PokemansForGeeks
New Member
A simple one - Why do you support him?
A question for all you McCain supporters...
- Thread starter PokemansForGeeks
- Start date
- Status
GinoLombardi21
New Member
During the debate tonight his taxation plan of using 300 billion dollars of the 700 billion dollar bailout to get involved with individuals homes so their morgage doesn't raise and foreclosure is avoided was genuis. Ik mccain and obama have a lot of similar views but mccains ideas and views I see a lot better then obamas. He also has a lot of experience under his belt which barrack lacks. Obamas got that jfk charisma which is cool but the ideas he proposed for this country were awful and I will not support him.
LegacyEeveeVGC
Active Member
1. Obama is under investagtion for most of his fund raiser funds coming from out of the USA.(Of which is not allowed)
2. Like Bush I think he is the lesser of two evils for who you can vote for.
3.I am not raciest and am tired of hearing that stuff.
McCain gets to the point with out having to studder or think it over.
Obama tends to twist his words and contradict himself.
P.S. I can not vote, but we talk about this alot at school
2. Like Bush I think he is the lesser of two evils for who you can vote for.
3.I am not raciest and am tired of hearing that stuff.
McCain gets to the point with out having to studder or think it over.
Obama tends to twist his words and contradict himself.
P.S. I can not vote, but we talk about this alot at school
ryanvergel
New Member
If you watched the debate tonight you would have seen that it was very clearly McCain stuttering and slurring his words and contradicting himself more than Obama did. McCain stuttered quite a bit actually.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
A lot of conservatives don't like the prospect of McCain or Palin...let alone on the same ticket. Unfortunately, the alternative is frighteningly worse in most ways imaginable, and requires any logical free market, budget-minded, pro-life, pro-defense individuals to vote for the only viable option.
On the economy at large:
The basic difference between conservatives and liberals on the economy is regressive versus progressive taxation. It's simple for those who don't know:
-By the logic of pure conservatives, a regressive tax system is best because, with less to lose by ratio if you become wealthy, you have more motivation to achieve.
-By the logic of pure liberals, a progressive tax system is best because, while the motivation to work hard and succeed is dampened, equality is preserved.
Based on the nature of our American system, there is no choice: we MUST have a progressive system of some kind...The question is: how progressive?
Barack Obama feels that it must be very progressive, with the removal of the Bush tax cuts, as well as high levels of taxation on corporations and small business (one of the _highest_ rates in the world already). John McCain believes the opposite. Needless to say, John McCain's views conform more to my own...Even if he is WAY too eager to support this bailout. He is not a true conservative, but he is more of one than Barry ever will be.
On spending:
-Both McCain and Obama are going to increase spending. They BOTH demand more power for the central government. The one difference between them, however, is the most significant: Barack Obama is a bottomless wallet, whereas McCain at least wants to limit the outflow of cash to some degree. Most heavily outlined by this is Obama's adamant support for the Global Poverty Act. Long story short...The GPA is an $800+ billion dollar blank check to the UN to alleviate poverty, which is a far from effective manager of investments.
Are you going to look the American voter in the eye, try to sell this already pathetic bailout package...And yet try to sell this garbage behind my back?
On Life VS Choice:
-Barack Obama is the weakest candidate in the history of our nation regarding life. He was one of few to vote against the ban on partial birth abortion, and voted four times in the Illinois state senate AGAINST born-alive infant protection.
His defense for both? They would threaten a woman's right to choose. Last time I checked, condemning viable fetuses and live babies to the grave is blatant murder - NOT protecting a woman's right to choose.
On Defense:
-The first debate removed all doubt in my mind Barack Obama's inferiority on foreign policy.
John McCain's solitary failure on voting for Iraq can be reasoned for on the grounds of his decision being an ex post mistake. This means that based at the time, with the information presented to him, his option was sound; however, after the fact, he was wrong, and paid the price for it. So did Hillary Clinton. Whereas Barack Obama, based on his limited information, made both a sound ex ante (before the fact) decision, _and_ ex post.
So with ALL of that said, why is Obama worse on defense?
-He voted against the surge. With Robert Gates and David Petraeus' convincing argument and defense for a surge plan, it was both an ex ante and ex post failure to support it on Obama's part.
