100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Defunding Planned Parenthood: A good move? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 07/15/11 07:17 PM
|
|
this article is from 1995, welfare reform was initiated in 1996 it is now 2011,, Id love to see more recent 'studies' I am having experience with welfare, and its not superior to anything,,,,nor does it come close to what a 36000 income or even an 11000 income would,,, http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf With 69 overlapping means-tested programs serving different low-income populations, it is difficult to determine the average level of benefits received by low-income persons. One way of estimating average welfare benefits per recipient would be to divide total means-tested spending by the total number of poor persons in the United States. According to the Census Bureau, there were 39.8 million poor persons in the U.S. in 2008. An additional 1.5 million persons lived in nursing homes. (These individuals, though mostly poor, are not included in the annual Census poverty and population survey.) Total means-tested spending in 2008 was $708 billion. If this sum is divided by 41.3 million poor persons (including residents in nursing homes), the result is $17,100 in means-tested spending for each poor American. However, this simple calculation can be misleading because many persons with incomes above the official poverty levels also receive means-tested aid. Although programs vary, most means-tested aid is targeted to persons with incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Thus, a more a accurate sense of average total welfare spending per recipient can be obtained, if total welfare aid is divided among all persons within this larger group. Dividing total means-tested aid by all persons with incomes below 200 percent of poverty results in average welfare spending of $7,700 per person, or around $30,000 for a family of four. I guess if you want to believe that people of a "certain kind" are all bad you will believe whatever. But the math on this is so skewed it is ludicrous. For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. One person can have a medical bill of $500,000.00. Making the amount almost irrelevant. But lets disregard that fact for a second even though it negates the information. If you have 69 program and 41.3 million people and 703 billion. You have to take the 703 billion and divide it by 69 first to separate it and then divide it by 41.3 million and see what you get per person. There is no one person who gets 69 different forms of help...lol It comes out to $25.00 rounded up per person, Then if you figure they can get help from foodstamps, welfare and medicaid at the same time and you will usually always have more than one in the family, you can get that amount up to a hundred or so per person. Now you are more accurate even though what I first posted makes the amount even less than that, we will give the benefit of the doubt here, Also I am assuming that this is a monthly amount if this is a yearly amount then it is a lot less per person |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And also you are forcing your ideals on others in this manner! Yes, my evil ideals that we should obey the laws of the nation. I must terrify people with my radical behavior of defending the weak and speaking for those without a voice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 07/15/11 07:17 PM
|
|
I guess if you want to believe that people of a "certain kind" are all bad you will believe whatever. But the math on this is so skewed it is ludicrous. For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. One person can have a medical bill of $500,000.00. Making the amount almost irrelevant. But lets disregard that fact for a second even though it negates the information. If you have 69 program and 41.3 million people and 703 billion. You have to take the 703 billion and divide it by 69 first to separate it and then divide it by 41.3 million and see what you get per person. There is no one person who gets 69 different forms of help...lol It comes out to $25.00 rounded up per person, Then if you figure they can get help from foodstamps, welfare and medicaid at the same time and you will usually always have more than one in the family, you can get that amount up to a hundred or so per person. Now you are more accurate even though what I first posted makes the amount even less than that, we will give the benefit of the doubt here, WE are all good now. Where did you learn math? We, as a society, need to burn that place down and piss on the ashes, before it spreads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess if you want to believe that people of a "certain kind" are all bad you will believe whatever. But the math on this is so skewed it is ludicrous. For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. One person can have a medical bill of $500,000.00. Making the amount almost irrelevant. But lets disregard that fact for a second even though it negates the information. If you have 69 program and 41.3 million people and 703 billion. You have to take the 703 billion and divide it by 69 first to separate it and then divide it by 41.3 million and see what you get per person. There is no one person who gets 69 different forms of help...lol It comes out to $25.00 rounded up per person, Then if you figure they can get help from foodstamps, welfare and medicaid at the same time and you will usually always have more than one in the family, you can get that amount up to a hundred or so per person. Now you are more accurate even though what I first posted makes the amount even less than that, we will give the benefit of the doubt here, WE are all good now. Where did you learn math? We, as a society, need to burn that place down and piss on the ashes, before it spreads. I did my math just fine. Can't let you mislead people with bull shyte that is for sure,. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf Note: Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list. As to your math... Not every program gets the same amount. Not everyone has access to every program. But let's play with your math anyways, okay? Let's assume that every program gets the same amount of money... $708,000,000,000 (budget to be spent on Welfare) / 69 (programs) = $10,260,869,565.21739 (dollars per program) Divide that by $41,300,000 and you get $248.4472049689441 per person. So you were off by a factor of 10. Then you just magically pull a number of 4 out of the air and multiple the total by that, which would be $993.78, not $100. That's not including Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation as noted above. But that's not how it works, is it? No, what you posted was an incredibly naive and simplistic view of how it works. The best way to help these people would be to dismantle the whole system of 69 programs and create one program. This program would be tied to the IRS and to the non-means tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation) and would send checks out to citizen who was below the 200% poverty line to bring them to this line. This would greatly reduce the around $67,000,000,000 that is spent on the employees of the various welfare programs, because we wouldn't need them anymore as employees. This would also allow people who were on welfare to get a job and work without worrying that they would lose their benefits. This job experience could be used to build a resume and find a better paying more challenging job. Gradually, many of those on the new welfare system would build decent resumes and move out of poverty and into the middle class. I see nothing wrong with that, do you? I heard it once said that (I'm paraphrasing here) "The Democrats want to help the poor, the Republicans want to help the poor become more wealth, something that the Democrats don't have much interest in." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf Note: Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list. As to your math... Not every program gets the same amount. Not everyone has access to every program. But let's play with your math anyways, okay? Let's assume that every program gets the same amount of money... $708,000,000,000 (budget to be spent on Welfare) / 69 (programs) = $10,260,869,565.21739 (dollars per program) Divide that by $41,300,000 and you get $248.4472049689441 per person. So you were off by a factor of 10. Then you just magically pull a number of 4 out of the air and multiple the total by that, which would be $993.78, not $100. That's not including Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation as noted above. But that's not how it works, is it? No, what you posted was an incredibly naive and simplistic view of how it works. The best way to help these people would be to dismantle the whole system of 69 programs and create one program. This program would be tied to the IRS and to the non-means tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation) and would send checks out to citizen who was below the 200% poverty line to bring them to this line. This would greatly reduce the around $67,000,000,000 that is spent on the employees of the various welfare programs, because we wouldn't need them anymore as employees. This would also allow people who were on welfare to get a job and work without worrying that they would lose their benefits. This job experience could be used to build a resume and find a better paying more challenging job. Gradually, many of those on the new welfare system would build decent resumes and move out of poverty and into the middle class. I see nothing wrong with that, do you? I heard it once said that (I'm paraphrasing here) "The Democrats want to help the poor, the Republicans want to help the poor become more wealth, something that the Democrats don't have much interest in." Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed a zero on my calculator, That amount per year isn't very damn much money still. So you are still using false information to spread bull shyte attitude problems around about people who are not misusing anything. You are still wrong..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 07/15/11 08:05 PM
|
|
