Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Government Spending on Ebola Vaccine and International Aid
This article is about the recent push by Obama for the U.S. to not only develop a vaccine for Ebola, but also to invest more money in sending aid to countries in Africa. The president would like to greaten the number of treatment centers for the disease in Western Africa, as well as improve the currently existing facilities. Although Ebola has been pushed out of the news by more topical, domestic issues such as the Ferguson, Missouri case, and because no Americans are infected any longer, it is still a growing international crisis. Yet even so, is it the responsibility/obligation of the United States to get involved? Couldn’t the $6.2 billion proposed by Obama to go towards Ebola aid and research be better spent on domestic issues such as healthcare and job creation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think that we should be spending so much money on foreign aid until we have addressed problems that exist in our own country. I have no problem with supporting the Ebola crisis by sending DONATIONS and VOLUNTEERS, but I do not think that tax payer money should be spent on it considering it doesn't directly affect most tax payers. This money should be spent on domestic issues such as addressing the poverty that exists in our own country. However I do think that developing a vaccine should be a priority and in the case that one is developed, we should send it to Africa.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mackenzie. I think the government should spend money supporting the Ebola crisis. Normally I would agree and say that the US should focus on domestic issues as appose to foreign affairs. That being said, in this case as Obama said, money for Ebola should not be subject to “normal politics.” Ebola aid and research is very important and we should be doing everything we can to fight this disease and put an end to it. The government wastes money all the time, but in this case I do not see this 6.2 billion dollars as being money poorly spent.
ReplyDeleteOur government is $18 trillion in debt. That's $18,000,000,000,000. The entire U.S. economy is not even $18 trillion. Proposing $6.2 billion to assist West African countries when the disease is not at epidemic levels and there are currently no Americans affected by it is beyond unnecessary. Several other countries have proposed funding operations to combat the disease. It would make sense to allow them to lead the fight, since they have a more direct stake in the outcome. Obama is trying his best to frame this investment as a humanitarian operation, but it is really just another way for him to spend more of other people's money.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure whether I support this funding or not. The African countries seem to be dealing with this disease moderately well, but I know that they are being helped by foreign aid workers and foreign organizations. Also, there is always a chance that the disease may break out again, and it would make sense for the United States to send money to help stop that from happening. However, if the government is going to send money, it needs to make sure that the money is actually going to be of some help. It would be unwise for the United States to send money only to find out that the money has been wasted. I think that Obama has a reason for sending the money, as I do not believe that he would just waste money for no reason. If the money will be well-spent, then I believe that the government should send the money.
ReplyDeleteI say forget the vaccine. Private companies can invest on a vaccine on their own if it's in such high demand. There is no reason why OUR country (which has had extremely few cases of ebola) should be spending our money on a vaccine. I am happy we are aiding Africa in the fight to squash this virus but funding a vaccine is not something that should be put on the agenda.
ReplyDeleteEbola is a terrible disease that must be dealt with. I do support Americas involvement with researching and developing ways to stop the spread of it, but I also wonder where other developed countries are when trying to stop this disease. If we can get this vaccine out we will be able to salvage thousands of lives. Ebola is a global issue, and I feel that it shouldn't just be the U.S.'s problem.
ReplyDeleteI support the funding for Ebola. This disease is very dangerous and is better dealt with now. Usually I think the US is involved too much but I think this is something neccessary. I agree with Olivia when she says that it isnt just the US's issue but I dont think other countries are just ignoring it. As long as the US can help it should.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see that our government can spend more time and money towards the fields of medical research rather than spending our money on the military. I think that it is more important for us to focused on the aid of other countries rather than the destruction or "protection" of others.
ReplyDeleteI think Ebola is something that does need to be dealt with. It is a deathly disease. I think it is right the America involves itself in the funding since Americans have suffered from the disease and have been treated for Ebola in our country. If we are aiding Africa in treating those effected with Ebola, why wouldn't we aid in creating a vaccine to cure Ebola?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mackenzie. I think that we have so many things that we can do with $6.2 billion dollars here in the United States that our government doesn't even fund right now. I think that we should focus on our own country first and help fund the research and vaccines for Ebola with excess funds. Right now, our country is in so much debt that I think that we should focus on the U.S. first instead of spending $6.2 billion when that money could be used to benefit the citizens at home first.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I feel about this spending. It's a lot of money for a country already in so much debt. The U.S. should not be forced to be the leader on every global issue, and other developed countries should contribute equally to help this humanitarian crisis. I'm happy that the U.S. is, as Kellen said, giving money towards medical and global needs, rather than pouring everything into the military.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with many of the people against the funding, I see where President Obama is coming from with this plan. After all, while there were Ebola cases in our country, many people were calling on Obama to somehow solve the problem, even though there was only so much he could do. So, I suppose this response is his way of solving the problem. I guess what I'm saying here is that we as a country should not look to our president to solve problems, such as Ebola, that he cannot control, because then he'll be pushed to extremes such as this one. As for what actually should be done, I agree with Mackenzie that, if we do not develop this vaccine, we should send some sort of aid to help put an end to this virus.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand Ebola is a dangerous disease, I don't see the need to spend the United States' Government's money on a vaccine for it. I'm not saying we should leave the countries in Africa without any help, but I don't think that the funding they should receive should come from the public. If Obama wanted to endorse some sort of donation process though, and give companies tax breaks if they donate, then I think that would be a perfectly reasonable way to still raise money for a just cause without infuriating a lot of Americans.
ReplyDeleteIf the budget was balanced, maybe spending this money would not be such a bad thing. But, as Matt said, we are so disgustingly in debt and we continue to spend in ways that will not really help America. There are many countries and programs that can help West Africa. They do not need America.
ReplyDelete