UN: Rich must not cut aid to poor to balance budget

Originally posted by MacSwain
I am very surprised at which characters here are exposing themselves as dyed-in-the-wool evangelical Christians, extolling the virtue of "You are your brothers keeper." Seems to be the opposite of prior claims of total disdain for religion by the same individuals.

This has got to be Reach Of The Week.

Originally posted by MacSwain
You totally misread my post. Try reading it again....both eyes open this time.

I see. It is a common enough claim. I see it quite often. I agree it is generally made by people who hate religion, but they don't see a problem with it. They base their statements based on what they think you are supposed to believe.

Originally posted by Wajoma

I like P J O'Rourkes quote: (from memory)

"Foriegn aid is; poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."

Having lived in Somalia as a relief worker for a while, this is my biggest beef.

As for me and my family, we give money directly to charities we believe in (e.g.
http://www.ednahospital.org/), but are in general opposed to UN based charity.
Sadly, in spite of my first hand experience in the third world, some will read
this and write me off as a small minded bigot.

The result of much of this charity is contempt. Just as a shyster that scams
money from the elderly will generally view the victim with contempt, the
benefactors of US and UN aide view the donor organizations with contempt.
The poor people that get overlooked often wind up more oppressed. Don't
expect gratitude from the poor who are being overlooked, and don't expect
gratitude from the manipulative benefactors who view us as suckers.

Disclaimer: there are some good organizations and some good that comes
from the aid.

If you give money to be used for foreign aid, what you get in return is a document showing all the good your money did. That is the product. Actually doing some good with the money is optional.

Originally posted by Eladar
I see. It is a common enough claim. I see it quite often. I agree it is generally made by people who hate religion, but they don't see a problem with it. They base their statements based on what they think you are supposed to believe.

You have totally misread MacSwain's post telling you that you had totally misread his previous post and urging you to try reading it again.

Originally posted by techsouth
As for me and my family, we [...] are in general opposed to UN based charity.

Charity? You are talking about humanitarian aid and relief work here? The OP is about development aid - which has its problems too, of course - but which is quite different from humanitarian aid. It has to be said that there is scant or reluctant respect for certain aspects of U.N. programmes in the national and international NGO sphere here in Indonesia.

Originally posted by FMF
Charity? You are talking about humanitarian aid and relief work here? The OP is about development aid - which has its problems too, of course - but which is quite different from humanitarian aid. It has to be said that there is scant or reluctant respect for certain aspects of U.N. programmes in the national and international NGO sphere here in Indonesia.

Why are you arguing about minuscule amounts of charity? Capitalism is the premiere poverty-fighting mechanism around the globe:

"The U.N. chief has expressed satisfaction that the world is technically on track to cut extreme poverty by half, the No. 1 goal, though some critics say it's mainly because of the tremendous improvements in China and India."

Trust any politician to find a parade and run around to march at the front and take credit! And the juggernaut will continue, that is, unless we start listening to Ahmadinejad:

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Tuesday that capitalism faces inevitable defeat..."

Next stop -- Africa:

"Many recent reports show that the world's poorest countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have made little progress in eradicating poverty."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_re_us/un_un_world_summit

As a side benefit, birth rates always go down as poverty decreases -- so capitalism halts over-population at the same time! What a two-fer!

Is there any greater force producing human good on the planet than capitalism? Debate.

Originally posted by Eladar
[b]UNITED NATIONS, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pressed debt-ridden donor countries on Monday not to cut aid to the poor despite their budgetary woes.

"We should not balance budgets on the backs of the poor," Ban told 140 leaders at the start of a three-day summit to review progress in meeting U.N. poverty goals by 2015.


...[text shortened]... le more than world wide communism.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20266544.htm[/b]

The conspiracy of world-wide communism is nothing but the product of highly imaginative and paranoid minds, however, considering the unfortunate economic situation of certain countries it seems that a cut on the expenditure on foreign aid is without a doubt something that has to be made.

Im sure there could be a debate on whether this move is morally questionable, but I believe the question of ethics is irrelevant at this moment.

If you'll look at how far the US and the rest of the world have moved towards communism already, you will see that world wide communism is well on its way to reaching its goal.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[...]considering the unfortunate economic situation of certain countries it seems that a cut on the expenditure on foreign aid is without a doubt something that has to be made.

Im sure there could be a debate on whether this move is morally questionable, but I believe the question of ethics is irrelevant at this moment.

How much money would cutting the allocation for development aid actually save in, say, France, U.S., Spain, Japan, U.K.? How do these savings measure against the "budgetary woes" in those countries? How do you quantify the loss of benefit (caused by cutting development aid) experienced by each of these developed world countries?

Originally posted by Eladar
If you'll look at how far the US and the rest of the world have moved towards communism already, you will see that world wide communism is well on its way to reaching its goal.

I think you pulled that tinfoil hat a little bit too far over your face.

Originally posted by FMF
How much money would cutting the allocation for development aid actually save in, say, France, U.S., Spain, Japan, U.K.? How do these savings measure against the "budgetary woes" in those countries? How do you quantify the loss of benefit (caused by cutting development aid) experienced by each of these developed world countries?

From what I have seen and heard, the expenditure on foreign aid isn't tremendous, on the contrary its relatively insignificant.
I believe one must adopt the disposition to reduce any unnecessary spending that may exist, regardless of its significance.
Considering the well-known deterrent of progress in these countries which are supposedly affected, that is corruption, I don't believe there will be any major impact, as usual poverty relief will rest on the shoulders of independent charities rather than government programs.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The membership 'costs' to the UN can never be considered charity, charity can only ever be voluntary. So while the bureaurats may decide how much (if any) goes where, that can never be called charity.

I like P J O'Rourkes quote: (from memory)

"Foriegn aid is; poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries."

Quote wrongly attributed to P J O'Rourke, appears to originate from Doug Casey.