Bush to give 1.2 billion to the UN

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The spending never stops in the Bush presidency.

 

 

White House seeks to loan U.N. funds for renovations

 

 

By Betsy Pisik and David R. Sands

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

 

 

    The Bush administration's new budget includes a $1.2 billion, 30-year loan to renovate the aging United Nations headquarters and build a new annex, although U.N. officials expressed disappointment that Washington will charge interest on the loan.

    The loan was part of a $31.5 billion foreign-operations budget request released Monday that also includes major new funding for the fight against AIDS and a revamped U.S. foreign-aid program targeting poor countries that implement political and social reforms.

    State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday the loan request, contained in the foreign-operations account of President Bush's proposed fiscal 2005 budget, was a "practical way to move forward" with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's plan to renovate and modernize the U.N. headquarters.

    The loan to fund the U.N. Capital Master Plan still must win approval by Congress and the U.N. General Assembly. The world body must agree to accept the 5.54 percent interest rate. Interest and principal is to be paid off by all member states.

    The loan announcement came on a day when Mr. Annan was in Washington for meetings with Mr. Bush and other senior administration leaders on the troubled political transition in Iraq.

    Catherine Bertini, the U.N. undersecretary-general for administration and management, who accompanied Mr. Annan on his Washington trip, called the loan provision "great."

    "It's exactly what we wanted, but we were hoping it would be interest-free," she said.

    If approved, Washington will pay out $400 million a year for three years, and the organization will have 30 years to pay it back, plus interest. The total bill, with interest, will be close to $2.5 billion.

    As part of its assessed contribution to the U.N. budget, the United States will supply 22 percent of that repayment figure — $265 million on the principal alone.

    Diplomats said yesterday they did not know enough about the loan to comment, but several were dismayed that Washington would charge interest.

    One European envoy noted that the Swiss government donated the building and most of the operating costs for U.N. operations in Geneva.

    The highly recognizable U.N. Secretariat building, the best-known example of the International architectural style, is dangerously outdated and in disrepair.

    The 39-story, green-glass rectangle leaks heat in winter and air-conditioning in summer, is riddled with asbestos and lacks a sprinkler system.

    A 2002 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) affirmed the need for a speedy interior renovation, noting that each year's delay would add millions to the project's cost.

    The GAO also backed the U.N. suggestion of a second office tower, which would house U.N. staff during the three-year renovation, and then consolidate far-flung agencies, programs and offices now renting space. The city of New York has made available a nearby asphalt playground for the proposed tower, although the community is reluctant to see it developed.

    State Department officials, briefing reporters on background yesterday, said Mr. Bush's proposed foreign-operations budget cuts back on some traditional bilateral aid programs to fulfill the president's funding promises for AIDS and for the new Millennium Challenge Account, a program to target development assistance to countries that embrace economic and political reforms.

 

#1 - Anybody expecting the UN to get this paid off by 2034? (Note: it can be easily forgiven too, ya know). Feel free to mention one time where the UN repaid a loan.

 

#2 - If the UN risked irrelevance last year, why is Bush now paying for renovations? Seems like a bit of a flip. (You mean the UN doesn't have money to do that? So Bush has to spend some more to help them out)

 

"According to the article, the total amount that the UN will pay us is $2.5 billion. Of course, since we are part of the UN, we have to contribute to paying off the loan, our share will total $265 million. (Funny what you learn when you actually read the article.)"

 

Bush sure is doing a hell of a job of pissing all over his base, isn't he? Under the assumption that Conservatives wouldn't dare stay home or vote against him.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

If I were Bush I would've given them a big eviction notice instead.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Bush obviously wants something from the UN. He's buying something here. Perhaps to do with the WMD scandal.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Bush obviously wants something from the UN. He's buying something here. Perhaps to do with the WMD scandal.

Give it a break. Your conspiracy theories attached to everything the Bush admin does is getting tired.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

And that's why you have zero credibility when you make an argument here.

[snuffbox 0]

UN headquarters is a much better place to get 1.2 billion than starving american kids or sick american workers. good king george.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Starving American kids?

 

It's pretty hard with all the charity to go hungry in this country.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Sending Billions into space (Mars) is a MUCH better project.

 

Smell the sarcasm.

 

If he give me, say, £5000 i'll quit bad mouthing him here.

[Justice 0]

UN headquarters is a much better place to get 1.2 billion than starving american kids or sick american workers. good king george.

Considering that the poorest 10% in the US are still better off than 2/3rds of the entire world population, I think there are other people who may need it a little more. Plus, as mentioned before we have many different charity organizations that can help out the poor in the US.

 

On topic: I'm not in favor of the move, but Bush is trying to be the bigger of the two here. But whatever.

