Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Colonel
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.
|
1. You didnt compare it to other presidency's.
2. You did't even get it during Reagen's Term.
3. that chart looks like a quick microsoft excel chop up, give me a link please to the site. (even though the info on it is not that impressing).
as it seems you just uploaded this today to this site (is it your site)
hudasstch.gif 20-Jun-2004 08:01 7k at 8:01 around the time of your post. Why not just remotely link it as you should ? are you concerned about the sites bandwidth ? or is this just your excel work as it looks.
link for more to see this-
http://<b> <a href="http://www.colon...mages/</a></b>
in relation to the taxes.
typical for a capitilistic view, to see that. You would think that helping the poor with larger cuts would help out. How much is the government making off them in the first plaxce in taxes ???? Their is a reason these friggin rich people are responsible for 90 %.... because they are filthy rich. So. WHy not just give the poor who don't have that much to give the government in the first place a larger tax cut then their rich counter parts ????? if its only 10 % ? would this not give them the needed power to better themselves, and oddly enough put more money into the economy itself how little it may be. Poverty is a vicious cycle that most people don't quite understand until you are exposed to it clearly. My family itself at 1 point was on welfare for nearly half a year up in Canada. If it had not been for those checks in those months while my single mother with a baby would probably would have had to given up custody of us. compasion for the poor people, it hard to give but it works miracles.
http://www.colonelbrands.com ... mind me if im wrong but this looks like it may be your site, since their is no way to upload images to this site via public, unless your a web master. your name is colonel, your avatar is in "theme" of all of the stuff on that site........WHat a source to use peole "YOU OWN CHART"
If garry had half a brain while reading this and not huis current state of fanboy mentallity he my have seen all the fualts that came with it. I guess he see's large formations of words in order and he thinks that must be ownage. sorry but it ain't. ed: