Alliedassault - View Single Post - Reagen... NOt The Great Man you all think of him as.

Colonel · 06-21-2004, 06:34 AM

Well, it's Father's Day so I don't have much time. I'll get to the rest of this stuff later but here is a couple of facts for ya:

1)
Spending on AIDS takes off; U.S. outlays nearly equal cancer or heart research

The Associated Press - Thursday, July 15, 1989

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON - The federal government will spend nearly as much this year on AIDS research and prevention as it will for cancer or heart disease and far more than it devotes to other major killers, an analysis shows.
And if current trends continue, such spending on AIDS will surpass that of all other diseases for the first time next year, researchers said. ....."We were surprised to learn the extent to which so many different individuals and agencies were involved in AIDS efforts," said Dr. William Winkenwerder. The analysis shows that AIDS spending -- more than $2 billion this year -- makes up nearly 10 percent of the total budget of the U.S. Public Health Service, which oversees government medical research, and by 1992, will account for nearly 13 percent. ......The report said that from 1982, when the epidemic began, to the end of this year, the federal government will have spent $5.5 billion on illness caused by HIV, the AIDS virus.

In 1989, federal AIDS spending will total $2.2 billion, or about 1 percent of all federal health expenditures. Of this, about $1.3 billion will be spent for research and prevention. The disease will kill 35,000 people.

By comparison, the government will spend $1.5 billion on research and prevention of cancer, which will kill 500,000 people this year, and $1 billion for heart disease, which will kill 777,000 Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This article is from 1989 - of course, it's after President Reagan left office, but it sheds a little light on what the thinking was at the time - the debate always was how much should you spend on a disease that kills a fraction of the number of people killed by cancer? - and, keep in mind that Federal budgets are approved a year, or sometimes more, in advance. But the main thing to consider is that the article points out " 1982, when the epidemic began," As I said before, this thing was new during his presidency and to me it is hard to fault an administration for not reacting quickly enough to something that they had no way of knowing would turn out to be the way it is.

2) Your quoting the same article referenced in my post. I don't see any facts in that article, only some guy spewing his own political agenda. Here are the facts about HUD...

[img]http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/hudasstch.gif[/img]

As you can see HUD spending increased every year of President Reagan's years in office. (the last couple of years it held fairly steady - increasing only slightly) I don't know when the term "homeless" was invented. It seems like I've heard it all of my life, but I could be wrong. I can tell you that seeing homeless guys was not "a curiosity" before President Reagan - I saw them all the time.

3) I forget the actual stat, but it's something like - the top 5% of the income producing folks in America pay 90% of the taxes. To say that giving everybody a 1% cut is unfair because that means a rich guy gets more in terms of actual dollars, to me, is silly. Of course, they get more back! They pay more in the first place! This same debate came up when President Bush was talking about his cuts. They interviewed some really low income women on TV who was irate that she wasn't getting anything. It turns out her income was so low she paid zero taxes. She paid zero but wanted something out of the tax cut. Unbelieveable. We have become a society that just wants to know "what's in it for me". Everybody has their hand out.

4) I'll have to get into the deregulation debate later. That is a whole 'nuther topic.

	(#58)
Colonel is Offline Master Sergeant Posts: 1,789 Join Date: May 2002 Location: Marietta, GA	06-21-2004, 06:34 AM Well, it's Father's Day so I don't have much time. I'll get to the rest of this stuff later but here is a couple of facts for ya: 1) Spending on AIDS takes off; U.S. outlays nearly equal cancer or heart research The Associated Press - Thursday, July 15, 1989 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON - The federal government will spend nearly as much this year on AIDS research and prevention as it will for cancer or heart disease and far more than it devotes to other major killers, an analysis shows. And if current trends continue, such spending on AIDS will surpass that of all other diseases for the first time next year, researchers said. ....."We were surprised to learn the extent to which so many different individuals and agencies were involved in AIDS efforts," said Dr. William Winkenwerder. The analysis shows that AIDS spending -- more than $2 billion this year -- makes up nearly 10 percent of the total budget of the U.S. Public Health Service, which oversees government medical research, and by 1992, will account for nearly 13 percent. ......The report said that from 1982, when the epidemic began, to the end of this year, the federal government will have spent $5.5 billion on illness caused by HIV, the AIDS virus. In 1989, federal AIDS spending will total $2.2 billion, or about 1 percent of all federal health expenditures. Of this, about $1.3 billion will be spent for research and prevention. The disease will kill 35,000 people. By comparison, the government will spend $1.5 billion on research and prevention of cancer, which will kill 500,000 people this year, and $1 billion for heart disease, which will kill 777,000 Americans. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This article is from 1989 - of course, it's after President Reagan left office, but it sheds a little light on what the thinking was at the time - the debate always was how much should you spend on a disease that kills a fraction of the number of people killed by cancer? - and, keep in mind that Federal budgets are approved a year, or sometimes more, in advance. But the main thing to consider is that the article points out " 1982, when the epidemic began," As I said before, this thing was new during his presidency and to me it is hard to fault an administration for not reacting quickly enough to something that they had no way of knowing would turn out to be the way it is. 2) Your quoting the same article referenced in my post. I don't see any facts in that article, only some guy spewing his own political agenda. Here are the facts about HUD... [img]http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/hudasstch.gif[/img] As you can see HUD spending increased every year of President Reagan's years in office. (the last couple of years it held fairly steady - increasing only slightly) I don't know when the term "homeless" was invented. It seems like I've heard it all of my life, but I could be wrong. I can tell you that seeing homeless guys was not "a curiosity" before President Reagan - I saw them all the time. 3) I forget the actual stat, but it's something like - the top 5% of the income producing folks in America pay 90% of the taxes. To say that giving everybody a 1% cut is unfair because that means a rich guy gets more in terms of actual dollars, to me, is silly. Of course, they get more back! They pay more in the first place! This same debate came up when President Bush was talking about his cuts. They interviewed some really low income women on TV who was irate that she wasn't getting anything. It turns out her income was so low she paid zero taxes. She paid zero but wanted something out of the tax cut. Unbelieveable. We have become a society that just wants to know "what's in it for me". Everybody has their hand out. 4) I'll have to get into the deregulation debate later. That is a whole 'nuther topic.