>>>My issue with the topics you mentioned is that too many times, these policies wind up negatively impacting lower-middle and middle-income working families....and/or they backfire on the very people they are intended to benefit ( and sometimes "by design", in the case of Planned Parenthood).
>
>What topics? You mean education for poor communities? As well as for your community? Feels like a leveler to me, though as I mentioned earlier it might be smart to spend extra $ on girls in poor communities.

As I've already stated, I don't necessarily object when money is spent wisely. That is why I have a tiny speck of home that someone like Elizabeth Warren might enter the fold. I emphatically disagree with many of her ideas, but she does have a bit of a better track record for managing money. It really hacks me off to see the government spend money foolishly. For me, a devotee of Ayn Rand, to even give Elizabeth Warren some consideration - that should tell you a great deal, if you'd bother to read between the lines. :)

When you look at the trillions spent on poverty over the last 4 decades, and then examine the outcomes, clearly the money wasn't spent wisely.

>He says the ACA needs to be replaced before it is repealed. With what? Here's what he proposed: ""The only responsibility of the government would be providing $2,000 per year for every American citizen -- around $630 billion annually, about 20 percent of what we currently spend on health care -- to provide everyone with a health savings account." What do you think of that idea?

Ask him, don't ask me - you were the one who balked when I said he had no business running for president. He underestimates policy. I agree with his conclusions but I also know he doesn't have the experience in public policy.