Fox News' MacCallum allowed GOP strategist to falsely claim Obama is "pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The Live Desk, Martha MacCallum did not challenge the false assertion by Christine O'Donnell, 2008 GOP Senate candidate in Delaware, that Sen. Barack Obama "and my opponent [Sen. Joe] Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N." In fact, the Global Poverty Act, a bill introduced by Obama, would not "require America to pay tax to the U.N.," and it would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.
On the May 7 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum did not challenge the false assertion by Christine O'Donnell, GOP strategist and 2008 Republican candidate for Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) Senate seat, that Sen. Barack Obama "and my opponent Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N." O'Donnell's comment echoes a claim by Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid, who falsely asserted in a February 12 column that the Global Poverty Act, a bill introduced into the Senate by Obama and co-sponsored by Biden, "could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States." Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh quoted Kincaid's false claim on the February 14 edition of his radio program.
In fact, the Global Poverty Act would proclaim that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." But the bill would not "require America to pay tax to the U.N.," as O'Donnell claimed. As Media Matters documented, the bill would establish no specific funding source; it would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.
From the May 7 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: All right. Let me get a quick thought from Christine O'Donnell and [attorney and author] Crystal McCrary here who are joining us. You know, so, the numbers don't add up. And, you know, people have been saying that all along, and I kept saying, "Well, I think she can still pull it out." But I'm not so sure now.
O'DONNELL: Well, keep in mind that Barack Obama is a time bomb. We have no idea what's going to happen between now and the convention. He is so far to the left, pushing for things --
MacCALLUM: I don't know what could be thrown at him that hasn't been thrown at him in the past 10 days.
O'DONNELL: Well, we can take a look at what he stands for. He and my opponent Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N. So, as we take a closer look at him --
MacCALLUM: Quick, [unintelligible] Crystal. I'm sorry we're so short on time.
O'DONNELL: -- as long as she's still in the race --
MacCALLUM: Yeah.
McCRARY: I disagree. I don't think that Senator Obama is so far left. I mean, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama are quite similar, and they're both --
MacCALLUM: You think he can beat John McCain? Who would you rather have?
McCRARY: Let me say this. I think it would be more difficult for Barack Obama to beat Senator McCain than Hillary Clinton. I do have to agree with that. Although she has put up a great fight.
MacCALLUM: She sure has.
McCRARY: The numbers are daunting for her.
MacCALLUM: Thanks, you guys. I'm sorry we're so short on time.
You gotta love these guys. When they frame everything as a tax, they get away with it in most people's minds, and at the same time reveal just what's really going on in their own heads about their ugly view of the world.
Ah, the 80's. Who would have ever thought that selfishness was going to turn into a cardinal virtue, and its practitioners our culture heroes?
What I find incredible is that people who are supposed to be so outraged by our giving money to alleviate world hunger apparently have no problem with pissing away $250,000,000 PER DAY in Iraq.
In the still picture (screen shot) that covers the link to the video clip (which I won't bother looking at), there's a picture of who I guess it is that's the "GOP strategist" in question... and also in the picture, can clearly be seen the Trademarks of "Fox News Channel" to the left in the picture, and then "Fair and Balanced" on the right side...
The GOP strategist is also a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and said "[Sen. Obama] and my opponent Biden are pushing for this global tax that would require America to pay tax to the U.N."
Wouldn't it have been "Fair and Balanced" if someone representing Sen. Biden were there, to be able answer what this GOP strategist/candidate said?
I mean, what is "Fair and Balanced" supposed to mean anyway?
And why put those words on the screen, while some GOP strategist/candidate is saying these things, without anyone from Sen. Biden's campaign there, to answer them?
Fear of taxes is so 2007.
It's Stealth Muslim candidates who associate with scary black preachers that we need to fear today.
I guess she's from Slower Delaware.
I can't stand anyone who drinks juice.
How could we ever trust someone like that?
