GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

tony286 · 09-06-2008, 12:44 AM

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...3&tab=analysis

Jul 7, 2008 4:07 PM - CBO says this bill would cost less than $1mm/year to implement and there is no adverse effect to state, local gov'ts. Right wing blogs claim it will cost taxpayers $845 billion between now and 2015. What is the truth? - Read Answers
Answered by a visitor on Jul 16, 2008 7:55 PM - This is to fund the United Nations Millennium plan for global poverty. Our share would be .7% of our Gross National Product. This is where the $845 billion price tag comes from.
Answered by a visitor on Aug 30, 2008 1:59 PM - The 0.7% of our $13.8 Trillion GDP is $96.6 billion. This 0.7% number was established by members of the UN (including the US) 35 years ago and has been reaffirmed many times. In 2002 George Bush was at the Global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico where he and other world leaders AGAIN reaffirmed this commitment to the UN. Yet the US still pays $65 billion less than our agreed commitment to the UN EACH YEAR. At that conference President Bush stated that reducing global poverty will reduce terrorism. No one disputes that, so it is unclear why he and our congress have restricted these funds to the UN. This bipatisan Obama-Lugar bill simply asks the Senate to acknowlege our commitment and enable the government to honor that commitment. If for no other reason, because (as President Bush pointed out in Monterey), reducing world poverty is one of our most valuable weapons against terrorism worldwide. The House version was passed last year. It is unclear why the Republican majority in the Senate has not voted on this bill.

09-06-2008, 12:44 AM
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...3&tab=analysis Jul 7, 2008 4:07 PM - CBO says this bill would cost less than $1mm/year to implement and there is no adverse effect to state, local gov'ts. Right wing blogs claim it will cost taxpayers $845 billion between now and 2015. What is the truth? - Read Answers Answered by a visitor on Jul 16, 2008 7:55 PM - This is to fund the United Nations Millennium plan for global poverty. Our share would be .7% of our Gross National Product. This is where the $845 billion price tag comes from. Answered by a visitor on Aug 30, 2008 1:59 PM - The 0.7% of our $13.8 Trillion GDP is $96.6 billion. This 0.7% number was established by members of the UN (including the US) 35 years ago and has been reaffirmed many times. In 2002 George Bush was at the Global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico where he and other world leaders AGAIN reaffirmed this commitment to the UN. Yet the US still pays $65 billion less than our agreed commitment to the UN EACH YEAR. At that conference President Bush stated that reducing global poverty will reduce terrorism. No one disputes that, so it is unclear why he and our congress have restricted these funds to the UN. This bipatisan Obama-Lugar bill simply asks the Senate to acknowlege our commitment and enable the government to honor that commitment. If for no other reason, because (as President Bush pointed out in Monterey), reducing world poverty is one of our most valuable weapons against terrorism worldwide. The House version was passed last year. It is unclear why the Republican majority in the Senate has not voted on this bill. Last edited by tony299; 09-06-2008 at 12:45 AM..