-Whereas McCain's has only occasionally gaffed on foreign policy ("bomb, bomb Iran"), Barack Obama's failure to recognize the blowback of invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden is laughable. While Al-Qaeda is the greatest threat to our nation today, who is to say that Pakistan's radical elements won't be tomorrow if we're not careful? McCain knows better - he himself will go to the gates of **** to get Bin Laden, but I am confident that he won't take our country to the gates of Pakistan.
On the economy at large:
The basic difference between conservatives and liberals on the economy is regressive versus progressive taxation. It's simple for those who don't know:
-By the logic of pure conservatives, a regressive tax system is best because, with less to lose by ratio if you become wealthy, you have more motivation to achieve.
-By the logic of pure liberals, a progressive tax system is best because, while the motivation to work hard and succeed is dampened, equality is preserved.
Based on the nature of our American system, there is no choice: we MUST have a progressive system of some kind...The question is: how progressive?
Barack Obama feels that it must be very progressive, with the removal of the Bush tax cuts, as well as high levels of taxation on corporations and small business (one of the _highest_ rates in the world already). John McCain believes the opposite. Needless to say, John McCain's views conform more to my own...Even if he is WAY too eager to support this bailout. He is not a true conservative, but he is more of one than Barry ever will be.
On spending:
-Both McCain and Obama are going to increase spending. They BOTH demand more power for the central government. The one difference between them, however, is the most significant: Barack Obama is a bottomless wallet, whereas McCain at least wants to limit the outflow of cash to some degree. Most heavily outlined by this is Obama's adamant support for the Global Poverty Act. Long story short...The GPA is an $800+ billion dollar blank check to the UN to alleviate poverty, which is a far from effective manager of investments.
Are you going to look the American voter in the eye, try to sell this already pathetic bailout package...And yet try to sell this garbage behind my back?
On Life VS Choice:
-Barack Obama is the weakest candidate in the history of our nation regarding life. He was one of few to vote against the ban on partial birth abortion, and voted four times in the Illinois state senate AGAINST born-alive infant protection.
His defense for both? They would threaten a woman's right to choose. Last time I checked, condemning viable fetuses and live babies to the grave is blatant murder - NOT protecting a woman's right to choose.
On Defense:
-The first debate removed all doubt in my mind Barack Obama's inferiority on foreign policy.
John McCain's solitary failure on voting for Iraq can be reasoned for on the grounds of his decision being an ex post mistake. This means that based at the time, with the information presented to him, his option was sound; however, after the fact, he was wrong, and paid the price for it. So did Hillary Clinton. Whereas Barack Obama, based on his limited information, made both a sound ex ante (before the fact) decision, _and_ ex post.
So with ALL of that said, why is Obama worse on defense?
-He voted against the surge. With Robert Gates and David Petraeus' convincing argument and defense for a surge plan, it was both an ex ante and ex post failure to support it on Obama's part.
-Whereas McCain's has only occasionally gaffed on foreign policy ("bomb, bomb Iran"), Barack Obama's failure to recognize the blowback of invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden is laughable. While Al-Qaeda is the greatest threat to our nation today, who is to say that Pakistan's radical elements won't be tomorrow if we're not careful? McCain knows better - he himself will go to the gates of **** to get Bin Laden, but I am confident that he won't take our country to the gates of Pakistan.
LegacyEeveeVGC
Active Member
I taped the debate and am gonna watch it on my computer during study hall tomarrow with some of my friends.
@gino: as far as i could tell from reading the transcript at CNN, mccain is talking about *another* 300 billion, NOT using part of the 700 billion just passed...
'mom
'mom
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Now, to humor some of Barack Obama's good points:
-In terms of initially supporting or rejecting the war, I feel that Obama and McCain tie: they had varying levels of information, and both made appropriate decisions based on it. However, as an uninformed person at the time of '02/'03, Obama's decision personally appeals to me more than McCain's. Whether Obama would have voted with his opinion is a whole other matter, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
-His health care plan is a tolerable solution (especially when its scope is watered down), and more specific than John McCain's.
