T, the books is "Dreams From My Father". Makes more sense, eh?
Yes yes. My bad. You're correct. So in any case when he stated during his campaign that he was going to restore the wealth back to those that earned it?
He wasn't kidding.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
T, the books is "Dreams From My Father". Makes more sense, eh?
Yet More Evidence that Obama is the Anti-Colonialist hellbent on realizing The Dream From His Father of redistributing the wealth of colonial exploiters to the victims in their former colonies.
Rule of thumb: If a dictator likes it, it's bad.I'm highly skeptical of documents such as this, especially when it involves the concept of UN taxes. I'm not saying its wrong, but I am saying it is likely the writer is highly partisan and pushing an ideological agenda, and thus distorting the news to illicit a response. For example, it says this
The proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is called the Tobin Tax and named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, said in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal might net some $13 trillion a year because it is based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets.
The Tobin Tax is a concept supported by a wide range of people for a variety of reasons. However, the writer chose to cite one single person who supports this tax, Fidel Castro. Clearly, he did that because he's trying to scare people by referring to a Communist henchman and enemy of America, as opposed to, say, Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of Britain, who also supported this idea. Its a lot easier to scare the right-wing into action by invoking the name of Fidel Castro than it is Gordon Brown.
For the record, the Tobin Tax will almost certainly never come into existence because it would require the coordination of all the major countries in the world. If just one or two countries declined, it couldn't work. Oh, and the Tobin Tax is a terrible idea.
I also liked the reference to the $13 trillion in taxes, which is another scare tactic. The GDP of the US is over $14 trillion and represents about 30% of global GDP. Do you honestly believe that by taxing all financial transactions we could raise nearly a third of global GDP that would then be transferred elsewhere? Be serious.
I don't know if Obama supports this or not, but this article seems highly politically biased and appears to be playing to the gullible, so we should be skeptical of it.
In a classic case of misdirection, while the media are preoccupied with the fate of the Bush tax cuts, President Obama is preparing to attend a United Nations summit next week to endorse innovative finance mechanismsglobal taxesto drain even more wealth out of the U.S. economy.
A draft outcome document produced in advance of the September 20-22 U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) commits the nations of the world to supporting innovative financing mechanisms to supplement foreign aid spending.
The term innovative financing mechanisms is a U.N. euphemism for global taxes. But the document actually goes further, praising the Task Force on International Financial Transactions for Development for its work on the subject of mobilizing additional resources for countries to achieve the MDGs. This is a body tasked with proposing and implementing global tax schemes.
We consider, the document says, that innovative financing mechanisms can make a positive contribution in assisting developing countries to mobilize additional resources for financing for development on a voluntary basis. Such financing should supplement and not be a substitute for traditional sources of financing.
In other words, the revenue from global taxes should be in addition to foreign aid spending.
Obama has been a major U.N. supporter since he was in the Senate and sponsored a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the MDGs.
Obama Endorses Global Taxes on Eve of U.N. Summit
Yet More Evidence that Obama is the Anti-Colonialist hellbent on realizing The Dream From His Father of redistributing the wealth of colonial exploiters to the victims in their former colonies.
Hey, didn't you hear? The Washington Post said all the "anticolonialist" stuff was hooey!
They're not going to be happy until we're all a third world country.
In a classic case of misdirection, while the media are preoccupied with the fate of the Bush tax cuts, President Obama is preparing to attend a United Nations summit next week to endorse innovative finance mechanismsglobal taxesto drain even more wealth out of the U.S. economy.
A draft outcome document produced in advance of the September 20-22 U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) commits the nations of the world to supporting innovative financing mechanisms to supplement foreign aid spending.
The term innovative financing mechanisms is a U.N. euphemism for global taxes. But the document actually goes further, praising the Task Force on International Financial Transactions for Development for its work on the subject of mobilizing additional resources for countries to achieve the MDGs. This is a body tasked with proposing and implementing global tax schemes.
We consider, the document says, that innovative financing mechanisms can make a positive contribution in assisting developing countries to mobilize additional resources for financing for development on a voluntary basis. Such financing should supplement and not be a substitute for traditional sources of financing.
In other words, the revenue from global taxes should be in addition to foreign aid spending.
Obama has been a major U.N. supporter since he was in the Senate and sponsored a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the MDGs.
Obama Endorses Global Taxes on Eve of U.N. Summit
He's a true Marxist.
I'm highly skeptical of documents such as this, especially when it involves the concept of UN taxes. I'm not saying its wrong, but I am saying it is likely the writer is highly partisan and pushing an ideological agenda, and thus distorting the news to illicit a response. For example, it says this
The proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is called the Tobin Tax and named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, said in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal might net some $13 trillion a year because it is based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets.
The Tobin Tax is a concept supported by a wide range of people for a variety of reasons. However, the writer chose to cite one single person who supports this tax, Fidel Castro. Clearly, he did that because he's trying to scare people by referring to a Communist henchman and enemy of America, as opposed to, say, Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of Britain, who also supported this idea. Its a lot easier to scare the right-wing into action by invoking the name of Fidel Castro than it is Gordon Brown.
For the record, the Tobin Tax will almost certainly never come into existence because it would require the coordination of all the major countries in the world. If just one or two countries declined, it couldn't work. Oh, and the Tobin Tax is a terrible idea.
I also liked the reference to the $13 trillion in taxes, which is another scare tactic. The GDP of the US is over $14 trillion and represents about 30% of global GDP. Do you honestly believe that by taxing all financial transactions we could raise nearly a third of global GDP that would then be transferred elsewhere? Be serious.
I don't know if Obama supports this or not, but this article seems highly politically biased and appears to be playing to the gullible, so we should be skeptical of it.
More like a Marxist Idealist. One of those poor fools that thinks he can get it right this time.
This is exactly what I was thinking, Toro, about the obvious bias of the article and also the name of the thread - it's meant to mislead (so much for "Accuracy in Media"). The idea of putting a small tax on international financial transactions is nothing new and it's been on the table as a source of revenue for the international system and governments for a while now.
I disagree though, about the Tobin Tax - why do you think it's a terrible idea? It's been implemented elsewhere (though not as a currency exchange tax but financial transactions tax) and it's raised huge amounts of revenue, I think the biggest example is in the UK, where the rate's 0.5% on share purchases. They've had it for decades and London's still a main hub of financial activity. Do you think it's a bad idea as just as a currency exchange tax or as an FTT tax in general?