Foreign aid are you for or against it.

[fruitpiecats]

 the 0.7% we pay in our taxes towards foreign aid   
a person on an income of £25,000 pays £5,465 in tax, of which £52 a year would go to the overseas aid budget. That is the cost of buying a loaf of bread a week, do you begrudge the starving of the world that or not. 

[cee-dee]

Much of the "starving" World wouldn't be so if they stopped fighting each other, forgot about religion and dealt with corruption.

[fruitpiecats]

Victims of catastrophes
Every year floods, droughts, earthquakes and other natural disasters as well as armed conflicts cause widespread destruction and force families to abandon their homes and farms. Victims of catastrophes are often faced with the threat not just of hunger but of outright starvation.

[joe_bloggs*]

Good article by Bill Gates in the mail of all papers!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2294674/Bill-Gates-Yes-I-furious-foreign-aid-wasted-But-Br...

I read a few of the comments after the article,this was one:

And long may it continue that we save lives. The proof is there by the amount of money raised on red nose day, brilliant! When I rang to donate our donation the lady who took the details was most thankful for our money to which I replied 'no it was our pleasure and long may it be so'.

- Yorky Jen , Shropshire, 17/3/2013 08:06

Click to rate     Rating   182

It was voted down 182 times,

It was voted down 182 times,what a sad world,others say it should be spent at home,trouble is when stories appear about the suffering caused by the bedroom tax,cuts to disabled people etc,very few of them raise their voice in protest,unless it affects them,we have become a very selfish and greedy society

[tommy.irene]

Im not against aid to people who needs it..but the money goes into peoples pockets READ the thread below this one..

Hes only saying what people are thinking. 

[merehazle]

You say: 'Foreign aid are you for it or against it'?   

Perhaps, let them decide a more ''specific'' answer if they wish ...

Well why start another thread on it?

It only confuses the matter. As he says: 'read the thread below this one' 

'He only saying what people are thinking' 

About 90% of the Mail on line comments agree with him too. About 1,700 the last time I looked. (have a look)

Feels like the old RT on there.... ALIVE!!!     ............

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I think you have to ask yourself "Why would governments be interested in giving away money to other countries?"  There must be a reason other than human compassion, cos human compassion cuts little ice in the business of government.

If we did not give aid, it could work out more expensive.  Just as benefits are paid out cos it is cheaper to do so than to actually create a society in which everyone has a role to play and a stake in the future, so giving "aid" keeps some problems where they are, ie miles and miles and miles from our shores.  Without aid, would there be more global migration, which works out costly for countries with universal benefit systems?  Without aid, would extremeist religious groups gain a greater hold in poverty-stricken regions, causing terrorist and uprising issues down the line?  Without aid, would poorer countries be able to afford to buy weapons from us (which is very big business here)? 

Individuals may be compassionate and give for ultruistice reasons.  Governments have different agendas altogether.

[cee-dee]

Up to a point, that was a well-thought out response.

However, when people "give" for so long, it get's taken for granted and in the end, the recipients always turn on those who gave. Their thoughts are "If they're daft enough to give it to us, we're clever enough to take it".

Also, instead of getting stuck in and helping themselves, the recipient peoples always seem to be "governed" by those well-schooled in helping themselves to what was given.

Even when Aid is in kind, it seems to get creamed off by one group or another. Food aid is being re-sold right now if you take the trouble to look.

The sad thing is, there's those countries with practices stuck in the 15th century (or even 1000 years before) but having some weapons of the 21st century all financed by "Aid". Take a look at their basic infrastructure, the roads, the water supplies and sanitation and what do you see? = Things that they could have done for themselves long ago!

Aid is given and what do they do with it? = Waste it.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Up to a point, that was a well-thought out response.

---

Steady, CD.  That is almost a compliment. 

And, in fairness to me, my post was not intended to encompass issues around what is done with the aid once given.  It was purely looking at the "why do governments want to give?" aspect.

[cee-dee]

True, but my comments were a follow on from what you said, illustrating that the strategy doesn't work.

No matter what you originally intended or wanted to happen, users will do what they think in the end.

You can see the same sort of thing with the Answer Centre. Ebay think one thing, good idea, but the users do something different to what was intended.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

True, but my comments were a follow on from what you said, illustrating that the strategy doesn't work.

---

Fair enough!

Re the strategy not working, again you have to ask the questions "Why are governments willing to go on giving aid when it gets diverted by corruption, used for arms etc? ... and the answer is, that is working, as far as they are concerned.  They need 3rd world countries to be fighting each other, as that generates business.  They need corrupt leaders, as corruption filters the money back to the West.

If any aid-receiving country really got its act together, stamping out corruption and making sure the money reached the poor, who were then able to feed their families and trade surplus amongst themselves, etc, a money-stream to the West would be cut off.  And, you can bet, aid would stop flowing in their direction. 

[choughed1]

I believe that we should make ONE more donation to foreign aid and buy a plane load of condoms for each of the countries on the list and send them over for them to use . When I hear on the news of refugees fleeing a country because of drought or famine or war and the womenn saying that they have lost 5 of their 12 children on the way it totaly puts me off giving anything to charity . They have droughts , floods , famine and wars there all the time they KNOW its going to come they KNOW there wont be enough food or water for them so why the   *&&^*  do they have that many children . Because they KNOW thet the Brits and other westerners will bale them out .

[not-another-one]

Foreign Aid.

The act of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Birth control isn't quite so simple for many women who live in poverty though.  They don't have the same opportunities to intervene in the process that women in richer societies enjoy.  And religion rears its head too.  The poor are a captive audience for the idea that there is a better life to come after this one.

Plus, throughout history, women have had many children in order that a couple will reach adulthood.  There is nothing new in this, and it is pretty much the formula adopted (albeit subconsciously) by richer societies.  We have less children here because their chances of survival is high.  Again, religion interferes to skew the numbers amongst followers, of course.

Reliable, safe birth control across the planet would solve many, many problems.  It isn't likely to happen though, for historic, genetic and religious reasons. 

[blackburn_stevie]

Can I just have a little rant while I'm here?

Have you seen the advert for something called Water Aid where some bloke tugs your heart strings by showing you video of some poor kids drinking contaminated water "because they have no choice." Even worse is the mother feeding her baby with the same water, "because she has no choice.".

It's lies. Pure and simple. Most of the bugs and impurities could be taken out of the water by sieving it through a T-shirt or some other material with a close weave. The rest could be got rid of by boiling water used for drinking.

[merehazle]

CORRUPTION!!!

Most of the bugs could be taken out if we take out the buggers! who don't care a bugger! We should have been supplying aid by sending GOODS only! as tracing ''corruption'' would be much,much easier. And for many decades now our industries would have reaped the benifit rather than say France, or any country being paid with our money to manufacture what we could have done. Our daft irresponsible politicians just could not see it could they..I wonder why?  With the billions and billions sent in cash over many decades water and it's purification should surely be the last problem. Boiling water and sieving it through a T shirt? I see! that's what those in their '''palaces'' might need to do to? Send them GOODS only...and see as we would have seen long ago...a boost to our industries.

Well that's my opinion  

[Anonymous]

hi merehazle, thats why imho overseas aid should be stopped and the money spent on our needy. as a kid i was always told to sort your own house out first, and as a taxpayer thats how it should be. to oftern on the tv we see help this and that country and mothers beside unkempt kids with the mothers looking great in tidy clothing with no sign of their menfolk. so to answer the o/p i would be against.