How we can fight world hunger

[alan1]

The hard reality here is while I don't want to see people in Africa starving, I don't want to starve myself. My first responsibility is feeding MY family. If you really want to help starving people, there are private charities that you are free to donate as much as you can to.
Quite frankly, my charity is generally local. The welfare of those in my community comes way before an concern for people thousands of miles away, living under corrupt, oppressive dictators who will simply use the world's largess to enrich themselves and solidify their control

But this won't raise the cost of feeding your family, and we can bar certain countries from receiving our aid.

You seem to be arguing that all us rich Americans should be taxed to feed the poor/hungry, but now, it's only the poor/hungry in certain countries, not all countries. Now then, who is supposed to be the decider of which poor/hungry people are left to starve and which are graced by your altruistic tax on me?

 

[syrenn]

The hard reality here is while I don't want to see people in Africa starving, I don't want to starve myself. My first responsibility is feeding MY family. If you really want to help starving people, there are private charities that you are free to donate as much as you can to.
Quite frankly, my charity is generally local. The welfare of those in my community comes way before an concern for people thousands of miles away, living under corrupt, oppressive dictators who will simply use the world's largess to enrich themselves and solidify their control

But this won't raise the cost of feeding your family, and we can bar certain countries from receiving our aid.

You seem to be arguing that all us rich Americans should be taxed to feed the poor/hungry, but now, it's only the poor/hungry in certain countries, not all countries. Now then, who is supposed to be the decider of which poor/hungry people are left to starve and which are graced by your altruistic tax on me?

i dont think he understands... the poorest of the poor here, in THIS country, is considered quite wealthy by comparison to his pet starving 3rd world poor..... and therefor should also be taxed for the luxuries they have.

 

[alan1]

But this won't raise the cost of feeding your family, and we can bar certain countries from receiving our aid.

You seem to be arguing that all us rich Americans should be taxed to feed the poor/hungry, but now, it's only the poor/hungry in certain countries, not all countries. Now then, who is supposed to be the decider of which poor/hungry people are left to starve and which are graced by your altruistic tax on me?

i dont think he understands... the poorest of the poor here, in THIS country, is considered quite wealthy by comparison to his pet starving 3rd world poor..... and therefor should also be taxed for the luxuries they have.

Indeed.
Just about everybody that lives in the US is a 1%er when it comes to the rest of world. Including those fools at OWS protests, they are 1%er's on the world economic scale.

 

[Connery]

I do not think hand outs will ever work in the long run nor will abandonment. Teaching about self sufficiency and technique would act to empower those in need.

 

[BoredDead]

lol.... oh i am of the opinion we should give aid to no one until the problems in this country are solved first.

How is giving aid it worth it? We give aid to people who hate us.

How is giving aid not worth it? The way the funding for this program is taxed, life will not get any harder here, and we will save lives overseas. Something for nothing. There is also a political benefit that nations can't be anti-American without us pulling our aid from them. We will also set a standard internationally that other nations can follow to give more aid to the people who need it. People will also like us for this.

 

[BoredDead]

I do not think hand outs will ever work in the long run nor will abandonment. Teaching about self sufficiency and technique would act to empower those in need.

How do you expect a poor urban family to get the land to farm in a city?

 

[BoredDead]

OMG!!! Too completely stupid and 1000% liberal!!

The liberal undoubtedly wants tax and spend welfare to fight world hunger even when Red China just saved 10's of millions from en masse liberal starvation by switching to capitalism!!!

Look at how little we will have to give in order to do a lot of good in the world, we don't have to lose a single job, we won't have to make things harder on anyone here...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Look at how little we will have to give in order to do a lot of good in the world, ...

how little we have to give???? You mean by just giving them the Republican wisdom we gave Red China, i.e., switch to capitalism????????

 

[syrenn]

lol.... oh i am of the opinion we should give aid to no one until the problems in this country are solved first.

How is giving aid it worth it? We give aid to people who hate us.

How is giving aid not worth it? The way the funding for this program is taxed, life will not get any harder here, and we will save lives overseas. Something for nothing. There is also a political benefit that nations can't be anti-American without us pulling our aid from them. We will also set a standard internationally that other nations can follow to give more aid to the people who need it. People will also like us for this.

i don't care if life does not get harder here....I do care we are feeding people who hate us... or worse... taxed more to feed people who hate us. Dont forget... our tax dollars are already spent on aid to these places.

I hate to tell you.... they are anti American... and hate us.... with or without the aid.

Why on earth would i want to lead that an example? Tell other countries to tax their citizens? ... yeah right.

 

[syrenn]

OMG!!! Too completely stupid and 1000% liberal!!

The liberal undoubtedly wants tax and spend welfare to fight world hunger even when Red China just saved 10's of millions from en masse liberal starvation by switching to capitalism!!!

Look at how little we will have to give in order to do a lot of good in the world, we don't have to lose a single job, we won't have to make things harder on anyone here...

Give all you want... there are plenty of organizations who will be happy to put their hands in your pockets and empty them.

it is wrong to force others to follow you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How is giving aid not worth it? . [/COLOR]

we gave aid to blacks in this country through the great society and war on poverty. It amounted to a near genocide!!


we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family.”

 

[Toro]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

No.

That's a bad idea.

Instead, the poor countries should do the following

1. More rule of law
2. Less corruption
3. More capitalism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

No.

That's a bad idea.

Instead, the poor countries should do the following

1. More rule of law
2. Less corruption
3. More capitalism

Wait a minute, that's a little too complicated for liberals to grasp. They want simple welfare; because it is something they can understand, although they lack the IQ to understand why it fails.

When they hear the fish versus fishing rod story they get very scared and nervous. It is like a complex physics problem to them.

 

[syrenn]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

No.

That's a bad idea.

Instead, the poor countries should do the following

1. More rule of law
2. Less corruption
3. More capitalism

4. Birth control. If you cant feed them...dont have them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A proposal for a 5% luxury tax for world hunger charities

Around the world, there are many people facing starvation. A 2010 statistic places the number or people facing hunger at 925 million, which is a terrible situation that the United States must face. Charities around the world see this problem, and do their best to fight it, but it’s not enough. Millions of people are still starving and millions need help. This problem, like any problem, can be solved with enough effort, and here is what I believe is a realistic solution to this problem through a good economic plan.

This plan is to create a 5% luxury tax in the United States, and give the proceeds to world hunger charities, with one important restriction: they may only be allowed to fight world hunger with resources bought in the United States.

Two problems exist with this plan. One is that we don't produce enough food to feed the world’s hungry, and another is creating new taxes hurts our economy and costs jobs. How the first problem is going to be solved is that charities will increase demand for food production, which will cause the agricultural industry to supply more food. One may expect a temporary rise in food prices.

How the second problem will be solved is by each charity buying mass amounts of food in the economy causing the agriculture to expand, which means more jobs. The creation of these agricultural jobs (as well as charity jobs), will equal the jobs lost due to raising taxes on luxury goods (like expensive cars, video games, diamonds, TVs, basically anything for entertainment or anything luxurious)

So the net result, I theorize, which I believe is a worthy trade, will be less production of some luxuries nations don't need, for feeding of the hungry in needy places around the world, with no job loss.

Additional problems people have brought up:

Dangerous people seizing the food and attacking the distributors

Well this can be solved by charities hiring security in dangerous territories

The population becoming lazy due to no longer needing to search for food

This has been brought up and is ridiculous to me, as people won't be happy with just having enough food to survive. They will always want money and will search for ways to get it.

No.

That's a bad idea.

Instead, the poor countries should do the following

1. More rule of law
2. Less corruption
3. More capitalism

4. Birth control. If you cant feed them...dont have them.

China saved perhaps 30 million from en masse starvation with capitalism, but that has only encouraged American toward more socialism.

Do American liberals want China to go back to liberal socialism??

 

[Politico]

Of all the pages this is the bottom line.

So there is no hunger in poverty stricken citys or anywhere we can drive a supply truck?

Yes there are. So go drive one and stop asking me to participate in your socialist wet dream.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China saved perhaps 30 million from en masse starvation with capitalism, but that has only encouraged American liberals to support more socialism.

Do American liberals want China to go back to liberal socialism??

 

[4Horsemen]

World Hunger is as much of a myth as the War on Terror. just doesn't exist.

yall watch to much paid programming on TV Feeed the Children campaign....lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

World Hunger is as much of a myth as the War on Terror. just doesn't exist.

yall watch to much paid programming on TV Feeed the Children campaign....lol

of course its one thing to say its a myth but quite another to offer evidence.

 

[4Horsemen]

World Hunger is as much of a myth as the War on Terror. just doesn't exist.

yall watch to much paid programming on TV Feeed the Children campaign....lol

of course its one thing to say its a myth but quite another to offer evidence.

You have all the evidence on TV...just watch Sandy Duncan holding a half dead African kid on his way out.