Has George Bush done more for AIDS than Clinton has?

[romantico]

I got into a debate and had to bow out because I didn't know but I was told that Bush has done alot more for AIDS than CLinton has. I find this hard to believe. The person I was talking was not a freeper and said its often mistaken that people assume Clinton has done so much for AIDS where in fact he has not. I told him I needed to research this and get back to him. If he's right then I'll deal with it. It just doesn't sound right. Any thoughts on what I should write him in my email? By the way, this guy is not at all a Bush supporter and this is why I really thought I would see if its true.

[glowing]

1. I don't know.. Depends on how many "religious" entities he's funded

to deal with different issues... As far as education and preventing the spread of AIDS and other STD's, I think he's done a horrible job.

[OzarkDem]

2. No way

In addition to everything Clinton did in office, IIRC, he also helped broker an agreement w/ pharma companies to make AIDS drugs available in Africa at very low prices.

Bush pere? Nada.

[EFerrari]

3. No, he hasn't. Just for example, he's tied AIDS treatment to abstinence

in the foreign aid we give to Africa. Because denying condoms to people works so well to prevent AIDS. :crazy:

[ixion]

4. if by "more for AIDS" you mean to help spread AIDS: yes, he has

through bogus 'faith-based' funding, etc.

[TexasProgresive]

5. Your mistake was

breaking off to do research. You should have pressed for facts from him.

[romantico]

6. I didn't

I suggested we finish this by email. I wasn't gonna let it go. He kept saying he was right, he was right. I said no. Clinton's foundation and all his humanatarian efforts tell me I'm in the right. I'm looking for links right now. I'm gonna start with Clinton's website and then try to find something to compare the two side by side. He think Clinton is just as bad as Bush and I STRONGLY disgaree. He thinks the child left behind bill began with Clinton and thought I was being unfair when I brought up Bush's veto this week.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. in around 2003

he increased funding to combat AIDS globally, and in Africa, IIRC, but in doing so, he did it by cutting the funding for other diseases like malaria and such.

So really, he just shuffled the money around, with more going towards AIDS and less to other things.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Why don't you ask your friend to provide the facts to back up his or her assertion?

I don't even know what "done more for aids" means. That is an entirely ambiguous statement. The Bush administration cut CDC research in the 2006 budget by 0.6% and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) by 5.0% in the same budget.

(http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-U-S-Federal-Funding-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf).

As that budget breakdown shows, domestic discretionary spending was level funded. The growth in domestic spending is all over on the non-discretionary side. That is not 'Bush doing more for aids' that is 'more aids victims requiring more services'.

There has been a significant increase in first world international funding for global aids treatment and prevention programs in poorer nations. I'll give Bush credit for supporting that.

Here is an example from 2002 of how the Bush administration has 'done more for aids':

U.S. Budget Deliberations
While Fund officials and others in the international community continue to call for increased spending on the pandemic, U.S. contributions to the Global Fund, a proposed mother-to-child HIV prevention initiative, and other international HIV/AIDS programs are being held up.

In late August 2002, President Bush decided not to spend funds that had been appropriated in a FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Spending bill, including $200 million for global HIV/AIDS programs. President Bush subsequently sent Congress an amendment to his FY2003 budget, requesting this additional $200 million for global HIV/AIDS programs.

Not only has the allocation of much-needed funds been delayed, but even if the $200 million is approved, it is likely that other programs will have to be cut in order to offset this AIDS spending. Congress was asked to include $100 million for the Bush administration’s initiative to fight mother-to-child HIV transmission, but President Bush’s request did not indicate how he proposed to fund these new programs.

http://www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/record.html?record=102

Here is a 2003 analysis of 'Bush doing more for aids':

Bush Budgets: White House Proposes Flat Funding for HIV Programs For Three Consecutive Years
The Bush White House requested flat funding for domestic HIV care, treatment and prevention programs for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and net cuts in FY 2004. Sources have said the White House FY 2005 budget will
once again request flat funding for domestic HIV/AIDS programs.
CDC Develops Controversial New HIV Prevention Initiative
In April 2003, the CDC announced its Advancing HIV Prevention initiative, essentially abandoning primary
prevention efforts aimed at keeping HIV-negative people uninfected. Instead, this program will identify and
target HIV-positive people through massive HIV-testing campaigns, and then provide prevention case
management to keep HIV-positive people from further transmitting HIV. The funding for these new activities
comes at the expense of traditional HIV prevention, and is part-and-parcel of the Bush Administration’s
antipathy toward honest discussions of sex and drug use. The initiative also risks further stigmatizing people
with HIV/AIDS.
Attacking Medicaid
The Bush Administration proposed radical changes to the structure of Medicaid, transforming it from an
entitlement program into a block grant. This could mean thousands of people with HIV/AIDS losing eligibility
as “optional” coverage decreases. Fortunately, grassroots lobbying has halted the momentum for this proposal,
but the President’s intention to cut back on Medicaid looms.
Just Say No: Administration Pushes for Abstinence-Only Sex Education
The Bush Administration is on a moral mission to remove comprehensive sex education from classrooms and
replace it with programs that deem abstinence to be the single way to prevent HIV, unplanned pregnancy and
STDs. Bush has been frequently quoted saying, “Abstinence works 100% of the time.” The Administration’s
stated goal is for abstinence programs to achieve “parity” with comprehensive sex education.

http://www.actupny.org/reports/Bush_reportcard.pdf

Here is an analysis of 'Bush doing more for aids' from 2004:
Mr. Bush's first term saw a marked reversal of the fairly steady increases (albeit at times incremental) in discretionary Federal funding for HIV/AIDS. For the past few fiscal years, Mr. Bush's Budget Requests basically have called for flat-funding for domestic HIV/AIDS programs and funding for global AIDS programs well below needed levels. Overall, Congress has adhered closely to the President's requests in passing the actual appropriations. When inflation and rising caseloads are taken into account, there has been an effective cutback in funding for domestic HIV/AIDS programs. The recently enacted omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2005 exemplifies this trend.
Nearly all Federal budget experts agree that the administration's FY 2006 Budget Request will call for an overall cut, for some individual programs deep cuts, in non-defense discretionary funding. With a strengthened Republican majority, Congress likely will continue to adhere closely to the administration's budget as it enacts appropriation legislation. The reduction in non-defense discretionary funding will be driven by the impact of the already enacted tax cuts, Mr. Bush's stated intent to make permanent many of the tax cuts, the record level deficit, the continuing and growing costs of the military campaign in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and the costs of homeland security. This reduction trend likely will continue in the out-years (FY 2007 and thereafter). According to a paper published by GalleryWatch and Federal BudgetObserver, the Federal Office of Management and Budget itself projects that over the next four years non-defense discretionary funding will be cut by $11.6 billion. If Mr. Bush is successful in achieving his goals of overhauling the Federal income tax and restructuring Social Security, the need for further cuts in non-defense discretionary funding may well exceed the OMB's $11.6 billion projection.

Given this context, Federal spending for domestic HIV/AIDS programs will be at best flat-funded and may well experience actual reductions (the Federal HOPWA program already has experienced a nearly $13 million reduction in funding, after the across-the-board recision, in the FY 2005 omnibus spending bill). Actual or effective reduced funding for the CARE Act and for domestic HIV prevention can be expected under the Bush second term.

http://www.thebody.com/content/money/art13301.html

And finally here is the google phrase that pops all of this up:

aids research funding bush administration

Your friend is just quoting the whitehouse press release.

[Rosemary2205]

9. YES!!

Clinton busted his ass to get Congress to approve funding aid for HIV diagnosis and treatment around the world, but more of the money was actually paid out under GW's watch than under Clinton's. So basically the idiotic Pukes are giving GW credit for Clinton's work.

The only thing GW did was get the bean counters to change the way they count HIV patients so the numbers suddenly dropped drastically. This doesn't mean there are less infected, it just means GW doesn't want to count them all. You know, the same shit he pulls with counting Iraqi war dead.

[Toots]

10. Are you completely ignorant of what Bill clinton has been doing these last seven years?

It sounds as though you are. The foundation Clinton has set up has produced more money to fight aids than the ten largest countries combined...including Amerika...

[Rosemary2205]

12. DU is funny

:)

there's always at least one.........

Sweetie, I was not badmouthing Big Dog. I was badmouthing GW. LOL

[madokie]

11. I doubt anything that says bush* done more than anyone

except'n of course to rob us