# World Hunger

  * > Has anyone heard of a law being pushed thru congress to fight world hunger costing US taxpayers in the area of 500 billion. Guess who sponsored it?

  * > What do you think is better for the U.S.' image and influence abroad: Fighting unnescessary and unilateral preemptive wars under dubious pretenses, or taking the lead on a global initiative to fight poverty?  
>   
>  Hmm. Tough call.

  * > What do you think is better for the U.S.' image and influence abroad: Fighting unnescessary and unilateral preemptive wars under dubious pretenses, or taking the lead on a global initiative to fight poverty?  
>   
>  Hmm. Tough call.
> 
> There's a reason to spend another 500 billion. Ohhh, what will the Nato countries think if we don't write the check?

  * > I am all for fighting world hunger, but we as a nation pump billions already into fighting it how about the rest of the world stepping up! Last time I checked the US isn't the only industrialized country on the earth.

  * > There's a reason to spend another 500 billion. Ohhh, what will the Nato countries think if we don't write the check?
> 
> Our foreign aid budget --as a % of GDP-- is actually a bit lower than most of the other wealthy nations in the world.  
>   
>  And, by the way, in the context of a global war on terror that can only succeed with international cooperation, the feelings of the citizens in foreign democracies are actually far more important than you think.  
>   
>  When the U.S. is popular, it makes it easier for elected leaders to follow our lead on things like fighting terrorism and multilateral military actions. When it is unpopular, that doesn't happen nearly as easily.

  * > What do you think is better for the U.S.' image and influence abroad: Fighting unnescessary and unilateral preemptive wars under dubious pretenses, or taking the lead on a global initiative to fight poverty?  
>   
>  Hmm. Tough call.
> 
> If there is a War more unwinable than the "War of Terror", it's the War on Poverty and Hunger. Oh, and the War on "Some Drugs but Not the Ones We Rich Democrats and Rpublicans Abuse" is up there too.:rolleyes:  
>   
>  Want people to not be hungry? Or poor? Great! Get rid of all the tinpot Dictators, Socialists, Communists, Clans and Tribes out there who do more to hurt their own people than they do to feed them. Give them Freedom. What you say? They don't want to change? Ok, fine, but stop asking for food from us then, till you fix your own issues.  
>   
>  Waste is waste. How about for once in this countries life, we stop spending OUR money to solve eveyone elses problems, and start solving a few of our own, eh?

  * > [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2653609]Our foreign aid budget --as a % of GDP-- is actually a bit lower than most of the other wealthy nations in the world.  
>   
>  Our private giving dwarfs everything else. In total (both publiuc and private), we give so much more than anyone else that it's not even worth discussing. Americans are by FAR the most charitable people in the world.

  * > If there is a War more unwinable than the "War of Terror", it's the War on Poverty and Hunger. Oh, and the War on "Some Drugs but Not the Ones We Rich Democrats and Rpublicans Abuse" is up there too.:rolleyes:  
>   
>  Want people to not be hungry? Or poor? Great! Get rid of all the tinpot Dictators, Socialists, Communists, Clans and Tribes out there who do more to hurt their own people than they do to feed them. Give them Freedom. What you say? They don't want to change? Ok, fine, but stop asking for food from us then, till you fix your own issues.  
>   
>  Waste is waste. How about for once in this countries life, we stop spending OUR money to solve eveyone elses problems, and start solving a few of our own, eh?
> 
> In general, you may be correct.  
>   
>  But the idea that we can't help in targeted areas around the world is silly. At worst, we're easing suffering of millions of people. At best, we can help certain communities become more self-sufficient.  
>   
>  As I said before, there's strategic value in letting the world see us do the right thing, in the form of "soft power" that comes from our enhanced influence.   
>   
>  For-profit corporations give to charities for similar reasons.  
>   
>  There's nothing inherently wasteful about it.

  * > Bravo to fish and 5ever, BTW it is Obama pushing this. Screw you Obama!

  * > Our foreign aid budget --as a % of GDP-- is actually a bit lower than most of the other wealthy nations in the world.  
>   
>  Our private giving dwarfs everything else. In total (both publiuc and private), we give so much more than anyone else that it's not even worth discussing. Americans are by FAR the most charitable people in the world.
> 
> You are correct in terms of raw dollars. Also, in the interest of fairness, it is worth noting that many of the more generous (on a GDP basis) natiions have little to any armed forces, and we and our allies effectively protect them, freeing up their dollars.  
>   
>  Wasn't trying to imply that we were cheap, just trying to show that --relative to other nations-- our spending is not outlandish in this area. Many polls show that people think foreign aid is a massive part of the budget, when in fact its quite small, relative to other stuff (entitlements, military, etc.).

  * > there is something to be said about restoring the world's opinion of the country though. I prefer to spend the money helping others in tangible means than on war and overseas military posts

  * > there is something to be said about restoring the world's opinion of the country though. I prefer to spend the money helping others in tangible means than on war and overseas military posts
> 
> I also would like to add how about helping the people in this country.

  * > Bravo to fish and 5ever, BTW it is Obama pushing this. Screw you Obama!
> 
> Let me get this straight. You had no problem spending a million bucks every ten minutes on some stupid ass war, brought to us by your hero Georgie Boy...but if Obama wants to help feed the hungry "screw him"?  
>   
>  Jesus was indeed a liberal ***** homo. Helping the poor and hungry. What an ass. If Jesus really wanted to help people he would of started a war with Egypt, right?  
>   
>  I personally think spending any money on any of the other craphole countries in the world is a waste. To hell with them all. I only care about America and Americans. But I certinaly don't have the Neo-con double standard of "fund this war...ship money to former terrorists who happen to be on our side now that we have shown them the cash but to hell with helping poor people"....

  * > I also would like to add how about helping the people in this country.
> 
> If the world's democracies hold a favorable opinion of America, it does help the people of this country. It expands the influence and power of our government to achieve desired ends abroad.

  * > Ok NUU, when was the last time anyone of our so called friends came to our rescue in our time of need? Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Flooding. Probably none!

  * > Ok NUU, when was the last time anyone of our so called friends came to our rescue in our time of need? Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Flooding. Probably none!
> 
> Was there recently a time when we had a crisis that we lacked the resources to handle i nthe way that the countries who receive our aid do?   
>   
>  I am not criticizing the U.S. We are generous, but not significantly more so --in terms of what we have to give-- than anybody else.   
>   
>  I'm criticizing you for saying "screw you" to the guy because he's taking an action that helps the needy and improves our standing in the world.

  * > In general, you may be correct.  
>   
>  But the idea that we can't help in targeted areas around the world is silly. At worst, we're easing suffering of millions of people. At best, we can help certain communities become more self-sufficient.  
>   
>  As I said before, there's strategic value in letting the world see us do the right thing, in the form of "soft power" that comes from our enhanced influence.   
>   
>  For-profit corporations give to charities for similar reasons.  
>   
>  There's nothing inherently wasteful about it.
> 
> you have a total grasp of the obvious.we already give billions to programs all over mother earth.this % gdp thing is fluid. and silly to bring up by the way.did we get favre yet?