US refuses to back world hunger battle

[Karmadillo]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1107822004

These included a global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a scheme for marketing credit cards whose users would donate a small percentage of their charges to the cause.

"The greatest scandal is not that hunger exists but that it persists even when we have the means to eliminate it. It is time to take action," said a declaration signed by 110 nations and adopted at the close of a World Leaders Summit on Hunger held at UN headquarters.

But the US poured cold water on the project, with the leader of the American delegation, agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, dismissing it.

"Economic growth is the long-term solution to hunger and poverty," she told the meeting. "Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible."

Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticised the US for failing to endorse the pledge.

more...

[leftchick]

1. well what did they expect?

these are repuglican family values at work here.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

41. educate me here chippie....

How would you suggest world hunger be fought?

[GHOSTDANCER]

77. Wait for the flys.....

We need more flys..................Chris Rock @2004 Never Scared

[rawstory]

2. Another 100 'allies' snubbed

Jeez.

[skooooo]

3. And Bush is going to the UN to tell them...

...that there has never been a better opportunity to make the world a better place.


DOH!

[Mikimouse]

4. Well then, it is time...

"Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticised the US for failing to endorse the pledge."

It is high time for the rest of the world to go in a different direction, and not look to the US for leadership, because it is not there any longer. That type of action should balance things out in the long run!

[Cravat]

5. At what price can we feed the world?

This is something that America could do alone. Without this "war" that we are fighting we could easily feed the world. 300 billion will buy a lot of rice and beans. This is the feel good answer. Is it the right answer? I say it is not.

When do we say Enough!? Do we plow the amazon? Do we agrifarm the gulf. Do we turn all of africa into a monocrop from coast to coast? Depending on who you believe, this earth can support billions more than we have now. Do you want to live on an earth that is nothing but a giant metropolis surrounded by bio crops? When do we get real?

Population control is the answer. Japan and China are on the right path. Japan has had negative population growth for 3 of the last 5 years. The US is stepping away from the 50's norm of giant families. We must be strong when third world countries will not face reality. The children you feed today will produce many more mouths tomorrow. Is it better that one child starves today or 50 starve in 30 years? More food will not fix the problems of africa.

[kysrsoze]

13. We could start by not providing subsidies to farmers to NOT grow anything

I agree with you on population control, but that is a long-term solution and doesn't help the current situation of starvation. Meanwhile, our farmers get paid to do nothing.

The US is supposed to be a world leader and we have the means, but we're throwing it all away at the rate of $200 billion a year. We've helped to make a mess of this planet and only work to develop countries rich with oil. Even then, we normally don't give a crap about the people who live there. Time for us to take some responsibility.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cravat]

27. That is a start..

The subsidies to not grow things are pretty small, if Tennessee is an indicator. I was looking at some of the Co-Op numbers a few months ago. The federal monies to farmers to NOT grow was something like 1% of total subsidies. The biggest subsidies were the gov controlled prices. This means we produce too much of many crops and the gov buys it at elevated prices. Without this steading influence there would be huge yearly price swings. The gov then resells the crop at a reduced rate as animal feed, sells it to other countries, or gives it away as aid.

Without the subsidies there would be more hunger. I am not an economist but I would think that without price controls we would produce less total crops to keep the price viable to the farmers. If this couldn't be done, the farming would go overseas. Watch the tobacco industry for a real example. When/if the federal buyout occurs, most US tobacco production will go overseas.

[TheFarseer]

46. Dude!

They haven't had the set aside program for 8 years. You can't get paid to not grow anything anymore. I wish people would quit saying that. It was a good program once upon a time, but now with globalization, it's not effective in keeping prices high. Agriculture is as big of a mess as Amtrak. I have no idea how to fix it and unless you'd prefer no crops be grown in the US, we're stuck subsidizing it.

[IA_Seth]

61. Set Aside

Yeah, set aside (or CRP) started again here in Iowa this year.

It sure makes for good pheasant hunting, but it makes more sense to me to have the government pay them a fair price for it and use it to feed the hungry. Then again, that would be too "socialist" for the repugs probably.

[NickB79]

68. Have you ever spoken to farmers who use the CRP program?

The government RARELY pays farmers to set aside flat, high-productivity farmland like you would find in much of, say, southwest MN, Iowa or Illinois. Rather, it pays them to set aside land that has poor soil, floods out easily, or is on steep land that is easily eroded. These are areas that, if farmed, only give a small return in crops because of their low productivity. The result is that you prevent erosion and wetland draining by giving the farmers an alternative to plowing every square foot of land they have in an effort to make money. This benefits the environment by preventing erosion and maintaining wildlife habitat, and it benefits local businesses by A) keeping small family farms in business, and B) giving hunters land to hunt on and a reason to buy more hunting equipment every year.

[Tippy]

75. Correct.....

It saddens me when people blame the farmers....

One in five children in America will go to bed tonight hungry...not because there is a lack of food but because there is a lack of money to buy food.....

And soon many more will not have a home ....What is it going to take to wake people up....Cutting funding for HUD will guarentee many families will be homeless...but do the Republicans care...They sure don't It is to bad they don't read the bible they try to hide behind or they would know and understand the story of the GoodSamaritan....

[aneerkoinos]

44. No "hard measures" control needed

Just teach women to read and write, and fertility rates drop, educate them further and the rates drop more (plus make pills and condoms etc cheap enough and widely available, hint hint for the US puritans trying to fuck up UN programs :)).

That's exactly what UN and other organizations have been doing very succesfully, and fertility rates have been dropping significantly, coming already quite close to the 2,3 level which is considered sustainable IIRC.

Blaming third world and bloating about neet do be strong has a strong scent of rasism, chauvinism and other irrational attitudes, nothing with "facing reality". I recommend you start facing reality from yourself and from the ignorance and bigotry widespread in your country, I'll do the same in mine. It's better that no child starves.

[yardwork]

60. The problem is not lack of food or underproduction

The problem is lack of distribution. In many cases it is deliberate. Corrupt governments hoard food and other resources to starve out unwanted populations.

The great potato famine in 19th century Ireland was not a famine. It was a deliberate starvation of the rural Irish by England. Yes, the potatoes were inedible that year, but there was a bumper crop of grain and other crops. The English took it to sell at profit, leaving the Irish to starve.

The same thing happens today in Ethiopia, Sudan, etc.

[camero]

62. With 5% of the population using 35% of global resources..

I doubt de-population will get us anywhere. It's over-consumption that is the problem, not the solution, as the rethugs suggest.

[mbperrin]

63. Perhaps you should realize that the major cause of

population growth is poverty; parents fear that their children may not survive to carry on the family name or equivalent and therefore have tons of kids to ensure that some survive.

Rich countries limit their growth because rich people have things to do other than worry about the potential deaths of their children and lineages.

So by increasing poverty and the death rate, we would be promoting population growth.

(Oh, and for those interested, there's something about do not kill written on some large rock in Alabama or somethin')

[Eye and Monkey]

82. it's not about "surviving to carry on the family name" -

In most developing countries, kids work. If you don't have plumbing, who fetches water twice-three times a day from the handpump on the other side of the village? Who keeps the goats out of the kitchen-garden? And when the parents are old - and there's nothing remotely resembling Social Security - who is going to provide for the parents when they cannot any longer?

[hatrack]

6. And Bush is going to address the UN today about . . . poverty, wasn't it?

Yes, this should go over like a plate of flaming cat shit.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. Unwilling to help feed the hungry and starving.... but willing to

give away bombs and munitions in the M.E.

Hey... these are our tax dollars.... who the EFF says that they can make this sort of decision... just whom are these bozos accountable to?? Oh.. wait a minute.. I forgot who had stolen the last election... nevermind.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

34. Ever see Fahrenheit 911? Thought not.

Meanwhile, enjoy your tombstone.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. "Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible."

Well then... I suppose invading sovereign nations "is" democratic... especially when over half of your own country says absolutely not, and prolly 80% of the rest of the world population including the pope says absolutely not. I suppose invading another country because you have managed to scare some people is the "democratic" thing to do.

[Terran]

8. Economic growth--what bullshit!

If that were true, we wouldn't have any hunger here in the US, and yet we do! So what we can't even accomplish here in the US is supposed to end hunger in places like Bangladesh and Sudan?

Bush and his people will truly burn in hell for their hypocrisy. How do they sleep at night?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

23. Oh.

>> I don't give them money. I donate to the shelter.

Wow. You're a true hero. A special place in heaven awaits.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

38. See ya later

>> However, I appreciate that you are able to reply with a totally content-free, sarcastic comeback. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

About the same level as your heroes, Pigboy and O'lielly.

Buh-bye.

[theHandpuppet]

24. This post is so offensive...

... that I believe any reasoned response would be wasted. Yet another voice of "compassion" which defines hunger and poverty as "moral failings". Sounds remarkably similar to GWB's Harvard-days observation that the poor don't deserve help because the root of their poverty is laziness.

Sorry, but I cannot let a post like this slide by on DU without expressing my utter disgust.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

37. Because it reveals gleeful ignorance.

Do you really think there are no dirt-poor Americans? Do you really think there are food handouts in all parts of America? Have you ever been to rural America in the deep south?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

42. Yeah and no ones takes old clorox jugs to steal

water from leaky water lines just so they can have water in their decrepate mobile homes for sanitary purposes.

You aren't even truthful. You live nowhere near Georgia.

[Terran]

49. Damn, I missed the troll!

I guess my comment about hunger in the US woke da sleepy freeper? Not too surprising; most republicans I have argued with recently don't believe there is any homelessness or hunger in this country. One guy told me, "Homelessness? That so 80's."

[Ripley]

51. This guy used a lot of cliches too.

All homeless people are fat. If they're not they're skinny drug addicts. They could get free food from Panera who hands it out. I live in rural Georgia and no one here goes hungry.

I think his name was Scooter.

[Terran]

52. LOL, homeless people are "fat"?

That's something I've never seen. What a maroon. I guess that's typical republicanism--an irrational inability to face the facts.

[ima_sinnic]

56. ugh! freepers are selfish pigs

</minirant>

[Ripley]

58. Yep. Their answer to hunger?

*Points to Panera who probably gives out stale bread to a food bank in a few cities, then writes it off their taxes.*

That's their answer for everything. Let the Corporations take care of it! In fact, let's open up McDonald's dumpsters for FREE! The homeless wretches can eat the garbage and thus save McDonald's it's refuse bill! A win-win situation if I ever saw one!

[Magleetis]

9. It sickens me to think

about all the money we spend on killing and killing machines. We could easily use those funds to teach people in need to feed themselves. Not to mention alternative energy R & D and a multitude of other humanitarian uses.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0007]

10. ....and we wonder why the world hates us!

Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticised the US for failing to endorse the pledge.

"How many more times will it be necessary to repeat that the most destructive weapon of mass destruction in the world today is poverty?" said Mr Lula. "We must harness globalisation. We must turn it into a positive force."

Mr Chirac predicted the US position could change after the November 2 elections."

HUNGER

....hunger is pride's master.
- The Prince and the Pauper

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

40. Yet your contributions thus far have not been

spreading ideas, except to bash the liberal perspective.

This is a liberal board doofus.

[leesa]

11. A tax on the sale of heavy arms??? You've got to be kidding!

I'm sure BushCo would line up for that! Besides, our business is creating world hunger, not ending it.

[Trillo]

12. "Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible."

Global taxes can be made democratic by allowing citizens to vote for their country's UN representation. Of course, one would imagine that non-democratic countries would object to their citizens being offered elections, but why would "truly democratic" nations object?

[clownskull]

14. The more people that hate us,

the easier to justify the American empire. :eyes: :puke:

[DoNotRefill]

15. When did the UN...

get the power to levy a worldwide tax?

[Cravat]

19. That is it exactly...

My last post sounded a little heartless. I care about the poor. I just don't want to pay some tax to feed a goat herder in Bangladesh. I still feel bitter about that place.

My youth group raised money one summer. We scrimped, begged, and sold random crap all summer. We bought a village in Bangladesh 15 goats. Better than sending food, teach a man to fish, yada, yada, yada.

We get status reports on our village and goats. All is well. Typhoon destroys village and kills all our goats. Summer wasted. Damn it.

Just kidding, sort of.

But back to the point. I don't want to pay 15 cents more for a car, 10 dollars for a wire transaction, or 1 penny more for a plastic cup. I think there are ways to help the poor but the UN tax idea is not the answer. In my limited experience, they are not the best stewards.

[chenGOD]

43. They don't need to garnish more of your wages to provide financial aid...

Buy 5 fewer F22 fighters (minimum cost $70 million, could be as much as $160 million per unit) and spend the (at least) $350 million on food aid (could be as much as $800 million). Your taxes haven't increased, and $350 million goes a long ways towards helping people build infrastructure in developing nations.
Ok Lockheed Martin is out $350-800 million, but since they got something like $9 billion for the F22 contract, I'm sure they won't be tooo upset. You do the same for the Star Wars project (holy pork-barrel feeding trough batman), and a couple of other deals, and you're looking at a sizeable chunk if that $50 billion from the US alone. The standing of the US goes up worldwide, and you help increase the chances of countries becoming markets that multi-national corporations can sell into.
It's a total win-win situation, except of course that multi-national corporations look only at the short-term bottomline, not for their investors, but for the chairmen/board members.

[mike_c]

57. your ability to have those things is built upon the backs...

...of those poor people that you don't want to support. Where do you think the nice American lifesyle you enjoy comes from?

[Eye and Monkey]

83. "Typhoon destroys village and kills all our goats. Summer wasted."

Lotta thought there about the PEOPLE in the village. I suppose the typhoon only killed your goats, nothing else? Seems like you had an opportunity to redouble your efforts, join in helping again. Seems like you had a chance to experience just a bit of how hard it is to climb out of poverty. But I guess you passed, didn't want to WASTE another summer.

[GOPFighter]

16. Wow, big surprise!

America doesn't even give much of a damn about our own poor!

[Gregorian]

20. More of those "family values".

The corporations/government don't care, because it's not a profit maker. The American people don't even know it exists, because the corporations/media don't want to broadcast it. Of course, America isn't the only one who can do something about it.

[TheFarseer]

45. I don't want any global taxes

but the credit cards and the global borrowing facility seem reasonable. Imagine, the debt that we have piled up fighting the war on poverty! The repubs would do everything they could to wipe out the debt then! I still think the answer lies somewhere in the surplus grain we have every year.

[aneerkoinos]

48. That surpluss grain

is grown by using lots and lots of oil, your (and our) dangerous addiction to oil that is ruining world peace and causing unmeasurable suffering to the peoples in countries far away. Especially in Iraq.

Most if not all countries have the ability to feed their own population without surpluss production from US and Europe. Their problem is that they need foreign currency to pay for their humble oil-needs and especially debts to first world countries, wich were mostly taken and squandered by previous tyrannical and corrupt neo-colonialist regimes, so they must grow crops for the world market, luxury products like coffee, fruits etc (and these dictated and distorted IMF guidelines leading to overproduction and collapsed prices, but that is another story). Not to mention other stories, GM-monsanto grain etc. In couple words, your "answer" is nothing but continuation to the neocolonialist global structures...

[aneerkoinos]

47. What is Kerry's position?

Does he support the ideas about global taxes on arms sales and some financial transactions, supervised and managed by UN or other international organ? What about Congress, what about the candidates on every administrative level you good people are going to vote? Do you even know their positions on these vital issues, how to make globalization more humane by curbing some of the most harmfull forms of it?

I understand this is partisan site and "blame Bush for everything" is the usual attitude that goes with that, but sometimes it would be nice to see people discussing the actual issues and finding ways to take positive action, instead of futile blame games of Bush-bashing and general whining.

These are not mere left-right issues, as proven by joint appearance of Chirac and Lula, but much more important. Of all the countries in the world, it often seems that consciousness about globalization is the least developed, and positive action to discuss alternatives to purely economistic globalization and informing citizens about these alternatives are hard to find. Find about World Social Forum, find about ATTAC and other organizations, join them, educate yourselves, start your own local discussion group etc. Be part of the process, think globally, act locally. We would not have come this far without WSF and ATTAC and all the other good people convinsing their governements that something has to be done, together.

That another world is possible.

One world, all of us.

[booksenkatz]

50. Mmmmm! A big steaming plate full of

economic growth! Just what a hungry, growing child needs. Tell me, Ann, how long will it take for the economic growth to be converted into FOOD? God, these people are evil. They've never known what it is like to be without a goddamn thing. They've never had to worry about their next meal. They have no idea what a hungry stomach feels like.

I hate what has happened to my country. (But hell, who am I kidding, were we ever in a leadership position on eliminating world hunger?)

:mad:

[forgethell]

53. With the

'Oil for Food' scandal about the become a major news item, this is probably not a good time to push forward taxes for the UN. In other words, I don't think they will fly right now.

[smirkymonkey]

54. You would think that the rest of the world would declare

pre-emptive war on US, wouldn't you?

[forgethell]

64. For this?

I don't think so. It's not a cause for war to refuse to give money to the hungry.

[aneerkoinos]

65. Really?

"It's not a cause for war to refuse to give money to the hungry."

The hungry might disagree...

[forgethell]

69. But they'd be

wrong. And, in any event, the people who they warred against would be entitled to, and would, defend themselves.

There is a better way.

[aneerkoinos]

73. Better way?

Whaddaya mean,let them eat cake? ;)

When you go hungry, there's only one right thing to do: feed yourself and your kids by any means possible. Such fancies as philosophical questions on property rights etc. start to be meaningfull only after basic material needs as food, clothes and shelter are satisfied. See Maslow's Hierarchy of needs:



http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

[forgethell]

86. So the people that

they are stealing it, yes, stealing it, from are not entitled to defend themselves??

I do agree with you that hungry people will do whatever it takes to eat. Up to and including cannibalism.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

55. World hunger?! Poppycock!

What this world needs is more prisons and workhouses! Let's get those sweatshops moving so we can have more corporate growth; and if anyone wants to protest or unionize, throw 'em in jail. It's the only way to insure that the world's wealthy people don't starve.

[MisterP]

59. Economic growth is the long-term solution to hunger and poverty

she means, of course, globalized neoliberalism--Thatcherite free-market fundamentalism--which benefits only the rich. She knows this, and knows that that would ignore the hungry and in fact worsen the situation, but she doesn't care, because she has no morals whatsoever.

[Tight_rope]

66. Oh How I long for the Clinton days!

[Joanne98]

67. Racist Republicans secret agenda... KILL THE POOR DARKIE.....

[Supersedeas]

70. No Kyoto and no soup for you....

[tedzbear]

71. I wish Brazil and the rest of the world would go ahead without the USA...

...and pay these taxes anyway. That would show without a doubt what a selfish, self-centered nation the USA has become. While the rest of the world really makes sacrifices to end world hunger, the USA sits alone in its sandbox with no one to play with.

:kick: *

[forgethell]

72. That is actually an

excellent idea. Just because the USA refuses to play and takes its ball and goes home doesn't mean nobody else has a ball.


so why don't they do it?

[paulpaul]

74. What US really means is as long as you don't want our crap GM food.

There is the real reason. The world doesn't want US GM crap food from Monsanto. So now US punishes poor countries

[Green Lantern]

76. We have had

two centuries of economic growth here in the US and we still have millions of homeless, underfed, without health insurance-so how long will these third world folks have to wait for their economic miracle? Should we all hold our breath waiting for Venemans' pronouncement?

[Carolab]

78. #1 problem in this country

is OBESITY--people constantly trying to get thin--here's an idea: donate some food to the starving people of the world instead of shoving your fat face full of it! I work in new home sales and you would not believe the size of these rich pigs. Most of them can barely walk the 20 feet or so up the driveway during the Parade of Homes without huffing and puffing--and they simply can't be "troubled" to waddle downstairs if the basement is unfinished.

[0007]

79. You should see 'em running to the trough to chow down

.....and we wonder why other counties hate us.

[Psephos]

84. Food for thought

What is up with posting this kind of commentary? This is DU. Tolerance and basic respect are supposed to be guiding principles here.

This post is just one of a dozen on this thread where people seem delighted to pile on fat people, especially the American variety. It makes the poster look bad, it makes DU look bad, it does not help the "fat face" "rich pigs", and most of all it does not abate world hunger. In fact, by factionalizing the very populations whose resources and political consent are needed to combat the global problem, it makes the problem worse.

I have my flaws, you have your flaws, right? So can anyone explain to me why it makes sense to increase the world's supply of misery by making other people feel like a POS?

I am a yoga and Pilates teacher, by the way, so I am not saying this because I'm fat. In fact, I could stand to gain a few pounds.

Here are some facts to consider before you start in on "rich pigs" and those with a "fat face."

1. Obesity in America is reciprocally correlated with income. In other words, the less money you make, the more likely it is that you are obese, all other factors held equal.

2. Many, perhaps most, obese people have guilt, bad self-image, and unhappiness stemming from their weight. No matter what they try (and they try a lot of whacked-out stuff), the weight doesn't go away. Many have been discriminated against by employers. They don't get promotions as often. They go long stretches without dates. They pay higher health-care costs. They die earlier. And on and on. In other words, they already suffer a lot of problems; they don't need cutting comments and opinions on top of all that.

3. Obesity has increased not because fat people eat like Romans at a three-day feast, but because processed carbs and high-calorie convenient foods are at the center of the diet. Starches and sugars (bread, potatoes, soda, crackers, etc.) are CHEAP compared to other foods. Our bodies did not evolve to eat this kind of food; it didn't exist until the advent of civilization. Meanwhile, Western convenience culture has meant that for most, exercise only happens as a result of a conscious decision. Once again, it is poorer people who disproportionately lack the resources to pay for gym memberships, mountain bikes, etc., let alone have the luxury of time to pursue them.

As for the proposed hunger tax, I have to admit a certain skepticism about a massive tax program administered by the UN after seeing the corruption in the Iraqi Oil for Food mess. Why create the potential for abuse by making the program massive and centrally organized? The administration and compliance costs would gouge out a large percentage of the money collected. Furthermore, big flows of cash always create graft and corruption, especially in regions less disciplined in the rule of law. I'd rather have my money go to actual hungry people than to layers and layers of middle-class bureaucrats.

Hunger has been with humanity since humankind evolved. We are not likely to solve it anytime soon, despite all the hypotheticals offered by people whose bellies are undoubtedly full. On the other hand, we can all do something to help make the problem better. So kwitcherbitchen on DU and send five bucks or whatever to OXFAM or Children's Hunger Relief Fund or Food for Life or one of a thousand others.

Meanwhile, indulging in gleeful schadenfreude about the woes of fatsos in America helps no one. Your check to a hunger organization helps actual starving kids.

Tough choice, huh?

[wildflower]

87. Amen! And welcome to DU!

:hi:

-wildflower

[milburn]

80. the US should help all countrys

My history teacher told a story on trouble in Africa and how the US was not helping the poeple of that country. Many people die becuase of no food and no help from the US. Why does bush not help these people in my class we collect money and sent to united nations and then were does the money go? I don't think it goes to the poeple of Africa. Can bush take this money and use it for his stuff?

[Dirk39]

81. Bread and water are communist...

the hidden hand of the free market will make us all happy pretty pretty soon.

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[struggle4progress]

85. another little kicky-poo

:kick:

[Darranar]

88. This is rather unsurprising...

the rulers of the world have no intention of dismantling the unjust and despicable global economic structure that props them up.