Only 4% of the bailout could solve world hunger

Since the point is that the bailout is stupid, obviously I'm not going to argue with that.

But I do want to say, something that usually gets lost in these kinds of "send money to end hunger" stories is that the end goal should be to make that kind of dependence unnecessary. Notice that the story has a per year figure but doesn't say for how many years the program would need to continue.
 
Problem is if any of these hungry nations are war-torn/have constant rebellions/overthrown governments/etc. it becomes problematic getting food to the people.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Came across an interesting article.

They claim that according to the U.N. it would only take 30 billion a year to launch the necessary agriculture programs to solve world hunger.

I don't know how accurate that claim is. But if true, it's sad.[/quote]

Not as sad as the following:

The New York State comptroller reported this week that financial executives had received an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for 2008, as the US economy deteriorated and hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs.
Click to expand...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0131/1232923378233.html
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']As cold as it sounds... oh well. Less people.[/QUOTE]
It's one thing if less people are being born. It's another thing to want people to starve after they're born.
 
[quote name='georox']Problem is if any of these hungry nations are war-torn/have constant rebellions/overthrown governments/etc. it becomes problematic getting food to the people.[/quote]

Maybe that's what the 4% is for. There's plenty of food out there; it just can't get to where its needed. 4% of shitton of cash would be an awesome bounty to behead a couple (hundred) useless greedy asshats.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']It's not my fault there are idiot delusional cunts that can't keep their legs closed and have a thousand kids... :roll:[/QUOTE]
It's not the kids' fault, either.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']...Tough love, there's consequences of actions for a reason. Or... what you'll give them a Bailout. ha.[/QUOTE]
What action of the kids deserve such consequences? If you mean a government bailout like the Wall Street one, no I wouldn't.
 
Ur missin the whole point... it is BEFORE there are kids. :roll:

Since we're on the subject though, what... the rich is gonna hand over money so these kids can live? So far that hasn't happened and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Ur missin the whole point... it is BEFORE there are kids. :roll:[/quote]

You're missing my point. Even if the kids should not be there, now that they are, it looks like you're saying the kids deserve the consequences.


Since we're on the subject though, what... the rich is gonna hand over money so these kids can live? So far that hasn't happened and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath either. I prefer a better solution.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Ur missin the whole point... it is BEFORE there are kids. :roll:

Since we're on the subject though, what... the rich is gonna hand over money so these kids can live? So far that hasn't happened and I don't see it happening anytime soon.[/QUOTE]

The point is, if we are going to be FORCED by the gubment to pay incredible sums of our money, I think a lot of Americans would choose to feed the starving over keeping big banks alive.
 
^I believe that's a given...

I think Kids in general are screwed. If not because of their situation then because of their stupid parents.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The point is, if we are going to be FORCED by the gubment to pay incredible sums of our money, I think a lot of Americans would choose to feed the starving over keeping big banks alive.[/quote]

I think we'd rather feed the starving then give Wall Street's executive class another round of billions for abject failure. Although I don't think anyone wants another great depression.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well since it's called 'agriculture programs' I would assume and hope that the goal was self sustaining.[/quote]

:lol: ... no.

The programs would buy tractors, single use seeds and pesticides.

It would work perfectly until say oil goes belly up, the native flora is replaced with overpriced seeds or some group of thugs decides to take over the country.

In the meantime, food production would go up, populations would swell and the opportunity for more sweatshops would appear.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']...Tough love, there's consequences of actions for a reason. Or... what you'll give them a Bailout. ha.[/quote]

[quote name='rickonker']What action of the kids deserve such consequences? If you mean a government bailout like the Wall Street one, no I wouldn't.[/quote]

You two know each other?
 
we could also take all the land used for to raise cattle, including the land used to make the feed, and grow crops on it, that could take care of all the hungry people in the world too, and we could still give money to science programs hooray!
 
[quote name='Pookymeister']You both having shared more than one IP is why i ask.[/QUOTE]

Can you double check that? I have no idea how that would happen.

Edit: Maybe it's the same ISP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top