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed a zero on my calculator, That amount per year isn't very damn much money still. So you are still using false information to spread bull shyte attitude problems around about people who are not misusing anything. You are still wrong..... No, you are wrong. Your estimate is that the Welfare budget of $708,000,000,000 is spread out to 41,300,000 people in $993.79 checks. But if you do the math... 41,300,000 * $993.79 = $41,043,478,260, which is $666,956,521,740 short of their total budget. As pointed out in the article, each person could be given $17,100 at the current operating budget. Your "guess" that each person would get a check for just over a thousand dollars is off by a factor of 16! Edit: It's even worse using your own math of $100, which would make you off by a factor of 160. "Don't play games with me. Don't ever think you're capable of that" -- Doctor Who |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed a zero on my calculator, That amount per year isn't very damn much money still. So you are still using false information to spread bull shyte attitude problems around about people who are not misusing anything. You are still wrong..... No, you are wrong. Your estimate is that the Welfare budget of $708,000,000,000 is spread out to 41,300,000 people in $993.79 checks. But if you do the math... 41,300,000 * $993.79 = $41,043,478,260, which is $666,956,521,740 short of their total budget. As pointed out in the article, each person could be given $17,100 at the current operating budget. Your "guess" that each person would get a check for just over a thousand dollars is off by a factor of 16! No you are wrong I never said anything about a thousand. You are wrong and are spreading false propaganda against one "kind" of people in a hateful manner, Still wrong still spreading bull shyte, Even you came up with a different number than that yourself. You are so full of bull..... If it is 248 dollars a year per person per program which is an average that isn't accurate anyways it still doesn't come out to 17000 no matter what. STOP SPREADING THE HATEFUL BULL SHYTE IT MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
budget numbers include alot of things beside personal income or benefits, they also include equipment, property, overhead,,etc,,,,
if I took the military budget of 1,449 BILLION and assumed that all 18 and over citizens were soldiers ( a ridiculously high assumption) 231000 people would be potentially earning 6272727.27$ but thats a LOW Estimate considering nowhere near that many are serving so the math which seems obvious is pretty misleading in terms of 'real time' earnings of people in the system whether its a military system or a welfare system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed a zero on my calculator, That amount per year isn't very damn much money still. So you are still using false information to spread bull shyte attitude problems around about people who are not misusing anything. You are still wrong..... No, you are wrong. Your estimate is that the Welfare budget of $708,000,000,000 is spread out to 41,300,000 people in $993.79 checks. But if you do the math... 41,300,000 * $993.79 = $41,043,478,260, which is $666,956,521,740 short of their total budget. As pointed out in the article, each person could be given $17,100 at the current operating budget. Your "guess" that each person would get a check for just over a thousand dollars is off by a factor of 16! No you are wrong I never said anything about a thousand. You are wrong and are spreading false propaganda against one "kind" of people in a hateful manner, Still wrong still spreading bull shyte, Even you came up with a different number than that yourself. You are so full of bull..... If it is 248 dollars a year per person per program which is an average that isn't accurate anyways it still doesn't come out to 17000 no matter what. STOP SPREADING THE HATEFUL BULL SHYTE IT MAKES YOU LOOK BAD.  Any time you confront a leftist with the facts, they accuse you of being hateful. As everyone knows, leftists are consummate projectionists. "Don't play games with me. Don't ever think you're capable of that" -- Doctor Who |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 07/15/11 08:18 PM
|
|
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I missed a zero on my calculator, That amount per year isn't very damn much money still. So you are still using false information to spread bull shyte attitude problems around about people who are not misusing anything. You are still wrong..... No, you are wrong. Your estimate is that the Welfare budget of $708,000,000,000 is spread out to 41,300,000 people in $993.79 checks. But if you do the math... 41,300,000 * $993.79 = $41,043,478,260, which is $666,956,521,740 short of their total budget. As pointed out in the article, each person could be given $17,100 at the current operating budget. Your "guess" that each person would get a check for just over a thousand dollars is off by a factor of 16! No you are wrong I never said anything about a thousand. You are wrong and are spreading false propaganda against one "kind" of people in a hateful manner, Still wrong still spreading bull shyte, Even you came up with a different number than that yourself. You are so full of bull..... If it is 248 dollars a year per person per program which is an average that isn't accurate anyways it still doesn't come out to 17000 no matter what. STOP SPREADING THE HATEFUL BULL SHYTE IT MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. Any time you confront a leftist with the facts, they accuse you of being hateful. As everyone knows, leftists are consummate projectionists. "Don't play games with me. Don't ever think you're capable of that" -- Doctor Who Since there were no facts provided, I guess that doesn't apply here. But you spread hateful bull shyte, I do know that regardless to you being a leftist or whatever,. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
