"3rd Party" booted out of Attawapiskat
- Thread starter jjaycee98
- Start date
They live on government treaty payments, not on handouts. Even if there was work up there for every single member, the payments would still have to be made.
There's two issues here- 1. Human beings living in deplorable conditions. 2. Questionable spending/accounting by those financially responsible.
YA FIX the first one A.S.A.P. and then over the course of a few months you get to the bottom of the second one and take whatever action is necessary (if there is) to fix that. BUT YOU DON'T HOLD UP ONE BECAUSE OF THE OTHER!
YA FIX the first one A.S.A.P. and then over the course of a few months you get to the bottom of the second one and take whatever action is necessary (if there is) to fix that. BUT YOU DON'T HOLD UP ONE BECAUSE OF THE OTHER!
That's the part that, for some unfathomable reason, seems to trip everybody up.
It's their money that they're being paid, not ours. Absolutely no reasonable discussion can be had, imo, until folks get that part through their thick skulls.
From a strictly accounting/finance point of view, the question still must be asked.
The situation that states that 'the money is theirs' is all well and good, however, the moment that they community requires financial input from the public purse, the opportunity arises to analyze exactly why that money is needed.
I'm curious, public service (government) employees are paid from the "public purse", are you at all concerned about "how" they spend the money they receive? Do you require an "accounting"?
No, that's their business, no different from the folks in Attawapiskat.
However, when that group (Attawapiskat or an 'employee') then relies on society to deal with (literally) a life or death situation due to the mismanagement of their personal finances, the existing system does require an accounting.
I'm not saying it isn't a pertinent question. But that's a far cry from the very prevalent attitude that it's entirely some kind of welfare payment. That would be the attitude that needs to change, because that puts blinders on people. A lot of people.
It's like trying to discuss the province of Ontario with certain members of this forum that fund all the wild parties we welfare bums have here. Simply can't be done in a rational and grown up manner.
The only point I raise has to do with the dissemination of public funds to 'solve' a/any problem.
The community of Attawapiskat receives monies based on whatever deal that they made with the Feds.. That's their business and how they decide to spend it is also their business... That said, if level of funding is not sufficient, then there has to be an analysis to determine this and (hopefully) an appropriate level of funding can be negotiated.
On the other hand, if the funding level is appropriate, but the spending decisions were poor, then simply writing blank chaeues is not the solution or fair to the tax payer.
No matter how you cut it, it is (in my opinion that is) is Attawapiskat's best interests to have a 3rd party audit done to get a handle on the reality of the situation.
... I'm still waiting for my invite. Do you have the right address for me?
Yes, like I said I have no issue with the pertinent questions.
Hard questions need to be asked sometimes. But there are too many who say they are only asking hard questions but really it's just a guise for a bigoted attitude. That is definitely not saying that anyone who asks the questions is a bigot. The problem is that too many people confuse the treaty funding with the excess funding. And how can anyone have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't' grasp the basics of a situation.
I don't disagree with that. Coming from a financing background, it makes the most logical sense to me. The people of the community of Attawapiskat have a right to know exactly how their money is being spent. No different than the accountability of any mayor in any city or town right across Canada.
But it's still a completely separate issue from the idea that the initial funding is a handout.
Bear was in charge of the invitations.
It is obvious that some sort of government intervention is required when a good percentage of these people are living in squalor. If the chiefs can't distribute the funds any better then that they should be relieved of that responsibility. The thick skulls don't understand why
they all don't have roughly the same quality housing. I am just about past giving a damn.
I'm not taking sides on the financial issue because I really am not sure of ALL the facts, but I am sure if cool heads sit around a table, a satisfactory compromise can be reached. First, fix those god damned houses!
Agreed.
Agreed. Which is exactly why the third party accounting was a necessity in my opinion.
Please PM the correct one, and we'll try to get the invite out on Monday.
You can't ask bigots hard questions either. They ignore them, call them silly, and falsely claim they've answered them already.
It's always the Bear's fault, lol. You and SCB will get along just fine!
I'm taking sides. I want an independent audit. Fixing the housing shortage is easy. Give everyone without livable housing, a lift to the Chiefs house.
Of course not. And really, who cares what they say anyway. But the problem is they have a tendency to side track all discussions.
I distinctly remember; I bring the party mix, you handle the invites.
And I think we'd get along famously.
Ok, more pointedly then, the way they dictate the terms of all discussion rendering true debate at a decent level meaningless. Better?
Is it the gold tassels? I can switch them out.
Live in fear.