930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: vansmack on October 20, 2003, 06:35:00 pm
-
'There's only one reason for U2 to put an album out right now,' Bono tells The Sun. 'It has to be a monster, a dragon, and this is.'
Speaking at the Dublin unveiling of his paintings for Peter and the Wolf, Bono said that the band's work on the new album is 'nearly finished.'
"We are getting closer to making the music we have always wanted to make.â?? says Bono, in an interview with Irelandâ??s Sunday Independent.
â??There is a difference between the music that you hear in your head and what you put on a CD. Your grasp is sometimes further than your reach, and right now this band is on fire and about to do its best work. That excites me.â??
You can find the entire interview - once you have registered - here
http://www.unison.ie (http://www.unison.ie)
---------------------
Speaking to Xfm Online in London, Edge expressed delight at the way the recording is going.
"It's going really well," he said, speaking at the Ivor Novellos, where the band picked up the award for 'Outstanding Song collection'. "And we're writing some of the best songs we've ever written. It's encouraging to get an award like this, it's encouraging to kick even harder and make sure that the next batch of songs are as good as anything we've ever done."
"It's hard to describe it, other than it's just a very raw rock n' roll album," he continued. "A band in its primary colours of guitar, bass, drums, voice and a lot of vitality and energy... so far anyway. By the time it comes out it could be a country and western album."
"For me the last record and tour was just a return to the basic sound of the electric guitar and how amazing that can sound," he explained, "The simplicity of it. And this new record follows on from that, but even more extreme."
"We'll probably spend the rest of the year finishing it and we'll maybe have it out early next year."
Full article here http://www.xfm.co.uk (http://www.xfm.co.uk)
-
U2 is really a bad 80s band that never should have become as popular as they did. But they were easy to market, after all they made poppy little diddies that sent college kids into a tizzy and gave pseudo-intellectuals a new hero to rave about. Quite frankly, Henry Rollins was dead-on when he said, "The Clash is what U2 really wanted to be." They were a pseudo-political band who ultimately gave in to smart business sense.
Case in point: U2, the supposed band of integrity and protest, recently decided to screw over independent record retailers, by signing an exclusive contract with the Best Buy, the 1,900-store consumer electronics and appliance monolith. According to the terms of the agreement, Best Buy would have a two-week exclusive to sell a brand new U2 live DVD for $18 and also get the rights to sell an out-of-print U2 Greatest Hits Album. In exchange Best Buy will help to promote a broadcast of the concert on DirectTV's Freeview Event series for paying customers and spend up to $10 million promoting U2 through transit bus and newspaper advertising.
So while Bono was all over CNN talking about helping to restore the economies in Africa, he and his mates had already screwed thousands of small music retailers who would lose revenue and customers to a large chain that is expected to rack up $20 billion in 2002. In 2000, Best Buy bought out the Musicland Chain, which runs Sam Goody here in the States, and more recently bought the 83-store Future Shop chain in Canada. For all intents and purposes, they are quickly becoming the Starbucks of the consumer electronics world - a store in every town, sometimes even two or three if necessary.
To make matters worse, Best Buy expanded in the music distribution business by creating Redline Entertainment, a wholly-owned subsidiary that acts like any other record label. One catch, by silently owning Redline, other chains and music retailers are padding Best Buy's pockets by selling CD's from Redline's artists. To quote Best Buy's CEO from a brief article in Forbes (about the only publication to cover the story): "Consumers are telling us they want to depend increasingly on one guy." The Babbitizing of America continuesâ?¦
Not unexpectedly, this little bit of news was missing from the pages of Rolling Stone or VH-1 broadcasts. And meanwhile, the fabulous images from the photo-op of Bono and US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill travelling to Africa still flood the airwaves.
Hmmâ?¦why isn't that surprising.
-
just give us another tour that was the calibar of the elevation tour and i'll be set. or an even higher calibar that was the joshua tree tour.
-
Originally posted by BLANK:
Hmmâ?¦why isn't that surprising.
Hmmm, Markie, I didn't hear you speak out against Bono last week for this little diddy, now did I?
<img src="http://www.u2.com/images/news_201003_itune.jpg" alt=" - " />
Bono, Dr Dre and Mick Jagger were on hand as Steve Jobs launched the iTunes music download service for PC-using fans - in the US.
The software, which offers tracks for 99 cents, had previously only been available to users of Apple Mac computers - who bought 13 million tracks in six months. Now it is also available to PC users - but still only in the US. A European version is expected early next year.
'It's like the Pope of software meeting up with the Dalai Lama of integration,' said Bono, referring to the meeting of Microsoft and Apple.
U2 have made available three exclusive tracks, an acoustic version of 'Stuck In a Moment You Can't Get Out Of' and live versions of 'I Will Follow' and 'Beautiful Day', both from the Elevation 2001 shows in Boston. They have already proved amongst the most popular downloads from iTunes.
Bono was speaking to Apple boss Steve Jobs from Dublin. You can watch what he had to say, along with the rest of the launch here
http://www.apple.com (http://www.apple.com)
-
It is known by many in Ireland that U2 only continue to reside in Ireland now because of some tax law that favors artists. They have made it known that they stay there only long enough to enjoy the tax benefits, ie, they don't pay any taxes! This from the band that actively supports a Global tax, especially on the American tax payer, to support Africa. What a fucking load of hypocrites! :mad:
-
Hey Markie,
Do you have a source for that?
