this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
38 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
301 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So... is that like 1 meal per person from now until 2030, or less?
They'd better use the money to buy rice: $9.7 billion, over 8 years, for 17 million households... is about $70/year per household. Looking up Walmart prices, that's 300lb of rice per year, or about 1lb of rice per day, or 1500kcal, which is what a single 4-8 year old needs. Still not much, but slightly better than a single meal for 8 years.
It says in the article that the money will fund different projects that will combat food insecurities. It's not implying that the 1.7b will directly buy food for people, that'd be silly.
On top of this, rice is not a staple food for most Americans, so many don't know how to cook it or what to do with it, aside from with packaged goods like Rice-A-Roni.
True, the article mentions:
How will that make people more secure about food?