-
October 2nd 2005, 09:12 AM #1
More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
Whaddya think folks? Good decision? Bad decision?
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedi...-opinion-printSoundsurfr
“Jesus' disciples at the Last Supper were certainly not wealthy enough to afford a clarinet to accompany them on the hymn -- or someone trained in music to do it for them.” – Anonymous Expert
www.soundsurfr.com
www.auraclemusic.com
-
October 2nd 2005, 09:23 AM #2
Re: More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
When I read the topic title my first thought was "I'm not paying any taxes to feed any of them democrats". Now that I read it I'm not sure. On one side Africa needs the food but on the other the farmers need the business and taking it away from them might have a worse impact on the economy than the treasury can save through this move (and by connection, less money for foreign aid).
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
"Years ago, I mean decades ago, I read a quote about politicians performing quid pro quo favors for campaign cash, and whether or not we could prove it. The guy who was quoted opined that it was difficult to determine. He noted that in many cases, the payoff might not take the form of votes on legislative action -- those might be detectable, and so are avoided -- but could take subtler forms, like the question that is never asked at a hearing.
The media's doing a terrific job of not asking questions it doesn't want to know the answer to. It doesn't ask these questions in bulk, and the great volume of questions it doesn't ask makes it cheap to not ask questions.
And it passes these savings on to you, the customer." Ace
-
October 2nd 2005, 10:51 AM #3
Re: More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
This would appear to be another example of a disingenuous thread title as the article does not address providing "more" food to the hungry, but rather the logistics of purchasing and delivering the food.
-
October 2nd 2005, 12:47 PM #4
Re: More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
Way to answer the question, Kewlie.
Originally posted by Kewlieluvr
I'd say that moving for the bill was a good idea on Mr. Bush's part. I must remain unsuprised its failure, however - the "American labor" tag really is very important to the businesses of our nation. At least those under a lot of scutiny.KFC's Slippery Slope: If we allow people to eat chicken, next they'll eat babies covered in a light breading with kitten pudding and biscuits.
Be A Voice For An Abused Child - Learn About Your Region's Child Protection Organizations
-
October 2nd 2005, 01:10 PM #5
Re: More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
Maybe I am just ignorant, but why can't the money be more focused on those countries feeding themselves? Or maybe there is a concentrated effort and I just don't know about it. I see the immediate need to ship food there because of a famine, but what is being done or what plans are in the works to help out with the means for doing it themselves?
-
October 3rd 2005, 03:08 AM #6
Re: More food for the hungry? Congress votes no.
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/100062/press_release.html
Originally posted by rubia
Rubia, go to the bottom of the article and click on "see their story" then read the 8 stories of the 8 women.
This will give you some idea of what the issues are from a personal perspective.
Similar Threads
-
Hungry
By Jade in forum Rec RoomReplies: 7Last Post: November 3rd 2008, 02:02 PM -
Fast food employees spitting in food
By Tobias Reiper in forum Health Science 101Replies: 5Last Post: September 9th 2005, 10:20 AM -
Food for Hungry Christians by Chef Kreeft
By Piebald in forum The PulpitReplies: 1Last Post: August 31st 2005, 09:53 PM -
Votes.... get your votes in early for Bill for alumnus of the month.....
By Rubia Warren in forum Rec RoomReplies: 37Last Post: January 19th 2004, 05:17 AM















































































Quote


Feminists setting pro-pedophilia...
Today, 08:56 AM in Civics 101