You're Free To Go!

On Saturday the group of 8 wealthiest nations in the world agreed to cancel the debts of the world's poorest nations; many in Africa. These negotiations among the world's industrialized nations have gone on for years. These debt cancellations are seen to help the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank. Instead of these institutions simply adding to the debt of emerging countries, now these countries can start fresh and the institutions can help them manage their debt from the loans themselves to how that money is handled by the individual recipient countries. 18 of the poorest countries will benefit from the debt cancellation. Countries like Ruwanda, Bolivia, Mauritania (Burma), Niger, Nicaragua and Uganda will be among those who will be in on the savings of approximately 1.5 Billion Dollars per year.

I think it is important to note the politics that went into this agreement that was not wanted in the beginning by those such as France, Germany and Russia. It was the Bush Administration that has fought for and pressed the other 7 nations to find an agreement that would benefit the emerging countries at the expense of themselves. 40 Billion Dollars in debt will be wiped out in one of the most comprehensive plans to aid the poor countries of the world and this agreement was primarily written by and pushed forward by the administration of President Bush. It is interesting to note that most of the debt to the 18 countries listed was accumulated during the Clinton Administration. Although this was a giving time it also led to a paralysis of these countries who faced huge payments into infinity and without the action by the Bush Administration, these countries would have been buried forever in debt to the richest nations on earth.

I for one think the Bush Administration who is lumped in with "rich Republicans" should get the thanks of those who not only created this situation for the poorest countries but also for lifting the yoke of debt from their shoulders. France and Germany along with Russia had to be worked very hard to get an agreement and credit should go to President Bush and his team of negotiators. Although it is well known that the Democrats in Congress actually hold the most personal wealth over the "rich Republicans", it is refreshing to see at least one of the political parties in this country have enough charity to help the poor. :duel

gordontravels said:

I think it is important to note the politics that went into this agreement that was not wanted in the beginning by those such as France, Germany and Russia. It was the Bush Administration that has fought for and pressed the other 7 nations to find an agreement that would benefit the emerging countries at the expense of themselves.

I for one think the Bush Administration who is lumped in with "rich Republicans" should get the thanks of those who not only created this situation for the poorest countries but also for lifting the yoke of debt from their shoulders. France and Germany along with Russia had to be worked very hard to get an agreement and credit should go to President Bush and his team of negotiators.

Click to expand...

You really are something! Bush is responsible, huh? Tell that to Tony Blair! Blair is the one who pushed Bush into this arrangement, and it took time. Since you never, ever provide FACTS to back up your craziness let's look at the facts so we're clear as to the TRUTH.

Here's a story from June 3rd on the subject from the BBC:

Last Updated: Friday, 3 June, 2005, 22:47 GMT 23:47 UK

The UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has put forward a bold plan to tackle poverty in Africa ahead of the G8 Summit of rich countries in Scotland next month.

He called for a doubling of European aid by 2010 and 100% debt relief, as well as an end to many trade subsidies.

But the plan is facing opposition in the US - and particularly from President George W Bush.

Mr Bush's stance sets up a possible clash with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, due in Washington next week.

Mr Bush said on Wednesday that a key part of the plan did not fit with the US budget process.

The UK is pushing hard for major debt relief and a doubling of aid to Africa, and Chancellor Gordon Brown laid out a set of ambitious plans on Friday....snip....

The UK is one of six European nations who have pledged to increase their aid target to 0.7% of GDP by that year, a figure which only five countries have managed to reach so far.

However the US has said that the target is not a realistic one for it to work towards.

US Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto told BBC's Newsnight programme: "The problem at looking at targets of 0.7% of GDP is that when people focus on numbers like that they don't know what they are talking about in nominal terms.

"They don't know how much money is available and how much money is in the pipeline."

Mr Bush said on Wednesday that the IFF for Africa "doesn't fit our budgetary process".

The US has already pledged to increase development aid through its own Millennium Challenge Account, but little of the money has been spent so far.

Analysts say the war in Iraq and its related costs have pushed Africa off the US agenda, and think a change in priorities is unlikely.

According to Reuters, UK government sources have been talking about pressing ahead even without US involvement.

Mr Brown played down reports of a rift or stand-off between the UK and the US.

"In my talks over the last few months, but particularly over the last day or two, with the US Treasury Secretary, we believe that there is common ground on securing that debt relief," he explained.

"We believe it is going to be possible to reach an agreement on debt relief."

Click to expand...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4606197.stm

Sure doesn't read to me like Bush was the motivating force in this, how about to you Gordon? You just make it up, throw it out there and hope that people will be naive enough to believe the BS the way you believe it.

Here's a Reuter's story from Feb. 1st on this subject:

Snow told an October meeting of the IMF and World Bank that the United States was "prepared to go to debt forgiveness of up to 100 percent" but Washington has been lukewarm about Britain's debt proposal to date.

