Obama's Global Tax, Yes We Can...

[Galaxy]

tax you and distribute it to the world.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480 This guy is a socialist through-and-through, from the roots up. Since the Democrats were so unsuccessful in eliminating poverty here (after spending an amount equal to the current total national debt), they want to finance, on the back of taxpayer's (who are already the most generous people in the world), a program that will again do nothing to reduce poverty.

[Eaglerock]

tax you and distribute it to the world.

This guy is a socialist through-and-through, from the roots up. Since the Democrats were so unsuccessful in eliminating poverty here (after spending an amount equal to the current total national debt), they want to finance, on the back of taxpayer's (who are already the most generous people in the world), a program that will again do nothing to reduce poverty.

Oh like we are better off now after the last 8 years... Clinton had us in the black...now we are so far in the red... this is the biggest Deficit in the history of out nation...can't Blame that on the Democrats... they will raise the taxes on the rich...like the Profiteers on this war...Oil Companies...etc...oh and the Bush's... that it scares them... uncluding my cousin who is a Republican Congressmen... sorry... but how else is going to pay China for the movey we borrowed to fund this war... which by the way Republicans had the Majority and was in control.... If we don't raise taxes then we will have a nation in worse shape than it is now.

[cow pollinater]

The director of my local rescue mission told me that he cringes every time Obama steps in front of a microphone. His mission thrives on private donations from individuals and local businesses. He told me that when taxes go up, he has to turn people away as the real backbone of the economy looses strength.
It makes no sense to hire the government as a middle man. If we instead cut taxes and show people where they can help directly, people will help and the money will go further without paying a wastefull middleman.

[JPK1NH]

Oh like we are better off now after the last 8 years... Clinton had us in the black...

Eagle, you realize that the Legislative Branch controls the purse strings and makes the Budget decisions.....so when you claim that Clinton had us in the "Black" the truth is that a Republican Controlled Congress had us in the "Black" not the Democrat in the Executive Branch......Slick Willy was too busy with the Intern in the Oval Office......

[Eaglerock]

Eagle, you realize that the Legislative Branch controls the purse strings and makes the Budget decisions ...the truth is that a Republican Controlled Congress had us in the "Black" not the Democrat in the Executive Branch...... .

GOOD...then we can blame the Republican Congress for this war and it's cost.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

[JPK1NH]

GOOD...then we can blame the Republican Congress for this war and it's cost.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Actually based upon voting records you would need to blame virtually each and every member of congress (less Ron Paul and that whacko Kusinich) since the vote to go into Iraq was essentially unanimous.....lets recall Hillary Clinton making public claims that she had "Done her OWN Independent research" and confirmed the stated justifications for going in......

In addition you would also need to blame both parties since the left has also voted for the war spending bills because they load them with pork....a lot of the war spending bills are ~30% pork......not to mention the recent pork laden farm bill that passed largely along party lines....and the recent Mortgage Bailout that both parties voted for...

So in a nutshell you have to give the Republican lead Congress of late 90's and 2000 credit for balancing the budget......since then Congress has been a mess regardless of who was in control...the Republicans of the 109th were not great and had an approval rating somewhere around 30%.....but the Democrat lead 110th Congress with Comrade Pelosi and Sen Reid only has a 9% approval rating.....thats a dramatic slide......maybe we'll punt the Dems in Nov.....can't do much worse than 9%......

[Eaglerock]

[QUOTE=JPK1NH;340061]Actually based upon voting records you would need to blame virtually each and every member of congress (less Ron Paul and that whacko Kusinich) since the vote to go into Iraq was essentially unanimous.....



QUOTE]


yep.. my thoughts too

[Eaglerock]

In addition you would also need to blame both parties since the left has also voted for the war spending bills because they load them with pork....a lot of the war spending bills are ~30% pork......not to mention the recent pork laden farm bill that passed largely along party lines....and the recent Mortgage Bailout that both parties voted for...

So in a nutshell you have to give the Republican lead Congress of late 90's and 2000 credit for balancing the budget......since then Congress has been a mess regardless of who was in control...the Republicans of the 109th were not great and had an approval rating somewhere around 30%.....but the Democrat lead 110th Congress with Comrade Pelosi and Sen Reid only has a 9% approval rating.....thats a dramatic slide......maybe we'll punt the Dems in Nov.....can't do much worse than 9%......


But you can't give credit for Republicans for one thing and say they are not to blame for the other... if you give the credit than you have to blame... you can't pick and choose..
So instead I would say it was both--for both... it is just about them and their pockets...

[JPK1NH]

But you can't give credit for Republicans for one thing and say they are not to blame for the other... if you give the credit than you have to blame... you can't pick and choose..
So instead I would say it was both--for both... it is just about them and their pockets...

Considering there was a near unanimous vote for going into Iraq and what public sentiment was at the time....9/11 was still fresh in peoples minds.....there was an obligation to fund the war.

Going into Iraq IMO was not a particularly smart decision....but nonetheless the decision was made....as such we/they have an obligation to follow through on that commitment and see it to a successful end.

In this particular example I blame the Democrats for changing their minds.....nothing new...both sides do it periodically by in my observations the Democrats SEEM to change positions much more frequently and for political expediency....no staying power.....they flip flop on issues like the wind changes direction.....not to be confused with evolving positions based upon new info etc....

Look at Hillary who was for the war before she was against the was and then during the primaries she was for the war AND against the war depending on what she was trying to pin on BHO........BHO on the other hand declares that Iran and N Korea are tiny countries and that they are no threat....then within 48 hours he's declaring that they are a grave threat......

Regarding the Iraq Funding, I personally think its disgusting to basically hold hostage needed funding for our troops in order to add earmarks for pet projects in their home states like Peanut Farmers in Ga and Spinach Farmers in Cali (Feinstein).

Thats why I give the Republican credit for following through on their commitment and blame the Dems for having no stamina....