U.S. Contributions to U.N. Up 142% Since 2001 -- $4.5 Billion

(CNSNews.com) – The financial contribution that the United States makes to the United Nations has increased sharply over the past decade, rising by $4.5 billion between 2001 and 2010 – a 142 percent rise -- according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Since 2006, the OMB has presented Congress with an annual report detailing the U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for each fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

The total money contributed from all federal agencies to the United Nations, as reported by OMB, since 2001 are as follows:

FY 2001 -- $ 3,183,166,000.00

FY 2002 -- $ 3,934,814,000.00

FY 2003 -- $ 3,841,323,000.00

FY 2004 -- $ 4,115,155,000.00

FY 2005 -- $ 5,327,276,000.00

FY 2006 -- $ 4,546,120,000.00

FY 2007 -- $ 4,158,641,000.00

FY 2008 -- $ 6,090,242,000.00

FY 2009 -- $ 6,347,415,000.00

FY 2010 -- $ 7,691,822,000.00

The total increase in funding is $4,508,656,000.00, or a 142 percent rise over nine years.

read more:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-contributions-un-142-2001-45-bil...

Views: 696

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The UN is a worthless entity, intent on milking money from US taxpayers, and all the while attempting to usurp our freedoms. Disband them and the money could be used to care for America...first.

EXACTLY!

Get the hell out of the U.N., stop all funding.

This makes me Sick. After my bills our paid for the month we have 336.00 .to live on.

Joey, you got $36.00 more than me after my bills are paid, but fear not, I don't want your money. I want OUR money back from the UN. What have they done for the USA, or for that matter, what have they done...period?

Yes Sherman Iam not asking for anything .And iam not the top wage earner.And Iam voting for MITT.

Remember, something is not right, the super wealthy, pay 50% less tax than I do, what's the story here. Can someone tell me. BB
I agree this sucks, so does obummer, but anyone know about Koch brothers, I was justing reading bout them, first all they are Jews, #2. they have been putting money into Political action comittees, PAC's. $100 million dollars or more, to keep the very wealthy tax cut, and keep the high tax on the poor and us, the middle classes, they are buying these congress people to benefit themselves with big federal contracts if there people get elected, they get lots richer, why else would they dump $100 million dollers into PAC's .

Maybe you should read up on George Soros, how much does he give to obumma, the dems, all the libs. Maybe the rich are in a lower tax bracket, but I am sure they are still paying millions more then you are. Remember 47% of the people don't pay any taxes, so thats an even lower tax bracket.

They are paying millions more than you and I, don't you get it man, they are paying 50% less than me, a guy who makes $10 million still walks away with 8.6 million, I make $ 150,000' I walk away with 108,000, If the multi millionaire was taxed like me he'd walk away with 7.2 million, not bad . Get it yet? 7.2 million You may say, hey, he earned it well so did I, I may have worked harder than some of those greedy SOB's, the past president of United Health Care made 110 million dollars in 2009, that's obscene, he's a pig, health care is a health issue in which we pay through the nose, they do need reform. BB

So what, it is their money, why is the government giving out free cell phones, giving money to all these countries that hate us, wasting money on the EPA, wasting money on green companies, wasting money on the lazy people on welfare. Here a question for you, do you take any write offs on your taxes? If you do then, you to are not paying your fair share. There are legal deductions you can use and the rich use them, so what. Even if there was a flat tax, I think you would still cry " the rich don't pay a fair share"

So what it's their money, who are you speaking of? The weathy? Do you like paying what you do in taxes? I don't like paying what i do but I have to. Well so what, it's my money, I earned my money but I pay 50% less than the super wealthy, get it. I take some deductions but it is small percent compared to what I contribute. I'll say it again , " the rich don't pay their fair share". Many super wealthy start foundations, some of which are good, they have their own museum and write it off, it goes on, remember....... The super wealthy pay 50% less than me, 50% less. Ah, I figured it out, you must make over 10 million a year, you like paying 50% less than me. Greed i guess. Ok whatever. BB

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service