Obama Wants a GLOBAL TAX!!!!!!!!! Colin Powell Stay Out!!!!!!!!!

bklyn1889

Star
Registered
WTF??? ayo this nigga also wants to take away guns also!!!!!!!!!! do ur reserch on this dude!! times are getting more and more fucked up! $3.59 for regular gas and plus shit is going up!

In the days to come be on the look out for more and more women to be dancing in strip clubs and more and more young girls selling pussy! everything is getting high!!



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.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to 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."

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. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

* Americans who would like their senators to know what they are voting on can contact them through information at this official Senate site.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.orgcliff.kincaid@aim.org

link
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
 
So how does this make prices high?
Its a formula to increase foreign aid.

Informative article, but the conclusion (below) is tossed out there with no support from the rest of the article. The increase is 65 billion a year. The '09 budget for Dept of Defense is $515 billion. And that doesn't include Iraq spending.

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
 
2s86bcx.jpg


"Nigga, I go where I please, and I'm still not reading all of that shit"
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.


Got Damn!!!



rambo1.gif
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.



"Even I had to laugh at that shit, still not reading it though "
asean_powell_080202.jpg
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.

brother u need to wake up! when the time comes i feel u will be the house nigga dancin for massa!!!! are u lightskinned??? just a question?
 
Plus...how is the OP gonna react when he realizes that AIM was founded by a member of the Federal Reserve!??!?!?!?!?!!? Damn...NWO on the left, Illuminati on the right...What ever shall I do!?!?!?!?!?

Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American organization which monitors the news media in the United States. Founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine, at the time an economist with the Federal Reserve, AIM describes itself as "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage." It commonly attacks what it sees as media bias. Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality, it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media
 
GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. :angry::angry::angry:
They released this shit 2 days before the MARCH 4 primary??? :hmm:
SUSPECT. THE AUTHOR IS HOPING WE DONT GET A CHANCE TO RESEARCH IT BEFORE THE PRIMARY. I should just take his word for it??

Also is Obama the head on the bill or his he a supporter??
I skimmed it, I will need to read it more careful.

I will need to research this some more. There is more to this.

YOU NEED MORE PEOPLE. I dont believe you.
I dont believe shit, until I can check it out for myself.
 
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.

TRANSLATION:
So the US (and other countries) all kick in a less than 1% of all the money they make every year....and the UN decides where the money should go to reduce poverty on a GLOBAL level. (so that the most critical areas like Darfur could receive help first)

1. This bill creates a global "su-su", so that no single country has to bear ALL the expense.
2. Also reduces the chances of corruption from any one single organization stealing money. (like those Red Cross / Katrina stories)
3. And forces the US to contribute $$$$ to places which have been long ignored for political reasons.

That's Brilliant!!!:yes:


Now what EXACTLY is wrong with this idea again?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.



pooh20owned2qm.jpg


Real talk and yeah I read all that shit..:dance::dance::dance:
 
brother u need to wake up! when the time comes i feel u will be the house nigga dancin for massa!!!! are u lightskinned??? just a question?
Bruh, unlike you, I actually UNDERSTAND these terms you throw around trying to scare people. I was into this shit back when you had to READ about it and draw your OWN conclusions, not like you coward assed dudes that watch a couple of Prison Planet and Alex Jones documentaries, get some half info and start to panic.

Internet got your mind fucked up dog and you aren't exposin' shit but a bunch of half-truths from questionable sources. The info is out there if your ass wasn't so fuckin' lazy. Shit, remember, you are the cat that was stumpin' for a fuckin' States Rights civil war/rights revisionist because you thought he was gonna take on the Federal Reserve so your judgement is suspect off top (assuming you are black and not just another Stormfront transfer).
 
