S.2433 - Global Poverty Act of 2007

A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Global Poverty Act of 2007 as introduced.
  • Short: Global Poverty Act of 2007 as reported to senate.
  • Official: A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 285 total comments.

  • nightowl 02/15/2008 1:49pm

    ABNU, janaid2001, Anonymous, you couldn’t be more right. I cannot BELIEVE anybody could seriously consider the Obamination for the Presidency. I thought Prexy was supposed to defend the Constitution first & foremost, and advocate for and support the U.S. and her domestic and strategic interests FIRST ahead of anything else. And I thought such a person was expected to have enough moral stamina to reject “help” from anybody who would glorify the mass-murderer Guevara, or his ilk.

    The man is NOT morally serious at all. And this Global Poverty Bill is an unprintable word, for all the reasons everybody’s already given.

  • EricMcpherson 02/15/2008 5:23pm

    I think that it is a shame that we can not fix the problems here in America but we seem to think that America has enough money to supply the world it’s cures. I don’t think our economy is reflecting that.

  • bobohack1 02/16/2008 10:22am

    We need to take care of our own country. There are plenty of hungry people living here that the government seems to ignore. Black, white, red and yellow and any variations there-of living here should be our priority; NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!! Bob

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 02/16/2008 11:07am

    Live 8/G8. It’s not the British so we’re supposed to agree to having a percentage of our country’s GDP/GNP income tax taken and sent overseas without a vote in Congress? This is taxation of out country’s income for foreign governments. If it’s not their goevernments, it’s NGOs. The money taken out of our GDP/GNP income tax will be used by the governments and NGOs for their own people and the dollar getting to the guy on the street will be, maybe 15 cents and it won’t be cash. No one is getting the US GDP/GNP tax money, but friends of the administration.

    Obama wants to play with Hollywood and Singers. Please. ‘yes we can.’ A new dem tax on our country’s income, so the President can pay off friends is ridiculous.

  • Anonymous 02/16/2008 4:15pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Check out detailed bill information on SB2433 HERE: </> http://www.statesurge.com/bills/26563

  • Anonymous 02/16/2008 7:18pm

    I’ve read the actual proposed legislation and this article is an extreme spin of what the actual bill says.

    Read it for yourself.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:s2433:

    The article below focuses on one paragraph and one sentence in particular:

    (a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

    Somehow they extrapolate that sentence to mean the the U.S. would somehow be mandated to follow everything in the Millennium Development Goals. Read the bill. It says NOTHING like that. The only thing it mentions is that the US would try to meet that one goal of helping global poverty. The bill does not say how the US will do this and it certainly does not place any tax or other mandate on the Gov’t. That would be unconstitutional as Senator Obama knows as he was a Constitutional Lawyer at Univ of Chicago Law School for ten years. In fact it says, as you can see above, “The President shall shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy……”, this means the President has DISCRETION on how he will develop and implement such a strategy. There is NOTHING is this bill that suggest and certainly nothing that mandates how this gets done.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/25/2008 10:58pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    Why is it the responsibility of the United States taxpayers to pay even $1 to a foreign country? ITS NOT! We pay taxes in this country FOR our country…that is unless you are a foreigner and want to see the bankruptcy of America!

  • Comm_reply
    rburciar 02/26/2008 10:51am

    You are absolutely correct, there is NOTHING in the BILL. It is all fluff. But let’s get real; we can’t even take care of our own citizens in New Orleans. How do you think they would feel when our own public officials take valuable tax paying time to create a bill when we still have displaced families since 2005. Shame on us. Let’s clean up our own backyard before we stick our noses in other places.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 03/17/2008 12:30pm

    dogman here. Rburciar – please explain to me why I am responsible for the citizens in New Orleans?

  • Comm_reply
    Lou48314 10/29/2008 6:34am

    Explain WHY we are responsible for another country.
    I hold higher regard for the people who could not realize they lived BELOW SEA LEVEL then I have for the people of another country. ANY OTHER COUNRTY!
    I do not feel I am responsible for either. If I have to pick one or the other, I will take the residents of New Orleans BEFORE I would pick another country!
    God Bless America.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 11/20/2008 3:41am

    You say God Bless America…..you ask our Maker to bless us, and His(God’s) response is…..“what you do unto the least of these, you do unto me”. If you are going to call our God to bless us, then perhaps you should follow the instructions He has given us, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 09/15/2008 12:56pm

    But I thought H.R.1302 mandates this. Looks like you missed something.

