• Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The USA could end homelessness or hunger (and maybe both) nationally for the amount of money we sent to Israel each year.

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, no they could not lol. Not even remotely close.

          The US spends $2 Billion a year on aid to Israel.

          They spend $105 Billion a year in direct payments to SNAP (food stamps) recipients.

          And $32 Billion a year on section 8 housing vouchers.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The problem is starving homeless children. Feeding them and giving them housing fixes this. It also gives them more opportunities, which makes it more likely they contribute to society in meaningful ways (including paying more in taxes than we spend helping them, especially when factored over generations). The alternative is often a bigger tax burden via the criminal justice system. (Prison is much more expensive than housing vouchers and food stamps).

              Bringing people out of poverty is a good economic investment. The only time handouts don’t help is when they go to the financial sector. It doesn’t improve tax income for the State and investors begin to predict bailouts, making risky investments more worthwhile because Uncle Sam will help them out.

              Tax the rich, feed the poor.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Since ‘48, we’ve sent over 158 billion in aid- without adjusting for inflation.

            It’s more than all other countries combined- including Ukraine.

            Even that 2 billion could go a very long way to helping.

            • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right, it could.

              In fact, the US could fund a few wars and conflicts, end homelessness, implement socialized healthcare and fund the world’s best public transit system with affordable high-speed trains between cities simultaneously.

              But they don’t because they don’t want to, not because they can’t.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s enough to end homelessness last I checked. (Last year or so I compared median national housing prices and found that Elon Musk’s wealth was enough to take every family and single person in the country off the street. That’s how obscene 150 billion is. It’s enough to end homelessness).

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Eh, I’m a bit pessimistic about a 100% solution to it. Can’t save everyone… That’s not a reason to not do everything that can be done, but I just don’t think there will ever be an end.

                And I absolutely agree with how obscene it is

        • torpak@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          That homelessness and hunger are not ended in the USA is not because the money needed is spent on other things, it is because the government doesn’t want to end them.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”

    • Chunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or the region could destabilize and the US has diplomatic cover to limit their hypothetical response to a more defensive set of operations.