Numbers Don’t Lie

This is a podcast talking about sports and topics all along the sports spectrum.

The expenses of the election campaigns of the two candidates running for president in the US nearly equals the annual budget world countries have allocated for UNICEF to assist the children of the crisis-stricken regions of Middle East and North Africa.

The cost of the election campaigns of two US presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, till October 19, 2016 has totaled $2.1bn, which is equivalent to the budget of United States Institute of Peace for a period of 630 months.

The expenses of the election campaigns of the two US presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, total the six-year budget for medical treatment of homeless Americans.

The cost of the election campaigns of two US presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, until October 19, 2016, has totaled $2.1bn, which is equivalent to the budget allocated by the US federal government for prevention of substance abuse and alcoholism among American adults, including 8th, 10th, and 12th grade pupils, for a period of seventeen months.

In this episode, we make a simple comparison between the costs of the US anti-drug campaign and the expenses of US presidential election campaigns.

The cost of the US presidential election campaigns is equivalent to the budget of the global campaign against illiteracy for a period of fifteen months.

The cost of US presidential hopefuls’ election campaigns, in the year 2016, totals the 323-year budget of an organization that has been founded by the international community to dispel the threat posed by millions of planted mines across the globe.

The cost of the election campaigns of the two US presidential nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, has reached a staggering sum of $1.6bn in the recent year.

The cost of the election campaigns of the US Republican and Democrat presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, could have repaid at least half of Washington’s debts to United Nations.

The amount of money which has been spent on the US presidential election campaigns in 2016 is equivalent to the least budget which is earmarked for uprooting Malaria in Africa within a period of five years.

Today, we make a simple comparison between the costs of the election campaigns of the two US presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and the budget needed for assistance of research on eradication of pollutants.

Costs of the election campaigns of two presidential hopefuls in the US could have been allocated for vaccination of all under-five-year-old children against polio for a period of five years.

The share of Florida from the costs of the election campaigns of two presidential hopefuls has stood at $40.5 million, which is equivalent to the costs of medical care for 27,574 residents of Florida.

The costs of the election campaigns of presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, to this date, stands at $1.49bn, which is equivalent to the UNICEF budget for west and central African countries for a period of 18 months.

The costs of the election campaigns of two US presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are equivalent to maximum monthly expenses of 142,000 poor single-parent families in the US.

The cost of medical treatment of each tuberculosis patient is roughly $146 per annum. Hence, the cost of treatment of 9.6 million tuberculosis patients, worldwide, stands at over $140 million.

The costs of the election campaigns of US presidential hopefuls from the Republican and Democratic Parties, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have totaled $1.63bn. This tidy sum could cover the monthly expenses of 415,796 middle class families in the US.

The total budget allocated for the campaign against Ebola disease is equivalent to 41.84% of the costs of the election campaigns of the US presidential hopefuls.

The costs of the election campaigns of two US presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have totaled $1.63bn in the recent year. This tidy sum could have been spent to meet the needs of 3.3 million poor Americans.

The global budget allocated for medical research and treatment of AIDS as of 2013-2014 stood at $1.25 billion. This is while the costs of 2016 US presidential election campaigns are higher than the one-year budget earmarked for global research on AIDS.

Today, we study the rate of poverty in the US, and compare it with the 2016 US presidential election campaigns costs.

A simple comparison between the costs of the US presidential election campaigns and expenses of UNICEF in eastern and southern Africa shows that the one-year costs of US presidential election campaigns have stood at 3.5-folds higher that UNICEF budget for assistance to children in eastern and southern Africa.

Today, we compare the costs of US presidential election campaigns and sums allocated to end poverty in the State of Texas.

Today, we make a simple comparison between the amounts earmarked to dispel poverty in Africa, and the costs of the US presidential election campaigns.

The US presidential election costs equal the budget earmarked for the medical treatment of 54891 residents of the State of California, and/or education of 123774 pupils in that state.

In the 26-episode series titled Numbers Don’t Lie, the costs of the US presidential election is compared to US administration budget for the services sector and for general welfare of American people, in addition to the budget needed for resolution of global problems, such as the necessary budget for reduction of hunger, reduction of child mortalities, a fall in illiteracy, and a decline in greenhouse gas emissions.