[Highland 0]

I don't see what the objection would be; it's a loan, not a handout. I also wonder why the UN couldn't just hire a private contractor to do the necessary renovations? Or is it some legal loophope that prevents this?

[snuffbox 0]

UN headquarters is a much better place to get 1.2 billion than starving american kids or sick american workers. good king george.

Considering that the poorest 10% in the US are still better off than 2/3rds of the entire world population, I think there are other people who may need it a little more. Plus, as mentioned before we have many different charity organizations that can help out the poor in the US.

 

On topic: I'm not in favor of the move, but Bush is trying to be the bigger of the two here. But whatever.

then why do the kids still sarve...be sick...be uneducated...sad? it happens, and just because the president tells you they dont, doesnt make it so.

 

working families paying the brunt of taxes damages so many great people and young lives.

 

but who cares? theyre not rich, fuck em right?

[Vyce 0]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

You're just crossed the line into pitiful and sad at this point.

[Guest MikeSC]

then why do the kids still sarve

How many kids die of starvation in America?

...be sick

Umm, viruses?

...be uneducated

Parents are slack and education requires work by the child.

...sad? it happens, and just because the president tells you they dont, doesnt make it so.

When has the President stated that?

working families paying the brunt of taxes damages so many great people and young lives.

Do you want to go into the percentage of the overall taxes paid by the top 10%?

but who cares? theyre not rich, fuck em right?

Funny, there was no starvation in the 1990's. No sickness.

 

It was utopia!

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

You're just crossed the line into pitiful and sad at this point.

Actually I think he crossed that line with the thread over the weekend.

[snuffbox 0]

then why do the kids still sarve

How many kids die of starvation in America?

...be sick

Umm, viruses?

...be uneducated

Parents are slack and education requires work by the child.

...sad? it happens, and just because the president tells you they dont, doesnt make it so.

When has the President stated that?

working families paying the brunt of taxes damages so many great people and young lives.

Do you want to go into the percentage of the overall taxes paid by the top 10%?

but who cares? theyre not rich, fuck em right?

Funny, there was no starvation in the 1990's. No sickness.

 

It was utopia!

-=Mike

it was just the same in the 90s...kids were hurting and so were workers.

 

it was better for workers as they had a better economic situation, but still not as good as possible.

 

bush is losing alot of working class jobs...see Mike, i live in the real world, i work and everyone around me does to. we support families. its hard. and its harder now than it was in 1996. i dont go by charts and graphs, i go by real life and what is really happening to me and around me.

 

and also, Mike...the % that a rich man can pay can be huge and he'll still be rich. a poor worker can pay a tiny % and itll effect him terribly. this is real life, not spin. that is what i go by.

[Vyce 0]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

You're just crossed the line into pitiful and sad at this point.

Actually I think he crossed that line with the thread over the weekend.

He was the one who admitted he'd like to see the President dead, right?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think anything regarding Bush can be disregarded as a "conspiracy theory". WAKE UP.

You're just crossed the line into pitiful and sad at this point.

Actually I think he crossed that line with the thread over the weekend.

He was the one who admitted he'd like to see the President dead, right?

No, the one where he said he thought about killing him when he visited his city.

[Guest MikeSC]

it was just the same in the 90s...kids were hurting and so were workers.

Funny, it didn't get mentioned.

 

Ever.

bush is losing alot of working class jobs

Can you list a policy that has done that?

 

I mean, outside of inheriting a recession.

...see Mike, i live in the real world, i work and everyone around me does to.

Meanwhile, I live in Fantasy Land, where unicorns are abundant and we all swim in warm pools of mineral water.

we support families.

We tell kids to fend for themselves and slap the elderly.

its hard. and its harder now than it was in 1996. i dont go by charts and graphs, i go by real life and what is really happening to me and around me.

OR, it's real life "in your world".

and also, Mike...the % that a rich man can pay can be huge and he'll still be rich. a poor worker can pay a tiny % and itll effect him terribly. this is real life, not spin. that is what i go by.

Shall we go into how much work the rich tend to do? I love that a lot of libs think that the wealthy don't actually do anything.

 

You couldn't HANDLE Trump's schedule. You couldn't handle Gates' schedule.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

it was just the same in the 90s...kids were hurting and so were workers.

Funny, it didn't get mentioned.

 

Ever.

bush is losing alot of working class jobs

Can you list a policy that has done that?

 

I mean, outside of inheriting a recession.

...see Mike, i live in the real world, i work and everyone around me does to.

Meanwhile, I live in Fantasy Land, where unicorns are abundant and we all swim in warm pools of mineral water.

we support families.

We tell kids to fend for themselves and slap the elderly.

its hard. and its harder now than it was in 1996. i dont go by charts and graphs, i go by real life and what is really happening to me and around me.

