It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just 4% of the bailout could end world hunger

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I think it's time to put things in perspective....

4% of the bailout would end world hunger


World hunger seems like one of those grand unsolvable problems – the perennial favorite wish of beauty pageant queens. The truth is, it’s not unsolvable at all.

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.)


It also has other statistics. It makes you wonder what our priorities are, doesn't it?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Hellish-D]




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
It's never been unsolvable, just something that those in a position to actually solve it weren't interested in doing. Not then, not now. My question is why? Are people really that cruel and thoughtless? I suppose so. Which is why I don't take to those who extend their pinky while holding out the checks that they use to publicly preen over their humanitarianism.

And I would say to those who derides government 'handouts' that it is the only course of action while the government controls resources. They took it, they can dole it out.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I don't wonder where my priorities are, but I certainly do question the priorities of the American Government.

Some things I've often pondered are....

Instead of giving a family of 4 $500 a month in foodstamps and continuing this for 5 years (at a cost of $$30,000 plus administrative costs) why not supply said family with "food storage" to last them a year and teach them how to grow their own food? You've heard the saying "Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.". How true. Instead of educating people on how to grow a simple container garden in their living room window or balcony, we throw foodstamps at them and let them buy all the unhealthy food they can buy.

Why not begin educating the young in school on farming and sustainable energy? Instead we give them lower standards of education and junk food in the lunch room.

Do you realize how many young people today, if asked "Where does food come from?" would answer "The grocery store, DUH!"

Why do we continue to give tax incentives to large "Industrial Farms" that are polluting the earth and putting small family farms out of business? Not to mention decemating the honey bee population with their bio-engineered bug resistant crops.

Why does our gooberment do half the things they do? Because they no longer care about the people. It's all about corporations and money. Our Gooberment is on the verge of bankruptcy, unemployment is skyrocketing, credit interest rates are rising, homelessness is sure to begin skyrocketing as well (as a result of unemployment) and yet our Gooberment passes a $789 billion dollar farce that has no chance of really helping those it *needs* to help. The people.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be war, hunger or pestilence. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Just one problem:
the people who "play" with the bailout money aren't interested in ending world hunger....

maybe the opposite....



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Those who control the economy are not interested in anything other than maintaining a status quo of wealth and revenue for themselves. a goal which is secondary only to the continuance and perpetuity of their control. Everything else is just show-biz.

If you honestly believe otherwise - please accept my sympathies.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
The problem is that people will never be happy with anything the government does, and will find anything to complain about.

If we tried to end world hunger then we would have people complaining saying "We should be spending that money here in our on country", "etc.etc.etc." You catch my drift.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The powers that control have enough sheep to do their bidding, in fact probably to many people on earth.


I think world hunger could easily have been solved many times over, but the fact remains they want to manager their herds.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 
....famine is one of the three necessary evils.
If you feed all the world's hungry.....cure all the world's diseases, and end all wars.....the planet will overpopulate in two or three generations and we'll all be gone.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
The problem is that people will never be happy with anything the government does, and will find anything to complain about.

If we tried to end world hunger then we would have people complaining saying "We should be spending that money here in our on country", "etc.etc.etc." You catch my drift.



If people complain saying that the government should not spent the money to save lives then those people are some of the most cruel people in the planet.

Who is going to complain when the government does something good?

The thing right here is that the government does everything bad and that's why people complain.

A Stealth Fighter costs 6 billion dollars to make. Why do they use that money to destroy and kill when they can use it to save lives?

We are heading the wrong way.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by danielsil18]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17
The problem is that people will never be happy with anything the government does, and will find anything to complain about.

If we tried to end world hunger then we would have people complaining saying "We should be spending that money here in our on country", "etc.etc.etc." You catch my drift.


Not sure I understand the logic because ending world hunger would imply ending it in 'our country' too. That's ending world hunger as opposed to the rest of the world's hunger.

And perhaps people would complain a little less (never stop all the complaining I'm sure) if the governments worked with the same efficiency expected from the rest of world's employees. They are in fact employees after all. I think even most of the citizenry has forgotten that.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by TravelerintheDark]


sty

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
"Just 4% of the bailout could end world hunger" . Sorry , this is wrong. The bailout money are created from nothing and have the value of nothing. The bail-out money are just taking away percentage from the value of the existing money , how could this ever solve ANY problem?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Ok. Ending world hunger sounds like a great plan right now. Let's say we do it.

Not only do we feed the entire world, but now those people are reproducing at an alarming rate. Apparently, food isn't just the only thing these people need. Education, heathcare, contraception, etc. are all things that have to accompany feeding the poor. Without any foresight whatsoever, we have now multiplied the problem, and now it will cost x times the money to feed the next lot.

