Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"muslims????? i though india was predominatley hindu and pakistan was muslim isnt that what partition was about?" Just making fun of the OP. His standard conclusion is that Muslims did it". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"muslims????? i though india was predominatley hindu and pakistan was muslim isnt that what partition was about?" Very true, never let the truth get in the way of a good rumour though.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" This is a colonization and looting bill  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers " Why the change of tack? All your previous posts were, fuck the kids, fuck the poor, fuck the NHS etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers Why the change of tack? All your previous posts were, fuck the kids, fuck the poor, fuck the NHS etc." Maybe the Brexit poison in their veins stopped flowing  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because I got what I want divorce from the eu dictatorship...the chavies was ironic comment ....I have always supported old and ex services.....for my own reasons ..but yes fuck poor people get a job and become richer ..." Ahhh. Normality is restored.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it." Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for." Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement." I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. " Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal. "I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works. You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world."Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january. "Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january.
Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? "That would mean the uk paying money into the eu coffers that is why Boris has said he will not extend and would be political suicide for him to agree to pay the eu anymore money its not rocket science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january.
Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? That would mean the uk paying money into the eu coffers that is why Boris has said he will not extend and would be political suicide for him to agree to pay the eu anymore money its not rocket science."It would be political suicide to leave the EU without a deal as well, and Johnson knows it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january.
Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? That would mean the uk paying money into the eu coffers that is why Boris has said he will not extend and would be political suicide for him to agree to pay the eu anymore money its not rocket science.
It would be political suicide to leave the EU without a deal as well, and Johnson knows it.
"Wow. So there are no good Brexit options. If only someone mentioned this before.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january.
Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? That would mean the uk paying money into the eu coffers that is why Boris has said he will not extend and would be political suicide for him to agree to pay the eu anymore money its not rocket science.
It would be political suicide to leave the EU without a deal as well, and Johnson knows it.
"thats your opinion, i can see tariffs working well for the uk . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Indian economy is still slightly smaller than the uk's. The gap has narrowed the last few years due to the devaluing of the pound, but the uk is still bigger and obviously per person gdp is much bigger. A lot foreign aid is used as a trade off for other things and often to help trade, it is one of the reasons even tory governments cut the foreign aid bill. I think the foreign aid budget will increase a lot in the next few years as we scramble for trade deals round the world If you want to see how foreign aid really works watch the episode of yes minister on it. Indeed. A trade deal with India will be easy. More foreign aid and freedom of movement included. Just as exactly none of the brexiters asked for.Dont you watch the news? there is a new immigration policy there will be no free movement. I clearly pay more attention than you do. One of the caveats linked to a UK-India trade deal is likely to be movement of citizens from India to the UK. Obviously you do will the uk agree to that caveat after announcing the immigration policy? i dont think so.Have the usa agreed to that in their trade deal.
I think the UK have set out their opening stance and India have set out theirs. Now when talks begin they will meet somewhere in the middle if they want a deal. That’s how trade works.
You seem to think that Johnson and his Kerry band of idiots won’t bend in anything when in reality they’re going to have to - we’re not a superpower and have to accept our new place in the world.Time will tell my friend we can continue this next january.
Next January after we’ve extended the transition period, you mean? That would mean the uk paying money into the eu coffers that is why Boris has said he will not extend and would be political suicide for him to agree to pay the eu anymore money its not rocket science.
It would be political suicide to leave the EU without a deal as well, and Johnson knows it.
thats your opinion, i can see tariffs working well for the uk . "Unlike pretty much every economist and business, then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. " The original poster raised a very valid point. Foreign aid should be via voluntary donations via organisations such as Christian Aid . In efforts to raise voluntary funding for foreign aid there would then have to be a much greater emphasis on the uses to which aid was being put. We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . As things stand the UK is one of the few countries in the EU that pays its quota in full. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . " The biggest problem imminently facing the care sector in the UK is a lack of carers, because of our decision to leave the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. The original poster raised a very valid point. Foreign aid should be via voluntary donations via organisations such as Christian Aid . In efforts to raise voluntary funding for foreign aid there would then have to be a much greater emphasis on the uses to which aid was being put. We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . As things stand the UK is one of the few countries in the EU that pays its quota in full. " it’s not foreign aid to some country’s its a trade bribe we are 5th richest economy but 2nd biggest donator of foreign aid WHY why do we give more than Germany or France or any European country we need to stop now and half it even quarter it we wuould still be giving more than most country’s need to sort out social care and the homeless out forst | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc" Sadly the government is no sooner interested in helping British people as it is in helping anyone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc Sadly the government is no sooner interested in helping British people as it is in helping anyone else. " probably right there but that’s sad when the priority isn’t there own ppl sort out our own before trying to sort out the rest of the world eh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because I got what I want divorce from the eu dictatorship...the chavies was ironic comment ....I have always supported old and ex services.....for my own reasons ..but yes fuck poor people get a job and become richer ..." Why can’t the ex services get a job? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. The original poster raised a very valid point. Foreign aid should be via voluntary donations via organisations such as Christian Aid . In efforts to raise voluntary funding for foreign aid there would then have to be a much greater emphasis on the uses to which aid was being put. We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . As things stand the UK is one of the few countries in the EU that pays its quota in full. " Yes the OP made a valid point. But then the racists threw the racist card about Muslims. The OP didn’t mention Muslims . Whilst India does have Muslims , they are certainly in the minority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. The original poster raised a very valid point. Foreign aid should be via voluntary donations via organisations such as Christian Aid . In efforts to raise voluntary funding for foreign aid there would then have to be a much greater emphasis on the uses to which aid was being put. We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . As things stand the UK is one of the few countries in the EU that pays its quota in full. Yes the OP made a valid point. But then the racists threw the racist card about Muslims. The OP didn’t mention Muslims . Whilst India does have Muslims , they are certainly in the minority. " I didn’t understand the Muslim comment either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Because their GDP per head is far lower. The money is spread more thinly. A relatively modest UK investment has a much more significant effect as GBP is still stronger and less inflationary than the Rupee. Aid is a foreign policy tool. It is also tied to the involvement of UK firms which opens trade relationships. Well done all of you thinking it through so hard | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc" You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? " Since 1980, uk foreign aid has been steadily increasing (adjusted for inflation) and is expected to increase in growth. These are OBR figures. 0.7% of gross national income goes on foreign aid. If it’s not the highest in the world ( and I think it probably is), it’s certainly in the top 3 countries in the world , per capita | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? Since 1980, uk foreign aid has been steadily increasing (adjusted for inflation) and is expected to increase in growth. These are OBR figures. 0.7% of gross national income goes on foreign aid. If it’s not the highest in the world ( and I think it probably is), it’s certainly in the top 3 countries in the world , per capita " And since 1980 our economy has grown steadily and we can afford to do so. But that doesn’t explain why out govt. has been cutting back on aid to homeless, elderly etc. Why is homelessness up around 180% since 2010, for example? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? " it’s round about 14 billion isn’t it I may be wrong it’s gone up yr on yr think we give more than Germany and France combined | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? it’s round about 14 billion isn’t it I may be wrong it’s gone up yr on yr think we give more than Germany and France combined " Germany and the UK are both in the top 5 for giving foreign aid - they’re roughly the same, behind the USA and surprisingly, China. Scandinavian countries and Holland all give more to foreign aid per capita than the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? Since 1980, uk foreign aid has been steadily increasing (adjusted for inflation) and is expected to increase in growth. These are OBR figures. 0.7% of gross national income goes on foreign aid. If it’s not the highest in the world ( and I think it probably is), it’s certainly in the top 3 countries in the world , per capita And since 1980 our economy has grown steadily and we can afford to do so. But that doesn’t explain why out govt. has been cutting back on aid to homeless, elderly etc. Why is homelessness up around 180% since 2010, for example?" The subject is foreign aid. Foreign aid. As in they title of the thread. As in you said aid was decreasing. Who mentioned the homeless , the elderly??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? it’s round about 14 billion isn’t it I may be wrong it’s gone up yr on yr think we give more than Germany and France combined Germany and the UK are both in the top 5 for giving foreign aid - they’re roughly the same, behind the USA and surprisingly, China. Scandinavian countries and Holland all give more to foreign aid per capita than the UK." WTF?. You say the UK is in the top 5 then you mention a load of other countries above us ??????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Why? We're still sending them cash because we can afford to. It's in the UK's economic interests to foster favourable relations with other large economies. Aid spending is a good way to do that. You could even claim it's the Christian thing to do. Certainly, it's not driving anyone in the UK into grinding poverty; the Government has lots of other policies that help that along. Perhaps if they taxed Amazon a bit more - even a fraction of a percentage, given the sums they deal in - they'd be able to help the poor abroad and in this country, too? The UK Government doesn't have a foreign aid budget just to upset Little Englanders and racist cunts. If their ranting was all the UK got from it, they wouldn't do it any more. Especially since it's so unpopular. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Why? We're still sending them cash because we can afford to. It's in the UK's economic interests to foster favourable relations with other large economies. Aid spending is a good way to do that. You could even claim it's the Christian thing to do. Certainly, it's not driving anyone in the UK into grinding poverty; the Government has lots of other policies that help that along. Perhaps if they taxed Amazon a bit more - even a fraction of a percentage, given the sums they deal in - they'd be able to help the poor abroad and in this country, too? The UK Government doesn't have a foreign aid budget just to upset Little Englanders and racist cunts. If their ranting was all the UK got from it, they wouldn't do it any more. Especially since it's so unpopular." omg so it’s racist to want to reduce foreign aid and spent the money on our own poor how the fuck does that make me a racist cunt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Strewth. Your ignorance, knows no bounds. I'm sure if you looked into this, for five minutes, you could find some answer. Just try looking any place other than your usual "the Muslims cause all the problems" websites. The original poster raised a very valid point. Foreign aid should be via voluntary donations via organisations such as Christian Aid . In efforts to raise voluntary funding for foreign aid there would then have to be a much greater emphasis on the uses to which aid was being put. We should be cutting back on foreign aid and using the reductions to fund care for the elderly in the UK. Anyone who believes that foreign aid is more important than care of the elderly in the UK can of course make voluntary donations to the relevant charities that they wish to support . As things stand the UK is one of the few countries in the EU that pays its quota in full. Yes the OP made a valid point. But then the racists threw the racist card about Muslims. The OP didn’t mention Muslims . Whilst India does have Muslims , they are certainly in the minority. " No, but he usually mentions Muslims. You seem confused between people who call out the racists on here. And the racists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"catch u later spurs are now on. "How did that work out mate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"catch u later spurs are now on.
How did that work out mate "not good.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you voted in the last General Election, for any of the major parties, you gave your consent to the UK maintaining its commitment to spend 0.7% of its Gross National Income on Foreign Aid. None of them oppose it. Even Boris hasn't swung the axe - yet. If you want him to, you'll have to force him to change the law; trust me, he won't do it just to please you. Btw, since the UK economy is doing so well, that 0.7% you don't want to part with is a growing pile of cash. It's possible to spend on foreign aid AND help our own poor at the same time; the Government just hasn't got round to it yet. Do you really think they'll stop spending on foreign aid when the economy is growing, most of us have jobs, austerity is over and they don't have to worry about the electorate for five years? That said, £14.6bn would be handy to cope with flooding. Time to shake that magic money tree again." maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? it’s round about 14 billion isn’t it I may be wrong it’s gone up yr on yr think we give more than Germany and France combined Germany and the UK are both in the top 5 for giving foreign aid - they’re roughly the same, behind the USA and surprisingly, China. Scandinavian countries and Holland all give more to foreign aid per capita than the UK. WTF?. You say the UK is in the top 5 then you mention a load of other countries above us ??????? " No. I understand the difference between total spend and per capita spend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc You mean all the aid that the uk govt. has been cutting back on for years? Since 1980, uk foreign aid has been steadily increasing (adjusted for inflation) and is expected to increase in growth. These are OBR figures. 0.7% of gross national income goes on foreign aid. If it’s not the highest in the world ( and I think it probably is), it’s certainly in the top 3 countries in the world , per capita And since 1980 our economy has grown steadily and we can afford to do so. But that doesn’t explain why out govt. has been cutting back on aid to homeless, elderly etc. Why is homelessness up around 180% since 2010, for example? The subject is foreign aid. Foreign aid. As in they title of the thread. As in you said aid was decreasing. Who mentioned the homeless , the elderly??? " The poster who said we should scrap foreign aid and spend it on the homeless and the elderly. Keep up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers " FWIW, countries don't give aids to others for humanitarian reasons. It is for diplomatic reasons. India gives aids to many other countries too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers FWIW, countries don't give aids to others for humanitarian reasons. It is for diplomatic reasons. India gives aids to many other countries too. " so the whole foreign aid thing is a joke the what is the point of the uk giving India money then India giving money to other countries surely if they can give money away they can afford to look after there own so why do we bother it’s a fuck up lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers FWIW, countries don't give aids to others for humanitarian reasons. It is for diplomatic reasons. India gives aids to many other countries too. so the whole foreign aid thing is a joke the what is the point of the uk giving India money then India giving money to other countries surely if they can give money away they can afford to look after there own so why do we bother it’s a fuck up lol" Jesus christ. The point is to promote UK interests and influence Indian politics and economy. Did you really read 'diplomatic reasons' and think 'oh so no reason then'? Honestly, people need to get over the 'aid' part. Any actual, pure altruism is a tiny part of what's going on. But I guess understanding the reality of what foreign 'aid' is would stop you being angry about foreigners, eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"muslims????? i though india was predominatley hindu and pakistan was muslim isnt that what partition was about?" 184 million muslims in pakistan 194 million muslims in India. India has the 2nd largest number of muslims behind Indonesia. I remember leavers not wanting turkey to join the EU No help to syrian refugees. Lets leave the EU , the muslim problem stops. Lets deal with commonwealth countries they cried. Pakistan the 1st Islamic Nation ( well done britain ) India the 2nd biggest muslim population ( eell done britain ) Nigeria ( Boko Haram ) well done Britain .  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Never mind just looked it up in 2018 79.8% of the population ofindia is hindu out ofa population of 1.02 billion soim right a mainly hindu country" With the 2nd biigest population of Muslims on The planet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers FWIW, countries don't give aids to others for humanitarian reasons. It is for diplomatic reasons. India gives aids to many other countries too. so the whole foreign aid thing is a joke the what is the point of the uk giving India money then India giving money to other countries surely if they can give money away they can afford to look after there own so why do we bother it’s a fuck up lol Jesus christ. The point is to promote UK interests and influence Indian politics and economy. Did you really read 'diplomatic reasons' and think 'oh so no reason then'? Honestly, people need to get over the 'aid' part. Any actual, pure altruism is a tiny part of what's going on. But I guess understanding the reality of what foreign 'aid' is would stop you being angry about foreigners, eh? " lmao where’s my anger ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why give aid at all ..lots of good causes in the UK that need help ...old ...infirm ..ex services and all the chavies girls who knock out endless kids with no fathers FWIW, countries don't give aids to others for humanitarian reasons. It is for diplomatic reasons. India gives aids to many other countries too. so the whole foreign aid thing is a joke the what is the point of the uk giving India money then India giving money to other countries surely if they can give money away they can afford to look after there own so why do we bother it’s a fuck up lol Jesus christ. The point is to promote UK interests and influence Indian politics and economy. Did you really read 'diplomatic reasons' and think 'oh so no reason then'? Honestly, people need to get over the 'aid' part. Any actual, pure altruism is a tiny part of what's going on. But I guess understanding the reality of what foreign 'aid' is would stop you being angry about foreigners, eh? lmao where’s my anger ?" I don’t sense anger with you, just uneducated confusion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do" He won’t, it was all agreed in the Tory manifesto, didn’t you read it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do He won’t, it was all agreed in the Tory manifesto, didn’t you read it "I know a lot did not like it but manifesto's are not worth the paper are written on I expect him to deliver that is what a pm should do get on with it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do He won’t, it was all agreed in the Tory manifesto, didn’t you read it I know a lot did not like it but manifesto's are not worth the paper are written on I expect him to deliver that is what a pm should do get on with it "Yeah, which is written in his manifesto. You don’t honestly think he will get rid of foreign aid to China and India do you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol" I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal people here or abroad. Besides, during the last election when one party suggested doing stuff for the people you lot lost your shit about "socialism" etc. And double besides, didn't you also vote for the country to be poorer to specifically fuck over the most vulnerable people in society? Right-wingers and brexiteers are a perplexing, self contradicting bunch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal people here or abroad. Besides, during the last election when one party suggested doing stuff for the people you lot lost your shit about "socialism" etc. And double besides, didn't you also vote for the country to be poorer to specifically fuck over the most vulnerable people in society? Right-wingers and brexiteers are a perplexing, self contradicting bunch. " It is precisely because the government care about normal people that they were returned to power . The policies of the metropolitan elite and those who spend all their time on social media living in a bubble were firmly rejected by the electorate with one of the biggest majorities ever recorded . A further endorsement of government policy was the significant rise in the stock market after the results were announced - an unconditional endorsement that we voted for a prosperous economic future . Leaving the EU will remove lots of unnecessary red tape . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Foreign Aid should be scrapped and replaced with UK Aid = homeless Aid, dementia Aid, education Aid etc" Isn't that just called Socialism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?Yes it is discusting we also send money to China yet we cannot fund are own needs.Boris said he would stop a lot of this he better had do Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal people here or abroad. Besides, during the last election when one party suggested doing stuff for the people you lot lost your shit about "socialism" etc. And double besides, didn't you also vote for the country to be poorer to specifically fuck over the most vulnerable people in society? Right-wingers and brexiteers are a perplexing, self contradicting bunch. It is precisely because the government care about normal people that they were returned to power . The policies of the metropolitan elite and those who spend all their time on social media living in a bubble were firmly rejected by the electorate with one of the biggest majorities ever recorded . A further endorsement of government policy was the significant rise in the stock market after the results were announced - an unconditional endorsement that we voted for a prosperous economic future . Leaving the EU will remove lots of unnecessary red tape . " Removing unnecessary red tape like the European musicians who will now need visas to play gigs in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail "Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail
Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead?"I think you missed the point. Those are benefits accrued to is from giving foreign aid to other countries. Of a country feels threatened by a neighbour that it's fought wars against, it will spend on nuclear weapons if defence is an issue. It also gives them a big chip at the international table. A space programme drives an entire hi-tech industry. Do you think that they should pay other countries to design, build and launch their telecommunications infrastructure? Not an important thing to invest in? Should they stick to rice growing? We have nuclear weapons. What do we want them for? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though." why do I have no empathy for the less fortunate when I would rather see the money spent on the poor and needy in the UK ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo " Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. " If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though. why do I have no empathy for the less fortunate when I would rather see the money spent on the poor and needy in the UK ?" Why is someone poor and needy in the UK more deserving than someone somewhere else? Objectively and as a philosophical point: Is a British person valueable? If you spend £1 in the UK can you help more people than if you spent the same £1 in a country where it has more value and can buy more? Is £1 spent paying rent on a larger flat in the UK worth more than £1 spent saving a person's life in another country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail
Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead?
