As a hard-working tax payer, How does that make you feel?
Brother can you spare some context?
And how much money can the prez actually “give away” if it’s not authorized by Congress?
I don’t understand. You could well take issue for some reason or another with spending this much taxpayer money on AIDS research, but you’ve hardly made an argument, and it’s not the sort of thing that’s pitworthy on the mere face of it, is it? I mean, AIDS research is a good thing, right? This can’t be pure outrage of the sort that needs no explanation, so what is it?
ETA: Ah, I see: this isn’t about AIDS research, per se. This is about fighting AIDS in Africa, which is presumably the source of your indignation. You could’ve deigned to let us know…
Firstly, he didn’t give away $30 billion for AIDs research. What he did is request that Congress increase funding for an AIDs program from $15 billion to $45 billion and extend its life an additional five years.
I feel fine about it, AIDs is an epidemic and everyone has an interest in communicable disease epidemics being dealt with. Unless there’s some evidence the current program has been horribly mismanaged or something, I can’t think of a single reason this isn’t a good thing.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
As a hard-working tax payer, How does that make you feel?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a damn sight better than throwing that money into our little venture in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Unless there’s some evidence the current program has been horribly mismanaged…
[/QUOTE]
Well, there’s that whole ‘abstinence only’ thing:
$6.4 billion to spread lies about rubbers seems a little excessive to me.
The Federal Government should not spend any money on any medical R&D.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Firstly, he didn’t give away $30 billion for AIDs research. What he did is request that Congress increase funding for an AIDs program from $15 billion to $45 billion and extend its life an additional five years.
I feel fine about it, AIDs is an epidemic and everyone has an interest in communicable disease epidemics being dealt with. Unless there’s some evidence the current program has been horribly mismanaged or something, I can’t think of a single reason this isn’t a good thing.
[/QUOTE]
AIDS. It’s an acronym. All the letters get capitalized.
Thank you.
Carry on.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Well, there’s that whole ‘abstinence only’ thing:
$6.4 billion to spread lies about rubbers seems a little excessive to me.
[/QUOTE]
Since you only think it’s a little excessive, you should be pleased to know that the number is probably more like $1.5B.
The article says the monies are to be spent over 5 years, and won’t kick in until Sept. Ms. Clinton can change that policy in Jan '09 if she so chooses. 
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
The Federal Government should not spend any money on any medical R&D.
[/QUOTE]
My wife has an orphan disease that afflicts only 150,000 people in the country. No pharmaceutical company will invest a nickle into research because there is no way they can make a buck off of such a small pool of potential customers. If it were not for grants from NIH, there would be no research into cures for scleroderma at all.
We are grateful for every dollar we are able to steal out of your cold, bony grasp.
Bush requested an increase in funding for AIDS research? :eek:
Fuck me. I’m absolutely astonished!
Good for him!
ETA: Crafter_Man, what exactly are you saying? All medical research should be in the hands of, what, the free market? 
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
The Federal Government should not spend any money on any medical R&D.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Fear Itself. Federal grants exist in order to fund research for things that are beneficial but not financially lucrative enough to encourage private investment. This includes, as a recent column on the SD front page mentions, new uses for old, out-of-patent drugs. I’m interested, though, to hear your side. There are certainly aspects that I haven’t considered.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
The Federal Government should not spend any money on any medical R&D.
[/QUOTE]
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Libertarian party, sir?
$30-billion. Where does it end?
He could have just told them that we’re not giving them a dime. They can try something called “abstinence.”
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Libertarian party, sir?
[/QUOTE]
:eek: John! That’s a libelous insinuation even for the Pit!
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
$30-billion. Where does it end?
He could have just told them that we’re not giving them a dime. They can try something called “abstinence.”
[/QUOTE]
Hoo-boy… Well, you’ll be pleased to know that many of those dimes go to support abstinence-only programs, then, as remarked above.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
$30-billion. Where does it end?
He could have just told them that we’re not giving them a dime. They can try something called “abstinence.”
[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that an entire continent become abstinent?
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
$30-billion. Where does it end?
He could have just told them that we’re not giving them a dime. They can try something called “abstinence.”
[/QUOTE]
My sarcasm-meter fell in the toilet while I was reading in the bathroom. I am bidding on a brand-new one on eBay but bidding doesn’t end till Monday. So… can you please let me know if this is sarcasm? 
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
They can try something called “abstinence.”
[/QUOTE]
A shame that your mother didn’t.
[QUOTE=GuyNblueJeans]
As a hard-working tax payer, How does that make you feel?
[/QUOTE]
Thrilled. His position on AIDS funding is one of the few things I like about the man.