Daily cost of Afghanistan verse yearly cost of Planned Parenthood

[obvious Child]

Afghanistan costs us roughly $300 million a day:

AFP: Afghan war costs $300 million a day: Pentagon

PP costs the federal government $317 million a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/politics/18parenthood.html

It seems pretty damn obvious where to start cutting if you're actually honest about deficit and debt reduction. Especially since PP largely provides prevention services which in the long run save taxpayer dollars.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Afghanistan costs us roughly $300 million a day:

AFP: Afghan war costs $300 million a day: Pentagon

PP costs the federal government $317 million a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/politics/18parenthood.html

It seems pretty damn obvious where to start cutting if you're actually honest about deficit and debt reduction. Especially since PP largely provides prevention services which in the long run save taxpayer dollars.

Exactly why when Republicans talk about how the cutting PP is about deficit reduction you just have to roll your eyes.

It's nothing but a lame ass attempt to show their base they're combating abortion.

 

[Fletch]

According to your article, it looks as if Planned parenthood receives $75 million in federal aid not $317 million. $75 million could easily be reached through voluntary contributions if limosine liberals would put their own money where their mouths are and not compel taxpayers to fund something they see as morally objectionable.

 

[mpg]

It seems pretty damn obvious where to start cutting if you're actually honest about deficit and debt reduction.

That's a good point, but it isn't just conservatives and Republicans who need an economics lesson. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich AND cut the defense budget in half, it would barely put a dent in the deficit. Anyone who isn't interested in cutting entitlements, isn't serious about balancing the budget.

I'm aware that PP isn't an entitlement and it's just a tiny piece of the budget, but tiny cuts in spending will also help, and cutting PP isn't about balancing the budget anyway. This thread is somewhat of a strawman. Cutting PP is about principle. IMHO, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund political organizations, whether they're liberal, conservative or anything in between.

 

[obvious Child]

According to your article, it looks as if Planned parenthood receives $75 million in federal aid not $317 million. $75 million could easily be reached through voluntary contributions if limosine liberals would put their own money where their mouths are and not compel taxpayers to fund something they see as morally objectionable.

Let's see if you're brave enough to accept your own logic. (I seriously doubt it)

[Insert small amount of money here] could easily be reached through voluntary contributions if [some group] would put their own money where their mouths are and not compel taxpayers to fund something [fill in whatever you want] they see as morally objectionable.

Want to apply that to other things in the budget?

I find socialized medicine objectable. Does that I mean I can stop funding TRICARE?

Anyone who claims cutting programs like these to save money is either dishonest or cannot do math.

 

[obvious Child]

That's a good point, but it isn't just conservatives and Republicans who need an economics lesson. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich AND cut the defense budget in half, it would barely put a dent in the deficit. Anyone who isn't interested in cutting entitlements, isn't serious about balancing the budget.

Without entitlement reform no cost cutting or tax increases matter. But this effectively proves that the GOP has moved far to the right and the Democrats have moved more to the right. The GOP refuses tax hikes period and significant cuts to the military. All but Paul wanted to dramatically increase our already massive defense budget. The Democrats however, have been willing to make cuts to entitlements. Not the necessary big ones, but they DID move. When one party is willing to move from its previous position but the other says no to $10 in cuts for $1 in tax hikes, it's pretty damn clear where the problem is.

I'm aware that PP isn't an entitlement and it's just a tiny piece of the budget, but tiny cuts in spending will also help, and cutting PP isn't about balancing the budget anyway. This thread is somewhat of a strawman. Cutting PP is about principle. IMHO, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund political organizations, whether they're liberal, conservative or anything in between.

So you're for automatic stripping of 501(c)(3)s that do political activity? After all, we are essentially funding them via tax exemptions. Furthermore, the GOP has been pushing to defund stuff like this on the grounds of deficit and debt control. And the notion it's moral is crap. If we actually applied that, no one should fund anything they find objectionable.

