Thadius -> RE: Ich bin ein beginner...Obama in Berlin. (7/28/2008 2:09:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity So you believe that Obama would blow the budget wide open? Worse than Bush? I believe Senator Obama would spend more of our money here at home, as opposed to President Bush's plan of spending it rebuilding countries we demolished in the first place. I have no illusions about the "goodness" of Senator Obama. I'm not a fanatic, and have become imune to the pretty speeches and boyish charm. This has become about the focus of agenda, and what can be reasonably done by the two candidates. I was somewhat on-board with Senator McCain's straight talk express, until it became the straight neo-con express. I'm willing to accept that he took that path, in order to get the nomination ... but he has had it for quite some time, and has chosed to move further in that direction ever since. I'm not afraid of the neo-con agenda, I just feel that it will get nothing done for our nation. In Senator Obama, I see someone has has a chance to get a very narrow window of things accomplished. In short, I'm making the choice between not enough, and nothing at all. Not enough, is better than nothing. Interesting perspective.... he is already attempting to put our money where his mouth is.... quote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405 He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends." .......... The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending. "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," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said. Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable." Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance." "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) 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 of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said. Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims. Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas. Where is this money that is going to be spent at home coming from? Let alone how the hell are we going to afford policies like this?
|
|
|
|