A1: This is to fund the United Nations Millennium plan for global poverty. Our share would be .7% of our Gross National Product. This is where the $845 billion price tag comes from. [Answer submitted on Jul 16, 2008 7:55 PM]

A2: The 0.7% of our $13.8 Trillion GDP is $96.6 billion. This 0.7% number was established by members of the UN (including the US) 35 years ago and has been reaffirmed many times. In 2002 George Bush was at the Global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico where he and other world leaders AGAIN reaffirmed this commitment to the UN. Yet the US still pays $65 billion less than our agreed commitment to the UN EACH YEAR. At that conference President Bush stated that reducing global poverty will reduce terrorism. No one disputes that, so it is unclear why he and our congress have restricted these funds to the UN. This bipatisan Obama-Lugar bill simply asks the Senate to acknowlege our commitment and enable the government to honor that commitment. If for no other reason, because (as President Bush pointed out in Monterey), reducing world poverty is one of our most valuable weapons against terrorism worldwide. The House version was passed last year. It is unclear why the Republican majority in the Senate has not voted on this bill. [Answer submitted on Aug 30, 2008 1:59 PM]

A3: In response to the vistor Aug. 30th, the Republicans are not in the majority in the Senate, nor the House for that matter. [Answer submitted on Sep 5, 2008 8:38 PM]

A4: 0.7% of the GDP is a bit less than $100 billion this year. With a small amount of growth, and counting the years 2008-2015, the total would exceed $800 billion THRU 2015. That is how the GOP got the number of $845 billion. Their figures just had more details than the rounded case presented here. It amounts to slightly less than $3,000 per person for every man, woman,and child in the USA. [Answer submitted on Sep 9, 2008 11:12 PM]

A5: In response to the visitor of sep-9, the BEA reports GDP as 14,294.5 BILLION for the 2nd QUARTER of 2008. .7% of that is already over 100 billion...that's for ONE QUARTER. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 8:13 PM]

A6: The link to the GDP data is http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp. The values are tablulated "annual" and "quarterly". The annual value is under $14 trillion, as such 0.7% is just under $100 billion. [Answer submitted on Oct 24, 2008 5:00 PM]

A7: Do all of the other countries pay the total that they have agreed to each year or is the USA the only one that falls short? [Answer submitted on Nov 15, 2008 9:42 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Yes, there are supposed to be other countries involved in this.

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world?s poorest nations.

[Answer submitted on Nov 1, 2008 1:42 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No express authority exists for this bill. However, John McCain was once asked if he would agree to a bill requiring a constitutional reference to the authority for each legislative proposal. He said he would oppose such a requirement as it would prohibit most of what the Congress does. DUGHHH!! [Answer submitted on Jul 22, 2008 9:35 PM]

A2: Article II, Section 8.

Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.

... To regulate commerce with foreign nations...

to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.

Nowhere does it say "Congress can take your money and give it to foreigners." It does say "Congress can take your money, and it can use the money it has to interact financially with foreigners." Presumably that can be one-way, as in a gift.

Which is not to say that this bill authorizes any additional money to fight global poverty [Answer submitted on Jul 30, 2008 11:50 AM]

A3: Congress has an obligation to fund any financial support required to fight any war against the United States of America. As President Bush has stated many times, the War on Terrorism may be the most significant war we ever participate in, and certainly one we must win. [Answer submitted on Aug 30, 2008 2:08 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The bill appears not to require such adherence, however, it has a vague reference the the overall goals as follows:

"Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals...." which might be interpreted to promote the other goals thereby opening the door to more legislation that specifically address the the Unitied Nations Millienium Goals (MDG). [Answer submitted on Aug 1, 2008 1:26 PM]

A2: The clear answer is YES is would sell out US soveriengty and allow the UN to tax the US. [Answer submitted on Oct 28, 2008 2:02 PM]

A3: NO, this bill would NOT sell out US sovereignty. The law of the land is the US Constitution, which cannot be changed without a Constitutional Amendment. This bill is not a Constitutional Amendment. If it introduces any law that is unconstitutional, it can be challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court. Remember "Checks and Balances"? And given the conservative nature of the current Supreme Court, it is likely that is just what would happen, should any of these fears turn out to be true. [Answer submitted on Nov 23, 2008 4:40 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: LBJ's War on Poverty [Answer submitted on Aug 1, 2008 10:00 PM]