budget numbers include alot of things beside personal income or benefits, they also include equipment, property, overhead,,etc,,,, if I took the military budget of 1,449 BILLION and assumed that all 18 and over citizens were soldiers ( a ridiculously high assumption) 231000 people would be potentially earning 6272727.27$ but thats a LOW Estimate considering nowhere near that many are serving so the math which seems obvious is pretty misleading in terms of 'real time' earnings of people in the system whether its a military system or a welfare system I showed my math, so that people wouldn't be able to say that my math was fake. I used her equation of (Total Budget) / (total Programs) / (Total people) and then (multiplied by 4 for no reason). Do it yourself and see if your numbers agree with mine. Read her post to see if I didn't follow her equation. And as I've already noted, the 708 Billion is the amount spent on recipients, there is another 67 Billion that is used for the employee salaries, etc. So I've already taken your concerns in. The simple fact of the matter is that some of the money is wasted, some of it is lost to fraud and some people are getting a whole lot more assistance than they are supposed to. I know you don't like hearing that, but it's the facts. It would be much more efficient to just give everybody a check raising them up to 200% of the poverty line and call it a day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
budget numbers include alot of things beside personal income or benefits, they also include equipment, property, overhead,,etc,,,, if I took the military budget of 1,449 BILLION and assumed that all 18 and over citizens were soldiers ( a ridiculously high assumption) 231000 people would be potentially earning 6272727.27$ but thats a LOW Estimate considering nowhere near that many are serving so the math which seems obvious is pretty misleading in terms of 'real time' earnings of people in the system whether its a military system or a welfare system I showed my math, so that people wouldn't be able to say that my math was fake. I used her equation of (Total Budget) / (total Programs) / (Total people) and then (multiplied by 4 for no reason). Do it yourself and see if your numbers agree with mine. Read her post to see if I didn't follow her equation. And as I've already noted, the 708 Billion is the amount spent on recipients, there is another 67 Billion that is used for the employee salaries, etc. So I've already taken your concerns in. The simple fact of the matter is that some of the money is wasted, some of it is lost to fraud and some people are getting a whole lot more assistance than they are supposed to. I know you don't like hearing that, but it's the facts. It would be much more efficient to just give everybody a check raising them up to 200% of the poverty line and call it a day. again, I think the figures are before welfare reform checking the actual budget sites the numbers are nowhere that high last year h and h services got 76.8 billion divided by approximately 40 million recipients,,, which comes closer to about 1,920 per year that welfare 'pays' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 07/15/11 09:03 PM
|
|
budget numbers include alot of things beside personal income or benefits, they also include equipment, property, overhead,,etc,,,, if I took the military budget of 1,449 BILLION and assumed that all 18 and over citizens were soldiers ( a ridiculously high assumption) 231000 people would be potentially earning 6272727.27$ but thats a LOW Estimate considering nowhere near that many are serving so the math which seems obvious is pretty misleading in terms of 'real time' earnings of people in the system whether its a military system or a welfare system I showed my math, so that people wouldn't be able to say that my math was fake. I used her equation of (Total Budget) / (total Programs) / (Total people) and then (multiplied by 4 for no reason). Do it yourself and see if your numbers agree with mine. Read her post to see if I didn't follow her equation. And as I've already noted, the 708 Billion is the amount spent on recipients, there is another 67 Billion that is used for the employee salaries, etc. So I've already taken your concerns in. The simple fact of the matter is that some of the money is wasted, some of it is lost to fraud and some people are getting a whole lot more assistance than they are supposed to. I know you don't like hearing that, but it's the facts. It would be much more efficient to just give everybody a check raising them up to 200% of the poverty line and call it a day. again, I think the figures are before welfare reform checking the actual budget sites the numbers are nowhere that high last year h and h services got 76.8 billion divided by approximately 40 million recipients,,, which comes closer to about 1,920 per year that welfare 'pays' What welfare site? Give me a link. Edit: Are you suggesting that Robert Rector lied before Congress while under oath by inflating a number from 76.8 billion to 708 billion and they didn't call him on it or charge him with perjury? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And also you are forcing your ideals on others in this manner! Yes, my evil ideals that we should obey the laws of the nation. I must terrify people with my radical behavior of defending the weak and speaking for those without a voice. The law by definition or the law by your personal interpretation? Terrifying? No, Fundamentalist Christian yes! And defending the weak? Again by who's definition? So suddenly I am a leftist? I am a draconian. HUGE diff. Not to be confused with a thierian. Again you are citing "every unborn life is precious" when it ain't. Come on, even the facts you present are speculative and likewise share a bias that someone condemning something would use. Suddenly you read a few articles and suddenly you are an expert? We have someone in this thread who WORKS for Planned Parenthood. I suppose blissful ignorance and religious abstinence is your idea of a solution? Beat morals into those poor black folks? What next? Labor camps for unwed mothers? Come on! You admit there is a problem and part of it is the welfare system itself but to jump Planned Parenthood as the problem and make them villains? GET REAL! How can you change human nature? You can't. I bet the world is a cold dark place to you because it doers not operate by Your world view. Well, you got any solutions to dealing with the problem or are you just going to hate monger and wave biased facts around citing them as the holy grail of guilt? I would LOVE to see you come up with something I can see eye to eye with you on! But shooting your mouth of with hate speak and finger pointing? That is not constructive argument. It is calouse hatred! It is the same BS some of these sign waving protesters resort to with rock throwing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
last year h and h services got 76.8 billion divided by approximately 40 million recipients,,, which comes closer to about 1,920 per year that welfare 'pays' I don't know if you plan to respond or not, so being the generous and caring person I am, I looked up the budget for health and Human Services from 2010. http://www.hhs.gov/about/FY2012budget/fy2012bib.pdf The budget was 909,072 MILLION, which is 909 BILLION. A bit more than 76.8 billion that you quoted. I have conveniently provided a link. Please note that this is the FEDERAL contribution to Welfare, in the 2008 fiscal year, the fed contributed 74% of the money to welfare, with the remainder being made up by the states. There were also 73,051 employees working for Welfare during the 2010 budget year and I'm pretty sure they weren't doing it for free. If you look at the pretty pie chart in that PDF file, you'll see that salaries didn't come out of the total budget. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 07/15/11 09:20 PM
|
|
And also you are forcing your ideals on others in this manner! Yes, my evil ideals that we should obey the laws of the nation. I must terrify people with my radical behavior of defending the weak and speaking for those without a voice. The law by definition or the law by your personal interpretation? Terrifying? No, Fundamentalist Christian yes! And defending the weak? Again by who's definition? So suddenly I am a leftist? I am a draconian. HUGE diff. Not to be confused with a thierian. Again you are citing "every unborn life is precious" when it ain't. Come on, even the facts you present are speculative and likewise share a bias that someone condemning something would use. Suddenly you read a few articles and suddenly you are an expert? We have someone in this thread who WORKS for Planned Parenthood. I suppose blissful ignorance and religious abstinence is your idea of a solution? Beat morals into those poor black folks? What next? Labor camps for unwed mothers? Come on! You admit there is a problem and part of it is the welfare system itself but to jump Planned Parenthood as the problem and make them villains? GET REAL! How can you change human nature? You can't. I bet the world is a cold dark place to you because it doers not operate by Your world view. Well, you got any solutions to dealing with the problem or are you just going to hate monger and wave biased facts around citing them as the holy grail of guilt? I would LOVE to see you come up with something I can see eye to eye with you on! But shooting your mouth of with hate speak and finger pointing? That is not constructive argument. It is calouse hatred! It is the same BS some of these sign waving protesters resort to with rock throwing. YAY! You called me hateful. I win.  Not that it matters, but I was pro abortion for a very long time, then I realized what a hypocrite I was for opposing the death penalty for criminals, but supporting it for babies. So I became anti-Abortion about 10 years before I became a Christian. Not that I think that will change your opinion of me or my position. I was denouncing Planned Parenthood before you came to these forums, but of course, I just "read a couple articles". And it doesn't matter if everyone in the thread works for Planned Parenthood, that doesn't make them right. I think that "every life is precious", not just those who are unborn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... For one, one of the programs on this list is medicaid/medicare. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf Note: Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation are not considered means-tested aid and are not included in this list. As to your math... Not every program gets the same amount. Not everyone has access to every program. But let's play with your math anyways, okay? Let's assume that every program gets the same amount of money... $708,000,000,000 (budget to be spent on Welfare) / 69 (programs) = $10,260,869,565.21739 (dollars per program) Divide that by $41,300,000 and you get $248.4472049689441 per person. So you were off by a factor of 10. Then you just magically pull a number of 4 out of the air and multiple the total by that, which would be $993.78, not $100. That's not including Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation as noted above. But that's not how it works, is it? No, what you posted was an incredibly naive and simplistic view of how it works. The best way to help these people would be to dismantle the whole system of 69 programs and create one program. This program would be tied to the IRS and to the non-means tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation) and would send checks out to citizen who was below the 200% poverty line to bring them to this line. This would greatly reduce the around $67,000,000,000 that is spent on the employees of the various welfare programs, because we wouldn't need them anymore as employees. This would also allow people who were on welfare to get a job and work without worrying that they would lose their benefits. This job experience could be used to build a resume and find a better paying more challenging job. Gradually, many of those on the new welfare system would build decent resumes and move out of poverty and into the middle class. I see nothing wrong with that, do you? I heard it once said that (I'm paraphrasing here) "The Democrats want to help the poor, the Republicans want to help the poor become more wealth, something that the Democrats don't have much interest in." The math is wonkie! But this IS an idea I can wrap my head around. One thing I would add though, After an initial drug test and it comes up hot, in order to receive benefits I would want those applying to Either a drug test randomly by a few days before they get their check sent or RANDOM DRUG TESTING AND proof they are in some kind of program to quit and rehabilitate to get their benefits! If they pee clean the first time spring a drug test on them the third check. If they are clean then, leave that person be. Chances are they are not drug addicts or alcoholics. We need a cleaner more streamlined system with less bureaucracy and red tape. Props for this one! I will give credit where it is due! This is probably the first time I have seen someone come up with a half way reasonable idea! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The math is wonkie! Hey, don't blame me, I used Dragoness' equation. The equation is without a doubt deeply flawed, no argument there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And also you are forcing your ideals on others in this manner! Yes, my evil ideals that we should obey the laws of the nation. I must terrify people with my radical behavior of defending the weak and speaking for those without a voice. The law by definition or the law by your personal interpretation? Terrifying? No, Fundamentalist Christian yes! And defending the weak? Again by who's definition? So suddenly I am a leftist? I am a draconian. HUGE diff. Not to be confused with a thierian. Again you are citing "every unborn life is precious" when it ain't. Come on, even the facts you present are speculative and likewise share a bias that someone condemning something would use. Suddenly you read a few articles and suddenly you are an expert? We have someone in this thread who WORKS for Planned Parenthood. I suppose blissful ignorance and religious abstinence is your idea of a solution? Beat morals into those poor black folks? What next? Labor camps for unwed mothers? Come on! You admit there is a problem and part of it is the welfare system itself but to jump Planned Parenthood as the problem and make them villains? GET REAL! How can you change human nature? You can't. I bet the world is a cold dark place to you because it doers not operate by Your world view. Well, you got any solutions to dealing with the problem or are you just going to hate monger and wave biased facts around citing them as the holy grail of guilt? I would LOVE to see you come up with something I can see eye to eye with you on! But shooting your mouth of with hate speak and finger pointing? That is not constructive argument. It is calouse hatred! It is the same BS some of these sign waving protesters resort to with rock throwing. YAY! You called me hateful. I win. Not that it matters, but I was pro abortion for a very long time, then I realized what a hypocrite I was for opposing the death penalty for criminals, but supporting it for babies. So I became anti-Abortion about 10 years before I became a Christian. Not that I think that will change your opinion of me or my position. I was denouncing Planned Parenthood before you came to these forums, but of course, I just "read a couple articles". And it doesn't matter if everyone in the thread works for Planned Parenthood, that doesn't make them right. I think that "every life is precious", not just those who are unborn. Win what? The boobie prize? You are letting your passions get the best of you! Still if getting an award gives you peace here it is!  Can ya pull it???
|
|
|
|
|
