The ONE campaign

[nickypiemcg]

On that video on the ONE website celebrities say they aren't asking for your money. If an addtional 1% of the US budget is allocated to their causes isn't that taxpayers money? So they actually are asking for your money then aren't they? Why not just be upfront about it. Surely taking 1% out of the US budget will affect the poor of America not the millionaires? (I'm taking a guess that most of the people on the video are millionaires). So why don't celebrities all band together and give their money to Africa? I know people will say that their money is too small an amount too make a difference but surely if it can save some lives it is worth it. I don't belive that millions of dollars won't make a difference somewhere? Don't get me wrong I'm not technically against the ONE campaign but it's quit easy to be for debt relief etc when the rich celebrities know theywon't be materially affected.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Think of it this way.

Bill Gates, a billionaire, cannot save Africa by himself.

 

[namkcuR]

What does the average movie star/rock star have? A hundred million bucks? That's a never-have-to-work-again fortune for most people, but we're not talking about a person here. We're talking about a country and that money won't make a dent in Africa. That's why Bono doesn't give any of his money to Africa. It wouldn't make a dent. Africa needs hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, not hundreds of millions. There is only one source of money that can shell out a hundred billion dollars, and that is the government.

 

[nickypiemcg]

What does the average movie star/rock star have? A hundred million bucks? That's a never-have-to-work-again fortune for most people, but we're not talking about a person here. We're talking about a country and that money won't make a dent in Africa. That's why Bono doesn't give any of his money to Africa. It wouldn't make a dent. Africa needs hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, not hundreds of millions. There is only one source of money that can shell out a hundred billion dollars, and that is the government.

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with it. For example If I give say £1 to charity that won't make much of a difference but together with alot of other donations it will. So if Africa needs billions of dollars then does that mean we shouldn't give any money until we have those billions. Surely millions would be better than not giving any money at all. Surely a million would help some people in Africa? I don't buy into the argument that Bono's money or any other celebrities money wouldn't make a difference. Maybe it would make only a small difference but it would definitely make a difference.

 

[namkcuR]

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with it. For example If I give say £1 to charity that won't make much of a difference but together with alot of other donations it will. So if Africa needs billions of dollars then does that mean we shouldn't give any money until we have those billions. Surely millions would be better than not giving any money at all. Surely a million would help some people in Africa? I don't buy into the argument that Bono's money or any other celebrities money wouldn't make a difference. Maybe it would make only a small difference but it would definitely make a difference.

Because even though it wouldn't make any notable dent in Africa, it would probably be enough to discourage the U.S. even more from giving government money to Africa. Celeberties chipping in to give a microscopic percentage of what Africa really needs is not worth it if it's going to enable Bush and his sad pathetic administration to ignore Africa more than it already is.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Because even though it wouldn't make any notable dent in Africa, it would probably be enough to discourage the U.S. even more from giving government money to Africa. Celeberties chipping in to give a microscopic percentage of what Africa really needs is not worth it if it's going to enable Bush and his sad pathetic administration to ignore Africa more than it already is.

On the contrary I think if celebrities put their money where their mouth is it would serve as a wake up call to citizens and governments throughout the west. If the public found out that celebrities were doing this I'm sure they would take notice and consequently governments would take notice. After all a celebrity can always get airtime! If we live in an age of celebrity let's see the celebrities really pay their dues and become known for their generosity rather than their love lives, clothes etc

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It would be up to the celebrity to get involved, and while I'm not a fan of Hollywood politics, I respect a celebrity that is willing to give back. However, we should not depend entirely on celebrity efforts. They are not required to give anything back, but out of the goodness of their hearts, we should recognize them for being charitable.

 

[namkcuR]

How do we look as a country when we need our movie stars to do what our government SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING?

What Africa needs is for the U.S. to give, NOT promise, but GIVE, 70-100 billion dollars, see where that gets Africa, and give more if/as it becomes neccessary. I say 'NOT promise' because I think Bush already promised 80 billion or thereabouts for Africa at least a year ago, maybe more, and not a cent of it has gotten there yet.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Ok the original point really was that the one campaign celebrities say they aren't asking for your money when they really are(albeit your tax money)Everyone has kind of ignored that. The above answer is all good but nobody has really justified these celebrities not giving more of their money away.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Even if they're asking for your tax money - that you've already paid to the government, it will be spent on improving the lives of others, and in my view, not spent on wasteful purposes.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Even if they're asking for your tax money - that you've already paid to the government, it will be spent on improving the lives of others, and in my view, not spent on wasteful purposes.

I'm not suggesting that it would be spent on a wasteful purpose. All I am trying to say is;

1)They are asking for your money so why say they aren't

2)They won't be affected but the poor in America will.

 

[withashout]

If one, few or hundreds of celebrities gave millions of dollars to the campaign that is fine. Many of them probably give substantial amounts of money and also lend their time and image to the campaign.

But I think the takeaway idea of the campaign isn't the MONEY. It's raising consciousness about the plight of millions of people in Africa and raising concern and compassion for them and others who live with less (i.e. the poor) amongst mainstream and popular culture.

