Political Communication blog

Hello Amanda,

You ask a very interesting question as well as the other interesting comments referencing the State of the Union Address. First, I would like to express that I felt President Bush's speech was a work of art. In other words, absolutely magnificent constructed. During the speech, he touched on some great issues, and he solidified his position on foreign policy. In my opinion, the worse part of the speech was the Democratic response. After a speech of that magnitude, I don't understand how any of them could find room to verbalize criticism. The smartest thing the Democrats did toward their response was to use a freshman Senator instead of a veteran Senator. As a result, they allowed room to institute a disclaimer to their response. Now, to address your specific question, in all cases, I think the general consensus is to take care of home first. It may have been President Bush's mindset that it was understood that Americans have first priority, and there wasn’t a need to stress the point any further. For instance, within any city that a person observes, a medical facility can be located to provide medical care upon request. If I assume correctly, there are probably many places in Africa that are not equipped with medical facilities. In some instances, if it wasn't for the work of missionaries and other volunteers, places like Africa would go without any medical care.

Thomas
 

I agree...there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed at home well before they need to be addressed abroad. However, the price tag of 1.2 billion is rather paultry when you think about how many lives that it will save...especially when you compare it to the $400 billion or so that the Iraq war has cost us - so far. Imagine if we had that money to spread around this country, as well as Africa. Millions of lives could have been saved.
 

I also think that is a good question. But my opinion of the matter is why can't we help both. If we have the capabilities to give both our country and a country such as Africa..why not do it!
 

I feel that 1.2 billion to help out Africa is also a small price to pay considering the circumstances surrounding how we spend our money. Obviously, our American citizens should be helped first and foremost, but who is to say taht we shouldn't help someone who wasn't blessed to live in the USA.
 

I say if it is to help others then why not. Even though we have the same problem here we also have ways to combat it at home. I think the issued needs to be tackled in both places not just only by sending funds to africa. I think about it this way if Bush decided to send the money to Iraq like he is sending more troops over there, then the money would be used to kill rather than than to save so in a way even though the money is not being used here at home it seems to be doin more good being sent to Africa than being sent to Iraq to win an unending battle.