The world itself is not overpopulated. Certain regions of the world most definately are. Mass population in China, India are two very big issues. The united states - not so much at all. There plenty of open and uninhabited land that is perfectly fine for living, its just not developed yet. This is a young country and will be evened out by time.
But if we want to start the overpopulation stuff, why do the democrats want to grant amnesty to another 12 million people in the US - so they can repopulate.
In fact, the Global Poverty Act would proclaim that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." But the bill would not "require America to pay tax to the U.N.," as O'Donnell claimed. As Media Matters documented, the bill would establish no specific funding source; it would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.
Well then is this just empty rhetoric?
If not, then the US is committing to spending, just not setting limits of spending. I'd rather have specific limits, thank you. No specific funding source? What the hell is that supposed to mean? When the US government spends, the funding comes from...drum roll here...our taxes.
So no we aren't paying taxes to the UN. We're paying them to our government who in turn will fund some sort of vaguely outlined ambiguous program without specific spending limits...with that tax money.
If I've got this wrong, please feel free to straighten me out ;-)
Bottom of page 5, right above and out of view where MMFA's link takes you......The official goal of the United States foreign assistance is: "To build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that repond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system" (bold is from me)
Translation; $$$
Right on J!
Translation; $$$
Ha! Thanks Tommy, that's what I figured.
The official goal of the United States foreign assistance is: "To build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that repond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system" (bold is from me)
Translation: Those of us with means and wealth helping those who are less fortunate to live a decent life without hunger and disease.
Those bastards!
"Well then is this just empty rhetoric?"
Don't pretend that symbolic legislation is something new.
If you actually read the bill, you'll see that all it really does is set goals. It starts out by putting the President on the hook for coming up with a plan to meet the goals of the bill.
Obama may very well be signing himself up.
Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.
Not exactly - it also creates a bureaucracy to monitor and report on all the thinking about it that will be done.
You can beat your head against the walls of a internet forum or start contacting your congressmen to let them know how outraged and repulsed you are. I suggest both.
Since you have no idea, you really have no idea.
As soon as my head heals from their wall wounds, I will consider it, thank you.
:)
OK, I admit, it was very snide. As I told Jeter below, I'm not fostering hostility toward you or any other formidable poster I mix it up with. I'm in a really $****y mood lately because of a hereditary health issue I'm having to deal with.
It's all good Pete, we all get caught up, no prob....
Please, take care of your health and I sincerely hope all is OK.....everything else pales in comparison to that.
Don't pretend that symbolic legislation is something new.
Huh? I did no such thing. I asked a question...Pete why are you always so angry?
BTW, symbolic legislation is basically worthless, whether it comes from the Left or Right.
That wasn't anger, Jeter.
It's not you I'm angry at.
Well ok Pete, maybe I read you wrong.
So who or what are you angry at?
I'm leaving work now...if you answer, I'll get back to you later.
I'd rather spare the forum my personal BS and I certainly don't want to use it as an excuse for getting snippy with anyone.
Let's just say I'm pretty p***ed off at God right now.
Pete,
Considering how you battle here, and how formidable you are on these forums, I would bet you will take on whatever you are facing with equal vigor. God usually doesn't give us anymore than we can handle. Take care....
Pete,
Sorry man. I hope everything will turn out ok. Though we're all anonymous posters here who likely will never meet face to face, we have in many ways become a tight community, a scrappy cyber-family who, when all is said & done, have developed a real fondness for one another.
Hang in there Pete. Keep the faith. My prayers are with you.
Thanks, Jeter. I feel the same way.
It's not debilitating or immediately threatening, but it's something that will be residing under the surface for the rest of my life and dictating almost everything I do. It inflicts a lot of emotions to be diagnosed with it at a young age, thinking you were indestructible because you lived what you thought was an active and healthy lifestyle.
When the US government spends, the funding comes from...drum roll here...our taxes.
C'mon J - as the bill does not specifically target taxes for this purpose ayone who assumes it does ends up in the crosshairs of media watchdog (activist) websites.
Better duck!!
