Quote: Nogget @ June 19 2012, 2:17 PM BSTMuch of Europe just tried that.
How much did they cut and for how long? Too little and for too few years. Then the citizens threw them out of office in favor of politicians promising more benefits, earlier retirement, etc.
It's an indisputable fact that the only way you avoid debt is by not spending more than you earn. If I managed my money like the government does I'd be homeless, penniless, unemployed and in jail.
25% cuts on spending at a local level across the board in the UK have had a very noticable effect across the board.
Quote: DaButt @ June 19 2012, 2:50 PM BSTIf I managed my money like the government does I'd be homeless, penniless, unemployed and in jail.
Microeconomics and macroeconomics.
Different.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ June 19 2012, 2:43 PM BSTYou mean, the amount of money? What about percentage of wealth? The woman in Colombia gave 100% of her "wealth" (bank credit). Lord Sinjun of PRsley gives 0.000001% of his "wealth" (bank credit).. and gets all the PR plaudits and Honours.
Absolutely.
Evil Lord Rich Bollocks' £2 million buys a lot more medicine than Mrs. Ever-So-Noble's two bob.
Charity is about doing good, not feeling good.
Yes but where is he spending it?
Quote: sootyj @ June 19 2012, 3:18 PM BSTYes but where is he spending it?
I've no idea.
I made him up.
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 3:11 PM BSTEvil Lord Rich Bollocks' £2 million buys a lot more medicine than Mrs. Ever-So-Noble's two bob.
Charity is about doing good, not feeling good.
It should be about both, not feeding the plates of other rich people, which is mainly what corporate charity and aid does.
There's a principle here that I think you've missed.
Governments collect the dog shit off the street, because no charity or donor will.
Metaphorically there is a lot of dog shit to collect.
So I for one am glad that they do this thankless task.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ June 19 2012, 3:22 PM BSTThere's a principle here that I think you've missed.
I just think that if the 'questionable' methods produce £1000, and the 'noble' method produces £10, there's a lot of sick babies who'd vote for the toffs and there black-tie dinners.
Surely the only principle is how much aid is delivered - not what percentage of the donors wealth that aid represents?
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 3:29 PM BSTI just think that if the 'questionable' methods produce £1000, and the 'noble' method produces £10, there's a lot of sick babies who'd vote for the toffs and their black-tie dinners.
..but how much of the "questionable" method's £1000 reaches the 3rd world front line? Nobody knows, because once it arrives (minus expenses - heh) at its country of destination, it's untrackable. Most of it just "disappears".. and they arrange a photoshoot with foreign journalists in some arid villagescape in Uganda, where they've just dug a well and delivered some sacks of grain..
..whereas the "noble" method reaches the needy in its entirety. Trouble is, are there any "noble" people left?
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 3:29 PM BSTSurely the only principle is how much aid is delivered?
See above.
Instead of passing the aid bucks to 3rd parties, the whole schtick of "UK foreign aid" should be restructured into a nationalised aid organisation that administers and delivers its bought goods and services direct to the front line. Imagine the organisation we could create, the jobs that would be created, with our annual aid budget of c.£7,800,000,000 (2010-11). That's £7.8 billion quid that we should be administering ourselves all the way to the front line, with our own bought goods, services, equipment and employees, not passing it on to ephemeral 3rd parties in 3rd world countries.
Stylee for President.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ June 19 2012, 6:21 PM BSTInstead of passing the aid bucks to 3rd parties, the whole schtick of "UK foreign aid" should be restructured into a nationalised aid organisation that administers and delivers its bought goods and services direct to the front line. Imagine the organisation we could create, the jobs that would be created, with our annual aid budget of c.£7,800,000,000 (2010-11). That's £7.8 billion quid that we should be administering ourselves all the way to the front line, with our own bought goods, services, equipment and employees, not passing it on to ephemeral 3rd parties in 3rd world countries.
Wasn't that the British Empire?
*dusts off pith helmet*
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ June 19 2012, 6:21 PM BSTthey arrange a photoshoot with foreign journalists in some arid villagescape in Uganda, where they've just dug a well and delivered some sacks of grain..
My neighbor is on some sort of church mission in Uganda for two weeks. I'm sure they're doing some good work, but mostly I've seen photos of her with hippos, elephants and little Ugandan babies.
Not hunting them I hope!
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 10:56 AM BSTIf it's legal, he should do it.
If the collective opinion is that it's wrong - change the law.
Englsish law is not purposive. It is prescriptive. It would not be difficult to draft swingeing tax law, but the desire to relieve deserving causes and avoid unjust consequences results in law being drafted in such a convoluted way that it is always going to be possible to prise open loopholes that frustrate the intent the law. Legality is not morality.
Quote: sootyj @ June 19 2012, 11:25 PM BSTNot hunting them I hope!
We're having a neighborhood BBQ this weekend with hippo steaks and elephant tenderloin. I hope the babies aren't too dry and stringy.