Tax the church

[stevegrab]

SEC

 

I don't think PP's PAC is doing anything wrong, and neither are the churches. Each group is just advocating for their views. Giant corporations are doing it, so why can't the non-profits get involved.

 

If your belief is that they are using money they get from the federal government to do this, I would think that is not allowed/possible.

 

Either way its hardly surprising for the PP group to do this given Romney (and most Rs) views on abortion.

[Yukon Cornelius]

the 12 billion tea tard pacs have raised will not be used for charity work i can tell you that! they are 501 c's also.

[SEC=UGA]

SEC

 

I don't think PP's PAC is doing anything wrong, and neither are the churches. Each group is just advocating for their views. Giant corporations are doing it, so why can't the non-profits get involved.

 

If your belief is that they are using money they get from the federal government to do this, I would think that is not allowed/possible.

 

Either way its hardly surprising for the PP group to do this given Romney (and most Rs) views on abortion.

 

 

Yes, my view is that they are using money from the federal govt. to do this and it is entirely possible.

 

For instance:

 

I take private donations AND federal funds. My budget for operations each year is $1,000. From the fedetal government I receive $300, from private donors I receive $900. That means I have $1,200. Since my operations cost $1,000 I can now funnel that other $200 over to my PAC and have them run attack adds against the group that is trying to cut my federal funding.

[SEC=UGA]

the 12 billion tea tard pacs have raised will not be used for charity work i can tell you that! they are 501 c's also.

 

 

Did they receive funding directly from the fed gov?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Did they receive funding directly from the fed gov?

 

i know you is a furener but they cant use fed funding for anything like that. if you don't think the god talkers are combing PP books every year than you need to go back to Persia or wherever you are from.

[SEC=UGA]

i know you is a furener but they cant use fed funding for anything like that. if you don't think the god talkers are combing PP books every year than you need to go back to Persia or wherever you are from.

 

 

They can not use fed funding for that. But, they can use the fed funding to subsidize other activities and thereby allocate the "excess" private dollars to the PAC. If you cut the fed funding, then all of the private funding would have to be used for "services" decreasing the amount of dollars available to stump for political candidates.

[Yukon Cornelius]

They can not use fed funding for that. But, they can use the fed funding to subsidize other activities and thereby allocate the "excess" private dollars to the PAC. If you cut the fed funding, then all of the private funding would have to be used for "services" decreasing the amount of dollars available to stump for political candidates.

 

or you could just tell on non profits they can not be involved in the political shenanigans of the u.s.a.

[detlef]

SEC, first off, and like I said before, I have no problem with not allowing tax breaks for money used in the political arena. I think that people should do that with money that they pay taxes on, so that those who don't approve of the financial escalation of politics aren't drawn into it.

 

So, I actually would be in favor making it so that Planned Parenthood, specifically was not able to run politcal ads. Provided, of course, that we ditched the tax free status for all the rest.

 

However, I don't buy the line of reasoning where, because they get fed money for somethings means they're effectively spending fed money on everything they do. It's the same argument made for why, because they do abortions, they shouldn't get any money at all, even if they can show that they do enough non-abortion stuff that all the fed money is used for that.

[SEC=UGA]

SEC, first off, and like I said before, I have no problem with not allowing tax breaks for money used in the political arena. I think that people should do that with money that they pay taxes on, so that those who don't approve of the financial escalation of politics aren't drawn into it.

 

So, I actually would be in favor making it so that Planned Parenthood, specifically was not able to run politcal ads. Provided, of course, that we ditched the tax free status for all the rest.

 

However, I don't buy the line of reasoning where, because they get fed money for somethings means they're effectively spending fed money on everything they do. It's the same argument made for why, because they do abortions, they shouldn't get any money at all, even if they can show that they do enough non-abortion stuff that all the fed money is used for that.

 

This is how planned parenthood funding breaks out:

$1.05 Billion of Total revenue.

Clininc revenue - $320 million

Federal Grants - $487 million

Private Contributions - $224 million

Other - $17 million

 

Can you honestly tell me that federal funding to this group does not enable their PAC's activities?

 

Much the same as my issue with the church not paying any taxes into the coomunity through property taxes is my issue with Planned Parenthood receiving, not only tax breaks, but direct funding from the federal government. You are taking a persons tax dollars to fund a private non-profit organization (46% of their operations, mind you) with whom many disagree with. Further, this group supports, in most cases, a single political party that represents roughly 46% of the US population while not supporting the other political party.

 

You have an even larger conflict of interest with PP than you do even with churches. PP pays no income tax, PP receives +/- 46% of their funding from the federal government. PP uses funds to promote primarily one political party. IF they were without federal funding, but were still allowed the tax exempt status, fine, they would be on the same playing field as churches, other non-profits and other PACs. However, they receive a very genrous portion of their revenue from federal tax dollars and should be prohibited from using ANY of their funds for a PAC or promoting any politician.

 

Let's take a look at PP's political dontaions to candidates:

2012

Republicans - $274

Democrats - +/- $138,000

 

2010

Republicans - $2,000

Democrats - +/- 263,000

 

2008

Republicans - $13,000

Democrats - +/- $351,000

 

Essentially, through their funding operations of candidates they are redistributing federal income tax dollars directly to a single political party, it may as well be the Democrats' own private slush fund.

 

ETA: Here is a link to the contributions

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008

Edited May 30, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[Clubfoothead]

What a waste of $15,274.00

[detlef]

This is how planned parenthood funding breaks out:

$1.05 Billion of Total revenue.

Clininc revenue - $320 million

Federal Grants - $487 million

Private Contributions - $224 million

Other - $17 million

 

Can you honestly tell me that federal funding to this group does not enable their PAC's activities?

 

Much the same as my issue with the church not paying any taxes into the coomunity through property taxes is my issue with Planned Parenthood receiving, not only tax breaks, but direct funding from the federal government. You are taking a persons tax dollars to fund a private non-profit organization (46% of their operations, mind you) with whom many disagree with. Further, this group supports, in most cases, a single political party that represents roughly 46% of the US population while not supporting the other political party.

 

You have an even larger conflict of interest with PP than you do even with churches. PP pays no income tax, PP receives +/- 46% of their funding from the federal government. PP uses funds to promote primarily one political party. IF they were without federal funding, but were still allowed the tax exempt status, fine, they would be on the same playing field as churches, other non-profits and other PACs. However, they receive a very genrous portion of their revenue from federal tax dollars and should be prohibited from using ANY of their funds for a PAC or promoting any politician.

 

Let's take a look at PP's political dontaions to candidates:

2012

Republicans - $274

Democrats - +/- $138,000

 

2010

Republicans - $2,000

Democrats - +/- 263,000

 

2008

Republicans - $13,000

Democrats - +/- $351,000

 

Essentially, through their funding operations of candidates they are redistributing federal income tax dollars directly to a single political party, it may as well be the Democrats' own private slush fund.

 

ETA: Here is a link to the contributions

 

http://www.opensecre...4617&cycle=2008

 

Like I said, I have no problem with not allowing non-profits and certainly those who get federal money to spend it on politics. Make those who believe that PP should exist, like me, donate money (that we've paid taxes on) to a non-affliated lobby that exists to go to battle on PP's behalf.

 

However, provided they're not spending all the non-Fed money on political ads (and btw, if they were spending even close to that, then they should burn in hell for spending such a massive chunk of their budget on lobbyists) then they're not spending Federal money on politcal ads. You just showed 1.4 million in ads and then showed that they have over a billion in revenues. Seems like they they can afford to easily fit that sort of endeavor into the amount of money they get from sales and donations.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure both democrats and republicans are allowed to go there for health services and, again, the vast majority of what they do is not abortions. Hell, plenty of what they do doesn't even involve birth control.

[Square]

Hell, plenty of what they do doesn't even involve birth control.

I heard a lot of it goes to the girl scouts.

[detlef]

I heard a lot of it goes to the girl scouts.

 

[SEC=UGA]

You just showed 1.4 million in ads and then showed that they have over a billion in revenues. Seems like they they can afford to easily fit that sort of endeavor into the amount of money they get from sales and donations.

 

 

66% (693 million) of their money goes to "Health Services"

16% (168 million) goe toward "sex education and public policy"

The balance goes to "management expenses, fundraising and International family planning"

 

544 million comes from services and donations, this is not enough to cover "health services". Essentially after providing services they are broke. Sounds like a group who could hardly afford political advocacy if they were not given federal money.

 

The problem, to me, is that though one can say (and this is clearly outlined in laws governing PP funding) that federal dollars can not go to funding their abortion activities, it is merely an accounting procedure that shows tha they are not using federal dollars to fund abortion activities. The same can be said for their political activities. Whether you agree or not, it is hard to ignore the fact that in abscence of federal funding, there would not be enough money for them to allocate monies to these political activities.

[detlef]

66% (693 million) of their money goes to "Health Services"

16% (168 million) goe toward "sex education and public policy"

The balance goes to "management expenses, fundraising and International family planning"

 

544 million comes from services and donations, this is not enough to cover "health services". Essentially after providing services they are broke. Sounds like a group who could hardly afford political advocacy if they were not given federal money.

 

The problem, to me, is that though one can say (and this is clearly outlined in laws governing PP funding) that federal dollars can not go to funding their abortion activities, it is merely an accounting procedure that shows tha they are not using federal dollars to fund abortion activities. The same can be said for their political activities. Whether you agree or not, it is hard to ignore the fact that in abscence of federal funding, there would not be enough money for them to allocate monies to these political activities.

 

Either that, or they'd simply be a smaller operation. You can't take an operation that has grown to the size that they have based on existing circumstances and the speculate what what would happen if you just instantly removed half their funding. Their expense structure is what it is because they are as big as they are. If, for instance, there was never any federal funding, then PP would either have eventually grown to this size on the back of charging more for services and people giving more, or it would have simply not gotten this big.

 

And, yes, it is merely an accounting procedure. Then again, it is also BS that people make them do this. There are people opposed to the war in Iraq and, thus, feel that people needlessly died for a cause they don't believe in but paid for. Yet that is funded basically 100% by tax dollars. So, if a group who serves a very important role in woman's health services and also happens to perform a procedure that some Americans don't approve of but can show that they're technically not using tax dollars to do so, then I'm 100% fine with it. Yes, it's an accounting procedure, but it's certainly as much as the a-holes who choose to hold the health of women hostage over a lightning rod political issue deserve.

 

Should we ask those who think the war in Iraq is a good idea to privately fund it while the rest of us (along with those who are funding the war in Iraq) merely pay the tax bill on preserving a military that will protect our shores? Or should we pretend for a second that this is America, where we all kick into the tax pool and some of the money goes to things you dig and some of it goes to things you don't.

 

ETA: back to your numbers. Why can't public funds go to "management"? (Which I assume includes facilities management) Public dollars aren't allowed to be used to keep the lights on? Pay adminstrators salaries? Things that keep the place open? Are we going to hold each and every group that recieves public dollars to that standard? Or just the ones that also happen to do something that some in this country don't approve of.

Edited May 31, 2012 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

Either that, or they'd simply be a smaller operation. You can't take an operation that has grown to the size that they have based on existing circumstances and the speculate what what would happen if you just instantly removed half their funding. Their expense structure is what it is because they are as big as they are. If, for instance, there was never any federal funding, then PP would either have eventually grown to this size on the back of charging more for services and people giving more, or it would have simply not gotten this big.

