12 Jan 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckRight. So what if their preferred method doesn't work?
see edit on previous post. (try not to take 'all' too literally)
The Population Research Institute (PRI) says it has found the UNFPA guilty of promoting forced abortions, and the involuntary sterilisation of women.
If the PRI says they promote forced abortions etc. then surely the USA should not fund them, just to be on the safe side.
Anyway, even if all their activities are perfectly above board, why should the US taxpayers fund them if they don't want to? They have no obligation to fund family planning in any other country.
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforange"A subsequent U.S. State Department investigation found no evidence to support PRI’s claims of wrongdoing by UNFPA—in fact, it even commended their work in China. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration blocked all US funding of UNFPA in 2002 and has withheld more than $125 million from the agency through the end of 2005."
Right. So what if their preferred method doesn't work?
If the PRI says they promote forced abortions etc. then surely the USA should not fund them, just to be on the safe side.
Anyway, even if all their activities are perfectly above board, why should the US taxpayers fund them if they don't want to? They have no obligation to fund family planning in any other country.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/right/population-research-institute
edit -
“The massive distribution of condoms in Africa has not only not stopped the spread of AIDS, it has put millions of more at risk of infection in the name of prevention.”
-- Steven Mosher - Population research institute.
12 Jan 08
Originally posted by princeoforangeFor that matter, isn't it someone else's turn to host the UN? Aren't we already providing a chunk of funding by having the UN here?
Right. So what if their preferred method doesn't work?
If the PRI says they promote forced abortions etc. then surely the USA should not fund them, just to be on the safe side.
Anyway, even if all their activities are perfectly above board, why should the US taxpayers fund them if they don't want to? They have no obligation to fund family planning in any other country.
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou either missed, or ignored, my query entirely!
The number of UNFPA donor countries has steadily increased over the last few years, from 69 in 1999; to 172 in 2005, to last year’s new high of 180. The top six donors were the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan and Denmark. In addition, every nation in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as all sub-Saharan Africa, pledged funds to ...[text shortened]... dn't get a year-to-date summary, I have heard no news
of ANY other contributor stalling funds.
Let me reinterate: Why would the USA [deeply in debt to China!] 1-borrow money from China 2-give this money to the UN 3- for the UN to give to China for population control????
China is inundated in cash from world trade. [It is fact they are buying up USA debt] Also China is spending like drunken sailors to build the worlds #1 military.
Why should the USA, or any nation for that matter, give money to China [fast becoming the wealthiest nation on earth] for population control?
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThe regular contributions are determined by a country's capacity to pay, based on its gross national product (GNP) and adjustments for its levels of external debt and per capita income, which are reviewed every three years. More than three‐quarters of the UN's regular budget is paid by the ten largest contributors: the USA (which pays 22%; Japan 20%; Germany 9%; the UK 6%; France 6%; Italy 5%; Canada 3%; Spain 2%; China 2%; and Mexico 2%.
You either missed, or ignored, my query entirely!
Let me reinterate: Why would the USA [deeply in debt to China!] 1-borrow money from China 2-give this money to the UN 3- for the UN to give to China for population control????
[b]China is inundated in cash from world trade. [It is fact they are buying up USA debt] Also China is spending ...[text shortened]... ive money to China [fast becoming the wealthiest nation on earth] for population control?[/b]
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/encyclopedia/article_show/United_Nations/m0032167.html?from=hotlink
In response to your first question - Why would the US borrow money from China?
I'm no macroeconomist but this article seemed to make some sense.
"The U.N. report said China's large current account surplus should be seen in the broader context of the problem of the global macroeconomic imbalances involving the huge external deficit of the U.S. counterbalanced by surpluses elsewhere, including China. These imbalances can not be resolved unilaterally or bilaterally.
The report urged more efforts to advance the ongoing multilateral consultations sponsored by the International Monetary Fund, which involve China, the Euro area, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The consultations are focused on narrowing global current-account imbalances while maintaining robust growth. "
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/10/content_7395434.htm
12 Jan 08
You should ask yourself HOW China has managed to develop economically so quickly?