 

[Fletch]

Let's see if you're brave enough to accept your own logic. (I seriously doubt it)

[Insert small amount of money here] could easily be reached through voluntary contributions if [some group] would put their own money where their mouths are and not compel taxpayers to fund something [fill in whatever you want] they see as morally objectionable.

Want to apply that to other things in the budget?

I find socialized medicine objectable. Does that I mean I can stop funding TRICARE?

Anyone who claims cutting programs like these to save money is either dishonest or cannot do math.

First of all, I am plenty 'brave' enough to back up my own positions. Second, you didnt accurately describe my position. Third, I would apply it to every aspect of the budget. Finally, saving $75 million is saving money.

 

[winston53660]

First of all, I am plenty 'brave' enough to back up my own positions. Second, you didnt accurately describe my position. Third, I would apply it to every aspect of the budget. Finally, saving $75 million is saving money.

Penny wise pound foolish comes to my mind../......

 

[obvious Child]

First of all, I am plenty 'brave' enough to back up my own positions. Second, you didnt accurately describe my position. Third, I would apply it to every aspect of the budget. Finally, saving $75 million is saving money.

Sure you are cough cough. And how exactly did I not accurately represent your position? Your argument is we should not be forced to fund programs we find objectionable. Now, you may be so egotistically and so blind that you think everyone thinks like you, but that simply isn't true. What people find objectable varies between each person. If we applied your logic, then we basically wouldn't be funding a great many programs, including the military as pacifists find it objectionable.

I took your exact phrase, removed specific groups for generic terms and turned it against you. Not my fault you dislike your own argument.

 

[Fletch]

Sure you are cough cough. And how exactly did I not accurately represent your position? Your argument is we should not be forced to fund programs we find objectionable. Now, you may be so egotistically and so blind that you think everyone thinks like you, but that simply isn't true. What people find objectable varies between each person. If we applied your logic, then we basically wouldn't be funding a great many programs, including the military as pacifists find it objectionable.

I took your exact phrase, removed specific groups for generic terms and turned it against you. Not my fault you dislike your own argument.

No, the thrust of my argument was that planned parenthood could easily raise that $75 million from private donations if leftists would actually put their own money where their corrupt mouths are. Planned parenthood happens to be a morally objectionable institution--though not to me--which only adds insult to injury. I was not making an argument that we should only pay intaxes for those things we like, which is how you misinterpreted my position.

 

[mpg]

Without entitlement reform no cost cutting or tax increases matter. But this effectively proves that the GOP has moved far to the right and the Democrats have moved more to the right. The GOP refuses tax hikes period and significant cuts to the military. All but Paul wanted to dramatically increase our already massive defense budget. The Democrats however, have been willing to make cuts to entitlements. Not the necessary big ones, but they DID move. When one party is willing to move from its previous position but the other says no to $10 in cuts for $1 in tax hikes, it's pretty damn clear where the problem is.



So you're for automatic stripping of 501(c)(3)s that do political activity? After all, we are essentially funding them via tax exemptions. Furthermore, the GOP has been pushing to defund stuff like this on the grounds of deficit and debt control. And the notion it's moral is crap. If we actually applied that, no one should fund anything they find objectionable.

There's almost no difference between the Democrats and Republicans nowadays. The Democrats have caved to the Republicans on social issues and the Republicans have caved to the Democrats on fiscal issues. The budget battles that they have are just for show. They fight over a tiny portion of the budget. Their two positions are almost identical. Each side is trying to get the other to blink, in the hopes of gaining a PR victory. We're left with a government that leans to the left on fiscal issues and to the right on social issues. Those of us who lean the other way on both issues (libertarians), feel that the country is going in the wrong direction.

 

[JayDubya]

Anyone who claims cutting programs like these to save money is either dishonest or cannot do math.

Obvious logical fallacy is obvious. Cutting PP funding does save money. You're saying it doesn't save money because a) you could save money elsewhere or b) you don't save ENOUGH money.


