Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?

walshb

sarkozy wrote: »

I didn't mean to sound patronising in the least, and I apologise if you felt like that. But you made a false assumption central to your own argument. You admitted you did not know the figures, even though they're publicly available. I helped you and corrected that assumption with reference to the facts.
.

That's fine.

I made a rough guess on the number. Sure, I could have looked up the actual figure, but didn't have the time. But, I also didn't claim that I was correct and accurate with my "guess." Hence I said "close" on a half a billion euro save if they cut the budget by 50 percent.

I was then happy that you had the actual figure, and replied as such, but felt your reply with the added in "get your facts straight," was both out of context, and a wee bit smart.

In 2008 the figure was close on a billion euro, and half of this would be almost half a billion. I know, this is 2008, but still, 2011 and 2012 are massive figures.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

I am also a citizen, and as an elector, I do not want my Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. I disagreed for this to be in the programme for government,but it is. I only ask that our Government genuinely seeks to make our aid contributions as relative as possible at addressing the symptoms and causes of Irish poverty. A lot of people agree with me. A new survey out in a couple of months will show this.

I'm presumably entitled to this opinion,although it may buck certain trends ?

I would argue that we're essentially already pouring billions into what I would call the 'Irish poverty industrial complex', what's a few million more going to do for us, that it wouldn't do a thousand-fold for those in need of life's absolute basics?

It amazes me how such self-appointed "representatives of the poor" (SF supporters and the like) can have so little empathy for people who are infinitely poorer than our poorest. There's something wrong, somewhere.

noodler

I'd also like to add my voice to those who say they voted for the Government (partly) on the basis they would continue to contribute to overseas aid.

walshb

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

It amazes me how such self-appointed "representatives of the poor" (SF supporters and the like) can have so little empathy for people who are infinitely poorer than our poorest. There's something wrong, somewhere.

Why is it that they are lableled as lacking empathy because maybe they think incessant aid could be not the answer. I empathise with the poor, and I think overseas aid should be cut.

This aid bandwagon has been non stop for decades. Why when some query it, challenge it, or look for it to be reduced, or even stopped, are they then labeled as lacking empathy, or as another poster labeled them, scum?

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Why is it that they are lableled as lacking empathy because maybe they think incessant aid could be not the answer. I empathise with the poor, and I think overseas aid should be cut.

No, you merely claim to "empathise with the poor" and then you take a completely hypocritical stance.

walshb

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

No, you merely claim to "empathise with the poor" and then you take a completely hypocritical stance.

What is this hypocrisy I emit?

Cork boy 55

sarkozy wrote: »

Well then, get your facts straight. And you better stop all those people giving private donations to overseas charities, too! A disgrace that they're surrendering their own income on poor foreigners when they could be spending it right here in this country. How unpatriotic. How unpatriotic of all those people who make Ireland the one of the most generous private donors in the world.

I have been trying to find this out, Have you a link for this, please?

sarkozy wrote: »

I am a citizen, and as an elector, I want my Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. I voted for this to be in the programme for government, and it is. I only ask that our Government genuinely seeks to make our aid contributions as effective as possible at addressing the symptoms and causes of global poverty. A lot of people agree with me. A new survey out in a couple of months will show this.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're bucking the trend.

I don't trust surveys produced by the Professional AID industry
with biased questions designed to get the right response.
I would like to see independent survey with unbiased questions
from an educated public with the information in OP.
before we can say the majority of public agree with this.
Economics will defeat politics anyway and the Irish AID program
in 2015 will not be 0.7% of GDP but will be closer to 0.07% of GDP
I predict anyway unless the Noonan rocket takes off.:P

sarkozy wrote: »

Of course you're entitled to your view! And as citizens in a democracy, our representatives seek compromise on public opinion. Logically, then, we will continue to have an aid programme until the balance of opinion changes decisively. Honestly, this is democracy, why get defensive?

Is it a democracy on this issue?
How did the AID spending get so high year after year?
Who made the decision to commit to the 0.7% of GDP
Was there a Dail Debate and Dail vote?
Or was the decision made by De Bert and BIFFO at the height of
the boom.
Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this commit in anyway?
Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this in anyway post-crash?
I don't know the answers to above questions.

The 0.7% of GDP target is nonsense in the age of debt and deficit.
The only target that makes sense is the tax revenue government collects,
everything else is borrowed at interest.
The Aid program should be downsized to about 0.5% of tax revenue.
All the other PIIGS countries are well behind us.

Just an example walshb, a little thought experiment:

Say the Irish middle class eventually felt such a disconnect with those on the dole etc, that they decided that their tax money wasn't to go towards something for which they receive no direct benefit.

By your logic, they could argue that it is a complete and utter waste - we'll continue to have poor people, the aid in the form of benefits, housing, allowances etc. obviously has no real effect on their standard of lifestyle but it's "depriving me of spending my own hard earned money on myself".


Would that be wrong? Or would you argue that simply because we share the same rock as a birthplace that there are necessarily enough commonalities between the poor and the middle classes in Ireland?

K-9

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I have been trying to find this out, Have you a link for this, please?



I don't trust surveys produced by the Professional AID industry
with biased questions designed to get the right response.
I would like to see independent survey with unbiased questions
from an educated public with the information in OP.
before we can say the majority of public agree with this.
Economics will defeat politics anyway and the Irish AID program
in 2015 will not be 0.7% of GDP but will be closer to 0.07% of GDP
I predict anyway unless the Noonan rocket takes off.:P

Is it a democracy on this issue?
How did the AID spending get so high year after year?
Who made the decision to commit to the 0.7% of GDP
Was there a Dail Debate and Dail vote?
Or was the decision made by De Bert and BIFFO at the height of
the boom.
Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this commit in anyway?
Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this in anyway post-crash?
I don't know the answers to above questions.

The PD's made an issue of it about a decade ago when they had a Minister in charge of it and wanted the target.

If it's such a big issue to you look for a party that represents you or if none exists, look to set it as a policy or set up a group to campaign on it.

walshb

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Just an example walshb, a little thought experiment:

Say the Irish middle class eventually felt such a disconnect with those on the dole etc, that they decided that their tax money wasn't to go towards something for which they receive no direct benefit.

By your logic, they could argue that it is a complete and utter waste - we'll continue to have poor people, the aid in the form of benefits, housing, allowances etc. obviously has no real effect on their standard of lifestyle but it's "depriving me of spending my own hard earned money on myself".


Would that be wrong? Or would you argue that simply because we share the same rock as a birthplace that there are necessarily enough commonalities between the poor and the middle classes in Ireland?

Simple: Every country on earth has rich and poor. One cannot exist without the other. I am well aware that my tax needs to go to those who may need it here in Ireland. I don't feel the need to start adopting other countries too, and that it was some people here want to do.

Not saying zero. We are part of the UN and the world and we do have responsibilties. To the tune of 6-7-8 hundred million per year? Too much.

later12

walshb wrote: »

This aid bandwagon has been non stop for decades. Why when some query it, challenge it, or look for it to be reduced, or even stopped, are they then labeled as lacking empathy, or as another poster labeled them, scum?

Challenge it with what?

Aid has been shown to work in some very specific areas - for example in relation to disease eradication (e.g. malaria and free nets for the poor, free inoculations against disease, and in some cases with education provision).

It is demonstrably false to say that aid always works. It tends to be woefully ineffective in terms of handouts of contraceptives, for example. Part of the reason for that is because for poor people, children are a future social security.

In my opinion, the question ought to be whether specific cases of our aid provision work, and if not, how with what might they be replaced

But this simplistic 100% un-condtional dismissal of or un-conditional endorsement of all aid, as seems to be happening in this thread, is always going to have serious flaws.

We do need to always address and question the efficiency of our aid spending.

But personally, I wouldn't have thought the argument that we are simply spending too much (bailout programme or not) has any reasonable basis.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Simple: Every country on earth has rich and poor. One cannot exist without the other. I am well aware that my tax needs to go to those who may need it here in Ireland. I don't feel the need to start adopting other countries too, and that it was some people here want to do.

Not saying zero. We are part of the UN and the world and we do have responsibilties. To the tune of 6-7-8 hundred million per year? Too much.

But I'm sorry, us middle class people simply don't feel any connection with the poor any more. They sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day while we're busting our asses in work.

Why should us hardworking people support them just because they were born in Ireland? If I want to give my money to a poor person I will, I don't see why I'm forced to adopt a child that isn't mine.

noodler

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

But I'm sorry, us middle class people simply don't feel any connection with the poor any more. They sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle all day while we're busting our asses in work.

Why should us hardworking people support them just because they were born in Ireland? If I want to give my money to a poor person I will, I don't see why I'm forced to adopt a child that isn't mine.

What the ****?

Trolling, surely?

The point I'm trying to make is that it's all very well to define your own community, and then the rights of said community however you like. But to then show such disregard for other communities of real people, like you and me, to the point where you would advocate a position in which people (like you and me) will die where they otherwise wouldn't is wrong - i.e. our aid budget allocation should not shrink to fundamentally pointless levels.

sarkozy

I think you're making a concise and strong moral argument, Rojomcdojo.

corkboy55 wrote:

How did the AID spending get so high year after year?

The ODA budget grew both in absolute amounts and as a percentage of our gross national product. This was a decision made by Government, supported by politicians, out of a long-standing, never-fulfilled promise to reach 0.7%.

Who made the decision to commit to the 0.7% of GDP

The 0.7% target has been a United Nations target since the 1970s. Only Nordic countries and some north European countries have met this commitment. Ireland has never met it but it has consistently been a part of successive governments' policy. Most recently, it was a commitment made by Ireland in 2000 when Bertie Ahern 'solemnly' promised that Ireland would reach this level of spending by 2012.

Was there a Dail Debate and Dail vote?

Aid is an issue of public concern. For this reason, TDs and Senators frequently raise 'Parliamentary Questions' as part of our democratic processes. All these questions are on the public record, and recent aid-related questions are available here.

Basically, what happens is that, as part of the annual national budgeting process, the Department of Foreign Affairs puts a budget request to the Department of Finance; within this is contained the Irish Aid (Development Co-operation Division) budget. This is considered along with all the other budgetary requests by the Executive. The Aid budget is then debated by and voted on by the Dáil and Seanad as are all votes on budgetary legislation. The aid vote is called 'Vote 27'. In other words, the amount committed to the Irish Aid budget is decided through democratic, parliamentary process.

Or was the decision made by De Bert and BIFFO at the height of
the boom.

As I said, Ahern is attributed with the most public, highest level commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI by 2012. It was government policy long before that, too. And it is current Government policy, agreed in the Programme for Government, and voted for by the public because it was in Labour's and FG's manifestos.

Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this commit in anyway?

As I said, the aid budget is voted for by TDs and Senators after parliamentary debate/process. Parliamentary Questions are also frequently raised in order to provide adequate oversight. Furthermore, the aid budget (and activities of Irish NGOs) are frequently covered in meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Furthermore, there is a written policy on our aid programme called the 'White Paper on Irish Aid'. It sets out the approach to our international development cooperation since 2006.

Where the people/DAIL really consulted on this in anyway post-crash?

The Government - Joe Costello TD, the Minister responsible for aid - is currently running a review of the White Paper on Irish Aid. There are ongoing public consultations on this where any member of the public is invited to participate and make written submissions to the Minister expressing their views. You can read more on this democratic process here.

noodler

sarkozy wrote: »

I think you're making a concise and strong moral argument, Rojomcdojo.


The ODA budget grew both in absolute amounts and as a percentage of our gross national product. This was a decision made by Government, supported by politicians, out of a long-standing, never-fulfilled promise to reach 0.7%.


The 0.7% target has been a United Nations target since the 1970s. Only Nordic countries and some north European countries have met this commitment. Ireland has never met it but it has consistently been a part of successive governments' policy. Most recently, it was a commitment made by Ireland in 2000 when Bertie Ahern 'solemnly' promised that Ireland would reach this level of spending by 2012.


Aid is an issue of public concern. For this reason, TDs and Senators frequently raise 'Parliamentary Questions' as part of our democratic processes. All these questions are on the public record, and recent aid-related questions are available here.

Basically, what happens is that, as part of the annual national budgeting process, the Department of Foreign Affairs puts a budget request to the Department of Finance; within this is contained the Irish Aid (Development Co-operation Division) budget. This is considered along with all the other budgetary requests by the Executive. The Aid budget is then debated by and voted on by the Dáil and Seanad as are all votes on budgetary legislation. The aid vote is called 'Vote 27'. In other words, the amount committed to the Irish Aid budget is decided through democratic, parliamentary process.

As I said, Ahern is attributed with the most public, highest level commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI by 2012. It was government policy long before that, too. And it is current Government policy, agreed in the Programme for Government, and voted for by the public because it was in Labour's and FG's manifestos.

As I said, the aid budget is voted for by TDs and Senators after parliamentary debate/process. Parliamentary Questions are also frequently raised in order to provide adequate oversight. Furthermore, the aid budget (and activities of Irish NGOs) are frequently covered in meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Furthermore, there is a written policy on our aid programme called the 'White Paper on Irish Aid'. It sets out the approach to our international development cooperation since 2006.


The Government - Joe Costello TD, the Minister responsible for aid - is currently running a review of the White Paper on Irish Aid. There are ongoing public consultations on this where any member of the public is invited to participate and make written submissions to the Minister expressing their views. You can read more on this democratic process here.

I admire your patience and ability to do the research for others!

sarkozy

noodler wrote: »

I admire your patience and ability to do the research for others!

It's all part of the job! (As a citizen.)