President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations

reply to post by canadiansenior70


Interesting that someone who is giving his own money to support the same causes, Bill Gates does not cut a check to UNESCO. He administers the cash himself. He's on record as to why and its because he does not want most of the cash blown or end up in the pockets of warloards or filling the off-shore accounts of corrupt dictators. Yet, Obama's comfortable sending in the check.

Who do you suppose gets more bang for their buck with respect to actually helping folks, Gates or the UN?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Common Good

 

I meant in relation to your total budget..

$4 Billion to the US budget is change behind the sofa.

$4 Billion to the UK is an aircraft carrier...

But why do I as an American taxpayer, want to buy you a new warship?

Its not the governments money,
Its the peoples money, and our president thinks he can just give it all out at his own discretion.

Not the way its supposed to work here.

Step one--impeach obama,step 2 --cut welfare ,step 3- cut foreign aid completely.It is just that simple.By following these 3 steps ,America will recover in no time flat.God bless America.

reply to post by Common Good


Ok, I think you missed the point...

What I was saying is that $4 Billion to you guys represents only a fraction of 1% of your total budget, whereas to the UK, such an amount would pay for one of the two new carriers we're building (one of which goes straight into mothball due to a spending review as we cant afford to run it). Then I was comparing that the UK pays over £10 Billion a year in aid, even when we can't afford it and are cutting NHS and Education spending.

In a nutshell, I am agreeing with your premise!

Namely, that in times of austerity at home, why are we sending such huge amounts abroad.

reply to post by canadiansenior70


The real kicker is that the UN is paying for Chinese citizens. We borrow from China then use that money to pay for their citizens with AIDS.

Stop the madness, we are NOT the worlds sugar daddy or benefactor.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Common Good

 

Ok, I think you missed the point...

What I was saying is that $4 Billion to you guys represents only a fraction of 1% of your total budget, whereas to the UK, such an amount would pay for one of the two new carriers we're building (one of which goes straight into mothball due to a spending review as we cant afford to run it). Then I was comparing that the UK pays over £10 Billion a year in aid, even when we can't afford it and are cutting NHS and Education spending.

In a nutshell, I am agreeing with your premise!

Namely, that in times of austerity at home, why are we sending such huge amounts abroad.

Yea I understood what you were saying in the beginning, didnt really know which side you were on this issue though, but now I do.

IMO- this is really more of a slap in the face to Americans from their own president more so than it is the $4billion.
For him to just pick a number like that and donate it without getting approval from the people is just wrong.
No matter how good the intentions are.

reply to post by canadiansenior70


This is a total nothing of a story in all honesty. The USA
has never met its financial obligations to the UN since its inception in 1945. In fact the only country that has is Japan. The facts and figures that back this up are freely available for those who wish to check

I cannot believe this thread is already on
page 2 and not a single person noticed
the date on this article is almost a year old

October 6, 2010

and BEFORE the current debt ceiling talks.

hmmmm. agenda here ???

reply to post by boondock-saint


And that is why you are Boondock Saint.

reply to post by canadiansenior70

Unless he took up a collection from private donors he has no right to do this.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by canadiansenior70

 

This is a total nothing of a story in all honesty. The USA
has never met its financial obligations to the UN since its inception in 1945. In fact the only country that has is Japan. The facts and figures that back this up are freely available for those who wish to check

And the US government is (last time I checked the statistics) 3rd from the bottom of foreign aid per capita.

In other words - - the US government donates far less per capita then almost all others.

Its just fact.

reply to post by canadiansenior70


Personally I believe we should get out of the UN period. There have been pushes along the years to do exactly that and there is no better timing than now. The UN never was worth much except for being a white elephant and a joke on the American tax payer. It has become the joke of the world. The money will probably be donated by Obama for backing him up in Libya. Don't worry very little if any will go directly to help anyone. The worlds politics has become nothing but a legalized Mafia. The American people being nothing more to them than clowns.

reply to post by redrose123


You don't have a passport -- do you??

reply to post by spyder550


Whats having a passport, which I presume suggests that were one to wish to travel, the UN is what is going to make that a reasonable pleasurable experience? I'm guessing that the most prolific travellers stay away from the areas where the UN targets assistance, either via aid or through their peach keeping forces. I say targeting because thats pretty much all they do, since they fail to accomplish anything.

The UN has out lived its usefulness. The world would be far better off dealing with cooperatives based on values and regional make-up. Private organizations or countries themselves should administer aid and the peace keeping force, which largely means US military should be completely disbanded.

At a minimum, the dues for the UN should be based on global GDP, not this heavy handed, anti-US model it currently is and that goes for all of it. Why is the US paying 8x the dues that China does? The Chinese are heavily into Africa at the moment. They have the most go gain from the UNs efforts in Africa.

That makes perfect sense. The US pays an inordinant amount of dues to the UN which stablizes regions making them ripe to be exploited by the Chinese.

reply to post by canadiansenior70


If people don't understand what a scam the Federal reserve money system is now I do not know what will convince them. The whining about the debt ceiling and shutting down government and not paying the elderly is all a dog and pony show. These folks think they have the goose that lays the golden egg with thier ability to create money at will and you know what? They do and they are laughing at the ignorance of the American people!

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The UN has out lived its usefulness. The world would be far better off dealing with cooperatives based on values and regional make-up. Private organizations or countries themselves should administer aid and the peace keeping force, which largely means US military should be completely disbanded.

No.

There needs to be a global Headquarters.

The UN needs to be fixed - - not eliminated.

There is Idealism - - then there is reality.

is our national debt still climbing at an alarming rate.
wtf

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by spyder550

 

Whats having a passport, which I presume suggests that were one to wish to travel, the UN is what is going to make that a reasonable pleasurable experience?

It means that your experience of the world is narrow.

This is just typical for Barry, the man has no financial sense. The USA is broke and this clown is throwing money around like he just won the jackpot in Vegas.

Check out this link for a breakdown of the 2009 Foreign Aid: en.wikipedia.org...

In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
Total economic and military assistance: $47.7 billion
Total military assistance: $13.7 billion
Total economic assistance: $33.9 billion of which, USAID assistance: $11.7 billion

This money is needed more at home than overseas right now.

I believe in such causes, but I also believe that we're not really in a situation to give absolutely anything to anybody right now. In fact, the U.S. should start taking up donations.