Obama, Emperor of the World

[norwegen]

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.(link) (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/)

By now, you must have heard of this Global Tax Proposal of Senator Barack Obama's, even if you're not an American, because, well, let's face it, you and/or your countrymen are poor and helpless, and in need of America's assistance. You see, some of America's entitlement mentality has apparently moved abroad, much to the delight of American tax payers, because, well, they earn just way too damn much money, and the unproductive in America just don't have the energy to haul to their homes any state-of-the-art televisions bigger than 72 inches.

You need not thank these tax payers; they understand.

But a couple questions remain. When Atlas is done shrugging, will the acceptable poverty levels in the world start to decline? And do you, if you're a Christian, feel violated at this undermining of your charitable nature?

[$cirisme]

I'm not sure how this bill makes US spending "subservient" to the dictates of the UN?

It looks like it's a bill that would have us voluntarily match the 0.7% of GNP base that the UN would like to see from all industrial provisions. Is there actually a provision in this bill that would have our giving match the UN's current target rate?

Either way, I don't think this is the solution to poverty. But let's not get too carried away with what it does and doesn't do.

[Ryokan]

I don't support the bill, I think our foriegn aid should be determined by our own government, not the UN as they are spectacularly bad at it and we don't get any prestige out of it. But its not a global tax.

[Pilgrim]

(link) (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/)

But a couple questions remain. When Atlas is done shrugging, will the acceptable poverty levels in the world start to decline? And do you, if you're a Christian, feel violated at this undermining of your charitable nature?

Not sure how Christians can feel undermined about their charitable giving. The average Christian in the United States gives around 2% of his or her income to charity. (That includes giving to church.) Not much room to get under that really.

[historic salve]

Not sure how Christians can feel undermined about their charitable giving. The average Christian in the United States gives around 2% of his or her income to charity. (That includes giving to church.) Not much room to get under that really.
Source?

[Pilgrim]

Source?

George Barna Research Group. I'm sure they must have an online version so you can probably Google it. I assure you that it's not a made up figure. As a part of my job description I have to know these trends because I do have to lead and resource stewardship campaigns in the church and denomination.

[Objectitron]

Our congress should propose a bill that says the UN should be subservient to our foreign policy!

[Sparko]

If Obama wins would that make this an Obama-nation?

:eek:

[rogue06]

(link) (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/)

By now, you must have heard of this Global Tax Proposal of Senator Barack Obama's, even if you're not an American, because, well, let's face it, you and/or your countrymen are poor and helpless, and in need of America's assistance. You see, some of America's entitlement mentality has apparently moved abroad, much to the delight of American tax payers, because, well, they earn just way too damn much money, and the unproductive in America just don't have the energy to haul to their homes any state-of-the-art televisions bigger than 72 inches.

You need not thank these tax payers; they understand.

But a couple questions remain. When Atlas is done shrugging, will the acceptable poverty levels in the world start to decline? And do you, if you're a Christian, feel violated at this undermining of your charitable nature?

The wise among us are already making plans on how to ride out an Obama presidency. We would do well to follow their lead.

[SteveF]

The wise among us are already making plans on how to ride out an Obama presidency. We would do well to follow their lead.

Wander up into the hills with a rifle and tin foil hat?

[rogue06]

Wander up into the hills with a rifle and tin foil hat?

No. :lol: I was thinking more along the lines of financial security.

[norwegen]

I'm not sure how this bill makes US spending "subservient" to the dictates of the UN?International law prevails over national law, I'm guessing.


It looks like it's a bill that would have us voluntarily match the 0.7% of GNP base that the UN would like to see from all industrial provisions. Is there actually a provision in this bill that would have our giving match the UN's current target rate?The bill is asking other industrialized countries for 0.7% of their GNPs as well. Stealing equally from taxpayers doesn't justify stealing from them.

Government would volunteer the match. I don't believe a small band of typical, hardworking taxpayers hatched this plan. The people who are funding the plan are not the people who are volunteering the funds.
Not sure how Christians can feel undermined about their charitable giving. The average Christian in the United States gives around 2% of his or her income to charity. (That includes giving to church.) Not much room to get under that really.What percentage of his income do you think a Christian might volunteer to the needy if he were to pay taxes strictly as prescribed by the purpose of taxation (i.e. to support government, not individuals)? Socialism is oppressive.
The wise among us are already making plans on how to ride out an Obama presidency. We would do well to follow their lead.Or any Democratic presidency, really. Since the 1830s, the Democratic Party has been very gradually promoting democracy. We may be at a point now, with a Democratic Congress and White House, in which liberal policy-making may roll out of washington as if from an assembly line.

[$cirisme]

International law prevails over national law, I'm guessing.

That doesn't come close to answering the question.


The bill is asking other industrialized countries for 0.7% of their GNPs as well. Stealing equally from taxpayers doesn't justify stealing from them.

Government would volunteer the match. I don't believe a small band of typical, hardworking taxpayers hatched this plan. The people who are funding the plan are not the people who are volunteering the funds.

That's a red herring. I don't agree with government welfare either. But that wasn't my question. My question was how does this bill take away our sovereignty and make us "subservient to the UN"? If the US volunteers to match the 0.7% that the UN requests of every industrial nation, that's far from being "subservient" to them. And it's far from giving up our sovereignty, whether or not it's a good thing.

These are honest questions because I'm not familiar with the bill. If the bill just says, "The US must give .7% of GNP to third world countries" that may be bad, but it's much different than it saying, "The US must give a minimum of .7% of GNP away, plus whatever the UN asks."

[Paintbucket]

That's great. I honestly don't want my tax dollars going somewhere else.

[norwegen]

That's great. I honestly don't want my tax dollars going somewhere else.You have no say. You no longer have exclusive rights to your own property. Theft is integral to liberalism. The Constitutional Republic we call the United States is nearing extinction.

[Pilgrim]

.What percentage of his income do you think a Christian might volunteer to the needy if he were to pay taxes strictly as prescribed by the purpose of taxation (i.e. to support government, not individuals)? Socialism is oppressive.

I'd expect about the same really. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though isn't it.

[norwegen]

I'd expect about the same really. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing though isn't it.No. Prosperity is requisite to generosity. The people making less than $2 a day do not live in industrialized, capitalistic countries that enjoy high levels of economic freedom, and they do not share what they might have.

Not only would this bill take property from some in order to give it to others, but it would also perpetuate sloth among these others, and socialism (or some unorganized, hybrid economic system) among their leaders. Case in point: the United States.

[lao tzu]

The wise among us are already making plans on how to ride out an Obama presidency. We would do well to follow their lead.


No. :lol: I was thinking more along the lines of financial security.

The truly wise among us are breathing a sigh of relief that the days of reckless government spending under the current administration are coming to an end.

[Conductor42]

seriously .

[Paintbucket]

You have no say. You no longer have exclusive rights to your own property. Theft is integral to liberalism. The Constitutional Republic we call the United States is nearing extinction.

I'll agree to an extent. I don't think it is as close though as we might think. But how do I have no say? And if you will, what is Balanism?

[norwegen]

But how do I have no say?Well, maybe you do. I don't know. If Washington allows you, a tax payer, to opt out of this plan, will you tell me what you told them? I would like to tell them the same thing.
And if you will, what is Balanism?Oh, we support the use of suppositories.

[Paintbucket]

Well, maybe you do. I don't know. If Washington allows you, a tax payer, to opt out of this plan, will you tell me what you told them? I would like to tell them the same thing.

I attended a Church of the Brethren Youth Conference, and there was this one guy there that said he had calculated how much of his tax money went to our military and he was able to withhold that portion of his taxes because of religious beliefs. So if I wanted to, I could come up with something like that. In addition, I am able to vote, so I can vote my way out of it. Besides, Zeitgeist said that there is no law for taxes anyway... :wink:


Oh, we support the use of suppositories.

I am sorry, but I seem to misunderstand what that has to do with politics...

[Pilgrim]

No. Prosperity is requisite to generosity. The people making less than $2 a day do not live in industrialized, capitalistic countries that enjoy high levels of economic freedom, and they do not share what they might have.

The reality is that the research shows that the less people have the more of a percentage of the total they share. For instance during the great depression the percentage of income given to charity rose from the 2 to 3 percent to over 6 percent. The reality is exactly the opposite of what you're describing. In other words, prosperity is not requisite to generosity.

