Update: I just found this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

It appears Obama has plans to change the amount of foreign aid geared specifically to fighting global poverty...

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_poverty_act

A number of news outlets have referred to this bill as the "Global Poverty Tax", or, occasionally, "World Poverty Bill".

In February 2008, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group Accuracy in Media wrote that the Global Poverty Act (S.2433) "would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid ... which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 Billion over and above what the U.S. already spends" to reduce global poverty.[1] Other outlets ran similar stories, including WorldNetDaily[2], which cites Kincaid as a source.

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."


Here is the actual article:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

**********************************
Original post:

This is just plain ridiculous. First, Walter, your messages always have a negative and insulting tone to them as though you despise this country or suffer from extreme jealousy. I know that is not the case, but you get very defensive, very fast and it shows in the tone of your messages when that happens. Second, aid is measured by different means. The majority of aid that comes from this country is not from our government and taxes, but from individual contributions. That does not get measured very often if at all. I believe you know that. Also, the GDP is unrealistic because our real GDP is nowhere near what is advertised. For example, the govt claims what is manufactured overseas if the corporate headquarters resides in this country. That is anything but accurate. Third, the U.S. is doing pretty good at aid. Look at this chart:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/tables/global/multiyear/maindonors.htm

Now, I agree that the U.S. will include their geopolitical goals in their actions, but you cannot state that that the primary agenda is to maintain their empire. This is hardly an empire. You have no evidence of that unless you just haven't been willing to share it? And then, are your referring to this government or its people or both?





>>Clinton is right. I think the gradual democratization of the world over the past two centuries points up to that. OTOH, geopolitics is not a beauty pageant and I frankly don't think we should give too much weight to how the rest of the world "thinks" about us as long as we stick to our principles. As long as we're the first there in time of trouble, offering help, feeding vast populations, leading the fight against world disease and hunger I'd rather be unpopular and effective than otherwise.
>
>Do you really think the US is a leader in this respect? Seems a bit out of touch of reality to me.
>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_pergdp-economic-aid-donor-per-gdp
>
>Also, the US did not make a particular good impression when it needed help themselves in New orleans three years ago.
>
>The single most important task the US has on their agenda is maintain their empire. Geopolitics are a neccesity in order to achieve that goal. Granted, it also tries to impose our western values to the rest of the world, but it sometimes in their enthousiasm also seems to overlook that the world is more complex and you cannot enforce change by force.
>
>Again, the US is not a charity. It never has been and never will be.