Kozmos
Jew Detective
US retreating from the UN would be to everyone's else benefit considering the amount of wheelin and dealing that gets done over there.
The UN's Authority Over the US (from Random Rants LXIX)
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
Not a can of worms you want opened. The people pushing for a constitutional convention are doing so because the current one works too well, not because it doesn't work well enough.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Careful what you wish for. I understand that there are groups working towards a constitutional convention there, and are near to be capable of achieving the required majorities. You will probably not like the constitution they would produce if they had a go at it now.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
The US pays $611m 22% and China pays $220m ($200m nett) 8%
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/955
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/955
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Yes, I suppose I should have clarified. The US revamping its Constitution to be more along my vision of morality and ethics would be ideal. I figured this was a given.
At the bottom info how the contribution is calculated.
The general principle is based on the gross national income (fair) with some adjusts to subsidise poor countries (like low GDP per capita). There is also a cap of max 22%.
This explains why for example China is lower than the US.
Using that table of @Silurian and Wikipedia GDP's:
And this explains that a typical Western country with high GDP per capita (no deducts) is paying more than the US as % of GDP, like for example my country, paying gross to the UN 0.00533% of GDP and the US only paying 0.00329% of GDP.
So... following the "America First" doctrine, the US can complain they are paying too much.
Following the moral value that developed, rich countries should have some compassion to help out poor nations, I am happy that my country pays more than poor countries, even when that is more than the US.
BTW
If the "America First" doctrine becomes so widespread in the US that this complaining about supporting global institutions for the benefit of all, takes a more permanent character (The US stopped for example under Trump the funding of anti-conception programs in Africa), it is perhaps better that the UN relocates her headquarter from that city with the statue of Liberty, to another city.
I guess many countries and cities would compete heavily for the honour and the substantial economical benefits now flowing to New York and the US, because of all the spending of the UN for hotels, housing, etc, etc for her staf and meetings. A bit like the European cities competing for the big finance companies in London, seeking alternatives because of Brexit.
Whereby my personal preference would be Geneva, Switzerland, as long standing neutral nation.
Regular budget and Working Capital Fund
By its resolution 70/245, the General Assembly decided that the scale of assessments for the period 2016–2018 shall be based on the following elements and criteria:
(a) Estimates of gross national income;
(b) Average statistical base periods of three and six years;
(c) Conversion rates based on market exchange rates, except where that would cause excessive fluctuations and distortions in the income of some Member States, when price-adjusted rates of exchange or other appropriate conversion rates should be employed, taking due account of its resolution 46/221 B;
(d) The debt-burden approach employed in the scale of assessments for the period 2013–2015;
(e) A low per capita income adjustment of 80 per cent, with a threshold per capita income limit of the average per capita gross national income of all Member States for the statistical base periods;
(f) A minimum assessment rate of 0.001 per cent;
(g) A maximum assessment rate for the least developed countries of 0.01 per cent;
(h) A maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent;
http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml
Last edited:
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Come to think of it
The amount paid by the US to the UN is such a trivial small amount, that if I would be mayor of New York, I would pay that bill as city, just to keep the headquarters of the UN in my city.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Well New York has a $85bn budget so maybe it could pay $611m. I am not sure if the city would gain $611m but it would be close.
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-m...eleases-executive-budget-fiscal-year-2018/#/0
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-m...eleases-executive-budget-fiscal-year-2018/#/0
And in response to that, Canada increased our funding for these programs. The right-wing here is livid, of course, not able to comprehend that if there are fewer babies born to families who can't care for them, there would likely be a bit less of a problem of refugees (and they're paranoid because as of a couple of cabinet shuffles ago, our new Minister of Immigration was himself a refugee from East Africa when he was young).
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Are they the ones that only want "Pure Blooded Canadians"(whatever that means) in government?
The ones that stick feathers in their hair.
Which "they"? The Liberals embrace multiculturalism. The Reformacons are all about "Old-Stock Canadians" (the sort of people civver_764 approves of). Our former PM (Stephen Harper) defines "Old-Stock Canadians" as any European-descended person whose ancestors came here in the 1800s or earlier. So by his definition, warpus and his family aren't "Old-Stock Canadians" and I'm not either, since my family has only been here a century (give or take a few years, depending on which grandparents or great-grandparents are mentioned).
A few months ago I encountered someone on the CBC.ca comment boards who proudly proclaimed herself to be "Old-Stock Canadian" and went on to stick her nose in the air and brag about how she was so much "better" than anyone else, whether native or non-old-stock (ie. those who came here in the 1900s or later). Of course she's one of the right-wing Reformacon supporters.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's one of the problems with the American constitution. Americans have been indoctrinated to think that it's a holy document that shines above all else from high above.
Just because it was written by a bunch of guys in girly hair doesn't mean that it's perfect.
Okay, this is a side-track, but many of them wore wigs, and believe it or not, there were centuries during which time men had long hair, or at least it wasn't considered unusual for them to have long hair. In actuality, a lot of them really had short hair but the wigs were long.
So they were quite fashionable for 18th-century men.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
yeah 611m is not much at all, every state has a budget in the multi billion dollar range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If the hipsters keep at it one day such a thing will be fashionable again. But until then...
Obvious joking aside, the problem with "banning racism" or "hate speech" is that doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruling on the matter basically says Americans have the right to be as racist as they want to be as long as their racism doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
And that's the way it should be. A person should be allowed to express any opinion they want, no matter how hateful or wrong it might be because expressing an opinion does not violate the rights of anyone else. Remember: racists are still human beings and they are entitled to the same rights and protections the rest of us are entitled to. I think that's a concept that a lot of non-Americans whose governments don't give everyone the same rights and protections struggle with.
It's more a matter of practicality than it is this. The authors of the Constitution made it intentionally difficult to completely scrap the document and replace it with something else. To get a new Constitution would require a Constitutional Convention to be called. For that to happen, I think something like two-thirds of state legislatures have to vote for it and that just isn't going to happen. Not with 50 states (instead of the initial 13) in an increasingly polarized political climate. Add to that the fact that everyone across the political spectrum in the US are terrified of what a new Constitution may look like, and you have a recipe for no one in the US, no matter their political leanings, being willing to really shake up the status quo.
Oh, pity the intolerant who whine about being called on their reprehensible attitudes with wails of "Why won't you let me discriminate against the people I don't like? YOU'RE PERSECUTING MEEEEE!"
This is the sort of attitude that makes me very glad I wasn't born in your country, and glad that I've got no compelling reason to visit.
Oh, pity the intolerant who whine about being called on their reprehensible attitudes with wails of "Why won't you let me discriminate against the people I don't like? YOU'RE PERSECUTING MEEEEE!"
This is the sort of attitude that makes me very glad I wasn't born in your country, and glad that I've got no compelling reason to visit.
So you think giving everyone the same rights and protections under the law is a bad thing? Interesting...
Similar threads
