suspend our overseas aid and spend the money in Ireland

ynotdu

What a wide range of opinions this thread has provoked.Interesting that it touched nerves from overly cruel to overly naive reactions.It did provoke much passion though which may,be tells us something about ourselves.I have previously said I believe overseas aid should be the last thing that should be touched,not the first.I think if We lose that principle,We are losing a big part of what being Irish truely means.

Many valid points have been made about non govt orgs and despots ripping off a hugh amount of money given in good faith by Irish people to people around the globe in desperate need.

What is the solution?Bill Gates and his wife have the right idea with the foundation.Every time a new version of windows came out I thought to Myself What a greedy fuc*er gates is.I found out to My shame and embarresment that He had been spending millions quietly all along but being the clever guy he is made sure every cent was going to a specific development aid programme that would create self sufficioncy to the village or whatever.No need for the recipients to keep coming back with a begging bowl time&again.This middle ground aproach is surely the way ahead?A proactive not reactive response,not one based on pity or guilt as the News chanels bombard us with heartbreaking scenes before something more newsworthy in their eyes comes along and the downtroden are yesterdays news.It,s always a bad thing to blame the victoms ! Its always an easy thing to pick on a minority and start hate campaigns,every dictator in history found a group to scapegoate and found many sheep to follow them.It gave them a sense of direction when they had none,a messiah when they needed one,I think and hope We are bigger and better than that ?

pow wow

jimmmy wrote: »

+1

and also : "charity should begin at home"

Did you miss our social welfare system? You either used an inappropriate quote to illustrate your point or you live under a rock.

walshb

meanie boots wrote: »

Did you miss our social welfare system? You either used an inappropriate quote to illustrate your point or you live under a rock.

Charity does begin at home and if we had only ten percent of the so called 'willingness' to help our neighbour as we do for helping the 'poor'
African, we'd be a hell of a lot better off here
Some of these so called 'angels of mercy' would take the shirt
off your back to give to poor old Africa!

ynotdu

walshb wrote: »

Charity does begin at home and if we had only ten percent of the so called 'willingness' to help our neighbour as we do for helping the 'poor'
African, we'd be a hell of a lot better off here
Some of these so called 'angels of mercy' would take the shirt
off your back to give to poor old Africa!

Chancers know no boundries.Earth will have to hang together or We will hang sepertly,no more Earth=no more humankind guess that would solve all problems ? Their are many ways of being poor 99% do not apply to wealth or lack of food !

pow wow

walshb wrote: »

Charity does begin at home and if we had only ten percent of the so called 'willingness' to help our neighbour as we do for helping the 'poor'
African, we'd be a hell of a lot better off here
Some of these so called 'angels of mercy' would take the shirt
off your back to give to poor old Africa!

What kind of 'neighbourly' initiatives would this redeployment of funding support? The willingness of people to help is an issue totally separate from government funded aid. Are you now taking issue with people who donate privately?

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

Some of these so called 'angels of mercy' would take the shirt
off your back to give to poor old Africa!

No, but they might take something offof
this chancer
and this one
and this one
and so on......

LightningBolt

meanie boots wrote: »

it's a case in point of what happens when countries who can afford to help (because let's face it, we can), choose to do nothing.

Can we really though at this point in time? We're running up huge deficits so evidently we're not in a position to afford to help. Aid won't be cut completely to developing nations, there will be a disproportionate cut as you've pointed out. That's okay in my view as taxpayers in this country pay taxes for services that are of benefit to them now and at some time in the future.

tfitzgerald

no we should help our own first

jimmmy

meanie boots wrote: »

Did you miss our social welfare system? You either used an inappropriate quote to illustrate your point or you live under a rock.

As tfitzgerald is after saying " we should help our own first".

You also took my quote out of context a bit. I also wrote just before that
"The 25 billion we are borrowing this year alone to fund current spending will have to be repaid with interest.....by our children + grandchildren. Some of the 25,000,000,000.00 we borrow is to give away to the poor neighbours ( distance wise, relatively speaking ) of the people we borrow from ( the oil producing nations ).

