Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dhesi)
    Democracy has always involved(for most people) picking the lesser of three evils. Anyway Im going for dinner, might rejoin this debate later on tonight.
    If that was the case, the parties of today would have the same platform as the parties of a century ago.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Since always? Say there are two people in a country, and one wants to build a hospital. If he creates a government and taxes everyone equally to pay for the hospital (meaning he pays half and the other person pays half), despite the other person not wanting the hospital, will this person not be spending someone else's money?



    So your version of democracy calls for blindly accepting the "lesser of two (or perhaps three) evils" without being able to eliminate the evil? It's very democratic to say, "we'll do whatever the people want; here are the three choices for the peopel to pick from, anything else is out of the question."
    By that logic most of my money is actually Tesco's money as they were the ones who gave it to me. Come on, tax is there for the government to spend - it's the state's money, not "ours".

    Doesn't the fact that no major political party would stop foreign aid tell you something? And that those that do tend to be racist and reactionary? I understand you points that some foreign aid is poorly managed but the idea of cutting it all off is just small-minded and reminds me of middle-aged men who talk crap loudly in pubs
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    By that logic most of my money is actually Tesco's money as they were the ones who gave it to me. Come on, tax is there for the government to spend - it's the state's money, not "ours".
    No, Tesco willingly gave you the money. You don't have a choice on whether to pay taxes. Try it.

    Doesn't the fact that no major political party would stop foreign aid tell you something? And that those that do tend to be racist and reactionary? I understand you points that some foreign aid is poorly managed but the idea of cutting it all off is just small-minded and reminds me of middle-aged men who talk crap loudly in pubs
    That it's a politically cool thing to do and that the general population does not understand the economics of the situation? No one's suggesting cutting off all aid. Aid should still be given for emergency food operations and to prevent diseases. But this isn't the type of aid this thread is about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    By that logic most of my money is actually Tesco's money as they were the ones who gave it to me. Come on, tax is there for the government to spend - it's the state's money, not "ours".

    Doesn't the fact that no major political party would stop foreign aid tell you something? And that those that do tend to be racist and reactionary? I understand you points that some foreign aid is poorly managed but the idea of cutting it all off is just small-minded and reminds me of middle-aged men who talk crap loudly in pubs
    Yeah, and WE are the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Since when is it ethical to give away someone else's money?
    Quite possibly the stupidest dismissal I've ever encountered. If you walk past a small child in the street who is starving to death and you have £50 in your wallet and a sandwich in your hand, would you refuse to help them?

    Would you giving money to a homeless person if you were fairly certain that it would feed his drug addiction and make it even less likely that he'll kick the habit?
    Africans aren't drug addicts. Don't totally distort the situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We need to help Africa to stand on their own feet and not just loan them a hand for a second or two.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is brown using UK taxpayer money to further his political career.
    Sucking up to al the big UN political players by signing over billions of our tax £s to their World development goals.
    A real good starting point for the future Labour party leader showing his committment to the UK, not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam83)
    This is brown using UK taxpayer money to further his political career.
    Sucking up to al the big UN political players by signing over billions of our tax £s to their World development goals.
    A real good starting point for the future Labour party leader showing his committment to the UK, not.
    Ah, but he's simultaneously singing the praises of British identity and calling for more patriotism! He's got all his bases covered.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Quite possibly the stupidest dismissal I've ever encountered. If you walk past a small child in the street who is starving to death and you have £50 in your wallet and a sandwich in your hand, would you refuse to help them?
    If you were walking past a starving child and had no money in your pocket, would you force someone else to give him 50 pounds at gunpoint?

    Africans aren't drug addicts. Don't totally distort the situation.
    No, but the rulers are "corruption addicts".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    You think that these problems are down to underfunding? The NHS gets about £246m a day and you think it's problems could be solved by throwing more money at it? You think that if this tiny amount (and it is tiny by government standards) was not sent to Africa the UK would suddenly improve tenfold?
    I expected this.

    The NHS gets £246m a day? So what? What does that show? Perhaps the NHS spends £500m a day... I get your point, perhaps money management needs to be improved but I doubt that's the only reason the NHS isn't performing well. Besides, if the NHS was running perfectly the £8.5 Billion could be spent on something else like schools etc etc

    Andrew
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Ah, but he's simultaneously singing the praises of British identity and calling for more patriotism! He's got all his bases covered.
    I noticed that, yes, but he doesnt fool me
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    a better way to help africa would be to stop all aid. short term pain would result in long term gain. frankly the continent can't support the amounts of people there are and they'd then be forced to sort it out for themselves rather than breeding like rabbits and waiting for the cargo planes to turn up.

