|
First official GOP President announcement
Seraph.Ramyrez
Server: Seraph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-04-14 14:00:08
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »It's as much a trope as kissing babies.
I promise that if I ever run, not a single baby will be kissed by me.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »No, I'm not just like you. *slices filet mingnon* That's why I'm running for POTUS idiots. *sips wine* Because I'm better, the POTUS you deserve, highly educated with finer tastes. *applies napkin to lips* Do you really want some dipshit normie running foreign policy? *stands up* Didn't think so.
I've generally assumed this is the way they all think anyhow.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-04-14 14:01:12
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-04-14 14:06:23
We have already went over this.
But since you were nice enough to provide the KPMG audited statements, I wanted to know if you actually looked at it.
Because, if you were to really look at it, you would notice that the federal funding is either in the "unrestricted" or "temporary restricted" categories. The problem is, if it was to be restricted by law, the funding itself should be in the "permanently restricted" category, wouldn't you think?
That is the only way anyone can prove that the federal money received is being held for anything but abortions and abortion activities. So, thanks for proving Ravael and myself right. I was waiting for somebody smart enough to understand the annual report to show that to us, I didn't want to lay all my cards on the table all at once. There are three categories of funding restrictions listed in both the KPMG report and the annual report. There are funds under permanent restriction. Are you concluding "grants" that are only under unrestricted and temporary are the only federal funds being allocated?
P. 16 of kpmg report explains the restrictions and they mirror what milamber quoted.
Edited
Seraph.Ramyrez
Server: Seraph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-04-14 14:07:00
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-04-14 14:11:02
With the ACA, you can get that looked at!
Thanks Obama!
[+]
By fonewear 2015-04-14 14:11:50
[+]
By EpicFantasy 2015-04-14 14:23:52
I personally would prefer and
morals, are sooo not the same.. Too even suggest it, is quite humorous. That was exactly the point I was making, you jackass. Are you Altimaomega's latest attempt to get around being banned?
It is hard to tell exactly what your points are because you flail around so much.
Yeah I mean at least when you kill off kids INSIDE the womb, they don't complain amirite? You're argument is flacid, they're dead either way. I guess we shouldn't risk letting them starve, so lets just kill em off before they're born. No, dummy, this is exactly the ethical dilemma I was posing.
Is it morally better to allow a child to suffer through several years of privation, misery, and abuse, or better to kill it before it is born? Is it better to literally torture someone to death or just kill them outright?
I won't accuse anyone around here, but the Republican voting record is very clear: destroy Planned Parenthood and destroy universal healthcare, both of which provide birth control and abortion options, AND simultaneously de-fund SNAP, WIC, section 8, social security, and any other welfare option. Kids aren't dying of starvation right now, but left the wingnuts have their way and it becomes a very real possibility.
So, torture and death or death before measurable sentience?
http://www.usherald.com/maine-welfare-recipients-must-work-for-their-benefits/
Damn those Evil Republicans!
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-04-14 14:37:07
You could argue that, but then you would have to apply that to every organization that receives any government aid. Sure, why not? I mean, if you really want to pick at the details.
But let's see here, in your examples, how much "funding" (direct or indirect) from the government do those entities receive vs. the amount of funding Planned Parenthood receives? You do realize that Planned Parenthood receives most of their support from the federal government, right? Check your second link, or Flavin's link. Notice that the federal funding is over 40% of their total funding?
Now, how much funding do you think any of those examples you provided receives from the federal government directly? Quite a few of them receive direct funding for projects.
Boeing, a defense contractor.
Religious institutions who do charity work.
Charter schools
The argument can be made for private universities who receive the majority of their tuition payments via federal aid.
Hospitals and the Red Cross receive lots of funding from the federal government too. PP is an organization within the health care industry.
Quote: There are very few businesses (if any) that in some way don't collect on grants, tax breaks, or direct funding by federal or local governments. Name a tax break. I'm sure you are going to say Section 179/168(k), and I assure you, that's not a tax break.
Also, Section 1 is not a tax break either. Or are you going to argue that companies should be taxed on gross income instead of net?
Why do you try and assume what I'm going to say? I was not alluding to taxing gross income at all.
State and federal tax credits include but are not limited to:
Brownfield credits (currently expired)
Film production credits (different at state levels)
Historic preservation credits
Work opportunity tax credit
Low income construction
Renewable energy credits
Reduced or eliminated corporate state taxes for a specific period of time
Reduced or eliminated sales state taxes for a specific period of time
Reduced or eliminated property taxes for a specific period of time
If companies/non-profits don't have to pay certain taxes or get a reduced tax bill that money can be used elsewhere.....which is frankly the statement many govenors and state reps use for justifying tax breaks/credits.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-04-14 14:48:29
Quite a few of them receive direct funding for projects.
Boeing, a defense contractor.
Religious institutions who do charity work.
Charter schools
The argument can be made for private universities who receive the majority of their tuition payments via federal aid.
Hospitals and the Red Cross receive lots of funding from the federal government too. PP is an organization within the health care industry.
Do any of those have official business practices that would be illegal for the government to fund directly? I think that's the crux of the argument here.
By fonewear 2015-04-14 14:55:39
The answer to all your questions is more government more control and more spending !
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-04-14 15:17:17
Quite a few of them receive direct funding for projects.
Boeing, a defense contractor.
Religious institutions who do charity work.
Charter schools
The argument can be made for private universities who receive the majority of their tuition payments via federal aid.
Hospitals and the Red Cross receive lots of funding from the federal government too. PP is an organization within the health care industry.
Do any of those have official business practices that would be illegal for the government to fund directly? I think that's the crux of the argument here.
Violation of the establishment clause is an issue
religious institutions who receive tax money for charity work were not allowed to discriminate based on religious reasons before GWB signed the 'faith based initiative' executive order.
Examples of it being used to discriminate based on religion
Some court case challenges (2009)
Trying to remember more details about a scandal a few years ago with an organization refusing to service Muslims and atheists. I'll edit it in if I can find it.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-04-14 15:31:56
I'm not entirely sure that that answers my question, but it's interesting at least.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-04-14 15:38:58
I'm not entirely sure that that answers my question, but it's interesting at least. It is illegal for the government to directly fund religious activities.
Quote: Even after the Hein decision, however, taxpayers still have standing in federal courts to challenge government funding of religion if the legislature has specifically authorized grants to religious entities. For example, in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries (2007), the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a church-state watchdog group had standing to challenge a faith-based organization’s provision of rehabilitative services because the state legislature specifically appropriated tax dollars to fund these services. Moreover, the court also held that the Prison Fellowship Ministries’ use of religious instruction and worship in providing these services violated the Establishment Clause. The court explained that while the Mitchell ruling permitted direct government funding of a religious organization’s secular activities, the ruling still prohibited direct public funding of religious activities.
Edited
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-04-14 15:56:54
Lovely. That still leaves room for debate as to whether or not charity counts as an official business practice, but I think we're getting somewhere here. Religions already get tax-exempt status which some people would like to think of as indirect funding, so it opens up a rather grey area.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-04-14 16:22:08
@Kara: I don't see a big deal about a Christian organization requiring their employees to be, you know, Christians.
That's what your sources are alluding to, saying that it's wrong for a religious organization to require that their employees are part of the religion they are representing.
Lovely. That still leaves room for debate as to whether or not charity counts as an official business practice, but I think we're getting somewhere here. Religions already get tax-exempt status which some people would like to think of as indirect funding, so it opens up a rather grey area. I don't believe it's like that. They are a non-profit organization solely for the benefit of the community. It's not like they are receiving federal grants to promote awareness for something....
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-04-14 16:29:13
They are a non-profit organization solely for the benefit of the community. Are you talking about Planned Parenthood?
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2015-04-14 16:31:20
Are you talking about Planned Parenthood?
you got all drunk & didn't take pictures for me, eh?
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-04-14 16:31:51
They are a non-profit organization solely for the benefit of the community. Are you talking about Planned Parenthood? No, churches. Get with the program.
Or at least get some reading comprehension.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-04-14 16:36:33
Are you talking about Planned Parenthood?
you got all drunk & didn't take pictures for me, eh? Ack! I got drunk AND took pictures. I'll try to remember to upload them later.
No, churches. Get with the program.
Or at least get some reading comprehension. Sorry if my presentation was too dry.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-04-14 16:37:14
It's not like they are receiving federal grants to promote awareness for something.... No, but a Catholic charity that gets some kind of governmental (i.e., tax) funding is indirectly promoting anti-abortion. That offends me right in the feels, so we should stop doing that. The measurable good that Catholic Social Services does is completely eclipsed by the fact that some of my taxes are, via arcane and indirect methods, promoting ideas that I disagree with.
I know for a fact that Catholic Social Services in my neck of the woods assists people in getting a government-issued ID, so they're really in deep with big government, clearly. Note sarcasm.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-04-14 16:49:44
Lovely. That still leaves room for debate as to whether or not charity counts as an official business practice, but I think we're getting somewhere here. Religions already get tax-exempt status which some people would like to think of as indirect funding, so it opens up a rather grey area. PP is a non profit and does not pay income taxes.
@Kara: I don't see a big deal about a Christian organization requiring their employees to be, you know, Christians.
That's what your sources are alluding to, saying that it's wrong for a religious organization to require that their employees are part of the religion they are representing.
All other federal tax money benefeciaries have to abide by federal non-discrimination laws. Via the executive order faith based institutions do not.
If they are paying employees with tax money *I think* they should be required to follow all federal laws that other companies who receive tax money have to follow.
Quote: I don't believe it's like that. They are a non-profit organization solely for the benefit of the community. It's not like they are receiving federal grants to promote awareness for something.... really?
But as I already posted one case that used those tax dollars to provide religious instruction and worship.
Isn't this your whole argument? That an organization is mis-using funds? That PP is taking federal money that is earmarked to never be used for abortions and using it to pay for abortions?
Why give a pass to something you think benefits the community versus another organization which many also think benefits the community but one you don't like?
[+]
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2015-04-14 17:43:33
Ack! I got drunk AND took pictures. I'll try to remember to upload them later.
/waitsinNiforstorytime
Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-04-14 19:35:01
This thread hasn't been aborted yet?
By fonewear 2015-04-14 21:10:14
This thread hasn't been aborted yet?
We can't figure out if planned parenthood can't afford the abortion yet !
It is ***even by the low low standards of P and R ***threads !
By fonewear 2015-04-14 21:13:57
I would say this thread is the equivalent of the last call girl you take home after downing three glasses of Scotch in a row.
Sure it seems like a good idea at the time but upon further inspection it won't end well !
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-04-14 21:26:44
Did the ACA address any of the real problems with health care rather than force everyone to either buy expensive coverage (if they're young, which young people aren't usually loaded with money) or force more people onto a joke of a plan (Medicaid)?
$2,000 - $5,000 just to push a button on a machine that uses about $2-3 worth of electricity, sounds legit.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-04-15 09:26:33
Yeah I mean at least when you kill off kids INSIDE the womb, they don't complain amirite? You're argument is flacid, they're dead either way. I guess we shouldn't risk letting them starve, so lets just kill em off before they're born. No, dummy, this is exactly the ethical dilemma I was posing.
Is it morally better to allow a child to suffer through several years of privation, misery, and abuse, or better to kill it before it is born? Is it better to literally torture someone to death or just kill them outright?
I won't accuse anyone around here, but the Republican voting record is very clear: destroy Planned Parenthood and destroy universal healthcare, both of which provide birth control and abortion options, AND simultaneously de-fund SNAP, WIC, section 8, social security, and any other welfare option. Kids aren't dying of starvation right now, but left the wingnuts have their way and it becomes a very real possibility.
So, torture and death or death before measurable sentience?
So I seriously wonder from your own words if you think life is not worth living. Starving to death isn't pretty, but that's a risk that comes with living. So is cancer, so is getting run over by a stampede of wild elephants, and so is dying from hyper hydration. Because life is risky doesn't negate it's purpose. I'm sure our ancestors who were you know, hunting wild animals with rocks and spears would have rather not lived at all because life wasn't served up to them on a silver government handout platter.
Again I have to point out that you're arguing a premise that isn't nor is even remotely true.
-'If we don't kill all these babies via abortion, they will die of starvation.'-
It assumes that if we outlaw abortion or otherwise restrict it further, people wouldn't replace it with some other form of birth control, and it also assumes that parents wouldn't otherwise find some way to assure their children wouldn't starve.
[+]
Seraph.Ramyrez
Server: Seraph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-04-15 09:50:46
It assumes that if we outlaw abortion or otherwise restrict it further, people wouldn't replace it with some other form of birth control
You fight against other forms of birth control too, even though you don't understand their biological mechanism (see: your repeated insistance that morning-after pills are 'abortion pills').
Let's face it, Nausi. You don't give a damn about other human beings, born or unborn, you just want your leaders of choice to be able to tell other people what to think and do and how to act. You want to control other people -- be it other races, sexual orientations, economic classes, you name it -- to your benefit, and to keep them "where they belond".
And when it comes to women, your idea is "brood mare for the good ol' U.S.A., otherwise those deceitful, money-grubbing *** will think they're equals and demand to be treated as such." You pine for a bygone era of white male dominated "perfect" American society that never actually existed in the first place.
You're really more like Islamic extremists or Communist dictators than you'd care to admit, your "ideals" are just different enough that you treat them like they're bad guys, lest they cut in on your action.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-04-15 09:53:49
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2015-04-15 09:54:28
I'm sure our ancestors who were you know, hunting wild animals with rocks and spears would have rather not lived at all because life wasn't served up to them on a silver government handout platter.
Urgh...Nausi...Why?
I'm sure our ancestors had lower birth rates, comparatively, and had less to-term births.
Since we're taking superfluous, imaginative, jaunty, little strolls into the psyche of our forefathers, I can think of a frequent nuisance that might be a liability. I wonder how that was sorted out?
"There's old Bloodtrail McGee trailing blood again. Sabertooths abound! Go home, Bloodtrail McGee!"
That's got to suck, right?
[+]
|
|