OR, it's real life "in your world".

and also, Mike...the % that a rich man can pay can be huge and he'll still be rich. a poor worker can pay a tiny % and itll effect him terribly. this is real life, not spin. that is what i go by.

Shall we go into how much work the rich tend to do? I love that a lot of libs think that the wealthy don't actually do anything.

 

You couldn't HANDLE Trump's schedule. You couldn't handle Gates' schedule.

-=Mike

your spinning, again, Mike...

 

The right media said the same things about Clinton then. You apparently didnt listen to rush then. And, I do not support liberals or Clinton. I am libertarian.

 

Bush's policy of allowing tax breaks for American companies overseas has resulted in job loss. Cheap labor + tax breaks = moving jobs.

 

Support families = financially/emotionally. its painfully hard. and its just as hard for a working liberal as it is for a working conservative, for a working christian or a working atheist. its hard, and its plainly clear that the current president doesnt care about this group of people or their needs.

 

I look at life the way it is. If people suffer, they suffer. Its obvious to me. I dont listen to spin, or base my life on political agendas...merely the realities of life.

 

I never said it was easy to be rich. Your right, I probably cant handle Gates or Trumps schedules...just like they cant handle mine.

I never said theyre bad because theyre wealthy. I respect them. They do alot for charities, they earned their money.

I just said that theres a BIG difference between a rich mans tax 5 and a poor mans tax %. I said it because its true.

[Guest MikeSC]

your spinning, again, Mike...

 

The right media said the same things about Clinton then.

I never heard the right going on and on about starving kids and the like.

Bush's policy of allowing tax breaks for American companies overseas has resulted in job loss. Cheap labor + tax breaks = moving jobs.

What tax breaks has he allowed?

 

Outsourcing menial jobs to other countries has been going on for years.

 

That is more due to unions causing the jobs to pay far more than their worth than anything else.

Support families = financially/emotionally. its painfully hard. and its just as hard for a working liberal as it is for a working conservative, for a working christian or a working atheist. its hard, and its plainly clear that the current president doesnt care about this group of people or their needs.

Yeah, Bush doesn't give a darn. He LOVES seeing people do poorly, huh? To assume that one side has the monopoly on empathy is unspeakably immature.

I look at life the way it is. If people suffer, they suffer. Its obvious to me. I dont listen to spin, or base my life on political agendas...merely the realities of life.

People always suffer. That's life.

I never said it was easy to be rich. Your right, I probably cant handle Gates or Trumps schedules...just like they cant handle mine.

Actually, they probably could. Long, brutal hours with little money are things MOST wealthy people have dealt with.

I never said theyre bad because theyre wealthy. I respect them. They do alot for charities, they earned their money.

I just said that theres a BIG difference between a rich mans tax 5 and a poor mans tax %. I said it because its true.

The "poor" don't even PAY income taxes. They get almost all of the money "paid" returned with their annual return.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If I were Bush I would've given them a big eviction notice instead.

Screw the eviction notice.

 

Keep them all in there when the wrecking ball arrives...

[Guest hunger4unger]

The point we are missing here is that Bush is giving over a billion to the UN and spent billions on a venture to Mars and the US economy is in a shit state. He's driven the economy into the ground. How anyone can defend him truly is beyond me.

[Justice 0]

The point we are missing here is that Bush is giving over a billion to the UN and spent billions on a venture to Mars and the US economy is in a shit state. He's driven the economy into the ground. How anyone can defend him truly is beyond me.

How did HE drive the economy into the ground? The lastest economic reports say that the recession started during the Clinton Adminstration. It was his tax cuts that have jump-started our economy. Jobs are coming back slow, but any economist will tell you that jobs are ALWAYS the last thing to come back in a recovering economy.

 

You should really shut up. You do a disservice to all the intelligent British people here every time you type up one of your inane and unsubstantiated responses.

[Guest MikeSC]

The point we are missing here is that Bush is giving over a billion to the UN and spent billions on a venture to Mars and the US economy is in a shit state. He's driven the economy into the ground. How anyone can defend him truly is beyond me.

Has one single dime even gone into the Mars mission? I've not heard of it.

 

And how did he drive the economy into the ground? It was in full recession in 10/2000 --- you know, before he even took office.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

Yes the US economy was taking a nosedive before Bush rigged himself into power but Bush has done very little if nothing to halt the decline.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes the US economy was taking a nosedive before Bush rigged himself into power but Bush has done very little if nothing to halt the decline.

Well, 9/11, massive corporate accounting scandals, and a need to build-up defense and intel resources might be a small drain.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hmm, perhaps Bush should have kept these renovations silent. That way when the U.N. folk come to work one day with workers out there re-building the structure we could tell them that this was due to a terrorist attack and the U.N. will then hightail it out of there...