Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 14, 2019, 06:28:49 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 14, 2019, 08:25:34 AM

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.

Tons of businesses, and individuals receive money from the federal government. You think they should have to wave their right to contribute to a political campaign or lobby congress?

Should CVS, Walgreens, and every other pharmacy all be forbidden from spending money on lobbying because they accept Medicaid to fill prescriptions?

Should the NRA be forbidden because they are paid by the government to train law enforcement officers, rent out shooting ranges to federal agencies, and have a 10 year $40k/year grant from Fish and Wild Life Services?

What about any hotel, Restaurant, or store where a federal employee spends money for their job and uses government money?

What about a student that receives a federal grant for tuition? Should they be allowed to donate $1 to a campaign?

Quote from: PopoJeff on October 14, 2019, 08:47:34 AM

How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions. I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity.

Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line

Quote from: PopoJeff on October 14, 2019, 08:39:44 AM

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.

I think this is a ridiculous argument. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country. The current system is an incestuous revolving door of government going to industry and back again, each step along the way finding new and creative ways to drain the US citizenry of their hard earned tax dollars. Such a policy would foster not only independence but create a clear line of delineation preventing what essentially amounts to buying votes with federal funds. That said, this will never happen for obvious reasons.

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.

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?

https://tennesseestar.com/2018/05/21/fact-check-does-planned-parenthood-get-over-500-million-a-year-in-government-funding/
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/