$698 Million

How much money we're granting to Tanzania to combat disease in that east African country. Because, you know, our coffers are just bursting right now with surplus cash . . . This is typical Bush, selling out conservatism to ensure his legacy.

Look, I'm all for charity and aid, but only in proper doses. In a world of limited resources, there's a need for priorities. And the #1 priority of the government should be U.S. tax payers -- you know, the people who enable the government's very existence with their hard-earned buck. It's hard to see how their needs are best served by tossing half a billion dollars to third world paupers at a time when America itself is floundering economically.

By the way, Bush has now sent more money to Africa than his liberal predecessor Bill Clinton. Then again, Dubya makes Clinton look like Scrooge in more ways than one.

Bush the conservative -- when's that one finally going to bite the dust? I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bush is a hawkish liberal (the hawk part sorta thrust upon him after 9/11) with a couple social prejudices expected from a Texan. What conservative would find themselves messing around with this claptrap? . . .

"Bush also attended a roundtable on the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, program, which Kikwete said is saving lives and helping the African continent avert a health disaster. Bush has requested $30 billion over the next five years for the program."


Jeff Hudecek said...

With corporate taxes, that aid probably cost the average American individual well under $1.

Some spare change for disease relief?

I think it was worth it.

Philip Primeau said...

Half a billion dollars is "spare change." Spare change...??? We're sitting on an enormous deficit, and there are plenty of worthwhile endeavors (from troop armor to infrastructure improvement) that ENORMOUS sum could've been spent on that directly benefits Americans.

Philip Primeau said...

But, again, that's the conservative position. Bush, being a moderate with significant liberal leanings, wouldn't understand that.

Jeff Hudecek said...

If you calculate it down, yes, it's spare change for you or me.

You do know that the federal government recieves over two trillion dollars a year from federal taxes, right?

Know how much 700 million is out of two trillion?

Let me give you a hint...


This is the generous estimate, its probably less.

That means less than 35 THOUSANDTHS of a SINGLE PERCENT of our precious money is going to help save people from disease in Tanzania. The money will likely affect thousands of lives there.

Defense recieves approx 21% of our federal budget. Complain about the management of that money if you want troops with better body armor.

And yes, Bush is a moderate. That's what compassionate conservatism was all about.

Philip Primeau said...

See, it's that kind of thinking that's the problem. "Oh, what's half a billion here or there in the scheme of things?" A little for these foreigners, a little for this absurd earmark, a little for that bridge to no where...

Isn't it nice that some can be so generous with other people's money?

Jeff Hudecek said...

There's a difference between foreign disease aid and wasteful earmarks. Ted Kennedy using the government's money to build outdated planes for the military is wasteful spending. Saving lives and improving our international image is not.

Christ almighty Phil, why not tell them to stop raiding the social security surplus instead? Or to micromanage the defense budget instead of contracting ridiculously expensive companies to work on pet projects? Or maybe even tell them not to waste money on poorly concieved wars?

Its like you've got a hundred dollars and you're walking down the street. Someone comes up to you and says "Hey man, I've got a terminal illness and the treatment costs 2 pennies. Could you possibly cover it?" And you say, "Sorry man, I need all my money to build some brass knuckles, some lunch, a new shirt, and a cool anti-missile defense system that may or may not work."