Why Bush cares more about spending on weapons rather than medical research, like AIDS research?

Because terrorists dont care if you have aids or not, they will kill you either way. Go kiss osama now you liberal coward. hey here is an idea, dont have GAY SEX and do DRUGS and aids wont be much of a problem, or people can just use CONDOMS MAYBE? I swear liberals cant think, stupid sheep, keep worshiping michael moore and keith "the idiot" olbermann you spineless liberals.

first off there is a cure for aids.. You jus tgot to be reallyyyyyyyyyy rich to get that. and bush is an idiot..

Because weapons (war) will get him more access to oil, while AIDS research will not

Weapons manufacturers donate money to Republicans, Medical researchers who want to save lives donate to Democrats.

It's really pretty simple when you think about it.

because AIDS researchers can't donate large $ for campain contributions but defense contractors can and so he is married to them 1st. Secondly, because Bush is like a little kid in a sandbox playing with his war toys and he wants more toys to play with that make real loud sounds & stuff.

He probably thinks his god will fix all medical problems but doesn't trust him with national security.

I really can't say what any of those in washington are doing...probably they are putting the money where it's more easier had...

why won't they give more money toward our healthcare...maybe it will create more jobs and will live as a healthier nation.

this is very simple to answer. the bush family is one of the largest stock holders of a company that builds weapons for our military. the more war the more cash in his pocket! now the other major stock holder is Bin ladin family. the ones we rushed out of the country right after 911 while rest of us are locked down in airports and cant travel. i cant remember the name of the company but it is public information anyone can research it im just taking a break found this site its kinda cool.

because the weapons industry is apart of the Military Industrail Complex and Aids is man made , made in a Military hospital and spread around the world for population control , this is the only reason a cure has not been found .

cuz war is better for the growth of his bizness.

Because he can spell "gun".

Because only the government supports the military, while the medical field has hundreds of supporters. Would you want the soldiers that are in the middle east to go without body armor because the president wants to more evenly distribute the budget? AIDS research is also being funded by private businesses. I guess I have to ask you why more big businesses refuse to spend more on AIDS research, or stem cell research? My guess is because there is no profit in it. That, my friend, is very sad.

because the usa is the only real democratic country which has enough weapons to counter balance countries which are not really democratics like russia or china. That's why in europe, england and france, we live in democracy and we are very happy with that of course. I'm french and I would like to thank the us for all they did in the course of history even if sometimes hard and unfair decisions had to be taken. Nobody is perfect, we are all making mistakes, but the usa is a country which promotes liberty and human rights and I love liberty. It's my opinion.

The only thing more stunning than the naivete of your question is the blinding ignorance portrayed by many of the answers. Except mine, of course.

Unless you are a close acquaintance of his, I doubt that you or I can say he "cares" more about weapons than AIDS research. Let us ask, rather why he "spends" more on one than the other. Does it really matter what he "cares" about?

And you surely do not imagine that the President acts independently, just writing big checks for guns and little ones for medicine. It is the ENTIRE CONGRESS that votes on the defense and medical research budgets. So, we should ask why the GOVERNMENT spends more on weapons than it does on medical research.

And every President before Bush -and every Congress before this, the 110th session, has also voted more money for defense than for medical research. I'm not sure why you or anyone would think this is exclusively a Bush item.

But let's take a factual assessment to see why the government has been spending more on weapons than on medical research. And, by "weapons" I'm going to assume you mean pretty much the entire defense budget with ONE exception. The exception? The amount the Defense Department ITSELF spends on medical research INCLUDING AIDS research. I don't know how much that is just now -I just know that AIDS research is a line item in the Def. Dept. budget. But that just tells you that AIDS is regarded as such an enemy that even the Defense Dept spends money to fight it.

The reasons for money goes to guns than research are simple:

First of all, there is the assessment of threat. While AIDS and other diseases can be "fought" in the lab, nations and organizations who would like to kill us cannot. Therefore, defense is the biggest budget expenditure. That's not to say that Health and Human Services (which includes the AIDS research at the National Institues of Health) gets just a few crumbs. Rather, it is the SECOND largest. Just look at the US Budget, readily available at the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) website.

Second of all, more people in THE US are potentially at risk from lack of national security than from infectious disease. 9-11 is an example, but set that aside for the moment. The fact that our military engagements occur mainly in other parts of the world give the appearance that we're messing in other people's business. But that's exactly the point -it is, and has for many years been, the defense policy of the United States to confine conflicts to actions AWAY from our shores. And that takes a lot of money. The priorities may be all srewed up in your opinion, but they have been the government's position for many, many decades.

Third, the nature of defending against human threats is intrinsically more costly than research to find a cure for a disease. It takes tons of costly equipment and millions of people to defend a country -but effective research can be carried out by smaller groups who don't need as much equipment and whose equipment isn't subject to the same "wear and tear" and maintenance costs as tanks and missile systems. Put another way, merely increasing the money allocated for research doesn't impress the AIDS virus -but money spent to suppress enemy action DOES get results.

Fourth, there are effective and relatively cost-free methods to control the spread of AIDS -preventative measures being chief among them. But, with the exception of HIV transmission by accident (such as in tranfusion of blood), people who are well aware of the risk accept the risk anyway. So, the research is aimed primarily at a disease which is very preventable. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent approach to humans who want to kill us.

Perhaps it is instructive to ask if the money going into AIDS research is justified when compared not with defense, which is an apples-oranges problem anyway, but rather, when compared to funding for OTHER disease research. I find it appalling that, for a disease with so few victims (compared to other diseases in the US) AIDs gets over $3,000 for every death caused by it, whereas cardiovascular disease -which takes many more lives- gets less than $40! See for yourself:

www.associatedcontent.com/article/1520...

Shall we ask why Bush cares so much more about research for AIDS than for hardening of the arteries?

The House sets the spending ,not the president.

OMG! - AIDS is going to kill us all! There are far more critical programs for research dollars.