I think you missed the point.
Those are benefits accrued to is from giving foreign aid to other countries.
Of a country feels threatened by a neighbour that it's fought wars against, it will spend on nuclear weapons if defence is an issue. It also gives them a big chip at the international table.
A space programme drives an entire hi-tech industry. Do you think that they should pay other countries to design, build and launch their telecommunications infrastructure? Not an important thing to invest in? Should they stick to rice growing?
We have nuclear weapons. What do we want them for?"Hi, im poor and have no where to sleep can you lend me £1000 for a deposit for a flat. I then spend that money on a gun. I then ask for money again for a deposit, you agree, i then spend that money on an electric bike. Yet im still homeless but never mind i have a gun and an electric bike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both?" Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. " "Faceless unknown people" Holy shit. These people have faces and are known to their families. They're human beings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. " This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". "Faceless unknown people" Holy shit. These people have faces and are known to their families. They're human beings." You obviously don't have a single clue as to what that phrase means in the way it's applied mate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. " agree with this sort our own shit out first and once thasdone then start helping others out if theres anything left over | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. agree with this sort our own shit out first and once thasdone then start helping others out if theres anything left over" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. " Spot on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail
Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead?
I think you missed the point.
Those are benefits accrued to is from giving foreign aid to other countries.
Of a country feels threatened by a neighbour that it's fought wars against, it will spend on nuclear weapons if defence is an issue. It also gives them a big chip at the international table.
A space programme drives an entire hi-tech industry. Do you think that they should pay other countries to design, build and launch their telecommunications infrastructure? Not an important thing to invest in? Should they stick to rice growing?
We have nuclear weapons. What do we want them for?
Hi, im poor and have no where to sleep can you lend me £1000 for a deposit for a flat.
I then spend that money on a gun. I then ask for money again for a deposit, you agree, i then spend that money on an electric bike. Yet im still homeless but never mind i have a gun and an electric bike. "We are not giving them a cash grant to spend as they wish. Again. How about actually addressing the points rather than some unrelated "simile". A country has to do many things simultaneously. What should it not do? Defence, scientific development? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Love how some people are stuck in this "why do we help them when we don't help ourselves". The reality is, there is enough money for both. But the government don't give a fuck about normal peo Personally I don't call having to borrow billions every year having enough money for both. If that's your view then we cannot afford the NHS or the criminal justice system or the armed forces or almost everything else. Perhaps we need tax increases or more austerity or both? Jesus you don't half exaggerate to push your point don't you. I'd rather us fund and help our people in this country that we can see that needs help People we can see who are homeless People we can see in our country in abject povity People we can see in our own country suffering from lack of clinical care I'd rather see our money going on issues we see everyday in our own country and not basically send blank cheques thousands of miles away to countries that fund space programs and Nukes If you'd prefer to help faceless unknown people that may not even get any benefit from our money while it gets skimmed off by their corrupt officials instead of helping our own more then that's your choice mate. " No exaggeration. I am responding directly to what you said. The UK 2019 budget deficit was £41.5bn The UK 2019 foreign aid budget was £13.4bn That doesn't push us over the edge. I will refer you once again to what I have stated about what that "buys" us and which aspect you don't like: International diplomatic influence Goodwill of people who may grow up to be "useful" to us and chose to do business with us or become one of "highly skilled immigrants" which are the only ones we want. Contracts for UK companies. Do some good just for the sake of it. Objectively £1 spent abroad will do more good for more people than £1 spent in the UK. Objectively, why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner. Try answering that directly. Not what about this that or the other. Most of the money spent in the UK is to "faceless, unknown" people. I have no more a relationship with them than someone on the other side of the world. I do not resent my taxes being used to help people with or without the additional benefits that acrue from foreign aid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How much aid should we send to the USA to grease the wheels of commerce?" They don't want out money. They want our obedience, which we will give them if we think that we will benefit. You haven't addressed any of the points I have presented you with I notice. As usual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail
Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead?
I think you missed the point.
Those are benefits accrued to is from giving foreign aid to other countries.
Of a country feels threatened by a neighbour that it's fought wars against, it will spend on nuclear weapons if defence is an issue. It also gives them a big chip at the international table.
A space programme drives an entire hi-tech industry. Do you think that they should pay other countries to design, build and launch their telecommunications infrastructure? Not an important thing to invest in? Should they stick to rice growing?
We have nuclear weapons. What do we want them for?
Hi, im poor and have no where to sleep can you lend me £1000 for a deposit for a flat.
I then spend that money on a gun. I then ask for money again for a deposit, you agree, i then spend that money on an electric bike. Yet im still homeless but never mind i have a gun and an electric bike.
We are not giving them a cash grant to spend as they wish.
Again. How about actually addressing the points rather than some unrelated "simile".
A country has to do many things simultaneously. What should it not do?
