Isn't the GBP a fiat currency?

(February 6, 2016 at 10:41 am)Rhythm Wrote: Hopefully the money gets where it needs to go, or at least mostly - which is probably the best we can expect on that count.  Still, I don't see what it has to do with your NHS or teachers.  If they wanted to drop more funding to the nhs, or give teachers a raise, they could....regardless of the 2bil in foreign aid.  2bil isn't about to break any first world country.  It's chump change.  

People fighting for their lives and homes need weapons.  You could send them cash, they'll use it to procure weapons.  OFC, we've sent more than just weapons, so......

OFC there is currently no choice between straighter teeth and syrian aid, I keep telling you that's the worst case scenario if there -were- a direct relationship between the two, which there isn't..to put it into context.  You don't have it that bad yet, but if you did, you'd still have it pretty good, especially relative to the people you're helping.  Feeling me now?

I understand all your opinions and still the one that I severely object to. 

It's this focus on teeth straightening, I feel ridiculous even talking about it.  It's not as if teeth straightening is the hall mark of good quality health care.  Again this section of my argument has nothing at all to do with refugees or aid or Syria, it's opposition to you saying we don't have it so bad yet because the teeth straightening is still there. 

It's like you seem to be either saying everything is ok because we still have teeth straightening so we must have enough funds (even though there's been deaths, waiting times, inadequate care and so on directly blamed for lack of funding)

Or you're saying it isn't the fault of a lack of funding, which is fair enough to have that opinion but all the articles I gave links to contradict that opinion.  They are saying the bad treatment is due to lack of funding, and if there is a relationship between bad treatment and funding and the funds are being spent on Syrian aid that does mean there is a relationship between the two things.  Obviously not just these two things, I have previously said, and not just in this thread, that I believe the government misspends lots and lots of money.

Or you're saying it doesn't really matter because Britain can just sort of get this money anyway just by the sheer virtue of being a first world country, to which I would say that doesn't seem to be the case, if they could get the funding anyway we wouldn't have doctors and nurses on strike now and a poorer level of health care than we used to, since health care is very important.

It's almost like if you were a social worker, you keep checking up on a girl and her parents and saying she's fine because her parents make her brush her teeth, and I'm telling you that her parents have been smashing her feet in with hammers and she can barely walk, and you're coming back with the same argument that her teeth are fine so she's ok.

The only thing I find foolish about it is that it needs some kind of peace before any rebuilding effort can take place. If there's ongoing destruction, all the money in the world can't help.

(February 6, 2016 at 3:35 pm)abaris Wrote: The only thing I find foolish about it is that it needs some kind of peace before any rebuilding effort can take place. If there's ongoing destruction, all the money in the world can't help.

I don't know if there's any definite plans to rebuild, the topic of rebuilding was mainly brought up because of what you mentioned in your first post. 

Quote: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.

I do think that is part of the plan though.

(February 6, 2016 at 3:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's like you seem to be either saying everything is ok because we still have teeth straightening so we must have enough funds (even though there's been deaths, waiting times, inadequate care and so on directly blamed for lack of funding)

You've gotten this entirely backwards.  If you -did- have to choose between sending 2bil to syria, and quality healthcare (which you don't) there would -still- be some point where you could(and would) do some combination of both...admittedly, to the cost of yourselves.  You could say "sorry, not enough money for comprehensive dental right now, we're helping syria".  

-But you don't even get to say -that- until it's actually the check to syria that's put you in a bind.

Quote:Or you're saying it isn't the fault of a lack of funding, which is fair enough to have that opinion but all the articles I gave links to contradict that opinion.  They are saying the bad treatment is due to lack of funding, and if there is a relationship between bad treatment and funding and the funds are being spent on Syrian aid that does mean there is a relationship between the two things.  Obviously not just these two things, I have previously said, and not just in this thread, that I believe the government misspends lots and lots of money.

I'm not saying that it isn't a fault of the lack of funding, but that the lack of funding is not caused (and will not be caused) by the 2bil in foreign aid.  You yourself clearly know better...you're obviously familiar with the concept of pork.

Quote:Or you're saying it doesn't really matter because Britain can just sort of get this money anyway just by the sheer virtue of being a first world country, to which I would say that doesn't seem to be the case, if they could get the funding anyway we wouldn't have doctors and nurses on strike now and a poorer level of health care than we used to, since health care is very important.

This dispute is not over the fiscal ability of your government to fund your nhs, it's about their willingness and competency. I'm looking at the gov revenue and spending, latest budget of wiki. 672b in, 744b out (140b on health)......I think that can accomodate NHS improvements and 2b foreign aid. If it can't..check to see how many hands are in the till.

Any comment along the lines of:

"Why are we sending foreign aid when our own citizens are battling subpar access the health services" misses the point entirely. It's not representative of anything. I'm sure you can find people who try to really hitch that wagon to that horse, and I'm sure you can find organs willing to print their ad copy, but it hides some really, really shitty implications.

I'll answer it (and every possible permutation thereof) right now and forever nonetheless. Because that's what haves should do, when have nots need help...because you can, because whats bad for the world is bad for you, and because sending them 2bil means all the world to them, and a fraction of a percent to you. It's just a damned good investment. You can still have your NHS, and you can still improve your NHS.

(February 6, 2016 at 8:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 3:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's like you seem to be either saying everything is ok because we still have teeth straightening so we must have enough funds (even though there's been deaths, waiting times, inadequate care and so on directly blamed for lack of funding)

You've gotten this entirely backwards.  If you -did- have to choose between sending 2bil to syria, and quality healthcare (which you don't) there would -still- be some point where you could(and would) do some combination of both...admittedly, to the cost of yourselves.  You could say "sorry, not enough money for comprehensive dental right now, we're helping syria".  

-But you don't even get to say -that- until it's actually the check to syria that's put you in a bind.  

Quote:Or you're saying it isn't the fault of a lack of funding, which is fair enough to have that opinion but all the articles I gave links to contradict that opinion.  They are saying the bad treatment is due to lack of funding, and if there is a relationship between bad treatment and funding and the funds are being spent on Syrian aid that does mean there is a relationship between the two things.  Obviously not just these two things, I have previously said, and not just in this thread, that I believe the government misspends lots and lots of money.

I'm not saying that it isn't a fault of the lack of funding, but that the lack of funding is not caused (and will not be caused) by the 2bil in foreign aid.  You yourself clearly know better...you're obviously familiar with the concept of pork.

Quote:Or you're saying it doesn't really matter because Britain can just sort of get this money anyway just by the sheer virtue of being a first world country, to which I would say that doesn't seem to be the case, if they could get the funding anyway we wouldn't have doctors and nurses on strike now and a poorer level of health care than we used to, since health care is very important.

This dispute is not over the fiscal ability of your government to fund your nhs, it's about their willingness and competency.  I'm looking at the gov revenue and spending, latest budget of wiki.  672b in, 744b out (140b on health)......I think that can accomodate NHS improvements and 2b foreign aid.  If it can't..check to see how many hands are in the till.

Any comment along the lines of:

"Why are we sending foreign aid when our own citizens are battling subpar access the health services" misses the point entirely.  It's not representative of anything.  I'm sure you can find people who try to really hitch that wagon to that horse, and I'm sure you can find organs willing to print their ad copy, but it hides some really, really shitty implications.  

I'll answer it (and every possible permutation thereof) right now and forever nonetheless.  Because that's what haves should do, when have nots need help...because you can, because whats bad for the world is bad for you, and because sending them 2bil means all the world to them, and a fraction of a percent to you.  It's just a damned good investment.  You can still have your NHS, and you can still improve your NHS.

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.

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.

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.

(February 4, 2016 at 8:09 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I was listening to the radio today and I heard David Cameron is pledging 2 billion pounds towards Syrian aid.  Which is pretty much the nice way of saying he's demanding the money from the tax payers then giving it to another country.

The Nigerian guy I work with said "You're country is fucking crazy man, you go round bombing countries that have nothing to do with you then you go round giving billions to countries that have nothing to do with you."

I have to say I pretty much agree with him, which is rare.

In Britain we do have a few important organizations that could realllllly use 2 billion dollars, and I'm not talking about football clubs.

The NHS has a 2 billion pound deficit supposedly, that's the amount that was reported in 2015 and all that seems to get reported in the newspapers is that it's getting worse.
The police ( I know a few people on this forum hate them but in general I think they are quite useful overall) seem to have spending cuts all the time, or so the newspapers are reporting.
I understand I'm not totally knowledgeable about politics, the economy.  Plus I have some bias in my opinion since I live in England and directly benefit from having hospitals that aren't shit and a police force that isn't underpaid.  But overall I don't think it's such a good idea to pledge 2 billion to another country in terms of aid.
It would be great if David Cameron was a billionaire and was pledging 2 billion to Syrian aid, or if the UK was so rich that we had the money spare.
And if it's military aid, the kind where you give Muslims guns to shoot some other Muslims then that's probably even worse of an idea.

Any thoughts on this anyone?

Well the dummies did create the problem so it's only fair that they should have to fork over a couple of bucks to fix it.  They went along with the dummies in Washington who think that they are super smart know-it-alls who can go around the world trying to make it into their image.  The stupid people have to pay for electing the dummies.  It's the way things work.  

One thing is for sure:  things will get a lot worse and the price tag will be in the $trillions. So get to work and pay your taxes.  The dummies need the money to pay for their stupidity.

(February 5, 2016 at 2:42 am)robvalue Wrote: My biggest concern in cases like this is who exactly the money goes to, and whether they can be trusted to use it as intended. I don't know enough to be able to comment there.

Theoretically the bulk of the money will go to Jordan and maybe Lebanon to help them provide for the tens of thousands of refugees in camps in those countries.

Here's a link to an article that explains the problem Jordan is having.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ugees.html

(February 5, 2016 at 7:04 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 6:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Agreed.

I think they'll cut back on straighter teeth before they cut back on cancer treatment..if they cut back at all.  Look, if the money well runs dry and you reach a point where the cash you're offering would be more helpful to yourselves than it is to them...then can get behind that, completely.  Something tells me you have a long way to fall before that's the case...judging by just that picture above.

I'm not offering the cash, the tax payers aren't offering the cash.  The money is being demanded by the government via the system of taxation which as I said before is normally where money is paid into a government to benefit those people who paid into it out of their earnings.
You still don't really get the situation I don't think because you're still talking about straighter teeth even though you seemingly agreed that it has no relevance to the real situation.  People in the UK aren't complaining about not being able to get their teeth straightened
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/...s-revealed
They complain about less beds, longer waiting times, preventable deaths and basically less good care for patients.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...lance.html
http://nhsfightback.org/tag/nhs-cuts/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/...ng-to-cope
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nhs-...ve-9912894
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/22/cu...r-britain/


I'm not saying read all of these links, you don't really need to read any if you don't want, they just echo what I'm saying but just in a more informed manner.  They go into further detail about treatment being denied and inadequate services.

Look on the bright side.  Once you get 5 or 8 million refugees then the politicians will have to fund the NHS in order to ensure that they get good medical care.  That will help out the citizens who are falling through the cracks now.  So in the end it will all work out as long as you keep working and paying your taxes.

(February 7, 2016 at 12:38 am)paulpablo Wrote: 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.   

Quote: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).  I know that sounds rough, callous, but it's true...it doesn't lessen what your problem is, the severity of it or it's dire nature. Trust me, I understand and empathize with the "my government isn;t funding education and healthcare adequately while spending -trillions- elsewhere" line of thought. I really do, you -know- I do...lol.

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.

Quote: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, it's is a small percentage of those funds left available -after- funding that, and it's very nearly -nothing- relative to overall funds available.  We're discussing a tiny fraction of a percent of a fairly conservative allotted budget, that needs to be kept very close in mind throughout.

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.  Yes, your government milks you like a cow for funding, they depend upon you and determine amongst themselves what you can bare. There's probably some guy out there who complains about his taxes going to the nhs........what do you tell him?