Just seen this on BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4606197.stm

He doesn't want to go along with the UK led plans for African debt relief because they don't fit with the US budgetary requirements

Boy really is all heart isn't he?

Yes cos they want every country to give 0.7 of there country GDP to poverty and the like and that isn't visable(sp) for the USA who already gives more than anyone else- they currently give 0.17 but thats still millions more.

i think he will increase it at the G8 summit although by how much is still to be seen!!

Mr Bush said on Wednesday that the IFF for Africa "doesn't fit our budgetary process".

Well done George Dubya, you really are a gent. Strange how wrangling a couple of billion dollars from conrgress to support a war that refuses to end can magically "fit our budgetary process".

Still, why would he want to help starving nations ........ there's no profit from it.

Originally posted by Swan_Vesta
Still, why would he want to help starving nations ........ there's no profit from it.

That would stop all that lovely interest they are raking in from there loans to these countrys- they couldn't live without that could they!!! he needs a new set of golf clubs!!!!

On the bright side, it looks like the UK will stand against the US no matter what, and even if they don't agree go ahead anyway! A breath of fresh air is Mr. Brown!

He's assisting the Live 8 concerts as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4605811.stm

Working on a percentage of GDP isn't that useful.

The US by giving 0.17% of GDP gives about 19,000 million dollars a year.

The Norwegians, by giving 0.87% give 2,200 Million dollars a year.

Of course if the US gave more it would top things up somewhat.

Now look at the top 5 recipients of aid.

Democratic Republic of Congo
China
India
Indonesia
Pakistan

Weird how three of the top recipient nations of aid in the world China, India and Pakistan can still afford to develop nuclear weapons and in China's case a space programme.

(OECD figures quoted at http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp )

Perhaps some of the money spent on these rather high end technological projects could go to more useful purposes?

Joe

I think people have given some pretty good reasons here and this is a good example of people using anything they can to try and beat either America or Mr Bush.

Considering (as far as I am aware) the US gives over a quarter of the world’s aid budget, I think they are doing pretty well to help.

Plus remember, the G8 summit is to get round these issues and for heads of state to talk and come to an arrangement. They haven't even started yet! Try to hold of judgement until then please!

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Weird how three of the top recipient nations of aid in the world China, India and Pakistan can still afford to develop nuclear weapons and in China's case a space programme.

Perhaps some of the money spent on these rather high end technological projects could go to more useful purposes?

Or maybe the problem is that 'aid' is often supplied in the form of weapons and military technology?

Originally posted by Abdul
Or maybe the problem is that 'aid' is supplied in the form of weapons and military technology?

As far as I know the US hasn't supplied nuclear technology to any of these nations for some years. each of the three nations developed their own nuclear capabilities, perhaps with some help initially from power-reactor technology from other countries.

I'd willingly stop supplying offensive weapons to these people, along with any sufficiently advanced technology that could be used for weapons production.

Joe

We all pay different rates of tax depending on how much you earn, the more you earn, the more tax you pay.

My dad pays 40%, and pays more tax in a year than my mom earns, and she works full-time. She pays 28% (I think) because she earns less.

Why shouldn't aid be like this, and as it isn't like this, what's the problem with a fixed rate that all countries agree to pay?

Just throwing an idea out there, though I didn't express it too well I fear!

Originally posted by Hook
We all pay different rates of tax depending on how much you earn, the more you earn, the more tax you pay.

My dad pays 40%, and pays more tax in a year than my mom earns, and she works full-time. She pays 28% (I think) because she earns less.

Why shouldn't aid be like this, and as it isn't like this, what's the problem with a fixed rate that all countries agree to pay?

Just throwing an idea out there, though I didn't express it too well I fear!

I pay 40% tax and I agree to it because it's part of the 'social contract' between myself and the state.

I happen to think the state makes a pig's ear of it's end of the bargain, but there you go.

If we could establish a proper 'social contract' between donors and recipients then I'd go with this. We pay 0.7% of GDP, you guys start making the changes necessary to bring your population growth into an area of long term sustainable growth, stop assisting terrorist groups, make efforts towards open government, etc.

I know we in the West aren't perfect at this but we make an effort.

I don't like the 'big stuff' - small projects targeted at the grass roots where hearts and minds can be changed as well as good works done are what matter. By engaging a community and saying 'we're in this with you for the long term, if you want us' rather than parachuting in a few celebs and a load of anonymous aid that might not meet the local needs I'm convinced that more good will be done.

Total aid budget is what - over 80,000,000,000 dollars a year? I would love a breakdown to see where that goes in terms of 'hitting the sharp end'.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I think people have given some pretty good reasons here and this is a good example of people using anything they can to try and beat either America or Mr Bush.

Considering (as far as I am aware) the US gives over a quarter of the world’s aid budget, I think they are doing pretty well to help.


serapis is right; I don't want this thread to be used as another stick to beat the US with, so let me say that regarding the nuclear stalemate between India and Pakistan a few years ago, I was more concerned with the actions of the British government, which was happy to export military technology to both countries.


Originally posted by JoePritchard
As far as I know the US hasn't supplied nuclear technology to any of these nations for some years.

I'd willingly stop supplying offensive weapons to these people, along with any sufficiently advanced technology that could be used for weapons production.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I pay 40% tax and I agree to it because it's part of the 'social contract' between myself and the state.

I happen to think the state makes a pig's ear of it's end of the bargain, but there you go.

If we could establish a proper 'social contract' between donors and recipients then I'd go with this. We pay 0.7% of GDP, you guys start making the changes necessary to bring your population growth into an area of long term sustainable growth, stop assisting terrorist groups, make efforts towards open government, etc.

I know we in the West aren't perfect at this but we make an effort.

I don't like the 'big stuff' - small projects targeted at the grass roots where hearts and minds can be changed as well as good works done are what matter. By engaging a community and saying 'we're in this with you for the long term, if you want us' rather than parachuting in a few celebs and a load of anonymous aid that might not meet the local needs I'm convinced that more good will be done.

Total aid budget is what - over 80,000,000,000 dollars a year? I would love a breakdown to see where that goes in terms of 'hitting the sharp end'.

Joe

I spent two years doing loads of research while doing Sociology at A-level regarding different attitudes towards AID, and different attitudes to the West and their policies in foreign countries. 9 times out of 10 when the west decreed to those who they gave the aid to, what they should do with it, it harmed the countries who they gave the aid to.

Of course the biggest problem is the interest on the debt. Countries such as papa new guinea used to (and i'm sure it's still the case) spend their entire GDP just paying back the interest on the debt, not even touching the debt itself. How are they supposed to develop in such an environment.

I've never been able to make my mind up on this issue. There's no right and no wrong. The aid can't be given without strings, but tie the strings too tight and it actually has a poorer effect than not giving any aid at all.

Originally posted by Hook
I spent two years doing loads of research while doing Sociology at A-level regarding different attitudes towards AID, and different attitudes to the West and their policies in foreign countries. 9 times out of 10 when the west decreed to those who they gave the aid to, what they should do with it, it harmed the countries who they gave the aid to.

Of course the biggest problem is the interest on the debt. Countries such as papa new guinea used to (and i'm sure it's still the case) spend their entire GDP just paying back the interest on the debt, not even touching the debt itself. How are they supposed to develop in such an environment.

I've never been able to make my mind up on this issue. There's no right and no wrong. The aid can't be given without strings, but tie the strings too tight and it actually has a poorer effect than not giving any aid at all.

If you look at some of my postings on this topic elsewhere on teh forum you'll see that I'm actually not a big supporter of wodges of 'big' money from government being bandied around as a solution for anything. It doesn't work. I advocate a more 'surgical' approach involving relatively small amounts of money with resources and expertise being targetted at the 'sharp end' to communities and people on the ground, not to governments who can lose the aid down the back of the President's stretch Limo seat.

Seriously, it IS an issue but if governments want aid then we have a right to determine soem aspects of behaviour. If they don't want it with the strings, simple, don't take it. Massive aid programmes don't appear to work; perhaps the tiem has come to start targetting aid on this project by project basis - Tsunami early warning system? OK....cost it out, supply resources and expertise as well as money, and that's that.

There was a thread recently about teh homeless where it was said that giving food and drink is better in some ways because it stops people spending on booze and drugs. Perhaps a similar attitude here is needed. We provide more of our aid in terms of expertise and resources, targetted to locally led projects, and delivered with locally appropriate materials and technology. Rather than giving a million dollars and saying 'Now buy the stuff you need from us.'

But keep it small - within the scope of local communities who are going to benefit!

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard

There was a thread recently about teh homeless where it was said that giving food and drink is better in some ways because it stops people spending on booze and drugs. Perhaps a similar attitude here is needed. We provide more of our aid in terms of expertise and resources, targetted to locally led projects, and delivered with locally appropriate materials and technology. Rather than giving a million dollars and saying 'Now buy the stuff you need from us.'

But keep it small - within the scope of local communities who are going to benefit!

Joe

As long as we are shipping out the means to provide for themselves rather than providing for themselves. Charities no longer ship out food and clothes except in an Emergency, because it stunts rather than stimulates growth. If they've being provided with clothes and food they have no incentive to develop to provide themselves them.

If we're providing services to help develop factories, water supplies, electricity supplies, provide jobs and help develop the country and stimulate the economy then I'd guess we'd be on to a winner. But where's the fun in that? The 1st World wouldn't get their share of the interest then, and they wouldn't be able to make money off anybody! :mad:

Originally posted by Hook
As long as we are shipping out the means to provide for themselves rather than providing for themselves. Charities no longer ship out food and clothes except in an Emergency, because it stunts rather than stimulates growth. If they've being provided with clothes and food they have no incentive to develop to provide themselves them.

If we're providing services to help develop factories, water supplies, electricity supplies, provide jobs and help develop the country and stimulate the economy then I'd guess we'd be on to a winner. But where's the fun in that? The 1st World wouldn't get their share of the interest then, and they wouldn't be able to make money off anybody! :mad:

This is why I said APPROPRIATE.

Appropriate means suitable for the area, the culture, sustainable, affordable and maintainable and manageable in the future by the recipients.

I want out of these places. I'd like to move us to a place where we can say to the current recipients of aid 'OK, you're now in a place where you can manage on your own. If a natural disaster ever strikes, we'll be here. But day to day running - you're on your own'.

I want these places to be able to look after themselves without any assistance from us. It will be better for the recipient countries and in many ways better for us - how much distortion to Western economies occurs because of defaults on debt repayments - how much of the 'write off' being proposed by Mr Brown and others is really just to reduce uncertainty in teh future - enlightened self interest?

Joe

Bush does not have the money to spend for several reasons, which include:

1. 41.2 million Americans are without health insurance
2. 34.6 million live below the poverty line.
3. 3.5 million are homeless. (39% of which are children)
4. Social Security (government pension) is underfunded and is in jeopardy.
5. Medicare does not properly cover prescription drugs for the elderly. (Some have to decide if they want to eat or take their medicine. I knew an old woman who ate dog food to cut costs)
6. The economy still stinks. (National employment figures might look ok. However, the unemployment figures do not take into account those who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance. Underemployment is not taken into account at all.)
7. Bush blew the surplus on tax refunds and tax breaks to the rich and is spending far too much in Iraq.

Sure the US could dig deeper in their pockets. However, if by some miracle domestic concerns are adequately addressed, pocket lint will not spend very well.