The UN wants American taxpayers to...

[LarreeMP3]

Actually, I think the UN should move every 4-10 years.

[LarreeMP3]

...pay to fix up the UN building.



Everybody hates us, but everybody loves our money.



I vote NO on that one! I am writing my representatives in Washington D.C. today! I think we should kick the UN out of the USA.

[questionnaire]

"Everybody hates us, but everybody loves our money."



The people who know that a good deal of your 'money' during a time when your domestic economy has been ailing has been earned in grossly unfair trading arrangements with developing countries, systematic political and economic destabilisation, protectionism, trade sanctions, exploitation, espionage, sabotage and intimidation do not 'love' your money at all - in fact, I hate your money but I love you, you poor lost souls ....

[debbie mannas]

www.globalpolicy.org/fina...usdebt.htm



Nobody wants your money, it is OWING. The US is the UNs largest debtor. Did you know that Larree??



and this article below...



www.dawn.com/2001/04/03/int7.htm



US non-payment holding up UN dues to Pakistan



By Masood Haider



UNITED NATIONS, April 2: The non-payment of the dues owed to the United Nations by the United States is holding up millions of dollars in payment to Pakistan for troops and equipment contribution for the UN peacekeeping operations.



Joseph Connor, United Nations Undersecretary General for Management, told a press conference on Friday that "the world body owed US$917m to member states contributing troops and equipment to its peacekeeping activities - another four-year high." In addition to Pakistan the organization also owes money to India and Bangladesh for troops contributions.



The United States is the biggest defaulter with almost US$1.7 billion dollars owed to the organization despite reduction in its assessment dues.



Meanwhile, The UN members are getting increasingly impatient with Washington's delay in paying its debt to the world body following a deal that cut US payments. At the meetings of the UN financial committee last week, several nations sharply criticized the United States. Washington issued a statement attributing the holdup to the US legislative process.



South Korean Ambassador Lee Ho-Jin, for one, said he expected quick payment from the United States, noting that Seoul had had its contributions raised while Washington's were being lowered.



Bagher Asadi of Iran, representing 130 developing nations representing the "Group of 77," said, "What everybody expected from the American administration and the American delegation was just to show their good faith and pay."



Connor told the reporters that the United Nations' financial situation deteriorated on a number of fronts over the past two years, but an anticipated payment from the United States - "if and when" it comes through - could spell relief for the world body.



Noting that some US$2.2 billion was owed to the UN at the end of 2000 - a four-year high - Mr Connor said "let's score that one as a potentially debilitating situation.



Breaking down the figure of outstanding contributions for the regular budget, the Under-Secretary-General said the United States owed 74 per cent of all unpaid assessments (US$165m), followed by Brazil with 10 per cent (US$22m), Argentina with five per cent (US$12m) and all others combined with 11 per cent (US$23m.)



The picture for peacekeeping was similar, with the United States responsible for 58 per cent of the total outstanding dues. "There's real concern that the amount due and unpaid is climbing rapidly," the under-secretary-general warned.



With such large arrears, Connor noted that for the first time in several years, the secretary-general had not fully paid member states for new obligations incurred during the current year.



Connor pointed out that "if and when" the United States paid the US$582m it had promised to the UN, that sum would be used to pay off the US$904m that the Organization's estimates it will owe to countries contributing troops and equipment to peacekeeping operations in 2001.



"This much-anticipated reduced level of debt to member states may finally be achieved - a major financial event for both member states and the organization," he said. "For the member states, the situation will abate what has gone on for too long: one group of member states financing the obligations of another group of member states. For the organization, major amounts of debt owed to member states and major amounts of assessments long in arrears will disappear from our balance sheets - a significantly improved financial picture."



In response, Donald Hays, the US envoy in charge of finances, delivered a statement to the delegates. "Any further delay in payment is not a reflection of political opposition but rather a legislative process," he said.



The 189-member UN General Assembly agreed in December to cut the US share of the US$1 billion annual administrative budget to 22 percent from 25 percent. The US share of the US$3 billion peacekeeping budget was reduced to 28 percent from 31 percent this year and will drop to a bit over 25 percent in several years.



In return, Washington, under a deal arranged by former US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, was to keep up with its payments and release US$582m, the bulk of the US$986m earmarked for past debts to the world body.



While the US Senate approved the amount in February, the House of Representatives has not done so, to the consternation of congressmen in both parties, who have appealed to House Speaker Denis Hastert. But there is no sign that he intends to rush the measure through.



In addition, there is still US legislation on the books that limits all peacekeeping payments to 25 percent, even though the Holbrooke deal is for more than that. Without a repeal of the cap, the US debt will continue to grow, leaving the United States open to losing its vote in the General Assembly.



Washington has given itself a unilateral discount of 25 percent on its peacekeeping payments since 1990, accounting for at least a US$600m difference between UN debt figures and those put out by the United States.

[LarreeMP3]

...is a swift kick in the a$$!

[debbie mannas]

per normal...



head in sand doesnt change reality.... hahahahahaha

[LarreeMP3]

And that is a fact!



Move it away from the USA!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Move it away from the USA!

---

That's probably the soundest thing to do, L, apart from sending a gigantic final notice invoice including delay interrest and fees.



How many trillions was it again?

[questionnaire]

The Americans cannot afford to pay it. The economics are very complex, but basically it is a bubble about to burst and go flat broke. That's why global expansion is the only way out. The domestic economy is inflated by ridiculous levels of credit (it used to be called debt, an average of $3,000 per consuming citizen), therefore it looks much richer than it actually is. It's all an illusion, gambling chips that may or may not be worth something in a few years time. That's all America is at the moment - a casino. It can't even keep its own workforce in decent jobs without operating tariff policies - that's called protectionism, and it directly contradicts what it claims to be its 'free trade' ethic. Yet another lie. This is history repeating itself. When the bubbles started to burst in the English economy during the 17th century, the only way out was military expansion, the drive that eventually created the British Empire. It's the way the logic works. There's no way out except for a radical shift in global economic policy.



Steve H

[memphis mike]

all this, while large number of countries want the US to forgive their debt to us...and that debt is much more staggering than the relatively small amount we owe to any nation or the UN. It's pretty much forgiven anyway, as we know it will never be paid...we keep loaning countries money just so they can pay us the interest on the debt...It's ridiculous to even discuss the US owing the UN money....

[LarreeMP3]

So true.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

all this, while large number of countries want the US to forgive their debt to us...and that debt is much more staggering than the relatively small amount we owe to any nation or the UN.

---

Much more staggering, ey? Well that sounds interresting but does not have anything to do with the US debt to the UN, right?

Quote:

---

It's pretty much forgiven anyway, as we know it will never be paid...we keep loaning countries money just so they can pay us the interest on the debt...It's ridiculous to even discuss the US owing the UN money....

---

Why is that ridiculous? Do you believe the US to be the only industrialized country to be giving and lending money to other countries?



What can any debt from any single country to the US have to do with the US debt to the UN?? It is two perfectly separated issues. To believe otherwise is perfectly singular.

[memphis mike]

most, if not all countries in the UN have not paid their monetary dues to the UN-the USA has kept it afloat all these years. Pay us and maybe we can pay some of our bills...

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

most, if not all countries in the UN have not paid their monetary dues to the UN

---

Care to shed some light upon this?

[memphis mike]

it's a fact--dues are required and most countries if not all are not current.