They don't understand basic economic principles. It's sad really.
Meme & Quote Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
They don't understand basic economic principles. It's sad really.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
sturg33
I
LOL doubling down, huh?
But beyond your complete lack of understanding of the simplest of mathematics concepts... you think Republicans wanting to defund the largest provider of abortions in the country makes them not "pro-life?"
sturg33
I
There is absolutely no reason to bother explaining to you... Once you weren't able to grasp the difference between a home loan and an education loan, I recognized the schooling system failed you
Let's assume the following. PP has a total budget of 2million 1 of which is funded by the gov. They use 1M on each abortions and other female care.
Now the gov strips that funding so PP only has 1M. They divide it now 500k each on abortions and other female care.
How isn't thengov funding abortions in the first scenario?
57Brave
Well-known member
I work with and around federal grants daily.
If x number of dollars are allotted to do a,b and c if you want those grants renewed ---- you do a,b and c.
If you do d or e - first off there will be no more federal funding (Hyde Amendment forbids using federal monies for abortion. Since 1976)
Secondly there would be a media firestorm.
Is there as much evidence that federal monies are used to fund abortions as there was for example fraud at Trump U I will eat my hat
and
If you have data spelling out where these government audits have shown federal money being used to fund even 1 abortion in the past 40 years
I would love to see it.
Auditors are a different breed and take great pleasure in making people squirm by finding malfeasance .
It is clear some of my fellow raves fans don't know **** about the workings of regulated federal grants /audits
I've audited not for profits many times. You are confusing accounting treatment and the reality of the situation. Business drives the accounting and not the other way around.
PP is not going to shut their doors if they lose federal funding. They are still going to provide other woman's care. It will just be taken from their abortion funds.
There are many grants which are unrestricted and I'm sure you know this.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Where in the constitution does it say the government has any obligation to pay for those things?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
It doesn't. But it's still ****ty not to.
Would you not agree those things might be a decent thing for the government to fund given the other similar things they'll continue to fund?
Just out of curiosity, are you also in favor of eliminating need-based assistance for these things? If so, do you think PP should continue to be funded under that principle as a large organization with the means of providing those services?
I mean, at least that's consistent I guess. I assume what his comment was then based around the erroneous logic in not funding abortion directly meaning it's not indirectly funding it, but that kind of ****ty logic is not confined to the left, but rather all posters of political memes.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
It's ****ty to force your morals on everyone else.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
not really
but if the morals you are arguing against are being against helping people
who gives a **** what that personals morals are? it would be similar to being lectured about womens rights from the gov't of saudi arabia
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
The government's making "cancer screenings, check-ups, pre-natal care, nutritutional services, and STD testing" more readily available is hardly "forcing morals on everyone else". But nice strawman.
