You don't sound very compassionate. Perhaps you and the President are in disagreement on what it means to help people abroad who are in need. Or is there some other criteria for helping people that I'm not aware of? Do they need to have lots of oil, as an example, before we offer our assistance?
You don't sound very compassionate. Perhaps you and the President are in disagreement on what it means to help people abroad who are in need. Or is there some other criteria for helping people that I'm not aware of? Do they need to have lots of oil, as an example, before we offer our assistance?
If they want to trade, that's a different story. Generosity should not be mandated.
We have a responsibilty towards our own country, and its not like our nation is in the greatest shape. IMO that comes first.
Like I said, if you feel the need to champion the AIDS fight, why aren't you donating?
Such is the definition of trade.
What makes you think I'm not donating? And how do you defend someone who makes a pledge to donate, takes credit for the pledge, then reneges on the pledge?
Lying POS. Bush is that and, as has been noted, combined with his other policies much worse.
And if he had said nothing about it in the first place? Would you still feel dirty?
Some people go out of their way to hate our President.
You gave him credit for it. Your own fault.
Bush did nothing. It's a poor idea to promise anything you can't fulfill, definetely. But is it a bad thing? If we can help them, great, if not, they are right where they started. I treat it as a neutral, not a negative.
This article is a little misleading. I've spoken with doctors who doing extensive work in Africa, and they are actually pleasantly suprised with the financing from PEPFAR. Granted, they are disappointed with the emphasis on abstinence, but the money is providing much needed anti-retroviral therapy. The US is on schedule to provide the entire amount of the pledged 15 billion.
The article's tone of the situation surrounding The Global Fund is quite slanted. For reference into my qualifications, I'm currently finalizing a research paper which will hopefully be included in a biomedical ethics collection concerning financing the AIDS crisis in Africa. Congress has limited the contributions of the United States for the Fund to 33% in an effort to encourage participation by other nations. Last year, the US budgeted a certain amount, but was unable to give it all since other countries' contributions were very small. Off the top of my head, I believe the amount was about 200 million dollars. One may be tempted to claim that the 33% limitation is an effort to reduce expenditures while saving face, but the evidence dictates otherwise. For example, the US gave a time extension for other countries to contribute. Once proved unsuccessful, the money was still donated, it was just redirected to bilateral AIDS programs.
That said, an adaquate response against AIDS is going to cost approximatley $400 billion over the next 20 years and the current worldwide response is woeful in comparison. That $400 billion investment is estimated to save approximatley 13 million lives during that time period as compared to the current course(53 million dead compared with 69 million measured from the start of the epidemic). In addition, under the $400 billion scenario, AIDS/HIV rates are decreasing at a good clip in 2025, while AIDS/HIV rates are still climbing if we maintain our current response.
As for those who are upset with US involvment, AIDS in Africa is a very important issue. The CIA recently concluded that AIDS could cause great insecurity in the region. In addition, poor nations are unable to escape the cycle of poverty if they are not first healthy. We can continue to give the third world a few billion here and a few billion there for the forseeable future, or we can make some investments over the next few years helping the third world to rise above poverty, all while saving millions of lives in the process. It's the proverbial case of teaching a man to fish. I don't think there is any choice about what we need to do.
The article's tone of the situation surrounding The Global Fund is quite slanted. For reference into my qualifications, I'm currently finalizing a research paper which will hopefully be included in a biomedical ethics collection concerning financing the AIDS crisis in Africa. Congress has limited the contributions of the United States for the Fund to 33% in an effort to encourage participation by other nations. Last year, the US budgeted a certain amount, but was unable to give it all since other countries' contributions were very small. Off the top of my head, I believe the amount was about 200 million dollars. One may be tempted to claim that the 33% limitation is an effort to reduce expenditures while saving face, but the evidence dictates otherwise. For example, the US gave a time extension for other countries to contribute. Once proved unsuccessful, the money was still donated, it was just redirected to bilateral AIDS programs.
That said, an adaquate response against AIDS is going to cost approximatley $400 billion over the next 20 years and the current worldwide response is woeful in comparison. That $400 billion investment is estimated to save approximatley 13 million lives during that time period as compared to the current course(53 million dead compared with 69 million measured from the start of the epidemic). In addition, under the $400 billion scenario, AIDS/HIV rates are decreasing at a good clip in 2025, while AIDS/HIV rates are still climbing if we maintain our current response.
As for those who are upset with US involvment, AIDS in Africa is a very important issue. The CIA recently concluded that AIDS could cause great insecurity in the region. In addition, poor nations are unable to escape the cycle of poverty if they are not first healthy. We can continue to give the third world a few billion here and a few billion there for the forseeable future, or we can make some investments over the next few years helping the third world to rise above poverty, all while saving millions of lives in the process. It's the proverbial case of teaching a man to fish. I don't think there is any choice about what we need to do.
Insecurity in the region has always been a big plus for the U.S. And losing a few million Africans doesn't seem to bother some people very much. Just read some of the posts above yours.
IMO, Bush is not living up to his committment. IIRC, he recently proposed making the funds he promised Africa part of the U.S. global committment against AIDS so those funds could be used in Vietnam, for example.
The promised funding hasn't been met. If a Republican congress refuses to fund a Republican president's programs I blame the entire party. I don't subscribe to this idea that Bush has to cojole his own party into funding his programs. There are too many examples of Bush and his Republican majority working in concert, and with grave consequences for anyone who refuses to tow the line, to make that notion acceptable.
IMO, Bush is not living up to his committment. IIRC, he recently proposed making the funds he promised Africa part of the U.S. global committment against AIDS so those funds could be used in Vietnam, for example.
The promised funding hasn't been met. If a Republican congress refuses to fund a Republican president's programs I blame the entire party. I don't subscribe to this idea that Bush has to cojole his own party into funding his programs. There are too many examples of Bush and his Republican majority working in concert, and with grave consequences for anyone who refuses to tow the line, to make that notion acceptable.
The United States is presently providing more help to africa for aids and famine than any other country on the planet. Failure, I think not.
So mparish,
If fighting AIDS in Africa is such a worthy cause why aren't other countries jumping on board? Why aren't liberals who believe in such a cause donating further to private charities?
If fighting AIDS in Africa is such a worthy cause why aren't other countries jumping on board? Why aren't liberals who believe in such a cause donating further to private charities?
Zendari,
Just because you don't believe in helping the poor, that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.
The situation is a bit more complicated than you might believe. And before you people break your arms patting yourselves on the back, just think of how far $300 billion would have gone building Africa instead of destroying Iraq.
Edit to add link from today's newspaper.
Vast land, vast needs for Africa
Just because you don't believe in helping the poor, that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.
The situation is a bit more complicated than you might believe. And before you people break your arms patting yourselves on the back, just think of how far $300 billion would have gone building Africa instead of destroying Iraq.
Edit to add link from today's newspaper.
Vast land, vast needs for Africa
Bollocks, you're way the biggest country and the next to worst contributor in the world, that's what you've got to be proud of.
Not as a percentage of GNI (Gross Nat'l Income) we don't. Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Portugal, France and the UK all spend more than us on aid relief for Africa.
Every country that does give aid, bar italy, actually gives more than you as a percentage of GNI.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap
1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person
2. Norway $307.95 per person
3. Denmark $302.72 per person
4. Netherlands $216.71 per person
5. Sweden $191.48 per person
6. Switzerland $150.30 per person
7. France $104.68 per person
8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person
9. Belgium $74.25 per person
10. Finland $73.01 per person
11. Ireland $72.11 per person
12. Japan $71.53 per person
13. Germany $67.96 per person
14. Austria $50.07 per person
15. Australia $45.30 per person
16. Canada $40.36 per person
17. Spain $33.07 per person
18. Portugal $26.82 per person
19. New Zealand $25.23 per person
20. United States $23.76 per person
21. Italy $17.24 per person
22. Lesotho $0 per person
23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person
24. Korea, South $0 per person
Your wish is my command.
The democrats in office should be happy about this. After all they were against spending any money for aid relief in Africa; before they were for it.
Now that public support is in favor of helping they now want to (probably) raise taxes to spend more on it.
It does seem that instead of wanting to take the time and effort to actually correct the problem the only soultion wanted is the usual quick fix and more money thrown at the problem. Specifically it seems that the money should be spent on condoms and education on using condoms rather than teaching abstinence plus the use of condoms.
Is anyone else in the world, including Africa, trying to help? Perhaps we should be condemned for going it alone. Better condemn us for trying and condemn us for not doing enough.
Now that public support is in favor of helping they now want to (probably) raise taxes to spend more on it.
It does seem that instead of wanting to take the time and effort to actually correct the problem the only soultion wanted is the usual quick fix and more money thrown at the problem. Specifically it seems that the money should be spent on condoms and education on using condoms rather than teaching abstinence plus the use of condoms.
Is anyone else in the world, including Africa, trying to help? Perhaps we should be condemned for going it alone. Better condemn us for trying and condemn us for not doing enough.
Cancer and diabetes probably kills more each year around the world.
btw I am also willing to bet tribal warfare, genocide, and starvation has killed more in Africa than AIDS.
Maybe this is a great opportunity for the EU to show the world its ability to deal with issues close to home.
btw I am also willing to bet tribal warfare, genocide, and starvation has killed more in Africa than AIDS.
Maybe this is a great opportunity for the EU to show the world its ability to deal with issues close to home.
What do you mean? You want this?
1. Japan $9.1 billion (1999)
2. United States $6.9 billion (1997)
3. France $6.3 billion (1997)
4. Germany $5.6 billion (1998)
5. United Kingdom $4.5 billion (2000)
6. Netherlands $3.5 billion (2000 est.)
7. Sweden $1.7 billion (1997)
8. Denmark $1.63 billion (1999)
9. Norway $1.4 billion (1998)
10. Spain $1.33 billion (1999)
11. Canada $1.3 billion (1999)
12. Switzerland $1.1 billion (1995)
13. Italy $1 billion (2002 est.)
14. Australia $894 million (FY 99/00)
15. Belgium $764 million (1997)
16. Austria $410 million (2000)
17. Finland $379 million (2001)
18. Ireland $283 million (2001)
19. Portugal $271 million (1995)
20. Luxembourg $160 million (1999)
21. New Zealand $99.7 million
22. Lesotho ODA $4.4 million
This is outdated, you took the lead rfom japan in 2002, you're leading in 2004. You still pay nothing compared to most other civilized countries.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter