Cotton, actually.

Not to mention that paper is only an occasional representation of money. Most money never sees the light of physicality.

CP, I should have been clearer in saying that cutting the fire department is the game of elected politicians. Much less those who actually have to run the agencies after the cuts are made (though I've still seen that plenty of times). And "always" was needlessly hyperbolic. Nothing is always. But a lot.

JW: In your example I'd probably tell those 37500 people to not drive their car but if they choose to they know the outcome that they're accepting.

Doesn't necessarily translate to the HIV funding though.

Of course it doesn't translate. All it was is an example of a way that we could absolutely save 37500 lives annually and it wouldn't even cost 1 cent. Except we'd probably have to have some fund or something to purchase the governors for all the cars.

Actually, what I would do (and have done in the past) is help them myself to the best of my ability. And donate to charities that do. However, since I don't always support the government being the one who takes action, I must be the one who is selfish in just not wanting my taxes raised, even though I help in other ways.

The comparison I would make is a contrast to other "safety net" programs.

Take food stamps. Without food stamps, people go hungry. Will some die? Quite possibly. Somehow most will likely scrape by. Not well, but they'll live. Soup kitchens, shelters, digging through garbage -- somehow they'll manage to live to see the next day.

Without the right medications, those with HIV/AIDS *will* die. And they can't go to a soup kitchen or shelter or dig through the garbage to find some sort of replacement. Furthermore, the expense is such that the community cannot absorb it through the same sort of limited altruism that stocks food pantries.

Exactly. There are no alternatives in the private sector. If ADAP is cut, most will die.

scaeagles' hypothetical was ludicrous in many other ways as well, but I daresay his purpose was not to suggest a realistic analogy ... but rather to suggest his position on AIDS funding from the California budget does not correlate directly with him being gruesomely cavalier about human death and suffering.

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for? If the answer is that we need to medicate all people who have been diagnosed with deadly diseases, then we need to have mandated health care, which I support, but we do not have it at the moment.

Again, those of you that are so angry they are cutting this particular program - what do you cut? If you do not know the ins and outs of exactly what is being cut and what isn't (and I sure don't) then you can't claim that this is the wrong program to cut.

Are those diseases fully manageable only with medications that can cost thousands of dollars per month? And without those meds, you will quickly fall ill and die? If so, then they should be as fully funded as AIDS/HIV.

What do you cut? Things that people won't die without.

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!