Welcome to PatsFans.com

4% of the bailout could end World Hunger

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wildo7, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Before anyone knocks the source, he's citing UNFAO, not just making it up ala Worldnet Daily or Townhall:

    ecosalon :: the green gathering :: Could Just 4 of the Wall Street Bailout End World Hunger

    Some pretty disgusting set of priorities our "christian nation" has.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  2. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Read the Bible, it says right there God gave us power and dominion over all the animals and colored humans of the world.

    You can't dispute divine text.
  3. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" - Ann Coulter
  4. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,717
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    $30 billion for 862 million is $34 a year per person..... Sees like a low figure....
  5. Born_a_Patriot

    Born_a_Patriot PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,393
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +306 / 3 / -13

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,518
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +398 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    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.
  8. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    $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.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,518
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +398 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    It's not our job either. We have enough problems right here.
  10. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    That's really sad. I also have yet to see you complain about the $540 billion the U.S. spends on arms.

    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?
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2008
  11. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    No, it is our job. I'm sorry you said goodbye to your conscience some time ago.
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,393
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +306 / 3 / -13

    It is not our government's job, but anyone with enough money to donate to charity to do so. At least that is my opinion.

    It's not a matter of conscience Wildo when it comes to gov't spending. The only real responsibility of our gov't is to ensure that the bill of rights and our constitution are executed and protected.

    If we want to "help" with world hunger, we better be damn sure no one in THIS country is hungry first. Americans are more important that anyone else from the perspective of gov't branches.

    We all have different opinions on this topic and no one's is any more "righteous" than anyone else's.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  13. Born_a_Patriot

    Born_a_Patriot PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Are you sure about the $540 billion?
  14. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Just took a quick look at this and the number seems awfully low. I found this article which pointed out a couple interesting things. First, the US provides over half of all food aid worldwide, second that the aid is delivered very inefficiently (shocker), and third that the Bush admin wanted to improve efficiency but was blocked by Congress, possibly during both R and D control (published in 3/2007).

    U.S. food aid spending is inefficient, study finds - International Herald Tribune

    To me this does seem like a place where we're better served spending the money now to try and solve the issue with programs that make agriculture sustainable in the places without food available rather than putting a band-aid on the problem year after year by paying to send food over there. If the UN was serious and competent (both of which I question) I would be for an initial outlay of more $ for the next couple years if the end result is 1. ending world hunger, and 2. making the system sustainable going forward so we'd eventually end up paying nothing. Teach a man to fish kind of thing I guess you'd say.

    BTW I like how that graphic vividly displays the amount of $ spent on military and totally ignores the huge amounts we spend on entitlement programs just because we're taxed separately for them. It states that we can look at the discretionary spending as a measure of our priorities then ignores that we actually (if you use dollars as the evidence) prioritize social welfare over military. A pretty unfair assessment of what we consider most important.
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,393
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +306 / 3 / -13

    Well who's fault is that? This issue is more complicated than having the money Wildo. Do you realize how often we send food to countries only to have it stolen? People starving in countries with violent regimes are very difficult to help.

    This is a world issue, not an American issue.
  16. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    He wasn't making the distinction between government v. charity, he just blanketly said it wasn't "our" job to do it. And he followed that up by basically saying that feeding them would be promoting the birth of people in countries that can't support their people, which is a pretty sick statement "self-righteous" or not.

    If you want to debate whether global hunger is a national security threat to the United States or not though, I'd be happy to do that. And you present a false choice between feeding Americans and the "globally" hungry, which is a distinction I've never made.
  17. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    That's what the article says, I'm not entirely sure about it though. I do know that most of America's foreign Aid goes to arming Israel.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,518
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +398 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    If our government wanted to set up an easy way to donate, like the $2 checkoff on taxes for contributions to campaigns, and they would ship money off for world food, be my guest. But our government has no business spending our money on whatever hungry area of the world you might pick. I didn't comment on Israel as this thread isn't about Israel. But it's not our government's job to feed the world. If you, and others, want to do so - have at it.
  19. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I never once said "it's all about money." Though the blame is certainly spread around. The charity model is the most inefficient since many charities are self-serving faith-based organizations that take money to set up missions where money is spent on more than just providing for the poor.

    The WHO, UNICEF etc. would be the most efficient if the U.S government would get behind them and provide the needed oversight.

    Many of those violent regimes are also aided by U.S.-based multinational corporations exploiting the resources of those nations.

    The article doesn't say, nor have I ever said, that just giving money to these countries would solve it. It says that if spent wisely, by UN estimates, $34 billion annually would be enough to set up agricultural programs sufficient enough to solve world hunger.
  20. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    No $540 billion is WAY off. Our total yearly budget is around 2.7 - 2.8 trillion, military aid to Israel isn't 20% of the budget. Maybe he's counting the amount since Israel's inception? We spend about $4 billion a year in foreign military aid and close to half of that goes to Israel. Even at $2 billion a year (which obviously it hasn't been since 1948 we're still not to $540.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>