-In terms of initially supporting or rejecting the war, I feel that Obama and McCain tie: they had varying levels of information, and both made appropriate decisions based on it. However, as an uninformed person at the time of '02/'03, Obama's decision personally appeals to me more than McCain's. Whether Obama would have voted with his opinion is a whole other matter, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
-His health care plan is a tolerable solution (especially when its scope is watered down), and more specific than John McCain's.
Boofu
Member
McCain was my last choice in the Republican field of candidates. I even considered not voting for him because I was mad at the party for leaving the conservative base. So, my vote for John McCain is actually a vote *AGAINST* Barack Obama.
The reasons I oppose Obama:
1. He would be the most leftist president in our nation's history working with the most liberal speaker of the house in our nation's history and the most liberal Majority leader of the senate in our nation's history. This would be disastrous.
2. The next president has the potential to replace up to 4 supreme court justices. McCain would nominate strict constitutionalists while Obama would nominate "loose-interpretation" activists. (which effectively shifts this country from the rule of law to the rule of man.)
3. He has a history of working with, training, and learning from Leftist Radicals that promote illegal activity and go by the mantra "The end justifies the means." (See William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, ACORN). "The end justifies the means", IMO, explains Obama's refusal to effectively filter illegal contributions and several counts of voter fraud already found from his old buddies at ACORN.
4. Obama is a first-term senator with very little experience or accomplishments and does not have the gravitas to occupy the most powerful office in the world. This country is in a world of problems right now, and I don't trust a freshman to solve those problems.
5. I oppose Obama on basically every issue.
6. Within the next 8 years, I might be making enough money to be TAXED a ridiculous amount by Obama... and no... Taxation is not patriotic.
Speaking of the taxation, I'm really tired of success being demonized. McCain's success has been demonized, people who make a lot of money have been demonized, profit is often demonized. "Fairness" is often the leftist's focus of this issue. You want to talk fairness? I work very hard to make the grades that I do, I take pride in the choices I have made in my life, and I apply myself in all my endeavors. It is unfair that when all my hard work pays off, it will be government policy that I owe everyone else something. Class warfare is something that the left has always encouraged. It leads to victimization of the poor. "Victims" don't need to claim responsibility because "it wasn't their fault" that they are in that situation and they never take initiative to make changes happen. I'm sorry, but if my mom can build a successful business as a single mother relying on her own grit, then anybody can be successful. It is a matter of life choices and determination. Obama's tax proposal is CLASS WARFARE and it discourages success. /Rant
The reasons I oppose Obama:
1. He would be the most leftist president in our nation's history working with the most liberal speaker of the house in our nation's history and the most liberal Majority leader of the senate in our nation's history. This would be disastrous.
2. The next president has the potential to replace up to 4 supreme court justices. McCain would nominate strict constitutionalists while Obama would nominate "loose-interpretation" activists. (which effectively shifts this country from the rule of law to the rule of man.)
3. He has a history of working with, training, and learning from Leftist Radicals that promote illegal activity and go by the mantra "The end justifies the means." (See William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, ACORN). "The end justifies the means", IMO, explains Obama's refusal to effectively filter illegal contributions and several counts of voter fraud already found from his old buddies at ACORN.
4. Obama is a first-term senator with very little experience or accomplishments and does not have the gravitas to occupy the most powerful office in the world. This country is in a world of problems right now, and I don't trust a freshman to solve those problems.
5. I oppose Obama on basically every issue.
6. Within the next 8 years, I might be making enough money to be TAXED a ridiculous amount by Obama... and no... Taxation is not patriotic.
Speaking of the taxation, I'm really tired of success being demonized. McCain's success has been demonized, people who make a lot of money have been demonized, profit is often demonized. "Fairness" is often the leftist's focus of this issue. You want to talk fairness? I work very hard to make the grades that I do, I take pride in the choices I have made in my life, and I apply myself in all my endeavors. It is unfair that when all my hard work pays off, it will be government policy that I owe everyone else something. Class warfare is something that the left has always encouraged. It leads to victimization of the poor. "Victims" don't need to claim responsibility because "it wasn't their fault" that they are in that situation and they never take initiative to make changes happen. I'm sorry, but if my mom can build a successful business as a single mother relying on her own grit, then anybody can be successful. It is a matter of life choices and determination. Obama's tax proposal is CLASS WARFARE and it discourages success. /Rant
Last edited:
InfiniteMasterEx
New Member
I still do not understand how people come to this conclusion. FDR still is, by far, the leftiest president the US has ever had. As far as I know, Obama is not THAT radical...
