The 9-11 Commission says address poverty, so why is the U.S. spending $19.3 billion on Nukes, when it could end world hunger for $19 billion a year (source: borgenproject.org). The administration needs to look beyond the military when it comes to national security.

Uh.... you aren't going to get Americans to pay $19 billion of their money to end WORLD hunger. That's not our responsibility. Sorry.

But keeping the nuclear industry in business is, despite the fact we have enough Nukes to destroy the entire planet. Besides our businesses are missing out on 4 billion potentional consumers, who could with little effort on our part go from impoverished to consumers of our products. Just ask the cell phone companies who now make most of there profit selling in developing nations and that my friend has created a lot of jobs here.

Or all of our REMAINING manufacturing jobs would go over to them, since they don't mind being paid $2.00 a day, especially when we're paying for their groceries.

Yeah, no sale.

I don't mind reducing the amount we spend on new atomic weapons (though keeping the ones we have safe, secure, and in good condition is important), but spend it on a domestic issue, not on some ungrateful Somalians.

I'm a supporter of President Bush but I do believe ending as much world hunger as we can is a greater priority then nukes, Bob your right.

World hunger is something that has always bothered me, and i believe in solving that problem, because I am as a Christian supposed to care about others all over the world, and the very least of those too.

Bob thank you, and I mean it, for making me realize where my own priority needs to be

Well, then use your churches to raise $19 billion to do it. It isn't a problem for the U.S. government.

Thats what it is, I don't care if the goverment gives it or not, it should, but the goverment spends wasteful amounts of money anyway.

At least the could spend something to better humanity

Newsflash: humanity isn't our problem. We're not supposed to be the saviors of the human race. We have our own troubles to deal with domestically. We don't need to become a charity state, the world already relies on us for too many things.

I am a human being first not an american, if that offends my conservative brothers and sisters I'm sorry, but I am a human being first and others needs should be put before our own individual, thats why I support tax cuts, I won't get any, I'm a poor teenager, thats why I supported the war, to free people of terrorism and oppression, thats why I will vote for bush, but I do think the US could take a role more then a military presence but a presence of hope and courage to poor nations in search of hope and a message of freedom.

The largest relief agency in the world has a budget of only $1.7 billion (WFP assists 77 million people), compared with the $22 billion going to our largest defense contractor. Needless to say relief agencies are extremely limited in what they can accomplish, compared to the $2 billion the Penatagon estimates it can save by closing unneeded military bases (if politicians would let them). Bottom line: The U.S. has a lot of political influence that could speed up poverty-reduction and its in our economic and strategic interest to do so. Check our borgenproject.org for comparisons.