[muddywaters51]

Why should your tax money be spend on foreign charities. If people insist we need charities in Britain like welfare then the money should go there. People shouldnt be forced into giving to charities like welfare anyway but if they are it certainly shouldnt be for foreign charities. If you want to give money to Rwanda then go right ahead but dont spend our tax money on that.

By the way Rwanda are actually not doing too bad right now. They seem stable right now.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ras90)
Ofcourse wages would fall if you reduce the working week.

All we need is better organisation of manufacturing and curtailing the profit motive. It is profit and maximising of profit that drives wages down more often than not, in my view. What we need is a degree of sensible organisation in the production of manufacturing. Of course, we don't produce like we used to. We are a service and finance driven economy. But we should at least end over-working, and get people into jobs. Not easy in a Capitalist system though, so I guess my theory would not work.

[ras90]

(Original post by Martyn*)
All we need is better organisation of manufacturing and curtailing the profit motive. It is profit and maximising of profit that drives wages down more often than not, in my view. What we need is a degree of sensible organisation in the production of manufacturing. Of course, we don't produce like we used to. We are a service and finance driven economy. But we should at least end over-working, and get people into jobs. Not easy in a Capitalist system though, so I guess my theory would not work.

Ofcourse it wouldn't work, i dont mean to cause offense but you sound like them stupid hippy idiots that were at the wallstreet camp in New York.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The increase in welfare bills is as a reaction to the failures of the Capitalist system; if we reduced the working week then maybe there would be more jobs; keep production in-toe, have better organisation, and the wages would not have to come down. Instead, people are either over-worked (and under-paid in some cases) or not working at all. Besides, people are not necessarily on the dole because they choose to be. When there is no work, one can you do?

Once again you have dodged my question. Are you dependent on welfare by any chance? Your solution is incredibly simplistic and indeed idiotic.

But I will ask again:

What do you mean by "lifting people out of poverty" "easing them into jobs"?

If people who cannot fend for themselves in Africa are not entitled to any money, then why the hell are welfare dependents here who don't work entitled to a penny, let alone the comfortable lifestyle they get?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Once again you have dodged my question. Are you dependent on welfare by any chance? Your solution is incredibly simplistic and indeed idiotic.

But I will ask again:

What do you mean by "lifting people out of poverty" "easing them into jobs"?

If people who cannot fend for themselves in Africa are not entitled to any money, then why the hell are welfare dependents here who don't work entitled to a penny, let alone the comfortable lifestyle they get?

I am dependent on welfare like the majority of people in this town. What's idiotic? How is organisation idiotic? How is reducing the working week to allow more jobs to circulate idiotic? It just isn't. It may well benefit society.

In answer to your question: We have a welfare state here in this country. It looks after its people when the people cannot support themselves for whatever reason. Giving money away to other nations at a time when the welfare system is under attack by upper class toffs, and when unemployment is staggeringly high, is unacceptable. People in Africa might well need help, but then so do we. But politicians seem more interested in spreading their influence in foreign policy. Many people are crying out for help here too but are getting ignored by the politicians they elect, and who are supposed to represent them.

Now that's what I call idiotic.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ras90)
Ofcourse it wouldn't work, i dont mean to cause offense but you sound like them stupid hippy idiots that were at the wallstreet camp in New York.

Explain?

[Octohedral]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Once again you have dodged my question. Are you dependent on welfare by any chance? Your solution is incredibly simplistic and indeed idiotic.

But I will ask again:

What do you mean by "lifting people out of poverty" "easing them into jobs"?

If people who cannot fend for themselves in Africa are not entitled to any money, then why the hell are welfare dependents here who don't work entitled to a penny, let alone the comfortable lifestyle they get?

Firstly, you are assuming that the welfare state has the intention of giving people alcohol and cigarette money. This is not the case. The welfare system is there to stop people starving - just look at Britain before we had it, there are accounts of people found dead with mouths full of hay, which is as bad as anything in Africa. Administrationally, it is not possible or cost-effective to stop people taking advantage, but I promise you there are a significant number who don't drink, don't smoke, genuinely can't work, and would be on the street otherwise.

Secondly, you seem determined to get rid of the concept of 'country'. If we forget the idea of charity for a moment, and look at it as a business model, money we give to benefits people will go straight back into the British economy, whilst money to Africa is lost. You can be an idealist, but the fact is that our futures and our childrens' futures are far more interconnected than they are with those of foreigners. People born in peace time forget that countries can collapse in a matter of a few years. During a recession it makes far more sense for us to concentrate on ourselves, and then during the good times we can afford to be more generous.