"There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world." -Barack Obama
Looking into Obama's assertion, I found out that:
Three years ago, the Congressional Budget Office compared U.S. corporate tax rates to other countries to get a sense of where we stand. They found that the United States’ statutory corporate tax rates in 2003 came to 39.3 percent. Only Japan (40.9) and Germany (39.6) were higher. Among the top industrialized countries, the United States ranked third of seven.
But the corporate tax picture is more complex than McCain*— and that statistic*— makes it seem. Note the word "statutory" in the last paragraph. It excludes other very important factors such as a country’s depreciation system (how quickly businesses are allowed to write off investment in equipment and buildings); how much companies can write off from debt; and investor-level taxes such as capital gains, dividends and interest.
That’s why many economists like to cite "effective marginal tax rates," the percentage of the income from an investment that must be paid as corporate income tax.
The United States*fares much better in these tables, although it varies by industry and other factors, such as how much a company borrows for equipment or structures (generally, the more debt a company carries, the more it can write off). The United States*has fairly generous depreciation rules, but is less generous when it comes to investment in structures.
So, for example, the United States*ranks second lowest in the world among industrialized nations when it comes to the effective corporate tax rates for debt-financed investments in machinery. For equity-financed investments in machinery, the rates are closer to the upper middle of the pack. And for equity-financed investments in industrial structures (buildings, factories, etc), the effective corporate tax rates were second highest in the world (behind Japan). As an aside, it is precisely this tax system, weighted to favor debt-financed investments, that's part of why the*current credit crisis is seen as so dire.
"In any company, these deductions reduce the tax rates well below what the statutory rule is," said the center’s Bob Williams. "It depends on the type of company and the kinds of investments you are making."
While the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center disagree somewhat on how important the statutory tax rate is and where the United States*ranks among nations based upon the marginal "effective" rates, they do agree that the statutory rate is only part of the story for what U.S. companies pay in taxes.
McCain’s repeated citation of statutory corporate tax rates is misleading because it does not take into account various deducations to which businesses are entitled.
McCain said that he would spend an additional $300 Billion to buy up shaky mortgages from homeowners, on top of the ~$1 Trillion dedicated to economic recovery so far. I support this idea as trickle down has never benefited the middle class while percolate up economics is effective strategy; sadly the mortgages have been bought and sold numerous times, then diced up for securitized investment instruments (thank John McCain and Phil Graham) and can't be put back together in most cases. McCain just offered empty but nice sounding words.
Oh, and the horror of the Global Poverty Act, which directs that some aid from a possible $65 Billion total foreign aid budget be directed to fight extreme poverty:
Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz (Obama), Jordan Stark (Hagel), Ciaran Clayton (Cantwell), or Derrick Crowe (Smith)
Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."
"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."
"Global poverty directly impacts our national security. We must rally private sector and government resources to eliminate extreme global poverty and to fight global disease." said Senator Cantwell. "With more than 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day, it is of the utmost importance to make sure these people get the help they need and push for sustainable economic growth. We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries and extend our hand to people in need."
"Global poverty is one of the greatest moral and security challenges facing the world today. Nearly 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day and close to a billion live on less than $1 a day. This bill represents a major advance in our effort to address global poverty. After introducing this measure in the House for the past several years, I am pleased to see the Senate Foreign Relations Committee take significant steps toward its final passage," Congressman Smith said.
For years, America has committed to improving the lives of the world's poorest people. In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and 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.
The Global Poverty Act:
Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.
Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.
Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.
Requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.
Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.
The legislation is supported by a broad range of groups, including Bread for the World, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, CARE, Oxfam America, Habitat for Humanity International, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Borgen Project, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, RESULTS, Micah Challenge USA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Who's being investigated for foreign campaign donations?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/47619.html
Watchdog seeks federal investigation of McCain donations
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A political watchdog group called for investigations Monday to determine whether fundraisers for John McCain's presidential campaign arranged illegal "straw" donations — contributions from people who did not spend their own money.
