Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government does give money to churches all the time. Its called the faith based initiative and charitable choice. With that said I don't see the difference. The government pays people to do a job, they also cut taxes and do not really care what those people do on the side. The same applies to PP. I don't see how this is any different then giving PP grants to run facilities that do cancer sceening, and STD prevention and treatment. The government isn't paying PP to do abortion services they are funding them to do other services just like they are not funding defense personal to buy groceries or go to restaurants, they are paying them to do defense related missions and projects.
That is fine, I basically agree with what you are saying. Do you, or do you not think, that over 5 Billion Dollars to PP has lowered the cost of other services if PP pays less for buildings, utilities, etc. Yes or no, please answer.
P.S. I thought you would be against Government money to church charities. Sorry.
That is fine, I basically agree with what you are saying. Do you, or do you not think, that over 5 Billion Dollars to PP has lowered the cost of other services if PP pays less for buildings, utilities, etc. Yes or no, please answer.
Yes, but then again that is like saying the government funds the proliferation and availability of strip clubs, tattoo parlors, pawn shops and the liquor industry, via defense spending (you will understand this if you live near a military base).
P.S. I thought you would be against Government money to church charities. Sorry.
I am generally since we are in debt, but it happens. I think you have to evaluate them on a case by case basis I work with religious organizations to do community projects they have a lot of good infrustructure and its all good as long as the program itself is not to propagate the religion itself.
Yes, but then again that is like saying the government funds the proliferation and availability of strip clubs, tattoo parlors, pawn shops and the liquor industry, via defense spending (you will understand this if you live near a military base).
Thank you for admitting an obvious business point.
You made some good points too, but I don't think you can compare paying a government employee's salary to funding a private entity.
I am generally since we are in debt, but it happens. I think you have to evaluate them on a case by case basis I work with religious organizations to do community projects they have a lot of good infrustructure and its all good as long as the program itself is not to propagate the religion itself.
Thank you. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to funding PP if we were running a true surplus. Since we are not and it is a semi-controversial private entity I don't have a problem with cutting back funding. Then again if we had a true national health care system (single payer), we wouldn't have as much of a need for PP to begin with.
Thank you. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to funding PP if we were running a true surplus. Since we are not and it is a semi-controversial private entity I don't have a problem with cutting back funding. Then again if we had a true national health care system (single payer), we wouldn't have as much of a need for PP to begin with.
I agree with you about single payer, that was a large part of why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries over Barack Obama.
I also think you can make that argument about PP and Romney certainly has, but I think PP being a major primary health provider to millions of women for all sorts of medical issues makes it very important. As such I wouldn't cut it, not until we have done the cuts that were previously agreed upon, by Democrats and Republicans that sadly the Republicans are now backing away from since they do not want their favored programs getting cut.
I agree with you about single payer, that was a large part of why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries over Barack Obama.
I also think you can make that argument about PP and Romney certainly has, but I think PP being a major primary health provider to millions of women for all sorts of medical issues makes it very important. As such I wouldn't cut it, not until we have done the cuts that were previously agreed upon, by Democrats and Republicans that sadly the Republicans are now backing away from since they do not want their favored programs getting cut.
I can respect that point of view. I have no problem with someone believing that PP provides valuable services. I just take an exception to people telling me that the nearly Half a Billion a year from the government doesn't lower costs of other services the company provides.
I did like Hillary and I think that she would have been a success. I was hoping for a McCain-Hillary showdown and I ended up voting for McCain. I don't agree with the Republicans on every issue. I don't think either party is being serious or fair about a balanced budget, but I do think the Republicans are slightly more serious about it at the moment.
Here is a source from Planned Parenthood themselves talking about getting nearly Half a Billion Dollars in government money for a Single Fiscal year. $487,400,000.00....
Don't ever make a joke about Republicans not believing in science etc.....the Democrats have enough of their own issues ignoring science, math and basic business.
So I'm supposed to read through twelve pages to find this information I requested? Or is it not really in there? They got that much money, maybe (I haven't read the link), but what was it spent on?
Get your chip off your shoulder. I never made any such jokes about Republicans, pal.
Thank you. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to funding PP if we were running a true surplus. Since we are not and it is a semi-controversial private entity I don't have a problem with cutting back funding. Then again if we had a true national health care system (single payer), we wouldn't have as much of a need for PP to begin with.
As I said a couple of days ago, the medicaid money would just go to another provider, probably a for-profit doc who charges more than PP and also does abortions. The grant money would just go to another non-profit. This is not money budgeted specifically for PP. Capiche?
So I'm supposed to read through twelve pages to find this information I requested? Or is it not really in there? They got that much money, maybe (I haven't read the link), but what was it spent on?
Get your chip off your shoulder. I never made any such jokes about Republicans, pal.
It is a 12 page brochure with lots of pictures and charts - you could have found the info in less than a minute on page 9. PP got nearly half a billion dollars from the government over a 12 month period. I think these issues need to be discussed without bogus talking points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
