I wonder what you would do if people just stopped taking your bait?

Actually what you would learn in accounting class(es) is:

1.  Federal money goes to PP and does not directly fund abortions because there are legal accounting methods to "earmark" the money.

2.  Federal money does go PP and helps them fund abortions.  This is done by putting the federal dollars in other places, thereby affecting how dollars are allocated to various accounts, including accounts that deal with other procedures.  Money from all sources ultimately affect overhead.  Overhead includes the costs to fund offices, salaries of executives and other personnel (who lobby in favor of abortion), heat, lighting, advertising (including the sources showing the availability of abortion services), etc.  When federal dollars decrease the cost of other procedures, it allows other donated funds to help them cover overhead expenses and others.  A dollar earmarked to fund a condom program means that the original dollar that might have been earmarked for that program can now be allocated to cover the abortion expense and/or the portion of the overall overhead burden that abortion comprises.

So the basic argument that federal dollars do not fund abortion is true in the purely legal sense, because there are provisions on how to allocate the funds.

It is ignorant, however to think that federal dollars do not affect the ability for PP to provide abortions.  It's easy to see that those dollars do have an affect.

The distinction to me is not important.  The government should not be funding abortions, even indirectly, beyond what they do currently with block grants to the states, which provide them through Medicaid on a varying non-convenience basis.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/18/2011 9:04:00 AM (view original):
I wonder what you would do if people just stopped taking your bait?

Don't like it when someone uses your trademarked response?

Simple math for the dumbdumbs out there.

Real general numbers here.  I'll pick a safe subject.  Fruit picking.

Raucous' Fruit Lovers Inc.® spend the following in picking tasty fruit.

Apples $1,000,000
Oranges $1,000,000
Pears $1,000,000

The government decides that they love oranges and pears and want to fund it. Since apples are considered "forbidden fruit" to 40% of the voting populace, they won't fund it.  So they give $500,000 to each oranges and pears.  The company with the extra money now has $1mil to play with. 

Do you think the company would

A. Just waste the extra money on oranges and pears.
or
B. Keep part of the money in profits and move the extra money around so that apples get more?

A dumbdumb would answer A and think that money going to oranges and pears would just go there and the company wouldn't put extra money into apples.

This is not hard to understand.

I already tried that.   It doesn't work because the lefties have to be right.

The truth is not the truth because Obama and Bush repeat it over again and again. 

If the top 10% ($114k or more/year combined) paid 100% in taxes, it would not balance the Obama budget. 

The only way that all of these entitlements can work is if the middle class gets destroyed and made into peasants.

Then we will have Louis XVI type country... for a while. 

Actually, if all people making $100,000+ were taxed at 100%, it would not balance the Obama budget.

ugh.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2011 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/18/2011 9:04:00 AM (view original):
I wonder what you would do if people just stopped taking your bait?

Don't like it when someone uses your trademarked response?

Go right ahead. It still won't suck me into a RSF with you.

Can anyone explain to me, other than quoting the law, how you can give money to a private orginization and it not help every aspect of their operations? 

In a broad sense it does.

But so what? If they're using their funds in a lawful way, why is it an issue?

We dont want them in jail. A large group of Americans find their actions a matter of conscience and wish to stop funding them.

Posted by creilmann on 4/17/2011 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/17/2011 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Everything is on the table.

The issue is if PP is such an important issue that we cannot defund it, why would we even look at anything else.

Bullshit.  Billions of dollars could be saved by ending these subsidies now, but the right goes after the the chump change that is given to groups like Acorn, NPR and PP.  If spending cuts are the big priority, then why not save a couple hundred billion a year by stopping corporate welfare?

.