|
You guys are right, the Bush administration sucks! Look at what he's done now. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
This is undeniably a good thing - perhaps, in all honesty, literally the first good thing Bush has done since coming to power - but, at the risk of seeming cynical, this needs to be said:
Didn't George Bush, mere weeks after being elected in, as one of his first actions as president, dismantle US funded abortion clinics and sex education programs in Africa? As such, I'd be interested in asking where this $15 billion is going - to Christian missionaries roaming the land preaching the virtues of abstinance perhaps? It is, after-all, the only real safe sex, right? So, really, to what degree is this $15 billion going to make up for what he took away in the first place?
Also - once again you must forgive me for being cynical when being presented with direct evidence of altruism from the globe's most wonderful, selfless man - I'm having problems with the comments coming at the end of the article (a link would be handy too): why didn't the main article mention trade? What conditions - in terms of economic concessions and restructuring - must be met by these nations to actually receive the money? Is Dubbers just handing over the money, or will he demand that trade barriers protecting rural African farmers be brought down to allow for "huge amounts of cheap surplus food" to be made available? In Africa that may not necessarily be a bad thing, but what about the long term prosperity of these nations? Should I just believe that George Bush is just going to hand out something for nothing?
Or, perhaps, am I just being too damn cynical? :conf: |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
I applause Bush for taking this step, but I applause him even more for being a smart politician in all of its meaning! hehe
does no one sees this 15B aid package as a boost to the pharmaceutical companies revenues in these hard times?
If Bush really wanted to help, he would put pressure on the pharmaceutical companies to let poor countries produce their own cheap(generic) version of the same medicine without them asking crazy royalities... how about taking that 15B to help these countries buy the royalties to these drugs...
or... put that 15B package aid as a revolving amount in the budget, so in the scenario these countries can't produce their own generic drugs, they can still have access to these needed drugs for the years to come (until a cure.)
my 2 cents. |
|
|
| trintiy |
| quote: | | Also - once again you must forgive me for being cynical when being presented with direct evidence of altruism from the globe's most wonderful, selfless man - I'm having problems with the comments coming at the end of the article (a link would be handy too): why didn't the main article mention trade? What conditions - in terms of economic concessions and restructuring - must be met by these nations to actually receive the money? Is Dubbers just handing over the money, or will he demand that trade barriers protecting rural African farmers be brought down to allow for "huge amounts of cheap surplus food" to be made available? In Africa that may not necessarily be a bad thing, but what about the long term prosperity of these nations? Should I just believe that George Bush is just going to hand out something for nothing? |
Mmmmm, Yes that’s the definition of aid, something for nothing. No terms no conditions. Also to answer your other question President Bush has decided to allow organizations that promote or perform abortions in poor countries to qualify under some circumstances for part of the $15 billion he has proposed to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. While intended to ensure that no American money goes directly to promoting abortion, the decision amounts to a step back from the so-called Mexico City policy of barring foreign aid to groups that consider abortion to be a valid family planning option."
"Mr. Bush reinstated the ban, first imposed by President Ronald Reagan but later suspended by President Bill Clinton, as one of his first acts after taking office." According to the paper, "faced with a clash between two goals — disseminating the AIDS money widely and holding to the antiabortion position — Mr. Bush chose what his aides called a compromise."
An administration official who asked to remain nameless said; "the policy would allow an organization that conducted family planning activities that included abortion in one country to qualify for the AIDS money in another country."
Some have question why I titled the thread the way I did and called it a bit sarcastic, which was my intention, but I'm actually a little applauded how some here can even criticise this worth while cause. Poor Dubya can’t catch a break! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Didn't George Bush, mere weeks after being elected in, as one of his first actions as president, dismantle US funded abortion clinics and sex education programs in Africa? As such, I'd be interested in asking where this $15 billion is going - to Christian missionaries roaming the land preaching the virtues of abstinance perhaps? It is, after-all, the only real safe sex, right? So, really, to what degree is this $15 billion going to make up for what he took away in the first place?
|
Yes Bush halted funding of all groups that established abortion clinics when he came into office to appease anti-abortion advocates. Stupid in my opinion. However, USAID has a set budget for aid so the funds were still spent on Africa, they were probably just spent in some other method.
From my understanding, the majority of the money will be spent on AIDS medicine. Of the rest that goes to preventative care, 1/3 of it will go towards preventative education of abstinence. The other 2/3 will go towards traditional means of prevention such as condoms, birth control, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2708089.stm
Additionally, as to the degree of the effectiveness of this $15 billion, in fiscal year 2000 the US donated approximately $900 million in aid to africa. So I would say that this is pretty significant indeed.
Ahlamalek: I'm not sure Bush can erode the prices of the drugs. The US has strict patent laws that require observance for 20 years. If Bush could just dictate prices why not do so so the government can avoid spending so damned much on health care? At any rate, the money is a lot ... it's coming out of our pockets ... be happy about this one good thing :) |
|
|
| Nadi |
| Its stupid for people to argue that its "not enough" or even that he was mearly buying votes, because even if its true he's still giving 15 billion dollars to help combat this disease. Which is a hell of a lot more than anyone else is, he's doing something that will benifit many many people, and he should be applauded. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
dude he's not giving 15B to any poor country, he's boosting the US economy... by helping BIOs and create jobs, taxes on revenus, etc etc... Bush takes 15B tax money in the US and diverts it to the profit of the rich Drug companies...this is not help, its a subsidy for the rich.
as I said, let poor countries create generic versions of those same drugs and then we'll talk about REAL help :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
dude he's not giving 15B to any poor country, he's boosting the US economy... by helping BIOs and create jobs, taxes on revenus, etc etc... Bush takes 15B tax money in the US and diverts it to the profit of the rich Drug companies...this is not help, its a subsidy for the rich.
as I said, let poor countries create generic versions of those same drugs and then we'll talk about REAL help :rolleyes: |
This is a ridiculous argument ... so if it's such a sound financial strategy why don't we give the entire US budget to Africa so we can get richer??? Let me explain the money flow for you. $15 billion dollars flows to Africa out of taxpayer pockets and government coffers. Of that $15 billion let's say $10 billion gets spent on AIDS medicine. Of that $10 billion spent let's say they make a profit of 40% after R&D expenses, manufacturing expenses, etc. Of that $4 billion dollars of revenue let's say the government get's a generous 25%. Wow what a ridiculous return on investment!!! We depleted $15 billion that we could have DIRECTLY pumped into our economy and got a mega $1 billion out of it!!!!
Well hell, we need to keep this a secret because we don't want the germans to give Africa $30 BILLION under the premise that they all buy bmws and propel the German economy into a super power!
While we're at it, why don't we discuss how big the pharmaceutical industry is in the US. Well ... it constitutes a whopping .7% of our GDP!!!!!
http://www.phrma.org/publications/p...08.2001.528.cfm
Of which, let's assume maybe .4% of that are actually producers of the AIDS vaccines. To hell with our the other 99.6% of our economy, .4% of it is doing GREAT!!!
Actually I got a better idea ... since prescription drugs constitue $0.08 of the health care dollar in comparison to $0.32 for hospital care and $0.22 for physician and clinical services ... why don't we just shoot every African in the stomach and ship them to the United States for hospital care? We'll be absolutely rich!!! The money is flowing out of my ears already! Drinks are on me everyone! |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
occrider i understand what you mean... but i think you didn't get my point :(
what you see as help i see as subsidy because at the end, its not real help, that 15B will get spent at some point and thats it. its not a durable solution... like giving permission to poor countries to make their own generic version of those same drugs...
anyways man, i think we're on different islands and we speak different languages...:( |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
occrider i understand what you mean... but i think you didn't get my point :(
what you see as help i see as subsidy because at the end, its not real help, that 15B will get spent at some point and thats it. its not a durable solution... like giving permission to poor countries to make their own generic version of those same drugs...
anyways man, i think we're on different islands and we speak different languages...:( |
Ok Ahlamalek, I respect your opinions and I understand what you're trying to say. From my understanding you're tyring to say that Bush is not as altruistic as this donation seems to suggest. And I completely agree. I think we disagree with respects to how he is not altogether altruistic however. It is not through chance alone that this donation came right after the biggest fallout in world relations that the US has experienced. Bush is clearly trying to increase world favour of the US as he should be doing. No politician is completely altruistic in this respect. Partially in Bush's defense however, he did create the Africa AIDS fund far before the war, so I genuinely believe that he has some vested interest in the people of Africa (as much as some of you might like to think, I believe he is not an EVIL person).
But I'm arguing from a purely economics standpoint. Is this AIDS package an effective subsidy ... by all means no. Is it an effective tool for economic stimulus ... no! Does it in part benefit america? Yes. But I get the feeling that even if Bush reduced the price of drugs to generic cost levels people would say ... well why doesn't he simply give the africans money so they can buy the drugs for free???? Do you know what I mean? I think you would be hard pressed to find a country that doesn't benefit in some way from an aid package. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
if the africans can produce their OWN generic drugs, they wouldn't need to buy from the US, or american money or anyone else for that matter, they would be in charge of themselves. This could help millions and for a long time to come! Bush could then boast about this exploit for generations...
and for the economic point of view, just think as to *where* that 15B will be spent... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
if the africans can produce their OWN generic drugs, they wouldn't need to buy from the US, or american money or anyone else for that matter, they would be in charge of themselves. This could help millions and for a long time to come! Bush could then boast about this exploit for generations...
and for the economic point of view, just think as to *where* that 15B will be spent... |
What african drug companies have the capability to do as such? Additionally NO company in the world would simply hand over their recipe so to speak so other companies can copy. What would these African companies then do? Sell their drugs to people in America to undercut american drug companies! Like it or not, billions are spent on R&D to genarete the drug the generates many more billions to profit the company. Without such a system in place you would be hard pressed to find many companies that are willing to committ towards researching new drugs.
Where is that 15 billion dollars being spent? I thought I just mapped it out ... in Africa. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| first it doesn't take a nuclear facility to build drugs...its less complex than you think, second building that factory (if it doesn't exist) could be part of the help package. Third you could be surprised, at how many companies did sell reciepies to third world countries and then finally did you ever buy Aspirin, cough syrop, antibiotics, etc etc made in Syria made for less than pennies in the US? I don't think so... |
|
|
|
|