 

And, yes, it is merely an accounting procedure. Then again, it is also BS that people make them do this. There are people opposed to the war in Iraq and, thus, feel that people needlessly died for a cause they don't believe in but paid for. Yet that is funded basically 100% by tax dollars. So, if a group who serves a very important role in woman's health services and also happens to perform a procedure that some Americans don't approve of but can show that they're technically not using tax dollars to do so, then I'm 100% fine with it. Yes, it's an accounting procedure, but it's certainly as much as the a-holes who choose to hold the health of women hostage over a lightning rod political issue deserve.

 

Should we ask those who think the war in Iraq is a good idea to privately fund it while the rest of us (along with those who are funding the war in Iraq) merely pay the tax bill on preserving a military that will protect our shores? Or should we pretend for a second that this is America, where we all kick into the tax pool and some of the money goes to things you dig and some of it goes to things you don't.

 

ETA: back to your numbers. Why can't public funds go to "management"? (Which I assume includes facilities management) Public dollars aren't allowed to be used to keep the lights on? Pay adminstrators salaries? Things that keep the place open? Are we going to hold each and every group that recieves public dollars to that standard? Or just the ones that also happen to do something that some in this country don't approve of.

 

 

You are asking that the church be taxed on account of their political activities. For the most part, churches receive no direct federal funding, much less 46% of their revenue from direct federal funding. PP on the other hand, a PRIVATE, non profit, who has, over the past few decades, had more rvenue than expenses, is receiving direct federal funding and spending some of these monies on political activities.

 

I am merely pointing out that you get upset with regard to the church spending money on political activities and call for their tax breaks to be suspended. I'm simply voicing that, well, if the church should have their tax breaks suspended for political activities, then PP should have their federal funding withdraw for participating in blatantly one sided political activity.

 

With regard to the war... Seriously, the Armed Forces are not private companies, they are government agencies.

 

Just so you don't feel that I have some agenda against the services PP provides, I am certain one can dig up a number of cases to where I have pointed out that I am pro-abortion, I have no issue with abortions (until it gets to a point where one seemingly uses this service as a continuous form of birth control.)

 

Again, my only standing issue is that federal funds are being provided to PRIVATE enterprise that actively advocates for a single political party.

[detlef]

You are asking that the church be taxed on account of their political activities. For the most part, churches receive no direct federal funding, much less 46% of their revenue from direct federal funding. PP on the other hand, a PRIVATE, non profit, who has, over the past few decades, had more rvenue than expenses, is receiving direct federal funding and spending some of these monies on political activities.

 

I am merely pointing out that you get upset with regard to the church spending money on political activities and call for their tax breaks to be suspended. I'm simply voicing that, well, if the church should have their tax breaks suspended for political activities, then PP should have their federal funding withdraw for participating in blatantly one sided political activity.

 

With regard to the war... Seriously, the Armed Forces are not private companies, they are government agencies.

 

Just so you don't feel that I have some agenda against the services PP provides, I am certain one can dig up a number of cases to where I have pointed out that I am pro-abortion, I have no issue with abortions (until it gets to a point where one seemingly uses this service as a continuous form of birth control.)

 

Again, my only standing issue is that federal funds are being provided to PRIVATE enterprise that actively advocates for a single political party.

 

I tried to look up where I thought PP should be able to pay for political ads but the church shouldn't. Only, I found these posts instead.

 

So, I actually would be in favor making it so that Planned Parenthood, specifically was not able to run politcal ads. Provided, of course, that we ditched the tax free status for all the rest.

 

 

Like I said, I have no problem with not allowing non-profits and certainly those who get federal money to spend it on politics. Make those who believe that PP should exist, like me, donate money (that we've paid taxes on) to a non-affliated lobby that exists to go to battle on PP's behalf.

 

 

[stevegrab]

The scrutiny that SEC is throwing at PP is silly unless we're going to examine every single organization that receives federal funding.

 

As detlef said, in America (as in many countries) we pay taxes. Those taxes are used to do many things, some we agree with others we do not. We do not have the right to say "You can only use my tax money on these programs."

