Right on!
I wonder why the oil nations of the middle east, who are trying to figure out where to spend their wealth, feel no need to help these nations. It is their product that is the double edged sword. Would it be that their faith would have the rest of the world starve for their profit?
It is so lame to constant shift every reason for why the US does not do something to what we are doing in Iraq. All it does is detract from any positive message that may need to be made. And, for what it is worth, even if we were not in Iraq, we would not be sending more than we are today to Ethiopia and having it do any more than it does today. The problem is not money - the problem is having the supplies that are purchased actually getting to the people that need them. And heaven knows - we would not want to invade a country and force this to happen - you know - try to help the weak!
Also - why not beat up the oil rich countries that donate squat to any country - much less one on their OWN continent. The US donates more to world hunger than all of the other countries put together. Try getting your facts right, and then post a realistic response, and folks may actually buy your vision.
Since Sen Kennedy has been on my mind a lot lately, I was thinking this morning what we could have done with the $ we have spent on the Iraq invasion if it could have been spent on cancer research and hopefully a cure.
Spending money on war has replaced our humanitarian efforts and that's f-ing sad.
I saw this story on CNN also. For some reason there is extra money in my check book this month (hopefully that doesn't mean I forgot to pay something). So it will go to UNICEF, but it isn't going to go far. Plus, didn't Dubya just send like $500,000 to China for post earthquake aid? How damn far is that going to go? He is such a piece of ----!
I am curious as to where you stand on this particular issue between your despised president and your despicable pork-barrel representatives. From the LA Times:
"President Bush vetoed the long-embattled 2007 farm bill Wednesday, saying it provides subsidies for farmers at a time of record crop prices, increases farm spending by $20 billion and uses "budget gimmicks to hide much of that increase."
Within hours, in a show of bipartisan defiance, the House overwhelmingly overrode his veto of the nearly $300-billion bill, 316 to 108."
Please do not assume that the US stands alone in this regard, the wretched EU is equally as malignant.
David,
The farm bill has some good improvements but it still provides huge subsidies to agribusiness that are unnecessary and still provides subsidies for crops that do not need it such as rice, soy beans, corn, wheat and tobacco.
It doesn't do enough to encourage small farmers nor does it go far enough in projects to reclaim farmland and encourage sustainable agriculture. It is flawed but an improvement.
Commenting by HaloScan
