Wolfowitz : "If they f**k with me..."

The truth here is that this is a hatchet job to get rid of a figure the Europeans on the bank don't like -- for reasons unrelated to the so-called "scandal" they are using as the hatchet.

Wolfowitz disclosed his prior relationship with the Bank employee before he agreed to take the World Bank Peresidency. The Board and he agreed that she should be transferred soon after Wolfowitz took over,. He carried out that agreement. Her salary wasn't particularly large by World Bank standards. This is a manufactured problem, and a case pf personal revenge on someone the bureaucrats at the WB and their European sponsors didn't like when he took the job.

The U.S. shouldn't put up with this.

oralloy wrote:

I'm curious how much American tax money is being used to fund organizations like the World Bank.

I'd rather see the money go to more weapons systems and the like.

Perhaps it is time for a review of the World Bank's funding.

Yeah, why try and help countries out of poverty when we could use that money to build bigger f*cking guns, I mean, where the hell are our priorities?



Cycloptichorn

Tyhe World Bank is the creature of the nations that created it and which fund it. We are the largest source of their funds.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I'm curious how much American tax money is being used to fund organizations like the World Bank.

I'd rather see the money go to more weapons systems and the like.

Perhaps it is time for a review of the World Bank's funding.

Yeah, why try and help countries out of poverty when we could use that money to build bigger f*cking guns, I mean, where the hell are our priorities?



Cycloptichorn

Exactly.

We are the largest source of their funds.

Technically the World Bank is part of the United Nations system, but its governance structure is different: each institution in the World Bank Group is owned by its member governments, which subscribe to its basic share capital, with votes proportional to shareholding. Membership gives certain voting rights that are the same for all countries but there are also additional votes which depend on financial contributions to the organization. The President of the World Bank is nominated by the President of the United States and elected by the Bank's Board of Governors. As of November 1, 2006 the United States held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.5%, and the United Kingdom and France each held 4.3%. As major decisions require an 85% super-majority, the US can block any such major change.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I'm curious how much American tax money is being used to fund organizations like the World Bank.

I'd rather see the money go to more weapons systems and the like.

Perhaps it is time for a review of the World Bank's funding.

Yeah, why try and help countries out of poverty when we could use that money to build bigger f*cking guns, I mean, where the hell are our priorities?



Cycloptichorn

Exactly.

What an idiotic response

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I'm curious how much American tax money is being used to fund organizations like the World Bank.

I'd rather see the money go to more weapons systems and the like.

Perhaps it is time for a review of the World Bank's funding.

Yeah, why try and help countries out of poverty when we could use that money to build bigger f*cking guns, I mean, where the hell are our priorities?



Cycloptichorn

Exactly.

What an idiotic response

Cycloptichorn

Feel free to give all your money to such a cause if you like. But it is not an appropriate use of US tax dollars.

Quote:

Technically the World Bank is part of the United Nations system, but its governance structure is different: each institution in the World Bank Group is owned by its member governments, which subscribe to its basic share capital, with votes proportional to shareholding. Membership gives certain voting rights that are the same for all countries but there are also additional votes which depend on financial contributions to the organization. The President of the World Bank is nominated by the President of the United States and elected by the Bank's Board of Governors. As of November 1, 2006 the United States held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.5%, and the United Kingdom and France each held 4.3%. As major decisions require an 85% super-majority, the US can block any such major change.

source: wikipedia

Feel free to register your complaint with a duly elected representative,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Feel free to register your complaint with a duly elected representative,

I just might do that.

How much of our money is being wasted on programs like this anyway?

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Feel free to register your complaint with a duly elected representative,

I just might do that.

How much of our money is being wasted on programs like this anyway?

None.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Feel free to register your complaint with a duly elected representative,

I just might do that.

How much of our money is being wasted on programs like this anyway?

None.

Cycloptichorn

I know it is more than that. Especially if we shoulder 16.4% of the burden of the World Bank alone.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Feel free to register your complaint with a duly elected representative,

I just might do that.

How much of our money is being wasted on programs like this anyway?

None.

Cycloptichorn

I know it is more than that. Especially if we shoulder 16.4% of the burden of the World Bank alone.

It's not a waste.

Cycloptichorn

Well, let's take your argument to its' logical conclusion: you want us to cut off their funding in protest.

Do you honestly believe that this is an appropriate action to take? That it will be beneficial to the vast majority of people in the world, or even in the US? That it will foster goodwill internationally?

I really want to know if you consider saving Wolfowitz's reputation to be more important than US participation in the World Bank. And let's forget about the details. If the entire organization wants his ass gone, why should he not be shoved out?

No matter what his personal issues are, a competent leader would not be experiencing these problems, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, let's take your argument to its' logical conclusion: you want us to cut off their funding in protest.

Do you honestly believe that this is an appropriate action to take? That it will be beneficial to the vast majority of people in the world, or even in the US? That it will foster goodwill internationally?

I really want to know if you consider saving Wolfowitz's reputation to be more important than US participation in the World Bank. And let's forget about the details. If the entire organization wants his ass gone, why should he not be shoved out?

No matter what his personal issues are, a competent leader would not be experiencing these problems, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Walter's post, which immediately follows yours, provides an accurate synopsis of the World bank's organization and governance. It is, as I said, the creature of the nations that founded and fund it, and the US is the major owner/participant. By tradition the US provides the President of the World Bank, and the Europeans, the President of the IMF.

The World Bank is a moderately useful organization, one designed to facilitate loans to not-very-credit-worthy governments for various development projects and even trade. Like the IMF, it has become heavily bureaucratized, populated with too many well-paid international bureaucrats (who, if my memory is correct, pay no income taxes on their earnings.). It could certainly not function on the earnings from its various loans -- too much cost at the top. The world wouldn't end or would hardly notice the effect if it were to disappear.

The cabal against Wolfowitz is motivated by European resentment for the policies of the so-called neocons in this administration. The matter at hand is a phoney issue, and the expressed indignation of the various European ministers is hypocritical in the extreme. We have no interest in letting these pipsqueaks get away with their thirst for personal revenge, and their jealousy for their faded power in the world..