A $50 billion global AIDS spending bill (S. 2731) sponsored by Obama and McCain, was passed this week. The outcome, which included the addition of water projects for Indian reservations, demonstrated the complicity of both major political parties in out-of-control spending designed to benefit a powerful special interest group.

The $200 billion already spent by U.S. taxpayers on HIV/AIDS here and around the world has not resulted in any cures or a vaccine.

(In addition to spending $50 billion at a time of growing economic difficulties in the U.S. the bill lifts the ban on entry into the U.S. of AIDS-infected aliens, who could end up adding to the costs of the health care system.)

Senate Passes Obama's AIDS Bill (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/senate-passes-obamas-aids-bill/)
As much as I hate AIDS, all the money we've sent out there has done no good at all. Is the answer really that we should send even more or should we work more on a 'hands on' ideal. It seems to me the dictators of these poor countries will be the beneficiaries and the sufferers will continue to suffer.

Do you see this as a good thing or another venture into useless spending?

Yeah I hardly trust the money actually benefiting who it is meant for.
Too many stories of how the money is spent before it gets where it is meant to go
Just like the Live Aid benefit concerts.

>Moved from Politics<

PW consider it " winning hearts and minds " or an attempt to improve the world's opinion of us.

the bill lifts the ban on entry into the U.S. of AIDS-infected aliens
Interesting ;I just wonder how many people were denied entry back in the Ellis Island days due to having disease ?

Seriously ;we should be researching cures for diseases . That way those evil big Pharma companies can further profit after they make a breakthrough.

I agree we should be finding a cure or prevention

I am thinking a Obama/McCain ticket would be a great winning ticket but which one would be VP?

I agree we should be finding a cure or prevention

I am thinking a Obama/McCain ticket would be a great winning ticket but which one would be VP?
How about a co-presidency? They can flip for even/odd months.

Sounds like a plan we are screwed either way!

sounds like a plan we are screwed either way!
What kind of change is that?

Same old story different scenario??

I agree we should be finding a cure or prevention

I am thinking a Obama/McCain ticket would be a great winning ticket but which one would be VP?

That same thought just crossed my mind. Maybe then, the American people would move in hordes to vote Libertarian.

That same thought just crossed my mind. Maybe then, the American people would move in hordes to vote Libertarian.
A like your idea, but there are too many who envy those with 'more', who use their days whining with hands extended.

I agree we should be finding a cure or prevention



There is a prevention. Condoms! But the Church / Pope won't have that!!

Condoms get passed out in Africa despite Vatican objections and it has had no effect on the problem. If condoms were the solution then why does the world continue to ask us to contribute more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to the problem ?

There is a simple cure for Aids. When my wife and I married, we had to have a blood test for communicable disease. When both spouses are clean and a MONOGAMOS life style is followed, there cannot be any transfer of any std. (Exception being getting bad blood from a transfusion). Children born to such a union could NOT get aids.
Of course, it won't work! People are so stinkin' self centered, worshipping at the altar of PLEASURE!

Yeah Galveston. That's a real simple option for people in Africa!

I agree with Tomder and Galveston but I see the system and people saying one thing and doing another so the problem will never be solved

So Tom your saying condoms don't prevent HIV? Are you insisting they don't work at all. Or just for Africans? Perhaps if they aren't having an effect it is because they aren't handing enough out. Or perhaps it is because people listen to the church and don't wear them?

Maybe people HAVE them and do not always use them.
Many people do have that 'it won't happen to me' or 'she LOOKS healthy' mentality.

Also they are not always effective.

Like the CDC, the State Department's Agency for International Development (USAID) has censored its web site to remove information on the effectiveness of condoms. As recently as February 2003, USAID's web site included two detailed documents on condom effectiveness. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections stated: “Latex condoms are highly effective in prevention of HIV/AIDS” and “Public and government support for latex condoms is essential for disease prevention.”[5] The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms also stated that condoms are “highly effective for preventing HIV infection.” It called condom distribution a “cornerstone of USAID's HIV prevention strategy.”[6]

USAID then substantially altered its web site. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections is no longer available. The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms states only that “condom use can reduce the risk of HIV infection” and “[w]hile no barrier method is 100 percent effective, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and some other STIs.” Politics & Science - Investigating the State of Science Under the Bush Administration (http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_condoms.htm)

Also some claim that condoms contain microscopic holes for 'breathing' which are somewhat bigger than HIV and herpes. Naval Research Laboratories is one of them that make that claim.

Maybe people HAVE them and do not always use them.
Many people do have that 'it won't happen to me' or 'she LOOKS healthy' mentality.

Also they are not always effective.

Like the CDC, the State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID) has censored its web site to remove information on the effectiveness of condoms. As recently as February 2003, USAID’s web site included two detailed documents on condom effectiveness. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections stated: “Latex condoms are highly effective in prevention of HIV/AIDS” and “Public and government support for latex condoms is essential for disease prevention.”[5] The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms also stated that condoms are “highly effective for preventing HIV infection.” It called condom distribution a “cornerstone of USAID’s HIV prevention strategy.”[6]

USAID then substantially altered its web site. The document The Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections is no longer available. The document USAID: HIV/AIDS and Condoms states only that “condom use can reduce the risk of HIV infection” and “[w]hile no barrier method is 100 percent effective, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and some other STIs.” Politics & Science - Investigating the State of Science Under the Bush Administration (http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_condoms.htm)

Also some claim that condoms contain microscopic holes for 'breathing' which are somewhat bigger than HIV and herpes. Naval Research Laboratories is one of them that make that claim.

Well maybe that means we need to teach people that that mentality isn't the right mentality. Or do we juyst gove up and say it isn't working.

I think you'll find Nohelp that it is widely accepted that condom use is over 90% effective in prevention of HIV transfer / infection.

When people bother to use them. I think they said it is like a 2% rate of breakage.
I am not saying give up and sure Tomder and Galveston are not either but rather that there has to be some better approach and as long as they remain as is even an increase in what they are doing will not necessarily be effective. Some other better approach needs to be thought of.

When people bother to use them. I think they said it is like a 2% rate of breakage.
I am not saying give up and sure Tomder and Galveston are not either but rather that there has to be some better approach and as long as they remain as is even an increase in what they are doing will not necessarily be effective. Some other better approach needs to be thought of.

I'm sure they are trying but until such time as they find a cure then the best, and cheapest approach is surely advocating the use of condoms. Not disregarding it as the Catholic church so loudly does.

BTW: Did you see McCain flip flop on the question.

McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/)

I think the best thing is to have people working directly with them educating them to get the importance across. Most anything else is mostly $$$ in the pockets of the agencies.

Is this the 'black hole' we've been hearing so much about?

Maybe you missed my point. When Biblical foundations are removed by humanistic teachings we shouldn't be surprised when the roof falls in. You teach people that they are "just another animal" and then decry the results when they act like animals, mating with whoever happens to be available at the time and paying the price in disease.
Then we all pay, so it is approriate to point out the connection between sinful behaviour and catastrophic results.