A2: The wording includes "worldwide" in several places, but it's been struck from many others. This insinuates and discounts the insinuation that we are included in the "worldwide" bit... [Answer submitted on Aug 6, 2008 9:53 AM]

A3: While reducing American poverty is a factor in many bills focused on helping the most needy of our population, there is no expectation that poverty in America is a cause of terrorism. One could argue that the future military (and internal security) costs to our country (if we have to fight uncontrolled terrorism attacking us and our interets worldwide) will reduce the funds we will have available to help our own citizens by trillions of dollars. [Answer submitted on Aug 30, 2008 2:15 PM]

A4: In reference to the answer from 8/30...There is no expectation that "extreme worldwide poverty" as defined (those living on <$1/day) is a cause of terrorism. None of the perpetrators of 9/11 were living on that. I don't think you could buy a plane ticket, dirty bomb, or a truck full of explosives on $1/day. You cannot make the argument that this bill will have any affect on terrorism. [Answer submitted on Oct 23, 2008 8:42 AM]

A5: "Poverty" is a relative term, which is why the bill targets those who live on less than $2/day, according to the purchasing power parity adjusted to the 1993 US dollar. For many in America, "poverty" is not being able to afford the $200 sneakers and the $500 game console in the same month. Short answer: no, it doesn't likely include American poverty. [Answer submitted on Nov 19, 2008 5:26 PM]

A6: There is clearly poverty in America. There are homeless people who work two jobs so that they can have enough money to not afford a house. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but having a lot of something doesn't mean that it gets divided up any more than it would otherwise. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are worse off. But it's kind of irritating when you work full time and get no benefits because our government can't afford to help out with health care and neither can the employer, and to then pay taxes while public schools and hospitals are shutting down because they aren't being financed by those tax dollars. And then they spend billions so that they can get leverage of some other country (you think they don't have a motive?) while also securing the rich liberal vote for being so noble. It's crap. Maybe the whole Iraq war let's-liberate-people-by-killing-them thing is making me more isolationist, but there are enough problems here to keep them busy. And then maybe we can arrogantly appoint ourselves the world's police and savior. [Answer submitted on Nov 21, 2008 11:28 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The Milliennium Declaration has set 8 goals to be achieved by 2015. A link to the implementation of the MDGs can be found at www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml [Answer submitted on Aug 25, 2008 10:01 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No, the US poor will not be covered. This is designed to redistribute wealth from the American people to the third world "developing" countries. It will actually create more poverty in the U.S.A. as it will bring up the poor countries at the expense of the American taxpayers. [Answer submitted on Aug 28, 2008 12:18 AM]

A2: Please provide citation and data for this pervious answer [Answer submitted on Aug 28, 2008 7:44 AM]

A3: There is NOTHING in the text of this bill that says it could not include Americans. Fortunately I doubt you could find anyone in this country that is making less than $1 a day! WE have safeguards; many others do not. [Answer submitted on Sep 3, 2008 4:06 PM]

A4: This is not designed to give specific relief to individuals, but countries. Right now the foreign aid America provides is done with provisions. Mostly this aid is given to fledgling democracies, and countries that we call allies. The United nations thinks this is unfair and that we should share with Socialist's regimes and those who would harm us. [Answer submitted on Sep 5, 2008 1:56 PM]

A5: If persons in the US were living on the equivalent of less than $1 a day then the UN could choose to distribute the money to them. With food stamps and wellfair and other probgrams there is virtually no one living on less than $1 a day in the Unites States so it is unlikely we will see any of the money. That kind of poverty just does not exist on a mass scale here [Answer submitted on Nov 7, 2008 6:17 PM]

A6: If these people can live on 1 or 2 dollars a less per day, maybe they should be placed on the Bailout Committee and help us solve our financial crisis> [Answer submitted on Dec 1, 2008 6:22 PM]

A7: When we are talking about $1 to $2 a day in a "third world developing country", perhaps we should also look at cost of living in the areas they reside. It seems that we need to include this information when deciding on levels of poverty. When you factor in the cost of living in the USA, a person can make much more than $1 to $2 a day and still be equivalent to the same level of poverty as in one of the third world countries. I personally feel a family living in a car is more poverty stricken than a family living in a shack. Don't we have some "home-work" to do before we take on the problems of the world? [Answer submitted on Dec 27, 2008 4:42 PM]

A8: Judging by my homework, I believe that the $1 or $2 a day figure is adjusted for purchasing power parity.

