Democrats are moving the goal posts, shifting from Russia to Racism

[TwitchySeal]

Now  back to reality, Planned Parenthood also receives $50 to $60 million dollars a year under Title X grants, which is far different than Medicaid reimbursements. Speaking of Medicaid reimbursements, The Hyde Amendment only restricts federal funds for being directly used for abortions. States are still using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Medicaid. Furthermore, the federal funds, tho restricted from being used directly for abortions also frees up money that is indirectly used for abortions or to advocate for abortion for example in the form of payroll, facilities, lobbying, and campaign contributions.

Yeah.  I basically already said all this.  Although I think they get closer to $100 mil for title X.  

Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country.

That's a fair argument.  This would result in a lot less money going towards campaign donations and reduce taxes overall.  But it would also increase government spending and lower the quality/value of things they spend their money on since their market would be reduced.

For example, the NRA would probably just turn down offers to train law enforcement so they could continue to spend money on campaigns and lobbying.  So the government would have to find someone else that, I assume, wouldn't provide the same quality  and/or price.

It would also be very complicated and difficult to enforce.  If a small business owner wants to make a campaign donation, whose responsibility would it be to make sure that no government employee claims any of their sales on an expense report?

Regarding PopoJeff, why is this a ridiculous argument? A refutation without substantiation is a very low form of debate. People object to taxpayer funds being used to subsidize people's bad life choices, and rightfully so. How is this argument flawed?

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

Taking away access to birth control for women on medicaid would result in more unwanted pregnancies.  Even if you teach them "Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt."  This has been proven over history.

Unwanted pregnancies make it exponentially harder to get out of poverty and a child born into poverty is much more likely to live their life in poverty, contribute less to society, pay less taxes, commit more crimes, etc.  It's a vicious cycle.

[1714681906]

1714681906

[1714681906]

1714681906

[1714681906]

1714681906

[1714681906]

1714681906

[PopoJeff]

Now  back to reality, Planned Parenthood also receives $50 to $60 million dollars a year under Title X grants, which is far different than Medicaid reimbursements. Speaking of Medicaid reimbursements, The Hyde Amendment only restricts federal funds for being directly used for abortions. States are still using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Medicaid. Furthermore, the federal funds, tho restricted from being used directly for abortions also frees up money that is indirectly used for abortions or to advocate for abortion for example in the form of payroll, facilities, lobbying, and campaign contributions.

Yeah.  I basically already said all this.  Although I think they get closer to $100 mil for title X.  

Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country.

That's a fair argument.  This would result in a lot less money going towards campaign donations and reduce taxes overall.  But it would also increase government spending and lower the quality/value of things they spend their money on since their market would be reduced.

For example, the NRA would probably just turn down offers to train law enforcement so they could continue to spend money on campaigns and lobbying.  So the government would have to find someone else that, I assume, wouldn't provide the same quality  and/or price.

It would also be very complicated and difficult to enforce.  If a small business owner wants to make a campaign donation, whose responsibility would it be to make sure that no government employee claims any of their sales on an expense report?

Regarding PopoJeff, why is this a ridiculous argument? A refutation without substantiation is a very low form of debate. People object to taxpayer funds being used to subsidize people's bad life choices, and rightfully so. How is this argument flawed?

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

Taking away access to birth control for women on medicaid would result in more unwanted pregnancies.  Even if you teach them "Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt."  This has been proven over history.

Unwanted pregnancies make it exponentially harder to get out of poverty and a child born into poverty is much more likely to live their life in poverty, contribute less to society, pay less taxes, commit more crimes, etc.  It's a vicious cycle.

I really did not want to continue going down this road, and wanted to get back in track with the original topic..... but some things in your post I just cant ignore.

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control".   I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods.  Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc...   but those are free methods, as is abstinence.   The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all.

Most of the left's argument skirt the big picture by using buzz words like you use on specific issues. 
The Left loves to make everyone a victim.... unless we can tax the ever living hell out of the workers. 
    Those who actually pay taxes and contribute to society are sick and tired of seeing their hard earned dollars go to waste, being abused and squandered by those who manipulate the system, rely on hand-outs, or are just unmotivated to work.   
   These are the people who vote for Trump. Employment is at an all time high, for every racial section of US society. This is the mindset of "teach a man to fish".    I have no problem helping someone out. I love to teach people how to correct their issues and their lives. But no one likes being used for their money.

[TwitchySeal]

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

Here's a few. I'm sure there are lots more.

https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/23767473
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520472
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520780

Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control".   I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods.  Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc...   but those are free methods, as is abstinence.   The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all.

If we don't allow doctors to write prescriptions for birth control to people on Medicaid, their access to birth control will be restricted.  They're on medicaid because they make less than $17k a year and don't have health insurance.  You really think they will pay a couple hundred bucks a month (or every 3 months) to visit a doctor without insurance and then go pay full price at the pharmacy?

