Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program


HK4U

New member
For those of you that think Obama will be good for our economy. Here is what voting for him will be. Allowing him to take care of the national debt is like allowing a fox to watch the hen house.:suicide:

Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program - America’s Election HQ

Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program
by FOXNews.com
Friday, September 19, 2008


FacebookStumble UponDigg Email Buzz up!


Barack Obama speaks to reporters following a meeting with his top economic advisers Friday. (AP Photo)


By Bill Sammon

Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that “we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline,” is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.

“The short-term weakness in the capital market is a reflection of long-term problems that we have in our economy,” Obama told reporters in Florida. “We have been loading up enormous amounts of debt.”

Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping “Millennium Development Goals” the U.N. adopted in 2000.

“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal,” the candidates vow in their campaign platform.

Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.

“It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”

Hanke said such expenditures are especially unwise in the wake of significant expansions of government and spending during President Bush’s tenure.

“We’ve been spending like drunken sailors and making obligations into the future like drunken sailors,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path in terms of the fiscal situation in the United States because of massive spending growth and commitments.”

Obama said he wants to curtain at least one of those costly commitments.

“We have spent well over half a trillion dollars — soon to be a trillion dollars — on a war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqis are now running surpluses,” the Illinois senator said Friday. “We’re still spending $10 billion a month there.”

But in December, Obama also sponsored the Global Poverty Act which, if passed, would require the president to commit to cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion.

Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations.

Bill Sammon is Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.
 

Last edited:

HK4U

New member
And if you did not already think giving money to the U.N was lunacy I submit the following article.

FOXNews.com - International Fight at U.N.'s $5 Billion Anti-Poverty Agency Over Secrecy - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

International Fight at U.N.'s $5 Billion Anti-Poverty Agency Over Secrecy
Friday, September 19, 2008

By George Russell

E-Mail Print Share:

Nearly 18 months after the United Nations Development Program promised to shed daylight on its internal operations to the countries that pay its bills, is the U.N.'s flagship anti-poverty agency going to live up to the deal?

That is one of the main issues in a tussle currently taking place within UNDP's 37-member executive board, which supervises the organization, and which winds up its semi-annual meeting today in New York.

The battle is led by the U.S. and a number of other Western nations that pay most of the UNDP's bills (the U.S. alone donates roughly $500 million annually to UNDP). Some of the Western states are concerned that UNDP is still trying to keep its $5 billion operations — and any problems it has with them — under as many wraps as possible. For its part, UNDP says it is happy to cooperate if only all the countries that make up its board can agree. The outcome of the battle is still uncertain.

The issue revolves in part around UNDP's disclosure of its internal audits to U.N. members that request them — a policy that became a hot button a year ago, when the U.S. demanded to look at UNDP audits for North Korea. The audits, conducted periodically of all UNDP programs, examine how the organization is spending its money and whether it is following its own rules while doing so. Traditionally, UNDP's top managers have considered them to be "management tools," and insisted they be kept confidential, even from the governing executive board.

But all that began to change in 2007, when U.S. diplomats got to examine a series of UNDP audits of its programs in North Korea. After reading them the U.S. accused UNDP of funneling millions of dollars in hard currency to the Kim regime, hiring North Korean government employees to fill sensitive UNDP jobs in the country, and passing on sensitive "dual use" technology that could be used in North Korea's nuclear program, all in violation of U.N. rules. Moreover, UNDP auditors had passed on many of those concerns to top management; nothing was done.

The essence of the U.S. charges was vindicated, and then some, in a special investigation of UNDP's operations in North Korea, which reported in June of this year. The lengthy document not only buttressed most of the U.S. charges, but also reported that a North Korean government employee who served as UNDP's finance officer also verified the receipt of the checks she wrote, in violation of one of UNDP's most fundamental anti-fraud rules.

In the midst of the North Korea battle, the U.S. issued a new demand: that future UNDP audits be made public to member governments on request. The UNDP punted the response to its current executive board meeting, as part of a discussion on a UNDP "accountability framework," which included not only the audit issue, but protection for whistleblowers who drew attention to wrongdoing within the organization, and the authority of ethics officers who are supposed to do the protecting.

In its only official comment on the situation, the chief U.S. diplomat on the executive board, T. Vance McMahan, stated only that "we believe the Board should have access to all UNDP internal audits ... and we believe all information, except that which could affect the due-process rights of individuals, should be made available to the Board."

The major roadblock to that idea, according to sources familiar with the in-house tug-of-war, is China, the country with the closest ties to North Korea, and which has been energetically extending its influence in the rest of the developing world, notably in countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe, with enormous human rights concerns.

According to sources, a coalition of Western nations had managed to forge a consensus that the audits would be handed out under two major conditions — that they not be leaked to the public, and also that the countries where UNDP spending was being audited would be "informed" of a request to view the documents and be offered the chance to respond to whatever was discovered.