I wouldn't call it "taking on the problems of the world," as working against poverty is very much in our self-interest, for instance poverty may be a contributing factor to terrorism. [Answer submitted on Feb 23, 2009 9:24 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill is not meant as an educationl demand for the recipient governments and their people who make less than the $1 a day. How they deal with it is the job of that country and/or other UN resolutions for the recipient country. If you read the bill then your question is beyond the scope as it is currently worded [Answer submitted on Nov 7, 2008 6:12 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Supposed to be .7% of our GDP, which if my numbers are correct, comes out to $1332/person/year, based on 300 million population. if only the top 5% are getting their taxes raised, as the bill's sponsor promises, they will pay $26.680/person/year. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 8:08 PM]

A2: From what I have read, between now and 2015, this bill will cost taxpayers around 845 billion. That's 845 billion above and beyond what the US is already contributing to world poverty and charities. If passed, the UN is authorized to assess American taxpayers with a "global poverty tax". It's a big step toward losing our sovereignty. By the way, Barack Hussein Obama is the sponsor of this bill. But it's possible Obama doesn't want us to know about this until after the coming election. [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2008 12:25 PM]

A3: The 0.7% of GDP figure is not in the legislation, but in the figures of the UN's Millenium project.

Also, your figures are incorrect. The GDP is around 13 trillion dollars. 0.7% of that is 91 billion dollars. That is approximately $303.33 per person, per year, IF those funds were allocated (which is not a part of this legislation). [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2008 9:42 PM]

A4: "If passed, the UN is authorized to assess American taxpayers with a "global poverty tax". It's a big step toward losing our sovereignty." Source please.... [Answer submitted on Oct 21, 2008 5:59 PM]

A5: To A4: Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to drop the link here. Google "Obama's Global Poverty Act". If you find sources that say otherwise, please let us know. [Answer submitted on Oct 26, 2008 10:04 PM]

A6: How do we ensure that the 5% who are being taxed remain in this country - i.e., who is going to pick-up the tab when they decide to move to a lower-tax country and take their assets with them? [Answer submitted on Nov 12, 2008 8:16 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It's aimed toward nations experiencing extreme poverty...people living on $1 a day or month or whatever. Don't know if there is a list of qualifying nations but it's a good guess that Africa will be at the top of the list. [Answer submitted on Oct 26, 2008 10:08 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: They are committed to support along with the US, but there is no guarentee on how much the general rule is no less than 0.7 percent of a nations GNP, but there is no cap so we could actually pay even more. You can read the bill on the US Senate website and read about the Millenium Doctrine on the UN website. [Answer submitted on Oct 24, 2008 10:54 AM]

A2: Per the UN site all nations in the G8 pledged to support. There is no solid # amount that I can find from the other nations but I would expect most are trying for a similar 0.7% GDP as that was the suggested minimum. [Answer submitted on Nov 7, 2008 6:20 PM]

A3: Please help me find on the UN site where the G8 pledged to support. Also, please show me where the 0.7 percent of a nations GNP is cited as well. I'm just trying to locate. Thanks. [Answer submitted on Nov 13, 2008 4:49 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: There is talk of assessing a "carbon" tax. Existing revenues are not sufficient to cover US obligations to eliminate extreme poverty. [Answer submitted on Nov 1, 2008 1:29 PM]

A2: I read the bill. No money is allocated anywhere in the bill. The bill requires the U.S. Government to work with other entities to reduce poverty, but does not mandate any particular action. The U.S. Government is already acting to reduce poverty. That is part of U.S. foreign policy. I would suggest that people be more skeptical when reading partisan accounts of legislative action. [Answer submitted on Nov 5, 2008 2:46 PM]

A3: Once the bill is passed, it charges the current US President with the responsibility of designing a plan detailing what measures the US will take to contribute to the elimination of extreme poverty. The plan is submitted to the UN. The amount designated by the UN that the US would be contributing is .7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This translates to approximately 845 billion dollars from time of inception to the year 2015. In light of the economic distress of the US economy at the present time, there may be some alteration of, or delay in, expected US contributions. The UN, after receipt of the plan, is authorized by the Millenium Development agreement to assess the tax on US taxpayers. There is talk of assessing a carbon tax to generate the revenues. [Answer submitted on Nov 7, 2008 9:04 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: If passed, this legislation passes the authority to ban small weapons from the US government to the UN. If and when the UN demands enforcement, it would be mandatory for the current President and governing body to enforce it within the US borders. This would stand unless the current wording and intent of the legislation is changed or rejected. [Answer submitted on Nov 3, 2008 6:52 AM]