This is all besides the fact that birth control is prescribed for lots of reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

[PopoJeff]

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

Here's a few. I'm sure there are lots more.

https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/23767473
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520472
https://www.usaspending.gov/#/award/9520780

Next one that piques my interest every time I hear it...."restricting access to birth control".   I beg your pardon kind sir. Access is not restricted at all. Access is still available. The "access' would just not be funded by those who work for a living and actually contribute to society. They can still buy pills, condoms, and learn alternate methods.  Of course I was being a raunchy smart ass when I said pull-out, swallow ,etc...   but those are free methods, as is abstinence.   The local church does not charge a fee to teach abstinence. Poverty has nothing to do with this at all.

If we don't allow doctors to write prescriptions for birth control to people on Medicaid, their access to birth control will be restricted.  They're on medicaid because they make less than $17k a year and don't have health insurance.  You really think they will pay a couple hundred bucks a month (or every 3 months) to visit a doctor without insurance and then go pay full price at the pharmacy?

This is all besides the fact that birth control is prescribed for lots of reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.
  
And your birth control argument fails to note that its not just Medicaid covered prescription.... other "programs" within offer "free" or discounted, and I'm sure they know how to work the system.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pills

Would you feel the same if Medicaid or "other govt programs" offered free or discounted cigarettes to low income folks? How is that any different?  It's a conduct that one could voluntarily just not engage in.

[TwitchySeal]

Talk about moving the goal post.

I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said:

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said:

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond:

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.

I mean wtf?

[PopoJeff]

Talk about moving the goal post.

I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said:

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said:

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond:

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.

I mean wtf?

Wtf?  The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference.

 Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms.  

Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity.  The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap.

You have saved taxpayer money by not paying higher costs for less quality training offers by other for-profit companies

But thats probably over your head

Can we get back to free cigarettes?  I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions.  Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too.

[TwitchySeal]

Talk about moving the goal post.

I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said:

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said:

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond:

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.

I mean wtf?

Wtf?  The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference.

 Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms.  

Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity.  The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap.


But thats probably over your head

Can we get back to free cigarettes?  I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions.  Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too.

I never said the NRA and PP are the same. I agree with you. They are different.  PP obviously depends on federal money and the NRA obviously doesn't.

I only posted those links because you said the NRA doesn't use taxpayer money.  They do.  Under TECSHAREs idea (any entity that receives even $1), this would prevent the NRA from donating to or lobbying politicians. (a long with a lot of other individuals, businesses and associations)

I didn't say TECSHAREs idea was a bad one either, I don't think it necessarily is, it's an idea I haven't considered before.  I just listed some pros and cons I thought of.  Just trying to have a discussion.

[PopoJeff]

Talk about moving the goal post.

I never said the NRA and PP were the same. I only brought up the NRA in response to TECSHARE who said:

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

So I pointed out a bunch of examples of entities receiving federal funding, including the NRA and you said:

First. Please tell me where You're going with this 'NRA training law enforcement' thing.   I cant wait for this one.   I am law enforcement, range instructor, and armorer.  Just waiting to see how the NRA, who doesnt use tax payer money is equated to PP.

So I gave you proof that the NRA does receive tax payer money and you respond:

Apples to oranges buddy. But good try with the google.  Any govt money going to the NRA is for firearms courses and trading, of which they are the expert. And its a drop in the bucket. Less than 5% of their income iirc.  That money doesnt just "fund the nra". It pays for the rentals of the gun ranges, cost of supplies and targets, and pays the instructors.  Range fees and instructor pay is the majority of that money. And the instructors are cops or other LE agents. The NRA facilitates the law enforcement people training themselves, not just free handouts to anyone who shows up.

I mean wtf?

Wtf?  The wtf is you dont get it, and dont ever give it a second thought to try see see the difference.

 Probably shouldn't even bother wasting the keystrokes. But, I'll try to explain this in easy terms.  

Lets say you are the boss of a law enforce the agency. You have a budget. You have to spend money on training. The cheapest option for the firearms training is an NRA sponsored class. The instructors are FBI agents certified by the NRA, or other local offers certifies by the NRA. The NRA is the premier expert in the field, and offers the best price for a required activity.  The fee you pay "to the NRA", the NRA uses to pay range rental, pay the instructors, etc... the NRA doesn't pocket the money... it goes in a circle back to training officers that need training. NRA organizes the circle. The costs to train the LE agencies actually exceeds the fee they charge. They use voluntary donations to make up the difference and fill the gap.


But thats probably over your head

Can we get back to free cigarettes?  I want the taxpayer to cover my voluntary poor decisions.  Maybe pay my independent informed decision to attend college too.

I never said the NRA and PP are the same. I agree with you. They are different.

I only posted those links because you said the NRA doesn't use taxpayer money.  They do.  Under TECSHAREs idea, this would prevent the NRA from donating to or lobbying politicians. (a long with a lot of other individuals, businesses and associations)

I didn't say TECSHAREs idea was a bad one either, I don't think it necessarily is, it's an idea I haven't considered before.  I just listed some pros and cons I thought of.  Just trying to have a discussion.

I appreciated the level headed response.  Apologies if I got a little assy earlier

 I dont have a problem with every organization getting taxpayer money.  Heck, most people would be surprised where much of it goes. I handled govt (mostly USN) purchasing contracts after i got out of the Navy in the '90's.   Govt money goes everywhere. And I doubt we all give two shits about the political preferences or donations of a company that embroiders the flight suit patches for a fighter squadron.

I dont have a problem using tax dollars educating the public on health matters (PP family services).  But a large portion of tax payers feel quite used when handouts are given to folks who ignore that education, and voluntarily engage in risky activity.

The taxpayers feel absolutely used and taken advantage of by the portion of the population who abuse the services and enjoy being a burden on the system.
  (Reference an earlier post of mine about "Intervention" and "My 600lb Life"

[TECSHARE]

"Planned parenthood will spend $45 million in 2020 to help elect pro-abortion candidates"

https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/planned-parenthood-will-spend-45-million-in-2020-to-help-elect-pro-abortion-candidates/

Interesting how closely that number aligns with the amount received in their Title X grants...

[TwitchySeal]

"Planned parenthood will spend $45 million in 2020 to help elect pro-abortion candidates"

https://christianaction.org/top-stories-of-the-day/planned-parenthood-will-spend-45-million-in-2020-to-help-elect-pro-abortion-candidates/

Interesting how closely that number aligns with the amount received in their Title X grants...

Have you checked the numbers this article is claiming?  Something seems off, I'm not an expert in PACs, but I think they are separate from the actual company.  ("Planned Parenthood Votes" is a PAC)

[squatz1]

In the abortion argument happening up above ^. I do think there is an interesting thing to think about when it comes to the fungibility of money. Think of it like this.

If Planned Parenthood currently has 100 and has to spend $100 on abortions at their facilities then they take this $100 and put it towards that goal.

If the US government gives PP $50 as reimbursements for other things that PP does for the US government, as they are now legal in new states or medicare is now reimbursing or something along those lines. That means that planned parenthood can now do such:


$50 goes to funding Dem candidates

$100 goes to original abortions

This is what is called: fungiibility of money. Hopefully I explained that correctly.

[KingScorpio]

this is why democrats won't be able to defeat trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfz-44ivia4&t=46s

[Astargath]

this is why democrats won't be able to defeat trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfz-44ivia4&t=46s

The whole system is trash. Politicians should try to 'defeat' the other politicians with better policies, plans, etc. They should show why they are actually better for the country not stupid shitty 10-year old personal attacks. Hey, Trump is an idiot so vote for us, but what are we actually going to do when we get the power? Ehh, we will see.

[TwitchySeal]

this is why democrats won't be able to defeat trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfz-44ivia4&t=46s

Because they had a debate with 12 candidates?

The whole system is trash. Politicians should try to 'defeat' the other politicians with better policies, plans, etc. They should show why they are actually better for the country not stupid shitty 10-year old personal attacks. Hey, Trump is an idiot so vote for us, but what are we actually going to do when we get the power? Ehh, we will see.

I hear this a lot and sometimes I feel the same way.  But when you look at where we are and how fast we got here it's really quite impressive, and the system is really the main reason.

I feel like constant fighting among political parties is a far better alternative than just letting one side do whatever they want.  Right now things are pretty crazy, but I really think a lot of it is because technology is evolving much faster than politics,  I think we'll figure it out eventually though.

[KingScorpio]

this is why democrats won't be able to defeat trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfz-44ivia4&t=46s

The whole system is trash. Politicians should try to 'defeat' the other politicians with better policies, plans, etc. They should show why they are actually better for the country not stupid shitty 10-year old personal attacks. Hey, Trump is an idiot so vote for us, but what are we actually going to do when we get the power? Ehh, we will see.

biggest joke of all

-> trump is a racist.

[Mometaskers]

They're now going back to what lost them the presidential race, they're back to calling Trump a racist and a xenophobe and whatever other buzzword here. They've failed to note that their last plan didn't work, and that they're alienating a vital part of the electorate with those statements.

Labeling Trump supporters as racist like him is a sure way for those people to not vote for them.  It's like the Democrats are doing Trumps work for him.

You know they are just manufacturing this racism scare when there are Latinos voting for Trump because they too feel the effects of unchecked immigration (more competition for the low-income jobs). Heck, even Mexico is trying to keep these people out of their country!