 

If the federal government cut PP's funding by 10% that would be about $49 million, and we really have no idea how that would affect their spending. The assumption that without this money they wouldn't have money to spend on political ads is pure conjecture.

 

 

What about all the tax breaks and incentives that major corporations get, and then turn around and support PACs with their money in politcal campaigns? Aren't those companies basically using our tax money to get involved in politics?

 

PS Would this be a non issue if PP spent equally to support both parties (or spent more on the party of the people who have an issue with this).

[SEC=UGA]

The scrutiny that SEC is throwing at PP is silly unless we're going to examine every single organization that receives federal funding.

 

As detlef said, in America (as in many countries) we pay taxes. Those taxes are used to do many things, some we agree with others we do not. We do not have the right to say "You can only use my tax money on these programs."

 

If the federal government cut PP's funding by 10% that would be about $49 million, and we really have no idea how that would affect their spending. The assumption that without this money they wouldn't have money to spend on political ads is pure conjecture.

 

 

What about all the tax breaks and incentives that major corporations get, and then turn around and support PACs with their money in politcal campaigns? Aren't those companies basically using our tax money to get involved in politics?

 

PS Would this be a non issue if PP spent equally to support both parties (or spent more on the party of the people who have an issue with this).

 

 

 

A few questions:

Is PP a PRIVATE non-profit or a government organization?

Should any private organization that receives direct payments, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, from the fedral government be able to participate in politcal activism?

Would you be okay with the NRA receiving 400 million from the federal government and using it for political activism?

 

I like this last question the best. Try this scenario. The NRA, who is a private non-profit, who's goal is to protect the rights of the citizenry deleneated in the Second Amendment receives millions a year in direct payments fro the fed gov. In order to properly promote this they need federal funding to promote gun education, safety and distribution. Only 3% of their services are actually selling guns to people. The rest of their activities are confined to providing the citizenry with safety locks, gun training/education programs and ensuring one has equal access to weapons, especially the poor. Their focus is to go into poor neighborhoods and provide these services, especialy to the 18 to 25 YO demographic who comprise about 78% of their clients.

 

This is a nobel goal they have, I mean people are going to own guns anyway, shouldn't we ensure that they go about the proper legal channels to purchase guns? Shouldn't we provide them with the proper safety devices and education so that they can better handle guns and know the dangers of gun ownership?

 

ETA:

Yes, I do have an issue with a private company who receives direct federal funding, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, advocating for a single political party. Yes, I would feel the same way if the NRA scenario above were true and they were spedning money advocating for only the republicans.

 

Tax breaks are one thing, DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING is a different animal.

Edited May 31, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[detlef]

A few questions:

Is PP a PRIVATE non-profit or a government organization?

Should any private organization that receives direct payments, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, from the fedral government be able to participate in politcal activism?

Would you be okay with the NRA receiving 400 million from the federal government and using it for political activism?

 

I like this last question the best. Try this scenario. The NRA, who is a private non-profit, who's goal is to protect the rights of the citizenry deleneated in the Second Amendment receives millions a year in direct payments fro the fed gov. In order to properly promote this they need federal funding to promote gun education, safety and distribution. Only 3% of their services are actually selling guns to people. The rest of their activities are confined to providing the citizenry with safety locks, gun training/education programs and ensuring one has equal access to weapons, especially the poor. Their focus is to go into poor neighborhoods and provide these services, especialy to the 18 to 25 YO demographic who comprise about 78% of their clients.

 

This is a nobel goal they have, I mean people are going to own guns anyway, shouldn't we ensure that they go about the proper legal channels to purchase guns? Shouldn't we provide them with the proper safety devices and education so that they can better handle guns and know the dangers of gun ownership?

 

It's an interesting comparison. Mind you, I've already explained with no question that I would be happy if PP was not allowed to pay for ads, but I'll address your scenario nonetheless.