A2: The Millennium Development Project also includes an elimination of all small arms which means all your guns. [Answer submitted on Nov 3, 2008 7:37 AM]

A3: A link to the specific part of the Millennium Development Project which requires the "elimination of small arms" would be helpful, as would a link to the specific part of SB2433 which requires the US to cede its sovereignty to the UN. I can find no such reference in either the bill of the MDP [Answer submitted on Nov 7, 2008 4:38 PM]

A4: 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration

"To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

To strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers." As you see there are two separate objectives one for disarming the people and one for disarming countries. A reading of the rome statute clearly indicates the ceding of sovereignty to the UN. This would also result in the loss of constitutional protections we enjoy in the US. [Answer submitted on Nov 8, 2008 2:58 AM]

A5: S.2433 The Global Poverty Act does not have anything to do with gun control. This bill does not address gun control in any way. As stated in the above answer: Gun control issues are part of the UN Millenium Declaration (not a US authored or approved or agreed upon declaration). If the United States passes our S.2433 bill, it is addressing only the Global Poverty issue of this UN Millenium Declaration. The United States doesn't loose constitutional protections by agreeing to have a plan that is yet to be determined by the President. This bill is not in any way an agreement by the United States to agree to all points of the UN Millennium Declaration. What this bill actually means: "OK United Nations, the United States agrees to address this one portion of your UN Millennium Declaration by agreeing that our President will come up with a plan towards the 2015 timeframe addressing Global Poverty." Seriously, that is all - not loosing our rights, ceding sovereignty, or even establishing a serious dollar amount. This is only step one of something we committed to help with, along with other countries. Half way into the proposed timeframe, we are saying "OK, we'll start putting together a plan now". [Answer submitted on Nov 13, 2008 4:06 PM]

A6: After reading the text of the millenniem declarations.... and carefully considering I agree with A4 try to hide it in UN speech all you want .... thats the bottom line. [Answer submitted on Nov 15, 2008 4:00 PM]

A7: Gun control issues are part of the UN Millenium Declaration (not a US authored or approved or agreed upon declaration). If the United States passes our S.2433 bill, it is addressing only the Global Poverty issue of this UN Millenium Declaration.

It is my understanding that S.2433 and the UN Millenium Declaration are joined. To participate in the global poverty program requires signing the Millenium Declaration. That being the case, gun control is not far behind. If you find anything to the contrary, please post. [Answer submitted on Nov 16, 2008 9:19 AM]

A8: "To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons,

especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional

disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the

forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and

Light Weapons."

--from UN Millenium Declaration

When you give the UN the authority to "disarm regions" there is nothing to stop them from disarming YOUR region. [Answer submitted on Nov 30, 2008 6:16 PM]

A9: In re: S 2433 - I would venture that less than one tenth of one percent of all adult Americans even know this little debate is ongoing. Such is the cross we "nattering nabobs of negativism" bear before the overwhelming mass and momentum of a duped and blissful public. [Answer submitted on Nov 30, 2008 7:24 PM]

A10: this agreement is about only the Global Poverty portion of the millenium act. Furthermore the illicit trade means arms deals that are illegal. It is disturbing but i think we are safe from world gun control... for the time being [Answer submitted on Dec 8, 2008 1:35 PM]

A11: A10 Whether or not this has todo with gun control is not the question. however our countries sovereignty is in question in this bill. It would take away our sovereignty as a nation to deside what we will gpy other countries in aid to them.We would also be leting the world court deside what is proper trade whether we are trading guns or any thing else.We as a nation cannot give up our sovereignty to any nation. this woould cause us to lose all freedom. [Answer submitted on Jan 22, 2009 2:59 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Not certain if it qualifies as a rider but adherence to this bill means accepting the conditions of the Millennium Development Goal which encompasses small arms ban. [Answer submitted on Dec 10, 2008 9:54 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This means part of your tax dollars will be given to the Unnited Nations to do with what they want. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 8:14 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!