David Lock

Not all aid ends up in the pockets of the corrupt. In my experience it's the large aid and financial programmes that often don't work. Things like structural adjustment loans, IMF and World Bank help.

Small aid programmes that go through NGOs working in-country can be very effective when they control the money supply. Don't lump these hard working people into the useless waste of money category. Bit like social workers in this country - a few bad reports and they are all condemned by the Daily Mail brigade

dl

Leslie

I don't object in principle to foreign aid provided it all reaches those who need it and that it is for the right reasons.

Les

Martin2005

Ultimately that's the problem with you and your world view 'we don't care'

Quite sad really - you seem to live in a very dark and negative place

There are lots of things my frankly ridiculous amount of tax get spent on that I don't benefit from or agree with...if only we could pick and choose


Good news is we have a government that understands the issues and thankfully want us to play a positive role in the world

fast bloke

Looks after the pennies........Anyway - Based on your previous posts you indicated that much foreign aid allows us not to feel obliged to go to war with or in a particular country. Would you care to work out how much cash we have given to Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 20 years? Do you think I could have Sky HD and a 50 inch plasma if we hadn't sent the so much 'aid' and then then wasted several billion trying to invade them anyway?You seem to live in some Utopian version of reailty. As a cynic I would suggest that you won't ever achieve that Utopia, and you are wasting MY money trying. So please stop

Dingdongler

You speak for yourself. I'm happy for less than 0.5% of GDP to go to foreign aid. Some will be utterly wasted, some will do good and some will be corrupted. I'm still happy for it to be spent

I wonder if you have children? If you do are you comfortable teaching them by the example you have set out above? That WE care for nobody even if they are starving to death and a few quid could save their lives?

To be honest I could say the same about people in this country, perhaps even you? I don't use the NHS or the state school system, I pay tens of thousands of pounds every year for the 'privilege' of opting out. I wonder why I should pay tens of thousands of pounds worth of tax on top of that so that you can have expensive health treatment and education.

Perhaps I should adopt the same attitude towards you? My friends and I are finding it difficult to fund the new luxury car, second holiday home this year. We aren't interested in funding YOUR free education and health care, but we are forced to fund it for you via our taxes on pain of imprisonment.

DoZZa

iTrader: (4)

When it comes to CS:S, the AK47 rules!

tony de wonderful

I didn't say it ended up in their pockets, but it enables them.

It compensates for their failings and corruption and lets them off the hook.

GlesgaKiss

All complete bollocks. The world we live in is the way it is precisely because of what people expect from us. It's a good thing to give to charity IMO, but just not forced charity where someone is spending someone else's money. You think it's necessary for the government to step in, but it isn't. Remember that the money comes from the people in the first place, the government doesn't have a penny. Some of the people will want to give to charity and others won't, but what good reason can you provide to support your own political self-interest over theirs, and to be able to spend THEIR money on something they don't believe in?

Foreign countries should know that there will be no political give-aways and that the citizens are free to donate to the charities of their choice, rather than some chosen by a minority of bureaucrats. And if a free society has to protect itself from foreign countries who have a problem with that, then they should.

This is all academic of course: it's funny how politicians engage in protectionism of domestic companies - standing in the way of free trade with poorer nations - on the one hand, and then send tax money there for aid. Bit of a contradiction there perhaps? No surprise where politics is concerned.

Dingdongler

I'm not sure what you have such difficulty understanding about my viewpoint. I'm happy for a small amount of the GDP to go to foreign aid, 0.5% of GDP seems like a small amount to me.

Your approach is that any amount of money is too much and that you don't care about helping anybody via this method, by your own words 'we do not want to be charitable'.

As I said speak for yourself, these are not words I would ever want my children hearing coming out of my mouth.

And no I had not been down the pub, as you said nobody in this country has any money, how could I possibly afford to go down the pub??

How can you not see the similarity between what we have both said? You don't want to give any money for the cause of foreign aid and one of the reasons you give for why is that the money is taken from you by government. Well I could say the same thing about the far larger amount of money that is taken from me to fund a NHS and state school system that you probably use. As I said I don't use either.

However I would not want to see you die from a treatable condition or your children being destined to stack shelves in a supermarket because you can't afford to pay for these services at the point of need.
Therefore I accept having this money taken from me by the government for the greater good, I think it's called 'society'

Martin2005

Well done, you just won the 'how could somebody be more wrong?' award!!!

fast bloke

Nah - I think you own that one

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

something no one has mentioned yet . our goverment are spending money that isnt ours or our childrens , its hasent even been earnt yet . its more like our future grandchildrens money they are spunking on countries that wouldnt p1ss on us if we where on fire. its all about keeping face and the rights to the precious black stuff buried in the ground . to compare its like us keeping pensioners skint then taxing them on veg grown in thier own garden. then giving them a extra fiver in pension credit

Leslie

I think that foreign aid should not be handed out to the detriment of the needy in this country. Ulterior political motives for donating it should never be valid.

Les

Martin2005

That entirely depends on your definition of 'needy'.

Martin2005

OK a slightly dikish post but I'll try and respond carefully...

I'm not entirely sure why you have brought Iraq and Afganistan into this discussion?

You have completely lost me with the Sky HD and Plasma TV comments.

There is absolutely nothing utopian about doing the logical, rational and moral thing, especially when it's in the national interest, if that is your definition of upotia, then god help us.

BTW it is not ME 'wasting your money', so I'm going to struggle stopping it

Leslie

No it doesn't, it is an acceptable English word.

Les

Martin2005

No Les you are deliberately being obtuse now, I mean 'needy' is a relative term, at what point do we decide who is needy and who isn't. This is an important definition if, as you said, we shouldn't help anyone beyond our shores until we have helped the 'needy here first'

Leslie

Not being in the least bit obtuse-look it up!

Les

GlesgaKiss

That's your problem though, isn't it. Your idea of what is 'logical, rational and moral is' is not necessarily everyone else's. Pointless non-argument.

Hence why I think charity should be up to the individual. 'The national interest', as you put it, is in fact the interest of the people living within the nation - so perhaps let them decide. Or is it best that things are done for the greater good, Comrade?

You were quick to criticise my post above, but not so quick to offer up some kind of reasonable response. Maybe because you don't have one? Other than that you think you know what's best for everyone, and that the money they pay in taxes should be used to carry out your political self-interest. That gets a bit repetitive after a few pages.

Martin2005

I think that the people decided at an election ....comrade

PLEASE stop talking about charity, it's utterly wrong to compare overseas aid to charity.

But if I could choose, then I'd like to take back my tax that you say should not go on overseas aid and donate it to charity, then those opposed can make up the shortfall; you see it's a daft argument.

If only i could pick and choose what i want my enormous amount of tax spent on!!

I have offered time and time again reasonable and rational arguments as to why overseas aid is right, just, moral and in our national interest, so I frankly can't understand why you think I haven't responded to your points

I suspect we could debate this all day, my set of values are clearly completely different to yours, thats fine by me and hopefully by you.

All I ask is that people who say we should halt overseas aid, face up to the consequences of that decision, face up to the fact that real people will end up dead, ask yourselves; could I actually make that decision, if it was yours to make?

Martin2005

Les

What is wrong with just answer the question

You made the bold statement, now you are ducking the issue

Leslie

No Martin, I really don't need to explain a word which is fully defined in the dictionary. I stand by what I said in the original post and I just don't see any necessity to define a word just for you. What on earth is so difficult in understanding what is meant by such a simple word?

I can only assume that you are looking for a way to attack what I said yet again, I will follow the age old advice and won't do any unnecessary "feeding".

Les

GlesgaKiss

You haven't even attempted a reasonable debate on the issue. But yes, your views are fine by me, which is exactly why I believe foreign aid (or charity ) should be a matter of free choice. You've just countered your own argument by saying: "I have offered time and time again reasonable and rational arguments as to why overseas aid is right, just, moral and in our national interest".

So... your opinion, my money. Interesting. Btw, the amount is irrelevant, it's the principle we're talking about.

