Administration cutting food aid, refuses to honor previous promises

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
I was wondering how he'd reduce the deficit, I guess now I know.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.

With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.

"We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."

Ms. Kuennen said Catholic Relief Services had to cut back programs in Indonesia, Malawi and Madagascar, among other countries.

Officials of several charities, some Republican members of Congress and some administration officials say the food aid budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 was at least $600 million less than what charities and aid agencies would need to carry out current programs.

"We are all at a crossroads, struggling with the budgetary crunch, but the problem is, there isn't enough to go around," said Ina Schonberg, director of food security programs for Save the Children. She said the cutbacks had had the biggest effect for her agency in Tajikistan and Nicaragua.

Ellen Levinson, head of the Food Aid Coalition, said the best estimate for the amount of food that was not delivered in November and December was "at least $100 million."
Click to expand...

The rest of the article link
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Good! Our government shouldn't be giving out handouts to charities anyhow, if they can't survive on donations then f'em[/quote]

If the charities fail they won't be the only ones getting f'ed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='zionoverfire']Good! Our government shouldn't be giving out handouts to charities anyhow, if they can't survive on donations then f'em[/quote]

If the charities fail they won't be the only ones getting f'ed.[/quote]

Since this thread is about the reduction in food aid programs, I present the following PSA: Please do not feed the Trolls. It only reinforces negative behavioral patterns and will result in them revisiting the site in search of more food. Thank you. :wink:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Good! Our government shouldn't be giving out handouts to charities anyhow, if they can't survive on donations then f'em[/quote]

I know I shouldn't respond but...

Abject poverty gives rise to political instability and fanatical religious/fascist/communist ideals. Since we live in a global economy, it's in the interests of the United States to promote peace and political stability in all nations.

It's much more cost effective to feed and educate people then to fight them with guns.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='zionoverfire']Good! Our government shouldn't be giving out handouts to charities anyhow, if they can't survive on donations then f'em[/quote]

I know I shouldn't respond but...

Abject poverty gives rise to political instability and fanatical religious/fascist/communist ideals. Since we live in a global economy, it's in the interests of the United States to promote peace and political stability in all nations.

It's much more cost effective to feed and educate people then to fight them with guns.[/quote]

So we should continue to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into programs we can't afford? And the Bush administration has taken a small but noticable step in doing this. No one is going to commit pollitical suicide to by cutting spending on big ticket items like defense, social security and medicare, so if you plan on dealing with the deficit you've got to slash things like this. I'm just glad to see that the Bush administration is doing something, not much but something to deal with the mounting deficit.

Granded of course not going to war in Iraq would have saved us much more but every little bit counts.

Oh and sorry for taking forever to respond, I keep forgetting about the Vs forum. :oops:
 
[quote name='camoor']They do this on one end and discourage condom use on the other. What a bunch of great "Christians".[/quote]

Well, who'd make better slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) than a population explosion of hungry people?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']...No one is going to commit pollitical suicide to by cutting spending on big ticket items like defense, social security and medicare, so if you plan on dealing with the deficit you've got to slash things like this. I'm just glad to see that the Bush administration is doing something, not much but something to deal with the mounting deficit.
[/quote]

I was not saying that cutting the food aid programs is not politically expedient. I was pointing out that it will lead to more war and loss of economic opportuinities for the USA. I'm not the kind of person who is happy with a incompetent President who is trying really hard.

This administration chooses to fight wars (guns) instead of avoid wars through education and basic needs financing (butter).
 
Its really a case of 'penny wise, pound foolish'. Bush will save a billion or two here and now, but at a cost of a hundred billion ten years down the road. Of course, that really seems to be Bush's main objective: fuck up the world as much as possible for our children so that Jesus will have no choice but to come back.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='zionoverfire']...No one is going to commit pollitical suicide to by cutting spending on big ticket items like defense, social security and medicare, so if you plan on dealing with the deficit you've got to slash things like this. I'm just glad to see that the Bush administration is doing something, not much but something to deal with the mounting deficit.
[/quote]

I was not saying that cutting the food aid programs is not politically expedient. I was pointing out that it will lead to more war and loss of economic opportuinities for the USA. I'm not the kind of person who is happy with a incompetent President who is trying really hard.

This administration chooses to fight wars (guns) instead of avoid wars through education and basic needs financing (butter).[/quote]

It probably will create problems, however so much of the budget is spent on things that neither party will touch that its nice to see some small effort to cut back on spending after the last 4 years of over spending.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='zionoverfire']...No one is going to commit pollitical suicide to by cutting spending on big ticket items like defense, social security and medicare, so if you plan on dealing with the deficit you've got to slash things like this. I'm just glad to see that the Bush administration is doing something, not much but something to deal with the mounting deficit.
[/quote]

I was not saying that cutting the food aid programs is not politically expedient. I was pointing out that it will lead to more war and loss of economic opportuinities for the USA. I'm not the kind of person who is happy with a incompetent President who is trying really hard.

This administration chooses to fight wars (guns) instead of avoid wars through education and basic needs financing (butter).[/quote]

It probably will create problems, however so much of the budget is spent on things that neither party will touch that its nice to see some small effort to cut back on spending after the last 4 years of over spending.[/quote]

But shouldn't what is being cut be just as important?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='zionoverfire']...No one is going to commit pollitical suicide to by cutting spending on big ticket items like defense, social security and medicare, so if you plan on dealing with the deficit you've got to slash things like this. I'm just glad to see that the Bush administration is doing something, not much but something to deal with the mounting deficit.
[/quote]

I was not saying that cutting the food aid programs is not politically expedient. I was pointing out that it will lead to more war and loss of economic opportuinities for the USA. I'm not the kind of person who is happy with a incompetent President who is trying really hard.

