First Official GOP President Announcement

I promise that if I ever run, not a single baby will be kissed by me.


I've generally assumed this is the way they all think anyhow.

Veni, Vici, Vetinari.

There are three categories of funding restrictions listed in both the KPMG report and the annual report. There are funds under permanent restriction. Are you concluding "grants" that are only under unrestricted and temporary are the only federal funds being allocated?

P. 16 of kpmg report explains the restrictions and they mirror what milamber quoted.

Edited

Visi, veneri, vamoosi?

With the ACA, you can get that looked at!
Thanks Obama!

E Pluribus Hillary !

It is hard to tell exactly what your points are because you flail around so much.


http://www.usherald.com/maine-welfare-recipients-must-work-for-their-benefits/
Damn those Evil Republicans!

Quite a few of them receive direct funding for projects.

Boeing, a defense contractor.
Religious institutions who do charity work.
Charter schools
The argument can be made for private universities who receive the majority of their tuition payments via federal aid.

Hospitals and the Red Cross receive lots of funding from the federal government too. PP is an organization within the health care industry.


Why do you try and assume what I'm going to say? I was not alluding to taxing gross income at all.

State and federal tax credits include but are not limited to:
Brownfield credits (currently expired)
Film production credits (different at state levels)
Historic preservation credits
Work opportunity tax credit
Low income construction
Renewable energy credits
Reduced or eliminated corporate state taxes for a specific period of time
Reduced or eliminated sales state taxes for a specific period of time
Reduced or eliminated property taxes for a specific period of time

If companies/non-profits don't have to pay certain taxes or get a reduced tax bill that money can be used elsewhere.....which is frankly the statement many govenors and state reps use for justifying tax breaks/credits.

Do any of those have official business practices that would be illegal for the government to fund directly? I think that's the crux of the argument here.

The answer to all your questions is more government more control and more spending !

Violation of the establishment clause is an issue

religious institutions who receive tax money for charity work were not allowed to discriminate based on religious reasons before GWB signed the 'faith based initiative' executive order.

Examples of it being used to discriminate based on religion

Some court case challenges (2009)

Trying to remember more details about a scandal a few years ago with an organization refusing to service Muslims and atheists. I'll edit it in if I can find it.

I'm not entirely sure that that answers my question, but it's interesting at least.

It is illegal for the government to directly fund religious activities.


Edited

Lovely. That still leaves room for debate as to whether or not charity counts as an official business practice, but I think we're getting somewhere here. Religions already get tax-exempt status which some people would like to think of as indirect funding, so it opens up a rather grey area.

@Kara: I don't see a big deal about a Christian organization requiring their employees to be, you know, Christians.

That's what your sources are alluding to, saying that it's wrong for a religious organization to require that their employees are part of the religion they are representing.

I don't believe it's like that. They are a non-profit organization solely for the benefit of the community. It's not like they are receiving federal grants to promote awareness for something....

Are you talking about Planned Parenthood?

you got all drunk & didn't take pictures for me, eh?

No, churches. Get with the program.

Or at least get some reading comprehension.

Ack! I got drunk AND took pictures. I'll try to remember to upload them later.
Sorry if my presentation was too dry.

No, but a Catholic charity that gets some kind of governmental (i.e., tax) funding is indirectly promoting anti-abortion. That offends me right in the feels, so we should stop doing that. The measurable good that Catholic Social Services does is completely eclipsed by the fact that some of my taxes are, via arcane and indirect methods, promoting ideas that I disagree with.

I know for a fact that Catholic Social Services in my neck of the woods assists people in getting a government-issued ID, so they're really in deep with big government, clearly. Note sarcasm.

PP is a non profit and does not pay income taxes.


All other federal tax money benefeciaries have to abide by federal non-discrimination laws. Via the executive order faith based institutions do not.

If they are paying employees with tax money *I think* they should be required to follow all federal laws that other companies who receive tax money have to follow.

really?

But as I already posted one case that used those tax dollars to provide religious instruction and worship.

Isn't this your whole argument? That an organization is mis-using funds? That PP is taking federal money that is earmarked to never be used for abortions and using it to pay for abortions?

Why give a pass to something you think benefits the community versus another organization which many also think benefits the community but one you don't like?

/waitsinNiforstorytime

This thread hasn't been aborted yet?

We can't figure out if planned parenthood can't afford the abortion yet !

It is ***even by the low low standards of P and R ***threads !

I would say this thread is the equivalent of the last call girl you take home after downing three glasses of Scotch in a row.

Sure it seems like a good idea at the time but upon further inspection it won't end well !

Did the ACA address any of the real problems with health care rather than force everyone to either buy expensive coverage (if they're young, which young people aren't usually loaded with money) or force more people onto a joke of a plan (Medicaid)?

$2,000 - $5,000 just to push a button on a machine that uses about $2-3 worth of electricity, sounds legit.

So I seriously wonder from your own words if you think life is not worth living. Starving to death isn't pretty, but that's a risk that comes with living. So is cancer, so is getting run over by a stampede of wild elephants, and so is dying from hyper hydration. Because life is risky doesn't negate it's purpose. I'm sure our ancestors who were you know, hunting wild animals with rocks and spears would have rather not lived at all because life wasn't served up to them on a silver government handout platter.

Again I have to point out that you're arguing a premise that isn't nor is even remotely true.

-'If we don't kill all these babies via abortion, they will die of starvation.'-

It assumes that if we outlaw abortion or otherwise restrict it further, people wouldn't replace it with some other form of birth control, and it also assumes that parents wouldn't otherwise find some way to assure their children wouldn't starve.

You fight against other forms of birth control too, even though you don't understand their biological mechanism (see: your repeated insistance that morning-after pills are 'abortion pills').

Let's face it, Nausi. You don't give a damn about other human beings, born or unborn, you just want your leaders of choice to be able to tell other people what to think and do and how to act. You want to control other people -- be it other races, sexual orientations, economic classes, you name it -- to your benefit, and to keep them "where they belond".

And when it comes to women, your idea is "brood mare for the good ol' U.S.A., otherwise those deceitful, money-grubbing *** will think they're equals and demand to be treated as such." You pine for a bygone era of white male dominated "perfect" American society that never actually existed in the first place.

You're really more like Islamic extremists or Communist dictators than you'd care to admit, your "ideals" are just different enough that you treat them like they're bad guys, lest they cut in on your action.

Quote the socialist.

Urgh...Nausi...Why?

I'm sure our ancestors had lower birth rates, comparatively, and had less to-term births.

Since we're taking superfluous, imaginative, jaunty, little strolls into the psyche of our forefathers, I can think of a frequent nuisance that might be a liability. I wonder how that was sorted out?

"There's old Bloodtrail McGee trailing blood again. Sabertooths abound! Go home, Bloodtrail McGee!"



That's got to suck, right?