Clinton's damning verdict!

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

‘I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where Al-Qaeda are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to’

*'*The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world…*US taxes everything, and ‘that’s not what we see in Pakistan’
*
‘You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now’

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Is the government and more importantly Pakistan up for the challenge?

2

Clinton can go to hell:

a) They bloody well proclaimed they had Al-Q cornered in Afghanistan. Whoops. Let em go, didn’t they? Further, while Al-Q were enjoying their rumpus in Afghanistan, America was somewhat busy plotting an invasion of Iraq. A bit late to belly ache on this. In any case, this sounds more like American disengagement, mor ethan anything else…“well, it’s the Pakis problem now, let’s go home boys!”…been there, done that.

b) And not a word on corruption, in particular of her best buddy and ol pal, Zardari? Spare us.

c) And America’s population is…?

Back to 90's
3

Re: Clinton's damning verdict!

As far as Taliban are concerned, maybe someone needs to ask her with the best technology and probably the best military how come they can't find Osama/Mullah Omar? Or can't control Taliban/Al-qaida in Afghanistan/Iraq?

Once they answer these, they'll get answers for questions she's asking.

Live Updates of Azadi March
4

I am more concerned with population overgrowth

In 1990 Pak population was 90 million and UK's was 58 million
In 2009 our population has soared to around 180 million (i.e. doubled) and UK population is still around 62 million!!

5

Re: Clinton's damning verdict!

as the US economy improves, they'll be back for pakistan.

Live Updates of Azadi March
6

Yeah...there are not enough resources in Pakistan to handle such a massive population....Pakistan needs to implement 1 child policy

Time Pass*~*SALAM SiTam BER ~*~
7

One child policy has had serious social consequences, and it's doubtful it can be implemented in a country like Pakistan.

Iran has apparently had some success in this area...although their approach, too, requires a whole different level of accountability and maturity that I don't think a Pakistani administration can pull off, not to mention a general bugaboo among us Sunni's with regards to state-sponsored family planning.

8

One child policy has severe social effects.... Like in China right now, no has any siblings, uncles aunts or any relation to relate to other than their own Parents.. Though China is developing like anything.

However Pakistan do need to make a reasonable policy in this regard. Folks who are more poor or not working in Pakistan, tends to make more kids. Ideally they need to be kept busy in some work. :)

9

Is that what US is using drones for?

10

Re: Clinton's damning verdict!

How is it damning?

Time Pass*~*SALAM SiTam BER ~*~
11
  • ^ that Pakistan's population is growing fast at the rate of 5 million (or half crore) every year but resources/growth (health sector, schools, jobs etc.) are not increasing at the same rate
  • that our taxation system is woefully ineffective
  • that there does not seem to be any forward thinking or planning to deal with these issues

That is what's so damning about it...

12

[quote="Reverse_Swing, post:37, topic:210726"]

  • ^ that Pakistan's population is growing fast at the rate of 5 million (or half crore) every year but resources/growth (health sector, schools, jobs etc.) are not increasing at the same rate

No doubt about the fact that population is on rise but how can you expect the resource rate to increase with the same pace or half the pace....the guys who are responsible for allocating the resources and using them at the right spot do not do anything except for making huge plans only on papers during their tenure and once their tenure is over, you get to hear that pichli hukamat loot kar chali gayee qaumi sarmayee ko...so basically the problem is not with the population growth rate..

  • that our taxation system is woefully ineffective

Exclude those (for a sec) who dont pay taxes because the big fishes in Pakistan are not supposed to declare their assets and pay tax accordingly....but there are sooooooooooooooooo many people who pay the taxes honestly and you know what do they pay for?...they pay for the luxurious lifestyle of these miniters who need all kind of protocol in the world.....without it they cant perform.

  • that there does not seem to be any forward thinking or planning to deal with these issues

Who is here to plan? These guys do not have a vision and ability to run the state...imagine the height of their lousiness... they cant provide security to the capital and whenever some blast hits the capital.... this rehman malik goes to the scene and tries to condole with the people and in return get stones and hateful slogans....I do not have hopes from these guys at all...wishing their tenure to end soon and i HOPE n Wish that next time we choose some sane person to lead us.

13

Dunno! One should not create hysteria on Clinton's remarks.

Any professor worth a dime will provide that type of analysis about EVERY 3rd Worlder country.

The idea of a "sane reaction" is to see what the other person is saying, and if we can learn something from it. Rather than getting upset and angry and froth at the mouth.

Haven't we all heard the famous term "shooting the messenger?"

All of these are true. Aren't they. The most a Pakistani could say is.

Ms. Clinton, Sec. Clinton, Sister Clinton, etc. etc. Thanks for pointing the obvious.

Otherwise, we should at our level be working on these problems anyways.

Take the case of taxation.

