Meet Bono? I'm not interested, says PM

[#juan]

He has to explain it to me. No one is telling us how much we should give, we promised that amount. I think people do have a right to question why we don't live up to our international commitments but I wasn't invited to the G8 summit, so I'd take that message through an activist if that's who he wants to do it through or a press conference or a plain old speech or whatever. The messenger isn't what's important to me. Sanctus feels that's the main point of this thread and he may be right. I just think it's a distraction from the real issue. We can focus on Bono and rock stars and celebrities and how annoying they are with their stupid causes, but I still care more about the actual cause than the guy trying to bring attention to it.

No. He doesn't have to explain it to you or anyone else. He might have a better chance of getting a vote in some circles if he does come up with an explanation. On the other hand, nobody asked me or explained to me why we are throwing money at African poverty. This is a band aid solution at best, and the problem will just get worse as long as people, literally, without a pot to pi$$ in keep having more babies. These people are the victims of stupidity and the prisoners of ignorance. I have no doubt that some part of this aid money will be subverted to the purchase of arms. This time the commitment is $50 billion. The next time, it will be a $100 billion, and on it goes. Sooner or later it will dawn on somebody that we should be buying these people tractors, and plows, and seed, and teaching them how to raise their own food. The cruelest thing we have done it to make them dependent on foreign food.

 

[tracy]

No. He doesn't have to explain it to you or anyone else. He might have a better chance of getting a vote in some circles if he does come up with an explanation. On the other hand, nobody asked me or explained to me why we are throwing money at African poverty. This is a band aid solution at best, and the problem will just get worse as long as people, literally, without a pot to pi$$ in keep having more babies. These people are the victims of stupidity and the prisoners of ignorance. I have no doubt that some part of this aid money will be subverted to the purchase of arms. This time the commitment is $50 billion. The next time, it will be a $100 billion, and on it goes. Sooner or later it will dawn on somebody that we should be buying these people tractors, and plows, and seed, and teaching them how to raise their own food. The cruelest thing we have done it to make them dependent on foreign food.

You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.

BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.

 

[tracy]

But Tracy, Harper is prolly useing the Bono thing in the media to hide behind not addressing your point which a lot of people want to see him do. Look at how people here think "ya why should he meet Bono". It's cheap political tactics

That's what I believe. No one seems to care about the actual substance, it's all about the window dressing. Juan is the only one I really see commenting on the issue of aid. I disagree with some of his opinions, but I'm glad to hear something about them and not just about a rock star turned activist.

 

[#juan]

You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.

BTW, how do you know that this money won't be going to things like farming or that it will be wasted? Maybe it will go to birth control so those Africans stop having babies they can't feed.

I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.

 

[tracy]

I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.

I'm in complete agreement that the money given needs to be accounted for. I'm sure everybody agrees with that, even that dumb Irish rock star. The solution to that is monitoring where it's spent, not cutting off funding. We have the same problems in Canada with some government programs unfortunately, but we try to work through them.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

You may not think your leaders owe you any explanation for their choices, but I do.

Where in our system of government does it say that? They can say nothing if they so choose. You don't have to vote for them in the next election if you so choose. Whatever the government (this one or past ones) says to you between elections is simply damage control or electioneering.

 

[Walter]

I didn't say that all of the money would be wasted. Whenever we give money to the tribal chiefs who run a lot of African countries, a good part of it disappears. We should be retaining control of what this money is spent on. There should be strong programs to make these people responsible for their own welfare. We can't keep throwing money at these problems. The population of Africa since the original "Live Aid", has doubled but the problems are still there, and we are still paying.

You could substitute "Canada's First Nations" for African in the above quote and it would also ring true.

 

[wallyj]

Another thing that bothers me about these digs regarding the gov't not living up to its commitments,WTF,they were made by the libarats in 2005, why should the current gov't be pilloried for whatever those thieves and liars promised? Chances are that they had no intention of fulfilling thier promises at all. That is why they put all thier promises 4 or 5 years down the road. Of course,I could be wrong,the libs would never lie or steal to get votes,now would they?

 

[gc]

Another thing that bothers me about these digs regarding the gov't not living up to its commitments,WTF,they were made by the libarats in 2005, why should the current gov't be pilloried for whatever those thieves and liars promised? Chances are that they had no intention of fulfilling thier promises at all. That is why they put all thier promises 4 or 5 years down the road. Of course,I could be wrong,the libs would never lie or steal to get votes,now would they?

I've agreed with you up until now...but if the Government of Canada makes a promise, then the Government of Canada should be expected to live up to it regardless of which party happened to be in charge at the time. This isn't the Liberal Party of Canada making a promise, it's the Government of Canada. Besides, we all know the Liberal Party is the natural governing party of Canada roll, so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I've agreed with you up until now...but if the Government of Canada makes a promise, then the Government of Canada should be expected to live up to it regardless of which party happened to be in charge at the time. This isn't the Liberal Party of Canada making a promise, it's the Government of Canada. Besides, we all know the Liberal Party is the natural governing party of Canada roll, so who is to say they won't be in power 4 or 5 years down the road from when they made the promise?

We could always leave it until then for the promise to be kept.

 

[Unforgiven]

While it's great sport to point fingers and thumb noses at the two parties, it's real people suffering in the mean time.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

While it's great sport to point fingers and thumb noses at the two parties, it's real people suffering in the mean time.

I still don't see this as a 'Government of Canada' issue, regardless of the party.

 

[gc]

I still don't see this as a 'Government of Canada' issue, regardless of the party.

Was it the Government of Canada who promised to give them money, or was it the Liberal Party of Canada who promised to give them money? I thought the Liberals were all thieves, why would they want to give money away?

 

[Unforgiven]

I still don't see this as a 'Government of Canada' issue, regardless of the party.

Do you give some money when the collection box is passed around at Church?

 

[Stretch]

What's wrong with meeting with well educated poverty activists? It's a shame no one can see past his main occupation.

who created the poverty.. if ya look closely, the imf and the world bank and the ridiculous contracts they impose...bono and geldof an' the like, are the false front...the touchy feely guys there to tug at your purse strings.....oops sorry, heart strings......sort o' like the wide part of a funnel.....

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Do you give some money when the collection box is passed around at Church?

Actually no. They get a auto deduction from my bank account every month.

Perhaps you are suggesting the Government of Canada should be donating to my church on all our behalfs? I know my church does need the money.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Was it the Government of Canada who promised to give them money, or was it the Liberal Party of Canada who promised to give them money? I thought the Liberals were all thieves, why would they want to give money away?

Well, the Fiberals were always good at giving away other peoples money. But perhaps now, the Govenrment of Canada has given the matter sober second thought and decided against it. Government policies do change over time. I recall the Fiberals in 1993 failing to live up to the previous Government of Canada's commitment for some helicoptors. Same thing here.

 

[#juan]

Well, the Fiberals were always good at giving away other peoples money. But perhaps now, the Govenrment of Canada has given the matter sober second thought and decided against it. Government policies do change over time. I recall the Fiberals in 1993 failing to live up to the previous Government of Canada's commitment for some helicoptors. Same thing here.

It's not only the Liberals. One would have to be blind not to see the warts on the other party. Mulroney left us with a debt that still costs about $35 billion a year just to pay the interest. Neither party are angels of light and purity. I have no doubt that Canada could afford to honour our commitment to the African charity. Whatever else Paul Martin was, he was fiscally responsible. Harper, for his own reasons, decided not to keep the promise and that was his right as Prime Minister. It was also his right not to talk to some self-styled rock star who thinks he is the Messiah.

 

[Unforgiven]

Actually no. They get a auto deduction from my bank account every month.

Perhaps you are suggesting the Government of Canada should be donating to my church on all our behalfs? I know my church does need the money.

Ok same principle in effect. You know your church needs the money. And so you donate each month. You get a nice little tax deduction from the government and the Church enjoys Charitable status in Canada. They don't have to pay taxes like other groups. And so the government of Canada and by extension all tax payers of Canada support your Church.

No should someone make the argument that the Church doesn't do anything for Canada or the People, you might have a counter to that in some first hand knowledge of what the Church does do.

But to bring your question asked earlier around again, what business is it of mine as a tax payer to provide support for your church through tax exemption and the deduction you receive off your personal income tax?

Are we due the same accountability as we are from Africa for money and credits given to the Church? Is the need of the Church some how different than the need of the poorest people in Africa? If not, where is the difference between the two in your judgement?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Ok same principle in effect. You know your church needs the money. And so you donate each month. You get a nice little tax deduction from the government and the Church enjoys Charitable status in Canada. They don't have to pay taxes like other groups. And so the government of Canada and by extension all tax payers of Canada support your Church.

No should someone make the argument that the Church doesn't do anything for Canada or the People, you might have a counter to that in some first hand knowledge of what the Church does do.

But to bring your question asked earlier around again, what business is it of mine as a tax payer to provide support for your church through tax exemption and the deduction you receive off your personal income tax?

Are we due the same accountability as we are from Africa for money and credits given to the Church? Is the need of the Church some how different than the need of the poorest people in Africa? If not, where is the difference between the two in your judgement?

I have no problem with money donated to Africa through a registered Canadian charity being given a tax break. I think if an individual can afford to give to charity, one should. I have 2 issues:

1. The Government should not be involved in charitable givings with taxpayers money. If they want to force people to give, when I fill out my taxes show that some of my tax $ will be redirected to charity and allow me to choose. Since this would be money I would be paying the government anyway, its not a big deal.
2. The problems in Africa, in my opionion, cannot be solved with simple $$$$. $$$ is just a band-aid (no pun indended -- well maybe a little) solution.