  • Comm_reply
    Lou48314 10/29/2008 6:31am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    It may not say it.
    It is ONE step closer to it though.
    Try to deny that.

  • Anonymous 02/17/2008 4:10pm

    So “Shall” means that if you want a wall painted red you Shall let the Painter decided the best strategy of getting the paint applied to the wall and in your mind that is somehow being misconstrued by us “common folk”.

    I think you miss everyones point in the that America doesn’t want the red paint on the wall.

    Or maybe that Obama has a Job in which HE is supposed to set goals for america NOW as a Senator not make us reach other countries Goals ahead of our own.

    Creating equality by bringing the wealthy down to the poverty line is not something even the poor of America want.

    Taxing my employer to the point he has no profit doesn’t exactly make my job secure. Sure you will lower my taxes only because I will be unemployed and have to pay less taxes.

    I mix the tax debate into this because these Senators just happen to be the ones who want to tax companies into a “balanced budget” situation with an extra 3/4 trillion dollars of spending in just this one bill.

    Ooops did we forget to mention that in our television ad or youtube spots.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • JamesKlichII 02/18/2008 6:49pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This sounds like a great bill but I am not sure if the United States has the money to implement this. If funding is an issue maybe the bill could be phased in over a longer time table. There are many issues we need to address inside the United States.

  • ABNU 02/19/2008 9:19am

    Response to:
    “The bill does not say how the US will do this and it certainly does not place any tax or other mandate on the Gov’t.”

    unless the president is going to work on his own time, in a donated office using donated funds, it’s tax money. the government is not a charity, it takes your money and spends it on whatever it does. It owns nothing but debt, which is always passed along to us and ours.

    So again, if you want to help people in other countries, go there and “fix” them. Be their leader, boil their water, show them how to find food and build shoe factories, bring condoms. Keep a list of all the poor souls you’ve helped and you may be able to get it deducted from your taxes, or it may get you into heaven—either way you won’t know til you try. Lead by example.

    ABNU (anonymous but not unknown)

    PS The only people who should even think about supporting this are people who have already spent years as an “in-country” volunteer for a foreign aid charity. To support it otherwise makes you a lazy hypocrite IMHO.

  • ABNU 02/19/2008 10:42am

    Response to:
    “That would be unconstitutional as Senator Obama knows as he was a Constitutional Lawyer at Univ of Chicago Law School for ten years.”

    obama, as far as I can tell, is a socialist. our constitution is somewhat of a non-sequitur if not a antithesis to a socialist point of view. it certainly has no effect nor meaning should a president (with the support of the other 2 branches of government) choose to ignore it; that is to say, there is no law that says ‘government’ cannot pass laws that may (later) be found to be unconstitutional. We will suffer years under an unconstitutional law, yet no one will go to jail, and no fines will be levied; the constitution it is said, “has no teeth”.

    What remains is a question of Obama’s intellectual honesty and existential dedication to the spirit of the constitution. And again I disagree that Obama ‘cares’ about the constitution. For example, he wants more gun laws but promises that they won’t impinge on the rights of ‘hunters’ (that old saw). The truth is, the right to own a gun is was specified as a tacit agreement that the government should fear the citizenry; the citizenry would remain armed such that they could fend off an ‘out of control government’. When people mention that, the “true” reason for the 2nd amendment, ‘we’ call them crazy. I agree that the practicality of a violent revolution in the US, small arms and semi-automatic weapons vs. the modern might of the US military is in fact, absurd.

