True Foreign Aid

[Letalis]

I believe any tax money I pay that isn't going to help myself or someone that I'd help anyway is theft.

People should be able to choose what to do with their money. What charity to give to, or even to give money to charity, should be a personal choice, not a choice made by the government.

Good article. (Go libertarians!)

Couldn't agree more.

 

[arnegrim]

That depends on what need you are referring to, and what charity. Surely the stories I posted show that Charities are just as likely to have money siphoned off by crooks as governments are.

No... it shows only that Charites may have thiefs involved. As to the likelihood... or even the amount of money 'siphoned' off... it is a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to the government.

The difference between Charities and Governments in terms of stability is that Charities are hamstrung by their dependance on voluntary contributions. A disaster happens elsewhere, and all of a sudden their contributions dry up. They get an undeserved bad press or are associated with some wrongdoing, and their contributions dry up. They are working with an challenging group like aids victims or sex workers and they have to compete against fluffy puppies for support from the public.

Governments have a stable source of income, and because of this are able to take a longer view.

Longer view?

Only until the next budget meeting.

 

[ScottishJohn]

No... it shows only that Charites may have thiefs involved.

Which is the same accusation being levelled at Governments.

As to the likelihood... or even the amount of money 'siphoned' off... it is a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to the government.

Howso?

Longer view?

Only until the next budget meeting.

Governments tend to fund work rather than take on the work itself. So funds already committed are secure. Charities take on work, so a drop in funding threatens the work being done.

 

[arnegrim]

Which is the same accusation being levelled at Governments.

Where did I say that?

Howso?

Did you miss the Bridge to Nowhere? Or the Million $ bus stop?

Those are simply 2 of the MANY in government... compare those amounts to the 9 thiefs you cited.

Governments tend to fund work rather than take on the work itself. So funds already committed are secure. Charities take on work, so a drop in funding threatens the work being done.

No. Governments tend to throw money in the direction of what the latest and greatest is. As to how long it is funded... again... it depends on when the next budget meeting is scheduled for.

Many charities take on work... and many times the workers work through the drops in funding... because that is where their heart is.

Get a government division to work through a drop in funding... but don't hold your breath.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Where did I say that?

I didn't say you said it - it is the accusation in the OP.

Did you miss the Bridge to Nowhere? Or the Million $ bus stop?

No, I ignored them because they are not an example of international aid, which is what we are talking about. A lot of international aid actually goes to NGOs which are charities - My point is that Government aid has a place, and it is a helpfull productive and correct one.

Those are simply 2 of the MANY in government... compare those amounts to the 9 thiefs you cited.

But they have nothing to do with international aid, and everything to do with a country which shows no interest in holding its politicians to account.

No. Governments tend to throw money in the direction of what the latest and greatest is. As to how long it is funded... again... it depends on when the next budget meeting is scheduled for.

I think if you look there are some areas which have been recieveing extensive government funding for a considerable amount of time. In fact I'll have a look and get back to you.

Many charities take on work... and many times the workers work through the drops in funding... because that is where their heart is.

First of all people deserve better treatment than that, and secondly any reputable charity working abroad will bring home any workers if their funding is being cut because they are responsible for their welfare. Doing good on a shoestring (and becoming a liability to those you are supposed to be helping) is just about as patronising and wrong headed as it gets. Another problem with some sectors of the charity side of things.

Get a government division to work through a drop in funding... but don't hold your breath.

Given that government aid goes to fund work, not to actually undertake the work, you don't need to worry about that.

 

[arnegrim]

No, I ignored them because they are not an example of international aid, which is what we are talking about. A lot of international aid actually goes to NGOs which are charities - My point is that Government aid has a place, and it is a helpfull productive and correct one.

No... its an example of my tax money... that should be spent on better things... being rerouted to insane things. You think the 'international aid' money is in a different pot?

But they have nothing to do with international aid, and everything to do with a country which shows no interest in holding its politicians to account.

See above.