Seems to me, throwing money at a problem like this is pointless. It's not as if these people who are going unfed cannot fathom the idea of working, developing their country and their own constitution. The fact is they can't. To keep this slave 'producer' nations going, their country's leaders have been bought and paid for by huge loans with gigantic interest, putting the country in a perpetual debt. The result? Slave labor, producing goods at a fraction of it's worth to multinational corporations, and right to the doorstep of the 'have' countries (Yes, that's us).

So if you want to start feeding the world, then you might as well start at the foundation and tearing down the present day slavery system. But that means actually, you know, doing something about it.

Until then, we can dream about how a short term fix is the best solution, at least it makes us feel better about our rampant consumerism at the expense of the millions of slaves worldwide.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18

If people complain saying that the government should not spent the money to save lives then those people are some of the most cruel people in the planet.

Who is going to complain when the government does something good?


Yeah I know, sad isn't it.

The American government since it's inception has done alot of good and alot of bad at the same time.

But most of the time the good goes un-acknowlegded while the bad is rubbed in our faces and plagues the tv 24/7. People have an agenda and i'm not sure what that is yet.

And you will always have people criticizing anything and everything the government does, even if it is good, it's liked some are determined to dig and dig untill they can find something they can smear their opponent with while at the same time not acknowledging once that their has been some good done. It's a shame but it happens alot.

And I just want to note that i'm not directing this at the OP or anyone in this thread for that matter. It's just the truth IMO.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 


As I said, people will dig untill they find something to complain about. You have people out here that don't acknowledge anything good done by the American government. I've learned over the years that even if it's something that can benefit us and the world, you are still going to have people out their that are going to criticize it, or find something else to complain about when the subject is brought up, just because they refuse to admit that a politician or the government can fix anything or can do anything right.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
We can not even feed our own country.

Lets solve world hunger though...

A bit more complicated then some of you may think. Like others have said, it would multiply the cost (education, health, etc), and the fact that the money we are circulating throughout our own country is worth nothing anyways (so I hear from all the other people - I am just a peasant, what do I know?).



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


stats

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we waste 96 billion pounds of food in America each year. That turns out to be:

* 263,013,699 pounds of food wasted each day
* 10,958,904 pounds wasted each hour
* 182,648 pounds wasted each minute
* 3,044 pounds of food wasted in America each second.


And we can't feed our own people? Sounds like a personal problem......



[edit on 14-2-2009 by Hellish-D]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
What are you talking about?

The point I was trying to make is that we have people talking of feeding the world (then comes longer lives, education, health costs), but we have plenty of Americans that are having poor enough diets.

This is a personal problem how?

I am an idealistic realist.

No matter how sick the "facts" make you, we do not live in an ideal world. It will not be fixed over night, ESPECIALLY since the U.S is in a recession (which is the topic is about).

Talk to me about this idea once all Americans can live in a materialistic world. Only then, "we" might think twice about the idea.

If there was a program that takes my leftover food for free and gives it to the needy - sign me up. But I am not going out of my way for all the people who do not take life and all of its issues "serious".


sty

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 


Do you call that substance you eat in the US food? get to Italy and France to see some proper food hehe. Again - my opinion: the world needs food, but creating more money from nothing will not solve the problem. the quantity of the available food is still the same, no matter how many trillions Obama would create from nothing. The bailout money will not help US, Africa or anyone else. The food problem and the money problem are two different problems, this is why it was never solved. Also , US would not be able to feed Africa - as intensive agriculture leads to degradation of the environment and rapid decrease of quality (not to talk about over-the-limit percentage of chemicals/pesticie in the food, aprooved by your FDA with closed eyes..). Why do you think a lot of Americans are obesse ? I tell you : not because they eat too much , simply because of the lack of food quality (ok, maybe also lack of education regarding heathy diets ). So yes, we need more food. Start with the US!



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 



You're right. We eat # and love it. We're an obese and disgusting country. The fact remains that we waste edible sustainance by the ton. The percentage of the bailout deal that I mentioned in the OP is just for show, at least partially.

The US is a nation of waste, and until we can appreciate that the amount we waste is significant enough to change the world we'll remain the world's assholes. We'll waste money, waste food, and waste the resources that this world needs.


sty

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 


hey, I guess I am bit more optimistic about the americans !
you are NOT disgusting people. Ok, bit overweight but hey you are really nice people. I do not talk about your leaders , they are just opportunists (as everywhere) else . But why I love the american ppl : because they created things like Above Top Secret! There is still something in your hearts people, just do not give up !

Going back to the issue of the low quality food in the US : it is a matter of getting used to it I guess. Once you are "in it" it is hard to change habbits. You eat that food, then the corporations are struggling to make even more of it - because the market "wants it" . bring a new kind of demand for heatlhy food on the market, then the entire food culture will change, companies would start to sell healthy food , advertisers will "tempt" people to stay heathy etc.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join