Campaign Money Watch urged Attorney General Michael Mukasey to probe the activities of Florida defense contractor Harry Sargeant III, who is credited with raising more than $500,000 for the campaign. It also questioned $57,000 in donations from an office manager for the oil giant, the Hess Corp., and her husband, a railroad foreman.
The McCain campaign last week returned $50,000 of the donations tied to Sargeant, citing published reports that some California donors did not intend to vote for McCain. The campaign also sent a letter to others who contributed via Sargeant, stressing that only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate, and only if they use their own funds.
In a letter to Mukasey, David Donnelly, the executive director of Campaign Money Watch, said that merely returning questionable donations would "sweep them under the rug and would further damage the public's faith in our democratic process.''
His letter was accompanied by a petition carrying 12,000 signatures gathered by the liberal-leaning group Moveon.org Political Action.
A Justice Department official said the agency had yet to receive the letter and would have no comment.
Sargeant, who could not be reached for comment, is a college friend of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and serves as finance chairman of the Florida Republican Party. He had help in raising the money from Mustafa Abu Naba, his partner in the International Oil Trading Co., which holds a Pentagon contract worth up to $1 billion to deliver jet fuel to U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Referring to Abu Naba, Donnelly called it ``of questionable legality for foreign nationals to participate in fundraising and finance decisions for federal candidates.''
He also urged an investigation of two donations of $28,500 each by Alice Rocchio, the Hess Corp. office manager, and by her husband, Pasquale, to a joint fundraising committee set up by McCain and the Republican National Committee.
The couple made their contributions within days of McCain's reversal of his longstanding opposition to offshore oil drilling and on the same day that seven Hess executives and two of their relatives each donated the same amount. Among them were Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Hess, who has raised more than $500,000 for McCain.
While it's "understandable" that Hess executives might give generously to McCain, Donnelly wrote, "that does not explain how Mr. and Ms. Rocchio came to give these significant amounts given what appears to be their modest lifestyle."
The couple lives in an apartment in the New York borough of Queens. McClatchy reported last week that Alice Rocchio drives a 1993 Chevy Cavalier. The couple, who said they contributed because they supported McCain, had earlier given $4,600.
jkwarrior, I will never mock you as an ignorant 1 issue voter or belttle your belief. I respect your principled stand. I find irony that some of the people who picket outside of a planned parenthood office show up outside a prison on the eve of an execution to picket for the death penalty. I will admit I am similarly conflicted, I support a woman's right to choose but oppose the death penalty.
I oppose McCain for so many reasons as an educated veteran parent business owner. Having said that, I hope that if elected, McCain is the best President in the history of the United States. After 8 years of the Bush administration, that is what we all desperately need.
Looking into Obama's assertion, I found out that:
Three years ago, the Congressional Budget Office compared U.S. corporate tax rates to other countries to get a sense of where we stand. They found that the United States’ statutory corporate tax rates in 2003 came to 39.3 percent. Only Japan (40.9) and Germany (39.6) were higher. Among the top industrialized countries, the United States ranked third of seven.
But the corporate tax picture is more complex than McCain*— and that statistic*— makes it seem. Note the word "statutory" in the last paragraph. It excludes other very important factors such as a country’s depreciation system (how quickly businesses are allowed to write off investment in equipment and buildings); how much companies can write off from debt; and investor-level taxes such as capital gains, dividends and interest.
That’s why many economists like to cite "effective marginal tax rates," the percentage of the income from an investment that must be paid as corporate income tax.
The United States*fares much better in these tables, although it varies by industry and other factors, such as how much a company borrows for equipment or structures (generally, the more debt a company carries, the more it can write off). The United States*has fairly generous depreciation rules, but is less generous when it comes to investment in structures.
So, for example, the United States*ranks second lowest in the world among industrialized nations when it comes to the effective corporate tax rates for debt-financed investments in machinery. For equity-financed investments in machinery, the rates are closer to the upper middle of the pack. And for equity-financed investments in industrial structures (buildings, factories, etc), the effective corporate tax rates were second highest in the world (behind Japan). As an aside, it is precisely this tax system, weighted to favor debt-financed investments, that's part of why the*current credit crisis is seen as so dire.
"In any company, these deductions reduce the tax rates well below what the statutory rule is," said the center’s Bob Williams. "It depends on the type of company and the kinds of investments you are making."
While the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center disagree somewhat on how important the statutory tax rate is and where the United States*ranks among nations based upon the marginal "effective" rates, they do agree that the statutory rate is only part of the story for what U.S. companies pay in taxes.
McCain’s repeated citation of statutory corporate tax rates is misleading because it does not take into account various deducations to which businesses are entitled.
McCain said that he would spend an additional $300 Billion to buy up shaky mortgages from homeowners, on top of the ~$1 Trillion dedicated to economic recovery so far. I support this idea as trickle down has never benefited the middle class while percolate up economics is effective strategy; sadly the mortgages have been bought and sold numerous times, then diced up for securitized investment instruments (thank John McCain and Phil Graham) and can't be put back together in most cases. McCain just offered empty but nice sounding words.
Oh, and the horror of the Global Poverty Act, which directs that some aid from a possible $65 Billion total foreign aid budget be directed to fight extreme poverty:
Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz (Obama), Jordan Stark (Hagel), Ciaran Clayton (Cantwell), or Derrick Crowe (Smith)
Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."
"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."
"Global poverty directly impacts our national security. We must rally private sector and government resources to eliminate extreme global poverty and to fight global disease." said Senator Cantwell. "With more than 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day, it is of the utmost importance to make sure these people get the help they need and push for sustainable economic growth. We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries and extend our hand to people in need."
"Global poverty is one of the greatest moral and security challenges facing the world today. Nearly 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day and close to a billion live on less than $1 a day. This bill represents a major advance in our effort to address global poverty. After introducing this measure in the House for the past several years, I am pleased to see the Senate Foreign Relations Committee take significant steps toward its final passage," Congressman Smith said.
For years, America has committed to improving the lives of the world's poorest people. In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and 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.
The Global Poverty Act:
Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.
Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.
Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.
Requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.
Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.
The legislation is supported by a broad range of groups, including Bread for the World, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, CARE, Oxfam America, Habitat for Humanity International, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Borgen Project, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, RESULTS, Micah Challenge USA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Who's being investigated for foreign campaign donations?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/47619.html
Watchdog seeks federal investigation of McCain donations
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A political watchdog group called for investigations Monday to determine whether fundraisers for John McCain's presidential campaign arranged illegal "straw" donations — contributions from people who did not spend their own money.
Campaign Money Watch urged Attorney General Michael Mukasey to probe the activities of Florida defense contractor Harry Sargeant III, who is credited with raising more than $500,000 for the campaign. It also questioned $57,000 in donations from an office manager for the oil giant, the Hess Corp., and her husband, a railroad foreman.
The McCain campaign last week returned $50,000 of the donations tied to Sargeant, citing published reports that some California donors did not intend to vote for McCain. The campaign also sent a letter to others who contributed via Sargeant, stressing that only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate, and only if they use their own funds.
In a letter to Mukasey, David Donnelly, the executive director of Campaign Money Watch, said that merely returning questionable donations would "sweep them under the rug and would further damage the public's faith in our democratic process.''
His letter was accompanied by a petition carrying 12,000 signatures gathered by the liberal-leaning group Moveon.org Political Action.
A Justice Department official said the agency had yet to receive the letter and would have no comment.
Sargeant, who could not be reached for comment, is a college friend of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and serves as finance chairman of the Florida Republican Party. He had help in raising the money from Mustafa Abu Naba, his partner in the International Oil Trading Co., which holds a Pentagon contract worth up to $1 billion to deliver jet fuel to U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Referring to Abu Naba, Donnelly called it ``of questionable legality for foreign nationals to participate in fundraising and finance decisions for federal candidates.''
He also urged an investigation of two donations of $28,500 each by Alice Rocchio, the Hess Corp. office manager, and by her husband, Pasquale, to a joint fundraising committee set up by McCain and the Republican National Committee.
