Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

[kaydee457 13]

The reason I posted this is because it isn't a tax on Americans to help Americans. It is a global tax on America to MANDATE a minimum level of aid to other countries. Not only that, it is a HUGE increase over what we are already giving. This is an example of what we will get if Obama is elected.

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.

A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

But, Gary, America has been screwing other countries since the fall of the British Empire...

Most of these people need aid because capitalists in this country fcuked their country's economy.

It was just a matter of time, sigh...It's the "blame america" argument again!

[Reynaldo 0]

I think the only valid argument against giving money to poor countries is the fact that people starve to death in this country.

If we really don't want to do anything about that we could at least help someone abroad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the record...

Americans for Tax Reform

JOHN MCCAIN TAX VOTES 2001-2006 & TAXPAYER RATINGS

ATR Ratings

* McCain has an average rating of 82.7 percent in the Americans for Tax Reform scorecard since 1994.

* While at first blush this may appear to be somewhat positive, the ratings vary based on three different distinct patterns of McCain’s voting.

* Since 1998 McCain has an average rating of 75 percent.

* From 1998-2002 McCain’s average rating was just 66 percent.

* From 1994 through 1997, McCain scored a perfect 100 in each year representing a Reagan-type approach to taxpayer issues.

* But as his ambitions for the President increased his ratings significantly dropped.

* In 1998 and 1999 McCain scored a 75 percent, followed by 65 percent in 2000.

* In 2001 McCain scored just 55 percent and in 2002 he scored 60 percent.

* His numbers have steadily increased. In 2003 he scored an 85 percent but the votes he was scored against were related the 2003 tax cut – arguably the most important taxpayer vote since the 1993 Clinton tax increase.

* Out of favor with the Republican base, McCain has slowly tried to reinvent himself as a taxpayer friendly Senator and has scored a 90 percent in the past two years.

Vote Summary

* McCain voted no on 6 tax cuts including the two big votes - final passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

* McCain voted yes on 3 tax cuts including 2 which received near unanimous support in the Senate and were relatively non controversial.

* McCain was not present for an additional 3 tax votes, including 2 on the very important American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

* McCain does not support permanent repeal of the estate tax, a major goal of the taxpayer movement.

* McCain has told reporters "off the record" that he would raise taxes if elected President

http://www.atr.org/content/html/mccainvotingrecord.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the only valid argument against giving money to poor countries is the fact that people starve to death in this country.

If we really don't want to do anything about that we could at least help someone abroad.

I agree and most all politicians would agree. We wouldn't have Foreign Aid if we didn't.

[britty 1]

Gary, would it be ok to you if you personally could not pay that tax, but, by doing so, one kid would starve to death somewhere in Africa?

Would that be worth 1% of your income?

Do you honestly think Gary's 1% is going to get anywhere near a starving child in Africa? Adminstrative fees will swallow 90% of that entire proposed tax. Gary would need to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and donate an entire year's pay to save that one child.

[dalegg 143]

For the record...

Americans for Tax Reform

JOHN MCCAIN TAX VOTES 2001-2006 & TAXPAYER RATINGS

ATR Ratings

* McCain has an average rating of 82.7 percent in the Americans for Tax Reform scorecard since 1994.

* While at first blush this may appear to be somewhat positive, the ratings vary based on three different distinct patterns of McCain’s voting.

* Since 1998 McCain has an average rating of 75 percent.

* From 1998-2002 McCain’s average rating was just 66 percent.

* From 1994 through 1997, McCain scored a perfect 100 in each year representing a Reagan-type approach to taxpayer issues.

* But as his ambitions for the President increased his ratings significantly dropped.

* In 1998 and 1999 McCain scored a 75 percent, followed by 65 percent in 2000.

* In 2001 McCain scored just 55 percent and in 2002 he scored 60 percent.

* His numbers have steadily increased. In 2003 he scored an 85 percent but the votes he was scored against were related the 2003 tax cut – arguably the most important taxpayer vote since the 1993 Clinton tax increase.

* Out of favor with the Republican base, McCain has slowly tried to reinvent himself as a taxpayer friendly Senator and has scored a 90 percent in the past two years.

Vote Summary

* McCain voted no on 6 tax cuts including the two big votes - final passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

* McCain voted yes on 3 tax cuts including 2 which received near unanimous support in the Senate and were relatively non controversial.

* McCain was not present for an additional 3 tax votes, including 2 on the very important American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

* McCain does not support permanent repeal of the estate tax, a major goal of the taxpayer movement.

* McCain has told reporters "off the record" that he would raise taxes if elected President

http://www.atr.org/content/html/mccainvotingrecord.html

None of this bothers me. I'd like to see his voting record for what he agreed to spend more money on (other than the war) before I blanket criticize him for voting against tax cuts. I probably should have paid more attention during the primaries!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

US foreign aid: Do Americans give enough?

With a carrier fleet on hand off Sumatra, the United States seems likely to play its usual role of being the biggest provider of relief in a major humanitarian disaster.

American giving to help the victims of the Asian tsunamis, so sudden and captured so dramatically by television, is huge. Washington has pledged $350 million in aid. Only Japan, which is closer to the Indian Ocean, has promised more - $500 million. Moreover, President Bush enlisted two former presidents, Bill Clinton and his father, George H.W. Bush, to lead a nationwide campaign to raise private funds - a move that squares with the president's preference for private economic activities.

Such efforts have pushed the question of American charity to the forefront. Is the US stingy when it comes to foreign aid?

The answer depends on how you measure.

It's a sensitive issue to the Bush administration, which is proud of its sizable boost in foreign aid with the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account for poor countries with good economic policies and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief. Mr. Bush, one aid expert said, undoubtedly shares in the humanitarian concerns of the evangelical Christian community that supports him politically.

In terms of traditional foreign aid, the US gave $16.25 billion in 2003, as measured by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of the world's rich industrial nations. That was almost double the aid by the next biggest net spender, Japan ($8.8 billion). Other big donors were France ($7.2 billion) and Germany ($6.8 billion).

But critics point out that the US is much bigger than those individual nations. As a group, member nations of the European Union have a bit larger population than the US and give a great deal more money in foreign aid - $49.2 billion altogether in 2003.

In relation to affluence, the US lies at the bottom of the list of rich donor nations. It gave 0.15 percent of gross national income to official development assistance in 2003. By this measure, Norway at 0.92 percent was the most generous, with Denmark next at 0.84 percent.

Bring those numbers down to an everyday level and the average American gave 13 cents a day in government aid, according to David Roodman, a researcher at the Center for Global Development (CGD) in Washington. Throw in another nickel a day from private giving. That private giving is high by international standards, yet not enough to close the gap with Norway, whose citizens average $1.02 per day in government aid and 24 cents per day in private aid.

But the administration sees that count as too restrictive. Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development, claimed on television last week that US foreign aid was $24 billion in 2003, up from $10.6 billion when President Clinton took office. Some experts say that number, bigger than the OECD count, is a bit mysterious. It probably includes some debt forgiveness, such as $1 billion for the Congo. Last month, the US forgave $4 billion in Iraqi debt, which may get counted in 2004 numbers for foreign aid.

The purpose of much foreign aid is to reduce poverty and encourage progress in developing nations. Toward that end, Mr. Roodman's CGD has attempted to capture other policies to construct a Commitment to Development Index for 21 rich nations. Here the US comes in much better, at No. 7. The index considers trade policy, foreign investment, immigration, environmental policy, technology, and security (some military assistance), as well as official and private aid in ranking the generosity of nations.

The US, for instance, has relatively open borders to exports from poor countries. Its agriculture is less protected than that of Europe or Japan. It lets in 1 million or so immigrants a year, mostly from Mexico and other poor nations. They remit tens of billions home.

Moreover, the US has a huge defense budget, some of which benefits developing countries. Making a judgment call, the CGD includes the cost of UN peacekeeping activities and other military assistance approved by a multilateral institution, such as NATO. So the US gets credit for its spending in Kosovo, Australia for its intervention in East Timor, and Britain for military money spent to bring more stability to Sierra Leone.

Then there's the question of balance.

Some aid experts worry that American giving to alleviate the tsunami disaster will prove out of proportion compared with other needs around the world.

For example, some 240,000 people a month (1,776 in rich countries) die of HIV/AIDS, another 136,000 a month from diarrhea in developing countries, notes Roodman. Famine kills far more people than the 150,000 plus who died in the tsunamis.

The US often helps battle these more endemic challenges too. But politics can intrude. Motives are sometimes mixed. Assistance to famine in Ethiopia or elsewhere can be a big boost to American farmers.

"Not to belittle what we are doing, we shouldn't get too self-congratulatory," says Frederick Barton, an economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0106/p16s01-cogn.html

[GaryC 7]

Gary, would it be ok to you if you personally could not pay that tax, but, by doing so, one kid would starve to death somewhere in Africa?

Would that be worth 1% of your income?

Thats a BS question. We (America) already spend more on helping the worlds poor than any other country. To try and put it like that only drives me away from being willing to help. We cannot solve the worlds problems and we cannot be mandated to an increasing amount of aid. Aid by it's very nature is volentary. This is robbery.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i did my part today, got nailed for a $1600+ payment in taxes in addition to what i've paid over the year.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i did my part today, got nailed for a $1600+ payment in taxes in addition to what i've paid over the year.

What are your thoughts on the Fair Tax Plan?

[SMOKE 1,426]

i did my part today, got nailed for a $1600+ payment in taxes in addition to what i've paid over the year.

damn! next year you should just walk in tax guys office backwards to save time.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't understand how republicans can make working people fear taxes this much.

Will America have to fail before Americans realize that small gov't is not that good of an idea?

Rey, if your feelin guilty, give up your rebate. I'm sure your concious will be proud.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, would it be ok to you if you personally could not pay that tax, but, by doing so, one kid would starve to death somewhere in Africa?

Would that be worth 1% of your income?

If that is the case then how can you live with yourself for not giving 50% of your income to save starving kids? If you don't you would be personally responsable for the deaths of 50 children!!

Edited February 15, 2008 by GaryC

[GaryC 7]

I don't understand how republicans can make working people fear taxes this much.

Will America have to fail before Americans realize that small gov't is not that good of an idea?

I don't understand how the dems can make working people love taxes this much.

Will America have to go broke before Americans realize that big gov't is not that good of an idea?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I don't understand how republicans can make working people fear taxes this much.

Will America have to fail before Americans realize that small gov't is not that good of an idea?

Rey, if your feelin guilty, give up your rebate. I'm sure your conscience will be proud.

America isn't the cause of the world's ills. The problems in the middle east and western asia are one of European design. Africa....Europe. I love how people believe that the end of colonialism was the end of Europe screwing the world. They didn't exactly leave the countries they gave up in stable conditions. That power vaccuum led to a lot of the problems in the world.

I'm not saying that the US hasn't done its share of damage, but we also provide more aid than anyone else. The problem is not with the amount of aid we provide. The problem is that the people who are set up to accept the aid are usually corrupt. There really isn't even a way to make sure the needy people get the aid without some sort of intervention.