 

[nickypiemcg]

If one, few or hundreds of celebrities gave millions of dollars to the campaign that is fine. Many of them probably give substantial amounts of money and also lend their time and image to the campaign.

But I think the takeaway idea of the campaign isn't the MONEY. It's raising consciousness about the plight of millions of people in Africa and raising concern and compassion for them and others who live with less (i.e. the poor) amongst mainstream and popular culture.

To be honest I disagree. Unfortunately in our capitalist society money talks and one way or another ONE is about money. Raising concern is fine but concern doesn't save lives whereas money (sometimes!) can. Whether it anti-retroviral drugs, debt relief or fairer trade the answer is always in dollars. Someone has to pay, it's sad but true.

 

[BVS]

2)They won't be affected but the poor in America will.

Please explain this to me...how are the poor here going to be affected?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Raising concern IS important because without public awareness there is no government accountability. President Bush's administration has promised a lot to Africa, but we have yet to see any concrete results here on the ground. At least from where I am standing.

 

[nbcrusader]

Please explain this to me...how are the poor here going to be affected?

Perhaps the assumption is that if 1% of the US budget is diverted to Africa, it will be taken from programs benefitting the poor here in the US.

 

[Liesje]

To be honest I disagree. Unfortunately in our capitalist society money talks and one way or another ONE is about money. Raising concern is fine but concern doesn't save lives whereas money (sometimes!) can. Whether it anti-retroviral drugs, debt relief or fairer trade the answer is always in dollars. Someone has to pay, it's sad but true.

I respectfully disagree. The way I understand it, the ONE campaign is simply to get people to pledge their support for the cause. What that means is pressuring the government and voting like you care. Bono said the ONE campaign right now is after one million Americans. Say they did reach one million Americans and got everyone to give $10 - that's only ten million dollars. There's no way this campaign is about money. Besides, you can give all you want, but that's not going get anywhere with regards to the real issue - the corrupt governments and structural issues that are inflating debt and poverty. If you honestly believe that if one million Americans and all of the celebrities attached to the ONE campaign simply donated money, I'd like to see your explaination, economically, for how this would solve the problems.

 

[JessicaAnn]

End corporate welfare and you've likely got enough money for Bush to live up to his promises to Africa.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Please explain this to me...how are the poor here going to be affected?

Because essentially they advocate takin 1% of the American budget out of the domestic economy. The country will then be slightly worse off. Even with fairer trade items that are imported are going to end up costing more. Although this effect everyone to some extent ultimately the less well off people of The United States will suffer more of a material loss.

 

[nickypiemcg]

I respectfully disagree. The way I understand it, the ONE campaign is simply to get people to pledge their support for the cause. What that means is pressuring the government and voting like you care. Bono said the ONE campaign right now is after one million Americans. Say they did reach one million Americans and got everyone to give $10 - that's only ten million dollars. There's no way this campaign is about money. Besides, you can give all you want, but that's not going get anywhere with regards to the real issue - the corrupt governments and structural issues that are inflating debt and poverty. If you honestly believe that if one million Americans and all of the celebrities attached to the ONE campaign simply donated money, I'd like to see your explaination, economically, for how this would solve the problems.

Not all the governments in Africa are corrupt (a common misconception). I still believe that the answer will come down to money, however indirect. Whether it is money to pay for sex education or to pay for better farming methods or better infastructure. Does the ONE campaign mention that alot of money has been laundered through banks in Geneva and London? Just wondering? I do support the ONE campaign. Just because I see some hypocritial aspects does not mean I don't support the campaign as a whole.

 

[Liesje]

Not all the governments in Africa are corrupt (a common misconception). I still believe that the answer will come down to money, however indirect. Whether it is money to pay for sex education or to pay for better farming methods or better infastructure. Does the ONE campaign mention that alot of money has been laundered through banks in Geneva and London? Just wondering? I do support the ONE campaign. Just because I see some hypocritial aspects does not mean I don't support the campaign as a whole.

Do you think donating money would be more effective than the US and other first world nations cancelling most or all of Africa's debt?

 

[JessicaAnn]

Because essentially they advocate takin 1% of the American budget out of the domestic economy. The country will then be slightly worse off. Even with fairer trade items that are imported are going to end up costing more. Although this effect everyone to some extent ultimately the less well off people of The United States will suffer more of a material loss.

See my comment above ... if we eliminate tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country as well as for corporations, I am sure the 1% would be a piece of cake and not put domestic programs and services at risk. Heck, we might even have leftover money to put into improving domestic programs and services.

 

[nickypiemcg]

Do you think donating money would be more effective than the US and other first world nations cancelling most or all of Africa's debt?

Cancelling debt is essentially donating money.

 

[nickypiemcg]

See my comment above ... if we eliminate tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country as well as for corporations, I am sure the 1% would be a piece of cake and not put domestic programs and services at risk. Heck, we might even have leftover money to put into improving domestic programs and services.

I hear what you're saying but that money still leaves the economy. The wealthiest people will have less money to spend as will the corporations and that loss will filter down to the masses. Hell, I'm no economist.

 

[BVS]

Because essentially they advocate takin 1% of the American budget out of the domestic economy. The country will then be slightly worse off. Even with fairer trade items that are imported are going to end up costing more. Although this effect everyone to some extent ultimately the less well off people of The United States will suffer more of a material loss.

I think that's a pretty big assumption.

Wonder how much is being used right now to fund the war...

A reallocation is not asking for someone's money. Like someone has already said the money's been promised, just so far it's an empty promise.

I think you're way off on this one.

 

[dandy]

i'm currently reading 'the end of poverty' by jeffrey sachs, and it's about this exact same debate. he argues that if the rich (have yacht) nations would make good on their pledges of international aid, and drop the debt for the poorest nations, we would be able to end extreme poverty on the planet within 20 years. i'm no economist, either, but his argument is compelling, not to mention enormously inspiring and empowering.

given the billions spent on corporate canoodling and the war against terrorism, it's a small investment that will pay off for every person on the planet.

highly recommended book.

 

[Liesje]

Cancelling debt is essentially donating money.

 

[BostonAnne]

I hear what you're saying but that money still leaves the economy. The wealthiest people will have less money to spend as will the corporations and that loss will filter down to the masses. Hell, I'm no economist.

Money might leave the economy, but when the poorer countries can afford to buy things they will import things from America and we will gain money there.

 

[Jamila]

Hopefully this article will help to clarify a few things in this discussion:



Posted: 4/15/05
2005 pivotal in efforts to cut global poverty
By Kevin Eckstrom

Religion News Service

WASHINGTON (RNS)--One-third of the way into the 15-year U.N. program aimed at cutting global poverty by 50 percent, church leaders and activists say progress so far has been abysmal, and 2005 is a make-or-break year for the program.

The eight-prong Millennium Develop-ment Goals will fail unless governments commit the resources to achieve them, the Anglican archbishop of South Africa said recently.

"Globalization has accorded this world so much prosperity and progress, it is not only sinful but also morally wrong that there are people who go hungry every day," said Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane.

Supporters say unless efforts are refocused at three key meetings this year, the world will fail to keep promises made in 2000 to combat poverty, hunger, lack of education, child and maternal mortality rates and HIV/AIDS.

Sparked by the Jubilee campaign in 2000 that helped erase crushing debt loads owed by poor Third World countries, religious groups from across the spectrum have shown unprecedented unity in fighting global poverty.

The One Campaign, for example, brought together a dozen Christian and secular relief groups to keep focus on the millennium goals. Last year, Ndungane helped inaugurate the Micah Challenge, a coalition of 260 nonprofit aid groups with the same goal.

Activists worry, however, that the world's attention span is fading.

Three meetings this year--the annual summit of G-8 nations in Scotland; a U.N. summit on the millennium goals next fall; and a December World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong--may determine the future of the initiative.

Last year, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the effort needs a "quantum leap" in order to meet its goals. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, said it's time for the United States and others to "get serious about getting the job done."

A 2004 U.N. progress report found "no change" in tackling poverty and hunger in sub-Saharan Africa and "lagging progress" in South Asia. However, there was some success in northern Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and central Asia.

Tom Hart, director of government relations for DATA, the development advocacy agency founded by Bono, of the musical group U2, and part of the One Campaign, said the world has made measured progress on debt relief and efforts to combat the AIDS pandemic, but more needs to be done.

"The progress is good, and in a sense we can see a roadmap for how Africa can meet its goals, but we need to kick it up a gear," he said.

Activists are looking to Washington to take the lead and are watching two key programs as a barometer for America's own commitments:

Millennium Challenge Accounts--President Bush's plan to commit $5 billion of U.S. aid by 2006 for developing countries that meet rigorous criteria, has been underfunded. So far, the program has received about $2.5 billion, and the White House has asked for $3 billion next year and hopes to reach $5 billion by 2007.

Global AIDS Relief--Bush surprised Congress in 2003 with a request for $15 billion over 10 years to fight HIV and AIDS around the world. So far, the program has gotten a little more than $5 billion from Congress, and Bush has asked for $3.2 billion in 2006.

What concerns activists is what happens after Bush spends $15 billion on AIDS or reaches the $5 billion goal for development next year.

Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, who accompanied Ndungane to Washington, said God and the world will judge America on how it treats the poor.

"As a nation that freely uses religious language in its political rhetoric, we better take that language seriously and ask ourselves what it means to be a country that lives ... for the sake of the world, not just our own self-interest," he said.



http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=3235


There is a lot more that I have to say (as I am an active volunteer for The ONE Campaign and a lifelong - almost 25 years - activist for Africa) but I have a limited amount of time tonite.

I will post my thoughts about this discussion tomorrow night.

I NEED SOMETHING OTHER....

 

[R8drgurl]

Jamila, thanks for sharing the article!