The couple made their contributions within days of McCain's reversal of his longstanding opposition to offshore oil drilling and on the same day that seven Hess executives and two of their relatives each donated the same amount. Among them were Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Hess, who has raised more than $500,000 for McCain.
While it's "understandable" that Hess executives might give generously to McCain, Donnelly wrote, "that does not explain how Mr. and Ms. Rocchio came to give these significant amounts given what appears to be their modest lifestyle."
The couple lives in an apartment in the New York borough of Queens. McClatchy reported last week that Alice Rocchio drives a 1993 Chevy Cavalier. The couple, who said they contributed because they supported McCain, had earlier given $4,600.
jkwarrior, I will never mock you as an ignorant 1 issue voter or belttle your belief. I respect your principled stand. I find irony that some of the people who picket outside of a planned parenthood office show up outside a prison on the eve of an execution to picket for the death penalty. I will admit I am similarly conflicted, I support a woman's right to choose but oppose the death penalty.
I oppose McCain for so many reasons as an educated veteran parent business owner. Having said that, I hope that if elected, McCain is the best President in the history of the United States. After 8 years of the Bush administration, that is what we all desperately need.
the posts for McCain are strong valid points. Now short reasons why I plan to vote republican.
1. I will never vote for someone that has never served for are great country!
2. Obama wants us to leave war in iraq an go to afghanistan the day he hits office. You think gas prices are bad now watch what effect this has!
3. I agree that we need to move back to afghanistan but the timeline planed by McCain seems to be more intelligent.
4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up.
5. Obama`s VP choice told McCain he wished to run with him. Maybe he'd do anything to get that VP slot but still worth looking into.
6. McCain has already been I a very high position. He knows that gas problems are not the focus. If we don`t take control now of the housing and business market we will hit the next great depression. The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it.
7. McCain wants to add to the bailout giveing more money to the plan.
Well I could go on but I don`t like to attack the defenceless.
1. I will never vote for someone that has never served for are great country!
2. Obama wants us to leave war in iraq an go to afghanistan the day he hits office. You think gas prices are bad now watch what effect this has!
3. I agree that we need to move back to afghanistan but the timeline planed by McCain seems to be more intelligent.
4. Does anyone know who Obama worships? Why don't you look that up.
5. Obama`s VP choice told McCain he wished to run with him. Maybe he'd do anything to get that VP slot but still worth looking into.
6. McCain has already been I a very high position. He knows that gas problems are not the focus. If we don`t take control now of the housing and business market we will hit the next great depression. The bailout should go only to the plan. Don`t touch it.
7. McCain wants to add to the bailout giveing more money to the plan.
Well I could go on but I don`t like to attack the defenceless.
Actually because many corporations fire their American workers (whose productivity made the success possible) and move operations to locations where workers are paid few dollars a day, no overtime, and without workplace or environmental protections. Increased profits, greed, lack of oversight and regulation.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
No. please do go on, you make such great points. You might sway me with some more of your brilliant points. Don't hold back, you are drawing the perfect picture of McCain support with your post. Have you thought about posting your persuasive, well grounded, thoughts on other forums too? It would be a shame if you didn't share your gift with others.
Last edited:
Like jkwarrior, I am pretty much a one-issue voter. But while his is the right-to-life, mine is the right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion, an armed citizenry is the final check on a tyrannical government, the final defense against oppression. It is also a fundamental tenet of my self-sufficient mindset, in that I do not rely on the government to protect me on the individual level, similar to how I do not rely on the government to provide my health care coverage. Senator Obama began his politic ascension in Chicago, one of the USA's hotbeds of gun control, and has the anti-2nd amendment voting record to show it. Senator McCain, while certainly not my first choice for president, is a decorated war hero with a solid pro-2nd amendment voting record.
My cold, dead hands.
S.
My cold, dead hands.
S.
re: obama's religion: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
http://www.fightthesmears.com/
i also suggest reading rolling stone's cover story on mccain; i won't link it because of language that would not pass the 'gym filters, all of which comes from *quotes from mccain himself*.
'mom
http://www.fightthesmears.com/
i also suggest reading rolling stone's cover story on mccain; i won't link it because of language that would not pass the 'gym filters, all of which comes from *quotes from mccain himself*.
'mom
- Status