BUSH CALLS FOR FULL $15 BILLION FOR AIDS IN AFRICA

Reuters ^ | Sat July 12, 2003 10:08 AM ET | By Patricia Wilson

[7DayRepo]

preserving the health of children in any country

Exactly. There are over a billion children in the world under the age of 15, and I believe the US taxpayer is responsible for the health of every last one of them.

I think spending only $1000 dollars per year for each child is a trivial amount -- we're talking about a human child here, after all.

That works out to 1 trillion dollars, which is roughly a 50% increase in all taxes across the board. Income tax -- up 50%. Social security tax -- up 50%. Corporate tax -- up 50 %.

But remember, it's for the children.

[Consort]

How much of that money is actually part of the hidden intelligence budget? And limited government is an ideal that probably won't catch on in our lifetimes.

[7DayRepo]

Unfortunately, politicians and the media are well aware that attaching the word "children" to anything guarantees the sucker moms will fall all over themselves supporting it.

[ac7xc]

The reason the US Government has decided to spend so much money on AIDS is to help keep the price of AIDS drug high and to enforce the Intellecutual Property rights of the AIDS drug owners.
Drug companies own patents on these drugs and several years ago Brazil dropped the patent for AZT and other drugs so they could afford to take care of their AIDS population. The US Governemnet and the drug companies immediately negioted a deal with the government of Brazil so they could produce and/or provide AIDS treatment for their citizens. Africa has
a low economic ability to pay for these drugs, this threatened the IP and Patent rights of the drug companies. So the US government has stepped up to the plate to help keep the drug companies from losing patents and money.
Of course 10% of the money will go to AIDS education and it will be some fat cat in Nigeria that will take the money, print up some pamplets and pass them around before he goes on a vacation around the world.
That is the real reason $15 billion US is being spent. Maybe the agony of a few AIDS suffers will be relieved, but what good does it do for a AIDS sufferer to receive AZT when he or she is starving to death or lives in a country riped apart by civil war?

[TexasCowboy]

"But when oh when is a President going to get to our Veterans."

Good point, Wild Thing!
Clinton cut our vets programs, and GW has not reinstalled them.
Some families on active duty are still forced to live like poverty families.
Our VA Hospitals are still without the necessary items to make a vet's stay livable, much less comfortable.

Let's take care of our own like they took care of us!

[7DayRepo]

Excellent analysis. Corporate welfare strikes again.

[TexasCowboy]

"reduced the rate of infection through a program of abstinence, faithfulness and education."

ABSTINENCE??!
That's a joke!

[Joe Hadenuf]

I say we should triple it. Lets give them 40 billion! Make the cheap tax payers pay up. Most of Africa's problems are our fault anyway, and besides our economy is booming and theirs isn't.

[mtbopfuyn]

I'm all for sending the $$$ and educating the people. What I have problems with is who's pocket will it all go into without ever reaching the people.

[TexasCowboy]

"Dubya is a compassionate conservative, IMHO."

No, in this instance Dubya is a liberal.
Giving money to Africa is pouring it down a gopher hole, and it will achieve the same result - none.
I've lived there and worked there for many years, which is something that GW and his advisors have not done.

[c-b 1]

I don't think this is a bad thing. Why should millions of infants and children suffer? Dubya is a compassionate conservative, IMHO.

It is NOT his money! It is easy to be compassionate with money confiscated from someone else, if you haven't noticed it is always "FOR THE CHILDREN!" Somehow the money never gets to "The Children," it always seems to end up in the pockets of corrupt thugs.

[7DayRepo]

See #21.

[Uncle Bill]

"If it's about saving lives, why not push for DDT use in Africa? DDT will save more lives than any AIDS initiative, and it will be much cheaper."

There's no concern for lives, DDT, or Aids. Just elephants.

---

Bush as President:

Bush Asks for $15 Billion to Fight AIDS in Africa
I agree with you! Believe that Senator Bill Frist, M.D., who has gone to Africa and has seen how devastating this disease is to so many people that have gotten AIDs in Africa through no fault of their own. This epidemic could go around the world and strike more than the gay community.
20 posted on 01/29/2003 8:10 AM PST by PhiKapMom(Bush/Cheney 2004)
SOURCE

---

Clinton as President:

Clinton Wants $175 Million for AIDS Programs
"Can someone tell me how putting more money into prevention is going to help? It is actually quite simple -- safe sex and don't share needles. Probably the most basic answer is "Just Say NO! If someone doesn't know that by now after all the warnings during the last ten years then they are a moron! Is this State of the Union going to be the big give-away? Every day I read about another give-away. Only when it comes to the Defense Department is it a take-away."
2 Posted on 01/17/2000 19:44:57 PST by PhiKapMom
SOURCE

---

Vote Bush. There must be a reason why, somewhere.

[joesnuffy]

No problem just print more
paper and ink are cheap

[Uncle Bill]

"Lets give them 40 billion!"

Maybe prescription drugs too! No, I know, how about a down payment on a hut:

Who stated the following:

"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."

A. - OR - B.

Answer

You are not hallucinating, he really wants to have the government provide downpayments.

[Joe Hadenuf]

And we've set this goal, by the way, that we want there to be 5.5 million minority families owning a home over the next 10 years. Which means government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment. People take a look at owning a home and they realize the downpayment is a frightening thought. We ought to have a downpayment assistance program out of Washington, D.C.

When I first read this statement from Bush, I knew right then and there, we were NOT dealing with a conservative President!

[Senator Pardek]

Just elephants.

I trust you don't mean this kind -

[annyokie]

I agree that much of the monies for these babies ends up in someone's pockey (look at UNICEF). I don't see the harm in trying to help the sick and down-trodden. We do need an oversight commitee, though, and not the UN.

[annyokie]

They are people, too. Would you like your own child to suffer and die? There is no stealing involved. It is AID. We can afford it and I think we should do it.

[annyokie]

How is humanitarian aid unconstitutional?