Obama picks EBOLA Czar.... medical superstar?

[Cow Poke]

I'd respond that it's highly unlikely that Bush would have continued to provide foreign aid at anywhere close to those levels after the financial crisis. The GOP attitude toward such aid soured alongside all the other spending programs that they once undertook or even championed.

Wow.... do you realize that Bush was still involved in Africa even AFTER he left office?

And even NOW?

Source: Spart's citation

Since leaving office the former president and his wife, Laura, have continued to stay active in global health issues in Africa, now taking on cancer. The George W. Bush Institute has launched the Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon initiative to try and bring together both public and private investment to fight cervical and breast cancer in Africa and Latin America. The couple launched the program on a visit to Zambia and Bostwana in July of last year.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

Wow.... do you realize that Bush was still involved in Africa even AFTER he left office?

That's the easy part. The hard part is passing budgets and getting the money appropriated. And there has been no indication from the GOP representatives still in office over the past five years that this sort of aid was not going to be kept at level, let alone expanded. In fact, it was the new GOP-majority House's first bill (H.R. 1) that cut the international affairs budget (which funds USAID) 16%.

[Spartacus]

I miss Bush's foreign policy. You know, the stuff not related to TERRORISM-- the stuff Obama decided not to keep.

[Cow Poke]

That's the easy part. The hard part is passing budgets and getting the money appropriated. And there has been no indication from the GOP representatives still in office over the past five years that this sort of aid was not going to be kept at level, let alone expanded. In fact, it was the new GOP-majority House's first bill (H.R. 1) that cut the international affairs budget (which funds USAID) 16%.

Sorry, Sam -- on this you're a real buckethead..... I don't know if you noticed or not, but Bush is no longer in the White House, and hasn't been for some time. Your birdbrained comment that "that's the easy part" is... well. .. birdbrained.

Tell me, Sam, do you ever actually get out and DO ANYTHING to help the poor, or is your "assistance" limited to this sanctimonious dumbutt criticism of Republicans. The article was about BUSH who did, and IS addressing the problem.

[Spartacus]

Sorry, Sam -- on this you're a real buckethead..... I don't know if you noticed or not, but Bush is no longer in the White House, and hasn't been for some time. Your birdbrained comment that "that's the easy part" is... well. .. birdbrained.

Tell me, Sam, do you ever actually get out and DO ANYTHING to help the poor, or is your "assistance" limited to this sanctimonious dumbutt criticism of Republicans. The article was about BUSH who did, and IS addressing the problem.

I sincerely doubt a Democratic president could have gotten away with initiating the sort of foreign aid Bush put in place.

[Cow Poke]

I sincerely doubt a Democratic president could have gotten away with initiating the sort of foreign aid Bush put in place.

Yeah, cause they're all about feelings, not actions. If you want something bad enough, you find a way.

[Sam]

Sorry, Sam -- on this you're a real buckethead..... I don't know if you noticed or not, but Bush is no longer in the White House, and hasn't been for some time. Your birdbrained comment that "that's the easy part" is... well. .. birdbrained.

Tell me, Sam, do you ever actually get out and DO ANYTHING to help the poor, or is your "assistance" limited to this sanctimonious dumbutt criticism of Republicans. The article was about BUSH who did, and IS addressing the problem.

The article is about what Bush did while he was president of the United States. Thus, the comparison is between what Bush was able to do in that office, working with Congress, and what Obama has been able to do in that office, working with Congress.

Settle down. Read the article. Think it through. No one's bashed Bush here or belittled his efforts in Africa. The question is whether he would have been able to do the same or more after the financial crisis.

[Sam]

Yeah, cause they're all about feelings, not actions. If you want something bad enough, you find a way.

If only Obama had wanted, really wanted Policy X (public option, stimulus, foreign aid, jobs bill), he would have found a way to make Congress give him what he wanted.

We call this "Green Lanternism," the bewildering belief that a president or any other authority figure whose power is significantly checked by other parties can make something happen by wishing or willpower alone.

[Sam]

I miss Bush's foreign policy. You know, the stuff not related to TERRORISM-- the stuff Obama decided not to keep.

The stuff related to terrorism really kinda hazes everything else out.

Personally, I'm a critic of Obama's foreign policy mostly because of the stuff he did

[Cow Poke]

If only Obama had wanted, really wanted Policy X (public option, stimulus, foreign aid, jobs bill), he would have found a way to make Congress give him what he wanted.

Obama is the biggest divider that's ever occupied the Oval Office -- he's too busy being "the One" to even know where to begin to "organize" the "community" of Congress. Besides, he has a pen and a phone!

We call this "Green Lanternism," the bewildering belief that a president or any other authority figure whose power is significantly checked by other parties can make something happen by wishing or willpower alone.

You got a frog in your pocket?

Give me a report on Clinton's "help" in Haiti, please.

[Juvenal]

I doubt he'd disagree; I don't think Farmer is against modeling or cost-effectiveness. I think he's using scare-quotes in that way to typify a particular mindset, one that doesn't actually look at preventative models or broad cost-effective solutions but wants fast-acting, reactive treatments on the cheap once the crises have already begun to spiral away. That passage reminded me of his evident anger and frustration dealing with TB in Russian prisons, where appropriate epidemiological models were ignored in favor of cutting costs, while administrators still expected effective containment.

Yeah, it's a whine -- a complaint. I don't think it's an illegitimate one, however.

I've since taken the time to read your entire link which places the above snippet in better context. It's a plaint about mismeasures masquerading as measures, not measures qua measures.

You are surprised that America places a higher value on itself than on African countries. That is how things work, and why humanitarian efforts, mainly by Christians by the way, do not have the money that internal problems have. Do you think we should try to even things out? How?

[British spellings]

To even things out, it's necessary to provide foreign aid. But to provide foreign aid, even at current levels, not to mention at higher levels, it's necessary to sell the policy to the American people. While the moral imperative is clear, that "sell" doesn't work. We know this.

But ...

Linking foreign aid policy to national security and providing clear measures for accountability provides new selling points, and more: selling points that extend beyond the current administration. It's a sustainable policy directive to address a clear moral imperative. And it's a fine example of what "not doing stupid stuff" looks like. While he may never satisfy Oprah's need to find The One (don't skip the comments), he's done a relatively good job on foreign policy, especially considering the alternative.

As ever, Jesse

[Teallaura]

I sincerely doubt a Democratic president could have gotten away with initiating the sort of foreign aid Bush put in place.

But he could have gotten away with not dismantling it.

[Teallaura]

I'd respond that it's highly unlikely that Bush would have continued to provide foreign aid at anywhere close to those levels after the financial crisis. The GOP attitude toward such aid soured alongside all the other spending programs that they once undertook or even championed.

The article is about what Bush did while he was president of the United States. Thus, the comparison is between what Bush was able to do in that office, working with Congress, and what Obama has been able to do in that office, working with Congress.

Settle down. Read the article. Think it through. No one's bashed Bush here or belittled his efforts in Africa. The question is whether he would have been able to do the same or more after the financial crisis.

Yeah, you did.

If only Obama had wanted, really wanted Policy X (public option, stimulus, foreign aid, jobs bill), he would have found a way to make Congress give him what he wanted.

We call this "Green Lanternism," the bewildering belief that a president or any other authority figure whose power is significantly checked by other parties can make something happen by wishing or willpower alone.

Total nonsense in this case. Obama spent his first two years in office railroading things through Congress because he had both houses and could until 2010. That the policies weren't kept were unquestionably because Obama did not favor them - it's unlikely thereafter that the Republican House would have opposed keeping Bush's FP in place.

[Sam]

Yeah, you did.


Total nonsense in this case. Obama spent his first two years in office railroading things through Congress because he had both houses and could until 2010. That the policies weren't kept were unquestionably because Obama did not favor them - it's unlikely thereafter that the Republican House would have opposed keeping Bush's FP in place.

For FY2010, it looks like the presidential request for global health programs was $9.5 billion. The allocated amount was $7.8 billion. FY 2012 request was again around $9.5b and the allocated amount was $8.2 billion.

Global health spending has risen under Obama but the pace of increase has almost completely flat-lined. This was almost certainly caused in part by the Great Recession but there's been exactly one party clamoring for "putting our fiscal house in order" by balancing budgets and cutting discretionary spending dramatically. Arguing that Obama could simply ram through any old policy he wanted from the start of his presidency through 2010 is more Green Lanternism. Arguing that Republicans in the House would have been keen to increase foreign aid had Obama just asked is manifestly false.

People have an odd way of arguing tooth and nail for a proposition, in this case severe budget cutbacks, and then blaming the opposition when they get even a little of what they ostensibly want. You cannot have been a balanced-budget, barn-burning Conservative of the past five years and argue that budget cutbacks in any given area are solely on Obama's shoulders.

[Teallaura]

For FY2010, it looks like the presidential request for global health programs was $9.5 billion. The allocated amount was $7.8 billion. FY 2012 request was again around $9.5b and the allocated amount was $8.2 billion.

Global health spending has risen under Obama but the pace of increase has almost completely flat-lined. This was almost certainly caused in part by the Great Recession but there's been exactly one party clamoring for "putting our fiscal house in order" by balancing budgets and cutting discretionary spending dramatically. Arguing that Obama could simply ram through any old policy he wanted from the start of his presidency through 2010 is more Green Lanternism. Arguing that Republicans in the House would have been keen to increase foreign aid had Obama just asked is manifestly false.

People have an odd way of arguing tooth and nail for a proposition, in this case severe budget cutbacks, and then blaming the opposition when they get even a little of what they ostensibly want. You cannot have been a balanced-budget, barn-burning Conservative of the past five years and argue that budget cutbacks in any given area are solely on Obama's shoulders.

Pay attention - I did not argue he could ram the thing through - I argued that he could have retained it HAD it been his priority. The policy was in place - the issue is keeping it or trashing it. Obama clearly opted for trashing it - no surprise as it didn't fit his priorities. The silly argument is that it could not have been retained - it could have, it simply wasn't.