 

First off, PP is not an advocacy group, they're a health services provider. You stated that the NRA was a group whose mission was to protect the 2nd amendment rights. PP's primary goal is provide reproductive health services to people who need them. Because of the fact that some of the services they provide offend a segment of our populace, they also end up spending energy to fight for the right for people to continue getting some of (really one of) the services they provide. So, your example sort of leaves the map basically from the start.

 

And, again, because I have no trouble with requiring more "accounting procedures", (ie: a campaign where those of us who are in favor of PP existing were asked to give some of the money we were going to give to PP to a technically unrelated group who goes to bat for PP), then I'm not going to get stuck in an ethical dilemma over not being in favor of the gov't giving money to a group whose primary objective is to fight poltical battles but also happens to spend time educating people on gun safety. Provided, of course, that we're talking about all non-profits who contribute to political causes.

Edited May 31, 2012 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

It's an interesting comparison. Mind you, I've already explained with no question that I would be happy if PP was not allowed to pay for ads, but I'll address your scenario nonetheless.

 

First off, PP is not an advocacy group, they're a health services provider. You stated that the NRA was a group whose mission was to protect the 2nd amendment rights. PP's primary goal is provide reproductive health services to people who need them. Because of the fact that some of the services they provide offend a segment of our populace, they also end up spending energy to fight for the right for people to continue getting some of (really one of) the services they provide. So, your example sort of leaves the map basically from the start.

 

And, again, because I have no trouble with requiring more "accounting procedures", (ie: a campaign where those of us who are in favor of PP existing were asked to give some of the money we were going to give to PP to a technically unrelated group who goes to bat for PP), then I'm not going to get stuck in an ethical dilemma over not being in favor of the gov't giving money to a group whose primary objective is to fight poltical battles but also happens to spend time educating people on gun safety. Provided, of course, that we're talking about all non-profits who contribute to political causes.

 

 

Form the PP web page:

 

For more than 90 years, we’ve worked to improve women’s health and safety, prevent unintended pregnancies, and advance the right and ability of individuals and families to make informed and responsible choices.

 

These efforts include advocating for changes in public policy, with a sharp focus on ensuring access to comprehensive, affordable reproductive health care for all.

 

Planned Parenthood's Latino Engagement program builds stronger relationships with Latino communities by working to ensure that our service, education, and advocacy efforts both serve the needs of and reflect the voices of Latinas, their families, and communities.

 

Members of the Board of Advocates support Planned Parenthood in a variety of ways, including

• participating in a national or local Planned Parenthood events

• recording video or audio public service announcement or interviews

• writing articles, blog posts, or statements in support of Planned Parenthood

• lending their photo and name to help raise money for Planned Parenthood

• lobbying elected officials

 

Edited May 31, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[stevegrab]

A few questions:

Is PP a PRIVATE non-profit or a government organization?

Should any private organization that receives direct payments, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, from the fedral government be able to participate in politcal activism?

Would you be okay with the NRA receiving 400 million from the federal government and using it for political activism?

 

I like this last question the best. Try this scenario. The NRA, who is a private non-profit, who's goal is to protect the rights of the citizenry deleneated in the Second Amendment receives millions a year in direct payments fro the fed gov. In order to properly promote this they need federal funding to promote gun education, safety and distribution. Only 3% of their services are actually selling guns to people. The rest of their activities are confined to providing the citizenry with safety locks, gun training/education programs and ensuring one has equal access to weapons, especially the poor. Their focus is to go into poor neighborhoods and provide these services, especialy to the 18 to 25 YO demographic who comprise about 78% of their clients.

 

This is a nobel goal they have, I mean people are going to own guns anyway, shouldn't we ensure that they go about the proper legal channels to purchase guns? Shouldn't we provide them with the proper safety devices and education so that they can better handle guns and know the dangers of gun ownership?

 

 

detlef said it better than I could. I'd call your NRA analogy laughable.

 

My point is, if we're going to do something let's address all political campaign giving. Sadly that won't happen, because the fox is gaurding the hen house, politicians will never do much to reduce spending on politics.

