President Obama.

Then they're a charity group, which is still a business. A non-profit business and they need business models too. If they're incapable of funding themselves that's their problem, I don't think it's something taxpayers should be paying for especially for a hotbed issue like abortions. Some taxpayers probably don't want their money paying for something they don't agree with.

 

Please don't think I won't close this, if it becomes too much of a fight...

 

It's also the problem of people who depend on those services. Don't they or their parents pay taxes?

 

Planned Parenthood not in it to make money? You'd never know that by looking at them. And provide care? Another ! Yeah, again, not something you'd know by looking at what they do. They don't need government funding. Plenty of places do plenty of good without it. If anything, severing ties to governmental funding probably increases efficiency. Not as if government can run anything. They couldn't even keep their DTV Box Coupon program afloat.

 

That's the thing when the government puts money into public works. Not everyone wants the money they pay to the government going to such things. I wouldn't want my tax payer dollars paying for a playground in Louisiana when my neighborhood in Arizona could use one.

If they need funds themselves they should run charity drives and get money from people who want to spend money to support them. I don't see the need to fund them with tax dollars. Hundred of thousands of other charities survive on donations alone, why can't they?

Taxes imo should go towards general things. Public education, law enforcement, national defense, and public utilities like communication and waste disposal. Things everybody needs. More generalized things like abortion should not get tax dollars because not everyone will want their money to pay for and because such programs can find ways to fund themselves without tax dollars. Many americans never use planned family organization's services, so why should they have to pay for them?

Thats me though. If I know anything about the US government it's that it won't stop burning cash in public works anytime soon.

 

However there is usually money left over after that stuff. Also, the government should put money into organizations that will help the nation. Planned Parent Hood for example, gives out contraceptions, and help with abortions, that cut down on the number of unwanted births, particularly in poor sectors. This means there will be less people who need government assistance, the cycle of poverty won't be as bad, less children up for adoption, and helps prevent over population. All and all, it would help the country so if a governer/senator/president/etc decided to help an organization like this, it's a good thing. Even if people object.

After collecting the tax, it's the government's privilage to put that money into whatever they think will aid the country, even if it is controvertial in nature. If it's proven to be successful, then people will change their mind, if it isn't, that guy won't get re-elected.

 

If anything, it'll burn more, and occasionally neglect the places that need federal funding (ie The millitary) and act like they've cut wasteful spending. And what's sad is that they will succeed in convincing a lot of Americans that they have spoken the truth.

 

I would be fine with paying taxes for socialized medicine...I consider Planned Parenthood and similar organizations a step in that direction.

 

I wouldn't be fine with it, so I see it as a step in the wrong direction. And if killing inconvenient babies is a step in the direction of socialized medicine, God help us if we get to the Finish Line.

As I said, the government sucks at running things. They bankrupted a stinking HD Box coupon program. They've destroyed Social Security. Imagine what they'll do with socialized medicine. Oy Ve!

So yes, IMO, a step towards socialized medicine, or socialism of any kind, is a huge step in the WRONG direction that history shows doesn't solve anyone's problems.

 

Nevermind that pretty much all of Europe is what you call "socialist", and it's doing fine...

 

Trust me. Our military doesn't need anymore money. XD It has plenty (530 billions dollars of plenty. We spend more than the entire European Union...). We actually could probably afford to cut our military budget a bit and this is coming from an army brat. We have dozens of redundant projects that we can afford to remove from the budget (The US Army only has 2 satellites. But for some reason, it has 300 rocket scientists employed the manage them. If that's not redundant I don't know what is XD).

I don't think it's the government's right to spend tax dollars however it pleases. The government represents the people. If there are people who don't want their money spent on things like planned parent hood, it's not the governments place to spend it there, especially since these organizations are just being too lazy to raise their own money when there's more than enough out there.

I don't see the connection between socialized medicine and planned parenthood groups. Socialized medicine can be a good or bad thing depending on how it's implemented, but I don't see how paying for planned parenthood groups is a connection.

Population control is a good point though. It's probably a sad necessity we'll have to institute sooner or later.

Europe hasn't had hardcore socialism in a long time. Europe's got a nice hardy jumble of mixed economies that work very well. Minus the sour nature of the nationalized healthcare systems some of them have and I'd be pretty happy.

 

Planned Parenthood provides gynecological medical care to many women who otherwise couldn't afford it. It isn't just about "killing babies." It provides testing and treatment for STD's. It provides papsmears and checkups. It helps provide treatment for pregnancy. It connects to socialized medicine because it is an organization that helps provide healthcare for people who can't otherwise afford it.

 

Planned Parenthood provides gynecological medical care to many women who otherwise couldn't afford it. It isn't just about "killing babies." It provides testing and treatment for STD's. It provides papsmears and checkups. It helps provide treatment for pregnancy. It connects to socialized medicine because it is an organization that helps provide healthcare for people who can't otherwise afford it.

 

Honestly, they should switch the DoD and State budgets and I'd be happy.

I think that'd accomplish a lot more. Diplomacy FTW!

The military is bloated, wasteful, and way too expensive. Ok, those three things describe the WHOLE government, but the military in particular. I can't believe people who complain about abortions and yet think we should continue to sponsor killing of people abroad. Really? I'm for a no-killing-by-the-government policy, thank you very much. Abortion isn't their business, and the military is too large.

 

The military's size is fine. We spend a massively larger amount than any other nation in raw numbers, but GDP wise we spend about the same as everyone else (Only 33% of the US governments money is spend on military, in GDP it's just over 4%). The thing that a lot of money gets wasted in is redundancies. There are lots of military research projects that really don't need to exist because there already is one doing the same thing. The F-22 Raptor was probably a massive waste of money. It's been in service for a few years and is already in the stage of being replaced by the F-35.

On the bright side (not that bright) the US makes hoards of revenue from selling it's surplus weapons. The F-35 is going to be commercially available to many nations and we already sell a wide range of equipment to other countries (Including the near complete unloading of our F14 surplus to Iran. Best deal ever XD).

PS: The State Departments 35 billion budget is enough to support an army to defend the state of Texas. I wouldn't go that far XD. Besides, the DoD employs over 3 million men and women (3/4 of all government employees) which is usually a good thing when we aren't at war and military bases give major boosts to local economies. EDIT: I'd prefer any money moved from the DoD go to law enforcement or education.

One thing I can say that Obama's doing well with is cutting some of the militaries redundant projects including that pointless missile defense system that's been nothing but trouble (And he wants to boost the size of the US Army and USMC by 100,000. Go job creation!).

 

You, sir, should know better than that! Bad economics. Society would be better off if those people were being productive. And although some of them are necessary, I'm sure a lot of them would be better off working in the private sector. It isn't actually job creation unless those people would be unemployed elsewhere. And I have a feeling a lot of the techies and professionals and engineers would have jobs here even with the crisis. And when we aren't at war and there isn't any economic crisis they are beyond pointless. In other words, the opportuniity cost of having them employed when they aren't actually needed by the military and could be better used elsewhere is rather too high.

Not to mention that if that's you argument, just pay them to go dig a big hole then fill it up again, then dig the hole, then fill it up again. That's "job creation" >_> And shoddy economics...

Well, I was exhaggerating

Yeah, the army wastes a LOT of money. That and the fact that we have the war in Iraq which is useless. Afghanistan we should be in...Iraq was unnecessary.

Not to mention that I'm a pacifist and find the whole thing morally objectionable. But just for practical, economic reasons having an army our size and expenditures makes little sense. And you can compare it to other place's armies, but I think they're awfully big too.

 

Most of them are busy else where... just under a third of the US military is active at peacetime. For example, the US army has around 1,000,000 personnel. In peace on 250,000 are active military, and about 100,000 support. They make up the 10 active US Army Divisions and four or five overseas components. The other 600,000 are composed of the National Guard and Army Reserve. The majority of US military are inactive and have day jobs. We probably could be like the greeks and have the entire military inactive during peace, but specialized training makes constant activation a necessity (most of the active military is 'elite' troops like the Special Forces, and a few standard forces).

I do wonder what the State Department would do with 500 billion dollars... They'd probably turn all our embassies into solid gold XD, put all the other embassies to shame.

I was referring to those 300 rocket scientists we have baby sitting 2 satellites but okay XD.

Actually I'd say most of the world's nations militaries are too small. I think the US, Germany, France, and the Uk are just about right. The Koreas and Iran definitely have militaries way to large in comparison to population and size (Pakistan too actually), but I think most of europe has a horribly undersized military force. I go with the philosophy better to have a bunch of trained guys with guns and not need them than to need them and suddenly realize there's no one to stop those crazy invaders from invading XD.

 

I have to agree with you that most European countries are not ready at all to stop any invaders. Which is kinda odd, when you consider Russia's aggressive nature at the moment.

 

It really depends on how you interpret their position with regards to military action and how they percieve potential threats. Canada's military is a bit of a joke, not that I care. I am also a pacifist (And see the hypocrasy of hating abortion but wanting to fund armies who kill existing lives, which are, in my opinion, far more valuable than potential lives).

But anyway, Canada has always supported its allies, however small that support may be since WW2. As far as my knowledge of Canadian history goes (and I do admit to gaps in that knowledge), other than in WW1 and 2, we haven't lead any attacks anywhere since we became an independent from England. Even after the Twin Towers were hit, very few Canadians seemed to be concerned that we would be invaded. I have not once heard of people thinking Canada is a threat either, other than as an easy way for people to get into America. We have little to fear from other countries, and we don't give other countries reason to fear us. People joke about how pathetic our military is, but Canadians all know that when they go abroad, they should sew a Canadian flag on their backpack.

 

A good point. Canada also has the added bonus of being geographically solid as a defensive location with it's cold winters and heavy forested and in many places mountainous terrain. The same is true of Switzerland and the nordic nations. Because f their geography they can probably afford a smaller force because there's less actual land that needs to be garrisoned in times of conflict.

PS: I don't think Canada's military is joke. Canada's military has kicked butt whenever it's been called upon and that earns them serious kudos.

 

Another reason that Canada doesn't need a bigger army is because it's right above the US and is one of the US's biggest trade partners. If any enemy army stepped into Canada, the US would be attacking them within minutes of the invasion.

Also, and this could just be me, but it seems like this thread has nothing to do with Obama anymore. By pointing this out, I think I just became that kid that reminds the teacher that they didn't give us homework.

 

The Obama discussion has indeed dissipated, so I am closing the thread befor it reignites.