Overseas aid budget €623m

Boskowski

7upfree wrote: »

A generalisation if ever there was one. Here in Ireland there are also "poor f"ckers" who:

Cannot buy food.

Cannot keep a roof over their heads.

Cannot provide their kids with proper healthcare.

That's my whole point. We have people in that situation before they have kids yet its not stopping them from having any because apparently people are entitled to kids as a life choice whether they can provide for them or not. And we're borrowing for that too.

7upfree

Boskowski wrote: »

That's my whole point. We have people in that situation before they have kids yet its not stopping them from having any because apparently people are entitled to kids as a life choice whether they can provide for them or not. And we're borrowing for that too.

I agree SW has to be tackled, along with PS wages. The cause of that €1Bn a month borrowing. However, charity begins at home - helping young couples in difficulties. Not these guys:

sarkozy

7upfree wrote: »

And all the while when we have charities here paying their CEOs in excess 0f €200,000 PA. Lead by example. Cut these leeches pay for starters.

No Irish charity working in overseas development earns €200,000. That figure relates to one person from Rehab group earning that much, which she shouldn't be in my opinion.

finnbar1 wrote:

Typical doublespeak. Come up with fancy sounding words to make it seem more respectable.

It's not double-speak, I'm being very specific about what we're talking about. You and others here are bandying about inaccurate language. 'Official Development Assistance' (ODA) is a strictly defined type of financial and technical support provided to a specific list of 'developing countries' which excludes things such as commercial loans and military/security spending. There are other forms of spending also considered 'foreign aid' which is not ODA, for example, soft-loans, public-private partnerships, certain kinds of humanitarian assistance, security assistance, etc. You might have your views on these, but I know what I'm talking about, you don't.

finnbar1 wrote:

The clever and moral thing to do is trade with them, not give them hand outs.

You're right. Aid cannot solve everything. Global poverty will be ended when developing countries can successfully and fairly trade their way out of their situations. But how do you suppose countries without necessary government systems, human capital, infrastructure and trade access are supposed to just 'trade their way out of poverty'? How can they trade their way out of poverty when American and European companies are stealing nearly $1 trillion a year into secretive tax havens and actively avoiding paying taxes to those developing countries in which they operate? How are developing countries to trade their way out of poverty if our countries and employers are actively undermining their ability to build their public services, infrastructure and human capital? All the while 800 million people are unnecessarily starving, 200 million unemployed and billions underemployed?

This discussion is clearly a case of empty vessels making the most noise.

Spending 0.5% (half of one percent) of gross national income on ODA, compared to the billions spent on our own people every year is worth it.

7upfree

sarkozy wrote: »

No Irish charity working in overseas development earns €200,000. That figure relates to one person from Rehab group earning that much, which she shouldn't be in my opinion.

OK - let's roll it back to €140K+. Any comments on that?

sarkozy

7upfree wrote: »

OK - let's roll it back to €140K+. Any comments on that?

Well, firstly, that you were wrong. Secondly, spreading untruths contributing to public misunderstanding of reality might actually impact on people's lives. I would also comment that while the highest amount earned by a CEO in a development NGO is in the region of €110,000, most directors of NGOs earn €55,000-80,000 depending on the size of the organisation, which, when you think about the responsibility of these positions, is quite low. Take for example, Concern, an international organisation, Ireland's biggest NGO, basically the size of a very large Irish company with international operations spread across Europe and the US, operating in many countries around the world. CEOs of similarly sized private companies would be earning in excess of €200,000, but Tom Arnold's salary was around €110,000. Also consider that most working in NGOs earn quite low incomes for the nature of the jobs, many of which require high levels of education, expertise and experience (€26,000-34,000). I'd consider this excellent value for money.

And, as I said, the aid budget has already been cut by over thirty percent since 2008, so the sector has taken a hit and continues to take a hit.

People should really think and educate themselves before spouting rubbish.

jackfrostwins

You can waffle all day but the fact is we are broke, if you have excess personal cash feel free to do with it what you will but please stop with the guilt and Irish famine talk to justify this madness, we owe nothing to anyone.

repsol

sarkozy wrote: »

You're entirely wrong about famine. You need to update your stone-age beliefs. It's especially insulting to say that the millions of Irish people who died in our famine were simply natures 'collateral damage'. The fact of the matter is that our famine happened amidst an island and a United Kingdom stuffed with food. There are verified accounts of food warehouses up and down the Irish coast stuffed with food, but the starving millions weren't allowed to eat it.

Famine happens because people's 'entitlement' to food collapses. Entitlements include the ability to buy food, grow food, access food via aid, etc. In Ireland, Irish Catholics were forced by government policy to live in the worst living conditions in Europe; therefore, they were forced to live on the worst land, which meant they had to survive on one single staple, the potato; when their staple failed, that entitlement to food collapsed; without jobs, they could not buy food even though the country was full of food; due to the racist and exploitative policies of the British, they did nothing to stop the suffering until it was too late - only very late in the day was food aid and (the dreadful) work-for-food programmes put in place. More 'too-little-too-late-ism'.

This explanation of famine - driven by economics and politics - has been shown to be the case in many other parts of the world, for example, the structure of the Irish Great Famine is identical to the Indian Great Famine. This dynamic is in place all over the world. I spent time in one African country where I myself saw these dynamics at play.

Today, we're also dealing with climate change. You have to ask who is most responsible for this. Poor people around the world? Or rich people around the world and our lifestyles? The people who must move, as you say, due to their lands drying our or being flooded, is something we are responsible for.

What you've said is extremely insulting to the 800 million people in the world going hungry - imaging you and every person in Europe were scratching around for food today. It's also extremely insulting to the memories of those who died in our famine, and insulting to those who take that memory seriously and work hard to prevent it happening today.

I would gladly let Africa sort itself out.People like you are worried about Africans and yet parents of seriously ill children in Ireland have to go around with a begging bowl to pay for treatment and resort to charity appeals to get what they should be entitled to. Charity begins at home.

sarkozy

jackfrostwins wrote:

You can waffle all day but the fact is we are broke, if you have excess personal cash feel free to do with it what you will but please stop with the guilt and Irish famine talk to justify this madness, we owe nothing to anyone.

I'm not the one who brought up famine. I was simply responding to a false assertion by someone on your camp and relating it to the topic at hand.

Though, perhaps you're right. Europe is in an economic crisis, and many EU member states are also in serious debt crisis. I believe we should appeal to the EU to cease all regional, structural and other funding to Ireland until such time we sort out this country for ourselves. And for that matter, the EU should cease all such funding to all EU member states until the continent's fortunes improve.

The fact of the matter is that cutting the ODA budget won't actually translate into more public services, etc. It's just not the way fiscal planning and budgeting works in practice. You know, the government could make other decisions with regard to our national debt that would greatly improve our balance of payments, but as we've seen, the Government is consistently failing to make the right policy decisions.

sarkozy

repsol wrote: »

I would gladly let Africa sort itself out.People like you are worried about Africans and yet parents of seriously ill children in Ireland have to go around with a begging bowl to pay for treatment and resort to charity appeals to get what they should be entitled to. Charity begins at home.

If you saw it for yourself, you would never compare home to the situations people experience every day in developing countries around the world. Shame.

Injustice is injustice whether at home or abroad.

Cabbage_Head

Surely there is a better way we can provide aid.

I mean we all know people who spend months and months putting on fundraisers so they can go out and volunteer in these countries. I mean actually paying to help them.

Rather than give these countries money to do what they please, could we not pay Irish workers and provide them with materials to go over and provide education/building services etc? Gives Irish people employment and provides services to these countries at no charge? Teach a man to fish and all that craic?

Surely rather than giving money to the governments of such countries, our government could use the money to buy raw materials such as produce/livestock from Irish food producers and sending it to these countries to be distributed in food houses? I mean it wouldn't distort trade if it is the same money being spent, just spent in a different way, while stimulating the rural economy here at the same time?

Or am I just extremely naive

sarkozy

Cabbage_Head wrote: »

Surely there is a better way we can provide aid.

I mean we all know people who spend months and months putting on fundraisers so they can go out and volunteer in these countries. I mean actually paying to help them.

Rather than give these countries money to do what they please, could we not pay Irish workers and provide them with materials to go over and provide education/building services etc? Gives Irish people employment and provides services to these countries at no charge? Teach a man to fish and all that craic?

Surely rather than giving money to the governments of such countries, our government could use the money to buy raw materials such as produce/livestock from Irish food producers and sending it to these countries to be distributed in food houses? I mean it wouldn't distort trade if it is the same money being spent, just spent in a different way, while stimulating the rural economy here at the same time?

Or am I just extremely naive

Good questions. You're describing how official aid used to be done. And some of what you describe is, in the literal sense, very Victorian. These approaches contribute to dependency. It's like the old proverb, 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for his life'.

Developing countries are rich - in natural resources and people. What people want is to feel secure in their access to the basics of life - water, food, shelter, a job - and the power to make decisions over their own lives and to participate in the lives of their communities and government.

Official development assistance is about addressing the structural issues to enable this. Some of it goes to ensuring all have access to even just the most basic education and healthcare, investing in livelihoods to grow food and earn income, but also to infrastructure (roads, electrification) and governance (fighting corruption, improving their financial and tax collection systems, strengthening democracy, building a vibrant civil society and free media), aid can also help to alleviate the impacts of climate change that undermine all of these.

So rather than one-off injections of good will, aid is now much more about working with governments and public services in developing countries to put the right building blocks in place for those developing countries to stand on their own two feet.

Is this working? There are some good signs. Since the international aid system was created in 1945, we're seeing results from global aid spending. Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world; poverty in south-east Asia has been reduced dramatically, four of the eight UN Millennium Development Goals have been achieved ahead of the 2015 deadline (access to health, education, child mortality, etc.), there are more democracies in the world now than ever before, fewer inter-state wars, the list goes on.

And in this big picture, Ireland is recognised by many different studies (by e.g. the OECD) as having one of the most effective aid programmes in the world.

As a tax payer who pays into our overseas aid system and our renowned charity organisations, I want us to keep paying what we do and to pay more. And actually, the most recent Eurobarometer survey shows all EU citizens want their countries and the EU as the biggest donor in the world, to keep spending on aid, too.

Media999

7upfree wrote: »

A generalisation if ever there was one. Here in Ireland there are also "poor f"ckers" who:

Cannot buy food.

Cannot keep a roof over their heads.

Cannot provide their kids with proper healthcare.

A different type of poverty. All while we wheel €600m out to a bunch of warlords. BILLIONS has been hijacked in Africa.

And all the while when we have charities here paying their CEOs in excess 0f €200,000 PA. Lead by example. Cut these leeches pay for starters.

Only people i know who complain usually have a can in one hand and a john player blue in the other.

How about we have a tick box that says do not give any of my money to anyone on the dole who smokes / drinks / is a bigot etc.. while we are at it?

You are the definition of a first world problem. Head so far up your own arse you actually believe that people in this country are poor.

Potential-Monke

Media999 wrote: »

Only people i know who complain usually have a can in one hand and a john player blue in the other.

Generalise much?

Media999 wrote: »

How about we have a tick box that says do not give any of my money to anyone on the dole who smokes / drinks / is a bigot etc.. while we are at it?

I would also tick that box

Media999 wrote: »

You are the definition of a first world problem. Head so far up your own arse you actually believe that people in this country are poor.

Just because it's not to the same level as those in Africa, does not mean that they are not poor. As 7upfree said, it's a different kind of poverty. And the fact that you don't believe that there are people in this country who are poor says a lot about you. We don't need to be in the exact same situation to be poor. It's the same as saying anyone earning money is rich.

Captain Havoc

I'm closing this thread as it's got nothing to do with Waterford. Non-Waterford related political discussions should be the politics forum.