U.S. pledges $3 billion as G-8 targets hunger (US taxpayer's money hard at work, just not here)

msnbc ^ | 7/10/2009 | ap

[tobyhill]

World leaders met Friday with African nations before an expected announcement of a new food security proposal that represents a fundamental shift in the way the West tackles world hunger, taking wisdom from the old proverb about teaching a man to fish.

President Barack Obama is expected Friday to announce an up to $15 billion agriculture investment initiative, delegates attending the Group of Eight summit in Italy said. The initiative includes some $3 billion from Washington.

The strategy seeks to enable poor farmers to produce more of their own food by improving productivity, shifting the focus from delivering aid. It takes a new approach on an issue — food security — that has emerged as an increasing threat to political stability.

[ClearCase_guy]

Sigh. The world has plenty of food. The problem is distribution, which is always a political problem. Money does not help in these situations -- it just contributes to corrupt, oppressive regimes in third world countries. People may be hungry in Zimbabwe, but giving $100M to Mugabe isn't going to feed anyone except Mugabe's friends and relatives. Pick a country. Any country. It's the same everywhere.

Promote freedom. Don't send money.

[not2worry]

I am sure the farmers in the Midwest and maybe even Wisconsin and Minnesota are gonna love this!

[tobyhill]

These countries farmers know the money isn't in legal crops, it's in guns and drugs used to kill Americans. They'll gladly take our money and then when Obama tries to tell them how to spend it they'll tell him to kiss their asses but Obama will give it to them anyway.

[Never on my watch]

Three billion to line the pockets of third world tyrants and assist them in the systematic starvation of their “undesirables.”

If this money feeds one village it will be because a camera crew was sent there for propaganda purposes.

If you want to feed the starving you need to kill the dictatorial figures that allow it to happen. Instead we host them at cocktail parties in the U.N.

[count-your-change]

The aid will amount to a direct deposit to a Swiss bank account.

[jwparkerjr]

I would make it a requirement that we provide food, not money. And I would make certain the food came from American farmers, shipped on American ships and distributed by American relief organizations.

Fat chance. It's not the liberal way. Liberals want to ‘do something’ not solve problems. Of course there are true liberals who go to the lands and risk life and limb to provide help, but they are the exception. Sadly, the easy way out taken by the pseudo-liberal is to send money and all that does is make it harder on the true liberals who in the field doing the hands-on labor. The true liberal is seen as a threat to the dictator who wants the money that was sent by the pseudo-liberals and has no problem killing the true liberal to get it.

[sportutegrl]

I don’t agree with food aid. I read an interview with an african farmer in WSJ. He basically said, “You can’t compete with free.”

[CougarGA7]

I swear 0bama is like a 10 year old who has found his dad’s wallet.

[jwparkerjr]

It’s not free. The $3 billion is spent with the farmers and the shippers and the distributors rather than being sent as a lump sum of cold, hard cash that tends to corrupt anyone who has contact with it.

Right now, not only is the $3 billion sent out of the country to work its black magic but the food is bought from foreign interests, it’s shipped on foreign flagged ships and it’s distributed to the extent any of it makes it that far, by foreigners.

Until we get in the habit of keeping and spending our money here in the good old US of A nothing will change.

[sportutegrl]

What the farmer meant to say was how could he sell his grain for money when they are giving it away down the street.