First of all people deserve better treatment than that, and secondly any reputable charity working abroad will bring home any workers if their funding is being cut because they are responsible for their welfare. Doing good on a shoestring (and becoming a liability to those you are supposed to be helping) is just about as patronising and wrong headed as it gets. Another problem with some sectors of the charity side of things.

I see... so someone believing so strongly in the work being done, choosing to live on a shoestring budget in order for the work to continue... is wrong-headed?

Given that government aid goes to fund work, not to actually undertake the work, you don't need to worry about that.

If the money dries up, it dries up. Just because it is funding it doesn't mean the work will continue without funding.

 

[ScottishJohn]

No... its an example of my tax money... that should be spent on better things... being rerouted to insane things. You think the 'international aid' money is in a different pot?

Surely by definition the international money is in a different pot! It would be in the international aid section of the budget. Unless every form of government spending (apart from military perhaps) comes out of the 'stuff that drives arnegrim mad' pot?

I see... so someone believing so strongly in the work being done, choosing to live on a shoestring budget in order for the work to continue... is wrong-headed?

Yes, because they end up relying on those they are supposed to be helping to provide them with food and shelter and tranport and all the things they can no longer provide for themselves. In short they become a liability to the community they are supposed to be helping.

If the money dries up, it dries up. Just because it is funding it doesn't mean the work will continue without funding.

If the government fund the charity then the money will not dry up that is the whole point!

Besides the Government is not the only source of funding it is just one of the more stable and richer ones.

 

[arnegrim]

Surely by definition the international money is in a different pot! It would be in the international aid section of the budget. Unless every form of government spending (apart from military perhaps) comes out of the 'stuff that drives arnegrim mad' pot?

It's in the general fund pot until it is placed in the international aid pot. But there is no guarantee that the next budget cycle won't see those monies appropriated for some other 'project'.

Yes, because they end up relying on those they are supposed to be helping to provide them with food and shelter and tranport and all the things they can no longer provide for themselves. In short they become a liability to the community they are supposed to be helping.

If it gets to that point... then yes, they are a liability... but there is a LONG way to go before it gets to that point... and private charities are able to squeeze it out better then governments.

If the government fund the charity then the money will not dry up that is the whole point!

Besides the Government is not the only source of funding it is just one of the more stable and richer ones.

Really? Once a government starts funding a charity it is funded into perpetuity?

If I show one international aid fund whose budget was reduced... that proves your point as false.

 

[ScottishJohn]

It's in the general fund pot until it is placed in the international aid pot.

So they are in different pots.

But there is no guarantee that the next budget cycle won't see those monies appropriated for some other 'project'.

Some projects are designed to run for a specific period. In fact it could be said that the best projects are designed to run for a specific period. Pumping in funds perpetually to deal with the symptoms of poverty is pretty wastefull when the causes need to be addressed. Yes Governments can cease funding projects. The question would be why? Have they failed to achieve what they set out to achieve? Have the run their course? Have they been found guilty of misusing the funds? It would be unusual to discontinue funding for no reason. Private donations on the other hand fluctuate much more.

If it gets to that point... then yes, they are a liability... but there is a LONG way to go before it gets to that point...

If there is such a long way to go before they get to that point then they are wasting resources.

and private charities are able to squeeze it out better then governments.

Given that the aid giving Governments do not uindertake aid work, but only fund it, that is entirely irrelevant.

Really? Once a government starts funding a charity it is funded into perpetuity?

If I show one international aid fund whose budget was reduced... that proves your point as false.

Is that what I said? No. If governments start funding an aid project they tend to see it through unless something is wrong with the project. Private donors on the other hand do not take such a strategic view, which is why it is important that we have both forms of funding.

 

[arnegrim]

So they are in different pots.

Until the next budget meeting... yes.

Some projects are designed to run for a specific period. In fact it could be said that the best projects are designed to run for a specific period. Pumping in funds perpetually to deal with the symptoms of poverty is pretty wastefull when the causes need to be addressed. Yes Governments can cease funding projects. The question would be why? Have they failed to achieve what they set out to achieve? Have the run their course? Have they been found guilty of misusing the funds? It would be unusual to discontinue funding for no reason. Private donations on the other hand fluctuate much more.

I don't want to start talking about governments fighting poverty.

Have they failed to achieve...?
Have they run their course...?

You forgot... Has the government found a different way to spend that money? Which does not always mean a different charity or cause.

If there is such a long way to go before they get to that point then they are wasting resources.

Nice twist.

Private charities are able to squeeze more out because the people doing the work often agree to do it for less if needed in order to continue the work.

Given that the aid giving Governments do not uindertake aid work, but only fund it, that is entirely irrelevant.

What?

It is irrelevant that private charities often do more with their dollar then government funded ones?

Is that what I said? No. If governments start funding an aid project they tend to see it through unless something is wrong with the project. Private donors on the other hand do not take such a strategic view, which is why it is important that we have both forms of funding.

No... governments fund it until their $$ promise is fulfilled or until their agreed upon time period lapses... (you will find VERY few instances in which governments fund a project without a deadline in $$ or time) in which case it's back to the budget to either find the money again... or spend it elsewhere.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Until the next budget meeting... yes.

Since WWII and possibly even beofre there has always been a budget for Foreign aid, therefore it will always be in a separate pot.

I don't want to start talking about governments fighting poverty.

I'm sure you don't.

Have they failed to achieve...?
Have they run their course...?

You forgot... Has the government found a different way to spend that money? Which does not always mean a different charity or cause.

Have their been major cuts in foreign aid over the last few years? Some years the budget is down, but it usually springs back up.

Nice twist.

Actually - it is a real problem.

Private charities are able to squeeze more out because the people doing the work often agree to do it for less if needed in order to continue the work.

They often agree to do it for a minimum in the first place. However I disagree with this - the worker is worth their keep, don't muzzle the ox etc. It invariably leads to problems with the quality of work and long term viability of the work.

What?

It is irrelevant that private charities often do more with their dollar then government funded ones?

Governments frequently finance private charities (or NGOs) to undertake foreign aid work. Therefore your perception of a choked morass of bureaucracy which goes unchallenged at home has little to do with how money is spent abroad.

No... governments fund it until their $$ promise is fulfilled or until their agreed upon time period lapses... (you will find VERY few instances in which governments fund a project without a deadline in $$ or time) in which case it's back to the budget to either find the money again... or spend it elsewhere.

I believe this was my point. The promise (both in terms of targets and funding) and time frame is agreed at the start of the specific piece of work and it is unusual for the funding to be withdrawn before both are fulfilled.

 

[arnegrim]

Since WWII and possibly even beofre there has always been a budget for Foreign aid, therefore it will always be in a separate pot.

And the same recipients and/or problems have been continually financed since WWII?

Or do they allot a dollar amount and when that is reached find someplace else for that dollar to go... which is not necessarily back into the foreign aid budget.

Have their been major cuts in foreign aid over the last few years? Some years the budget is down, but it usually springs back up.

You tell me. You're the one claiming governments are a better source for foreign aid then private charities.

Actually - it is a real problem.

Right... because we all know that governments are the most cost effective and efficient organizations in the world.

They often agree to do it for a minimum in the first place. However I disagree with this - the worker is worth their keep, don't muzzle the ox etc. It invariably leads to problems with the quality of work and long term viability of the work.

If it is the workers choice, why do you disparage it?

Governments frequently finance private charities (or NGOs) to undertake foreign aid work. Therefore your perception of a choked morass of bureaucracy which goes unchallenged at home has little to do with how money is spent abroad.

Right. When the money runs out for the foreign aid and some senator wants a little extra pork for his state... he's gonna fund his state before he goes back to the foreign aid.

I believe this was my point. The promise (both in terms of targets and funding) and time frame is agreed at the start of the specific piece of work and it is unusual for the funding to be withdrawn before both are fulfilled.

And if the $$ or time runs out before the work is done??

 

[ScottishJohn]

And the same recipients and/or problems have been continually financed since WWII?

Is that relevant? No. The point is that there is a seperate pot, and there has been for a long time.

Or do they allot a dollar amount and when that is reached find someplace else for that dollar to go... which is not necessarily back into the foreign aid budget.

This deviates from the english language. I don't understand it.

You tell me. You're the one claiming governments are a better source for foreign aid then private charities.

No. There has been a constant source of money for foreign aid. I am claiming that there are advantages to government aid, especially when it is fed into the charity sector. I am claiming that there are severe disadvantages to leaving development and poverty releif up to a cocktail of disjointed charities.

Right... because we all know that governments are the most cost effective and efficient organizations in the world.

I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Governments or Charities are the most cost effective and efficient organisations in the world. As someone who works in the charity sector I can tell you now that some charities are far less efficient even than governments.

If it is the workers choice, why do you disparage it?

Because it is a bad choice, and it inevitably leads to someone else having to deal with their problems, which is why you have further charities which deal with charity workers or missionaries who retire and come home from working abroad and are unable to provide for themselves and become a liability to others.

Right. When the money runs out for the foreign aid and some senator wants a little extra pork for his state... he's gonna fund his state before he goes back to the foreign aid.

That is a problem with your government and their pork projects. Not with international aid.

And if the $$ or time runs out before the work is done??

Then the people carrying out the work have planned the work badly. That is the same whoever is funding the work. Again, as someone who works in the charity sector, when I put in a bid for funding I have to have a clear idea of what I am doing, how I will achieve it, and how long it will take. If I don't plan effectively then I won't get funded. If by some miracle I do get funding, then when I fail to reach my objectives I may have to repay the funding, I will certainly jeopardise my ability to get funds in the future.

Charity alone has many disadvantages. Government alone also has disadvantages. The blend of government and charity work in international aid is a good one drawing advantages from both sectors, every government in the developed world including your own recognises their responsibility to the poorest countries in the world. I am struggling to see what the problem with this state of affairs is?

 

[arnegrim]

Is that relevant? No. The point is that there is a seperate pot, and there has been for a long time.

That pot is funded from the 'general' pot. They are seperate... but connected.

This deviates from the english language. I don't understand it.

What don't you understand?

Do they allot (designate) a dollar amount? When that amount has been spent, they allot (designate) those monies at the next budget meeting... which does not mean it goes back to the charity work.

No. There has been a constant source of money for foreign aid. I am claiming that there are advantages to government aid, especially when it is fed into the charity sector. I am claiming that there are severe disadvantages to leaving development and poverty releif up to a cocktail of disjointed charities.

Right.

You're claiming governments are a better source for foreign aid then private charities.

I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Governments or Charities are the most cost effective and efficient organisations in the world. As someone who works in the charity sector I can tell you now that some charities are far less efficient even than governments.

You certainly imply that governments are better...

Because it is a bad choice, and it inevitably leads to someone else having to deal with their problems, which is why you have further charities which deal with charity workers or missionaries who retire and come home from working abroad and are unable to provide for themselves and become a liability to others.

This is venturing into a subject I do not care to discuss at this time in this thread.

That is a problem with your government and their pork projects. Not with international aid.

I'm sorry... I was under the impression that our government was part of the funding of international aid and that the OP was talking about tax dollars vs charities.

My bad.

Then the people carrying out the work have planned the work badly. That is the same whoever is funding the work. Again, as someone who works in the charity sector, when I put in a bid for funding I have to have a clear idea of what I am doing, how I will achieve it, and how long it will take. If I don't plan effectively then I won't get funded. If by some miracle I do get funding, then when I fail to reach my objectives I may have to repay the funding, I will certainly jeopardise my ability to get funds in the future.

What do you mean by 'objectives'? And where does your funding come from?

Charity alone has many disadvantages. Government alone also has disadvantages. The blend of government and charity work in international aid is a good one drawing advantages from both sectors, every government in the developed world including your own recognises their responsibility to the poorest countries in the world. I am struggling to see what the problem with this state of affairs is?

I never said that governments should not be involved in international aid.

I personally feel that taxes are a poor choice for international aid funding. They may be necessary... but they are still a poor choice.

 

[Mocca]

Wait, so why should the government choose whether I should give to charity?

Why should the government choose where I should give my money to?

Whatever happened to liberty?

 

[arnegrim]

Because we mere citizens are too stupid to do, or choose, what's right for ourselves...?

 

[Mocca]

Yeah, good point. I totally agree. We just can't make our own decisions.

Then, of course it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to control our lives.

Wait, even better, mind control! Our minds should be plugged into some huge database controlled by... the Borg?

 

[ScottishJohn]

That pot is funded from the 'general' pot. They are seperate... but connected.

So they are seperate. The money comes from elsewhere to fill the pot, but it is a seperate pot. Which is what I said.

What don't you understand?

Do they allot (designate) a dollar amount? When that amount has been spent, they allot (designate) those monies at the next budget meeting... which does not mean it goes back to the charity work.

I don't think that makes sense either. This is what I originally didn't understand:

Or do they allot a dollar amount and when that is reached find someplace else for that dollar to go... which is not necessarily back into the foreign aid budget.

If they alot an amount, then that amount is reached, that implies that the money has been passed on to wherever it is going. So how can it go back anywhere? Any subsequent meeting is about new money. The overall allocation may be more one year or less another. There is however always an allocation.

Right.

You're claiming governments are a better source for foreign aid then private charities.

They have advantages. They are more stable in the basis of funding. They are able to bring pressure to bear to help the projects they fund. They are able to link up strategically with other governments and take more comprehensive action. Private charities have always existed, and do good work. By their nature they work on a smaller and more fragmented scale.

You certainly imply that governments are better...

I have stated outright that they have advantages.

This is venturing into a subject I do not care to discuss at this time in this thread.

Fair enough.

I'm sorry... I was under the impression that our government was part of the funding of international aid and that the OP was talking about tax dollars vs charities.

My bad.

No problem.

What do you mean by 'objectives'? And where does your funding come from?

I work for a Church youth project. I am one of two full time staff. We have to raise around £20,000 a year to keep the doors open, and then more on top of that if we want to do any extra activities on top of our regular ones, like residential trips etc. So If I want to do a trip, I have to make out an application for funding. In that application I need to set out clearly what I wish to do with the money, how it will be spent, but most importantly I have to argue the case for having the activity at all. To do this I need to demonstrate the need for whatever it is I am doing, and also demonstrate how I will measure how successful the piece of work is. On a residential trip it might be really simple, such as just getting soem young people out of the inner city and into the countryside to experience a less chaotic week from their normal routine. That is easy to measure. it may be more complicated like for instance a piece of work with multiple objectives. For instance we took a group of 5 young people from our centre, and a group of 5 young people from each of 4 other youth centres in the area, and members of the Ambulance, Fire and Police services and had a six week programme of activities designed to break down territorialism and gang warfare in the area, and foster better relations with the uniformed services. We took statements and expectations from the participants before during and after to demonstrate to our funders what changes (if any) had occurred.

Our funding comes from wherever I can get it, this includes government pots, trusts, churches, guilds and private donations.

Whatever kind of charitable work you are talking about, you need to go through the same process of planning and evaluation. You need to know your costs, and budget before you go asking for money and you need to stick to it or you only get halfway through and stop. If you have shown incompetence in costing your project then noone else (government or charity) will fund you in the future.

I never said that governments should not be involved in international aid.

I said they should, in response to the OP which says that they should not. You took issue with my post. I presume because you disagreed with it.

I personally feel that taxes are a poor choice for international aid funding. They may be necessary... but they are still a poor choice.

Why poor?

 

[ScottishJohn]

Wait, so why should the government choose whether I should give to charity?

Why should the government choose where I should give my money to?

Whatever happened to liberty?

As far as I am aware the government does not choose whether you give to charity. You are free to do so or not to do so.

What the government does is raise taxes. It is then the governments business how it spends its money. You can feed into that as part of the democratic process.

 

[Mocca]

As far as I am aware the government does not choose whether you give to charity. You are free to do so or not to do so.

What the government does is raise taxes. It is then the governments business how it spends its money. You can feed into that as part of the democratic process.

That doesn't change the fact that the government is taking my money and giving it to charity. Call it the democratic process if you want, but that's what's going on.