Quote :

"what part of "if I give you 5 bux and tell you not to spend it on food and you then take 5 bux from your wallet and go to McD's and put that 5 i gave you in your wallet" doesn't make sense to you?"

4/12/2011 7:19:04 PM

Quote :

"t's not a hard concept for me to understand, but the fact that such things are standard practice for nearly every organization with a budget and rules about how they spend money (e.g. pretty much all businesses, the US government, etc.) does seem difficult for others to grasp. Organizations have been successfully separating abortion-related funds since 1976. This whole thing ignores the fact that abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does. Medical services, consuling, education, and contraceptives provided by Planned Parenthood probably does more to reduce the number of abortions in this country than removing funding or banning all aborptions ever could. Pretending abortion doesn't exist isn't going to make it so. Just like our drug policies, we get so wrappped up in demonizing and punishing those involved that the underlying issues and problems that put people in the position of choosing/not choosing an abortion remain completely unaddressed. In the end, nobody gets what they want and nobody gets what they need. (except politicians who can continue to exploit the issue for political gain)"

4/12/2011 7:23:18 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: what part of "if I give you 5 bux and tell you not to spend it on food and you then take 5 bux from your wallet and go to McD's and put that 5 i gave you in your wallet" doesn't make sense to you"

Yes, but if you cut Planned Parenthood funding, you would be cutting the other stuff they do like the "medical services, counseling, education, and contraceptives" that A Tanzarian mentioned. Those also happen to be things that prevent the need/want for abortions in the first place.

By cutting PP funding, you could actually be increasing the rates of abortion. You could also be contributing to an increase in a whole bunch of other very expensive stuff like infertility, HIV/AIDS, teenage/preteen pregnancy (that may result in abortion--or not), birth defects, homelessness/suicide/abuse, etc...

For instance, gonorrhea isn't a big deal. However, if left untreated, it dramatically increases your susceptibility to HIV infection. It can also metaphorically light a woman's pelvis on fire and contribute to a lifetime of miscarriages. Syphilis is also not a big deal, but if left untreated, it can make you crazy. Fifteen year-old bwning his/her boyfriend isn't a big deal, but a fifteen-year old bwning his/her boyfriend who also makes him/her have sex with strangers for money--yeah, some counseling would probably come in handy there.

Abortions account for like three percent of the services provided at Planned Parenthood. Given all the enormously important work they do, it's really obnoxious for you to be clinging to some cutesy bit about a meal at McDonald's. Also, keep in mind: this is work that other people do not want to do. My OBGYN did not go to med school to give HIV/AIDS tests to pregnant IV drug users. I mean, he cares about public health just as much as the next guy (more than the next guy, really), but his practice doesn't exactly lend itself to distributing condoms to teenagers.

And you haven't provided any evidence that indicates that cutting federal PP funding will decrease rates of abortion.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 8:33:18 PM

Quote :

"Given all the enormously important work they do, it's really obnoxious for you to be clinging to some cutesy bit about a meal at McDonald's."

If its so important, why don't you write a check for 2 grand to them right now? if it's so important, why cant they raise the money themselves?

^^ lemme give you an example and show how accounting argument is bullshit.
1) The accountants at Enron said everything was A-OK.
2) Imagine that PP does their budget for the year. They allocate 5 million for abortions and 5 million for family planning. Then they get government funding of 2 million for non-abortion stuff. They then de-allocate 2 million from their family planning part and put it into the abortion part, putting the 2 mill from the gov't into the family planning. Now, you tell me: where did the gov't money go?

4/12/2011 9:17:36 PM

Quote :

"If its so important, why don't you write a check for 2 grand to them right now? if it's so important, why cant they raise the money themselves?"

The same could be said of the police, fire fighters, road construction, schools, national defense, and everything else that the government does.

4/12/2011 9:38:58 PM

Quote :

"If its so important, why don't you write a check for 2 grand to them right now? if it's so important, why cant they raise the money themselves?"

