http://www.pepfar.gov/

"Bush did more to stop AIDS and more to help Africa than any president before or since," says New York Times correspondent Peter Baker "He took on one of the world's biggest problems in a big, bold way and it changed the course of a continent. If it weren't for Iraq, it would be one of the main things history would remember about Bush, and it still should be part of any accounting of his presidency."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...t_george_w_bush_did_right




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.edgeonthenet.com/...l_of_aids-free_generation


The 2008 Congress authorized $48 billion for the next four years. But that first year, instead of a billion dollars, PEPFAR got $135 million. Harvard students protested the cuts, asking the president to keep the promises he had made. But it was to no avail.

"It was very discouraging to those working in the field, to those in Africa," said Smith. "People were very worried whether they would be able to retain treatment, or if those in care would ever get treatment. They didn’t know whether resources would be there to support the program."

I say we should keep that money here in america and fix our own problems first. Saving Africa is a bit of a lost cause. From all I hear there is too much poverty and war there and that hasn't changed in the last 30 years that I've been hearing about it.

Yes, it would be nice to solve the world's problems, but let's start here. all that money being sent is taxpayer funds. People complain about paying taxes, so let's cut the funding that doesn't actually help this country.

Bush may have sent the most aid to africa, but he also severely cut taxes. How the hell does that math add up? it doesn't and it's part of why we're in the fluffs we're in. Yeah...thank you bush, not.

Wow juice, you couldn't be more wrong. And that kind of ignorance is why China will be walking all over us in a couple decades.

What is wrong with our policies on Africa have nothing to do with its value or potential and everything to do with our poor decision making. We aren't investing in long-term development, infrastructure and resources. We build more military installations, deploy more weapons and provide more military aid while China builds railways, roads and harbors in exchange for long term relationships and contracts.

Our failed policies have A LOT to do with the ignorance of our public on global macroeconomics, politics and a lack of long-term planning. People never see past the next business quarter or local election. :/

let me guess juice, you voted for Obama.

I don't believe anything you said here contradicts anything I said. I'm saying that the money we are pouring into Africa is a waste and it seems like you are saying the same thing. the only difference is that you think the money could be better spent in Africa, which is most likely true, while I'm saying the money could be better spent here in the US. In either case, we're both saying the money is being wasted right now.


If I hadn't posted that last sentence, you probably would've thought that I voted for bush, since most republicans are against taxes and cutting wasteful spending in Africa could definitely lead to lower taxes. Yes, I voted for Obama. Obama has not been as bad as many would lead you to believe. he is a product of the economy. when bush took office, we had a surplus and he decided to cut taxes, immediately turning that surplus into a deficit. His adminstrations policies allowing banks to flat out lie to consumers and sell off bad loans to larger banks helped to cause the longest recession we have ever seen. No president, obama, bush, reagan, clinton, lincoln, or anyone else you could name, could have pulled us out of this recession any sooner.

Obama, may have made some good decisions, and some bad, but he, just like the rest of us, was along for the ride, waiting for businesses and consumers to come back up from the long downside.

I personally had no trouble with the recession. i was smart enough not to take one of those inflated loans, because I knew I couldn't afford it. I only took what I needed and I made it through just fine. I probably profitted from the recessions, because while stocks went low, i was able to purchase more with the same amount of money.

I guess i should thank bush for that.

Another clueless librul! ^

I was referring to your statements blanketing the entire continent as a "lost cause" with nothing but "war and poverty".

That is kinda like listening to the local news in Detroit and then making statements about the American condition.

The community reinvestment act was expanded 3 times during the Clinton Presidency and specifically, in 1995, the regulations on lending were relaxed. This was to get banks to meet standards of so much investment into low-medium investment. To reach the standard, they had to laon so much to low-income families (hello, sub-prime mortgages)

Did Bush do anything about it to stop it? No, in fact, he relaxed them even more. But Clinton was the one that got the 0 down - banks were mandated to give the loans out ball rolling.

the best presidents in my opinion sleep around on their wives.. clinton did pretty good.. older people speak of kennedy as the greatest president we had, and he fluffed around too (he aimed higher then bill, monroe >>>>>>>>>>lewinsky)

/Bill Clinton voice ...You get what you can when you can, bro.

heh ill quote grown-ups 2 "they all cant be 10's bud"

as good as Bush's effort in Africa was, it could have been so much better had he decided to not inject his religious beliefs into AIDS prevention and mandated that clinics can't provide abortion services + people should focus on abstinence based education


lots of money was spent, and there were results, but it could have been much better

Ron Paul could have got rid of over 1 trillion in government spending each year starting the first year he was in office. Why all these joker pretenders don't just do it is beyond me.

The government should take care of its people first. Their country should be priority. Anything else should be considered extraneous. AIDS affects the world and not only America. I don't see why Bush has to be blamed for reducing the amount

I personally believe this was less about his own beliefs and more about pandering to his congressional allies, the "Moral Majority" style Republicans. The Neo-Conservatives were a very small segment of their party, so it made sense to ally with the largest section, especially when each focused on areas of interest that were essentially mutually exclusive.

Except keeping that money in-home would be a waste and far less efficient. Where as spending billions in a third world impoverished country actually might help to do something. Throwing money into US economy is NOT going to fix anything (US govt already spends billions and has for very long time. Did not keep US out of recession nor fix all the other countries problems).

Having said that however, just throwing money at something is also not smartest thing either. I do not have problems with US giving aid to other countries, I have problems with exactly how that aid is spent. I do not know specifically about Africa, but far too often it is wasted and very little actually gets to where it is really needed. You have too look at the causes and fix those causes. Like for example place that has high disease, you do not just simply give them vaccinations, you have to fix what is causing the disease. Like for example giving them fresh clean running water and wells, etc which were causing the diseases to begin with.

fluff EVERYONE BUT USA

but actually, you want to save africa? good fluffing luck. they're a long way from being 1st world, so while my conclusion is harsh i think we should just give a big 'fluff you' to whoever we are shelling out money to and spend it on ourselves for once (or hey, maybe put it toward lowering our gigantic fluff debt).

US already does spend it on themselves .. just look at all the idiots that build on water bed (during drought times) and then wonder why their homes got flooded, but hey no worries cause US will bail them out. However they also do it during actual real disasters all the time too where it really is warranted.

Fighting Aids in Africa helps stabilize Africa's many peoples. Fighting Aids in Africa makes the US look good in a developing part of the world. Fighting Aids lends hands to secure Africa from radical forces that would take Africa backwards. Fighting Aids in Africa is good for American security.

Stronger, healthier people create more stable countries. These countries remember the nations that helped get them to this point and are stronger for the help. By leveraging the good will generated from fighting aids and adding other appropriate measures, these countries are more likely to fight radicalism (whatever form it takes). Since these organizations get fought, they don't gain and lose the footing needed to attack outside of Africa.

It will take more than simply fighting aids to see a return to the US, but it is a good starting point whose costs are a drop in the bucket to US Government spending and this spending sees many multiples returned to the various stakeholders in Africa. $48b a year for fighting Aids is a darn good use of money.