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
It is known by many in Ireland that U2 only continue to reside in Ireland now because of some tax law that favors artists. They have made it known that they stay there only long enough to enjoy the tax benefits, ie, they don't pay any taxes! This from the band that actively supports a Global tax, especially on the American tax payer, to support Africa. What a fucking load of hypocrites! :mad:
Hmm, at the Slane show he didn't mention taxes as the reason:
'I asked my father for £500,' Bono explained at the second show. 'The Edge asked his father for £500. Larry asked his Dad and Adam asked his mother for £500. But we didnâ??t choose to stay in London or in New York when we made it. We came back to Dublin. This is our city and you are our tribe.'
'And by now youâ??ve all paid about £500. You have given us a great life and this is our thank you,' he told fans.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Hey Markie,
Do you have a source for that?
Got the info from someone I know who lives in Ireland and works in the banking industry. Supposedly, the entire town she lives in knows about it and they all hate them for it. Go check Irish tax laws if you want.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Got the info from someone I know who lives in Ireland and works in the banking industry. Supposedly, the entire town she lives in knows about it and they all hate them for it. Go check Irish tax laws if you want.
Irish Tax law has a top rates are 48% which are significantly lower than the UK (60%) and the US rate is actually lower than Ireland's rate at about 39.8% (with deductions and credits included). There is no tax exemption for artists in Ireland. They pay 48% of all earned income.
Where there is no tax and where they benefit significantly is that there is no capital gains tax in Ireland. That is for everyone Irish citizen, not just artists.
But what I don't understand about your argument is that you think U2 should leave Ireland because they make a lot of money? Why should they leave their country, where they were raised and where they raise their kids and support their communities? And why do you fault U2 for the Irish tax scheme, which has been in place since 1949, long before the members of U2 were even born?
And what makes you think that U2 are not putting that extra saved tax money back into the Irish community through works of philanthropy and donations, let alone business development in Ireland?
For all the reasons to not like U2, this is the worst I've ever heard.
-
That's not why I personally don't like U2. I just can't stand their music and pompous attitudes. But I do dislike that they are trying to promote a Global taxation on Americans. What I posted above is why a lot of people in Ireland don't like them. Search around. I bet you will find something about Ireland and artists. It's not my thing. I can't even understand American tax laws. The woman I know is pretty good with some of this stuff and knows about it and has mentioned it a couple times before.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
The woman I know is pretty good with some of this stuff and knows about it and has mentioned it a couple times before.
Sorry Jag, I love you but this data is inaccurate.
There are a lot of reasons (tax policy wise) to have lower rates for Capital Gains (usually it's to stimulate investment in the business infrastructure) and if U2 take advantage of those laws, it can only benefit the Irish ecomony through their investment, but the two band members with kids raise their kids in Ireland and their kids attend Irish schools so to say that they only remain Irish citizens long enough to be enjoy tax benefits and would leave at the first instance is just wrong. When they opened their club, did they do it in London, New York or LA? No, the Kitchen is in the Temple Bar area of Dublin.
And to accuse them of being hypocrites when they pay 48% of all income earned over £9,900 is also wrong. That's a very low threashold for the top tax bracket (for example England is around £30,000 and the US is around $125,000). Every developed country allows deductions against income tax for charitable donations, so if the members of U2 get out of paying taxes by making chartiable donations, then all the power to them. I wish more Americans would off set their income taxes with charitable donations.
About the only disparraging word U2 have ever said about Ireland was when discussing the troubles, and Bono was very involved in the Good Friday peace accords. If the Irish hate U2 (and I don't mean hating their music because everyone's entitled to their own taste), its for making their small quiet country visable on a global music scale and if it weren't U2 it would have been someone else.
-
jag, what about the music turns you off so much? will you agree that they are, at minimum, important to the rock scene in the 80's or do you think that they made little artistic contribution to music?
-
btw, anyone agree or disagree that u2 has done little to promote their own homegrown talent?
considering the popularity of prayerboat (before they split) and the frames (in ireland, and partly in the uk), for example, those bands were never asked to tour with them, even in ireland proper.
-
Originally posted by lily1:
btw, anyone agree or disagree that u2 has done little to promote their own homegrown talent?
There was the Boyzone merger for Sweetest Thing. (yes, I'm laughing the whole time I typed that)
-
Lily, their music does nothing for me. There's a lot of music out there that I like a lot less but they've always sounded too mainstream or something for me. Can't really put my finger on it other than that they have just never done it for me. There were maybe 2 or 3 songs of their's that I kind of liked as long as I didn't hear them that much. The rest just bored me. This was true for me ever since the early 80s when I liked them a little more than I do now. Still never thought much of them then either.
Don't know what they've done for hometown bands. Never thought of it but can't say that I've heard of them doing much, which doesn't mean they haven't done anything. I have no idea really who they select and why.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Hey Markie,
Do you have a source for that?
http://www.bullymag.com/6.6.02/u2-060802.asp (http://www.bullymag.com/6.6.02/u2-060802.asp)
put the first line or so in a google search and you will always find out where Markie has been.
