GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
177 11
Prospect
I'm looking forward to my Iraq War rebate.
4/18/2011 9:14 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by silentpadna on 4/18/2011 9:21:00 AM (view original):
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.
You might possibly have a point with 2, if Planned Parenthood abortions weren't fully paid for up front.

If you want to go ahead and demonstrate that the amount PP charges for abortions doesn't cover their overhead, be my guest. Until you do, you have no argument.
4/18/2011 9:28 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by creilmann on 4/18/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):
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?
.
So if so called "Corporate welefare", a serious misnomer in that the left was trying to tie targeted corporate stimulus with the welefare system so they would have a reason to support it, was really a problem why isnt anyone on the Dem side talking about it? Why isnt Obama suggesting it?

The fact is that the programs you are talking about create wealth and make America stronger!

If we need to cut lets cut. I have proposed a 5% across the board cout to every department.

Just dont tell me that not cutting minor stuff that isnt important first makes someone a hypocrite!
4/19/2011 2:21 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
177 11
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2011 8:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 4/18/2011 9:14:00 PM (view original):
I'm looking forward to my Iraq War rebate.
War is a tough game.   Collateral damage.   I don't think, and I could be wrong but you'll have to prove it, that innocents are targeted. 

I'm pretty sure the target of an abortion hasn't done a whole lot and certainly can't be considered "collateral damage".
I didn't say the objection was to war in general, but that's not what's relevant in this case. I'm hearing all this about how you shouldn't have to fund something if you have "moral" objections. I don't have to justify my objections to your.satisfaction, any more than you have to justify yours to mine. I want all my tax money back since the war started.
4/19/2011 12:36 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by genghisxcon on 4/18/2011 9:14:00 PM (view original):
I'm looking forward to my Iraq War rebate.
Then you should get congressmen elected that support that position and will fight for it. The Tea Party caucous isnt waving a magic wand, they are going through the procedure of fighting for the issues that their supporters care about.

Again what is so wrong with this?
4/19/2011 1:01 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
177 11
Prospect
4/19/2011 1:04 PM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/19/2011 2:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by creilmann on 4/18/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):
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?
.
So if so called "Corporate welefare", a serious misnomer in that the left was trying to tie targeted corporate stimulus with the welefare system so they would have a reason to support it, was really a problem why isnt anyone on the Dem side talking about it? Why isnt Obama suggesting it?

The fact is that the programs you are talking about create wealth and make America stronger!

If we need to cut lets cut. I have proposed a 5% across the board cout to every department.

Just dont tell me that not cutting minor stuff that isnt important first makes someone a hypocrite!
The reason that Dems have not suggested it is because when you get beyond the rhetoric of both sides, you'll find that there is little difference in their actions.  

You and the rest of the TP movement are absolutely hypocritical in that you preach about making government smaller and cutting spending and claim that you are true champions of free market policies.  Truth is, you have no problem with big government and spending as long as you feel you are directly beneficial from it.
There's much more money to be saved by cutting corporate welfare then there is by defunding NPR and it would be one of the best first steps towards the freer markets that you pine for, but I don't see any TP protests outside of GE or Pfizer or any other large corp that gets handed billions in welfare.  That's what a free market looks like???  "Here you go, now that your company rakes in billions in profits and your CEO's get paid billions in salaries, were going to go ahead and grant you another hundreds of billions in subsidies".  That's what the TP is willing to define as free market???  You freak out about government spending when a transit project comes up but have no desire at all to give up some of the highly subsidized sprawl programs that you benefit from.

Then, you guys hold Reagan up as some sort of god of small government and conservative values.  Here's a guy who ran up more debt than all the previous Presidents combined, he expanded the federal government by twice as much as Clinton did, added a new department when he promised to shut down two (which he never did), added an additional 200k federal employees, made the biggest expansion to date in a social welfare program that you guys ***** about all the time, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, put a pro-choice justice on the bench, raised taxes ten times, and was pro gun control.  If Reagan were a Democrat, you'd call him the worst president ever.

And please don't start with this "I proposed a 5% cut across the board blah blah blah bullshit", like you came up with this out of your mother's basement.  That crap has been peddled by the right for years and it's just hollow rhetoric because the right has just as many programs that they don't want to cut as the left does.
4/19/2011 1:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
We've already discussed what businesses do when their profit margins are cut.   Do you think heavier taxes on businesses won't change their profit margin?
4/19/2011 2:56 PM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
Heavier corporate taxes?  So what does that mean?  6%?  The WSJ just released a report that shows US corps cutting back 2.9 million jobs in the US while shipping 2.4 million jobs abroad since 2000.  All this during a ten year period of some of the lowest corporate taxation and lowest personal income taxation for the top percent. This at a time when our corporate tax revenue compared to GDP is at it's lowest point since at least WWII.  So does it seem like lower tax rates are encouraging them to reinvest in our country?

4/19/2011 3:32 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
We should stop with "corporate welfare" euphemism.  What you really mean is taxing corporations to max extent you can.  Welfare comes in the form of government assistance in exchange for nothing.  It's essentially the social safety net. 

"Corporate welfare" as it is commonly mis-used deals with the reduction of taxes to a corporation in exchange for some sort of benefit.  Government doesn't give corporations money in the context you describe.  They collect less (or in some cases nothing) in exchange for something like a labor provider so that they have a deeper tax base.

Your goal is have government take more money from what the revenues of corporations.  It's fine that you think that would be a good thing.  But you ought to be clear about what it is you're espousing.  It's easy to go after profit and more power to your cause.  But the more you tax my employer, the less there is to employ someone to help me, the less there is for my employer to pay me, and/or the more it costs me to obtain their goods or services.

My employer doesn't keep that money in special "extra cash for taxes" safe all ready to pull out and give to someone else for their pet projects.  They figure out their tax burden in their business plan.  And they make decisions based on maintaining a required rate of return on their work or investment.  If their costs go up (including their taxes or any other cost), a decision has to be made:

1.  Pass along the cost to their customers.  Increasing the cost of the product to cover means that who pays the tax increase?  That's right, the consumer does.
2.  Reduce cost of doing business in other areas, like labor.  Someone loses a job or doesn't get the raise they earned.  Who pays the tax increase?  Not the rich guy...it's the consumer or the employee(s).
3.  Decide that the reduced margin does not make the risk of doing business worth it, so close down and go into business doing something else.  Who pays the tax then?

This corporate tax stuff is nonsense.  It's all passed along to the consumer.  Wealth is always created by risk return.  If the return isn't good enough, less risk is taken, less wealth is created, less taxes are collected.

So what's the real goal here?
4/19/2011 3:36 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2011 2:56:00 PM (view original):
We've already discussed what businesses do when their profit margins are cut.   Do you think heavier taxes on businesses won't change their profit margin?
Since modern business philosophy says to do the exact same things when your profit margin goes up as it does when your profit margin goes down, regardless of the long-term consequences on the health of that business, it's not really relevant to the discussion.

Look at what American MBA-trained geniuses are doing to the Ikea brand in Danville, for instance.
4/19/2011 3:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Philosophy is nice.  Real application is better.

4/19/2011 4:09 PM
◂ Prev 1...12|13|14|15|16...27 Next ▸
GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.