This administration chooses to fight wars (guns) instead of avoid wars through education and basic needs financing (butter).[/quote]

It probably will create problems, however so much of the budget is spent on things that neither party will touch that its nice to see some small effort to cut back on spending after the last 4 years of over spending.[/quote]

But shouldn't what is being cut be just as important?[/quote]

Welll most of the stuff that should be cut won't be, so not really. Neither party is going to cut defense spending or medicare/medicaid nor a dozen other overfunded things that people cast thier votes based on. Things that will be cut will be foriegn affairs, environmental protection and other things US voters don't give a shit about.
 
I'd rather deal with the deficit and all the problems that will cause, than cut things such as environmental protection, which is already substandard. Cutting things that will only create more problems is not going to gain praise from me.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd rather deal with the deficit and all the problems that will cause, than cut things such as environmental protection, which is already substandard. Cutting things that will only create more problems is not going to gain praise from me.[/quote]

Well attempting to cut the deficit would be the first major Bush descision I've agreed with since the War in Afghanistan. But the money is going to have to come from less public spending. After all if you cut Military spending your going to be seen as weak on defense and we can't have that. :roll: If you cut medicare the old folks will vote your ass out of offiice and if cut corporate handouts your donors will eat you alive.

I think the important thing is to start dealing with the problem later we can focus on proper monetray distribution. If we dont' deal with the deficit very bad things will happen, after Rome wasn't killed off by Barbarians alone.
 
People just hate Bush.

Cut the food aid and he's a monster. Cut the money troops use for armored vechiles and he's a monster. Cut Social Security and he's a monster. Cut environmental spending and he's a monster.

Do nothing and he's a monster for having a deficit.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']People just hate Bush.

Cut the food aid and he's a monster. Cut the money troops use for armored vechiles and he's a monster. Cut Social Security and he's a monster. Cut environmental spending and he's a monster.

Do nothing and he's a monster for having a deficit.[/quote]

He's not a monster, he's just a bad president. Different people will hate him depending on what you cut, it's not like people will oppose his policies whatever they are. For me the most important is environment, then foreign aid, social security (though foreign aid and social security are about equal to me). The military needs to be cut, but again not just randomly. For example, stop doing research on tactical nuclear weapons (also, we can't really tell others not to build them when we are), scale back military research (if it is needed then fine, we are so far ahead it's not needed at the moment), space defense programs etc. Providing armor and armoured vehicles has been an area that is underfunded and should be increased, but then again he should be blamed for making that armor neceessary by going into Iraq. Basically, the way I look at it, the defecit will have (if left unchanged) a huge impact on future generations, but it is not the worst thing possible. Foreign aid saves lives and, as already mentioned, reduces the likelihood of violence and instability. Environmental programs help protect our home, something that once we screw up there's no repairing (unlike the deficit). Also, creating enemies now will make things worse when, one day, we are no longer the strongest. As long as we still exist, that day will eventually come.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']People just hate Bush.

Cut the food aid and he's a monster. Cut the money troops use for armored vechiles and he's a monster. Cut Social Security and he's a monster. Cut environmental spending and he's a monster.

Do nothing and he's a monster for having a deficit.[/quote]

What about not going to war in the first place? He would have been a hero, and could have used containment to solve the Middle East problem, leaving his hands free to focus on the real problem area (North Korea).

Social security - well he's pretty screwed on that issue and it's no surprise that another Texan, LBJ, got us deep in this many years ago. Taking into account all the problems for future generations that Bush has created, it lends truth to the old adage that history repeats itself.

What about funding safe-sex education programs instead of abstinence-only sex education programs (safe-sex education would actually cut down on AIDs and exploding third-world population growth, unfortunately many Xians don't like rubbers)

What about making American corporations pay for some of the cost to uphold enviornmental standards.

What about making large corporations and the wealthier americans actually pay taxes.

Bush may be an incompetent fool, but he is not a monster.

The only monster here is the terrorist boogie monster that Uncle Cheney uses to scare all the misbehaving little Americans who are thinking of voting against Bush. The terrorist boogie monster will come and get you if you don't vote for the new republican order.

Gone are the days when the only thing that Americans had to fear was fear itself. Today only a "mastermind" like Our Leader knows how to beat terrorists. Give me a break.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']People just hate Bush.

Cut the food aid and he's a monster. Cut the money troops use for armored vechiles and he's a monster. Cut Social Security and he's a monster. Cut environmental spending and he's a monster.

Do nothing and he's a monster for having a deficit.[/quote]

If people hate Bush so much why did he get re-elected? He's had and continues to have a very right wing conservative agenda and any flack or praise he's taken from it is completely deserved.

BTW normally the monster is considered to be the vice president.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']He's had and continues to have a very right wing conservative agenda[/quote]
Conservative agenda? Get real. I'd find it a lot easier to support him if he did - at least the US budget would be in the black. Bush's agenda doesn't fit into the normal conservative/liberal spectrum because it has little to do with either viewpoint: its a radical religious agenda, far outside normal, rational (in their own way) politics.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='zionoverfire']He's had and continues to have a very right wing conservative agenda[/quote]
Conservative agenda? Get real. I'd find it a lot easier to support him if he did - at least the US budget would be in the black. Bush's agenda doesn't fit into the normal conservative/liberal spectrum because it has little to do with either viewpoint: its a radical religious agenda, far outside normal, rational (in their own way) politics.[/quote]

Right wing religious conservative? I'm going by media definitions because I was trying to avaoid using paragraphing to describe his administration.

If he was a Goldwater (traditional?) conservative I'd probably be much happier with his presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top