UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries

Originally posted by azureskys
Take your pick.

Two Cow Politics


Socialism : You have two cows. You keep one and give one
to your neighbor.

Communism : You have two cows. The government takes them
Both and provides you with milk.

Fascism : You have two cows. The government takes them and
sells you the milk.

Bureaucracy : You have two cows. The government takes them
Both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and
Then pours it down the drain.

Capitalism : You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Corporate: You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to
produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised
When it drops dead.

Democracy : You have two cows. The government taxes you
To the point that you must sell them both in order to
support a man in a in a foreign country who has only one cow


All of the above?

anarchy...you have two cows, people come and shoot you, and take both cows.

ron paul government...you have 2 cows, people come over to buy some milk, you tell them to get their own cows if they want milk

romney government...you have 2 cows, romney buys up all the livestock feed and water rights, you get desperate and have to sell him the cows and your land.

reply to post by jimmyx


Obama government: You're not allowed to own any Cows.

However, You will be taxed so that the Government can buy 2 Cows for less fortunate folks. You will also pay an additional Tax in order to provide health care for the two Cows. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Obama government: You're not allowed to own any Cows.

However, You will be taxed so that the Government can buy 2 Cows for less fortunate folks. You will also pay an additional Tax in order to provide health care for the two Cows.

~$heopleNation

I can't believe people haven't got to the point where they're writing 'Obama government doesn't have the right to give or take American cows because he wasn't born in America' yet. Still, give the thread time.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
As for those equating this to welfare for the thrid world, that is rather laughable. Funding operations in order to ensure that many developing countries have the adquate resources to feed the starving dosen't equate to welfare, but rather humanitarianism.

I agree with the general thrust of this. However, all too often, the West's 'humanitarianism' comes with strings - which is what developmental aid is: 'humanitarianism with small print'. "We give you money to build infrastructure and towns and then, when you've started making a bit of money yourselves, you buy our goods but also buy into our political system." It's the commercial arm of Imperialism. When all that's established, all that new human resource and industry will be grateful of any opportunity to make 'western' goods to sell back to the west.

The American tax-payer will be handing over his/her money to put themselves out of jobs and the rich/elite will cream off even more profit.

People can call it what they like: robbery, scam, Capitalism gone wrong, whatever. As long they stop calling it 'socialism', it's fine.

Three words.

taxation without representation.


The US ambassador to the UN is not an elected official but an appointed post, so the above is true, and that if I recall started our nations first rebellion against a corrupt government.

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
I give a 1 finger salute to this idea. If memory serves, they tried this proposal back in 03 on a global scale. You already have DC sending out money everywhere just to have a say in what these countries are doing.
""In a resolution, the Republican National Committee made clear its objection to “three global taxes and a global monetary governance mechanism to raise $400 billion a year to aid developing countries.""

Washington Times

Fine, tax us....but take it from the Government's till, take it from the taxes we are already paying and let them figure out where to make up the difference, in the form of budget cuts.

This is just another small step toward the NWO.

The UN is a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and any government official that supports the UN is in violation of the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. Any military member that follows orders to serve on a UN force is also in violation of their oath. If it were up to me, I would tell the UN they have 90 days to pack up and get out, or I would send the Marines in to help them pack and get out... and they would take the Federal Reserve with them.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Here is a visual of your finger OP, I have the same attitude as you.





The UN is one of the tools of TPTB, same goes for the IMF.....

Originally posted by GoldenRuled

Originally posted by g146541
I think I have a worthy compromise, we, the US pulls out of the un and kicks the organization off of our soil and they can provide their own troops!
I see a win/win here.

Without the US supporting these blood-money fatcats, there would be no UN. Read the Book of Revelations in the Holy Bible to see what happens next. What's happening now is in there too.

edit on 24-8-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)

Actually I have already read their playbook a long time ago, you did say the bible right?
Are you saying the US should stay in the un for fear of what might happen next as told in a book of fairy tales?
Just one more question, are you male or female? (it is a valid question on this bible topic).

Originally posted by benrl
Three words.

taxation without representation.


The US ambassador to the UN is not an elected official but an appointed post, so the above is true, and that if I recall started our nations first rebellion against a corrupt government.

edit on 25-8-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Wasn't the United Nations actually a replacement for the League of Nations? Wasn't this replacement a product of the U.S.'s Department of State and Roosevelt's plan for the world? At the same time, on any international forum that has Americans posting, any non-American will tell you how Americans are very quick to point out that the last 70s or so of world history has been, basically, America's history, how American have been the only real super-power in all that time. How they're the greatest at this, the biggest at that, the most powerful in the other? Pax Americana?

It seems to me America has been "represented" fairly well by Roosevelt's New World Order - the problem is America doesn't like paying for that spot on centre stage.

Originally posted by benrl
Three words.

taxation without representation.


The US ambassador to the UN is not an elected official but an appointed post, so the above is true, and that if I recall started our nations first rebellion against a corrupt government.

edit on 25-8-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Yup and we know what happened the last time someone pulled that on us. Exactly the reason they don't want the American public to have guns. I tell you, if they are ever successful in that endeavor we will be doomed.

It seems to me America has been "represented" fairly well by Roosevelt's New World Order - the problem is America doesn't like paying for that spot on centre stage.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Doesn't like paying for a spot on center stage? Are you serious? Then why is it when TSHTF we are the 1st to respond? Why is it America is the top charitable contributor on the planet? We've paid and paid and paid again, many times with our blood and treasure.

Originally posted by greenie65

It seems to me America has been "represented" fairly well by Roosevelt's New World Order - the problem is America doesn't like paying for that spot on centre stage.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Doesn't like paying for a spot on center stage? Are you serious? Then why is it when TSHTF we are the 1st to respond? Why is it America is the top charitable contributor on the planet? We've paid and paid and paid again, many times with our blood and treasure.

I'm referring to this nonsensical idea of this being a case of 'taxation without representation'. It might come as a surprise to some, but during the days of the British Empire, the average man in the street was paying also taxes, rents, going without food &c and basically seeing bugger-all for what they contributed to 'their' Empire.

Also, if it is a case of 'taxation without representation' then I hope you kept your receipt for 1776 because it looks like you've got a bit of a dud on your hands.

I can't help but think, we're furious about this and well we SHOULD be. The thing is......'taxing' other nations is precisely what we in the West have been doing by way of the IMF for at least a few decades now. We peddle 'em improvement loans or capital funding and then hook 'em forever and own their little nation by the debt they then owe the IMF and often enough, the US.

I don't say it makes it right to now do it to everyone on Earth by an outright Tax but it is ironic how quick we're outraged at things, myself included, after a little thought brings the above realization.

Perhaps this is a great teaching moment for all of us to get a feel for what has been done to others for so long now, we don't even hear a passing mention made of it anymore.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


I give two one fingered salutes.

Lmao! You guys are too funny…

Anyways, throwing money received from taxing the world’s ATM is not only a horrible idea, I would argue a moronic one at best. The UN has always done everything half-a$$ed. I do not understand why they wouldn’t create a program to provide tangible resources to these countries so they may support a solid infrastructure and then self-produce entrepreneurs. Oh wait… the UN hates entrepreneurs that’s why they’ve promoted destroying the middle-class around the world for decades. Well crap… I’m out of ideas...

P.S. Don’t be fooled - this seems to me another ploy for corporate well-fare/subsidy over the guise of foreign direct investment so these poor folks can buy more cell phones and Nike’s while still living in mud huts.

The entrepreneurial spirit is what made this country great, nothing more – nothing less.

What is really going on is that multinational corporations are utilizing slave labor and usurping natural resources by instituting puppet governments, then they turn around and expect us to pay high prices for the products so they can get rich at the expense of everyone globally.

Then they ask us to pay them a tax to cover the damages they caused while getting rich at our expense, because if they had to pay for it they wouldn't be rich now would they?

This is all about them being godlike important people who deserve everything, and us being nothing nobodies who need to get in line and bow down. Pretty much.

The situation at that platinum mine in S.A. last week is a great example of how things operate. People are enslaved in their own lands to mine resources for multinationals to profit and they don't make crap for pay while they lose everything. Then they stand up and demand better conditions and pay, and they get mowed down in the dozens.

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff


yea...couldn't of been the vast mostly unexploited resouces

reply to post by GoldenRuled


A one-finger salute indeed. When people consider America to be be the wealthiest country they are going off of statistics that must not include myself. I know that I, for one, can quite barely afford to feed or house myself.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I can't believe people haven't got to the point where they're writing 'Obama government doesn't have the right to give or take American cows because he wasn't born in America' yet. Still, give the thread time.

Too late Luther, Obama and the United Nations just outlawed anyone in the USA from posting anything like that.

No worries though, Tax payer funded healthcare for cows continues. ~$heopleNation