Taxes are not there for some hidden reasons. The purpose of taxes is simple. The citizens "pool" their resources to get the things they want to have.

thus taxes should always be looked at from the point of budget and national need.

Let me give a simple example first.

At the level of the family, we try to earn "to pay" for "things we need".So if you need a car, you will "contribute to your family's budget" in order to pay for the car. If you need to pay it outright, you will need say $15,000 "in your budget" for that year/month/week etc. If you want to buy it on the installment, you will need to "collect family taxes" to pay for the monthly installment for X number of years.

At the level of country such as Pakistan, we need to see our budget at the "federal level", then compare it to our "needs" at the "federal level" and then see if we have enough "cash in-flow" aka taxes.

Does that make sense?

So we start from the big picture of the budget.

  1. Payments in dollars to overseas "institutions / banks / countries" for things we buy such as: oil, tea, chemicals for our industry, weapons, AND the loan/interest payments.

  2. Defense

  3. Local expenses.
    -- government baboos
    -- roads
    -- water
    -- schools
    -- hospitals
    -- etc.
    -- etc.

Since the wonderful and great year of 1947, Pakistani budget has suffered a typical shortfall of $2-10 billion that we patch by getting loans or aid.

What does that mean?

That our tax system is not good. Because it doesn't bring enough money.

got it?

In today's money,

Pakistan needs at least $200 billion cash in-flow.

Do you know what we collect?

A measly $20.

What does that mean?

We need to increase our "national cash-in flow" by 10 times NOW.

If our population increase to 300 million, then we may need $500 billion a year.

So we may need to plan (and think) now how to increase our cash in-flow by 25 times.

If for some reason, we cannot levi 25 times more taxes on our poor masses, then we must think "creatively" how to improve the cash flow.

If on the other hand we are trying to shoot the messenger, then it is clearly our own fault.

14

This is a "big-brother liberal lefti government" idea.

One must look at the process of "pro-creation" before instituting "government" policies.

If we care to look, the idea is relatively simply.

"If people are hopeful/secure about their future, they make less babies".

on the other hand

"if people are scared about their future, then they make more babies, because babies become the social-security in the old age".

Europeans make less babies because they are a bit more secure about their future during the last 300+ years. They are also sure that even when they make one /two babies the babies will most likely survive.

Asians make more babies because they are less secure about their future during the last 300+ years. high rate of child-mortality also contributes to them trying to make more babies.

Africans are not secure AT ALL, and thus the sex is totally uncontrolled resulting in wide spread AIDS epidemic. In reality Africans are not just having uncontrolled sex, they are simply mating as much as possible to make as many babies as possible. Knowing fully well that many of those will die before the age of 5.

Pakistanis, North Indians, BDeshis are all making many more babies to SECURE their personal old age, while their countries go to the dogs.

With industrialization, the need for babies will automatically go down in the long run, or at least people will be more open to the idea of smaller family.

So the Chinese government policy of one-child should not be looked at "in isolation", and we must copy the Chinese government/nations' policy of rapid industrialization and European life style.

If Pakistan wants to control the population we must industrialize and adapt to European lifestyle like Chinese, Japanese, S. Koreans etc.

Only then we the Pakistanis will be willing to "cooperate" with the government on issues like population control.

Hope you don't think this is a rebuttal to your post.

I am just adding a bit more to it.

15

I disagree. There is NOTHING damning about population growth. Pakistan, like India will only benefit from population....subject to focussing on correct priority programs.

If we are able stop wasting resources on wars, in fighting and ideological pre-occupations of all kinds and focus on education, trade and hygene I believe we can support twice the population at a better standard of life.

I am sick and tired...
16

Are you kidding me? Pakistan needs to feed 5 million extra people each year!‏

There is no way resources or development can keep pace with such rapid population growth even in the most developed countries of the world never mind Pakistan. Good governance alone will not solve our problems unless we check (thru health promotion etc.) this alarmingly high population growth rate.

**Where are the resources, investment, jobs, schools, hospitals etc. to accomodate such a huge number of people every year? **And remember this 5 million extra burden each year is on top of existing vast underdevelopment and unemployment

And if this trend continues, the increasing discrepancy between supply (resources) and demand (rising population) will result in more vulnerable people with no proper schooling, jobs etc. Ofcourse we must destroy militants in the short-term but the only way we can effectively tackle terrorism in the long-term is thru giving hope to these people, giving them proper education, jobs etc. This will deprive the extremists of the fodder to brainwash.

17

This was my whole point - that resources that so far have been wasted on wars and corruption should be better focussed on these constructive avenues.

If not, even without the 5M babies the problems persist and get worse.

Even if you reduce the population by 5M every year, the problems will still exist, unless and until 3rd world countries such as ours learn to correctly prioritize.

18

Stop taking their money then tell them to go to hell.