TRANSLATION:
So the US (and other countries) all kick in a less than 1% of all the money they make every year....and the UN decides where the money should go to reduce poverty on a GLOBAL level. (so that the most critical areas like Darfur could receive help first)

This bill creates a global "su-su", so that no single country has to bear ALL the expense.
Also reduces the chances of corruption from any one single organization stealing money.
That's Brilliant.


And what EXACTLY is wrong with this idea again?:rolleyes:

The problem is the UN. The most corrupt organization in the world..
 
naw that's ALL bullshit..i saw him yesterday talking about gun control and he said that he would simply add more laws when it comes to owning a gun...you will still have your right to bear arms.

do YOUR research...

280.gif

Dude gets all of his info from one source and that source is questionable at best (and I suspect racist as hell).
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.

THATS THAT GOD DAMN ETHER:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
TRANSLATION:
So the US (and other countries) all kick in a less than 1% of all the money they make every year....and the UN decides where the money should go to reduce poverty on a GLOBAL level. (so that the most critical areas like Darfur could receive help first)

1. This bill creates a global "su-su", so that no single country has to bear ALL the expense.
2. Also reduces the chances of corruption from any one single organization stealing money. (like the Red Cross / Katrina stories)
3. And forces the US to contribute $$$$ to places which have been long ignored for political reasons.
That's Brilliant!!!:yes:


And what EXACTLY is wrong with this idea again?:rolleyes:

Co-fucking-sign! This bill makes complete sense, and is long overdue.
 
The problem is the UN. The most corrupt organization in the world..

But what if the UN is not handling ANY money.. AT ALL?
They just vote/decide where it goes & the countries (or designated entities) themselves receive wire transfers from everybody. And at the end of the year... the individual countries report back on *who sent what* so that the funds are verifiable. And the cycle repeats itself to ensure that different places get help every year.

People would ask their political leaders WHY they don't help *so and so* when everyone else is.

Would that be a problem?
If not the UN... then WHO should vote/dictate where the money goes... in your opinion? and WHY?
 
Last edited:
WTF??? ayo this nigga also wants to take away guns also!!!!!!!!!! do ur reserch on this dude!! times are getting more and more fucked up! $3.59 for regular gas and plus shit is going up!

In the days to come be on the look out for more and more women to be dancing in strip clubs and more and more young girls selling pussy! everything is getting high!!



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.

Edit: Tell me why it's a bad thing to contribute to help the less fortunate again?

-VG
 
Last edited:
But what if the UN is not handling ANY money.. AT ALL?
They just vote/decide where it goes & the countries (or designated entities) themselves receive wire transfers from everybody. And at the end of the year... the individual countries report back on *who sent what* so that the funds are verifiable. And the cycle repeats itself to ensure that different places get help every year.

People would ask their political leaders WHY they don't help *so and so* when everyone else is.

Would that be a problem?
If not the UN... then WHO should vote/dictate where the money goes... in your opinion? and WHY?

anytime you have a group of politicians handling the money, you will have corruption.... This sounds good, but it will end with failure in the long run...

I believe that the private sector can do way more good if they were allowed to.

Many of the worlds poorest nations have nearly the same problems.

1. no/limited financial growth
2. Totalitarian governments.

Simply giving these countries money will only make the problem grow, and guess what? These countries will still have the United States as enemy number one. Reference SOMALIA....

Love it or hate it, Bush had the right solution, but the wrong strategy. The only way you will end poverty on the most part is to get rid of the government that leaves their country poor. Meaning, if 2\3 of your country is poor, chances are, someone is keeping the money.

Now I know no one wants to do this, but thats the only true way this plan will work.
 
Last edited:
anytime you have a group of politicians handling the money, you will have corruption.... This sounds good, but it will end with failure in the long run...

I believe that the private sector can do way more good if they were allowed to.

Many of the worlds poorest nations have nearly the same problems.

1. no/limited financial growth
2. Totalitarian governments.

Simply giving these countries money will only make the problem grow, and guess what? These countries will still have the United States as enemy number one. Reference SOMALIA....

Love it or hate it, Bush had the right solution, but the wrong strategy. The only way you will end poverty on the most part is to get rid of the government that leaves their country poor. Meaning, if 2\3 of your country is poor, chances are, someone is keeping the money.

Now I know no one wants to do this, but thats the only true way this plan will work.

I kinda disagree about the Private Sector somewhat.
Look at what happened with the Red Cross / Katrina.
People donated money. The Red Cross used some, but stuffed their coffers with the rest.

However, this bill would help expose any leaks / corruption.
And puts any blame where it should rightfully be.


If Country A says we didn't receive anything from Country B...
And Country B disputes this... the Banks can verify if funds were sent or not.

OR..

If Country B says "we sent it". And their Bank confirms...
but Country A says "we never got it" then the Banks have to address their faulty systems.

OR...

If Country A receives their money but nothing gets done.
Then Country A has to explain to their citizens how they mishandled their funds.

In theory, the people who lose out are the corrupt ones.
If they steal, they would have to answer to the entire world community for their actions.
Not just their own regimes.

Maybe the best way would be to distribute funds among multiple *humanitarian entities* within the receiving country, imo. Then those entities could work with other *Private Sectors* abroad.

That way, at least something would get done if any corrupt politicians did not have control/access to ALL the funds.
So take them out of the equation completely.

It would be hard for any Politician to say...
"I don't want to pass a bill which helps the poor... because I don't get to *touch the money*"
You will know who's lying & who's serious about the issue.


Just my opinion.

Love it or hate it, Bush had the right solution, but the wrong strategy. The only way you will end poverty on the most part is to get rid of the government that leaves their country poor.

Do you mean we should fight multiple (Iraq-like) wars against all the bad governments?
 
Last edited:
Not only is it a good idea...
This bill would also expose the leaks / corruption.


If Country A says we didn't receive anything from Country B...
And Country B disputes this... the Banks can verify if funds were sent or not.

OR..

If Country B says "we sent it". And their Bank confirms...
but Country A says "we never got it" then the Banks have to address their faulty systems.

OR...

If Country A receives their money but nothing gets done.
Then Country A has to explain to their citizens how they mishandled their funds.

In theory, the people who lose out are the corrupt ones.
They would have to answer to the entire world community for their actions.

Just my opinion.

but your opinion is flawed...

What point is there to give money to a country that has been broke since the beginning? This is the problem with the schools today. We send all this money to inner city schools, and get the same conclusions.

The way you fix it is with the private sector. Oh yea, we can't let the peopel who knows business fix it.....That means he would be for the RICH. We can't have the people who employs us getting more money...Oh no, we can't have that....!!!!!
 
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."


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."

This bill simply makes it possible for our government to live up to it's commitment. We agreed to pay this money.
 
It's amazing how many cats sit up in the crib 24x7 reading prison planet articles and pissing their pants. Cats getting startled by their own farts these days.:smh:

Nobody is taking your damn guns and there isn't gonna be a global tax. We spend more than .7% GDP right now on TWO FUCKING COUNTRIES, Iraq and Israel, I'd much rather see that money go to help folks that actually NEED the help.

Bruh, you are too fuckin' dumb and afraid to be putting all this shit in your head, you don't have the capacity to process it on a logical level, you're too soft mentally and emotionally. You start pissing your pants before you even get through the first couple of sentences and then read the rest of the article in a puddle of your own fluids.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Called dat nigga chicken little...
 
but your opinion is flawed...

What point is there to give money to a country that has been broke since the beginning? This is the problem with the schools today. We send all this money to inner city schools, and get the same conclusions.

The way you fix it is with the private sector. Oh yea, we can't let the peopel who knows business fix it.....That means he would be for the RICH. We can't have the people who employs us getting more money...Oh no, we can't have that....!!!!!

I edited my earlier post to include the Private Sector.
Maybe it helps.
 
Back
Top