If you will note the language is IDENTICAL. As a side note it is interesting to see that it looks as if Obama may have plagiarized the HR Bill in writing his own.

The language of the bill ties the requirements to the Mellennium Development Goals. Of course the .7% is left out and done so on purpose in my opinion. The chart which Sach's used to determine how the Mellennium Goals would be reached is part of the language of both bills by reference. Fortunately for now the Bill is on hold. If it never passes then there is no harm done.

As to the weapons , as I told GED , my subject was on Obama's bill not the total content of the Kinkaid article. If one notes he also mentions the Kyoto accords and other things as well. You will note that since they are not part of what Obama has sponsored they are in my opinion not relevant to my point of discussion. If you wish to drag those into the discussion is it because you have no other ground on which to debate the main issue. Thanks for your discussion.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY. HR 1302
(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.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY. S2433
(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, 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 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.

Ed Cone

Nothing in either bill commits us to the .7% spending target set in 1970 and referenced by Sachs.

Sam, even if we strip away any moral or humanitarian arguments, the fact remains that as long as the United States wishes to remain a global trading power, it will be involved in global politics. Economic development may be a less costly means of involvement than other forms of engagement, and one with positive results on many fronts as well. That said, there is no doubt that the threat of imperial aspirations and overstretch is real and dangerous, and currently biting us on the ass.

Anthony

Ticker,

"If you will note the language is IDENTICAL. As a side note it is interesting to see that it looks as if Obama may have plagiarized the HR Bill in writing his own."

You're joking, right? They're identical because that's how our legislature works. A bill that gets passed in the House (as this one was) gets sent to the Senate to be passed. It's the same bill. Any differences that get introduced in the Senate (such as amendments) will have to be reconciled with the House version so that one bill, a product of both houses, gets passed on to the President for signing.

As for the passage you quote - simply saying it binds us to something that it doesn't even mention does not make it so. The chart you keep linking to is not actually a part of the Millennium Declaration and is not a requirement for anyone to do anything. It simply shows how much those countries are already giving, and explains that *if* all those countries did meet the 0.7% it would help meet the Millennium goals.

You're right about one thing - the 0.7% was left out on purpose. The purpose of leaving it out was because it's up to the President how we work towards fighting poverty. If it had been put in, we would be committed to it. It was not put in, so we will not be committed to it, unless the President makes it part of his strategy. It's pretty straightforward.

As for the small arms bit, you say, "I did not offer that as part of the discussion, have no interest in what Kinkaid may have said or not said on the subject." Again, you *did* offer that as part of the discussion in an earlier comment on this very thread. Anyone reading this can scroll up and see that you are the one who first mentioned it. It's kind of disingenuous to throw it out there and then get upset when we point out a flaw with it.

At this point, I don't think we can take this any further, unless you have somethng new to offer. You're calling people "stupid" now, and we're rehashing the same ground each time. I would encourage you (and anyone else still here who thinks there may be something nefarious about the bill in question) to actually read the text of the Global Poverty Act and the Millennium Declaration.

Roch101

A F Ticker wrote: "As to the weapon ban. I did not offer that as part of the discussion..."

Uh, yes you did:

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons..." [AF Ticker's comment above]

You were the first to bring it up and have yet to acknowledge its inaccuracy.

The comments to this entry are closed.