    However, the principle is very sound and necessary, and a constitution expert would certainly know it has nothing to do with hunting. Only a demagogue or one of their idiot followers would believe that even the concept of self defense against government is futile and counterproductive because a (US) socialist government is benevolent and fair (now who sounds crazy?). Yet that belief is the guiding principle of (US) socialism, which explains why in spite of Obama’s years as a constitutionalist, the principal purport of most if not all of his legislation is unconstitutional (or at least contrary to its philosophy) and socialist in nature. Obama and Hillary agree, only government can bring good things; the constitution often gets in their way. Yes, he ‘knows’ the constitution, but only because he needs to be able to circumnavigate it, not because he wants to abide by it.

    ABNU (anonymous but not unknown)

    PS Sorry this is so long, I’m trying to get a blog at
    http://www.electronicfreedomfoundation.org.
    but they don’t seem to be able to get off the ground. See? I’m trying to volunteer and lead by example!

  • tmdyer 02/21/2008 7:14pm

    Our government has no business in taking care of the world. Let’s repair and restore our own country before we investigate solutions for such an unfeasible notion.

  • KWN 02/22/2008 9:10am

    Short and simple! We have enough governmental financial issues in our country now. With our homeowners being foreclosed on, corporations moving to the countries this bill is going to give money to; should I keep going? Let’s fix our financial, business and job status in this country FIRST. We don’t need to dabble in other countries economies any more than we already are. This bill/law will just muck things up more and make us go further into a financial abyss.

  • Ike 02/22/2008 11:50am

    Just when I thought this nation couldn’t be dumbed down any more…

    Did anyone click the links and actually read the bills? There is nothing — repeat nothing — in that bill that calls for spending of a dime. Our foreign aid is budgeted and appropriated every year and very littel goes to Africa. There is also nothing in the bill that directs the suspension of the 2nd amendment, kicking puppies, drowning helpless kittens, killing the “unborn” or (unfortunately) believing everything a paid propagandist tells you.

    The US agreed to the Millennium Development Goals before Obama came to the senate and your President has been implementing our end of what we agreed to in 2000. Are we doing it for altruistic reasons? Hardly, and most of our foreign aid never leaves this country. It goes into deep corporate pockets, but that’s another story. Your prez knows Africa is about 50% Muslim and that poverty breeds nasty people who kill us. He has said that repeatedly and has tripled aid to Africa since taking office. He did it without help from Obama… Go figure.

    BTW, we’re halfway to the Millennium target of 2015 and how much aid have we given Africa, the 2nd largest continent with a population of 1 billion? I think we’re up to about $27 billion or a fraction of what we’ve given to Israel… Whoooo hooo! That’s about 27 bux per person (or 1/6th of what we hand out in corporate welfare every years) so that will sure stop poverty in its tracks. Do some homework people.

    As for Obama driving the “socialist” (???) “Global Tax” train, the bill was introduced by Rep Adam Smith in the HR almost a year ago and passed unanimously (because it doesn’t mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good). Obama (and Hagel and Cantwell who aren’t mentioned in news for dummies) is simply introducing the bill in the Senate.

    If you’ll notice, this isn’t new news at all and has been in the works for some time. Mr Cliff Kincaid is behind the endless carp you’re reading and if you Google him you’ll find that he is a right wing hack funded by R.M. Scaife, another POS. He targets the tinfoil hat crowd. :/

  • Comm_reply
    ABNU 03/18/2008 11:19pm

    Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion.

    Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason.

    “Just when I thought this nation couldn’t be dumbed down any more…”

    Well, you for one could be a little better at math… 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here’s a clue, it’s at least a million dollars each because, I’m fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million.

    …and if you give me my share directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me—I will not adopt haters)*.

    In any case, making pointless ‘feel good’ bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money.

    Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a ‘b’) dollars already being spent, so, I’m not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb.

    I doesn’t matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The bill that says the government can tap your phone without a warrant doesn’t actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill, but you’re against that aren’t you? Now who’s wearing the tin foil hat?

    As if the government doesn’t have better things to do than to listen your conversations. What’s that? Oh, it’s the principle of the matter? I’d like to agree with you brother, except:

    “(because it doesn’t mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good)”

    See, that’s the problem, it doesn’t make me feel good at all. It scares me. So, if you support me in not threatening to take my money, I’ll support you in keeping your phone line, private.

    I said it once, I’ll say it a million times, if you believe in foreign aid, use your money and go over there.