Our children + grandchildren will not thank us for helping arm corrupt officials + governments in 3rd world countries, and helping to maintain an aid mentality there."

pow wow

jimmmy wrote: »

As tfitzgerald is after saying " we should help our own first".

You also took my quote out of context a bit. I also wrote just before that
"The 25 billion we are borrowing this year alone to fund current spending will have to be repaid with interest.....by our children + grandchildren. Some of the 25,000,000,000.00 we borrow is to give away to the poor neighbours ( distance wise, relatively speaking ) of the people we borrow from ( the oil producing nations ).

Our children + grandchildren will not thank us for helping arm corrupt officials + governments in 3rd world countries, and helping to maintain an aid mentality there."

Comparatively speaking 'our own' are in a far better position than those in receipt of aid.

To LightningBolt, all I would say is, can we really afford not to? The topic of the thread was a total suspension of overseas aid, not a mere cut, disproportionate or otherwise. That was the statement to which my replies are directed. I'm not by any means advocating flooding developing countries with money for the sake of it (as we all know that represents a new set of problems) but a total cut as suggested by the OP is short-sighted and immoral.

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

As tfitzgerald is after saying " we should help our own first".

You also took my quote out of context a bit. I also wrote just before that
"The 25 billion we are borrowing this year alone to fund current spending will have to be repaid with interest.....by our children + grandchildren. Some of the 25,000,000,000.00 we borrow is to give away to the poor neighbours ( distance wise, relatively speaking ) of the people we borrow from ( the oil producing nations ).

Our children + grandchildren will not thank us for helping arm corrupt officials + governments in 3rd world countries, and helping to maintain an aid mentality there."

We always sent foreign aid abroad, in good and bad times, we haven't suddenly started borrowing it.

We spent more 2 years ago and didn't borrow. To say we are now borrowing to send it abroad is sensationalism and populist mob propaganda.

Is Foreign Aid wasted? of course it is. Is pay to Consultants on €200,000 a year contracts wasted? of course it is. Prioritise were to cut first.

I know were I'd start.

Maybe ask all the Consultants to take a cut from €200,000 to €180,000 and say the difference will go to 3rd World countries? Is that an idea? Only the rich lose out?

TomRooney

K-9 wrote: »

We always sent foreign aid abroad, in good and bad times, we haven't suddenly started borrowing it.

We spent more 2 years ago and didn't borrow. To say we are now borrowing to send it abroad is sensationalism and populist mob propaganda.

Is Foreign Aid wasted? of course it is. Is pay to Consultants on €200,000 a year contracts wasted? of course it is. Prioritise were to cut first.

I know were I'd start.

Maybe ask all the Consultants to take a cut from €200,000 to €180,000 and say the difference will go to 3rd World countries? Is that an idea? Only the rich lose out?

what is strange is that the western world has been giving hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc....to african countrys for at least 50 years now if not more,

and in all those years things have not changed one bit on any scale that would be noticed, all the countrys are still corrupt, still impoverished and still existing mainly on handouts...is this sustainable is it realy going to change anything whatsoever...?

bear in mind i am speaking as someone who has spent six months in the poorest parts of africa, i know more than most what it is like. but breeding a culture of depending on handouts in africa is simply not helping the people progress in any sustainable way.

K-9

TomRooney wrote: »

what is strange is that the western world has been giving hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc....to african countrys for at least 50 years now if not more,

and in all those years things have not changed one bit on any scale that would be noticed, all the countrys are still corrupt, still impoverished and still existing mainly on handouts...is this sustainable is it realy going to change anything whatsoever...?

bear in mind i am speaking as someone who has spent six months in the poorest parts of africa, i know more than most what it is like. but breeding a culture of depending on handouts in africa is simply not helping the people progress in any sustainable way.

I accept that, what's the alternative?

ArphaRima

but breeding a culture of depending on handouts in africa is simply not helping the people progress in any sustainable way.