Finally, a lot of African charity needs re-thinking, so that the money goes directly to the people, not corrupt officials, or PR gimmicks. A "Conservative Party social action project" sounds a bit dodgy to me.

I'm not saying you are completely wrong, but I think these points are worth considering.

[Nightstar-27]

(Original post by Sdiff)
So let me get this straight.

The government needs to take money from people who are serving, producing and innovating to create a product that improves peoples lives.

It needs to take this money and give it to people who do absolutely nothing so they can have alcohol, cigarettes, a flatscreen TV, sky sports, medicine etc., despite he fact that these people had huge opportunities afforded to them.

Yet it should not give any money to people who were never afforded such opportunities and are starving.

Is that correct?

And they say us Tories are greedy.

You're arguing a different thing to the OP and before you ask, I agree with you. The benefit system is flawed but then again not everyone is on benefits cause they want to be either, some are actively trying to find work and some people actually are too ill or disabled to work (ie a cancer patient) and they should be supported.

[StacFace]

Personally I think each country's government has a responsibility to their own country first and should then look at giving aid to other countries afterwards. The UK government is not the world government and although it's nice to help out others you sort out your own responsibilites first. A bit similar to, for example, a waitress taking out food before they help the struggling potwasher.

This isn't an argument against giving aid altogether, nor am I saying whether the government is/isn't in a position to give aid or to where or how much. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the 'why isn't the person in Africa entitled?' argument.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Martyn*)
...in the world.'

Says Tory toff Andrew Mitchell.

What?! The budget is supposed to be for the country. What has 'the world' got to do with it?

We are too busy sorting out the world, when we should be concentrating all our resources into getting people IN THIS COUNTRY into jobs and out of poverty.

But what do we expect of these traitors...(according to Wiki: ) founder of Project Umubano, a Conservative Party social action project in Rwanda and Sierra Leone in central and west Africa, launched in 2007.

Too busy saving the world whilst our country desparately needs attention.

What do you think of the concept of small, local, sustainable economies replacing globalisation?

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I agree that we need to get this country on track. But that will be done by allowing the private sector to thrive, NOT by funnelling more money into welfare or the public sector.

Problem being that when the private sector thrives it outsources more and more creating unemployment. This country has never had 100% employment and probably never will have so what is the point in criticising people who are unemployed? You will just pass the baton surely.

[ras90]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Explain?

As they were saying "we want responsible capitalism, why does anybody need to earn more than 2 million dollers etc"

They wanted concepts that do not work in real life.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by ras90)
As they were saying "we want responsible capitalism, why does anybody need to earn more than 2 million dollers etc"

They wanted concepts that do not work in real life.

Bingo. That's the problem with the left, and why whenever a country has a left-wing government it more often than not ends in chaos.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ras90)
As they were saying "we want responsible capitalism, why does anybody need to earn more than 2 million dollers etc"

They wanted concepts that do not work in real life.

You're exaggerating.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Bingo. That's the problem with the left, and why whenever a country has a left-wing government it more often than not ends in chaos.

And when we have a right wing government there is genocide, war, oppression and tyranny.

[ras90]

(Original post by Martyn*)
You're exaggerating.

That is what they said, how am I exaggerating?

[JacobW]

But Martyn*, surely nation states are just artificial constructs designed by the global capitalist class to provide an outlet for false consciousness and prevent proletarian solidarity?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I am dependent on welfare like the majority of people in this town. What's idiotic? How is organisation idiotic? How is reducing the working week to allow more jobs to circulate idiotic? It just isn't. It may well benefit society.

In answer to your question: We have a welfare state here in this country. It looks after its people when the people cannot support themselves for whatever reason. Giving money away to other nations at a time when the welfare system is under attack by upper class toffs, and when unemployment is staggeringly high, is unacceptable. People in Africa might well need help, but then so do we. But politicians seem more interested in spreading their influence in foreign policy. Many people are crying out for help here too but are getting ignored by the politicians they elect, and who are supposed to represent them.

Now that's what I call idiotic.

So in conclusion: You want the government to stop providing scraps of food to people who would otherwise die, because you are not satisfied with the amount of money you get for doing nothing.

Is it fair me to conclude that you are simply greedy?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ras90)
That is what they said, how am I exaggerating?

I do not think that they all think that way.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
So in conclusion: You want the government to stop providing scraps of food to people who would otherwise die, because you are not satisfied with the amount of money you get for doing nothing.

Is it fair me to conclude that you are simply greedy?

I want the government to prioritise and delegate better.