blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>>>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>>>
>>>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>>>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except
>>>> fo:
>>>>
>>>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found
>>>> that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875
>>>> calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170
>>>> calories of fresh fruit."
>>>>
>>>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>>>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>>>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>>>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>>>
>>>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>>>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up
>>>> in the garbage."
>>>>
>>>> Recommended reading.
>>>
>>> Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food
>>> system" of ours also is responsible for feeding other countries
>>> through the massive amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?
>>
>> Here's yer numbers Bubba.
>>
>> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2
>> billion a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and
>> Indernational Studies, http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=104 :
>>
>> "The U.S. Government is the world's largest international food donor,
>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid
>> that benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For
>> all this largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem;
>> it affects an estimated 11 percent of the planet's chronically
>> hungry. Moreover, a growing disconnect is occurring between spending
>> and results. As demand continues to climb, the Government
>> Accountability Office (GAO) has found that "rising business and
>> transportation costs" have lead to a 50 percent decline in delivered
>> U.S. food aid in the five years preceding 2007."
>>
>> That's a lot of moolah unless you consider the Federal budget. The
>> total budget request for the last year of the Bush administration was
>> $2.9 trillion.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Un...federal_budget
>>
>> Disregarding the $900 billion more than $2 trillion in that budget
>> number (because I'm lazy) USA food aid would seem to have totaled one
>> thousandth the total expenditures requested by the Bush
>> Administration in 2008. Unless you factor in the costs of a couple
>> of wars that are not in that budget, and in that case we got an even
>> more miniscule fraction to consider.
>
> that's because the rest of the budget is absorbed by welfare bums.
>


I don't know why in the hell *anyone* is still sending food aid to black
Africa, it's a "hopeless case" scenario, 50 years of independence and
billions/trillions in aid from governments and NGO's and the place is
*still* a ********. Every place in black Africa is basket case, why can't
any of those places even *remotely* get their acts together
somewhat...!!!???

Even a number of black Africans think that the kibbosh should be put on all
incoming aid, as it fosters a culture of dependency and corruption.


--
Best
Greg