Turn on thread page Beta

Government shoul give money to rich countries not poor countries watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont like the idea of the government giving any money to anyone outside the UK but its got to be done as part of secretive deals for oil and so on. So i think we should give the aid to developed countries because they will put it to a useful cause such as space travel or cancer research. If you give money to poor countries then they dont spend it on anything constructive that changes society because the only people that see it are the dictators.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No. Just no. :facepalm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Argument 1; poor people need the money for aid etc/education, medicine, food

    Argument 2; would you let these poor people die or something

    Argument 3; you are selfish blablabla

    Argument 4; most of the money is put into armies etc instead of research so why not take it out that if we don't care about other countries since we don't need to advocate 'democracy'

    argument 5; I couldn't give a ****.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    However, rich countries by definition don't need the money
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Arguement 6: Troll.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Instincts_2012)
    Arguement 6: Troll.
    Arguement 7: Failtroll
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Please shut up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No, no, no and ...... no.

    Nuff said.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I dont like the idea of the government giving any money to anyone outside the UK but c and so on. So i think we should give the aid to developed countries because they will put it to a useful cause such as space travel or cancer research. If you give money to poor countries then they dont spend it on anything constructive that changes society because the only people that see it are the dictators.

    I don't have the time to waste to give a full-scale retort and counter-argument, but just wanted to point out the stupidity and invalidity of your argument through a few of your own words:

    "its got to be done as part of secretive deals for oil." The fact that you have no evidence for this proves your entire argument lacks cohesion and validity. It also emphasises the lack of thought that went to writing this and the sheer amount of supposition that this post must have been based on....

    Also, you write like a 12 year old; have you ever heard of the comma?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spazman21)
    I don't have the time to waste to give a full-scale retort and counter-argument, but just wanted to point out the stupidity and invalidity of your argument through a few of your own words:

    "its got to be done as part of secretive deals for oil." The fact that you have no evidence for this proves your entire argument lacks cohesion and validity. It also emphasises the lack of thought that went to writing this and the sheer amount of supposition that this post must have been based on....

    Also, you write like a 12 year old; have you ever heard of the comma?
    Its an internet message board, if you don't like it don't read it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spazman21)
    I don't have the time to waste to give a full-scale retort and counter-argument, but just wanted to point out the stupidity and invalidity of your argument through a few of your own words:

    "its got to be done as part of secretive deals for oil." The fact that you have no evidence for this proves your entire argument lacks cohesion and validity. It also emphasises the lack of thought that went to writing this and the sheer amount of supposition that this post must have been based on....

    Also, you write like a 12 year old; have you ever heard of the comma?
    He's right to say that the primary motivations for giving aid aren't humanitarian, though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The government should give money to rich countries so they can find ways to beat the energy crisis or something.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    If you give money to poor countries then they dont spend it on anything constructive that changes society because the only people that see it are the dictators.
    Since when ALL poor countries are ruled by dictators????...

    You are making very little sense and your argument is ridiculously weak.
    Even the title sounds wrong...

    Give more money to the rich and none to the poor....just :facepalm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We've gave billions to poor people in africa and whats changed...nothing. We give a few million to india and look what they've done with it...only started a space programme. I rest my case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This was commented on the Wright Stuff this morning. The UK government gives money (i.e., aid) to India to the poor for schools and education, and India spends their own money developing Nuclear facilities. It's a vicious circle. We seem to be helping these undeveloped countries develop technologies which in the future could lead to catastrophes. Simply this: stop giving them money, and then they can spend their own money on schools and education.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    We've gave billions to poor people in africa and whats changed...nothing. We give a few million to india and look what they've done with it...only started a space programme. I rest my case.
    India isn't a developed country so you don't really have a case.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What's the point in giving money to countries who don't need it? They've got the money and resources for all the scientific advancements they want. It's not a lack of money that's stopping them from succeeding...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    We've gave billions to poor people in africa and whats changed...nothing. We give a few million to india and look what they've done with it...only started a space programme. I rest my case.
    India has a 61% literacy rate (only 47% for women) and 25% of the population is below the poverty line. What good is a space programme going to do for them? And as someone already said India isn't a developed country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by floralia)
    India has a 61% literacy rate (only 47% for women) and 25% of the population is below the poverty line. What good is a space programme going to do for them? And as someone already said India isn't a developed country.
    its more developed then some of the people in africa who still chuck spears at people. For example rawkes drift.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
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.