Defence, scientific development? "Buy nukes and a space program. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though. why do I have no empathy for the less fortunate when I would rather see the money spent on the poor and needy in the UK ? Why is someone poor and needy in the UK more deserving than someone somewhere else? Objectively and as a philosophical point: Is a British person valueable? If you spend £1 in the UK can you help more people than if you spent the same £1 in a country where it has more value and can buy more? Is £1 spent paying rent on a larger flat in the UK worth more than £1 spent saving a person's life in another country?" why is someone poor or needy in th UK more deserving than someone else were are you joking ? would you feed someone else’s kids over yr own kids ? Why is it wrong in yr eyes to want to look after the poor and needy in the UK.before poor and needy in other countries ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though. why do I have no empathy for the less fortunate when I would rather see the money spent on the poor and needy in the UK ? Why is someone poor and needy in the UK more deserving than someone somewhere else? Objectively and as a philosophical point: Is a British person valueable? If you spend £1 in the UK can you help more people than if you spent the same £1 in a country where it has more value and can buy more? Is £1 spent paying rent on a larger flat in the UK worth more than £1 spent saving a person's life in another country? why is someone poor or needy in th UK more deserving than someone else were are you joking ? would you feed someone else’s kids over yr own kids ? Why is it wrong in yr eyes to want to look after the poor and needy in the UK.before poor and needy in other countries ? " Exactly. It’s quite staggering someone in the UK thinks this way. Not surprising though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To seriously ask why a British citizen is worth more than a foreigner says it all really " Can you actually answer the question though? Directly. Apparently it is " obvious" to many of you. I don't understand, so explain it to me please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe if it had been yr house that was flooded you would feel diffrent about foreign aid then maybe £14bn one yr to flooding then the next yr social care then homeless there ya go t labour manifesto sorted they be back in in 5yrs lol I can assure you that having my house flooded wouldn't turn me into a navel-gazing dullard with no empathy for the less fortunate. It would be a bugger for my insurance company, though. why do I have no empathy for the less fortunate when I would rather see the money spent on the poor and needy in the UK ? Why is someone poor and needy in the UK more deserving than someone somewhere else? Objectively and as a philosophical point: Is a British person valueable? If you spend £1 in the UK can you help more people than if you spent the same £1 in a country where it has more value and can buy more? Is £1 spent paying rent on a larger flat in the UK worth more than £1 spent saving a person's life in another country? why is someone poor or needy in th UK more deserving than someone else were are you joking ? would you feed someone else’s kids over yr own kids ? Why is it wrong in yr eyes to want to look after the poor and needy in the UK.before poor and needy in other countries ? " They are not my kids. I do not know them any better than someone on the other side of the world. Neither do you. I did not say that it was wrong to do anything to help the poor and needy anywhere. You are the one limiting the extent of who it is acceptable to help and who it is not acceptable to help. So, can you actually address the question directly. Questions in fact. All of you are welcome to. None of you seem able to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Which of these do you find inherently unacceptable as a consequence of foreign aid then? Increased diplomatic influence (aid for support) Good will towards the UK from foreign populations (from good experiences from UK aid) Introducing UK firms to foreign markets (aid tied to UK contracts for provision) Helping those in abject poverty (considered inherently kind by some) On another note, why is helping an idle British citizen (who has never paid any tax) more valuable than preventing the creation of a potential terrorist or helping the education of a potential inventor or medical discoverer abroad? I am fully prepared for the inevitable change of subject or focus on one irrelevant detail
Im all for helping countries in need, but shouldn't the money inda has spent on nukes and there space program be used for some of the things you mentioned instead?
I think you missed the point.
Those are benefits accrued to is from giving foreign aid to other countries.
Of a country feels threatened by a neighbour that it's fought wars against, it will spend on nuclear weapons if defence is an issue. It also gives them a big chip at the international table.
A space programme drives an entire hi-tech industry. Do you think that they should pay other countries to design, build and launch their telecommunications infrastructure? Not an important thing to invest in? Should they stick to rice growing?
We have nuclear weapons. What do we want them for?
Hi, im poor and have no where to sleep can you lend me £1000 for a deposit for a flat.
I then spend that money on a gun. I then ask for money again for a deposit, you agree, i then spend that money on an electric bike. Yet im still homeless but never mind i have a gun and an electric bike.
We are not giving them a cash grant to spend as they wish.
Again. How about actually addressing the points rather than some unrelated "simile".
A country has to do many things simultaneously. What should it not do?
Defence, scientific development?
Buy nukes and a space program."So are you saying that having fought a war with China and Pakistan (both nuclear armed), investing in a nuclear arsenal is not strategically important for for India? Why do we have nuclear weapons instead of paying for housing? I'm repeating myself again, as nobody seems able to answer, but the most high value industries are space and communications. Satellite and launch vehicle design and construction. It's a big part of what the richest countries in the world want to do yet fail to look after the elderly. Why should we do that and not India? In the long run will that notake India wealthier and better able to look after more people. Again, you have not addressed any of the other benefits that acrue to the UK from foreign aid that I have listed multiple times. Which of those don't you like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". "Faceless unknown people" Holy shit. These people have faces and are known to their families. They're human beings. You obviously don't have a single clue as to what that phrase means in the way it's applied mate "Seemed clear to me. As clear as the fact that you're not my "mate". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What question are you bumping yr gums about now you do a thousand questions a day ?" You aren't going to start bleeding about the nasty man asking you too many questions again are you?
Yet none of you seem able to answer any of the ones addressed directly to you let alone take in any more information
Scroll up. You'll find your ones  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is a British person more valuable that a foreign person ?is that the question ?" One of several, as you pointed out, but it seems to be the current one being dodged | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit." I love your posts. You should keep coming. If you're a comic genius or blissfully unaware of yourself. Doesn't really matter. The hilarity remains. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit." No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like the old saying goes,charity begins at home!" Plenty of poor people are already voting Tory, while the whole time they're actively shafting said poor people. So why would they bother helping the needy in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like the old saying goes,charity begins at home!" ...and it is just that, an old saying. Like the old saying goes: A watched pot never boils. Verifiable nonsense. How about the parable of the good Samaritan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling " But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like the old saying goes,charity begins at home! Plenty of poor people are already voting Tory, while the whole time they're actively shafting said poor people. So why would they bother helping the needyw in the UK?" dose that mean I voted Tory !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling " I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw." I don’t want foreign aid stopped just reduced let’s say halved and spent on social care get that mess sorted and it’s not the governments money it’s the British tax payers money | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people." The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is not about race. The point is us Brits are a 95 % caring and compassionate people, we have RSPB animal welfare even. And we give billions to charities at home AND abroad to help the less fortunate both human and animals and nature. forrests etc. Turn the race card on its head - why does india's governemnt not look after its poor and sick, simple rich v poor. I for give Oxfam and raise awarness for war refugees - awfull plight of being bombed out of their homelands - its called human compassion and we have bags of it here - specially up north - caring warm people." The Indian government does try to look after its poor and sick in so far as it is able. There are also many Indian charities and individuals that do the same. Did you really doubt that? There are significantly more poor people in India though, and they are much, much poorer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. " Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is not about race. The point is us Brits are a 95 % caring and compassionate people, we have RSPB animal welfare even. And we give billions to charities at home AND abroad to help the less fortunate both human and animals and nature. forrests etc. Turn the race card on its head - why does india's governemnt not look after its poor and sick, simple rich v poor. I for give Oxfam and raise awarness for war refugees - awfull plight of being bombed out of their homelands - its called human compassion and we have bags of it here - specially up north - caring warm people." That ain't gonna pay for a space program... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not." There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that." That's terrible! Im surprised they're still letting immigrants in at all if that's the case.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. " Hello Pat 5.0 Still making mad connections I see. Boris Johnson (the liar) was elected by a myriad of individual reasons. None of them had anything to do with foreign aid as there was no indication of that changing in the Conservative manifesto. Boris Johnson (the liar) has demonstrated over time that he will do or say whatever is good for Boris Johnson (the liar). Stopping foreign aid could equally be redirected to filling potholes or reducing the budget deficit. You don't get to define where it is spent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that. That's terrible! Im surprised they're still letting immigrants in at all if that's the case. "EU Migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under EU rules enforced by UK govt. Non-EU migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under UK govt. rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. " I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that. That's terrible! Im surprised they're still letting immigrants in at all if that's the case.
