"We got money for bombs but we ain’t got money to feed people.”

aimeeandbeatles

watermelon
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
20,112
Was working on my site and I came upon this sentence in a newspaper article.

So... how do you explain it?
 
Bombs can't vote. Poor people may vote against you.
 
Bombs are cheaper too.
 
We have money for government building heating and air conditioners, but we don't have money to feed people!!! They even wax the floors I hear, and they have color printers. I hear they serve dessert in government cafeterias, AND FIVE KINDS OF SALAD DRESSING!!!

All this while people are starving :(
 
With a meat ship!

meatshipraw.jpg
 
This article is on a Tom Petty website. I skepticalz.

Read the article before judging.

Really I thought this thread would be an interesting discussion of military vs. social net spendings...
 
Don't link the article Aimee! It's not worth it!

I suppose Bob Geldof should have just kept his opinions to himself as well.
 
After India's nuclear test on May 1974 Pakistani PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto said "even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bombs."
 
The American military industry complex has a powerful voice in Washington. The poor and the hungry don't.

You know, if poor people had money, they could use that money to influence politics in Washington by lobbying the way people with money do. Since they don't, that must mean that they're lazy.
 
OK, so how far do we take this?

We've got money for electricity but we ain't got money to feed people.
We've got money for roads but we ain't got money to feed people.
We've got money for schools but we ain't got money to feed people.
We've got money for hospitals but we ain't got money to feed people.
We've got money for spacecraft but we ain't got money to feed people.

Why is giving them handouts more important?
 
Bombs can be used for population control. Not feeding people can be used for population control. Spending money on bombs, kills two birds with one stone.
 
Back
Top Bottom