Thread: Daily cost of Afghanistan verse yearly cost of Planned Parenthood

Originally Posted by obvious Child

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.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

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.

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

Originally Posted by Thrilla

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

Originally Posted by Fletch

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?

Originally Posted by mpg

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.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

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.

Originally Posted by Fletch

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.

Originally Posted by JayDubya

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.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

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.