Agreed. But Africa is f8cked in so many ways. Overpopulation is a major problem. I know what the hardcore will say.. But what is the real solution..?
Seriously; How does the world curb overpopulation in a region that has no means to support itself?
We cant keep pumping ever more aid into a region that cant naturally support the numbers of people living there, especially given record pop. growth.

This is a conundrum that I cant even begin to grasp.
A life is a life we are told. How does the PC world take this challenge?

ynotdu

K-9 wrote: »

I accept that, what's the alternative?

Would seem to be the attiude by some posters here,until the day all is well with the world,no more corruption,no more despots,no more recessions. pigs fly...............

I would hate to be hungry waiting for that day!!!!

jimmmy

TomRooney wrote: »

what is strange is that the western world has been giving hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc....to african countrys for at least 50 years now if not more,

and in all those years things have not changed one bit on any scale that would be noticed, all the countrys are still corrupt, still impoverished and still existing mainly on handouts...is this sustainable is it realy going to change anything whatsoever...?

bear in mind i am speaking as someone who has spent six months in the poorest parts of africa, i know more than most what it is like. but breeding a culture of depending on handouts in africa is simply not helping the people progress in any sustainable way.

You are correct except its not " hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc ", its billions , and hundreds of , that the western world has given Africa and the third world.
Our little country borrowing 1 billion extra this year ( compared to our foreign borrowing requirement if we did not give handouts to the third world ) will not change anthing except leaving our children owing 1 billion plus interest to foreign lenders ( mostly the Chinese + the middle eastern oil producing nations ). Why not let them donate the aid to Africa ?
Our children + grandchildren will have more than enough to pay back, mark my words.

getz

fluffer wrote: »

Agreed. But Africa is f8cked in so many ways. Overpopulation is a major problem. I know what the hardcore will say.. But what is the real solution..?
Seriously; How does the world curb overpopulation in a region that has no means to support itself?
We cant keep pumping ever more aid into a region that cant naturally support the numbers of people living there, especially given record pop. growth.

This is a conundrum that I cant even begin to grasp.
A life is a life we are told. How does the PC world take this challenge?

without trying to stir things up-the church of rome dosent help with its -no condom rules-and at the end of the day ireland hasent done to badly out of the handouts from the eu

jimmmy

getz wrote: »

without trying to stir things up-the church of rome dosent help with its -no condom rules

True enough. The population of the world has increased three fold since the end of WW2 I think ? From memory its now 6 billion instead of 2 billion in 1945 ? How will the world supply enough energy, food etc eto itself in another 60 odd years if the population then will be 18 billion ? And what will the environment be like then ? Rome has a bit to answer for, methinks.

Cannibal Ox

TomRooney wrote:

what is strange is that the western world has been giving hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc....to african countrys for at least 50 years now if not more,

and in all those years things have not changed one bit on any scale that would be noticed, all the countrys are still corrupt, still impoverished and still existing mainly on handouts...is this sustainable is it realy going to change anything whatsoever...?

The Human Development Index says differently :pac:

Ethiopia 1980 0.305 / 2006 0.389
Mozambique 1996 0.281 / 2006 0.366
Uganda 1990 0.404 / 2006 0.493
Tanzania 1990 0.436 / 2006 0.503
Malawi 1985 0.377 / 2006 0.457

Just for some idea of comparison, between 1990 and 2006 Ireland increased by 0.083 while Uganda rose by 0.090, Tanzania by 0.066, and Malawi by 0.071.

*Source 1

The World Bank disagrees too. In Ethiopia between 2000 and 2007 GDP ($ billions) rose from 8.18 to 19.39, completion of primary education rose from 22% to 46%, and under 5 mortality rates fell (per 1000) from 151 in 2000 to 123 in 2006. In Mozambique GDP rose from 4.25 to 7.75, primary education completition rates from 16% in 2000 to 42% in 2006, and under 5 mortality rate fell from 178 in 2000 to 138 in 2006. In Tanzania GDP rose from 9.08 to 16.18, primary education from 56% in 2005 to 85% in 2007, and under 5 mortality rates fell from 141 in 2000 to 118 in 2006.

