digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

'Change' we can't afford from Obama

dailyherald.com — Barack Obama is presently sponsoring Senate Bill 2433, a "Global Poverty Act", which would devastate our national resources

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Gorgamel, on 05/18/2008, -6/+22That act is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Barack's intentions that would devastate our national resources. Putting him in office would be the worst decision this country could make right now. Socialism is no solution.
  • johnny2k, on 05/18/2008, -5/+17I am not quite sure if this could be accurate:

    U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is presently sponsoring Senate Bill 2433, a "Global Poverty Act", which would devastate our national resources, pledging $845 trillion or 7 percent of our nation's gross domestic product!

    $845 TRILLION? Maybe $845 Billion would be a little more accurate, you think?

    Well, anyway, from reading the comments that followed the article, it didn't seem to dawn on any of the commenters that a Global Poverty Act would be nothing more than global socialism. I don't have any problem with assisting other countries in cases of natural disasters, especially because much of the funds are usually provided by private individuals and non-government organizations like the Red Cross and churches.

    However, when it comes to fighting global poverty, especially in places like Africa, S. America, and South Asia, there is not much we can do to help when the leaders in the most impoverished countries are corrupt and/or Socialist dictatorships. Those countries any many cases do not allow foreign investors from the West in to their countries. Also, even if they did, what is the incentive to invest when it is likely that at some point, there's a good chance that corrupt leaders like our friend Hugo Chavez won't come along and nationalize the industries and seize the capital infrastructures?

    But at any rate, if one of the comments to the article was accurate, where the co-sponsors were listed, it just shows how so many Republicans have moved to left. Don't they realize that this is just another plot to redistribute our (U.S.) wealth around the world? And why are all these Republican U.S. Representatives and Senators doing this? To show their "compassion"? To prove that they "care" more than God does?

    This is just more proof that their true agenda is to move us all to a global socialist government.
  • fireashes, on 05/18/2008, -11/+0Well to send a bill in 2433 he needs to be president then.
  • thejimmyo, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9You can read the text of the bill here.
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show

    It doesn't say anything about $845 trillion. What it says is that the President should consult with the appropriate United States agencies, international financial institutions, etc. and "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." We're not compelled to spend any specific amount, let alone "$845 trillion."
    • Hortnon, on 05/18/2008, -6/+2I was starting to wonder if anyone else had gone and actually read the bill.

      All the bill actually requires is for the President to make a plan. That's it. Nothing else. Just creating a plan.

      Buried, with pleasure...
    • IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9We already send far too much aid overseas. There are many places in the world who have the same "entitlement" attitude we see in the US welfare class. Enough, already.
  • diamondbigdog, on 05/18/2008, -2/+13It is not the job of the US to worry about or fix GLOBAL poverty. The money that is confiscated from us is supposed t be spent on Constitutionally authorized items. Not poor people in other countries and truthfully, not poor people here. It is not my job to make sure other people's families are fed or their kids go to college or they have health insurance. I am responsible for paying for my own family and not everyone else's.

    When government realizes this and when liberals across the country stop advocating confiscating the property of others to pay for their social Utopia we will be in a lot better shape.

    From The Life of Colonel David Crockett
    http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_ ...
    • MrDuke77, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3That is a remarkable account. Unless the Constitution has been amended since then to specifically ALLOW for govt charity, our current batch of corrupt politicians continue to lead us further astray from it. If this current congress were sent back in time to be judged on their faithfulness to the Constitution, the entire Senate and all but a few Republican Representatives would be found sorely lacking and run out of town on a rail.
  • blackjack75, on 05/18/2008, -10/+1Why spend so much money trying to fix poverty when you can spend it much faster waging war?

    That doesn't make any sense.
  • mshafer314, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1Fighting poverty.

    Such an ignoble goal.

    Dang..if only we could defund anti-poverty programs and maybe build more weapons or something..THEN we might make some progress in the world.
    • MrDuke77, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5Government spending on fighting poverty is not ignoble, "just" unConstitutional.

      Whereas spending on weaponry for national security IS Constitutional.

      Read the link posted by diamondbigdog above if you have doubts.
    • InRussetShadows, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Strangely enough, any government entity created to solve a problem never solves the problem, but only grows as time goes by. Welfare -- the feds did a bang-up job on that one, didn't they? Somehow, US poverty was worse than before they started. Why do you think that they'd solve global poverty? Isn't that like gambling with billions of dollars when you're just not very lucky?

      Better yet -- gamble with your own money and keep your hands out of my pockets. What if I think that pregnant mothers in Louisiana are better deserving? Now I don't have the money to give them, because Obama just forced me to give it to his UN buddies, who will ensure that some sliver of the funds get to the people (after it makes through all the local bureaucracy in the targeted country).

      Using government to fight poverty is notoriously inefficient and just about always feeds the problem instead of creating a solution.

      Ask yourself this -- what is different about THIS global anti-poverty scheme that makes it workable when all others have failed? Anything? And you think that a man who attended a racist church for 20 years but didn't know anything about it is suddenly trustworthy and aware? Wow.
    • mshafer314, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0I agree that government welfare programs are notoriously inefficient. But i think that *supplying funding* doesn't equate with *establishing welfare*. Government is able to effectively supply funding (ie, school vouchers) in needed areas without creating a program doomed to fail.
    • Zacktopia, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Our planet is overpopulated. More weapons needed please.
  • Zacktopia, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10Funds to be administered by the U.N. Lovely.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.