2 Billion pounds for Syrian aid given by David Cameron.

[paulpablo]

I'm, not saying it's the specifically the money being sent to Syria that is putting the UK in a bind, just simply that the money being sent to Syria could be used on the NHS which is what taxes are traditionally spent on, the government takes tax and promises to govern that money to improve the country for the tax payers.

"Im not saying its the money to syria, just that it's the money to syria. "  Yes, that's what you're saying.  Own it.   

And I don't think it's a question of what the haves should do, it's a question of, should the government force the tax payers, which are comprised of haves and the not haves very much and are struggling, to give 2 billion pounds to Syria.

The worst of you is better off than they are.  Your situations aren't even comparable and you consistently ignore them (and that) in your comments.   Your struggle, in context, is a first world problem (and you already have it better than :cough: "some of us" just relative to the first world).  That your government spends an incredible chunk of it's budget on your first world problem and has pledged a fraction of a percent in aid to syria -should- address your concerns...obviously your government is far and away more interested and more invested in your NHS.  To imagine that there is -any- situation in which they would favor syrian aid over nhs funding in any direct relationship, or even in a sufficiently coercive indirect relationship, is a flight of incredible fantasy. You have interpreted this situation as them making a choice they have not made, which they need not make, it is a non-representative summary of the situation at multiple levels.

This isn't anything against voluntary charitable donations of people with lots of money sending billions to charity, although when the Muslim communities in England did do that there were allegations that the money was going to terrorist organizations anyway.

Additionally I fully take on board what you're saying about the NHS funding already being in the hundreds of billions and 2 billion is quite a small percentage of that, and as I said before I take on board what you're saying about money being wasted on stupid shit by the NHS.

It;s not just a small percentage of that, it;s a small percentage that won;t be -taken- from that.  Complain about the stupid shit before you impeach or malign the foreign aid?  If you have some general problem with the idea of taxes idk what to tell you.  There's probably some guy out there who complains about his taxes going to the nhs........what do you tell him?

When you say the worst of you has it better than they do, I'd disagree, worst off people in the uk are on the verge of death or are missing limbs or blind, things like that, being from a good county doesn't make you immune to health problems. You're saying they, meaning Syrians, I don't know how you'd judge how a whole nation of Syrian refugees are but I imagine the majority have their limbs, eyesight and more than just a few minutes to live.

And no I'm really not saying that the money being sent to Syria is causing the problems in the nhs, I'm saying the tax payers money would be better spent on improving the facilities tax payers use. If the money hadn't been spent on Syria I don't know it would definitely be spent on something important. I know the problems the nhs has has been blamed on underfunding and under funding is solved by funding, as a simple quick solution. That along with more shrewd spending.

And also I'm not saying they favour Syrian aid over funding the nhs. I'm saying what I've repeatedly said in this reply and in previous replies, that I think the tax payers money should be spent on services directly benefiting the tax payers most important needs, and charity should be voluntery.

For people who don't support taxes at all and don't want to pay for the NHS that would be a too much of a simple statement to be able to judge what they actually mean by that. I'd have to know their motivation and if they still think other people should still pay taxes or not and basically listen to their arguments beyond that simple statement.

I'm not saying that they did necessarily think about it as a choice between the NHS and Syrian aid either. I'm saying that when you govern people's taxes you make a choice of what to spend it on and I think I'd be in favour of them spending that money on the NHS rather than Syrian aid.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you say the worst of you has it better than they do, I'd disagree, worst off people in the uk are on the verge of death or are missing limbs or blind, things like that, being from a good county doesn't make you immune to health problems.  You're saying they, meaning Syrians, I don't know how you'd judge how a whole nation of Syrian refugees are but I imagine the majority have their limbs, eyesight and more than just a few minutes to live.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  You think you have it super bad.  I don't.  You think they probably dont have it that bad, I do.  We can continue the duiscussion regardless.

And no I'm really not saying that the money being sent to Syria is causing the problems in the nhs, I'm saying the tax payers money would be better spent on improving the facilities tax payers use.  If the money hadn't been spent on Syria I don't know it would definitely be spent on something important.  I know the problems the nhs has has been blamed on underfunding and under funding is solved by funding, as a simple quick solution. That along with more shrewd spending.

You're definitely saying that the money being sent to syria is a cause for your problems.  You are implicating it as mispent money, better appropriated for the NHS.  You'll need to accept that this is what you're saying - or stop saying it.  

You don't know that if they spent that fraction of a percent on the NHS it would be spent on something important either.  You just told me that they still have dental but people aren't getting cancer treatment.........that they're dying in their beds at hospital.

I think, of the two, I'd demand shrewd spending, rather than maligning syrian aid and setting up a narrative of opposition that is plainly not factual.  A narrative of "help for them means less services for us". Surely you can see how damaging that narrative could be? That same story plays out here, even internally. We can't have nice roads because of welfare recipients, and we can't have more welfare because of foreign aid. It's complete bullshit in each case and in both of our cases, but it;s politically -useful- bullshit...so we're both treated to an endless array of it. It's easy as hell to sell too, because it's all about how the "other" guy is mispending our money, or having our money mispent on him.

And also I'm not saying they favour Syrian aid over funding the nhs.  I'm saying what I've repeatedly said in this reply and in previous replies, that I think the tax payers money should be spent on services directly benefiting the tax payers most important needs, and charity should be voluntery.

No, ofc they don't favor foreign aid over the NHS....I mentioned that to address -your- concerns, hoping that you would realize that no one in your government would actually send that aid if they had to make a choice between it and funding the NHS.   That they've allocated 140b for the NHS and 2bil for syrian aid -ought- to calm any concerns you have in that regard, but it doesn't..because deep down you feel that syria is getting some peice of the pie that you feel someone else should get. The reason I don't find your concern -regarding funding...not the state of your services- all that concerning...is that were not only discussing a tiny piece of the pie...it isn't the last piece of pie.

Why do you keep bringing up charity?

For people who don't support taxes at all and don't want to pay for the NHS that would be a too much of a simple statement to be able to judge what they actually mean by that.  I'd have to know their motivation and if they still think other people should still pay taxes or not and basically listen to their arguments beyond that simple statement.

 If they expressed their motivation and it was concern over a situation that was -not- occurring...concern over a decision that was -not- being made....and did not -have- to be made..what then?

I have to end with this, for context. I think that the uk is a great nation full of great people who would help others even if it -did- come at great loss to themselves...I just don't think that you're -actually- being put in that scenario at present.

[paulpablo]

When you say the worst of you has it better than they do, I'd disagree, worst off people in the uk are on the verge of death or are missing limbs or blind, things like that, being from a good county doesn't make you immune to health problems.  You're saying they, meaning Syrians, I don't know how you'd judge how a whole nation of Syrian refugees are but I imagine the majority have their limbs, eyesight and more than just a few minutes to live.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  You think you have it super bad.  I don't.  You think they probably dont have it that bad, I do.  We can continue the duiscussion regardless.

And no I'm really not saying that the money being sent to Syria is causing the problems in the nhs, I'm saying the tax payers money would be better spent on improving the facilities tax payers use.  If the money hadn't been spent on Syria I don't know it would definitely be spent on something important.  I know the problems the nhs has has been blamed on underfunding and under funding is solved by funding, as a simple quick solution. That along with more shrewd spending.

You're definitely saying that the money being sent to syria is a cause for your problems.  You are implicating it as mispent money, better appropriated for the NHS.  You'll need to accept that this is what you're saying - or stop saying it.  

You don't know that if they spent that fraction of a percent on the NHS it would be spent on something important either.  You just told me that they still have dental but people aren't getting cancer treatment.........that they're dying in their beds at hospital.

I think, of the two, I'd demand shrewd spending, rather than maligning syrian aid and setting up a narrative of opposition that is plainly not factual.  

And also I'm not saying they favour Syrian aid over funding the nhs.  I'm saying what I've repeatedly said in this reply and in previous replies, that I think the tax payers money should be spent on services directly benefiting the tax payers most important needs, and charity should be voluntery.

No, ofc they don't favor foreign aid over the NHS....I mentioned that to address -your- concerns, hoping that you would realize that no one in your government would actually send that aid if they had to make a choice between it and funding the NHS.   That they've allocated 140b for the NHS and 2bil for syrian aid -ought- to calm any concerns you have in that regard, but it doesn't..because deep down you feel that syria is getting some peice of the pie that you feel someone else should get....all the while ignoring that this is not only a tiny piece of the pie...it isn't the last piece of pie.

Why do you keep bringing up charity?

For people who don't support taxes at all and don't want to pay for the NHS that would be a too much of a simple statement to be able to judge what they actually mean by that.  I'd have to know their motivation and if they still think other people should still pay taxes or not and basically listen to their arguments beyond that simple statement.

 If they expressed their motivation and it was concern over a situation that was -not- occurring...concern over a decision that was -not- being made....and did not -have- to be made..what then?

I didn't say we have it super bad, I said what I said, you can scroll up to read.

The cause of the NHS problems is people who need medical care and a lack of funding for that medical care has been blamed for inadequate medical care.

Also never said they have had to make a choice between aid in Syria or the NHS. I said I think the money should be spent on the NHS. Both aid to Syria and the NHS will still exist even if this 2 billion was given to the save the polar bear foundation.

I'm not making a very complicated statement I find it bizarre you have manage to come up with so many strange interpretations of what I have said, I'm not saying I have it bad, the NHS will cease if it doesn't have this 2 billion.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The money isn't being sent to Syria; it's being sent to Jordan to help it cope with the Syrian refugees. The only money being sent to Syria is in the form of arms and bombs to cause death and destruction there will results in more refugees.

[paulpablo]

The money isn't being sent to Syria; it's being sent to Jordan to help it cope with the Syrian refugees.  The only money being sent to Syria is in the form of arms and bombs to cause death and destruction there will results in more refugees.

Yes sorry I mispoke when I said that, the only only excuse I have is that I was in work trying to type on my fucking horrible touch screen, now that is a first world problem. I actually saw that I made that mistake but the effort that it would have took to delete it and the time I had in which to concentrate on the edit made me think it wasn't worth it. I meant simply to say the money being sent to Syrian aid.  I didn't know it was being sent to Jordan though, that's new info for me.

[The Grand Nudger]

The cause of the NHS problems is people who need medical care and a lack of funding for that medical care has been blamed for inadequate medical care.  

-an in what way is this related to the amount pledged in foreign aid?  I'm failing, completely, to see why one is brought to attention in relation to the other.

Also never said they have had to make a choice between aid in Syria or the NHS.  I said I think the money should be spent on the NHS.

I'm pretty sure that both of these sentences can't be true simultaneously.  If they were to follow your advice, where you think the money should be spent, they would spend that 2bil on the NHS rather than foreign aid, correct? Do you mean an additional sum, a third quantity. As in fund nhs at current levels, send 2bil in foreign aid, -and- secure more funding for nhs improvements?

[paulpablo]

The cause of the NHS problems is people who need medical care and a lack of funding for that medical care has been blamed for inadequate medical care.  

-an in what way is this related to the amount pledged in foreign aid?  I'm failing, completely, to see why one is brought to attention in relation to the other.

Also never said they have had to make a choice between aid in Syria or the NHS.  I said I think the money should be spent on the NHS.

I'm pretty sure that both of these sentences can't be true simultaneously.  If they were to follow your advice, where you think the money should be spent, they would spend that 2bil on the NHS rather than foreign aid, correct? Do you mean an additional sum, a third quantity. As in fund nhs at current levels, send 2bil in foreign aid, -and- secure more funding for nhs improvements?

To answer the first question as i said before the reason why the Syrian aid draws my attention to the NHS is because there are reports which show the NHS performing quite badly and a lack of funding is often blamed, it has been reported the NHS has a deficit of 2 billion, the exact amount given to aid Syrians.

To answer the second question you just have to read the paragraph I wrote fully to understand it. Neither Syrian aid or the NHS requires the 2 billion pounds to exist, I'm saying that I've never said it's a choice that will cease funding either causes.

[Napoléon]

2 billion down the fucking drain if you ask me.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

2 billion down the fucking drain if you ask me.

If the Western dummies hadn't funded chaos and mayhem in the Middle East we would have had $trillions to spend on other things.

[GUBU]

Gee, maybe it's because the country is in ruins and nearly everybody a displaced person. Everybody's talking about the flood of fugitives and how to handle it. Well, maybe it's better to try and rebuild there than to have them come to our shores. At least that's what the rightwing's constantly bawling about. Sitting back and simply running one's mouth won't solve the problem.

And it's not only the UK, it's 9 billlion Euro overall, coming from the whole of UN.

Honestly, most of the money'll probably go to ISIS via UAE and Saudi.