Yeah, but there are so many better ways to say it than that darn "tax" word.
Like "pay your fair share"......"invest in our future"....."fees"
Learn the lexicon, and use it.
Better duck!!
Good idea...Incoming Liberal outrage missiles can be painful!
;-)
I wave a repulsive feather duster in your general direction.
;0P
Well then is this just empty rhetoric?
If not, then the US is committing to spending, just not setting limits of spending. I'd rather have specific limits, thank you. No specific funding source? What the hell is that supposed to mean? When the US government spends, the funding comes from...drum roll here...our taxes.
The woman said they were pushing for a global tax that would require us paying taxes to the UN which is false. She could have said the Act will send taxpayers' monies to poverty stricken nations which I don't think anybody would disagree with, even though the bill doesn't specifically say that.
As Media Matters documented, the bill would establish no specific funding source; it would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.
OK - so what's the point of a Bill that seeks to reduce global poverty but provides no revenue to do so? I read the Bill - it sounds all warm and fuzzy but how are the goals accomplished?
Of course not. If they admit that it's just a harmless piece of fluff legislation, they can't scare the Evangelical Troglodytes with visions of New World Order Taxes to pay for Black Helicopters.
.. and take their guns away from them too!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5762984.html
That's your opinion. I am weary of some "initiative" or warm and fuzzy sounding "Global Poverty Act" with no specifics, or whatever this is. It is a set up for some huge government funded bureaucratic agency that is top-loaded with cushy administrative jobs and a fat, endless budget.....with very little ending up where it's intended, but it all sounds sooooo good.
Uh huh, give me specific details and then we'll see...
Wait a second; they have a problem with this bill? Seriously? Is it because it was co-spoonsored by Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe?
Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.
Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.
I missed the tax part ...
O'DONNELL: Well, keep in mind that Barack Obama is a time bomb. We have no idea what's going to happen between now and the convention. He is so far to the left, pushing for things --
McCRARY: I disagree. I don't think that Senator Obama is so far left. I mean, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama are quite similar, and they're both --
Wow, talk about balance. Their motto is a complete shill.
Such ignorance. I can't even watch the stuff.
Since when did the UN ever have any authority to levy "taxes" on sovereign nations?
FOX should be ashamed at insulting the intelligence of Americans.
maidenusa
In fact, Christine O'Donnell -- and Cliff Kincaid of AIM -- are right, and Media Matters is wrong.
Christine O'Donnell never specified S. 2433 nor mentioned any particular bill. She did not limit -- as you try to do -- the topic to only one specific piece of legislation alone.
She said -- correctly -- that Obama and Biden are pushing for a global tax to the UN. You simply assumed that this must be found only in the four corners of S. 2433. That is a game you are playing.
There is absolutely no purpose for S. 2433 other than as part of a LARGER campaign to create a world socialist order empowering the UN.
It has been US foreign policy for decades if not centuries to fight poverty world-wide. We do not need another bill to declare that it is US foreign policy to fight world poverty. That is not what S. 2433 does.
The duplicitous argument of Media Matters is that S. 2433 actually does nothing at all.
Since the US has already been fighting global poverty at least since JFK if not much earlier (Marshall Plan, anyone?), clearly S.2433 is doing something entirely different. Otherwise, pray tell, what does S. 2433 actually do if it only declares the same policy that has already been the policy of the United States since the Marshall Plan and JFK if not a century earlier? S. 2433 is clearly laying the groundwork for a global tax to the UN. If it only declared as a policy the elimination of poverty, it would be entirely redundant and unnecessary based on decades of US actions and policy. SECOND, where did Christine O'Donnell refer to S. 2433? She did not say that she was talking about this particular bill. She said that Obama and Biden are pushing for a global tax. She never said that S. 2433 was the ONLY step in their push for a global tax to the UN.Why are you switching the subject to S. 2433, when Christine O'Donnell never mentioned S. 2433 at all? It is in fact Media Matters who is being dishonest.