butlers Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Ash Tray...what % do you think we spend? ---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 00:15 ---------- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10633669/Yes-the-floods-are-awful-but-we-must-keep-a-sense-of-proportion.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Well one brainbox on here claimed that only 0.7% of our annual spending went on overseas aid so I asked for monetary units and not percentages. and you got them. £11300000000 ^ this symbol makes it a monetary unit. why are you only looking at a comparison with overseas aid? do you really resent charity that much? Yes some of it gets mis appropriated by idiot warlords, wasted and diverted into pointless projects, but it's not the cause of flooding, it probably wouldn't have prevented all of the flooding even if it had been used solely by the environment agency. look at Japan with the tsunami, they built 10meter high walls to protect there towns, it wasn't enough, a 10 meter wave came and swept whole towns off the map, tens of thousands of people died. should we just never help incase people who live on a flood plain or by rivers get flooded out by unexpected record breaking floods? and were having to look down the back of the sofa for a spare billion. Even if you tried to protect these houses along the thames you'd be facing opposition, building a two metre wall at the bottom of their gardens would have prevented it but they wouldn't want it anyway. they might now tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 £11300000000 ^ this symbol makes it a monetary unit. why are you only looking at a comparison with overseas aid? do you really resent charity that much? Yes some of it gets mis appropriated by idiot warlords, wasted and diverted into pointless projects, but it's not the cause of flooding, it probably wouldn't have prevented all of the flooding even if it had been used solely by the environment agency.. Why don't you ask where last years aid went? They keep their poor people poor so that they can come back with the begging bowl again next year whilst we fill their corrupt echelons Swiss bank accounts. Some people are so gullible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Why don't you ask where last years aid went? They keep their poor people poor so that they can come back with the begging bowl again next year whilst we fill their corrupt echelons Swiss bank accounts. Some people are so gullible If you were arguing about the way foreign aid is spent you'd have a point. If the money was clearly going to people much worse off than us then it'd be acceptable. But the fact that there money finds its way to the wrong places at times is not an argument for stopping it or diverting it to spend in the UK. If anything it's a strong argument for spending it more effectively, on people in genuine need. Private Eye often covers some interesting stories on how the money gets used. Andrew Mitchell's allocation of £16m of direct support to the Rwandan government for example. Other stories hint that government officials see see the foreign aid pot as a resource for getting bundles of used tenners to stuff into brown envelopes to smooth dodgy deals. But I digress, this has got nothing to do with flooding in the UK. It's a whole separate argument altogether about how the foreign pot is managed and allocated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 If you were arguing about the way foreign aid is spent you'd have a point. If the money was clearly going to people much worse off than us then it'd be acceptable. But the fact that there money finds its way to the wrong places at times is not an argument for stopping it or diverting it to spend in the UK. If anything it's a strong argument for spending it more effectively, on people in genuine need. Sorry but that totally bonkers, so you're happy to keep throwing our tax payers money down the drain year on year knowing that it is being milked away. Isn't it the governments job to look into what our aid does or most importantly what it doesn't achieve achieve. ---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 10:56 ---------- All those in favour of throwing British tax payers money away that never reaches the intended recipients own up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Sorry but that totally bonkers, so you're happy to keep throwing our tax payers money down the drain year on year knowing that it is being milked away. Isn't it the governments job to look into what our aid does or most importantly what it doesn't achieve achieve. Have you ever considered that maybe part of the objective of the money is for it to be used to buy influence rather than give direct aid on the ground? We are not the only country with an aid budget, for example China has been pouring in loads of money into Africa. They'll no doubt be getting a return for their money, why do you think that we don't? You may not like it, I may not like it but it is how the world operates. And it is a damn sight cheaper and and lot less messier than sending in a gunboat or an expeditionary force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Have you ever considered that maybe part of the objective of the money is for it to be used to buy influence rather than give direct aid on the ground? We are not the only country with an aid budget, for example China has been pouring in loads of money into Africa. They'll no doubt be getting a return for their money, why do you think that we don't? You may not like it, I may not like it but it is how the world operates. And it is a damn sight cheaper and and lot less messier than sending in a gunboat or an expeditionary force. I'm not gullible enough to believe spin like you've just posted, if I buy a kilo of influence I expect to receive a kilo of influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not gullible enough to believe spin like you've just posted, if I buy a kilo of influence I expect to receive a kilo of influence. How do you know that we don't receive our "kilo of influence". It's easy to understand why the results of our investments are not advertised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butlers Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The Long Johns did a great sketch on our overseas aid, it was massively used to buy influence on trade deals, its in own own self interest npt some hopelessly ideal giveaway. Similar to helping the former eastern pack countrys modernise..we now have markets for our goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Sorry but that totally bonkers, so you're happy to keep throwing our tax payers money down the drain year on year knowing that it is being milked away. Isn't it the governments job to look into what our aid does or most importantly what it doesn't achieve achieve. ---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 10:56 ---------- All those in favour of throwing British tax payers money away that never reaches the intended recipients own up. I sympathise with your anger but it still has nothing specifically to do with flood defence funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.