*Source 2

Those are all Irish Aid partner countries, which is why I picked them. Obviously foreign aid, and much less Irish aid, wasn't the sole cause of those increases, and it would be a disaster if that was the case. But aid, properly used, does help. It funds schools, which provide jobs and wages for adults and educates younger people, giving them a better chance to help their own country develop without relying on aid. It funds immunization and vaccination programs, which lower infant death mortality rates and improve life expectency.

Yes there are issues around how money is given, who its given to and what they do with it, but using those issues as an argument to suspend aid completley is nonsensical (not to mention they've been grossly distorted in this thread, yes corruption is an issue but labeling the *entire* continent of Africa as corrupt and malnourished is going a little too far me thinks). The Irish health service is badly structured, run and wastes money by the bucketload, sure lets get rid of it. The government too, it couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery and it's riddled with corruption, lets get rid of it too. Just because there are questions about a program doesn't mean you should suspend it. They are issues that are constantly debated and revised by governments, NGOs and academics, precisely so that aid can be more effective in doing what it does.

Aid will be cut in the budget, don't worry about that. It's already been cut 17% in the past eight months, and Ireland will certaintly not be meeting its commitment of .07% of national income. I don't buy the argument "protect your own". It reeks of nationalism, the money involved would make relatively small difference to Irish people compared to what it does as aid, and is a fairly empty claim when you consider the fact that we're already more than capable of looking after ourselves as it is.


I could go on, but I reckon I'd just get (even!) more long winded and zealist about it, so I'm stopping after this. The fact is that Irish aid is one of the very few areas where this "little" country punches well above its weight in. Irish aid is very well respected around the world, and there are a lot of dedicated, resourceful and incredibly capable (has to be said, they're a shade more capable than most Irish politicians) Irish people around the world working to help improve the lives of other people. I think it is a crying shame that people want to axe Irish aid because of the actions of a bunch of grossly wealthy and greedy indivduals in the property and banking sector.

- A bloodsucking charity worker (mea cupla!)

noodler

I totally agree with the above.

Looking after our own?

We won't starve-they will.

I am not an aid worker by the way.

jimmmy

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

the fact that we're already more than capable of looking after ourselves as it is.

If that was so why are we borrowing 25,000,000,000.00 this year alone, to be repaid plus interest ? Why are foreign lenders charging us the highest interest rate in the eurozone ?

Why not suggest the foreign lenders ( mostly the Chinese + the middle eastern oil producing nations donate the aid directly to Africa ?

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

You are correct except its not " hundreds of millions of euro,dollar etc ", its billions , and hundreds of , that the western world has given Africa and the third world.
Our little country borrowing 1 billion extra this year ( compared to our foreign borrowing requirement if we did not give handouts to the third world ) will not change anthing except leaving our children owing 1 billion plus interest to foreign lenders ( mostly the Chinese + the middle eastern oil producing nations ). Why not let them donate the aid to Africa ?
Our children + grandchildren will have more than enough to pay back, mark my words.

Except we always had foreign aid. We haven't suddenly decided to spend this money this year and start borrowing it.

Remember we still get EU aid which is complete madness. Maybe when we stop foreign aid we'll hand back the subsidies?

ynotdu

Some actually one in particulor has simply being stirring things up,I think those who have been following it can guess which member it is.

Every angle of this argument has been covered,in My opinion it is time to lock it.

People differ and Others die because of the accident of where they were born or the family they were born into,to the cruel selfish one,s all I can say is I hope there is reincarnation and ye are reborn in a future life into the suffering of third world conditions,may,be ya so cruel You would enjoy it, once it did not involve You ? watching new borns with no milk from malnourished mothers breast,walking miles for water,seeing flys on your babie,s mouths,your family being decimated by hiv/aids etc etc

Helping the suffering should be a no brainer.

some seem to think they are superior to others born on this planet,it must be great to feel that way ?

Ignorance is bliss.