-
Originally posted by lily1:
btw, anyone agree or disagree that u2 has done little to promote their own homegrown talent?
considering the popularity of prayerboat (before they split) and the frames (in ireland, and partly in the uk), for example, those bands were never asked to tour with them, even in ireland proper.
there was at one point their label mother records... cactus world news was one of their first signings, there are others
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
they've always sounded too mainstream or something for me.
i didnt really know mainstream was a sound. Apparently you are mainstream enough to have been told what "mainstream" sounds like.
does U2 sound just like everyone else? please tell me, cause i would LOVE to hear that one, queen jag.
-
i realize that this isn't the populist opinion of u2... but for me they peaked for "war" and began going down hill with the release of "under a blood red sky". and as far as their output in the 90's. at least they didn't release "sapling of joshua tree", "return to war", etc. the band was aware that the edge's limited guitar sound was only going to take them so far...
-
btw, anyone agree or disagree that u2 has done little to promote their own homegrown talent?
considering the popularity of prayerboat (before they split) and the frames (in ireland, and partly in the uk), for example, those bands were never asked to tour with them, even in ireland proper.
hard to say really - they have picked Irish bands to support them, Fatima Mansions for instance back in the early 90s, maybe they were put off when Cathal Coughlan almost sparked a riot at a concert in Rome when he pretended to sodomize himself with a statue of the Virgin Mary
At Slane in 2001 they had JJ72 and Relish on the bill and they had Ash a few years earlier at Lansdowne
to be honest, after a ton of bands in the 80s were marketed as the "next U2" and failed miserably a lot of bands actualyl tried to steer clear of direct association with them, at least until they'd made a name for themselves
-
Originally posted by BLANK:
U2 is really a bad 80s band that never should have become as popular as they did. But they were easy to market, after all they made poppy little diddies that sent college kids into a tizzy and gave pseudo-intellectuals a new hero to rave about.
Why is it that whenever one of the popular groups with "mainstream" success out there (U2, REM, Nirvana, etc.) gets talked about in music snob circles, some know-it-all has to point out what a worthless, overrated band they are? Yet go check out the artists in *this* snob's catalogue and (if we could) actually talk to the supposedly cooler-than-thou bands -- I'm sure many of *them* would modestly and genuinely point to U2, REM, etc. as some of their biggest influences.
Criticize their later music for not sounding like the early stuff or pass on phony and illogical tax rumors all you want... heck, even venture that you never liked them in the first place -- fine with me. But it irks me to no end when people think they can get cool points with music snobs by revealing the "shocking truth" of a band's ever-present suckiness even though nearly everyone in the world of *actually playing rock music* cites that band as an influence or example of a good band.
Sorry for sounding off -- I know I'm a lurker. If anyone cares, I actually think All That You Can't Leave Behind was maybe their best record, followed closely by Achtung Baby, War, October, and Joshua Tree.
-
For some reason a lot of what U2 does seems brilliant in the moment, or at least works in the moment, and ridiculous looking back. For example, I thought the Zoo TV tour was a phenomenol show, but looking at footage today of the crap like the TVs and props, and Bono making phone calls to the President, it seems ridiculous. Their albums don't hold up great over time, but they were pretty awesome in the mid-late '80's, '91-92, and '00-01.
-
Originally posted by lily1:
btw, anyone agree or disagree that u2 has done little to promote their own homegrown talent?
And aren't they too busy doing benefit concerts for Africa to do any benefit concerts for their home country? They should do a concert for the Romanian immigrants in Ireland that I see in the middle of Cork begging for money every day.
As for artists and tax laws....one of the most noble statements I ever heard was from a British artist who refused to move the US for tax purposes when it seemed to be the thing to do....he said "I got my free milk at school when I was a kid, so now it's my turn to pay for the free milk for the kids today"...having said that, they don't get milk anymore. The artist is Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull fame. Yes, take the piss all you want, but he did get rich and didn't abandon the country that paid for his education etc. Not sure were he lives now, so GGW no need to visit all your search engines to find out, it doesn't matter, he more than paid back, which is more than we can say for many of them.
-
And aren't they too busy doing benefit concerts for Africa to do any benefit concerts for their home country?
jesus I never thought I'd find myself defending U2 but here goes - they have done benefits for their home country - they headlined Self Aid, one of the Live Aid knockoff concerts in the 80s when unemployment was 25% and practically everyone was broke - I'm not saying it did a whole lot of good but at least they (and others) tried
"Self-Aid" R.D.S. Arena, Dublin 17th May 1986.
Line Up: U2, Van Morrison, Chris de Burgh, Elvis Costello & The Attractions, Christy Moore, Rory Gallagher, Moving Hearts, Auto da Fe, The Boomtown Rats, Paul Brady, The Fountainhead, De Dannan, Scullion, Cactus World News, The Pogues, Those Nervous Animals, Freddie White, Chris Rea, The Chieftains, Les Enfants, Big Self, Clannad, In Tua Nua, Stockton's Wing, Blue In Heaven, Bagatelle, Brush Shields.
Attendance: 30,000
and on all the tax stuff, they have so much friggin money I don't think it would matter what they are taxed - other people seem to have done more research on this but I do dimly recall some kind of tax exemption for artists in Ireland which is why a lot of English singers (the Def Leppard fella, Lisa Stansfield) and film types have homes in Ireland
bottom line, they've had more than their fair share of opporunities to leave Ireland and set up somewhere else and they haven't
-
Originally posted by brennser:
And aren't they too busy doing benefit concerts for Africa to do any benefit concerts for their home country?
jesus I never thought I'd find myself defending U2 but here goes - they have done benefits for their home country - they headlined Self Aid, one of the Live Aid knockoff concerts in the 80s when unemployment was 25% and practically everyone was broke - I'm not saying it did a whole lot of good but at least they (and others) tried
[/b]
No need to defend them, my question was genuine. Thanks.
-
having nothing better to do heres what I found on the irish tax exemption for artists - of course some smartarse is going to say that U2 shouldn't qualify because their work is neither original nor creative!
The artist and tax
Monday, May 15, 2000
By Tom Conachy
If you are an aspiring rock singer, writer or painter the good news is that you do not have to pay any income tax on certain profits made from your work if you are resident in Ireland.
The catch is that your work must be original and creative, as defined by the Revenue Commissioners. This tax legislation is more commonly known as the artists' exemption.
What type of artistic work qualifies?
The profits from the publication or sale of an original and creative work exempts an Irish resident from income tax if it falls under one of the following five categories:
1. A book or other writing
2. A play
3. A musical composition
4. A painting or other like picture
5. A sculpture.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/05/15/story292447.asp (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/05/15/story292447.asp)
-
I think some board members owe Jag an apology, I wonder if they will be big enough to do it?
"Never question woman"
-
yes but it dosen't mention anything about profits made from touring which is where u2 probably gets most of the dough...
-
I'm not going to get into whether or not people should apologize - they may not pay taxes on some of their income, but they do on others (see below), and by staying in Ireland, buying big houses, opening hotels, restaurants etc they do pump money in the economy, and tourism as well.
Which royalties are exempt?
Royalties from the sale of records are not exempt unless they are composition royalties. For example, if a singer is singing somebody else's song, the singer's royalties are taxable but the composer's are tax-free.
All other income such as concert fees, TV show appearances and merchandising profits are taxable in the normal manner.
-
Originally posted by brennser:
having nothing better to do heres what I found on the irish tax exemption for artists - of course some smartarse is going to say that U2 shouldn't qualify because their work is neither original nor creative!
The artist and tax
Monday, May 15, 2000
By Tom Conachy
If you are an aspiring rock singer, writer or painter the good news is that you do not have to pay any income tax on certain profits made from your work if you are resident in Ireland.
The catch is that your work must be original and creative, as defined by the Revenue Commissioners. This tax legislation is more commonly known as the artists' exemption.
What type of artistic work qualifies?
The profits from the publication or sale of an original and creative work exempts an Irish resident from income tax if it falls under one of the following five categories:
1. A book or other writing
2. A play
3. A musical composition
4. A painting or other like picture
5. A sculpture.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/05/15/story292447.asp (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/05/15/story292447.asp)
When Jag wakes up am I ever going to get a ration of shit (well deserved I might add).
Jag I now bow to you....
I sent an email last night to my Irish lawyer friend and he said that there is in fact an exemption for artists, but it applies only to CD's/records/tapes sold in Ireland. Merchanidising and tours are still subject to taxation, and U2 pays a lot of tax.
He said it was passed in 1969 and that it was passed by the Taoiseach at the time, Charles Haughey, and that it is widely regarded as a good move for Irish culture. He said it has gone a long way to moving Irish culture from the pub songs and celtic art to modern art. When asked specifically about U2 and the exemption, he said that there are people who have used U2 as an example of why it should be changed, but that it will likely never be changed because it is thought of as a key peice of legislation for making the Temple Bar area so popular in the early 90's. He also mentioned (without details) that U2 do a lot for Ireland when in Ireland.
So Jag I apologize. I was wrong on all aspects of the tax scheme (in 2000 they implemented a Capital Gains tax, though it is still lower than most developed countries).
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I think some board members owe Jag an apology, I wonder if they will be big enough to do it?
"Never question woman"
That would be me, and I already did. Thanks Mankie for policing nonetheless.
-
but it applies only to CD's/records/tapes sold in Ireland.
I think the loophole might be bigger than that - as far as I can tell from the article it applies to taxes on royalties in any country in the world that Ireland has a tax treaty with - so once you have the exemption you can use it to not pay taxes on royalties in the US for example, provided you contact the IRS and show them your tax exempt status in Ireland
on a completely unrelated note, Charlie Huaghey was a thieving bastard who ran the country into the ground while filling up offshore accounts for himself and his cronies in the 80s - I sincerely hope he spends whatever short years he has left in jail, although thats unlikely to happen
-
Originally posted by brennser:
I think the loophole might be bigger than that - as far as I can tell from the article it applies to taxes on royalties in any country in the world that Ireland has a tax treaty with - so once you have the exemption you can use it to not pay taxes on royalties in the US for example, provided you contact the IRS and show them your tax exempt status in Ireland
I wouldn't call it a loophole because the Government makes no attempt to hide it. They exempt artists tax on Copyright royalties.
And there are certain countries (the US is one of them) where U2 would pay no tax on copyright royalties based on Tax Treaties, but it has to be specifically listed in the treaty, so it would be a stretch to say that every country Ireland has a tax treaty with exempts copyright royalties, but I've been wrong about the taxes in Ireland through the majority of this post so....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
So Jag I apologize. I was wrong on all aspects of the tax scheme (in 2000 they implemented a Capital Gains tax, though it is still lower than most developed countries). [/b]
When did Ireland become a "developed country" :D you'll be trying to tell me Scotland has the same status next! :roll:
-
Originally posted by mankie:
When did Ireland become a "developed country" :D you'll be trying to tell me Scotland has the same status next! :roll:
Probably when the Brits made it a point to educate them during their "occupation."
And I'm telling your wife you asked that question.
And I'm guessing Scotland becomes developed when Markie and Lulu procreate. Eeewww.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
And I'm guessing Scotland becomes developed when Markie and Lulu procreate. Eeewww. [/b]
Couldn't you have waited till my lunch had settled before making that comment?
We only occupy the North now, we gave the South back to them after we had civilized them..the North still needs more work. :p
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
It is known by many in Ireland that U2 only continue to reside in Ireland now because of some tax law that favors artists. They have made it known that they stay there only long enough to enjoy the tax benefits, ie, they don't pay any taxes! This from the band that actively supports a Global tax, especially on the American tax payer, to support Africa. What a fucking load of hypocrites! :mad:
So they should live here in the States or Britain and have their wages drained for the Bush & Blair's wars?
-
Originally posted by Fico:
Originally posted by Jaguär:
It is known by many in Ireland that U2 only continue to reside in Ireland now because of some tax law that favors artists. They have made it known that they stay there only long enough to enjoy the tax benefits, ie, they don't pay any taxes! This from the band that actively supports a Global tax, especially on the American tax payer, to support Africa. What a fucking load of hypocrites! :mad:
So they should live here in the States or Britain and have their wages drained for the Bush & Blair's wars? [/b]
HEY! HEY! HEY!
It's Bush's war, Blair just tags along.
-
So they should live here in the States or Britain and have their wages drained for the Bush & Blair's wars?
well given that they're filthly rich they'd probably do just as well at not paying taxes in the US as in Ireland thanks to our great leaders inspired tax policies and trickle down economics....
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
For some reason a lot of what U2 does seems brilliant in the moment, or at least works in the moment, and ridiculous looking back. For example, I thought the Zoo TV tour was a phenomenol show, but looking at footage today of the crap like the TVs and props, and Bono making phone calls to the President, it seems ridiculous. Their albums don't hold up great over time, but they were pretty awesome in the mid-late '80's, '91-92, and '00-01.
I wonder if people like you ever live the PRESENT... at the time ZOO TV was a spectacle unseen of in rocknroll circles (aside from Pink Floyd shows and a few others)...point is pretty much nothing remains current.. I'm sure half of the clothing we have on our closet will seem ridiculous in 10 years time, same as our taste in cars, haircuts, music, etc... embrace the present man.. if you do, the past will make for a good laugh..
-
Originally posted by Fico:
Originally posted by Mobius:
[qb]if you do, the past will make for a good laugh.. [/b]
I will contend that there is plenty of music that does not seem rediculous after time.....
Hell, Pink floyd still sounds great, so does the who or the clash or the smiths.... blah blah blah.
Perhaps U2 was crap all along and you were just a sheep in liking them, along with all the trends you follow, why did you buy those 24 inch bottomed purple flares?
-
Originally posted by Fico:
So they should live here in the States or Britain and have their wages drained for the Bush & Blair's wars?
And to provide aid to cesspools like the Dominican Republic......
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And to provide aid to cesspools like the Dominican Republic...... [/b]
....and Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Anacostia.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And to provide aid to cesspools like the Dominican Republic......
....and Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Anacostia. [/b]
.....and Manchester and Oldham.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by Fico:
So they should live here in the States or Britain and have their wages drained for the Bush & Blair's wars?
And to provide aid to cesspools like the Dominican Republic...... [/b]
when was the last time you visited?? and for that matter, I wonder when was the last time the US gave at least a combined amount equivalent to 1% of it's GDP to the countries it takes so much from??
-
Furthermore mr. charity..
"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share."
-
Originally posted by Fico:
when was the last time you visited??
SAFETY AND SECURITY: American citizens should review their security practices and maintain a low profile. Protests, demonstrations, and general strikes occur periodically. These disturbances have the potential to turn violent, with participants rioting and erecting roadblocks. In the past, police have used deadly force in response to violent protests. Although these events are not targeted at foreigners, it is advisable to exercise caution when traveling throughout the country. In urban areas, travel should be conducted on main routes whenever possible. Street crowds should be avoided.
CRIME: Petty street crime involving U.S. tourists does occur, and normal precautions should be taken. Visitors walking the streets should always be aware of their surroundings to avoid becoming victims of crime. Valuables left unattended in parked automobiles, on beaches and in other public places are vulnerable to theft. Cellular telephones should be carried in a pocket, rather than on a belt or in a purse. One increasingly common method of street robbery is for a person or persons on a moped (often coasting with the engine turned off so as not to draw attention) to approach a pedestrian, grab the cell phone, purse or backpack, and then speed away.
Passengers in private taxis (known locally as "carros publicos") are frequently the victims of pickpocketing. In some instances, the taxi drivers themselves have been known to rob riders. At least one American passenger on a "motoconcho" (motorcycle taxi) has been robbed by the driver. Visitors to the Dominican Republic are strongly advised to take only hotel taxis or taxis operated by services whose cabs are ordered in advance by phone and can subsequently be identified and tracked.
Burglaries of private residences have increased, as have crimes of violence. Some incidents of violent crime have involved foreign residents and tourists, including U.S. citizens.
Visitors should limit their use of personal credit cards due to credit card fraud and may wish to consider coordinating their trip with their credit card company so that only hotel bills or other specified expenses may be charged. Credit cards should never leave the sight of the cardholder, in order to prevent the card's information from being copied for illegal use. It is advisable to pay close attention to credit card bills following a trip to the Dominican Republic.
Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) are present throughout Santo Domingo and other major cities. However, as with credit cards, the use of ATM's should be minimized as a means of avoiding theft or misuse. One local scheme involves sticking photographic film or pieces of paper in the card feeder of the ATM so that an inserted card becomes jammed. Once the card owner has concluded the card is irretrievable, the thieves extract both the jamming material and the card, which they then use.
MEDICAL FACILITIES: Medical care is limited, especially outside Santo Domingo, and the quality of care varies widely among facilities. There is an emergency 911 service within Santo Domingo, but its reliability is questionable. Outside the capital, emergency services range from extremely limited to nonexistent. Blood supplies at both public and private hospitals are often limited and not all facilities have blood on hand even for emergencies. Many medical facilities throughout the country do not have staff members who speak or understand English. A private nationwide ambulance service, "Movi-med," operates in Santo Domingo, Santiago, Puerto Plata and La Romana; its telephone number is 532-0000 in Santo Domingo and 1-200-0911 outside Santo Domingo. "Movi-med" expects full payment at the time of transport.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by Fico:
when was the last time you visited??
SAFETY AND SECURITY: American citizens should review their security practices and maintain a low profile. Protests, demonstrations, and general strikes occur periodically. These disturbances have the potential to turn violent, with participants rioting and erecting roadblocks. In the past, police have used deadly force in response to violent protests. Although these events are not targeted at foreigners, it is advisable to exercise caution when traveling throughout the country. In urban areas, travel should be conducted on main routes whenever possible. Street crowds should be avoided.
CRIME: Petty street crime involving U.S. tourists does occur, and normal precautions should be taken. Visitors walking the streets should always be aware of their surroundings to avoid becoming victims of crime. Valuables left unattended in parked automobiles, on beaches and in other public places are vulnerable to theft. Cellular telephones should be carried in a pocket, rather than on a belt or in a purse. One increasingly common method of street robbery is for a person or persons on a moped (often coasting with the engine turned off so as not to draw attention) to approach a pedestrian, grab the cell phone, purse or backpack, and then speed away.
Passengers in private taxis (known locally as "carros publicos") are frequently the victims of pickpocketing. In some instances, the taxi drivers themselves have been known to rob riders. At least one American passenger on a "motoconcho" (motorcycle taxi) has been robbed by the driver. Visitors to the Dominican Republic are strongly advised to take only hotel taxis or taxis operated by services whose cabs are ordered in advance by phone and can subsequently be identified and tracked.
Burglaries of private residences have increased, as have crimes of violence. Some incidents of violent crime have involved foreign residents and tourists, including U.S. citizens.
Visitors should limit their use of personal credit cards due to credit card fraud and may wish to consider coordinating their trip with their credit card company so that only hotel bills or other specified expenses may be charged. Credit cards should never leave the sight of the cardholder, in order to prevent the card's information from being copied for illegal use. It is advisable to pay close attention to credit card bills following a trip to the Dominican Republic.
Automated Teller Machines (ATM's) are present throughout Santo Domingo and other major cities. However, as with credit cards, the use of ATM's should be minimized as a means of avoiding theft or misuse. One local scheme involves sticking photographic film or pieces of paper in the card feeder of the ATM so that an inserted card becomes jammed. Once the card owner has concluded the card is irretrievable, the thieves extract both the jamming material and the card, which they then use.
MEDICAL FACILITIES: Medical care is limited, especially outside Santo Domingo, and the quality of care varies widely among facilities. There is an emergency 911 service within Santo Domingo, but its reliability is questionable. Outside the capital, emergency services range from extremely limited to nonexistent. Blood supplies at both public and private hospitals are often limited and not all facilities have blood on hand even for emergencies. Many medical facilities throughout the country do not have staff members who speak or understand English. A private nationwide ambulance service, "Movi-med," operates in Santo Domingo, Santiago, Puerto Plata and La Romana; its telephone number is 532-0000 in Santo Domingo and 1-200-0911 outside Santo Domingo. "Movi-med" expects full payment at the time of transport. [/b]
That doesn't surprise me, it's part of the fear propaganda... yet in the last 30 years we've seen nothing close to the LA Riots, school shootings, people losing the plot at their jobs and shooting anyone in site, we haven't seen a bombing of a government building by a national or non-national, crime rates and murder rates are lower than 9/10 of US cities of the same size...we've never seen demonstrations such as those in Seattle or Washington... so read into that what you will, you couldn't counter the fact that the US is not the giving nation that you portrayed in your post and and had to switch the angle of the conversation... and you still lost!!!
-
Originally posted by Fico:
and for that matter, I wonder when was the last time the US gave at least a combined amount equivalent to 1% of it's GDP to the countries it takes so much from??
The Dominican Republic had a total GDP (in USD at 1990 prices) of $44.2 billion between 1980 and 1992. Over that period they received $840 million in aid from the U.S.
$840mn/$44.2bn = 1.9% of Dominican GDP.
What exactly do we "take" from the Dominican Republic? Other than 65% of its exports?
-
Originally posted by Fico:
Furthermore mr. charity..
"As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'.
Although I think the US government should have a higher foreign aid budget, these statistics are misleading. First, they do not take into acount private citizen donations to charities. You can criticize the earnestness of giving to religious charities (which probably make up a sizable percentage of that number) for international aid, but I believe Americans are routinely in the top 3 developed countries in that regard. It makes sense -- less money paid in taxes, more money to give to chairities. Yeah, I think just having the govt take it out is more responsible and comprehensive, but we give $$$ all the same.
Second, these statistics do not take into account US govt contracts with U.S.-based int'l development companies. Yeah, I'd rather see the government just help Ethiopia directly instead of padding some American contractor's overhead along the way, but sooner or later, some of those contract dollars make it overseas for schools, roads, etc.
So, yes, the U.S. govt can be stingy in direct foreign aid, but as a whole, Americans are no stingier than the rest of the world -- you can say our aid isn't given't as efficiently or as altruistically as Sweden's, but even per capita we're on par with Europe in terms of dollars given.
And more on topic, did anyone else see that U2 spent $46,000 this month bankrolling a struggling charity to keep it afloat another month?
-
Originally posted by Fico:
...we've never seen demonstrations such as those in Seattle or Washington...
Well, this would explain how you keep the demonstrations under control:
Amnesty International is deeply concerned at reports that police in the Dominican Republic raided the office of a local trade union yesterday, 6 August, and opened fire on those inside in order to prevent them from carrying out a protest scheduled for later that afternoon in the capital, Santo Domingo.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR270052003?open&of=ENG-DOM (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR270052003?open&of=ENG-DOM)
-
Originally posted by mustourdman:
they do not take into acount private citizen donations to charities. You can criticize the earnestness of giving to religious charities (which probably make up a sizable percentage of that number) for international aid, but I believe Americans are routinely in the top 3 developed countries in that regard. It makes sense -- less money paid in taxes, more money to give to chairities. Yeah, I think just having the govt take it out is more responsible and comprehensive, but we give $$$ all the same.
While I agree with your points, I wouldn't use the US Citizen as your example. Because a Citizen is not granted tax breaks for international donations, most US Citizens only donate to US charities and a small portion of that money is transferred internationally.
What I would focus on US Foundations and Grantmaking Charities which give grant about $2.4 Billion last year to international charities, far more than any other nation or multi-lateral organization including the EU.
-
Originally posted by mustourdman:
And more on topic, did anyone else see that U2 spent $46,000 this month bankrolling a struggling charity to keep it afloat another month?
I missed that, but I did learn today that they didn't do it for tax reasons. Silly me.
Where did you read that?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3198386.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3198386.stm)
-
Take it for what it's worth, but a friend asked me to post this response:
-----------------------------------
Of course, I will defend U2 against such comments.
First of all, U2 isn’t the band one should single out if the case of selling-out is to be made. Up through the Elevation Tour, U2 did not accept corporate sponsorships for their tours. They paid for the tours with their own money, a fact which, “not unexpectedly…was missing from the pages of Rolling Stone or VH-1 broadcasts.” They actually lost money on their Zoo-TV world tour, and of course on the PopMart tour. In fact, this inability to “sell-out” as the writer contends nearly split the band up, because the members who wanted to spend everything on lavish stages (Bono and Edge) were pressuring the two members who didn’t want to spend (Larry and Adam) to give them some of their loot, which was split evenly between all members and Paul McGuiness, their manager of 25 years. Second, making millions selling records and promoting the restoration of the economies in Africa go hand-in-hand. If U2 didn’t make the business decisions they have for the last 20 years, if Paul McGuiness wasn’t the shark he is, chances are U2 would have broken up in 1982 and you’d never have heard of them. U2 isn’t even the richest of the rockers/rappers, but they are the only ones who are using their notoriety to promote change and do good things. It is unheard of that any musician or performer would be taking the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury on a guided tour of world of Africa, yet it was seemingly routine for Bono. Don’t single-out Best Buy as the Goliath of the record sellers. Do you want to get ripped-off by your “screwed-over” independent record retailers who are going to charge $30 for the same DVD? The popularity of the shared file phenomenon is a direct effect of high CD/DVD prices. No one should have to pay for a product that is marked up 200 times from its production cost, so screw your beloved Tower Records of the World. There’s a reason it’s called “Best Buy,” and U2 realizes this. They’re just being sympathetic to their fans. Finally, and who is Henry Rollins? :)
Originally posted by BLANK:
U2 is really a bad 80s band that never should have become as popular as they did. But they were easy to market, after all they made poppy little diddies that sent college kids into a tizzy and gave pseudo-intellectuals a new hero to rave about. Quite frankly, Henry Rollins was dead-on when he said, "The Clash is what U2 really wanted to be." They were a pseudo-political band who ultimately gave in to smart business sense.
Case in point: U2, the supposed band of integrity and protest, recently decided to screw over independent record retailers, by signing an exclusive contract with the Best Buy, the 1,900-store consumer electronics and appliance monolith. According to the terms of the agreement, Best Buy would have a two-week exclusive to sell a brand new U2 live DVD for $18 and also get the rights to sell an out-of-print U2 Greatest Hits Album. In exchange Best Buy will help to promote a broadcast of the concert on DirectTV's Freeview Event series for paying customers and spend up to $10 million promoting U2 through transit bus and newspaper advertising.
So while Bono was all over CNN talking about helping to restore the economies in Africa, he and his mates had already screwed thousands of small music retailers who would lose revenue and customers to a large chain that is expected to rack up $20 billion in 2002. In 2000, Best Buy bought out the Musicland Chain, which runs Sam Goody here in the States, and more recently bought the 83-store Future Shop chain in Canada. For all intents and purposes, they are quickly becoming the Starbucks of the consumer electronics world - a store in every town, sometimes even two or three if necessary.
To make matters worse, Best Buy expanded in the music distribution business by creating Redline Entertainment, a wholly-owned subsidiary that acts like any other record label. One catch, by silently owning Redline, other chains and music retailers are padding Best Buy's pockets by selling CD's from Redline's artists. To quote Best Buy's CEO from a brief article in Forbes (about the only publication to cover the story): "Consumers are telling us they want to depend increasingly on one guy." The Babbitizing of America continues…
Not unexpectedly, this little bit of news was missing from the pages of Rolling Stone or VH-1 broadcasts. And meanwhile, the fabulous images from the photo-op of Bono and US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill travelling to Africa still flood the airwaves.
Hmm…why isn't that surprising.
-
Don't worry Smackie, you're still my hero.
Mankie, you're a Knight in Shining Armour.
Sonic, since you've decided to crown me Queen, and thank you for that btw, I'll take this opportunity to appoint you and Mustourdman the positions of Court Jesters. Unlike Lily and some of the others, you both seem to assume that because some of us don't like U2, that we aren't entitled to an opinion or to our own personal taste because it doesn't align with your's. You both come off as if we have insulted you personally, as you both have done to us because we don't agree with your taste in music. If you had read my posts properly, you'll see that not once did I ever even hint at an insult to those who like U2. As far as the music is concerned, I only stated why I've never liked them. Ever. Has nothing to do with "hipness". My dislike goes all the way back to the early 80s when they first started being heard in this neck of the woods. I'm not the type to lie about liking or not liking certain music just because some people take it as a personal offense because my taste doesn't agree with their's. If you can't deal with that, then, by all means, hate me for it. That's your right. It's kind of weird realizing that my opinion of some band would have that much power over a few other people.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Don't worry Smackie, you're still my hero.
It's kind of weird realizing that my opinion of some band would have that much power over a few other people.
Um... I'll be the court jester if I get to wear the cool hat, but I think thin skin is in the eye of the beholder.
I believe I said go ahead and dislike U2 all you want -- it just bothered me that the attitude of *a different poster* came across as not just offering his/her opinion, but disrespecting vast expert and popular opinions as well. Nothing illegal with not liking a certain band -- but I do think it's a bit trite when someone sounds off like his/her opinion is sooooo much more informed than legions of music fans, musicians, and music critics.
For example, I dislike Creed. I would hate their music no matter what, but I feel my opinion is bolsetered by the fact that people who listen to as diverse a set of music as I do hate them, critics hate them, and the only musicians whoever point to Creed as influences are, well, Creed cover bands.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of Sonic Youth. Their music's just never grabbed me I guess, but I *recognize* that most of the people whose opinions I respect (friends, critics, favorite musicians) do like them, so I believe that Sonic Youth is a legitimately good band whose music I don't care for too much.
... and as far as the whole tax thing -- I don't think *any of us* came out of that looking wholly informed.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Don't worry Smackie, you're still my hero.
Mankie, you're a Knight in Shining Armour.
Cheers, love, and apologies again. First drink's on me if you can make it in to DC Nov. 14 when I visit.
I've sent a note to the authors of the int'l tax manual I was reading to add the omitted Section 195 exemption to the list of exemptions and to cite Jag when doing so. Perhaps you will get global recognition for your superiority.
And for Mankie, he was just sucking up and taking the opportunity to point out my fallibility for his own personal self-assurance. I've decided not to share my username and password to uefa.com so he cannot watch the replay of the Rangers-United match and will therefore forced to read about it. Plus I already owe him a drink so there's no sense in offering him one for his Knighthood. Boy that list is getting long....
-
Originally posted by mustourdman:
-- it just bothered me that the attitude of *a different poster* came across as not just offering his/her opinion, but disrespecting vast expert and popular opinions as well. Nothing illegal with not liking a certain band -- but I do think it's a bit trite when someone sounds off like his/her opinion is sooooo much more informed than legions of music fans, musicians, and music critics.
[/b]
Is Rhett back on the board?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Is Rhett back on the board? [/b]
I thought the same thing and decided to let it go. But my knight to the rescue...