ONE petition
 

ONE | The Big Read

*copy pasted* ONE and The Global Campaign for Education will present The Big Read, a storybook promoting literacy and education worldwide, to President Obama on June 16 -- along with our request that he fulfill his campaign promise of contributing $2 billion to a Global Fund for Education.


If we have money to bailout soulsucking companies, surely we have money for global education? Eh, I signed. If you agree, you should sign as well.

Since bailing out those companies was a dumb decision in the first place, you best change your logic.

Thats an excellent point, actually.....
I still think you guys should sign it.

How much are other world powers contributing?

Between bail outs and credit card debt...it shouldn't matter how much anyone else is putting in. We obviously have the means to do such a thing and even if we stand alone so be it. A great leader would be willing to do such a thing (wow that's deep man). But really! We had a money problem so we threw money at it?!? Whatever... We could do whatever we want, and usually we do. Why not do something good? The real question is who's moderating the money and where exactly is it going? No matter what you say we'll never know for sure, but still....

Where do I sign?

^^Well said polyphonic. After much digging, couldn't find anything. I assume its because nothings definite yet.
Yeah, thats pree much my point. If we money for THAT, then don't we have money for teaching children in the Third World how to read?

Do you two nimrods even understand economy at all? Throwing money at money problems is logical because they're trying to kick start the economy. Its no different than taking business loans which technically put you in debt until you pay them off. On the other hand spending money to no gain while you have no money is not only impractical but its detrimental.

RIGHT! Like War money funding for the war on drugs, political campaigns, raising salaries for members of congress, funding for immoral and illegal detainment camps such as Gitmo, crap hold on, I've gotta go but I'll be back with a whole list.

Point A. Taxpayer money doesn't go to political campaigns that's raised by the DNC/RNC and donations.
Point B. Congress can only raise their salary when a new session begins and they have to vote on it they don't do it whenever they feel like and the raises are never really that extravagant. Also Congress has never raised their salaries individually recently.
Point C. It doesn't cost much money to rent the area that is Guantanamo Bay detention camp and we've been renting it for a long time. The fiscal amount to keep that running should be the least of your concerns when it comes to where money is going. Unless you suggest downsizing the military (or at least military expenditures which President Obama is doing) which would be silly seeing as we're in two wars and they'd just be sent elsewhere (and will be seeing as it's been shut down.)

I hope your "whole list" is as thought out as the preview you provided us which only has the war on drugs and the war in Iraq going for it which are hardly new/shocking revelations of reckless spending.

Anyway I know the United States is so great and the world's only superpower and everything but why not petition a head of a state that actually has money? Or at the very least a country without a huge deficit.

I understand President Obama may have "promised" to donate that amount of money but I doubt he did it after the whole fiasco on Wall Street. Also it would be much more effective to lobby Congress instead. Or if you want a single person then lobby Nancy Pelosi as opposed to the President. This is a good cause but the execution is more symbolic than anything else and the timing couldn't be worse.

........Not much I can do about that. I am not and do not claim to be Bono....sorry......

Doubt he'd give the money even if the entire country signed. Just figured it was a decent cause.

It is a good cause I just question how politically savvy the person behind this is.

A: Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates can receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections, and to pay for their national nominating conventions The Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program in 1976. Eligible Presidential candidates used federal funds in their primary and general election campaigns, and the major parties used public funds to pay for their nominating conventions. Alternate political parties can apply for funding that is to be based on the voter turnout from the last election cycle.

B: Congress can still raise their own salaries, and regardless of the fact that the personal raises aren't that much in themselves, when you add it all up...

C: Paying rent at Gitmo isn't the point, the cost of running such a place is.(Moral issues being a whole different topic)

Not to mention that the fact that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" being old news doesn't disqualify them from being good examples of irresponsible spending.

Obama letting wife take air force one to Chicago every weekend.
100 dollars per pound steaks flown in from japan at white house parties.
Palin can go drop thousands on suits from Saks, Neiman's and Barney's.

There were six candidates in the Presidential Election of 2008. The approximate amount spent by each candidate are as follows:
1. Barak Obama, Democrat, 730 million.
2. John McCain, Republican, 343 million.
3. Ralph Nader, Independent, 4 million,
4. Bob Barr, Libertarian, 1 million.
5. Chuck Baldwin, Constitution, 208 thousand
6. Cynthia McKinny, Green, 145 thousand


These are a blip on the radar screen of examples.
Where is the money really going?

This whole argument is only furthering my original point; we can debate HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars all week, and the fact is that there are hundreds of billions to argue about. With all of the affluent spending going on around us, regardless of financial situation, why not do something good with it?

Because its all low in value and better spent here trying to fix our own problems.

If you really knew so much about the FEC and the fund raising process you'd know you just told a flat out lie. You saying seven hundred and thirty million dollars of taxpayer money went to Barack Obama is a flat out lie. He's the first presidential candidate post-Watergate that didn't accept public campaign funds. Do some research on the actual money spent (or just look at your figures and do some basic addiction) not that much money was spent which is shocking considering how much the campaign money has to cover.

As far as Congress raising their salaries goes they didn't individually raise them that much last time (certainly nothing to cause a fuss over since they're been doing more work now than in previous years) and they don't just raise their salaries at random again and to extravagant amounts (yes, even if you add it up it still doesn't hit the millions let alone the hundreds of billions.)

Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp doesn't cost a ridiculous amount to run. The conditions are pretty terrible and we'd be paying the people who stand guard over it regardless of where they are. It's really silly to bring it up; the defense budget as a whole would be a different manner.

As far as personal Presidential spending goes; it's always been irresponsible. Bringing up Sarah Palin is irrelevant.

I understand what you're saying with all this but you're attacking the wrong thing. The defense budget is overbloated and you barely touch on it (really you look at a very tiny facet; Gitmo) and you ignore the fact that the conditions in which we entered two wars were not stable economic conditions and that there's no regulation of White House spending. I'm not saying you're wrong just that you seem misinformed and you're misdirecting your populist fiscal rage.

All this talk of fiscal responsibility though directly contradicts your demand we send this money to this fund though. You realize we'd just be borrowing the two billion dollars and sinking that much deeper into debt right? It would be stupid to proxy donate money; again I think a country with money should be asked.

Well played sir, Sleepy Jack. I got a "B" in political Science... but I gave it a good shot. I quoted the original post just to bring it back into focus, and anyone reading this that is remaining concerned or interested should do some research and decide for yourself. It's your world people.