Obama vs. Bush: Who Helped Africa More?

FacebookGoogle+RedditTwitterPinterestTumblrEmailShare

Here’s something you won’t be reading much about in your local newspaper or seeing on your television news: Obama promised to increase aid to Africa but, in fact, has cut it and now the U.S. will spend $6.6 billion less than Bush did on AIDS programs:

A US decision to freeze spending on treatment for HIV in several African countries has prompted concern that some of the gains made against the AIDS epidemic since 2003 could be reversed.

President George W. Bush?s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief(PEPFAR), launched in 2003, focused largely on treating patients in urgent need of medicine, but the new US administration’s programme has shifted away from emergency treatment.

George W. Bush is a hero in this country,” said Peter Mugyenyi, who heads Uganda?s Joint Clinical Research Centre, a leading AIDS treatment clinic.

Ah but in 2008 Obama said the following:

That’s why I’ll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

Liberals and our press like to say Conservatives don’t care about people who aren’t rich, white, and male… how to account for this fact, then:

He finds that under President George W. Bush U.S. assistance to Africa has sharply increased, reaching $4.2 billion in 2005, nearly four times the level of 2000, and more than twice the level of any previous administration.

When George W. Bush was in office we didn’t hear about all the money he gave Africa to fight AIDS, instead, our press only reported on the condom issue:

The United Nations‘ latest report on AIDS, issued last week, underscores how the Bush administration’s war on the condom has blocked HIV-prevention efforts around the world.

And, here at home, Bush — under the direction of political commissar Karl Rove — has been systematically placing HIV-prevention efforts into the hands of the Christian right — which a is pushing the censorious line that abstinence before heterosexual marriage is the only permissible form of HIV-prevention education — and putting condom opponents in charge of AIDS education.

Obama’s cutbacks mean less money for AIDS treatment and testing.  Those who know they are HIV positive might refrain from spreading the disease (at least in larger numbers than if they didn’t know they were positive).

Out of the $6.6 billion that Obama has cut back on AIDS spending in Africa, $3.5 billion could be restored if taken from the “stimulus” package as, according to USA Today money is being wasted:

More than $3.5 billion in economic stimulus funds are going to programs that President Obama wants to eliminate or trim in his new budget.

As award winning author and economist Dambis Amoyo says, sending economic aid to Africa often keeps those countries in poverty (the Left hates her) but sending targeted AIDS money helps not hurts Africa.

When Bush increased AIDS spending in Africa to record levels we heard about “condoms” and the “Religious Right” but now that Obama is cutting spending we hear… nothing.

That is what we call Media Bias.

 

 

 

 

6 Comments on Obama vs. Bush: Who Helped Africa More?

  1. Gee, Harrison, I never realized that the Right-wingers had such a big heart for our African brothers and sisters. Now all they have to do is show they care about the millions of Americans who lack health insurance, and everything will be right with the world.
    .-= askcherlock´s last blog ..The MAN-UP SUMMIT =-.

    • Nice swipe but doesn’t explain the facts. And you confuse one subject (foreign aid) with another (healthcare) thinking they are somehow related. They are not.

      You are also probably unaware that Conservatives donate a larger percentage of their income than do Liberals to charities and other social causes. Another inconvenient truth.

  2. ask
    -the right does care about the millions of americans who do not have health insurance.

    however, the right feels that the current effort put forth by the left (including backroom deals, lack of transparency, lack of input from the right, corrupted officials, etc.) combined with the rampant costs incurred by the legislation will handcuff this nation financially. not to mention the beaurocracy/moral issues/constitutional flaws inherent to the current proposals. or the fact that most americans are currently happy with their insurance, and against this kind of legislation that will kill jobs and push this country into more debt while lowering the quality of healthcare for everyone.

    the right is for healthcare improvements for everyone. but they will not agree to the current proposals which will overhaul a good portion of the economy, and force everyone into a system which many do not want.

    instead, they believe in starting small. for example, allowing insurance companies to compete across borders. compettiition in private industry leads to higher quality and price wars that would lower premiums. lowering premiums is just a start, but an important one that would enable more to afford quality healthcare.

  3. This may sound cold cruel and insensitive but, I am an advocate of cutting ALL foreign aid to all nations until we have cleaned our own house <– No PUN intended.

    How can we continue to help the impoverished nations of the world if we're broke?

    By cutting ALL foreign aid we'd save untold billions of dollars that are needed to dig ourselves out of our own holes right now. Then we would be in a much better position to help others.

    We really could have done SO much more for Haiti if their earthquake had occurred ten years ago.
    .-= Cracked World´s last blog ..A New American Revolution? =-.

  4. I just realized something…..

    Did I just agree with Obama?

    Scary
    .-= Cracked World´s last blog ..Politics CAN be Funny =-.

Comments are closed.