As for this: "All I ask is that people who say we should halt overseas aid, face up to the consequences of that decision, face up to the fact that real people will end up dead, ask yourselves; could I actually make that decision, if it was yours to make? - yes, I'm sure they could make that decision themselves. People who work to have something of value aren't under any natural obligation to give that money away and support someone else. But you think they are. You have said many times that you are not really that much of a lefty, but that is really quite left-wing thinking. So it certainly is charity.

And of course so far we've left out the subject of selection. I mean, with millions of good causes that aid money could go to, why is it someone's right to distribute tax revenue more towards one issue than the other? Who gets to decide? And does it go to those 'worst off', which by definition is also only a matter of opinion again?

There are no devine rights to have lots of kids and then have them supported by other people - that goes for developed countries and for the third world. People can only be under that obligation if you force them, so I really can't see your argument, and I am trying to understand it.

The same left leaning governments that condone contributions of foreign aid also like to protect national companies and ensure that fully free trade (which would genuinly help poorer countries in many ways, through free choice and without infringing on freedom) cannot happen. Do you not see the hypocrisy there of socialistic thinking? People produce and circulate goods and services for their own gain in life. There is no point standing in the way of that on the one hand, and then making a measly contribution to help them get by on the other.

As for the enormity of tax contributions, maybe it's not a big deal in your charitable mind, but I would say some people being forced to give up around half of what they produce in life is too much. And of course the taxes are so high precisely because of the vastness of government expenditure on these charitable programs. You say it isn't charity, but the status quo is a powerful thing, and you seem to be consumed by it.

Modern politics is all the same; Three different main parties you can vote for but the outcome will be much the same. Not to mention the fact that if you tell someone something they want to hear they will vote, regarless of the unforeseen consequences it'll bring further down the road. People take things at face value and go for it like sheep, then complain years down the line when, as a consequence, they are negatively effected by the same policy they voted for. Or maybe it's even had a net negative effect the whole time without them realising, because it hasn't directly affected them.

Anyhoo, I'll let you get back to the Guardian you were reading...

The Zohan

^^^^^^^^^^ succinctly put and spot on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

David Lock

But it's not vast amounts surely?

Whilst you make a strong case for individual freedoms i.e. choosing not to have "our" money going to overseas aid the same argument would surely apply if people didn't want their taxes spent on anything the govt chooses like education, the police, Europe etc. That would not be workable and is one of the crosses we bear living in a democracy. dl

Telf

Not really, food vouchers would actually (more likely to) go on food, cash would go on **** and Sky tv. We haven't even got Sky - waste of money - oh, and we are at work so don't need crap daytime tv.
Rant over, except I'm in the Armed Forces so will be out of a job in 2 years, instead of making a career out of it! Thanks for nothing Government.

Leslie

I am sorry about your situation in the Services. Maybe things might change with luck.

Les

fast bloke

Well done on realising that your post was going to be 'dikish' no matter how carefully you phrased it. This is what happens when you form opinions based on having no knowledge. So you don't know why I have included Iraq and Afghanistan as a juxtaposition to your theory that if we send enough aid to a country, we won't have to go to war with them. Starting in 1970, we have sent just about as much 'aid' to these two countries than anywhere else. Then we armed Iraq to fight Iran, and armed Afghanistan to fight Russia.... all paid for by my tax contributions. Eventually, it became clear that the aid wasn't keeping them on our team, so 'we' decided to invade them. Unfortunately, invading Afghanistan (or wiping out the Taliban) is a bit tricky, mostly because they were all trained by the SAS. Invading Iraq was straightforward, but imposing our system of democracy on them is causing a bit of angst. So, if we count up all the aid sent to these two countries, add on the cost of training and arming them against countries we considered to be enemies, add on cost of trying to invade them or clean them up, and condider the result of our efforts, the net result is that we have wasted around 250 billion pounds moving two countries in political turmoil towards being two countries in political turmoil, but now they hate us instead of each other. Did we bring peace? Did we bring progress? Did we spank a pile of cash making it just like it was when we started? Could that cash now be used to benefit the people who earned it?