[Conductor42]

The reality is that the research shows that the less people have the more of a percentage of the total they share. For instance during the great depression the percentage of income given to charity rose from the 2 to 3 percent to over 6 percent. The reality is exactly the opposite of what you're describing. In other words, prosperity is not requisite to generosity.
Yeah, but that lesser percentage they give is a higher total (generally).

[historic salve]

I looked it up and according to the Barna Group, (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=187) the average American (not just the average Christian) gives about 3% of their income. I'm surprised that the percentage is so low, but this one percentage doesn't take into account the total amount of giving Americans give. The same article notes that Americans as a whole give billions to charity each year.

[Philosophickle]

At least you can opt out of Obama's health care plan.

[Pilgrim]

I looked it up and according to the Barna Group, (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=187) the average American (not just the average Christian) gives about 3% of their income. I'm surprised that the percentage is so low, but this one percentage doesn't take into account the total amount of giving Americans give. The same article notes that Americans as a whole give billions to charity each year.

The Gospel speaks to this and praises the woman who gave everything out of her poverty and chastizes the man who gave little out of his plenty. He may have given more in total, but the widow gave everything she had.

Think about it. If just an average of 3% equals billions in the sum total imagine what we could do, what we could change, who we could feed, heal, educate...if we gave as sacrificially as the widow. Heck, imagine what we could do by just doubling the average. I stand by my original statement, it's hard to undermine what we, on average, give.

And here's another interesting thing, and it says something about priorities: We're going to spend 515 Billion dollars on the DOD budget for 2009. And as far as I can tell, that doesn't include the actual cost of waging war in Iraq. (According to their press release.) I guess maybe that's for a totally different thread though.

[Conductor42]

Obama once said that with the money we'll have spent on Iraq we could have rebuilt every school, rebuilt every hospital, and repaved every road in America. When I think about that, and how many soldiers have had their lives sacrificed in this mismanaged catastrophe, I wonder if it really is worth it to stay in Iraq anymore.

[Philosophickle]

Obama once said that with the money we'll have spent on Iraq we could have rebuilt every school, rebuilt every hospital, and repaved every road in America. When I think about that, and how many soldiers have had their lives sacrificed in this mismanaged catastrophe, I wonder if it really is worth it to stay in Iraq anymore.

Then maybe McCain isn't for you?
:eek:

[historic salve]

Obama once said that with the money we'll have spent on Iraq we could have rebuilt every school, rebuilt every hospital, and repaved every road in America. When I think about that, and how many soldiers have had their lives sacrificed in this mismanaged catastrophe, I wonder if it really is worth it to stay in Iraq anymore.
Obama should take a class in federalism.

[Ryokan]

Obama once said that with the money we'll have spent on Iraq we could have rebuilt every school, rebuilt every hospital, and repaved every road in America. When I think about that, and how many soldiers have had their lives sacrificed in this mismanaged catastrophe, I wonder if it really is worth it to stay in Iraq anymore.

There are costs to leaving too though. The pullout now crowd igores that. I think those cost far outweigh the cost of continued involvement, especially sense the cost Obama mentioned are sunk costs.

[historic salve]

The Gospel speaks to this and praises the woman who gave everything out of her poverty and chastizes the man who gave little out of his plenty. He may have given more in total, but the widow gave everything she had.
No disagreement here.


Think about it. If just an average of 3% equals billions in the sum total imagine what we could do, what we could change, who we could feed, heal, educate...if we gave as sacrificially as the widow. Heck, imagine what we could do by just doubling the average. I stand by my original statement, it's hard to undermine what we, on average, give.

And here's another interesting thing, and it says something about priorities: We're going to spend 515 Billion dollars on the DOD budget for 2009. And as far as I can tell, that doesn't include the actual cost of waging war in Iraq. (According to their press release.) I guess maybe that's for a totally different thread though.
I think the government should be spending more money to fund welfare programs (and some other domestic programs like highway repair), but there is not necessarily a dichotomy between doing that and staying in Iraq.

[Ryokan]

The Gospel speaks to this and praises the woman who gave everything out of her poverty and chastizes the man who gave little out of his plenty. He may have given more in total, but the widow gave everything she had.

