Valkie wrote on Aug 18^th, 2016 at 8:12am:


That's about it.

But!!

I have heard 'Our Betters' arguing that if we DON'T saturate the island nations to the north of us - China will - in order to get a foothold in these islands where they can build rocket launchers and such.

I don't know the answer to this scenario.

 

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 18^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:


I suspect the aid budget might be taking a hit...or about to go up.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 18^th, 2016 at 10:20pm:


Emma, the Australian government has adopted a policy similar to the old saying: If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Give a man the means to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

AusAid's goal is to have a reciprocal approach to the overseas aid given. We want to see results in what we give. If the Re: Nauru disgrace.

Emma wrote on Aug 18^th, 2016 at 10:20pm:


The US and the UK have a population of over 200 million each.
We barely have 25 million people.

Per capita we give generously, just not at the levels that the UN demands we give.

WE have many homeless people here, who get little or no help, Should we not fix that problem first?
We have many homeless children here, should they not priority?
We have many pensioners who are living well below the poverty line, who have worked and paid taxes all their lives and are now thrown on the scrap heap because they no longer pay tax, should they not be considered?

I personally don't give a flying F$#K what other countries think of me.
I have been all over the world and seen how they treat their people, it aint nuffin to boast about.

Ill also bet France, Germany and Sweden wished they had taken the same line as us.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

what does it mean then Greg?

Agnes wrote on Aug 19^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:


"When people say 'Charity begins at home' they very often mean 'You should look after your own kids, family and own circle first and then be kind to people' which is not the original meaning of the proverb. The original meaning is that charity begins in the home - that is to say kids learn charity in the home." Link

"Charity begins at home" is one of those obnoxious phrases that people use to alleviate their guilt about never actually being charitable. But they are, of course, using the word "charity" in the sense that it's most commonly used today -- giving money or aid to poor people. When the phrase "charity begins at home" was first coined, the definition of "charity" was a little different. From Roman times up until recently, "charity" wasn't necessarily about giving alms. It was more of a state of mind, a mentality of kindness and benevolence. You know this if you've read a Bible, by the way -- the word for "charity" and the more general "love" are both translated from the same Greek word, "agape."

"The point being, when people first started saying "charity begins at home," what they were trying to get across was that being a loving person in the home leads to being a loving person out in the world. In other words, it served as an instruction about how to be more generous, which is kind of the opposite of the way it's used today as a warning against being too generous. Or, as other experts have pointed out, only an asshole could hear "charity begins at home" and interpret it to mean that it also ends there." Link

Valkie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:


Yes, the old 'charity begins at home' excuse.

See my post above.

" ... only an asshole could hear 'charity begins at home' and interpret it to mean that it also ends there."