    frankly the "rich" have been pouring money into africa for decades and its result in diddlysquat. its still the basket case full of dictators, civil war, disease and abject poverty. this will NEVER change as long as the rich countries continue wasting money on the issues. the cure is NO money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    a better way to help africa would be to stop all aid. short term pain would result in long term gain. frankly the continent can't support the amounts of people there are and they'd then be forced to sort it out for themselves rather than breeding like rabbits and waiting for the cargo planes to turn up.

    frankly the "rich" have been pouring money into africa for decades and its result in diddlysquat. its still the basket case full of dictators, civil war, disease and abject poverty. this will NEVER change as long as the rich countries continue wasting money on the issues. the cure is NO money.
    Welcome reality. Please introduce yourself to the rest of the participants, because apparently they haven't had a chance to meet you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The cure is most certainly not more money. The cure would be to manage these countries far more economically and refuse to allow corrupt governments to get their hands on the money. I understand that this however would be difficult, but not impossible.
    Education certainly sounds like long term gain to me. Give a man a fish he eats for the day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

    Mike
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dhesi)
    The cure is most certainly not more money. The cure would be to manage these countries far more economically and refuse to allow corrupt governments to get their hands on the money. I understand that this however would be difficult, but not impossible.
    Education certainly sounds like long term gain to me. Give a man a fish he eats for the day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

    Mike
    Except that education is not the key. Look at China and India. Africa can only compete on the low value added products for now, which don't require education. That does require cutting the red tape, corruption, and statist policies that almost all African countries are known for. Only once that's accomplished can Africa think about education.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    Welcome reality. Please introduce yourself to the rest of the participants, because apparently they haven't had a chance to meet you.
    No-one's disputing that giving aid is not going to solve the problems in Africa. There are obviously serious policy changes needed to accomplish long term changes. But while you can arrogantly belittle people who aren't agreeing with you, have you even bothered to consider the human consequences of cutting aid altogether? It would be a humanitarian disaster. So it's not a realistic option.

    What, may I ask do you think the reasons are for the government giving aid to Africa if, in your eyes it is so futile?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Randomiser)
    Tax is mandatory. It's a system that works, though we may question it.

    And, once tax is paid, it is the governments money to do with as they wish.
    That doesn't mean that all things funded by tax are inherently "right", does it?

    So using it to assist Africa is there perogative. Also, I'm pretty sure a little research will help you find that even more is spent on solving internal problems, including that of local poverty.
    I don't doubt that it is. So?

    Basically you lot are doing a good deed without even having to lifet a finger, or make the slightest of effort other than go about your daily business.
    A good deed that some people may not want to do. It doesn't affect the average joe on the street directly or indirectly, so in what way does that help the people of the UK? That is what tax is for, afterall, so the government can perform their duties of serving the people of the UK.

    And to think, all this hard work and you're ensuring the future of a nation.
    Rubbish. How much aid in the past has been wasted by corrupt leaderships?

    What possible justification can you have for forcing people to give away their own money to people they've never met for a benefit they'll never reap instead of letting them chose whether they want to on their own? This isn't a grand public service like the NHS, or a needed institute like the military, both of which would fall apart if you could opt out of funding via tax (well, the NHS could arguably, but that's for another day) - this is totally out of the realm of the mandate of our government (because whatever you say, it's not "their" money, it's ours), this is an "extra" to be given once all our problems are solved - something which they certainly are not.

    I felt the same about the Tsunami donations - I don't want the suits in Westminster telling me how much to "donate".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    No-one's disputing that giving aid is not going to solve the problems in Africa. There are obviously serious policy changes needed to accomplish long term changes. But while you can arrogantly belittle people who aren't agreeing with you, have you even bothered to consider the human consequences of cutting aid altogether? It would be a humanitarian disaster. So it's not a realistic option.

    What, may I ask do you think the reasons are for the government giving aid to Africa if, in your eyes it is so futile?
    Why would it be a humanitarian disaster? The aid in question is developmental, not humanitarian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why would it be a humanitarian disaster? The aid in question is developmental, not humanitarian.
    Well the social consequences of missing out on education and just letting African children squander their oppurtunities are...well bad.

    To be honest though this seems like a bit a ploy to educate people in professional careers like medicine and then poaching them to support our own public services. So those of you angry that the tax money is being spent outside the UK, look at this like a cynical investment on our behalf.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Well the social consequences of missing out on education and just letting African children squander their oppurtunities are...well bad.

    To be honest though this seems like a bit a ploy to educate people in professional careers like medicine and then poaching them to support our own public services. So those of you angry that the tax money is being spent outside the UK, look at this like a cynical investment on our behalf.
    Has foreign aid ever significantly improved the education system of the recipient country? If you build the schools for them, who's going to maintain them? By building the schools, you'll be drastically increasing demand for construction workers, thus raising the price they charge, making it impossible for natives to hire these workers. Where will you get the teachers in the extra schools? How will you make sure that all the school supplies make it to the students? How are you going to get parents to send a major source of income (i.e. their children) to school? Reality is always more complex than utopia.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.