EU Migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under EU rules enforced by UK govt. Non-EU migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under UK govt. rules.
"Seems like a waste of money processing them when they could just close the door until homelessness is down. Especially with today's news of a one million home deficit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" india have nuclear weapons? maybe if they did not spend on this, maybe more schools etc?" Perhaps they should allow China or Pakistan to invade as they wish? Why do we have nuclear weapons? Could we not spend this on better medical provision? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is not about race. The point is us Brits are a 95 % caring and compassionate people, we have RSPB animal welfare even. And we give billions to charities at home AND abroad to help the less fortunate both human and animals and nature. forrests etc. Turn the race card on its head - why does india's governemnt not look after its poor and sick, simple rich v poor. I for give Oxfam and raise awarness for war refugees - awfull plight of being bombed out of their homelands - its called human compassion and we have bags of it here - specially up north - caring warm people. That ain't gonna pay for a space program..." Any progress on actually addressing any of the reasons laid out for why foreign aid benefits us directly or why a country may feel that a nuclear or space program is important? No? Didn't think so | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that." However we would need to know why people are homeless and make a judgement call as to the reasons. We cannot simply blame the government for people being homeless. An analysis of the underlying reasons may indicate that these people would be homeless regardless of which government is in power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that. That's terrible! Im surprised they're still letting immigrants in at all if that's the case.
EU Migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under EU rules enforced by UK govt. Non-EU migrants who can’t support themselves are able to be deported under UK govt. rules.
Seems like a waste of money processing them when they could just close the door until homelessness is down. Especially with today's news of a one million home deficit. "Perhaps if uk governments had used the laws available to them since 1992 we’d not be in a situation where people like Farage gain traction by denying said laws exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. Homelessness is up around 180% since the tories took charge in 2010. Think about that. However we would need to know why people are homeless and make a judgement call as to the reasons. We cannot simply blame the government for people being homeless. An analysis of the underlying reasons may indicate that these people would be homeless regardless of which government is in power. " Under new labour, homelessness was consistently falling. Since 2010 it’s up 180%. Seriously. ‘Analysis of underlying reasons?’ Fuck my life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world."Maybe we should resolve the issue by having a referendum on it. Every single person in the UK could vote and we could decide whether money should be spent on care of the elderly in the UK or on foreign aid . I think the result would be fairly easy to predict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Easyuk Ofcors lots of Indians - millions - do what they can same as here, human acts of kindness, we are not on about the people - its the governments and local politics. Human kindness & compassion has no boundaries - it costs nothing to be kind as my granddad used to say. We all dwell on same huge spinning mass of rock that is planet earth." Judging by the comments on this thread human compassion and kindness are finite. They are, in fact, defined purely by geography. India's government does spend a lot of money on helping the poor. Many would argue that the present one is not doing as much as others, but such is the joy of populism. Talking the talk but not walking the walk. However, the proportion of poor and the depth of their poverty is vast compared to the UK. They have to make their choices as to how they allocate their limited budget. As do we. Apparently many people see no benefit to foreign aid to the UK bit cannot say why they disagree with those stated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world."What about the elderly person who has worked hard all their life and performed a vital public service job and was unable to save enough to fund their care ? I am confident that most people would prefer that foreign aid was directed towards assisting them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world. Maybe we should resolve the issue by having a referendum on it. Every single person in the UK could vote and we could decide whether money should be spent on care of the elderly in the UK or on foreign aid . I think the result would be fairly easy to predict. "How about a referendum between spending on nuclear defence or care for the elderly? How about a referendum between road repairs and care for the elderly? How about a referendum between grants to the arts and foreign aid? What utter nonsense. Ignoring the exact parallel made between foreign governments "arranging" to sort out their own problems and UK individuals"arranging" to sort out theirs. Not addressing any direct benefits to the UK from foreign aids. I gave you a list. Tell me what you don't like | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world. What about the elderly person who has worked hard all their life and performed a vital public service job and was unable to save enough to fund their care ? I am confident that most people would prefer that foreign aid was directed towards assisting them. "Perhaps we should have paid them more instead of having nuclear weapons Pat? They and their families should still "arrange" to take care of themselves though right? Just like foreign countries should. Does charity begin at home but only under certain circumstances? It's not an either/or choice. How about addressing the fact that more good can be done with £1 abroad than in the UK. I know that you do not get any form of complexity, but if you are genuinely trying to do good then you should try to maximise that good to benefit the largest possible number of people so that should mean a mix of foreign and domestic. Once again, for your benefit UK to foreign spending is in a ratio of 817:13 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is a British person more valuable that a foreign person ?is that the question ? One of several, as you pointed out, but it seems to be the current one being dodged "Because it's so stupid to even be asked it doesn't merit a reply | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw." The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world."so we should help foreign elderly but the British elderly should of made better arrangements to care for themselves wtf | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world. What about the elderly person who has worked hard all their life and performed a vital public service job and was unable to save enough to fund their care ? I am confident that most people would prefer that foreign aid was directed towards assisting them. "Yes, so why hasn’t your hero Boris tried to stop it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money." That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling But our government doesn't give a fuck. If they stopped all foreign aid right now, none of that cash is being redirected to homeless, disabled, less fortunate British people. The whole point of stopping foreign aid would be to redirect funds to other areas such as care of the elderly. The government wish to create a sound economy in order to ensure that there are fund available to assist the less well off . That is why Boris was elected with a majority of 80. " He has no intention of stopping foreign aid, you do realise that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s like asking why do you believe the earth is round. Really can’t be bothered arguing with particularly ridiculous questions ; as can’t anyone remotely sensible people on this thread. There is normally only one way to treat such people and I’m breaking my own rule in replying to something found in the Hobbit. No. It's like being asked a question and not being able to answer it. There are lots of ways for being able to explain that the earth is round. From sunrise to satellite communications to the shape of the horizon. Some time ago it was not obvious to most people that the Earth is round. It is apparently not obvious right now to the flat earthers. Why is a British person more valuable than a foreigner? It is not obvious to me. Surely you can explain if it is so simple? Beyond that, you seem to be only able to not focus (see what I did there?) on one specific point at a time, but there are a large number of other points that create a logical argument for foreign aid that I have stated. Any more luck with being able to address those? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of charities to which members of the public can donate if they wish to assist foreign countries. Charities such as Christian Aid. It is hardly the function of the government to make payments for foreign aid when we are approaching a crisis in out own country with care of the elderly. It is up to foreign countries to organise their finances in such a way to ensure that they are self funding . I have no objection to foreign aid or assisting others. However the donations should be voluntary . If my memory serves me correctly Christian Aid normally do a door to door collection around Easter time . This gives the public a chance to make voluntary donations should they wish. I understand. Can I make my "donations" to elderly care from my taxes voluntary? I have no objection to elderly people being taken care of but they and their families should have made arrangements to ensure that they are self funding