Here's what they say -
China's national economy has developed at a high speed, with its overall national strength notably increased and the people's living standards greatly improved. Since the imple- mentation of the family planning program, over 300 million births in total have been averted nationally. This has saved a great amount of payment for the upbringing of children for the state and society, alleviated the pressure of the excessive population on the resources and environment, and accelerated the development of the economy and the improvement of the people's living standards. With the strategic goal of quadrupling the gross national product (GNP) of 1980 attained ahead of schedule, the Chinese people as a whole now live a relatively comfortable life. By the end of 1999, the rural poor without adequate food and clothing had decreased from over 250 million in the late 1970s to 34 million, accounting for a drop from 33% to around 3% of the total rural population. The impoverished people in rural areas have basically enough food and clothing now.
http://www.gov.cn/english/official/2005-07/27/content_17640.htm
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWho cares how China has become properous .. This is not the subject of the thread you started. Stick to your original premise please.
You should ask yourself HOW China has managed to develop economically so quickly?
Here's what they say -
China's national economy has developed at a high speed, with its overall national strength notably increased and the people's living standards greatly improved. Since the imple- mentation of the family planning program, over 300 million births in gh food and clothing now.
http://www.gov.cn/english/official/2005-07/27/content_17640.htm
12 Jan 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOK, you do not understand how a nation buying anothers debt operates as a loan and no explanation need be given in this thread. Just suffice it to say the USA owes China hundreds of billions.
The regular contributions are determined by a country's capacity to pay, based on its gross national product (GNP) and adjustments for its levels of external debt and per capita income, which are reviewed every three years. More than three‐quarters of the UN's regular budget is paid by the ten largest contributors: the USA (which pays 22%; Japan 20%; ...[text shortened]... ining robust growth. "
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/10/content_7395434.htm
Again, to your original thread subject which I responded to:
Why should the USA, or any nation, give money to China [fast becoming the wealthiest nation on earth] for population control? Answer please.
12 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainI have answered your question. The UN assesses the contributions of donor countries based
OK, you do not understand how a nation buying anothers debt operates as a loan and no explanation need be given in this thread. Just suffice it to say the USA owes China hundreds of billions.
Again, to your original thread subject which I responded to:
[b]Why should the USA, or any nation, give money to China [fast becoming the wealthiest nation on earth] for population control? Answer please.[/b]
upon GNP and adjusts for levels of external debt.
If the US believes this to be an unfair assessment, then this should be treated as a
separate issue to withholding payment based on unsubstantiated theological accusations.
13 Jan 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckGreat! Whew...I finally got a definitive answer. You believe all the prosperous nations should give money to despotic nations simply because, the despotic nations group together and vote (UN) for them to.
I have answered your question. The UN assesses the contributions of donor countries based
upon GNP and adjusts for levels of external debt.
If the US believes this to be an unfair assessment, then this should be treated as a
separate issue to withholding payment based on unsubstantiated theological accusations.
How utterly absurd!!! UN can get stuffed! 😏
13 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainNo, that's not what I said.
Great! Whew...I finally got a definitive answer. You believe all the prosperous nations should give money to despotic nations simply because, the despotic nations group together and vote (UN) for them to.
How utterly absurd!!! UN can get stuffed! 😏
I said that if the US makes an agreement it should honor it and not try
and find some way to weasel out of it by blaming someone else.
13 Jan 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI believe the US should do to the UN what Chinese men should do to prevent babies........PULL OUT!
No, that's not what I said.
I said that if the US makes an agreement it should honor it and not try
and find some way to weasel out of it by blaming someone else.
Granny.
13 Jan 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThat's not an option. We can object until infinity and they can keep assessing the same percentage until infinity.
I have answered your question. The UN assesses the contributions of donor countries based
upon GNP and adjusts for levels of external debt.
If the US believes this to be an unfair assessment, then this should be treated as a
separate issue to withholding payment based on unsubstantiated theological accusations.
Sounds like somebody enjoys diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy.