Tell me this is not the best country in the world

triathlon

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I've never understood why (lots but not all) lefties draw arbitrary boundaries around the geographic areas in which the rich should give to the poor

For example anyone on base benefits doing no work in the UK is housed fed and has basic entertainment and complete freedom , free healthcare and free security and protection

That is more than (I would guess and someone will correct) 95% of the globe

Why do lefties think that these individuals deserve more help than e.g. An orphan in India ? Or a working family with 3 kids in chile ? Or a single mother in Brooklyn ?

Why does the left conscious stop at the arbitrary borders of the UK ?

Spot on, the self entitlement is just staggering. I honestly believe we are very close to the point where the abuse of the welfare system is close to destroying it, that's when we will start seeing poverty and no doubt civil unrest, that's when I will be getting that gated area home someone mentioned earlier

lisyloo

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Why does the left conscious stop at the arbitrary borders of the UK ?

It’s doesn’t and that’s why we help other countries with foreign aid as we can’t interfere with how they wish to govern themselves.

Some people are very much against foreign aid when there is need in this country.

We can’t however have our taxpayers helping the entire worlds poor, it’s not mathematically sound.

Idealogically I agree, if you want more equality that means the whole world.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

In poor countries the #1 problem is people are actually extremely poor and the nation needs to up its productivity so people stop starving and dying of easily treatable diseases. We are well past that stage

The UK's productivity has been poor for some years. Selling houses built a hundred years ago at ever increasing prices to each other doesn't create wealth.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

It doesn't even matter the whole metric is a pointless metric to look at.

I find it exposes leftism quite well. They don't like to engage with the question because there's no answer to it given their mentality. Logically they should prefer the £2 world because everybody's richer and the rich guy pays all the tax, but they can't choose that answer, because that's the world we actually live in, and they want to move us back to the £1 world where all rich people are poorer. If the poor get poorer too, that's also the rich guy's fault, but at least the guy they hate has been done over.

Leftism is just morally incompetent envy masquerading as principle

triathlon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK's productivity has been poor for some years. Selling houses built a hundred years ago at ever increasing prices to each other doesn't create wealth.

No you are right, it proves great wealth

Takedap

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s doesn’t and that’s why we help other countries with foreign aid as we can’t interfere with how they wish to govern themselves.

Some people are very much against foreign aid when there is need in this country.

We can’t however have our taxpayers helping the entire worlds poor, it’s not mathematically sound.

Idealogically I agree, if you want more equality that means the whole world.

You don't have to help them all. You need to start the process & then it becomes self-sustaining.


It's the old "Give a man a fish" thing.

Thrugelmir

triathlon wrote: »

No you are right, it proves great wealth

A depreciating pound suggests otherwise.

spiritus

lisyloo wrote: »

Possibly asylum seekers.
If they are at risk of war or violence then they might not want to be among their own people and that might explain why they exhibit trauma or mental health issues.

I don’t think we are blameless in our foreign policy and selling weapons, so are we morally in a position to turn a blind eye to the results?

No. Probably immigrants. I believe Sapphire was right.

There are far more immigrants here than asylum seekers

lisyloo

spiritus wrote: »

There are far more immigrants here than asylum seekers

Do you mean illegal immigrants?
If so we need to invest in enforcement.
It’s a false economy to cut back on various types of enforcement.

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s doesn’t and that’s why we help other countries with foreign aid as we can’t interfere with how they wish to govern themselves.

Some people are very much against foreign aid when there is need in this country.

We can’t however have our taxpayers helping the entire worlds poor, it’s not mathematically sound.

Idealogically I agree, if you want more equality that means the whole world.

I dont think foreign aid is used for ongoing subsistence payments; rather for one-off development investments (could be wrong)

agree cant help everyone, however if e.g. all of the welfare payments for the unemployed in wales were redirected to help the unemployed in e.g. india 100's of times more people would be helped (due to the lower cost of living in india)

Why do we decide to help fewer people when we could get more bang for our buck by spending our money elsewhere

Is it because we cant see the pvoerty in india?