Meet Bono? I'm not interested, says PM

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Interesting concept........ that every taxpayer in Canada actually gives to churches because they are tax exempt and the donors get tax deductions.
If I was an atheist I could take issue with that......

Especially since I caused a ruckus once at a union meeting by objecting to a member's proposal that we donate to a particular political party on the grounds that not all the members of the local belonged to that political party.....and I won.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
People keep saying the problems of Africa can't be solved with money alone. I think most people would agree with that. BUT, they also can't be solved without money can they?
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
I can't help but think this would be an entirely different discussion if it were Ted Nugent looking to meet the PM to lobby for funds for his Kamp for Kids charity.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
People keep saying the problems of Africa can't be solved with money alone. I think most people would agree with that. BUT, they also can't be solved without money can they?

Here is part of the problem:



In 1980, the year of the original "Live Aid" fund drive, Africa's population was about 420 million people. It is surprising that despite all the starvation and the Aids pandemic, the population has grown to around a billion. In 1980 people were saying that "throwing money at the problem" would not work. As we can see, it didn't.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Here is part of the problem:



In 1980, the year of the original "Live Aid" fund drive, Africa's population was about 420 million people. It is surprising that despite all the starvation and the Aids pandemic, the population has grown to around a billion. In 1980 people were saying that "throwing money at the problem" would not work. As we can see, it didn't.

Sure, population control is a HUGE issue. The easiest way to decrease family size is to provide education, birth control and opportunities for women. Keep a girl in school till she's 16 or 18 and the number of children she'll have will decrease dramatically. Give a woman the means to control her fertility without consulting her husband and you'll see the same thing. Give her the tools with which to support herself independently of a man and you'll see it too. Those things cost money, but I think they would be a good investment. Women for women international is a great charity working to improve the status of women in the developping world. They will never see prosperity and peace as long as 50% of their population is completely marginalized in society.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Sure, population control is a HUGE issue. The easiest way to decrease family size is to provide education, birth control and opportunities for women. Keep a girl in school till she's 16 or 18 and the number of children she'll have will decrease dramatically. Give a woman the means to control her fertility without consulting her husband and you'll see the same thing. Give her the tools with which to support herself independently of a man and you'll see it too. Those things cost money, but I think they would be a good investment. Women for women international is a great charity working to improve the status of women in the developping world. They will never see prosperity and peace as long as 50% of their population is completely marginalized in society.

Tracy I have to agree with you on most things. One of the things I have been trying to avoid is the very thing you just brought up. The pathetic African leadership would never stand for the changes you are suggesting. Some of these men have been educated in Britain or Europe but old values die hard and the best we can hope for is that maybe they will learn to grow their own food. I don't hold much hope because Africa has been pretty much stagnant for some time now. The average African is no better off today than he/she was thirty years ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdRatherBeSkiing

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Tracy I have to agree with you on most things. One of the things I have been trying to avoid is the very thing you just brought up. The pathetic African leadership would never stand for the changes you are suggesting. Some of these men have been educated in Britain or Europe but old values die hard and the best we can hope for is that maybe they will learn to grow their own food. I don't hold much hope because Africa has been pretty much stagnant for some time now. The average African is no better off today than he/she was thirty years ago

I think that's definitely true in some countries, I just don't think it's true in all of them. Some African countries have seen progress in recent years. I would like to support that. I'd like our government to do it to. For all the crap our tax money pays for, I don't see why that wouldn't be something good.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,318
2,921
113
Toronto, ON
I think that's definitely true in some countries, I just don't think it's true in all of them. Some African countries have seen progress in recent years. I would like to support that. I'd like our government to do it to. For all the crap our tax money pays for, I don't see why that wouldn't be something good.

Assuming for a minute we accept the premise (which of course I don't) that our government should be making these decisions on our behalf ... which countries would you have our government give our money too? What about the ones who have not made our list? Should we then be making the handling of these problems conditional on our donation?
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Assuming for a minute we accept the premise (which of course I don't) that our government should be making these decisions on our behalf ... which countries would you have our government give our money too? What about the ones who have not made our list? Should we then be making the handling of these problems conditional on our donation?

We already do that. Aid money can and often is tied to conditions countries have to meet. Debt relief in particular was only supposed to be done in countries that made solid progress in democratizing their societies and tackling corruption. I don't expect us to donate money to pay for another Rolls Royce for the country's president when people are starving in the streets.

Sorry, I never really answered. I'm not an expert on Africa, but how about Senegal? Or Tanzania? Or Mali even? None of them are perfect, but from what I understand all of them have made some changes conditional on the aid they received.
 
Last edited:

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
You're mingling a different slant to the thread. the issue here is should our PM be obligated to meet a rock star. The rest you wrote has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Not once did I suggest I did not care about the poor in Africa or anywhere. But I do, within the context of this thread, believe it is not important if our PM meets with a rock singer.

Then you Sir, are a vicious nasty conservative who probably eats kittens for breakfast, lunch and dinner.


:smile:
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
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.

Do you mean like Welfare, Health Care, Disability, Education, Disaster relief, Search and Rescue and so on? All social programs are based upon charitable principles. Long after your kid has left public school, you will pay those taxes either through rent or property taxes. Even secondary education is subsidized and apprenticeship programs.

Half your income taxes paid over the last 8 years and then subtract from that what it would cost for your private health care, private education then look at the difference.

No one is driving up to Africa with a tanker full of change and dumping it on some beach. Funds have to be applied for, match criteria, meet on going requirements and show progress to be entitled for further funding.

The debt has been built up in the past by supporting without much investigation brutal and corrupt dictators and constant civil wars. And plenty of that was through the transfer of arms that have been rendered obsolete for our own military forces. And look at the ****e we have been using!

Money goes to dig wells for clean water. Build schools to teach kids how to farm, read and write, irrigate farmland. The basics so that a higher education can be taught outside the larger urban centres. All the stuff that we take for granted.

Like having your children educated benefits me in an indirect way, so to does helping break the cycle of desperate poverty in Africa. The more countries in the third world become developed and able to sustain themselves, the broader the base we have to spread the burden.

The more countries that fail, the fewer we have to trade resources with and end up having to do that work ourselves, building more resentment and eventually, more hostility towards our culture and people.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,318
2,921
113
Toronto, ON
Do you mean like Welfare, Health Care, Disability, Education, Disaster relief, Search and Rescue and so on? All social programs are based upon charitable principles. Long after your kid has left public school, you will pay those taxes either through rent or property taxes. Even secondary education is subsidized and apprenticeship programs.

Half your income taxes paid over the last 8 years and then subtract from that what it would cost for your private health care, private education then look at the difference.

No one is driving up to Africa with a tanker full of change and dumping it on some beach. Funds have to be applied for, match criteria, meet on going requirements and show progress to be entitled for further funding.

The debt has been built up in the past by supporting without much investigation brutal and corrupt dictators and constant civil wars. And plenty of that was through the transfer of arms that have been rendered obsolete for our own military forces. And look at the ****e we have been using!

Money goes to dig wells for clean water. Build schools to teach kids how to farm, read and write, irrigate farmland. The basics so that a higher education can be taught outside the larger urban centres. All the stuff that we take for granted.

Like having your children educated benefits me in an indirect way, so to does helping break the cycle of desperate poverty in Africa. The more countries in the third world become developed and able to sustain themselves, the broader the base we have to spread the burden.

The more countries that fail, the fewer we have to trade resources with and end up having to do that work ourselves, building more resentment and eventually, more hostility towards our culture and people.

Oh, I have no problem with Canadian Taxpayer's money going to fund Canadian Social Programs (or charaties as you call them). Thats why we pay our taxes. If an individual chooses to donate money to Africa, he will get a tax break which I am also OK with. What I am not ok with is the Government deciding on everybody's behalf (including mine) to donate money to causes it decides it citizens should be supporting. That is not the government's role.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Oh, I have no problem with Canadian Taxpayer's money going to fund Canadian Social Programs (or charaties as you call them). Thats why we pay our taxes. If an individual chooses to donate money to Africa, he will get a tax break which I am also OK with. What I am not ok with is the Government deciding on everybody's behalf (including mine) to donate money to causes it decides it citizens should be supporting. That is not the government's role.

Ok so you have no problem with the government funding social programs. Why?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,318
2,921
113
Toronto, ON
Ok so you have no problem with the government funding social programs. Why?

To be blunt, I have direct benifit from the program or I may someday. Its like fixing the roads. I may not need to drive on that road today, but I may need it tommorow. Thats the reason we pay taxes in the first place.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
To be blunt, I have direct benifit from the program or I may someday. Its like fixing the roads. I may not need to drive on that road today, but I may need it tommorow. Thats the reason we pay taxes in the first place.

And you understand that Some people travel through Ontario and though they use the roads they don't pay taxes for them other than gas if they purchase some here? So that you are paying for them to use that road, even though you get no direct benefit from that use. You still need to keep up that roads so that you can drive on them.

Now can you see a problem with this hypothetical scenario? Let's say there is a soccer game on and your son is playing in it. Something happens and he is injured in the throat. He can't breath at all and will die in a few minutes unless he gets an emergency trachiotomy. Now it just so happens that a surgeon is in attendence with his own son playing in the same game. The surgeon has done literaly thousands of these procedures and could perfom one right there on the field to save your son's life.

What should he do?
 
May 28, 2007
3,866
67
48
Honour our Fallen
And you understand that Some people travel through Ontario and though they use the roads they don't pay taxes for them other than gas if they purchase some here? So that you are paying for them to use that road, even though you get no direct benefit from that use. You still need to keep up that roads so that you can drive on them.

Now can you see a problem with this hypothetical scenario? Let's say there is a soccer game on and your son is playing in it. Something happens and he is injured in the throat. He can't breath at all and will die in a few minutes unless he gets an emergency trachiotomy. Now it just so happens that a surgeon is in attendence with his own son playing in the same game. The surgeon has done literaly thousands of these procedures and could perfom one right there on the field to save your son's life.

What should he do?
what he should do and what he does depends on his lawyer....if he botches the job or the parents decide he should not have cut into the kids throat ..he could be sued for like everything....
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Look, Biggest moral reason NOT to donate to Africa:

Its their country. We donate to domestic social programs because we run them. We have complete control over the money.

Africa is a set of nations wishing to stand on its own two feet. They are sovereign. That means they don't need us. If they do, apply to be a province.

This isn't to say be heartless, if they have a disaster, or some unexpected hardship then lets ship them food, supplies, whatever they need in the immediate future.

But Africa will always be poor until it stands on its own or cedes sovereignty and lets another nation rebuild it. Ceding sovereignty is not going to happen so it cannot follow the success of Japan or Germany in going from bombed out hellhole to first world nation.

This means it has to struggle on its own, and there is no reason it cannot. African nations have massive amounts of farmland, massive natural resources and the population needed to work them. They instead end up using aid money to fuel warzones.


Now, before you start rambling about "the humanity of it" and how "they need the money" think carefully.

We have dumped hundreds of billions into Africa to have no net effect on levels of suffering. It did nothing. What if we had taken those billions of dollars and put them into AIDS research? Or hell, maybe just helped out the poverty in less celebrity endorsed regions like Central Asia?

How much suffering did we allow to continue by instead throwing money into a pit because Rock Stars like their face on TV?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IdRatherBeSkiing

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Look, Biggest moral reason NOT to donate to Africa:

Its their country. We donate to domestic social programs because we run them. We have complete control over the money.

Africa is a nation wishing to stand on its own two feet. They are sovereign. That means they don't need us. If they do, apply to be a province.

This isn't to say be heartless, if they have a disaster, or some unexpected hardship then lets ship them food, supplies, whatever they need in the immediate future.

But Africa will always be poor until it stands on its own or cedes sovereignty and lets another nation rebuild it. Ceding sovereignty is not going to happen so it cannot follow the success of Japan or Germany in going from bombed out hellhole to first world nation.

This means it has to struggle on its own, and there is no reason it cannot. African nations have massive amounts of farmland, massive natural resources and the population needed to work them. They instead end up using aid money to fuel warzones.


Now, before you start rambling about "the humanity of it" and how "they need the money" think carefully.

We have dumped hundreds of billions into Africa to have no net effect on levels of suffering. It did nothing. What if we had taken those billions of dollars and put them into AIDS research? Or hell, maybe just helped out the poverty in less celebrity endorsed regions like Central Asia?

How much suffering did we allow to continue by instead throwing money into a pit because Rock Stars like their face on TV?

Out of curiosity, what part of Canada do you live in?
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
We have dumped hundreds of billions into Africa to have no net effect on levels of suffering. It did nothing.

How do you know this? How do you know what Africa would be like if we hadn't given money?