    *Don’t force me to be a Christian, don’t force me to turn the other cheek and support people who hate me instead of Bush or the CEO’s of large corporations or their own leaders who live in luxury while the people starve. You keep talking about poor as if being in The States means I’m somehow immune from being poor. You’re not debating with the upper class here—we’re your neighbors—are you sure you want to break us? Because if you do, the only people left to help you are the upper class and something tells me you two don’t get along.

    “he is a right wing hack funded by…”

    Yes, we know both sides are forcing globalism on us. Clinton signed NAFTA.

    “He targets the tinfoil hat crowd.”

    You seem to know a lot about that crowd. I saw a movie where it took one to know one.

  • Comm_reply
    ABNU 03/18/2008 11:20pm

    Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion.

    Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason.

    “Just when I thought this nation couldn’t be dumbed down any more…”

    Well, you for one could be a little better at math… 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here’s a clue, it’s at least a million dollars each because, I’m fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million.

    …and if you give me my share directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me—I will not adopt haters)*.

    In any case, making pointless ‘feel good’ bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money.

    Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a ‘b’) dollars already being spent, so, I’m not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb.

    I doesn’t matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The bill that says the government can tap your phone without a warrant doesn’t actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill, but you’re against that aren’t you? Now who’s wearing the tin foil hat?

    As if the government doesn’t have better things to do than to listen your conversations. What’s that? Oh, it’s the principle of the matter? I’d like to agree with you brother, except:

    “(because it doesn’t mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good)”

    See, that’s the problem, it doesn’t make me feel good at all. It scares me. So, if you support me in not threatening to take my money, I’ll support you in keeping your phone line, private.

    I said it once, I’ll say it a million times, if you believe in foreign aid, use your money and go over there.

    *Don’t force me to be a Christian, don’t force me to turn the other cheek and support people who hate me instead of Bush or the CEO’s of large corporations or their own leaders who live in luxury while the people starve. You keep talking about poor as if being in The States means I’m somehow immune from being poor. You’re not debating with the upper class here—we’re your neighbors—are you sure you want to break us? Because if you do, the only people left to help you are the upper class and something tells me you two don’t get along.

    “he is a right wing hack funded by…”

    Yes, we know both sides are forcing globalism on us. Clinton signed NAFTA.

    “He targets the tinfoil hat crowd.”

    You seem to know a lot about that crowd. I saw a movie where it took one to know one.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Moderated Comment

  • InGodWeTrust 02/22/2008 2:41pm

    We are NOT the saviors of the world. Save America from the globalist regime and one world order! NO! We are tired of being taxed to death. We are tired of paying the wages of a government who does not listen to us.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 05/14/2008 6:11am

    I agree with about being taxed to death.

    With a three TRILLION dollar budget our highways, streets “AND POT HOLES” should be paved in GOLD.

    Who’s kidding who republicans and democrats…both parties aren’t just irresponsible thieves, they are obscenely INSANE!

  • hazillow 02/23/2008 6:24am

    have you morons even read the bill? it doesn’t allocate any more or less funds for foreign aid – that is and always has been set separately.

  • Anonymous 02/23/2008 6:48am

    The wording that doesn’t say GDP/GNP INCOME TAX is there to distribute the money and make sure wiavers can be put in place for countries that have US or UN sanctions in place. For example, a military coup ends the democratic government of a country that is in Iraq and all forms of US and UN aid are cut off but election reform. The President no longer has to issue a waiver for funds under national security, but can have the Secretary of State issue a waiver for funds under security concerns using the State Department special account set up for funding in country and waived sanctions to keep the money going to the country around sanctions. This is how Peace Corps is funded in countries like Fiji, Thailand, Philippines, etc. and all other funding is cut off due to sanctions. The GDP/GNP INCOME TAX funds could get the same type of wiavers from the Secretary of State, not the President, for countries that are deemed needy of the funding regardless of US or UN sanctions, like Peace Corps.

    The wording is there to make sure the GDP/GNP INCOME TAX is not cut off to countries under sanctions.


Vote on This Bill

14% Users Support Bill

124 in favor / 770 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments