Could 4% of bailout end world hunger?

we should fight with world hunger
i mean why waver on doing it?
Now or later, we are all going to encounter iwth world hunger even with the rich hiearchiy ppl

If the powers at be put even a fraction of what we're spending on military, missile defenses, and bailouts towards anything of more pressing matters (a.k.a world hunger, disease control, and alternative cheaper energy sources) this world would become a much better place.

4% WOULD HELP BUT SO FAR AS ENDING WORLD HUNGER THAT WOULD BE LIKE A DROP IN A BUCKET. A DROP BUT A GOOD DROP IN A VERY POSITIVE MANNER.

is "solving global food insecurity" the same thing as ending world hunger?

we really need to get our priorities straight.

The world has waited this long to actually start thinking about helping people who are starving.

I feel terrible not only for the people who've been starving all of these years but also all of the good hearted and wonderful people from different countries who put themselves helping and caring alongside the people who are starving in harms way of groups and pocktes of corruption of govts there, rebels who take matters into their own hands and butcher and create inhumane acts towards defenseless people.

But with just taking 4 billion dollars from the bailout to fix hunger - it will never happen.

Majority of mankind is designated to be twisted, greedy, selfish ,cruel and or course hateful to even consider something as such.

Extra revenue alone from just one quarter of profitable earnings from one of many of the oil companies in the world would of wiped out hunger twice over.

The modern day goal of each and every country should of been "keeping others around the world healthy and fed" so they too can have the resources to be self-containing in food, nutrition, education and health to pass onto others. Instead it's " CYOA'" with a side of " it's not my responsibility" and a little extra added " someone else will take care of it".

But instead the world is a stage of audiences watching starvation taking it's toll all over the world at a rapid rate while others who are in positions of power are just watching and enjoying the show... It will only become worse...

Its not a problem that has a solution. Basic bioliogy tells us that if a species population is given food it will grow, and food will again become scarce. So in the long run its still just a beauty queen wish.

Iif we all resolved to petition our H.R.Reps.,we could make a public law which would require some money set aside from income taxes enough to fund the $30 Billion needed to enable the U.N. agriculture program. Last Summer a public law was proposed to only allow citizens of conscience with the choice to vote to have their tax money allocated for spending on non-military programs ? Since it all starts and ends with Peace anyway, it would be a practical idea that would realy work if the USA would fund that $30 Billion.People who claim to be Republicans(and realy are-like Ron Paul,and Rep.McDermott would likely agree) What was it that Lincoln said: "The Govt. should only do for people what they cannot do for themselves." When you see the heartbreaking misery of a child starving to death so emaciated that he looks like one of the Auchwitz holocost victims of WW2, you have to agree that this IS our problem. It would be one thing if the USA never had any ambition iof becoming a World Power. But it did. Isn't it obvious that trying to police the world is a stupid idea ? Do you see any other nation even trying to do that ? All the other countries are likely siting back and shaking their heads at this idea that proves the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" because what's good about it ? It's bankrupting us.Yet,any investment in maintaining the live support of human beings IS a positive proactive solution to the problem of World Peace. NOT feeding the military 2/3-3/4 of the entire US GNP for God sakes.They are the cosmic black hole bankrupting us by devaluing our money into toilet paper because they only waste collossal amounts of money the average person can't even count-it's so mind boggling!!! JFK and Sargent Shriver began the Peace Core in the early 1960s to accomplish exactly this goal. Consider it the most important part of our Constitutional mandate-to promote the Domestic Tranquility, then expand that to a World View and you can see what I mean. One of the responsibilities that comes with being a World Power is the obligation to view these starving African kids as part of the human family. What's going on in the Congo now is likely what will flare up everywhere people are too poor to feed themselves without the help of others intervening. Hunger breeds violence. Because if we do not view this problem as an American problem then realy what are we ? The answer to that question may be seen in yet another current.com news story about how the Earth's humans need more planets. But to illustrate what I mean flash back to that scene in the Matrix when Morpheus was held captive, and being browbeaten by the evil agent of the Matrix, when he said: "You know, you humans are the only mamals which as a species can't live in harmony with Nature. You congregate in one area, deplete all its natural resources leaving only your waste behind then move on. Why,you're very existence depends on your being able to find new areas to deplete because you never put back in what you take out. The only other life form that does that is a VIRUS." Though supposedly an evil uber-intelligence, he had a valid point. Because the virtue of charity and our living by the Golden Rule is realy what makes us human at all.To be human is to be 98.6 degrees. To ignore our human responsibility to solve it would make us as cold as absolute 0. It's inhuman to be that cold. Besides,humans are universal life forms,not simply confined to one planet, We have the Mind to transcend our mamalian biology. And one of those now starving kids likely is the Einstein who will be the Hero to help all the family live.Think about it-then do something positive to act on it. Right now the U.N. says potatoes are an important step. Perhaps 10% of that $30 Billion could fund research to develop a new variety of spud with more protein like the purple tomato current.com featured that has more anti-oxidents for we who can still buy food.

Is this article telling us how ridiculosly attainable fixing world hunger actually is? We should send them the day-old starbucks scones that are not profitable this quarter.

Have we completely lost all sense of decency?

the simple answer is no. money alone cannot solve the problem of poverty.

You know what else would solve world hunger? Getting rid of money.

It's strange that first world countries haven't taken over the areas so impoverished they can't eat. You can't just feed the needy, you need to create a system of checks and balances that forces the population to become self-sustainable.

Remember the whole Jesus-fish analogy?

If you can't afford to eat, why are you having several children? That is what I have a hard time understanding, and that is what the world needs to focus on fixing.

Putting band-aids on things that need surgery is not a sustainable nor logical strategy.

That said, yes, the American money scam and military spending that's going on is pretty sickening considering the degree of suffering in the world.

Tragic but, again…

Empire building comes at a cost. Women & child are usualy the first to pay with the abject misery thrusted upon them…

Look what Greg Palast had uncovered but was keep from the America public eye (as usual)…

Greg Palast Reports: BBC NewsNight- Vulture Funds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbxj8azQb80

Greg Palast Reports- Part 2 of BBC NewsNight Vulture Bond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7-w7b4Bq6I&feature=channel

Return of the Vultures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns9EfZlBdEk

Vulture Fund Threat to Third World
http://www.gregpalast.com/vulture-fund-threat-to-third-world/

Debt Relief Groups Attack Vultures After our BBC Exposé
http://www.gregpalast.com/in-response-to-bbc-report-jubilee-calls-on-debt-adviso...

The World Bank & IMF sanctioned economic genocide on third world countries is described in all its gruesome reality by economic Nobel Joe Stiglitz here… http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/

INFO +

John Perkins’s "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" nailed it for all to see…
http://www.johnperkins.org/

Any documentary by John Pilger brings it home too…
http://freedocumentaries.org

start with this one…
THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=171

All done in our name...

Or so they say !

No the business lobbies and misguided philanthropist would rather steal money from American citizens and give it to favored groups such as agribusiness which then effectively floods 3rd world markets with cheap produce, putting local farmers out of business, destabilizing the food market and causing shortages. Weeeeeeeeee! Playing Government is fun!

The problem is more complicated than the writer points out. Getting the $30 Billion for the program is the easy part, generating consensus about how, where and when the funds should be spent, will be hard. Countries which receive aid will need transparent and accountable distribution channels in order to correctly disperse funds and bring effective change.

how unfeasible is it to just start a public interest group dedicated to raising these funds? Obama's campaign was brought in 150 million in Sep. on a max of $300 donations. A private organization could raise 300 billion withing 5 years with the proper advertising and sufficient team of promoters (of course with some government help).

you know what else could end world hunger?

if we didn't process our vegetables and grains thru animals before consuming them.

if you want easy answers, try veganism. it's a fucking panacea.

Charity starts at home. We can do better with our resources. Obama and a transparent GOA will show the world what is possible.

I think we'll be in better shape to start solving the world's problems when we've got our own issues under control!

World hunger can be solved easily, there is enough food in the world so everyone can eat. Look at America we have enough food in this country for more people. Its just that there are other factors involved when giving food out.

easier said than done...
we wont do it
the article puts it into perspective for sure
it would be nice if the U.S. did it!
but its not gonna happen
man cant even solve his own problems...

Ravi's solution seems pretty straight forward and somewhat doable but after reading all these comments, there's obviously a whole lot more to take into consideration than just money.

On the other hand, if there was money to be made from solving world hunger, I'm sure it would be done. Unfortunately, the only people who will benefit immediately from solving this crisis are the hungry people. And most people with money to spare, don't give a damn about hungry people.

We would have to also get rid of the Dictators of these countries where all of the starving people live. Look at how difficult and nearly impossible it was to bring in disaster relief to Burma this year. If money alone could solve the World hunger issue, the problem would have been over a long time ago. "sic semper tyrannis"

If the 100 richest people donated 1billion dollars each there would be no more hunger and they'd all have lots left over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires
Alternately the 48% of the world who aren't on the breadline could donate $10.00 each per year for 3 years.

Where do I send my donation?

Only if the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, and corrupt governments (read about what the government of Niger has done to oust MSF in NIger) couldn't get their hands on it; and it was used to educate people and grow food locally as well as addressing population, waste of water, and corporate privitization of our food and water. There is also more to solving these problems than throwing money at them. We need a higher consciousness in humanity that sees above greed and profit.

the only way such a program would work is if it were coupled with birth control programs, otherwise populations would continue to grow, necessitating more aid, more environmental degradation and further resource exploitation.

it seems to me that the best thing the west could do is to stay out of it. that means completely. poverty doesn't arise spontaneously. it results from exploitation of people and resources. seems if we really cared, we wouldn't simply throw scraps to the poor, but we'd nip the problem in the bud, a problem that originates with us, with free trade agreements, with capitalism, and perhaps with civilization as we know it.

people don't need welfare when they're allowed to seize control of their own land and resources and personal and national sovereignty.

Feeding the world is not about doing the wright thing but is the only way we as a human race will survive

Now to do it @ 4% of the "corporate welfare" bailout

How many of the 10's of thousands of children that die each and every day would have made this world a little better than when they got it ?

compared to the job the folks getting 100% of the bailout ARE DOING, I SAY 100% OF THEM

compared to those that spend $1,000 BILLION ON ARSENALS OF WAR......

30 billion to fix world hunger and 700 billion for banks, where many of the execs get bonuses!

We could stop wasting the worlds water and grain supply on feeding livestock.

We need a change in philosophy, in mentality. Like catucwearebrothers said, in addition to money we need to reexamine our priorities. In America, there are people still starving to death in our country and we can afford to feed the world? Something is wrong here- and at the risk of the fear monger squad crying "socialism!", I suggest we start helping each other a lot more with our money and our time.

this is a complete disgrace. some serious changes need to be made in the way we interact with the world. starting by putting the welfare of others over the size of our purse.

People would have to step outside of themselves to solve hunger problems. It's not all about throwing money at the problem to fix it. It's got a lot to do with human attitudes towards other humans.

Why don't we just do it? 'Cause we aren't the ones deciding where the money goes.

This really puts it into perspective.

You know that was listed as "one of the things you would change in the world if you could" .... But it always seems so huge. Even here, we have a hunger problem. I meet people that don't get but a meal a day at the shelter. It's sad that we have to bail out Wall Street, yet we cannot even feed the hungry in our world.