Click to expand...

Source: http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi?path=/press_room&page=reuters020205.html

The TRUTH is that this is an initiative spearheaded fully by Blair, not Bush. Bush needed to be goaded a lot by Blair.

To give Bush credit for getting on board only at the very end after months of stalling and stonewalling is flat out wrong.

How come the Bushniacs on this board are so in love with their boy that they will find anything good that happens in the world and try to spin it into Bush's corner?

Will the bullshit ever, ever end? The cool thing is that the American public has caught on, and Bush's popularity is at an all-time low. Americans are fed up with the war, the lies, the SS BS, high gas prices etc. Look at ANY poll about Bush since the beginning of this year and every one of them has his numbers down.

Democrats, hang in there, our day is coming again, and we will persevere. It's still going to take some years, but we've hit bottom and the elevator is on the way up again, HOORAY! 2008 is getting closer, and if not before then, by 2008 the nation will again have a Democratic President, a woman at that, and a black VEEP! This single occurrence will be one of the great chapters in American history, forever altering politics in America.
:ind: :july_4:

Dude gordon, it was Tony Blair not Bush who travelled to visit every G7 leader. It was all Tony Blair.

26 X World Champs,

Will the bullshit ever, ever end? The cool thing is that the American public has caught on, and Bush's popularity is at an all-time low. Americans are fed up with the war, the lies, the SS BS, high gas prices etc. Look at ANY poll about Bush since the beginning of this year and every one of them has his numbers down.

Click to expand...

Which public. I hope your talking about your peers? Besides you are the one fed up with: war, lies, the SS, High gas prices. I'm sure all of the "Americans" on this forum are glad you volunteered them to support your left wing agenda! Also you forgot to add, that your media groups "Which lied", have brought numbers down, not you! But either way im sure your PROUD!

Democrats, hang in there, our day is coming again, and we will persevere. It's still going to take some years, but we've hit bottom and the elevator is on the way up again, HOORAY! 2008 is getting closer, and if not before then, by 2008 the nation will again have a Democratic President, a woman at that, and a black VEEP! This single occurrence will be one of the great chapters in American history, forever altering politics in America.

Click to expand...

I would have voted for the Rev. Al Sharpton, but your party chose Kerry instead! Because your party does not want a Black President, but a Vice. Which is confusing to me, because Democrats get most African American votes? Oh yea, may the best campaign will the 2008 election!

PS: you forgot to set your party affiliation?

stsburns said:

Which public. I hope your talking about your peers? Besides you are the one fed up with: war, lies, the SS, High gas prices. I'm sure all of the "Americans" on this forum are glad you volunteered them to support your left wing agenda! Also you forgot to add, that your media groups "Which lied", have brought numbers down, not you! But either way im sure your PROUD!

Click to expand...

Denial, denial, denial. That's cool. Dig your head into the Iraqi sand while the rest of America moves away from Bush and his cronies. You can make up all the stuff you want but the TRUTH is that Bush's popularity is at an all time low. America has it's thumbs down on almost all of the major Bush agenda items, and your denying it only helps our cause.

You make it up as you go, you've never provided one shred of evidence that proves anything you say, and you seriously believe that anyone will accept your propaganda at face value? :laughat:

stsburns said:

I would have voted for the Rev. Al Sharpton, but your party chose Kerry instead! Because your party does not want a Black President, but a Vice. Which is confusing to me, because Democrats get most African American votes?

Click to expand...

Can you please translate this incoherent statement into English? You need to get out of Springfield more often Mr. Burns, or at least away from the nuclear reactors.... :mrgreen:

stsburns said:

Which public. I hope your talking about your peers? Besides you are the one fed up with: war, lies, the SS, High gas prices. I'm sure all of the "Americans" on this forum are glad you volunteered them to support your left wing agenda! Also you forgot to add, that your media groups "Which lied", have brought numbers down, not you! But either way im sure your PROUD!

Click to expand...

He's correct in saying that his numbers are really, really, far down in comparison to other times. And when you said "your media groups which lied," I really don't understand that comment. Are you meaning to say that it is the liberal media lying about the numbers? Because I think that Fox was reporting them too.

I would have voted for the Rev. Al Sharpton, but your party chose Kerry instead! Because your party does not want a Black President, but a Vice. Which is confusing to me, because Democrats get most African American votes? Oh yea, may the best campaign will the 2008 election!

Click to expand...

You know that the South (and I beg pardon for this) is still a bit racist. I don't ever believe that they could vote for in a majority for an African-American no matter how much they have changed. It will take much more time for that, and until then, we can't have an African-American Pres candidate because the votes from the south are very important.

I'm told I'm really something because I post what I did. I stand by my post and wear the badge of honor that 26 X World Champs thinks I'm wrong. :duel

gordontravels said:

I'm told I'm really something because I post what I did. I stand by my post and wear the badge of honor that 26 X World Champs thinks I'm wrong. :duel

Click to expand...

