Talk:Global Poverty Act

Bias
This article is ridiculously biased. First, I deleted the following:

"Once this bill is passed by the Senate and signed by the President (as emphasized by "Bread for the World [[Media:http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/global-poverty-act.html]]), it will have the force of law. That means that other nations could sue the President and the US in order to force compliance. I may also open up the US to be brought before the International Court for investigation, charges or sanctions."

And then, in the "Media" section, the entire thing refers to one conservative commentator. I think I'll delete that, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.109.202 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

--andrew.cudzilo (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC) wrote:
 * Removed opinion based content withing article to here on the talk page. Seems this is not the first time this content has appeared.
 * Once this bill is passed by the Senate and signed by the President (as emphasized by "Bread for the World [[Media:http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/global-poverty-act.html]]), it will have the force of law. That means that other nations could sue the President and the US in order to force compliance. I may also open up the US to be brought before the International Court for investigation, charges or sanctions.
 * Secondly, there was some insight in the 'Media' section, but as alluded upon still a single critisism...although referenced. Moved here for any discussion

''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. Other outlets ran similar stories, including WorldNetDaily, which cites Kincaid as a source.

The bill requires the president to develop a plan to implement the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the amount of people who live on less than a dollar a day. The bill makes no policy statement regarding the implementation of other Millennium Development Goals and no mention of how the bill would be funded.

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." The text of the Senate version of the bill, however, does not require any percentage of GNP, and the Congressional Budget Office, relying on information from the Department of State, estimates that the total cost of the law would amount to 1 million dollars per year. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9082/s2433.pdf''

Redirects to dual nomenclature "Global Poverty Act" = "Global Poverty Tax" for puposes of clarification and access to both commonly searched discriptions. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the "Global Poverty Tax" reference. This is not NPOV.

Name
If this is officially called the Global Poverty Act rather than the Global Poverty Tax - shouldn't it reside under the official name with the other redirecting? -- SiobhanHansa 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And now it does. Thanks Tlogmer.  -- SiobhanHansa 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)