 

You singled out PP, while ignoring every other organization. If we'll apply new rules to everybody, great but they need to be fair. Subsidies to corporations (including tax incentives for businesses) should be counted as direct goverment funding just like the $400+ million federal grant category you show for PP. Otherwise this is just a partisan attack on non-profits funded by the goverment who primarily do more to support the causes of the Democratic party.

[detlef]

A few questions:

Is PP a PRIVATE non-profit or a government organization?

Should any private organization that receives direct payments, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, from the fedral government be able to participate in politcal activism?

Would you be okay with the NRA receiving 400 million from the federal government and using it for political activism?

 

I like this last question the best. Try this scenario. The NRA, who is a private non-profit, who's goal is to protect the rights of the citizenry deleneated in the Second Amendment receives millions a year in direct payments fro the fed gov. In order to properly promote this they need federal funding to promote gun education, safety and distribution. Only 3% of their services are actually selling guns to people. The rest of their activities are confined to providing the citizenry with safety locks, gun training/education programs and ensuring one has equal access to weapons, especially the poor. Their focus is to go into poor neighborhoods and provide these services, especialy to the 18 to 25 YO demographic who comprise about 78% of their clients.

 

This is a nobel goal they have, I mean people are going to own guns anyway, shouldn't we ensure that they go about the proper legal channels to purchase guns? Shouldn't we provide them with the proper safety devices and education so that they can better handle guns and know the dangers of gun ownership?

 

ETA:

Yes, I do have an issue with a private company who receives direct federal funding, to the tune of 46% of their revenue, advocating for a single political party. Yes, I would feel the same way if the NRA scenario above were true and they were spedning money advocating for only the republicans.

 

Tax breaks are one thing, DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING is a different animal.

 

Dude, from your own post, 16% of their budget goes to "education and public policy" That means, even if 1% is for education and 15% for public policy, public policy change is not their primary goal and is very much dwarfed by the 2/3 that goes to actually providing the services they spend that much smaller segment fighting to protect the right to access.

 

Of course it's part of the mission statement, but even there it is last on the list. How does what you posted contradict my claim that they're a health services provider who also advocates as compared to a group who, in your own words, was described as an advocacy group who also provides education? Sounds like PP spends 16% of its entire budget doing what you were saying the NRA would be doing in your example.

Edited May 31, 2012 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

detlef said it better than I could. I'd call your NRA analogy laughable.

 

My point is, if we're going to do something let's address all political campaign giving. Sadly that won't happen, because the fox is gaurding the hen house, politicians will never do much to reduce spending on politics.

 

You singled out PP, while ignoring every other organization. If we'll apply new rules to everybody, great but they need to be fair. Subsidies to corporations (including tax incentives for businesses) should be counted as direct goverment funding just like the $400+ million federal grant category you show for PP. Otherwise this is just a partisan attack on non-profits funded by the goverment who primarily do more to support the causes of the Democratic party.

 

 

Laughable...

 

Why, they're, in their new formation, providing services:

Gun training/safety classes.

They're providing safety devices to poor people who could not otherwise afford said safety devices.

 

Besides, they are supporting a constitutional amendment.

 

Can you point out the part of the constitution where all women, regardless of color, age or economic status shall have the right to an abortion, contraception and sex education?

[SEC=UGA]

Dude, from your own post, 16% of their budget goes to "education and public policy" That means, even if 1% is for education and 15% for public policy, public policy change is not their primary goal and is very much dwarfed by the 2/3 that goes to actually providing the services they spend that much smaller segment fighting to protect the right to access.

 

Of course it's part of the mission statement, but even there it is last on the list. How does what you posted contradict my claim that they're a health services provider who also advocates as compared to a group who, in your own words, was described as an advocacy group who also provides education? Sounds like PP spends 16% of its entire budget doing what you were saying the NRA would be doing in your example.

 

 

So, if the NRA only spent 16% of their budget on advocacy you'd be ok with my scenario?