You go right on believing that Bush was responsible not Blair.... :lol:

26 X World Champs said:

You go right on believing that Bush was responsible not Blair.... :lol:

Click to expand...

Source
Bush had signaled his willingness to go along with writing off the debts in principle, but the United States and Britain had very different approaches to how such a plan would work, the newspaper said.

Britain wanted the rich nations to take over responsibility for repaying the debts. but Washington wants the loans to be written off entirely by the lenders, the Times said.

In the end, said the paper, Britain agreed to the U.S. approach with a promise from Washington to provide additional money to the lenders to make up for the assets they were writing off.

All of the countries eligible for debt relief have had to show that they have acted to improve governing, reduce corruption and pursue what the international lenders consider sound economic policies.

Bush has pledged to channel more aid to developing nations that show they are working to establish stable, democratic governments with good economic policies

--------------------
He was responsible for having them clearing the debt 100% as opposed to moving it around. That's about it. Good work all around.

Even the good stuff turns into a bitch fest with you guys sometimes.

Are your opinions real or just a show like wrestling?

akyron said:

Source
Bush had signaled his willingness to go along with writing off the debts in principle, but the United States and Britain had very different approaches to how such a plan would work, the newspaper said.

Click to expand...

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair -- current G8 president -- has demanded that poor countries' debts be cancelled and their aid doubled.

Click to expand...

Why did you leave the above out of your post? It is untrue to say that Bush was the driving force. It was BLAIR.

Please explain this then? It's from March 2005:

UK pushing for Africa debt plan

The UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has put forward a bold plan to tackle poverty in Africa ahead of the G8 Summit of rich countries in Scotland next month.

He called for a doubling of European aid by 2010 and 100% debt relief, as well as an end to many trade subsidies.

But the plan is facing opposition in the US - and particularly from President George W Bush.

Mr Bush's stance sets up a possible clash with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, due in Washington next week.

Mr Bush said on Wednesday that a key part of the plan did not fit with the US budget process.

The UK is pushing hard for major debt relief and a doubling of aid to Africa, and Chancellor Gordon Brown laid out a set of ambitious plans on Friday.

Click to expand...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4606197.stm

akyron said:

He was responsible for having them clearing the debt 100% as opposed to moving it around. That's about it. Good work all around.

Click to expand...

I agree that the end result is excellent, and everyone involved deserves plaudits. However, the facts are that it was Blair, not Bush who took the lead on this. Bush was the late entry and he was the one who had to be convinced. Blair started it, negotiated it, and finished it....and that is the truth....

26 X World Champs said:

Why did you leave the above out of your post? It is untrue to say that Bush was the driving force. It was BLAIR.

Please explain this then? It's from March 2005:

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4606197.stm

I agree that the end result is excellent, and everyone involved deserves plaudits. However, the facts are that it was Blair, not Bush who took the lead on this. Bush was the late entry and he was the one who had to be convinced. Blair started it, negotiated it, and finished it....and that is the truth....

Click to expand...

The Bush solution was implemented not the Blair one.
So what?
I just looked at ten different articles on the history of this plan. At no time was the US not involved.
They could not do anything without U.S. backing.
The British government simply would not go ahead without the U.S.. The option was discussed and dismissed and rightly so.

If you want Blair to take credit for the chairmanship of the G8 then great. Congratulations. Great job. Do not say Bush/US was a johnny come lately to this because is it simply not true. It was a matter of logistics as to the implementation that was a matter of contention.

I love the way the media presented the "facts" though.

Example:
Would Bush really expect the American people to support his decision? Surely the American people would want, like most of us want to do something to help the poverty problem.

But the plan is facing opposition in the US - and particularly from President George W Bush.

ROFL.
So typical.
Liberals lost their minds again without even knowing what was really happening.

One thing, Indonesia and the Philippines are going to be pissed because they worked their ass off paying massive debts and Africa is getting a bye.

Using the BBC as a reference for a story about President Bush is like using Dan Rather; not exactly "the whole story". :duel

26 X World Champs

You make it up as you go, you've never provided one shred of evidence that proves anything you say, and you seriously believe that anyone will accept your propaganda at face value?

Click to expand...

Thanks for claiming im in a party! Can you tell me which one? Case Closed you dont know?

Can you please translate this incoherent statement into English? You need to get out of Springfield more often Mr. Burns, or at least away from the nuclear reactors....

Click to expand...

WOW, you can't read English? IS THERE A TRANSLATER ON THIS FORUM! 26 X NEEDS ONE!

Oh yea, you saying I'm from "Springfield", haha. :mrgreen: Just cause you can call me "Mr. BurnZ", doesnt make you more superior, if that was the perpose for stating it? 26 X your way of making a mochery of me, is childish. I have one word of advice for you! :mrgreen:

WATCH CSPAN!