Scroll up and contemplate what direct benefits there may be to the UK from foreign aid other than actually doing some good in the world. so we should help foreign elderly but the British elderly should of made better arrangements to care for themselves wtf "No. I am merely arguing with Pat's own logic. It's cruel and nasty and I disagree with it completely. Why so literal? I think that we should try to help as many people as possible. Once we have achieved the biggest benefits here in saving and improving lives here, further gains are marginal, but relatively modest spending can provide many people with huge benefits especially when the reduced but still considerable relative value of the GBP is taken into account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?" Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice." What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. " Yeah play the old empire card im sure the British old and infirmed will be happy to die cold and hungry to pay for what their ancestors did 2 centuries ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. " Don't start on that! It's difficult enough to get focus on basic humanity or cost benefit analysis. Let's not start discussing the fact that our wealth was built on exploiting foreign countries for decades or ensuring that they were given independence in a form that ensured conflict. Let alone the millions who starved in famine in India whilst the UK government continued to demand taxes. It's not relevant anyway. You cannot learn from history not should you take any responsibility for it. Unless you are German or Japanese. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. Yeah play the old empire card im sure the British old and infirmed will be happy to die cold and hungry to pay for what their ancestors did 2 centuries ago. "Did you vote for the conservatives at the last GE? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. Yeah play the old empire card im sure the British old and infirmed will be happy to die cold and hungry to pay for what their ancestors did 2 centuries ago. "Ta daa! It ended far more recently than two centuries ago and the UK's position in the world is based on this. Are you really going to deny that? Convenient opportunity to continue ignore the questions that you won't address though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against." Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" india have nuclear weapons? maybe if they did not spend on this, maybe more schools etc?" If you think about it Maybe if the UK hadnt had all its american nukes We'd still own BT BP Our Train companies Our Gas to name a few | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash? Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, it's calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. It's a staggering sum, in perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. What we're sending is peanuts compared to what was taken. Yeah play the old empire card im sure the British old and infirmed will be happy to die cold and hungry to pay for what their ancestors did 2 centuries ago.
Ta daa! It ended far more recently than two centuries ago and the UK's position in the world is based on this.
Are you really going to deny that?
Convenient opportunity to continue ignore the questions that you won't address though "How far do you want to go back? should italy compensate us for the romans or Norway for the vikings? should france compensate most of Africa ? should the mongals compensate most of europe because of Genghis khan? The spanish most of s america? the dutch indonesia etc? or maybe even greece for alexandria the great? What question do you want me to address? it seems to me you are the one who isnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. " You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw. I don’t want foreign aid stopped just reduced let’s say halved and spent on social care get that mess sorted and it’s not the governments money it’s the British tax payers money " We solve it all by paying more tax and getting corporations to pay more tax. Why not do that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign?" I’m woth you on not funding arts and museums lol but I’d like the ppl who have paid into the UK to get looked after when they need it not much to exoect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is a British person more valuable that a foreign person ?is that the question ? One of several, as you pointed out, but it seems to be the current one being dodged
Because it's so stupid to even be asked it doesn't merit a reply "For me it is stupid to think that a British life is worth more than a foreign one, but apparently that is the option being offered. The thread so far indicates that it wasn't a stupid question to ask. Spending to improve lives in the UK is more important than saving any lives abroad it seems. That's how the equation looks to me from the responses in this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign?" What false choices it was you that started talking about trains running people over yet dont like it when someone presents you with a similar scenario.You need to see the world as it is,its not fair never will be and thats life, people are not equal its the luck of the draw and we could send every penny the uk earns to foreign aid and it wont make a jot of difference.Why because we are human beings and there will always be people ready to exploit people and situations thats real life mate . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign? I’m woth you on not funding arts and museums lol but I’d like the ppl who have paid into the UK to get looked after when they need it not much to exoect " You aren't with me on Amazon and Facebook and you and me paying more tax to look after as many people as we can, here or abroad? I actually think that arts funding is important. The effect on society of life full of reality and celebrity TV shows if terrible to contemplate. Arts can be transformative to some people as can museums which are knowledge. Pious but I think very real. Government has to achieve everything with insufficient funding but I don't think that it should give up on anything. 0.7% of the UK budget spent on foreign aid by one of the wealthiest countries in the world seems close to negligible considering the good that it does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is a British person more valuable that a foreign person ?is that the question ? One of several, as you pointed out, but it seems to be the current one being dodged
Because it's so stupid to even be asked it doesn't merit a reply
For me it is stupid to think that a British life is worth more than a foreign one, but apparently that is the option being offered.
The thread so far indicates that it wasn't a stupid question to ask.
Spending to improve lives in the UK is more important than saving any lives abroad it seems.
That's how the equation looks to me from the responses in this thread."I see you are trying to make this into a racist thread as usual.No one has said a British life is worth more than a foreign one.Its a matter of fairness as i said before if you have paid in all your life for something you should expect to reap the benefit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign? I’m woth you on not funding arts and museums lol but I’d like the ppl who have paid into the UK to get looked after when they need it not much to exoect You aren't with me on Amazon and Facebook and you and me paying more tax to look after as many people as we can, here or abroad? I actually think that arts funding is important. The effect on society of life full of reality and celebrity TV shows if terrible to contemplate. Arts can be transformative to some people as can museums which are knowledge. Pious but I think very real. Government has to achieve everything with insufficient funding but I don't think that it should give up on anything. 0.7% of the UK budget spent on foreign aid by one of the wealthiest countries in the world seems close to negligible considering the good that it does." I have not engaged you on amazon or facebook because that should be a different thread to many of these get diverted from the op,but yes everyone should pay the tax due i do and dont see why others shouldnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is a British person more valuable that a foreign person ?is that the question ? One of several, as you pointed out, but it seems to be the current one being dodged
Because it's so stupid to even be asked it doesn't merit a reply
For me it is stupid to think that a British life is worth more than a foreign one, but apparently that is the option being offered.
The thread so far indicates that it wasn't a stupid question to ask.
Spending to improve lives in the UK is more important than saving any lives abroad it seems.
That's how the equation looks to me from the responses in this thread."Every country in the world puts in own citizens first. Foreign aid should be raised on a voluntary basis. That is why charities such as Christian Aid exist. Their annual door knock is coming up shortly so it is a chance to donate . Make a convenant and the charity will also benefit from tax relief. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now if the uk said to india we will only send you foreign aid if you end the discrimination of the untouchables that would immediately benefit 160 million people.That would be money well spent per person. " True that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What false choices it was you that started talking about trains running people over yet dont like it when someone presents you with a similar scenario.You need to see the world as it is,its not fair never will be and thats life, people are not equal its the luck of the draw and we could send every penny the uk earns to foreign aid and it wont make a jot of difference.Why because we are human beings and there will always be people ready to exploit people and situations thats real life mate ." Well done for reading about the trains. Not so we'll done for not understanding the point of that mental exercise on achieving the maximum good from your actions. That was a binary choice. Providing foreign aid is not a binary choice with the provision of increased social care. You really think that UK foreign aid doesn't make a jot if difference? Really? No lives saved? No illnesses cured? No starvation ameliorated? No children educated? Your last sentence sums up your view of the world. Your view of reality. It's incredibly dark. Everyone for themselves. As far as I can see by your logic you should just take care of yourself. Don't try to solve any big problems. I think we can be better and achieve great things and help each other when we work together. Far more than alone. That's my reality. Yours sounds awful and bleak. Charity may well begin at home. It shouldn't end there and there is nothing to say that you have to solve every one of your problems before helping anyone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"British poor ppl are more important to me than foreign poor ppl because I am British and there closer to home it’s a normal feeling I do not disagree with that feeling. There is no objective difference in human worth though is there? At least I really hope that the answer is no. A British person is not more valuable and someone whom you have never and will never meet in a British city a hundred miles away is as much a stranger to you as someone in India. If you have the itentioin helping others should part of that calculation be to maximise the good that you can do? You can do more good with £1 spent abroad than in the UK. Why would you not wish to then balance your budget for charity to do a lot of good here and also a multiple of that good by spending some of it abroad. Have you heard of the thought experiment with the train? You are at the points and a runaway train will go down one of two tracks. They will hit people on the crossing. On one crossing there is a single person. On the other there are five. Which way would you send the train assuming that they are all strangers? The usual moral escalation is then to ask if the single person was someone that you knew a little? Then what if you knew them well? Then what if they were a family member? Then what if it was your family member vs ten people? I'm this case it's British people vs foreigners. The reality is that it is not a direct choice because you can probably save lives abroad relative to improving lives in the UK. It's an imperfect choice but if you are genuinely trying to maximise the good that you do you must try to do a bit of both. I'm this case we do much more at home and a little bit abroad. The ratio of government spending on ourselves to foreigners is 817:13 Thank you for actually addressing (this one point) directly btw.The fault with this argument is that people have paid into a system that is supposed to help them in later life if they fall on hard times, they have no choice in the matter the money is taken at source.When its time to cash in there is not the money to help them as its been sent abroad it beats me that you cannot see the injustice in this.I would think you would be one of the 1st to complain and righty so if you had paid house insurance all your life and when your roof blew off they said sorry we dont have the money. That doesn't address anything in what I've written here. I also do not disagree with your point, but there is no binary choice between social care and foreign aid just as their is none between nuclear weapons and social care. Are none of the purely transactional benefits of foreign aid (aside from being an inherently good thing to do) of any value to the UK?Why not? i see it as an easy choice to make as for nuclear weapons i would have thought people would have voted for corbyn if that was their choice. What "choice" are you making? You don't want to increase the UK's diplomatic influence? You don't want the goodwill of foreigners who would choose to do business with or bring their skills to us rather than somewhere else? You don't wish British companies to directly benefit from tied spending in foreign markets? You don't want to use UK money save lives in foreign countries? Just to be clear, are you saying that it is an easy choice to make between spending money on nuclear weapons and social care or between those things that I've listed in exchange for £13bn? If we want to spend on nuclear weapons on social care India is perfectly correct to do the same surely? Especially as they have two nuclear armed neighbours which they have fought wars against.Oh we have diplomatic influence now? i thought we were a nobody since we left the eu.Do you really believe some of the crap you write business is business they do it to make money they dont give a toss about foreign aid.You really believe that an indian business man looks at how much aid is given to their country before doing business?I want the uk to save the lives of the people who have paid all their lives into a system that said it would 1st. If your child had an illness and could be cured for say £10,000 pounds and you only had that amount of money would you then send £5,000 to help someone else? charity starts at home mate. You may have a purely transactional view of the world. Your view of the world may well be a zero sum one. I get it or they do. Many people do not. I have met people with a fondness for countries that they so not know because of a kindness done for people close to them. When some people are grateful for a life or an opportunity they really do make decisions based on that. Perhaps not you. I never claimed that we do or would have no influence in the world. I have said that it will be greatly diminished by leaving one of the world's biggest trading blocks. I fail to see how it will be enhanced in doing so. Other routes to soft power will become all the more important as a consequence. You can present all of the false choices that you want but it does not make them pertinent. Why not reduce nuclear weapons spending? Have more potholes? Get Amazon to pay more tax? Why don't we pay more tax? Why not stop funding all arts and museums? Why are those things worth more than anyone's life, British or foreign? I’m woth you on not funding arts and museums lol but I’d like the ppl who have paid into the UK to get looked after when they need it not much to exoect You aren't with me on Amazon and Facebook and you and me paying more tax to look after as many people as we can, here or abroad? I actually think that arts funding is important. The effect on society of life full of reality and celebrity TV shows if terrible to contemplate. Arts can be transformative to some people as can museums which are knowledge. Pious but I think very real. Government has to achieve everything with insufficient funding but I don't think that it should give up on anything. 0.7% of the UK budget spent on foreign aid by one of the wealthiest countries in the world seems close to negligible considering the good that it does." yes sorry I’m with you on amazon Facebook and any twat that avoids tax | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why? Their economy is bigger than ours, so why are we still sending them cash?" Good thread op | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
bravo! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
