Foriegn Aid :-- Discuss

Pross

johnfinch wrote:

BarryBonds wrote:

EKE your liberal self hating politics dont interest me but in answer to your question yes all of them.

You'll be chucking my Hungarian girlfriend out over my dead body.

Is that legal? Think I saw some sort of "special interest" film that had a similar plot once

I can't believe some people are still getting hooked by BarryBonds! :shock:

Cressers

"There is a sense that if you're poor, you deserve it."

An attitude increasingly prevalent in the UK, and we're becoming an increasingly unequal society...

Yossie

johnfinch wrote:

dmclite wrote:

My post was firmly in cheek, BTW.

Foreign aid is used in many ways and is a good thing. We do not realise how good we have it in the UK and should thank our lucky stars we live here .

Too late, you're on my black list of suspected Nazis.

And there have it peeps: Godwin's Rule in action, albeit tongue in cheek.

And who says that this here forum isn't scientific and is just plain dumb, eh.

CyclingBantam

markos1963 wrote:

No to countries with nuclear/space programs but I have no problem with aid to poor countries. I especially applaude the vaccination program announced.
We tend to forget we live in a very rich country compared to most and what we regard as poor in this country is super rich elsewhere.

+100

I had an argument with a friend a while ago who said I wasn't living in the real world when I said that compared to a lot of countries even some of the poorest people here (excluding the absolute extremes) are filthy rich compared to other people.

My point was that anyone who can afford to buy a newspaper is very well off compared to others in the world. 20p you can simply throw away in effect.

I have no issue with us giving large amounts of aid to countries tht need it and are spending their own money as well (i.e. not on space programmes). Other countries not giving is totally irrelavent IMO.

bearfraser

Lets just buy them all Condoms

EKE_38BPM

bearfraser wrote:

Lets just buy them all Condoms

Or lube and Poppers.

EKIMIKE

The target we signed up to is 0.7% of GNI/GDP. That was in 1970. In 2007 we were still nowhere near 0.7%. I don't know where the newest increase takes us to in respect of the target but i think 0.7% is an entirely reasonable figure.

I'm very much pro development aid. However there is alot to be improved upon in the distribution of that aid, and i mean alot. There is an awful lot of 'bad' aid, but that shouldn't overshadow the truly remarkable projects that are changing things for the poorest or the poor in this world.

Those who are calling for a complete abolition of the aid budget are IMO the scum of this earth (or mentally retarded). I would even question whether they have actually given more than a moments thought to the consequences of such action.

MrChuck

EKIMIKE wrote:

. I would even question whether they have actually given more than a moments thought to the consequences of such action.

Well, this is the internet, where the result of 10 seconds idle speculation on any given subject trumps years of serious study.

Anonymous

johnfinch wrote:

dmclite wrote:

My post was firmly in cheek, BTW.

Foreign aid is used in many ways and is a good thing. We do not realise how good we have it in the UK and should thank our lucky stars we live here .

Too late, you're on my black list of suspected Nazis.

Ich Bien Busted. :shock:

rake

the question should be are we wrong to be giving so much more aid than other countries during hard times.

rick_chasey

rake wrote:

the question should be are we wrong to be giving so much more aid than other countries during hard times.

I'd be very surprised if the UK gives proportionally more than any Northern or Western European nation.

Yossie

dmclite wrote:

My post was firmly in cheek, BTW.
.

Hmmmmm - are you sure?

And I'm sorry guys, but £21 billion, the grand scheme of things, actually isn't very much at all.

Basically 1 Bill Gates and 1 Abramovich combined?

The stuff I play with at work is worth millions and millions so £21 billion doesn't really fase me.

It also isn't really a lot when you look at the annual UK economy that is worth £6.7 trillion (UK stats agency).

And as above - we give out £21 billion: what's the return on that re trade, diplomacy, foreign influence, etc, etc. Probably the same, if not more.......

rick_chasey

Yossie wrote:

The stuff I play with at work is worth millions and millions so £21 billion doesn't really fase me.

Alright, show off!

Yossie

Hey, I might work with all this really expensive stuff, but it doesn't help me spell "faze" correctly though, does it?

<Exits stage left>

Anyway, at the end of the day, whether its worth a pound or a million pounds, I still can't afford any of it and when you break it you still end up hiding it at the bottom of the nearest bin and blaming on it the new lad......

snailracer

markos1963 wrote:

No to countries with nuclear/space programs but I have no problem with aid to poor countries. I especially applaude the vaccination program announced.
We tend to forget we live in a very rich country compared to most and what we regard as poor in this country is super rich elsewhere.

We do indeed live in a very rich country.
In many other poorer countries (and not so long ago here in the UK) education and healthcare are actually considered unaffordable luxuries - therefore those states do not fund them.

Yossie

Errandum: I've just had a quick squiz around, and the UK foreign aid budget for 2011 is actually £7.7 billion, not £21 billion, so less than one Abramovich. The level of aid to India has also been frozen for 2011 (source: UK govt aid agency).

My caveat is that it was only a brief look around so I could be wrong, but if so, hey, its peanuts. Seriously: peanuts. Apologies if it is the wrong figure.

Either way, £21 billion is still only peanuts in the grand scale of things