Who's to say I or anyone else hasn't given money to Planned Parenthood? More importantly, how is this relevant?

Quote :

"1) The accountants at Enron said everything was A-OK."

Um...OK? Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood engages in fraudulent energy trading? If so, I'm going to need a source for that.

Or, are you trying to disparage the accounting profession?

Quote :

"Imagine that PP does their budget for the year. They allocate 5 million for abortions and 5 million for family planning. Then they get government funding of 2 million for non-abortion stuff. They then de-allocate 2 million from their family planning part and put it into the abortion part, putting the 2 mill from the gov't into the family planning. Now, you tell me: where did the gov't money go?"

We all understand math. The point being made to you is that earmarking of funds is a widely accepted practice. Why should Planned Parenthood be held to a different standard?

The other point being made to you is that abortion is a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does. Why do you want to cut funding to non-abortion activities such as counseling, education, and contraceptives? These are all things that reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 10:03:13 PM

^^^AHA, I don't have two thousand dollars. I'm actually a patient at Planned Parenthood.

And, again, abortions account for three percent of their services. They don't have to de-allocate federal funds to pay for them. They need that money for the other 97 percent of stuff that they do.

Tell you what though...I'll keep subsidizing multiple wars overseas, and you can keep subsidizing my pap smears. Deal?

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 10:08:05 PM

I disagree with war. Tax dollars should not go towards the funding of war.

4/12/2011 11:41:59 PM

I wonder how many dems will be needed to pass the budget....we all know there will NOT be 228 GOP votes, heck the CR passed due to dem votes. I figure 50-70 republicans will vote against it in the House. That is about the only interesting thing remaining.

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 12:08 AM. Reason : w]

4/13/2011 12:07:36 AM

Quote :

"The other point being made to you is that abortion is a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does"

yep, and a murderer only spends a very small percent of his time murdering. who are you to judge him based on that small percent, right?

Quote :

"Um...OK? Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood engages in fraudulent energy trading? If so, I'm going to need a source for that. Or, are you trying to disparage the accounting profession? "

No, I'm simply pointing out that accounting doesn't actually say a damned thing about reality. It can be used to say whatever you want.

Quote :

"We all understand math. The point being made to you is that earmarking of funds is a widely accepted practice. Why should Planned Parenthood be held to a different standard?"

Ummm, maybe because there is LAW that says federal money can't be used to fund abortions?

Quote :

"The same could be said of the police, fire fighters, road construction, schools, national defense, and everything else that the government does."

Only one problem. Many of those are actual functions of the government, as specified by this thing we have called "The Constitution." Sucking babies' brains out through a garden hose and then chopping them up into little pieces isn't.

Quote :

"More importantly, how is this relevant?"

Because surely if it is so damned important, they can raise the money without resorting to stealing it from taxpayers at gunpoint.

4/13/2011 3:12:59 PM

As for the accounting, they don't get funds up front afaik. They get reimbursed for eligible services. It's not like two piles of money they have to keep straight, if they got less money they just wouldn't be able to provide those other services.

4/13/2011 3:37:09 PM

Quote :

"Only one problem. Many of those are actual functions of the government, as specified by this thing we have called "The Constitution.""

1) The Constitution says nothing about police, firefighters, roads, or schools.
2) You're evading. Presumably all those things are important. Whether they're in the Constitution or not (and, again, they're NOT), why don't they just raise the money themselves? Possibly because they can't, because of free rider problems?

Whether abortions are murder or not, we probably all benefit from them. Unwanted kids are more prone to be criminals or drains on society. We've all heard of the evidence showing the role of abortion in dropping crime rates later on.

So we all benefit. But why would I write a check for it? I don't need an abortion. My donation won't be missed, everybody else will cover it. But of course, they're all thinking the same thing, so soon hardly anybody is paying, the abortions are dwindling, and new hoodlums are being born.

In this sense abortion is like the police. Obviously, we need them. Everyone benefits from their existence whether they pay for them or not. So nobody has the incentive to actually write a check, until the government puts a gun to their head and says, "Pony up."

So this stuff about fundraising is all bullshit. As usual, the only legitimate point of discussion is whether or not abortion itself constitutes murder or some other legitimate crime.

4/13/2011 3:56:18 PM

Look, the idea of separating out Planned Parenthood because of the abortion issue is very hypocritical. If I don't have kids, I could argue that my money should not be spent on the education system, and you can spend it if you like. If I don't believe in war and am a pacifist, I can argue that I don't want to put my tax dollars towards buying tanks and bombs.

Our government allocates money that they feel as a whole will benefit to country. When it comes to individual programs, often times the government believes in the general mission, or even a very specific aspect of that mission, and funds it.

The same people who complain about funding to PP that can be dollar shifted (and of course this is a logical conclusion about what happens) don't have a problem with funding churches who sponsor faith based initiatives, even though the same thing happens with them. They don't have a problem with using money to put forth a religious agenda, even though that can be arguably described as a violation of the First Amendment (only under the same logic as used for the PP issue...this is not to say that funding faith based initiatives on its own is a problem, at least under the current Supreme Court rationales).

If the standard is applied to PP because of dollar shifting, then all funding that supports religious organizations in any way must also be stopped, because it prevents them from having to spend funds on those areas. There are other analogies as well, but that is the clearest one.

4/13/2011 4:21:45 PM

Quote :

"1) The Constitution says nothing about police, firefighters, roads, or schools. "

Quote :

"Many"

Quote :

"why don't they just raise the money themselves? Possibly because they can't, because of free rider problems?"

And yet PP seems to have little trouble raising money on its own. Hmmm...

4/13/2011 5:18:01 PM

Hahaha, give me a fucking break, "many." Only one of the things he actually listed qualifies as being discussed in the Constitution.

Not that it matters, you still didn't answer the fucking question of why those things don't just run on donations.

Quote :

"And yet PP seems to have little trouble raising money on its own."

It does raise some money on its own -- just like a lot of government institutions. Schools have fundraisers all the time. Police and fire departments form organizations that raise money to fill in gaps in what the government does. Perhaps none of these could raise enough money to cover their entire budgets, or even the majority -- and I'm sure the same is true of PP.

4/13/2011 8:18:39 PM

so then, clearly, not enough people think it's important. got it

4/13/2011 8:23:59 PM

Speaking of PP, on the radio today there was a spot where a former worker states that most of their budget goes to supporting abortions, that you cant sperate the two.....of course it was paid for by the lunatic fringe of the GOP.

4/13/2011 9:49:06 PM

That may actually not be too far from the truth.

In 2009:

Health Center Income		404,900,000
Govn't				363,200,000
Donations			308,200,000
Other Revenue			 24,500,000
--------------------------------------------
Total Revenue                 1,100,800,000

4/14/2011 9:45:38 PM

abortion is not the only medical service they do, far from it

4/14/2011 9:52:08 PM

It's not the only medical service, but as far as I know everything else is mostly clinic-visit type stuff. What other medical services do they provide?

4/14/2011 9:57:50 PM

pap smears, STD tests and shit.

4/14/2011 10:07:44 PM

abortion ftw

4/14/2011 10:08:12 PM

So........clinic visit type stuff? Is there anything else that would compete with abortion in terms of cost and resources?

4/14/2011 10:13:17 PM

I researched your question, and the short answer is: Yes, definitely. You are overestimating abortion and underestimating the clinic visit stuff. They don't just give STD tests and pap smears...they also treat all the stuff that they find, and, sure, it's routine clinic visit stuff, but it can still be more involved and more expensive than abortion (which is actually a routine clinic visit type thing too).

Long answer:

You have to remember that lots of abortions are done by pill these days. And even when the abortion pill isn't used, the procedure takes like five to ten minutes. And for pregnancies that are further along (like four months pregnant), the procedure still only takes about ten to twenty minutes...of course, this procedure is less common because lots of states don't permit abortions this far along anyway. Anyway, the cost is $350-$900.

Now, back to those STD tests and pap smears. They treat the stuff that they discover. So an irregular pap at Planned Parenthood may warrant a colposcopy and biopsy, which takes around ten minutes (longer than a typical abortion). Then the tissue has to be tested at a lab. And depending on what you discover from the biopsy, you might have to follow up with cryotherapy (around five minutes) or LEEP (loop electrosurgical excision procedure--around ten minutes). For some perspective that's pretty gross, it's recommended that women do not use tampons for several weeks after LEEP or cryotherapy, but they can use them immediately following an abortion. For just the colposcopy/biopsy, I've seen prices online from $500 (for the procedure/the lab work) up to $1000. For the subsequent cryo, I found $700. For LEEP, I found $400-$800. Some people are reporting $100 for these procedures, but I'm assuming they are insured. So $900-$1200 total for colposcopy + cryo/or LEEP (if you need it).

Keep in mind that abortion is typically a one and done procedure (unless you get pregnant again and want another one). On the other hand, cervical cancer prevention is forever. It's not like you have to get colposcopies/LEEP/cryo all the time, but there are people who undergo these procedures repeatedly and over time.

Anyway, I just totally procrastinated on some work for an hour while I read up on this stuff. And this is just cervical cancer stuff...I haven't even looked at other things. I'd imagine getting repeat cryotherapy for genital warts or something would get pretty pricey after a while. And sterilization is also probably expensive...invasive, too, depending on how they do it.

Abortion: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.asp
Cervical Cancer: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/cryotherapy-leep-4275.htm

[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 5:28 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2011 5:02:03 AM

Thanks, Bridget.

Quote :

"That may actually not be too far from the truth be full of shit."

Second correction:

Liberty University received $485 million in federal funds in 2009-2010 (not $485 dollars). It's still OK because the “funds are authorized by Congress and Congress is elected by voters".

[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2011 8:14:21 AM

Quote :

"And for pregnancies that are further along (like four months pregnant)"

you know, where you are actually murdering a child.

4/16/2011 3:23:52 PM

Have you ever read a complete sentence?

4/16/2011 5:00:41 PM

i would like aaronburro to respond to this:

Quote :

"As for the accounting, they don't get funds up front afaik. They get reimbursed for eligible services. It's not like two piles of money they have to keep straight, if they got less money they just wouldn't be able to provide those other services."

4/16/2011 5:18:24 PM

ahhh. so then they don't have to budget ANYTHING, and the rest of their money can go to killing babies. remind me of the difference, again>

4/16/2011 9:18:18 PM

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

4/16/2011 11:27:10 PM

Anybody else ready to go back to economic progress?

4/17/2011 2:02:11 AM

what's there to comprehend? They have to put zero money into this part of their business. And that means the money they would have put into it can go, where, exactly? Right, into the other parts, including the baby slaughtering

4/17/2011 4:47:43 PM

what

4/17/2011 4:58:09 PM

Quote :

"baby slaughtering"

You stay classy aaronburro. Maybe you should post pictures again.

4/17/2011 5:07:38 PM

^^ I'm about 80% certain he willfully misinterprets things 75% of the time.

^^^ I have no idea what you're saying, but in 2009 PP had $1,037,400,000 in expenses and received only $363,200,000 from the government. PP is spending their own money on things other than abortions. Probably on things like education and contraceptives that prevent the need for abortions in the first place--a fact you can't seem to grasp.

Quote :

"their business"

4/17/2011 5:15:46 PM

So, it sounds like the can do ok without the government subsidy.

4/18/2011 8:39:58 AM

Quote :

"PP is spending their own money on things other than abortions."

Yes, they are. But they are also spending their money on abortions. what's your point?

4/18/2011 6:09:09 PM

Wassermann-Schultz is awesome.

So smart.

6/10/2011 3:28:30 PM

Everyone is mercing America with their partisanship. Let the poltiticians be partisans, we don't decide jack as to what actually goes on in this country.

6/10/2011 4:09:31 PM

Why this thread isn't locked it a prime example of mod bias.

6/10/2011 5:59:53 PM

^
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=604354

6/10/2011 7:01:43 PM

^If this thread had said "Democratic Party Credibily Watch Thread" I wouln't have had a problem. You notice the thread you refer to used one of the actual and proper names for the republican party.

Both this and the one you refer to were both created by pro-republican, anti-democratic posters.

Quote :

""Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2] Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy."[3] Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy."[4] New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be — a handy way to express contempt "

6/10/2011 7:37:45 PM

It's so funny to me when people get their feathers ruffled over the "Democrat party" epithet. Who fucking cares?

6/10/2011 7:47:04 PM

Pryderi's logic just re-iterates the title of the thread.

6/11/2011 9:22:01 AM

PELOSI: WEINER CAN STAY

[Edited on June 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM. Reason : !!!]

6/11/2011 9:51:58 AM

Quote :

"Pryderi's logic just re-iterates the title of the thread."

Thank you for validating my credibility.

6/11/2011 12:16:42 PM

PELOSI: WEINER MUST RESIGN

6/11/2011 7:46:40 PM

6/12/2011 8:46:35 AM

Why this abortion of a thread isn't locked it a prime example of mod bias.

Would have been more appropriate, not that I agree with you

[Edited on June 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2011 11:28:58 AM

Quote :

"MR. GREGORY [MTP on MSNBC]: Well, let's talk more, let's talk more about the economy in some more detail. This is the president's standing in terms of handling the economy in the public's eye, and it's pretty negative right now. Sixty percent almost, 59 percent, disapprove of the president's handling of the economy. And there are facts that back that up that are difficult for this administration and for the Democrats: unemployment's up 25 percent since Inauguration Day for President Obama; the debt's up 35 percent, over $14 trillion; a gallon of gas up over 100 percent, with gas $3.75, higher than that in certain parts of the country. Why should Americans trust Democratic governance right now on the economy, and particularly the president's? REP. [Debbie Wasserman-] SCHULTZ [DNC Chairwoman]: Because we were able to, under President Obama's leadership, turn this economy around. When President Obama took office... MR. GREGORY: Whoa, whoa, let me just stop you there. Clearly, the economy has not been turned around. I mean, you just saw those numbers. REP. SCHULTZ: It, it certainly--it has... MR. GREGORY: Americans don't believe that's the case. REP. SCHULTZ: Well, we, we were--when President Obama took office, the month before he was inaugurated, the economy was bleeding 750,000 jobs a month, David, and we were not headed in the right direction. Now, I know we--and President Obama has said we have a long way to go. We'd like the pace of recovery to, to, to be picked up. But we have definitely begun to turn the economy around. You, you fast-forward two and a half years later now, and the economy has created 2.1 million private sector jobs, a million of those jobs just in the last six months. We've had 15 straight months of job growth. MR. GREGORY: Nobody believes that you can throw--nobody believes that the pace of job creation is anything close to robust enough to lead to, to economic growth... REP. SCHULTZ: Including... MR. GREGORY: ...even to match the economic growth projections that this administration's made. I want to get [RNC] Chairman Priebus on this. MR. PRIEBUS: David, the chairwoman's living in fantasyland. We know that the facts are the facts, and we can't get away from that. And Barack Obama is defenseless to the truth on what's going on in the American economy. We have lost as--two and a half million jobs since Barack Obama's been president. And of that two and half million jobs, almost 45 percent of those people have been out of work for six months. That number, that number rivals the Great Depression. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43340746/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-june/

YESTERDAY

6/13/2011 3:21:47 PM