At the last minute, China demanded that the key term be changed to "consulted" — which apparently means that the target country could keep the audit confidential.

Whether the logjam would be broken today remains highly unclear.

But for watchdog organizations monitoring the tussle, even the compromise so far seems unacceptable. The Government Accountability Project (GAP), a Washington-based group that helped the United Nations frame its overall ethics policies back in 2005, charges that the "accountability framework" presented by UNDP to the board still gives UNDP management too much authority to cover up its actions.

If a government wishes to see an audit report, a reason must be provided to UNDP," GAP declared in a statement to FOX News. In contrast, when UNDP withholds a report, neither the UNDP top administrator nor the auditing organization needs to give a reason.

"How can UNDP preach 'good governance' to its member states and at the same time concoct an accountability system like this?" GAP asked.

GAP was equally skeptical about UNDP claims to provide adequate protection for whistleblowers who call attention to wrongdoing. Their claims of retaliation are referred to a UNDP ethics committee, which can only recommend subsequent relief actions to UNDP top management — which may have allowed any retaliation in the first place.

The stakes on the outcome of Friday's meeting — if it is not once again kicked down the road — are high. For UNDP, a judgment by the U.S. State Department that it had failed to achieve sufficient "transparency" could trigger a congressionally mandated cutback on U.S. financial support, one of the main reasons why the new policy is under discussion at UNDP at all.

On the other hand, lack of a policy for examining audits leave UNDP operations in such countries as Iran, Venezuela and Sudan — or any other rogue country where UDNP programs might be abused — dangerously out of sight.

George Russell is executive editor of FOX News
 

jwtollett21

New member
so you guys think voting for a guy who voted withthe bush administration 90 percent of the time is the answer to obama. Don't forget who got us into this mess in the first place. It wasn;t the democrats it was W and his republican congress. He inherited peace and prosperity and now look at this country.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Actually, none of this is any surprise to me at all. This is something that the typical Democrat would support.
 

HK4U

New member
Actually, none of this is any surprise to me at all. This is something that the typical Democrat would support.
I agree. What is a surprise is that after saying something like that anyone in their right mind would vote for him.:fie:
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I agree. What is a surprise is that after saying something like that anyone in their right mind would vote for him.:fie:
Unless of course you're poor, minority, handicapped, homosexual, a midget, or in some other way a downtrodden casualty of this capitalistic cesspool.
 

boris

New member
i agree..

the UN and it's successor can go to -BLEEP-BLEEP-BLEEP!!! on the other hand, my new everly brothers cd came in.:eek:fftopic:
 

HK4U

New member
that is a good tune. makes more sense than flushing billions down the toliet.
Music from that era had a melody and harmony, you could understand the words and were not sorry you could. Those were the days.
 

MP3Mogul

New member
so you guys think voting for a guy who voted withthe bush administration 90 percent of the time is the answer to obama. Don't forget who got us into this mess in the first place. It wasn;t the democrats it was W and his republican congress. He inherited peace and prosperity and now look at this country.
You should be a bit more informed:

Actually, the Clinton years of "do nothing" caused what happend during the Bush years. 911 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration.

He inherited Peace and Prosperity? Yeah 911 was real peaceful.. .all planned during the Clinton Administration.

Prosperity? Guess you really believe Bill Clinton balanced the budget... yeah, the TRUTH is, Clinton balanced it on "PAPER" it was never really balanced and any high school kid could have accomplished that.

Yep, 8 years of absolutely NOTHING ... that's wwhat caused the US to be the shape it is right now.:hang2:
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
You should be a bit more informed:

Actually, the Clinton years of "do nothing" caused what happend during the Bush years. 911 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration.

He inherited Peace and Prosperity? Yeah 911 was real peaceful.. .all planned during the Clinton Administration.

Prosperity? Guess you really believe Bill Clinton balanced the budget... yeah, the TRUTH is, Clinton balanced it on "PAPER" it was never really balanced and any high school kid could have accomplished that.

Yep, 8 years of absolutely NOTHING ... that's wwhat caused the US to be the shape it is right now.:hang2:
I agree. Consider this:

-The first World Trade Center attack was orchestrated by who? If you guessed al Qaeda, you're correct. No response by Clinton.
-The 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia was orchestrated by who? If you guessed al Qaeda, again you're correct. Again, no response by Clinton
-The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 were orchestrated by whom? If you again guessed al Qaeda, you're now four for four. Clinton's response? The infamous cruise missile attacks that destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
-The U.S.S. Cole attack in 2000, which was orchestrated by, you guessed it, al Qaeda. Clinton's response? None of course.

I dislike Bush, but I'm willing to bet that he would not have allowed us to get attacked 5 times without a response. Furthermore, if he had been President instead of Clinton, he would have responded after the first attack, and I argue that there never would have been a September 11th.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,104
Messages
621,557
Members
74,097
Latest member
PBR rider
Top