Your views and feelings of poverty

[rlg94086]

Shame on you.

 

[Lisdogan]

KathleenElsie:
Bless you for your wisdom and insight.

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

Originally Posted by Lisdogan
There are a hundred million people dead of HIV, already and another 200 million or so infected out here in the real world. I live in Africa, where poverty, pain, starvation, homelessness, disease, lack of education clean water and health care, anomie, crime driven by carelessness about life are rife. So should I be satisfied that Jesus told us we will always have the poor with us? What proportion of the people should be poor? 98? (which is the global figure). Alot of what you mentioned is preventable. Some is not. Compassion and the care of the least is part of the moral obligation of everyone.

 

[mapleoak]

Oh…a “thirty pointer”…here I thought mapleoak was talkin’ about a new breed of dog that points at something other than game.

Ya, Eh!, that would sure be something.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ya, Eh!, that would sure be something.

I think all dogs do that, at least momentarily.

On topic, though, I saw a tv program in which an Aussie agricultural expert said that only about 23% of the arable land in Africa is actually being farmed. He brought that figure up in connection with talking about potential competitors with Australia in providing food products to East Asia. It was not a political conversation, but a practical one, having to do with Australian agriculture’s prospects in the future.

Given all the reports of malnutrition in Africa, and assuming this man knew what he was talking about, does anyone know why this low utilization of potentially productive land would be so?

 

[Tigg]

And when it comes to foreign countries, I do not favor, e.g., invading Zimbabwe. But when all aid ends up in the hands of Bobby Mugabe and his cronies, is there really an alternative to either invading or just letting it go? The U.N. is so profoundly corrupt that it can hardly be regarded as an answer. It’s corrupt because its course is determined largely by the world’s leaders, most of whom are corrupt themselves. I just don’t see how pouring money into the hands of corrupt leaders does anyone any good but them.

I agree with you Ridgerunner and received this in an e-mail last week. I find it quite frightening.

Want say the rest of you? (I’ve tried to edit this to take out any personal notes from the sender and apologize for the length but wanted to give you as much info as possible):

Subject: S. 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007
Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders,

Obama’s bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct 0.7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for “food” to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to “banning small arms and light weapons” but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2433.html

**Detailed Summary **
Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.
Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.
Defines specified terms.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.
kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html
More on Barack Obama’s S.2433 : Global Poverty Act
We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)
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.
And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, “is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels,” Kincaid writes.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Poverty is not the end all it is made out to be. Extreme poverty is one thing- going hungry to the point of starvation or not having clothing or shelter is one thing-but being poor is another.

I look back when I had much less than I do now and think life was simpler because I wasn’t worried about keeping what I didn’t have. Cheap hamburger was good enough, I didn’t need steak. I made things rather than bought them new. I fixed my own vehicles, changed my own oil and drove less because I had no money to go places. I was closer to family and friends generally as well when I had less.

I think we do a dis-service sometimes trying to bring everybody a mega-mall in Kabul or a Micky D’s in Bagdad. This is why government shouldn’t be involved as it is. People would give what they can to causes they feel beneficial in accordance with their own values and not give to those they do not share.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with you Ridgerunner and received this in an e-mail last week. I find it quite frightening.

Want say the rest of you? (I’ve tried to edit this to take out any personal notes from the sender and apologize for the length but wanted to give you as much info as possible):

Subject: S. 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007
Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders,

Obama’s bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct 0.7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for “food” to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to “banning small arms and light weapons” but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2433.html

**Detailed Summary **
Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.
Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.
Defines specified terms.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.
kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html
More on Barack Obama’s S.2433 : Global Poverty Act
We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)
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.
And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, “is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels,” Kincaid writes.

The politics of the present moment being what they are, I think we are going to find ourselves in a very bad way when 2009 begins. And the above certainly won’t be all of it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I might be wrong here. IT seems to me that if those that were hungry were to actually be fed the cost is not bad. OTOH I do not think there is any way that the food and assistance would get to those in need in many areas of the world. I am not willing to support dictators and despots.

 

[RWMorris]

I might be wrong here. IT seems to me that if those that were hungry were to actually be fed the cost is not bad. OTOH I do not think there is any way that the food and assistance would get to those in need in many areas of the world. I am not willing to support dictators and despots.

You are not wrong, there has not been a single famine in the past 1000 years that was not the result of war, hate, or government incompetence. They certainly were not caused by a lack of food.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are not wrong, there has not been a single famine in the past 1000 years that was not the result of war, hate, or government incompetence. They certainly were not caused by a lack of food.

But there is no lack of holier-than-thou people willing to blame the rest of us for those famines.