Will Republicans shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood?

[Si modo]

I have been in the accounting field for decades. Any entry level bookkeeper can tell you that is how things work especially one who has worked for a non-profit entity such as I have.

And as someone who has been in the accounting field for decades, you would know that what your saying makes absolutely no sense. PP is willing to risk all of their money from the government in order to use what? 2% of it towards Abortions? Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services, they're going to risk it all by doing such a bone-headed thing.

Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? Honestly? For someone who made a remark about emotional pleas earlier, you're resorting to not accounting but emotional arguments here.

Read his entire post, moron. It might make sense to you. Then again, it might not.

Troll.

 

[Modbert]

thup: Great plan when unemployment is 9%.

Except I could apply the same exact rhetoric that I hear on this board day in and day out to your response. "We're broke! We can't afford it! Time for these groups to stop living off the government dime, etc!"

 

[Si modo]

thup: Great plan when unemployment is 9%.

Except I could apply the same exact rhetoric that I hear on this board day in and day out to your response. "We're broke! We can't afford it! Time for these groups to stop living off the government dime, etc!"

Well, you could, but you wouldn't make any sense.

I say go for it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Planned Parenthood should be privately funded. There is no reason for them to be Tax-Funded. They are notoriously Left-leaning and Pro-Abortion. American Taxpayers should not be forced to fund their agenda. Let Planned Parenthood hit George Soros up for their funding. The Taxpayers want nothing more to do with them. Time to move on.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Chris you're just a fucking dishonest, partisan hack clown. That's really all there is to say. Hardly even worth laughing at, anymore.

 

[Trajan]

I have been in the accounting field for decades. Any entry level bookkeeper can tell you that is how things work especially one who has worked for a non-profit entity such as I have.

And as someone who has been in the accounting field for decades, you would know that what your saying makes absolutely no sense. PP is willing to risk all of their money from the government in order to use what? 2% of it towards Abortions? Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services, they're going to risk it all by doing such a bone-headed thing.

Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? Honestly? For someone who made a remark about emotional pleas earlier, you're resorting to not accounting but emotional arguments here.

if I read you right, what you are saying makes no sense Modbert, they had the money approved, they knew they were getting it, when you look at your in's, and know how big the balloon is, they can re-allocated or reapportion. they made also over 20 million dollars last year...so...what you're saying can only be proven if they had not done so.

 

[Modbert]

Read his entire post, moron. It might make sense to you. Then again, it might not.

Troll.

I did read the entire post. However, what Immie thinks is a problem is not against the law if PP allocates private funds to whatever they please as long as it is legal.

 

[Immanuel]

Let PP get its own funding like the rest of the business world has to do. After all, abortion is a business. You simply want us to keep funding abortion with some kind of an emotional plea that if we don't fund abortions there will be more abortions.

What kind of left wing garbage is that?

Immie

PP doesn't fund abortions with government money. But moving on from that point. Your analogy would make sense if Planned Parenthood was a for-profit business that was out to make as much money as possible for their owners.

Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 2007–08 Annual Report, clinic income totalled $374.7 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $68.9 million.[33] Approximately two-thirds of the revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest.

You are wrong, it has already been proven that Medicaid pays for some abortions, but despite that, you are still wrong. Every dime they get from the federal government is, of course, a dime they can allocate to their sacred cow.

Immie

 

[Si modo]

Read his entire post, moron. It might make sense to you. Then again, it might not.

Troll.

I did read the entire post. However, what Immie thinks is a problem is not against the law if PP allocates private funds to whatever they please as long as it is legal.

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

 

[Modbert]

if I read you right, what you are saying makes no sense Modbert, they had the money approved, they knew they were getting it, when you look at your in's, and know how big the balloon is, they can re-allocated or reapportion. they made also over 20 million dollars last year...so...what you're saying can only be proven if they had not done so.

Can you rephrase that? I'm not understanding what your point was in this post.

 

[WillowTree]

The real onus for this is of course on the demonRats. they didn't do a budget AT ALL, they should have but they didn't and purely for political reasons they chose not to do a budget and now it's come back to bite them in their hairy little ratty asses..

Didn't do a budget? Of course they did. But Republicans and Democrats can't agree to the smallest items in said budget, so the process gets drawn out long beyond the deadline. Note the process for passing an annual budget. Every single one of these committee hearings wound up in vote along party lines, period, and the Senate did not have the majority needed to pass the budget.

Appropriations/Budget – The WashingtonWatch.com Blog

The nice thing is that there is a bipartisan failure shaping up. The Republican House will almost certainly not produce a budget on time. The Democratic Senate will almost certainly not produce its budget on time. Thus, Americans of all perspectives can unite in criticism of our Congress.

Just as there was a bipartisan failure for the 2011 budget.

I am sorry that bi-partisan failure doesn't hold water, other than nancys 'deem and pass', of a trillion dollar budget res. in the HOUSE, please link me to the senate budget vote for fiscal year 2011, because according to say one of a hundred links I can provide;

Dems won’t pass budget in 2010
By Jared Allen - 06/22/10 12:01 AM ET

House Democrats will not pass a budget blueprint in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will confirm in a speech on Tuesday.