Hell, cut both.

 

[Thrilla]

we oughta get PP to fight our wars ... they are more efficient ( dollar for dollar) at killing than our military is.

 

[bonfire]

we oughta get PP to fight our wars ... they are more efficient ( dollar for dollar) at killing than our military is.

haha, they're gonna abort enemy combatants :lol:

 

[obvious Child]

No, the thrust of my argument was that planned parenthood could easily raise that $75 million from private donations if leftists would actually put their own money where their corrupt mouths are.

Oh really? So how was me replacing planned parenthood for anything generic using your own argument not representing your own argument?

Planned parenthood happens to be a morally objectionable institution--though not to me--which only adds insult to injury. I was not making an argument that we should only pay intaxes for those things we like, which is how you misinterpreted my position.

So I misrepresented your position by generic-ification of your own position? you do realize your argument is if it's moral objectionable, we shouldn't force people to fund it no? I stripped out the specific group in question to boil down the logic to its core. Again, how did I misrepresent anything by discussing the base logic of your argument?

 

[obvious Child]

There's almost no difference between the Democrats and Republicans nowadays.

I don't know about that. There's a monster difference between moderates and the loonies at the fringe. Brown and Lugar are dramatically different from the Tea Party. And that's just within one party.

The Democrats have caved to the Republicans on social issues and the Republicans have caved to the Democrats on fiscal issues.

How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like the Democrats on state issues are losing because they simply lack representation. The Republicans don't give a **** about fiscal issues. If Ryan actually wanted to cut the deficit, he'd enact his domestic cuts, dramatically slash the military and let the Bush tax cuts expire. By his own damn math Ryan increases the deficit. Republicans never gave a **** about fiscal issues since they systematically and surgically removed the actual fiscal conservatives from the party during the Bush years.

The budget battles that they have are just for show. They fight over a tiny portion of the budget. Their two positions are almost identical. Each side is trying to get the other to blink, in the hopes of gaining a PR victory. We're left with a government that leans to the left on fiscal issues and to the right on social issues. Those of us who lean the other way on both issues (libertarians), feel that the country is going in the wrong direction.

Perhaps in the past, but the GOP actually is moving to seriously cuts to entitlements. It's just that they go ahead and waste the money on tax cuts rather then cutting the deficit and debt down.

 

[Fletch]

Oh really? So how was me replacing planned parenthood for anything generic using your own argument not representing your own argument?



So I misrepresented your position by generic-ification of your own position? you do realize your argument is if it's moral objectionable, we shouldn't force people to fund it no? I stripped out the specific group in question to boil down the logic to its core. Again, how did I misrepresent anything by discussing the base logic of your argument?

No. My general argument is that the government should do nothing outside of those things necessary to secure my rights. In this particular case, my argument was that the private sector could fund PP without taxpayer dollars. Which at $75 million is obviously true. And that would apply to any number of other institutions that receive grants from the state. Planned Parenthood stands out simply because many people find it morally objectionable. If leftists want it, they can fund it themselves rather than confiscate wealth from others. But if leftists didnt steal, they wouldnt be leftists.

 

[obvious Child]

No. My general argument is that the government should do nothing outside of those things necessary to secure my rights.

Nowhere did you say anything of that sort.

Now you're just making **** up.

In this particular case, my argument was that the private sector could fund PP without taxpayer dollars. Which at $75 million is obviously true. And that would apply to any number of other institutions that receive grants from the state. Planned Parenthood stands out simply because many people find it morally objectionable. If leftists want it, they can fund it themselves rather than confiscate wealth from others. But if leftists didnt steal, they wouldnt be leftists.

Nothing you said addresses my point. By genericifying your argument, we reveal its base logic which is if someone finds anything morally objectionable, they shouldn't have to fund it. I'm addressing the logic you gave. All you are doing is throwing out partisan vomit.

 

[obvious Child]

Obvious logical fallacy is obvious. Cutting PP funding does save money. You're saying it doesn't save money because a) you could save money elsewhere or b) you don't save ENOUGH money.


Hell, cut both.

Not a chance. First of all, PP offers preventive services which will save money down the road as the diseases the treatment prevent do not occur resulting in less taxpayer dollars going towards treatment. Therefore, cutting PP actually results in a larger expense. Second, PP was cut under the fake guise of savings money. Except that if we cut the entire non-defense discretionary budget, we'd still have a deficit. The GOP plan that we can actually get back to black with cuts only to non-defense discretionary spending is a outright lie. The GOP saying they actually care about deficit reduction is complete **** when they hack at items that won't have any real affect and leave the large items alone.

 

[JayDubya]

Not a chance. First of all, PP offers preventive services which will save money down the road as the diseases the treatment prevent do not occur resulting in less taxpayer dollars going towards treatment. Therefore, cutting PP actually results in a larger expense. Second, PP was cut under the fake guise of savings money. Except that if we cut the entire non-defense discretionary budget, we'd still have a deficit. The GOP plan that we can actually get back to black with cuts only to non-defense discretionary spending is a outright lie. The GOP saying they actually care about deficit reduction is complete **** when they hack at items that won't have any real affect and leave the large items alone.

a) I believe I said "cut both," and I said that because I believe it.

b) If the concern with cutting funds from PP is that it might lead to other healthcare expenditures, then let's assuage that right now. We're $15.6 T in debt. Don't pay the other expenditures either.

 

[Ikari]

According to your article, it looks as if Planned parenthood receives $75 million in federal aid not $317 million. $75 million could easily be reached through voluntary contributions if limosine liberals would put their own money where their mouths are and not compel taxpayers to fund something they see as morally objectionable.

Only if we fund our aggressive, interventionist wars in the same manner. All those rich republicans who want to go to war can put up the 300 mil/day.

 

[Fletch]

Nowhere did you say anything of that sort.

Now you're just making **** up.

No, since you and I have never really discussed anything before, I am giving some personal background into my general beliefs. I thought it might help, but you dont seem interested in anything other than the sound of your own voice.

Nothing you said addresses my point. By genericifying your argument, we reveal its base logic which is if someone finds anything morally objectionable, they shouldn't have to fund it. I'm addressing the logic you gave. All you are doing is throwing out partisan vomit.

All it reveals is your inability to grasp a simple and obvious point in spite of me spelling it out for you three times.

 

[obvious Child]

No, since you and I have never really discussed anything before, I am giving some personal background into my general beliefs. I thought it might help, but you dont seem interested in anything other than the sound of your own voice.

Then you should have argued "I believe, although I did not say it."

Not lie about what you posted in this thread. Saying that the argument you posted said that when it clearly does not equates to a lie even if you do believe the general idea behind it. If you cannot say what you mean, how can you mean what you say?

All it reveals is your inability to grasp a simple and obvious point in spite of me spelling it out for you three times.

This coming from a man with very little history on the website who expects me to instantly know what he actually believes especially when what he posted does not support such a position.

My inability to read your mind is hardly something you can fault me for.

 

[Fletch]

Then you should have argued "I believe, although I did not say it."

Not lie about what you posted in this thread. Saying that the argument you posted said that when it clearly does not equates to a lie even if you do believe the general idea behind it. If you cannot say what you mean, how can you mean what you say?

You are either dense or just being a dick. Nowhere did I lie about anything. I was attempting to give some background on my general beliefs in order to aid the discussion. But you are clearly not interested in that sort of thing.

This coming from a man with very little history on the website who expects me to instantly know what he actually believes especially when what he posted does not support such a position.

My inability to read your mind is hardly something you can fault me for.

I didnt expect you to know anything instantly. Because I havent been on this site long and because I hadnt spoken with you before, I was attempting to give some background. I can see I was wasting my time.

 

[Goshin]

1234567890