Why America needs John Kasich, and why I am pulling for him

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, and his experience is to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Our suburb (like many in Ohio) is suffering greatly. That's because Kasich stopped all funding to cities and towns across the state. We are in the red and have been the last couple of years with no help in sight.

Kasich managed to get the state out of the red at the suffering of all the cities and towns. Now imagine if he would do the same on the federal level. Could we really get by with most all of our states in the red?

You prefer the state be in the red? He is pretty popular in OH. It might teach the states to make some cuts. We can't continue to be in the red at the federal level.

Cuts I can understand. It's a conservative approach. But we have cut everything to the bone. We got rid of recycling because it was costing us $90,000 a year. They closed down one of our fire stations, they cut the pay for Council, they laid off other city workers that we really need. Our streets are no longer getting repaired and they don't even open up the public pool any longer because we don't have the money.

Should the state really be funding all those things?

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Why do you think he remains so popular?

I don't know if I would say so popular, but he had no real threat for his reelection.

His opponent was involved in several scandals the latest before his challenge to Kasich was being caught with a strange woman in his car, and he didn't even have an Ohio drivers license. Although he was never charged, he was in office during the largest Cuyahoga county scandal in history where over a dozen government workers ended up in prison.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither of them had the record Kasich has. Most Americans want to fix the debt, he has the right experience to do it.

Yes, and his experience is to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Our suburb (like many in Ohio) is suffering greatly. That's because Kasich stopped all funding to cities and towns across the state. We are in the red and have been the last couple of years with no help in sight.

Kasich managed to get the state out of the red at the suffering of all the cities and towns. Now imagine if he would do the same on the federal level. Could we really get by with most all of our states in the red?

You prefer the state be in the red? He is pretty popular in OH. It might teach the states to make some cuts. We can't continue to be in the red at the federal level.

Cuts I can understand. It's a conservative approach. But we have cut everything to the bone. We got rid of recycling because it was costing us $90,000 a year. They closed down one of our fire stations, they cut the pay for Council, they laid off other city workers that we really need. Our streets are no longer getting repaired and they don't even open up the public pool any longer because we don't have the money.

I suggest your city raise taxes to provide those services instead of taxing your neighboring cities for your services.

Don't you think they tried that yet?

When the city was doing better, they put a school levy on the ballot that passed. It was for destroying and rebuilding all new schools. The state at the time agreed to match the funds if the city could get it passed.

It raised our taxes considerably and in fact, we are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga county. On top of that, they also passed a levy for increased staff pay for the schools which automatically increase every year to keep up with growing costs and inflation. So additional taxes were always voted down in spite of the several attempts the city put forward. The only levies that pass now are continuance levels that won't increase our property tax.

Then I guess your citizens have not been punished enough for their own stupidity. Sorry for you!

 

[Silhouette]

#1 - He's the best man for the job....He knows how to balance budgets, which has been my #1 issue since I was pulling for Reagan in middle school....#2 - It is critical that the Republicans win this election....I'm a realist, I understand that John probably can't and won't win the nomination....That means, I am pulling for him to be VICE PRESIDENT with FULL responsibility for drafting the White House's proposed budget, irregardless of who the nominee is.

The correct ticket for a win and governance should be Christie POTUS, Kasich VP. That combination of keen intellect, grit and experience would bring the type of change Trumpsters yearn for but won't get with Donald Trump. And, they are the only team should Trump go rogue and run independent, who could successfully siphon enough votes from the Trumpsters to hopefully not lose to the dems in a reverse Ralph Nader "divide and conquer"...and it will be close at that.

Any other nominee combo and the GOP can and should just save tons of cash, hang it up now and conceded the election to the dem candidate.

Fact, the middle won't vote in:

1. Rubio

2. Bush

3. Cruz

And that presents a problem in the general election..

 

[Brain357]

You prefer the state be in the red? He is pretty popular in OH. It might teach the states to make some cuts. We can't continue to be in the red at the federal level.

Cuts I can understand. It's a conservative approach. But we have cut everything to the bone. We got rid of recycling because it was costing us $90,000 a year. They closed down one of our fire stations, they cut the pay for Council, they laid off other city workers that we really need. Our streets are no longer getting repaired and they don't even open up the public pool any longer because we don't have the money.

Should the state really be funding all those things?

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Why do you want a balanced budget?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

#1 - He's the best man for the job.

He knows how to balance budgets, which has been my #1 issue since I was pulling for Reagan in middle school.

#2 - It is critical that the Republicans win this election.

I'm a realist, I understand that John probably can't and won't win the nomination.

That means, I am pulling for him to be VICE PRESIDENT with FULL responsibility for drafting the White House's proposed budget, irregardless of who the nominee is.

The Scalia news highlights the importance of this year's election.

The main reason I am pulling against Trump in the primaries is that his negatives are sky high and he polls worst of all the Republican presidential candidates, and I am not sure how I feel about Trump insofar as SCOTUS nominees.

At this point, I think it is down to Trump v Cruz. - I don't think an "establishment" candidate can win, so I am pulling for Ted.

But either way, I want our nominee to bring the governor from Ohio onto the ticket. We NEED Ohio and I think we'll get Florida anyway.

For those that want to talk about "cuckservatives"

well, for one thing - fuck you

for another, if Trump does get the nomination, he's going to need "the base" fired up.

I'm calling it now, if The Donald Wins, he will throw out a YUGE olive branch to "the base" and Trumpkins will shift into "recruiting your vote" mode, by order of The Donald.

And I'll fall right in line... Better the billionaire than the hateful, lying bitch or Comrade Bernie making the next few SCOTUS appointments...

The lack of political acumen common to many on the right is remarkable – it's as if this is their first presidential election.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why America needs John Kasich"

The last thing America needs is a social conservative as president.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cuts I can understand. It's a conservative approach. But we have cut everything to the bone. We got rid of recycling because it was costing us $90,000 a year. They closed down one of our fire stations, they cut the pay for Council, they laid off other city workers that we really need. Our streets are no longer getting repaired and they don't even open up the public pool any longer because we don't have the money.

Should the state really be funding all those things?

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

 

[Brain357]

Should the state really be funding all those things?

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

 

[Brain357]

Why do you want a balanced budget?

Why keep paying interest on debt? Greece has shown you can go too far with spending.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

 

[Brain357]

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

Birth control is something like 10 bucks a month. That's about a little over an hours work at McDonald's.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment. But PP, PBS, NPR and others will survive just fine without taxpayer money. It's hard to believe, but the Democrats put up just as much of a fuss when Republicans cut funds for Cowboy Poetry a few years back.

 

[beagle9]

Within reason, yes, because many cities can't do without the money. In our case, we lost property value which means lower property taxes to the city and county. HUD people don't bring in much tax revenue and the stores that closed down certainly aren't contributing anything.

It all depends on the situation. It think the previous Democrat Governor went too far one way, and Kasich went too far the other.

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

. So planned parenthood is about population control, and not about women's health services as it is being touted as being ? My eyes are wide open now... Do tell, dooo telll..

 

[sealybobo]

#1 - He's the best man for the job.

He knows how to balance budgets, which has been my #1 issue since I was pulling for Reagan in middle school.

#2 - It is critical that the Republicans win this election.

I'm a realist, I understand that John probably can't and won't win the nomination.

That means, I am pulling for him to be VICE PRESIDENT with FULL responsibility for drafting the White House's proposed budget, irregardless of who the nominee is.

The Scalia news highlights the importance of this year's election.

The main reason I am pulling against Trump in the primaries is that his negatives are sky high and he polls worst of all the Republican presidential candidates, and I am not sure how I feel about Trump insofar as SCOTUS nominees.

At this point, I think it is down to Trump v Cruz. - I don't think an "establishment" candidate can win, so I am pulling for Ted.

But either way, I want our nominee to bring the governor from Ohio onto the ticket. We NEED Ohio and I think we'll get Florida anyway.

For those that want to talk about "cuckservatives"

well, for one thing - fuck you

for another, if Trump does get the nomination, he's going to need "the base" fired up.

I'm calling it now, if The Donald Wins, he will throw out a YUGE olive branch to "the base" and Trumpkins will shift into "recruiting your vote" mode, by order of The Donald.

And I'll fall right in line... Better the billionaire than the hateful, lying bitch or Comrade Bernie making the next few SCOTUS appointments...

He's another Dole McCain or mitt

 

[sealybobo]

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

Birth control is something like 10 bucks a month. That's about a little over an hours work at McDonald's.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment. But PP, PBS, NPR and others will survive just fine without taxpayer money. It's hard to believe, but the Democrats put up just as much of a fuss when Republicans cut funds for Cowboy Poetry a few years back.

The public should have a voice on the public airwaves. When corporations are allowed to take over 100% of our media and airwaves we the people lose

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

Birth control is something like 10 bucks a month. That's about a little over an hours work at McDonald's.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment. But PP, PBS, NPR and others will survive just fine without taxpayer money. It's hard to believe, but the Democrats put up just as much of a fuss when Republicans cut funds for Cowboy Poetry a few years back.

The public should have a voice on the public airwaves. When corporations are allowed to take over 100% of our media and airwaves we the people lose

The public already has a voice on the airwaves. However if a station cannot make a profit on that voice, then it gets eliminated. Government should not be funding speech that nobody is interested in listening to.

 

[sealybobo]

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

Birth control is something like 10 bucks a month. That's about a little over an hours work at McDonald's.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment. But PP, PBS, NPR and others will survive just fine without taxpayer money. It's hard to believe, but the Democrats put up just as much of a fuss when Republicans cut funds for Cowboy Poetry a few years back.

The public should have a voice on the public airwaves. When corporations are allowed to take over 100% of our media and airwaves we the people lose

The public already has a voice on the airwaves. However if a station cannot make a profit on that voice, then it gets eliminated. Government should not be funding speech that nobody is interested in listening to.

It's worth more than profits

 

[Brain357]

Don't you think we need that in someone in Washington? I would think it is the only way to work towards a balanced budget. Dems and Repubs love to spend so won't be easy to do.

What I'm saying here is that Kasich didn't perform any magic tricks. He just took money from one entity and put it towards another. If you think that's real leadership, then you have your own definition of what leadership is.

Now I agree with that strategy provided you take from something that's a waste of money or pure vote buying and nobody is harmed. But the way Kasich did it, he brought the state out of the red and now the cities are harmed--some of us very seriously.

Like I said, cuts are fine. I have to admit my city wasted money on stupid crap. But if the state sees that all the stupid crap and more are cut out, and the city can't stay afloat, then I think the state needs to reconsider those situations. Kasich didn't. We were even audited by the state so they could see there was no place else to cut.

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

. So planned parenthood is about population control, and not about women's health services as it is being touted as being ? My eyes are wide open now... Do tell, dooo telll..

It does a lot of different things. One thing is birth control. Based on what most repubs claim they should be for planned parenthood.

 

[Brain357]

I think the fed would have to do the same. Sure there is waste, but enough to balance the budget?

If you looked around hard enough, sure there is. If it were up to me, I would start by eliminating bureaucracies. I would get planned parenthood out of Medicaid and make it it's own entity subject to being cut. I would cut PBS, NPR, and all the taxpayer supported liberal outlets. I would make drastic cuts to foreign spending. Obama Care? Gone.

I think that if you researched Open Secrets long enough, you would be able to find all kinds of things to cut that we really don't need.

Why planned parenthood? Imagine how many more unplanned babies we will have. Long term those cuts could really cost us.

No cuts to the military? You can't really think you will get enough cuts with what you are suggesting.

Wait a minute! I thought none of the federal money that we give PP goes to abortions; at least that's what PP and the Democrats have told us.

Therefore, we can save taxpayer dollars and still kill just as many babies as we are today. Everybody is happy.

I'm talking about birth control...

I find it odd that repubs always say poor people have too many children, but then they want to cut something like planned parenthood.

Birth control is something like 10 bucks a month. That's about a little over an hours work at McDonald's.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment. But PP, PBS, NPR and others will survive just fine without taxpayer money. It's hard to believe, but the Democrats put up just as much of a fuss when Republicans cut funds for Cowboy Poetry a few years back.

How do you have any idea how much birth control costs? Estimates I see are like $15-50 a month. That can be a lot for the poor. Condoms are pretty expensive. From what repubs say, dems all just want free stuff. Well get rid of this kind of stuff and you might have a lot more democratic voters.