ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity. (Severe hunger afflicts 862 million people annually.)
$30 billion sounds like a lot of money, but considering we've just bailed out Wall Street to the tune of nearly a trillion, it's trifling. After I did a little digging, all I could think was...really? $30 billion is all we need to end world hunger? That's it? I thought such a major goal would require some unreachable, vast sum. Here are six things I learned we're doing with that money instead.
Global military and arms trade expenditures hit high at about $1 trillion annually. Approximately $540 billion is spent by the United States alone. (I don't mean to single out defense here, but...wow!)
The United States Department of Energy spends $23.4 billion yearly just to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.
How could we forget the recent $700 (and growing) billion housing bailout bill? In other words, 4% of the Wall Street bailout would end world hunger.
The U.S. Congress has approved $44 billion of U.S. funds for Iraqi construction projects (meanwhile, 39% of bridges in the United States have been deemed structurally deficient – but that’s another story. Am I being partisan?)
$30 billion was spent on Homeland Security in 2008, and they’re requesting $35 billion for 2009.
Some pretty disgusting set of priorities our "christian nation" has.
Last edited by Wildo7; 11-19-2008 at 11:00 PM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Before anyone knocks the source, he's citing UNFAO, not just making it up ala Worldnet Daily or Townhall:
Note: The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that it would only take $30 billion a year to launch the necessary agricultural programs to completely solve global food insecurity. (Severe hunger afflicts 862 million people annually.)
$30 billion for 862 million is $34 a year per person..... Sees like a low figure....
Clearly the various spending we do can be debated but our tax dollars should, in my opinion, be going to our country not other countries. Ending world hunger is low on my priority list - especially as it would encourage more hunger by resulting in more people being born in countries that can't support their people.
I guarantee you $30 million could not come close to ending world hunger. I'm sure the author is saying it could end it for 6 months, maybe a year tops. But it certainly would not end it permanently.
I'm all for ending world hunger, but like most Americans, I don't want my tax dollars going toward that objective. That is the responsibility of the individual through charitable donations.
But I WOULD like hunger eliminated in America and using tax dollars to achieve that is fine by me.
$30 Billion, not $30 million. There are separate issues with TRIP laws and GMOs, but in this day and age providing basic food to people is not that expensive. The charity model is very self-serving, and mostly doesn't work.
Clearly the various spending we do can be debated but our tax dollars should, in my opinion, be going to our country not other countries.
That's really sad. I also have yet to see you complain about the $540 billion the U.S. spends on arms.
Ending world hunger is low on my priority list - especially as it would encourage more hunger by resulting in more people being born in countries that can't support their people.
These would be self-sustaining agricultural problems. What is your thesis here? You think we need to starve out people in countries that "cannot support their people?" How are these people going to support themselves if they can't even eat?