Think about it. If just an average of 3% equals billions in the sum total imagine what we could do, what we could change, who we could feed, heal, educate...if we gave as sacrificially as the widow. Heck, imagine what we could do by just doubling the average. I stand by my original statement, it's hard to undermine what we, on average, give. I don't think undermining is a problem


And here's another interesting thing, and it says something about priorities: We're going to spend 515 Billion dollars on the DOD budget for 2009. And as far as I can tell, that doesn't include the actual cost of waging war in Iraq. (According to their press release.) I guess maybe that's for a totally different thread though.
I'm game for that thread.

[Conductor42]

Emperor Obama - it has a nice ring to it.

[Ryokan]

Emperor Obama - it has a nice ring to it.

Only if he has a High Chancellor Ryokan. Or at the very least Minister of Graft and Corruption Ryokan.

[Conductor42]

Only if he has a High Chancellor Ryokan. Or at the very least Minister of Graft and Corruption Ryokan.

I was thinking more along the lines of this...

(I took it with my secret installation of GIMP spy camera and enhanced the ring's resolution) :hehe:

[norwegen]

The reality is that the research shows that the less people have the more of a percentage of the total they share. For instance during the great depression the percentage of income given to charity rose from the 2 to 3 percent to over 6 percent. The reality is exactly the opposite of what you're describing. In other words, prosperity is not requisite to generosity.Yea, okay, the woman with the two pennies. Maybe I should have said that prosperity is requisite to the amount given, i.e., to the impact of generosity.

And I’m curious. If you'd "expect about the same really," that the percentage of income a Christian might donate to the needy is commensurate with expansions in government social programs, why would you then suggest that it’s not the same, but maybe 2 to 3 percent higher?

At any rate, what is the bias in the research you’re referencing? And what is the research you’re referencing? Do you have a legitimate source, such as from the US Treasury Department? Empty Tomb is biased – Christian – and says, “Both income and giving were going up in the 1920s. Giving was routinely above 3% during this period through 1933. Giving as a portion of income fell below 3% in 1934 and was low through World War II” (link (http://www.emptytomb.org/fig1_05.html)). The reality is that the research shows that the less people have, the less of a percentage of the total they share. At least, that’s what I’ll believe until you substantiate your claim.

Minimal research tells us that giving has declined since LBJ introduced to us his “Great Society.” Government social programs have been crowding out faith-based social programs for 50 years. (One exception might be the 1980s, when Reagan reduced taxes by a considerable margin.) This study ( http://www.nber.org/papers/w11332) finds that “higher government spending leads to lower church charitable activity.” Whether individual contributions to churches are higher than, lower than, or the same as they are with or without crowd-out means nothing to charity when smaller percentages of these contributions are being used for charity.

Even less research tells us the results of socialism. The purpose of this Global Poverty Tax is to benefit people in countries like Vietnam and Laos, not people in the industrialized, capitalistic countries who are to be subject to this taxation. Big government leads to oppression, so the UN is taking a step toward big government. Liberal irony is mind-boggling.

[Pilgrim]

The research you link to has nothing to do with individual charitable giving. Rather it is about institutional giving, specifically church and church organizations. It's apples and oranges.

[norwegen]

The research you link to has nothing to do with individual charitable giving. Rather it is about institutional giving, specifically church and church organizations. It's apples and oranges.
“Both income and giving were going up in the 1920s. Giving was routinely above 3% during this period through 1933. Giving as a portion of income fell below 3% in 1934 and was low through World War II” (link (http://www.emptytomb.org/fig1_05.html)).That page, though biased, is not about institutions; it's referring to per capita income.

What legitimate source do you have that tells us people gave a bigger percentage of their income to charity during the Great Depression?

ETA: not that the Great Depression, one example for which statistics may or may not conflict, is going to tell us the story. A perfunctory look at history and trends tells us that as socialism advances, people become impoverished. Charity comes from without, as this global tax bill attests to.

[FreezBee]

The Gospel speaks to this and praises the woman who gave everything out of her poverty and chastizes the man who gave little out of his plenty. He may have given more in total, but the widow gave everything she had.

Think about it. If just an average of 3% equals billions in the sum total imagine what we could do, what we could change, who we could feed, heal, educate...if we gave as sacrificially as the widow. Heck, imagine what we could do by just doubling the average. I stand by my original statement, it's hard to undermine what we, on average, give.

But that logic depends on money having a specific value, which they don't. Giving money away is really nothing. People buy food and clothes for those money, and where do they buy those? In the USA!

- FreezBee