rushmc 23 #126 July 30, 2015 billvon>I have no problem with research OK. So you have no problem with the basics of what planned parenthood is doing. If you think they should not profit from that, then I agree. So far I have seen no evidence that they are making a profit. $85 million in exess revenues is what they (PP) called it in their own finanicial report Not profit? It is an abortion business That gets HUGE gov tax dollars All I want is two things A fed investigation so make sure they are not selling for profit which is breaking fed law and is a fellony And Remove our tax dollars from going to this corp business that is PP"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #127 July 30, 2015 rushmc***>I have no problem with research OK. So you have no problem with the basics of what planned parenthood is doing. If you think they should not profit from that, then I agree. So far I have seen no evidence that they are making a profit. $85 million in exess revenues is what they (PP) called it in their own finanicial report Not profit? It is an abortion business That gets HUGE gov tax dollars All I want is two things A fed investigation so make sure they are not selling for profit which is breaking fed law and is a fellony And Remove our tax dollars from going to this corp business that is PP You still don't understand how Not-for-Profit organizations work, or how they have to report. You seem to think that 'nonprofit' automatically means that legally it cannot earn profits. That's not the case. In fact, any business needs to earn profits to withstand financial fluctuations, inflation, change in demand etc... What nonprofit means is that any excess revenue is used to develop its own activities or pay its employees. It's not allowed to pay dividends, for example. Any excess after that has to be spent on other 'charitable' expenses. So it could make $100m in excess revenue, use $50m to develop itself and pay its employees and then give the rest to Goodwill and it would classify as 'nonprofit'. If you think Planned Parenthood are using those monies to give itself lavish parties, or enrich the bank accounts of the owners then yes - I agree that would be illegal. There's no evidence of that, so why waste more taxpayer money on an investigation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #128 July 30, 2015 Truth? Facts? Wrong thread! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #129 July 30, 2015 yoink******>I have no problem with research OK. So you have no problem with the basics of what planned parenthood is doing. If you think they should not profit from that, then I agree. So far I have seen no evidence that they are making a profit. $85 million in exess revenues is what they (PP) called it in their own finanicial report Not profit? It is an abortion business That gets HUGE gov tax dollars All I want is two things A fed investigation so make sure they are not selling for profit which is breaking fed law and is a fellony And Remove our tax dollars from going to this corp business that is PP You still don't understand how Not-for-Profit organizations work, or how they have to report. You seem to think that 'nonprofit' automatically means that legally it cannot earn profits. That's not the case. In fact, any business needs to earn profits to withstand financial fluctuations, inflation, change in demand etc... What nonprofit means is that any excess revenue is used to develop its own activities or pay its employees. It's not allowed to pay dividends, for example. Any excess after that has to be spent on other 'charitable' expenses. So it could make $100m in excess revenue, use $50m to develop itself and pay its employees and then give the rest to Goodwill and it would classify as 'nonprofit'. If you think Planned Parenthood are using those monies to give itself lavish parties, or enrich the bank accounts of the owners then yes - I agree that would be illegal. There's no evidence of that, so why waste more taxpayer money on an investigation? The Family Values people would just prefer to gut PP... in any way they can... that is THEIR bottom line.... Keep them bitches barefoot and preggers and in the kitchen where they imagine all women belong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #130 July 30, 2015 >$85 million in exess revenues is what they (PP) called it in their own finanicial > report Not profit? Correct. Christopher Stone, faculty director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University: "Bottom line: a nonprofit’s surplus should not be confused with profit. Profits are generated by businesses to reward investors. Businesses also use profits to provide additional compensation (bonuses tied to profits) for employees who help generate the profits for investors. Because nonprofits may not use their surpluses for either of these purposes, these surpluses should not be confused with profits. All surpluses must be devoted to the charitable purposes of the organization." Beth Gazley, assistant professor at Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs: "The 'taxpayer'-funded portions of the Planned Parenthood affiliates’ budgets are either program grants or reimbursements for services eligible for Medicaid. So the government-funded parts of the (Planned Parenthood) budget would NOT be generating a 'profit' – they would be used in full each year. This means any excess of revenues over expenses (AKA 'profit') would have come from other sources – private donations, endowment income, etc. So [the pro-life] argument that the taxpayers are somehow subsidizing this 'profit' is misleading." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #131 July 30, 2015 If you want to claim that PP should be classified as a "for profit" business because they take in more than they need to operate, I am good with that. My only condition would be that this is applied equally to ALL non-profit organizations including any church/mosque/synagogue that takes in more than they require to operate. We shouldn't be selective, if we are going to redefine how non-profits are categorized it should be across the board. Would you agree, or is it just the NPs that you don't like that we should single out and apply different rules to?Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #132 July 30, 2015 normiss Truth? Facts? Wrong thread! The bit that makes me chuckle is that Rushmc seems to think that the IRS have somehow 'missed' this openly declared excess revenue of $85m and he's discovered some conspiracy.... The IRS been bitching at me for ages for $3 that they think I owe them from last year. I'm pretty sure they'd be the first ones to jump on Planned Parenthood if they were breaking their nonprofit status for $85m! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #133 July 30, 2015 okalbIf you want to claim that PP should be classified as a "for profit" business because they take in more than they need to operate, I am good with that. My only condition would be that this is applied equally to ALL non-profit organizations including any church/mosque/synagogue that takes in more than they require to operate. We shouldn't be selective, if we are going to redefine how non-profits are categorized it should be across the board. Would you agree, or is it just the NPs that you don't like that we should single out and apply different rules to? Remove non-profit as a tax-entity entirely and tax all of the above organizations equally. We'd kill the budget deficit in about 2 years from the religious profits! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #134 July 30, 2015 Have you seen any of the videos How about the lady wanting to make sure they get enough money so she can buy he Lamborghini? Regardless if they have 85 million in exess revenues what costs would they need to cover by selling baby parts?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #135 July 30, 2015 yoink ***Truth? Facts? Wrong thread! The bit that makes me chuckle is that Rushmc seems to think that the IRS have somehow 'missed' this openly declared excess revenue of $85m and he's discovered some conspiracy.... The IRS been bitching at me for ages for $3 that they think I owe them from last year. I'm pretty sure they'd be the first ones to jump on Planned Parenthood if they were breaking their nonprofit status for $85m! Not a chance in hell the IRS would look into PP Not a chance in hell"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #136 July 30, 2015 4rth Video released today I am sure some of you will enjoy this http://twitchy.com/2015/07/30/damning-these-6-quotes-from-4th-planned-parenthood-video-will-make-your-blood-boil-photos-video/ https://mobile.twitter.com/LadyLiberty1885/status/626748695816609792/photo/1"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #137 July 30, 2015 Just see the first couple of minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #138 July 30, 2015 billvon>$85 million in exess revenues is what they (PP) called it in their own finanicial > report Not profit? Correct. Christopher Stone, faculty director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University: "Bottom line: a nonprofit’s surplus should not be confused with profit. Profits are generated by businesses to reward investors. Businesses also use profits to provide additional compensation (bonuses tied to profits) for employees who help generate the profits for investors. Because nonprofits may not use their surpluses for either of these purposes, these surpluses should not be confused with profits. All surpluses must be devoted to the charitable purposes of the organization." Beth Gazley, assistant professor at Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs: "The 'taxpayer'-funded portions of the Planned Parenthood affiliates’ budgets are either program grants or reimbursements for services eligible for Medicaid. So the government-funded parts of the (Planned Parenthood) budget would NOT be generating a 'profit' – they would be used in full each year. This means any excess of revenues over expenses (AKA 'profit') would have come from other sources – private donations, endowment income, etc. So [the pro-life] argument that the taxpayers are somehow subsidizing this 'profit' is misleading." I am not arguing that the taxpayer is helping make the profit I am aguining the tax dallors are paying for abourtions And with $85 million in the bank they should be donating parts to reasearch and or tax income should be reduced"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #139 July 30, 2015 You still haven't shown how PP is making a profit from the "selling of body parts". The fact that in one year $85 million in excess revenue was recorded, doesn't mean that they made a profit off "selling baby parts". Further, since a NP has relatively tight restrictions on how this revenue has to be allocated, it is a good thing for them to have excess revenue. If PP kept running a defecit, they would likely come to the government asking for more money. Would you prefer that? Let's see where the goal posts of outrage get moved to now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #140 July 30, 2015 You're not arguing anything. You're wrong. Nobody here is taking the bait. Oh look! Life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #141 July 30, 2015 rushmcHave you seen any of the videos How about the lady wanting to make sure they get enough money so she can buy he Lamborghini? You still don't get it. If she pays herself a salary of $1m a year, and uses that money to buy a Lamborghini