$17 BILLION! That’s(approximately) last year’s AIDS/HIV domestic budget.
President Bush just signed a bill that pledges $48 BILLION. Not only that, it allows those infected with AIDS/HIV to immigrate. Why would this be a good idea? Shouldn’t we be trying to keep diseases out? Why allow people to immigrate that will cost the tax payer a huge amount of money?
Congressional support for lifting the travel ban was bipartisan and strong, but not unanimous. Leading the opposition was U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of San Antonio, the top Republican in the House Judiciary Committee. He sent a missive to his colleagues titled “The bill threatens the health and lives of Americans.”
The e-mail cited the CBO’s April report predicting that revoking the travel ban would allow an estimated 4,300 immigrants with HIV to enter the country in 2013, increasing to 5,600 by 2018. Smith’s message left out the report’s estimate of the public cost of treating these immigrants and their children between 2010 and 2018: $83 million.
Since when are American workers responsible for the medical needs of the world? Our government should be looking out for the best interests of it’s citizens first. AIDS/HIV is certainly a sad and tragic thing, but our government shouldn’t force an added burden on the tax payers. If it is something you personally feel strongly about and want to see programs to help those suffering I’m sure there are plenty of charities you can contribute to.
We already have enough of an AIDS problem to deal with without adding more to it. The infection rate is higher than previously thought.
“Results indicate that approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006,” the CDC said in a statement.
“This figure is roughly 40 percent higher than CDC’s former estimate of 40,000 infections per year, which was based on limited data and less precise methods.”
So HIV is spreading faster than we thought and the geniuses in Washington think it would be a good idea to import more. Great.
I know, I know. Just give prevention programs more funding. Cause, those of us in the US don’t really know how HIV is spread. We area all ignorant. Yeah, right. Who doesn’t know how this disease is spread by the time they graduate from highschool? More money can’t force people to make responsible decisions. And I don’t think it will help at all to add in immigrants that may bring with them dangerous cultural practices that could increase the spread of AIDS within the United States.
It’s not like we are desperate for people to come here.
Entries (RSS)
Wow, what is the “over/under” until Whackette gets called a homophobe? I’d say by the end of today. Be prepared.
Or racist. Don’t forget that.
“More money can’t force people to make responsible decisions.”
That’s the money quote right there. I guess its part of the “compassionate conservatism” BS they peddled from the start. How many of those that support these efforts fork over their own money for these causes, to charities and the like? I’d bet not many.
And HRR is right (naturally)…I’m surprised you haven’t been attacked yet.
Ok, we’ve had Whackette’s polite version of this, now here is MY take: Politicians are afraid of the queer lobby. Queers don’t want those with AIDS stigmatized, they want them treated as if nothing is out of the ordinary, as though that is not enough to disqualify them for ANYTHING, and thus they are perfectly qualified to immigrate here.
Let’s face it, queers and those who support their deviant lifestyle are vocal, in your face, and they give money and support to politicians, and they fight hard to stifle any opposition. Lately, the opposition has been stifled very well, thank you. So, from the typical gutless politician’s point of view, they could oppose allowing AIDS sufferers to immigrate, and get no queer contributions, get negative press, and win only the admiration from a few lone right wingers who don’t contribute anyway so they don’t matter, and they could incur the wrath of the queer lobby, and their opponents would get all the queer contributions. Or they could go along and support allowing AIDS victims to immigrate to the USA. It’s a real easy question for the typical GUTLESS politician.
And hell, “only 5%” on average of those with AIDS spread it to other victims. That we know of. Why prevent thousands of people from getting infested with AIDS when you can just go along and get all that queer money and not have any hassles?
HOLY FUDGE ! You are on the f’in money today HRR!
I HAVE NOTHING good to say about this so before someone wants to punch me in the nose for disagreeing with his wife, I’ll shut my laptop and go put on a rubber.
The HOMOS ARE CUMMIN’…THE HOMOS ARE CUMMIN’…run for your life !
If we would simply stop all aid, and quit handing out retroviral drugs, the problem would take care of itself. There was an article somewhere about an 8 year old boy with AIDs in South Africa. This boy was going to die. But the liberal save the world Doudly Dorights, provided him with retrovirals. They think this boy will live to be 25. How sad, cruel and pathetic. To extend a child’s death longer than necessary.
I swear liberals must google websites looking for the latest use of “queer” and “faggot”, and then they rush there and start slamming those of us who stand up to them. Nobody says we shouldn’t take care of 8 year old boys who catch AIDs. We say we shouldn’t let 8 year old boys catch AIDS in the first place. Letting faggots run around infesting other people with AIDS is what causes little 8 year old boys catch AIDS. You want to help little boys not catch AIDS? Quit allowing faggots to spread AIDS? And how about worrying about the little 8 year old boys in America who haven’t caught AIDS yet? If we let AIDS infested people in from other nations, guess what, we are GOING to kill people from America, and some of those who die will be “little 8 year old boys.”
This isn’t some social experiment, or some little PC project where if we are just nice to people everything will be fine. This is life and death. 5% of people with AIDS spread AIDS to others. Hmmm. What’s 5% of 56,000? Whackette, yer the math whiz. And that is JUST the NEW cases each year in USA, BEFORE we let in other AIDS victims. Oh, well, it’s worth it to let that amount of people catch a terminal disease, just so we don’t piss faggots off? Yeah, that’s a great argument!
Their idea of prevention is just handing out condoms, frankly…wonder how much of that $48 billion is just for those?
But, it makes a whole lot of people “feel” better when money is thrown at a problem, no matter if it’ll actually fix it. (See public school funding, particularly in NYC and DC, for a good example.)
Just wanted to point out to HRR that Draegn wasn’t trying to be ironic. That’s how he really feels. And I should’ve taken your bet from the first comment. Or Whackette’s from the second comment.
Since people of all sexual orientations and races get and have AIDS, using the terms “homophobe” or “racist” wouldn’t make sense here anyway. I think “xenophobe” might fit, though, based on the second-to-last sentence.
I don’t think so.
Xenophobe–one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/africa/21cameroon.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/05/04/edlaporte_ed3_.php
Jeremy, as usuuuuuuuual, you are wrong. AIDS is a disease spread by queers. Queers spread AIDS at a much higher rate than heteros. If you are queer, your chances of getting AIDS is like 16x greater than if you have hetero sex [don't know the exact rate, don't care right now, point is, queers spread AIDS at a higher percentage than heteros].
Give blood, buddy. They know what they are doing. One question is whether you’ve had sex with another man (if yer a male) at any time since 1977. The blood services don’t sugar coat it. They know faggots have a much much much greater chance of spreading AIDS than heteros.