But Hoyer will vow to crack down on government spending, saying Democrats will enforce spending limits that are lower than what President Barack Obama has called for.

snip-
The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974. Hoyer this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006.

Dems won

I didn't bother responding to her nonsense, cause if the dems had passed a budget we wouldn't be in this battle right now would we? I don't demonRats have a capacity to reason. fact is the demonRats didn't pass a budget and they didn't pass it for political reasons and now they chikkens have come home to roost..

 

[Modbert]

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

And I never said Immie said it was against the law. I even used the words what Immie saw as a problem. I was merely pointing out that it's not against the law. But feel free to try and put words in my mouth instead of giving a honest response.

Still haven't responded to one of the posts I made earlier Si Modo. If this was about the budget, why did the GOP immediately reject the $10 billion defense cuts offered by Senate Democrats?

 

[Immanuel]

I have been in the accounting field for decades. Any entry level bookkeeper can tell you that is how things work especially one who has worked for a non-profit entity such as I have.

And as someone who has been in the accounting field for decades, you would know that what your saying makes absolutely no sense. PP is willing to risk all of their money from the government in order to use what? 2% of it towards Abortions? Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services, they're going to risk it all by doing such a bone-headed thing.

Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? Honestly? For someone who made a remark about emotional pleas earlier, you're resorting to not accounting but emotional arguments here.

Hmm, did you not sleep last night at all? Are you tired or stoned?

Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services

Because that is exactly what I said they do.

Immie

 

[xsited1]

I have been in the accounting field for decades. Any entry level bookkeeper can tell you that is how things work especially one who has worked for a non-profit entity such as I have.

And as someone who has been in the accounting field for decades, you would know that what your saying makes absolutely no sense. PP is willing to risk all of their money from the government in order to use what? 2% of it towards Abortions? Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services, they're going to risk it all by doing such a bone-headed thing.

Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? Honestly? For someone who made a remark about emotional pleas earlier, you're resorting to not accounting but emotional arguments here.

Hmm, did you not sleep last night at all? Are you tired or stoned?

Instead of trying allocating 2% of that money from their donors and then using the 2% from the government towards other services

Because that is exactly what I said they do.

Immie

It's like watching a train wreck!

 

[Immanuel]

Read his entire post, moron. It might make sense to you. Then again, it might not.

Troll.

I did read the entire post. However, what Immie thinks is a problem is not against the law if PP allocates private funds to whatever they please as long as it is legal.

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

I didn't say it was against the law. In fact, I stated that the state governments did it for lottery funds... um, maybe that is not proof that it is not against the law?

Immie

 

[theHawk]

History repeats itself.

Shutting down the government so they can play to their base and shut down Planned Parenthood.

Is there no evil the Republican Party won't support?

Planned Parenthood is part of the US government?

Oh My God, the audacity of the Republicans not wanting to fund with tax dollars a private organization that makes profit!

 

[Vel]

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

And I never said Immie said it was against the law. I even used the words what Immie saw as a problem. I was merely pointing out that it's not against the law. But feel free to try and put words in my mouth instead of giving a honest response.

Still haven't responded to one of the posts I made earlier Si Modo. If this was about the budget, why did the GOP immediately reject the $10 billion defense cuts offered by Senate Democrats?

You do realize don't you that Obama took us into our third active war a couple of weeks ago, right? Just checking. And now the thread continue the PP topic.

 

[Modbert]

You are wrong, it has already been proven that Medicaid pays for some abortions, but despite that, you are still wrong. Every dime they get from the federal government is, of course, a dime they can allocate to their sacred cow.

Immie

How many abortions do you think PP performs? And how much of their budget do you think they spend on abortions? Do you have the numbers?

 

[Si modo]

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

And I never said Immie said it was against the law.

....

Or is dishonesty still your best pal? I have to think it's inherent in you, as your dishonesty hasn't changed a bit.

Read his entire post, moron. It might make sense to you. Then again, it might not.

Troll.

I did read the entire post. However, what Immie thinks is a problem is not against the law if PP allocates private funds to whatever they please as long as it is legal.

I don't recall his saying it was against the law. Good to see that your best pal is the strawman, still.

....
Still haven't responded to one of the posts I made earlier Si Modo. If this was about the budget, why did the GOP immediately reject the $10 billion defense cuts offered by Senate Democrats?

Ummm, yeah, I did. Liar.

 

[boedicca]

The Lefties WISH it were like 1994. But there are some major differences

- Obama is No Bill Clinton; he is utterly tone deaf to the concerns of the working and middle classes (have you seen the price of ARUGULA lately?)

- The internet today is a major source of information, and has broken the MSM oligopoly on controlling the story. The Dem spin is quickly outed as phoney b'loney.

- The economy is still moribund from the worst recovery ever. High gas prices and accelerating food inflation are a constant reminder to people that they are Worse Off; and under/unemployment in the 20%+ range is another reminder that Obamonics is an Epic Fail.