On his Web site, Obama has pledged to double the United States' annual investment in foreign aid to $50 billion by the end of his first term, with the goal of fully funding debt cancellation for poor nations and fighting AIDS and global poverty.
We're in a recession - and he's going to toss around another few hundred billion to help other countries .......... where is the sense in that ? That's rnough to bail out GM and Ford isn't it ?
I'm wondering where he'll find the funding for this since he's also promised no tax increase to 90% of us, and we're already in the red. Does anybody else wonder if he thinks before he opens his mouth?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
You might want to review U.N. Resolution 2626 from October, 1970 where 22 of world's wealthiest nations, including the U.S. (Nixon was President), agreed to donate .7% of their GDP to world development aid. We most recently reaffirmed our commitment at the 2002 Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. (Ref. U.N. Millenium Project) We've never once met our pledge in the 38 years since making the agreement, giving something like .16% GDP in 2005.
Our annual contribution to the Millenium Project - which is mostly targeted at Africa - is tied with Greece as the lowest of all 22 nations that signed on to the project.
An additional $50 billion would still leave us somewhere around $50 billion short of our annual pledge.
So. Riddle me this. Why do so many complain about aid to Africa now that we've got a black President-elect?
You might want to review U.N. Resolution 2626 from October, 1970 where 22 of world's wealthiest nations, including the U.S. (Nixon was President), agreed to donate .7% of their GDP to world development aid. We most recently reaffirmed our commitment at the 2002 Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. (Ref. U.N. Millenium Project) We've never once met our pledge in the 38 years since making the agreement, giving something like .16% GDP in 2005.
Our annual contribution to the Millenium Project - which is mostly targeted at Africa - is tied with Greece as the lowest of all 22 nations that signed on to the project.
An additional $50 billion would still leave us somewhere around $50 billion short of our annual pledge.
So. Riddle me this. Why do so many complain about aid to Africa now that we've got a black President-elect?
Not sure if you understand this. But if you don't have the money to give, then you don't spend. Pledgeing or not. I don't give a rats crap about the pledge. Its really that simple.
But you still didn't answer the straight question given to you.
I don't give a rats crap about the pledge. Its really that simple.
I don't believe in making evening promises to be broken in the morning. I believe a man's word is his bond. When I say I'm going to do something, I do it and you can bet your last dollar that I will. I want my country to be the same way. After all, what country will negotiate with us in good faith if we, as a nation, are not true to our word?
As long as we have a GDP, then I believe we should make good on our pledge. All the other stuff, like whether the UN keeps it's promises or whether or not it would be 'inconvenient' for us to fulfill our pledge is side issue hogwash.
Where is the money going to come from? Same place the government has gotten it's money for the past 8 years. Borrow it from the frickin' Chinese.
As long as we have a GDP, then I believe we should make good on our pledge. All the other stuff, like whether the UN keeps it's promises or whether or not it would be 'inconvenient' for us to fulfill our pledge is side issue hogwash.
Why is it hogwash? If you don't have it, don't spend it. If the people don't want it, don't do it. All easy to understand ideas.
Why is it hogwash? If you don't have it, don't spend it. If the people don't want it, don't do it. All easy to understand ideas.
We've got it. As long as we've got a GDP, we've got the ability to pay our pledge. If we hadn't been reaffirming that pledge periodically ever since 1970, maybe it wouldn't be such a shame to let it go. But we have REPEATEDLY made that promise.
If the people don't want it? What people? You? Maybe other people are a little more inclined to begin reestablishing our national honor and integrity and living up to our international promises and pledges.
As you said, easy to understand ideas. Well, for anyone who has a clue what honor and integrity mean, that is.
So. Riddle me this. Why do so many complain about aid to Africa now that we've got a black President-elect
EVERYBODY that has been around here knows that we were all bemoaning the fact that Obama wanted to give a lot of money away before he became president ...so don't try to play the race card there Arthur.
Quote:
After all, what country will negotiate with us in good faith if we, as a nation, are not true to our word?
I guess if nations are going to use truthfulness as a barometer for future business dealings/negotiations we can all sit back and take a deep breath because we (and every other country on the planet) will have isolationism cast upon us by default. What a joke!!!Many"negotiations" between us and other countries involve some sort of free aid anyway so I'm sure that will outweighany moral dilemma they may have acccepting money from "liars".
I'm all for pulling out of Iraq (with some hopefully positive financial consequences), but to just pledge money (or continue to uphold a former pledge) seems just as foolhardy if not moreso given our current economic situation.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Obama-maniacs - riddle me this