that is LEGAL. If she uses the excess revenue to give herself a bonus or dividends and then buys a Lamborghini, that is ILLEGAL. Your personal opinions on how much she should be paid, what she should spend her money on and where that money comes from is entirely irrelevant. You're extremely emotionally invested in this and are struggling to dissociate the legal concerns you have with the moral and ethical ones. The former are a problem for all of us. The latter are just your problem. rushmcRegardless if they have 85 million in exess revenues what costs would they need to cover by selling baby parts? Doctors, orderlies, janitors, surgeries, equipment, post-op care, storage and transport, licensing fees, buildings, education, advertising... I could think of a dozen more. I worked on the design of a small medical facility last year. That was well over $100m. It's a surgical operation so it has the same types of expenditure as a hospital would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #142 July 30, 2015 SkyDekkerYou still haven't shown how PP is making a profit from the "selling of body parts". The fact that in one year $85 million in excess revenue was recorded, doesn't mean that they made a profit off "selling baby parts". Further, since a NP has relatively tight restrictions on how this revenue has to be allocated, it is a good thing for them to have excess revenue. If PP kept running a defecit, they would likely come to the government asking for more money. Would you prefer that? Let's see where the goal posts of outrage get moved to now. You are missing the point (on purpose I think) PP should not be getting any federal tax dollars Period"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #143 July 30, 2015 >And with $85 million in the bank they should be donating parts to reasearch Seems to me that a nonprofit organization whose goal it is to promote family planning, child health, and women's health services including cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion - should spend the money on those things instead. Which it does. >and or tax income should be reduced Why? They get that money for providing very specific services as called out by the government. Why should they not get paid for their services? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #144 July 30, 2015 okalbIf you want to claim that PP should be classified as a "for profit" business because they take in more than they need to operate, I am good with that. My only condition would be that this is applied equally to ALL non-profit organizations including any church/mosque/synagogue that takes in more than they require to operate. We shouldn't be selective, if we are going to redefine how non-profits are categorized it should be across the board. Would you agree, or is it just the NPs that you don't like that we should single out and apply different rules to? YES - this is a great idea. All these groups are capable of being self sustaining. They don't need support from taxes, they don't need tax breaks or exceptions. They are ready to cut the umbilical cord. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #145 July 30, 2015 >PP should not be getting any federal tax dollars . . . Period (RushMC, facing the loss of his position, struggles to move the goalposts before anyone notices) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #146 July 30, 2015 billvon>PP should not be getting any federal tax dollars . . . Period (RushMC, facing the loss of his position, struggles to move the goalposts before anyone notices) Your post here is a lie I stated this earlier in the thread As the only two things I wanted out of this scandal were No money to PP and an investigation into the sale of baby parts"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #147 July 30, 2015 Quote They are ready to cut the umbilical cord. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #148 July 30, 2015 Andy9o8 Quote They are ready to cut the umbilical cord. or chop it up and pull out the pieces with privately funded foreceps either way - umbilical cords are like packing weights, good while you need them, once you're done, it's just more junk to carry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #149 July 30, 2015 As a complete aside - the company my wife works for uses foetal cells (forskin cells to be specific!) in their work. They are currently 3D printing viable organs - liver, skin, corneas, heart valves etc. using that material. At the moment the organs are used for pharmaceutical testing to save the animals, but will (hopefully) one day be used to grow organs for burn victims, transplant patients etc. It's all super cool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #150 July 30, 2015 From the forth tape QuoteGinde is shown for the majority of the edited video having a discussion about whether to frame tissue procurement as research or business with the undercover activists, whom she believes to be from a procurement company. It is against federal law to sell fetal body parts for profit. “Putting it under the research gives us a little bit of a, a little sort of overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde said. “Yeah, and in public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein than I’d say the business vein.” Ginde says in the video that it’s important for all Planned Parenthood affiliates to be on the same page about the issue, particularly those affiliates who may be in states where prevailing public opinion goes against abortion. “Because if you have someone in a really anti-state that’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught,” she said. Get caught? Get caught for what if this is all on the up and up?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
