Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[francoHFW]

Nah. I can also do that in fluent French and to a lesser extent Spanish. I blame my lack of typing skill and interest. Much info in few words, yes. "a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have."

no info

all you have are the talking points you have been spoon fed

Check the sig any time- more info than you get on the GOP propaganda machine in years...

don't need to you post the same drivel over an over again anyway

like I said you have no thoughts of your own so all you do is parrot

These are FACTS I personally put together for my book, dupe. It's too bad we Libs don't have a propaganda machine to organize our propaganda for us like you dupes have- AND overwhelm the internet with our drivel so dupes believe the crap.

what book?

the one that will never be published because no one wants to read your uninspired talking points listed over and over again?

The truth is like that. And no. Mainly memoirs, as Fox Rush etc are the boors, nothing new since 2008.

 

[LaDexter]

What is really "funny" Franco is that you and your left wing pals here have neither the courage nor the ability to even attempt to refute what I posted...

 

[francoHFW]

Those most cruel to the poor are those who

1. shut off private sector job growth by inflating taxes beyond the scope of our competitors
2. snuffing out private sector jobs with too many laws and regulations that just enrich attorneys
3. steal taxpayer funds hand over fist


The Dems are 3 for 3.

Only in Dupeworld.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjihfrAxIHTAhXJ7IMKHUt4AKMQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=rNUHvT4eand10AbirZS1xw
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjihfrAxIHTAhXJ7IMKHUt4AKMQFgg2MAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=rNUHvT4eand10AbirZS1xw
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

 

[JoeNormal]

The they that I mean is church leadership.

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the fucking articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

No kidding. My beef is with The Mormon Church. I like/love most individual Mormons except for the super-stinky self-righteous ones. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

And yet again, I'm forced to ask why leftists think being obtuse is a brilliant debate ploy, particularly against someone who has no intention of letting you deflect and move the goal posts.

There is no one on this board who is confused about the fact that you have a "beef" - which you apparently mean an unreasoning, fiery hatred - with the Mormon church. However, the topic under discussion here is whether or not the Mormon church donated money to political campaigns, or individual Mormons did so. For someone who claims to "love" individual Mormons, you sure do have a lot of trouble with constantly conflating them with the institution.

Furthermore, you are once again being an incredible hypocrite. I can't begin to imagine a Mormon who is more "super-stinky self-righteous" about his Mormonism than you are about your anti-Mormonism.

I don't know much about Mormon doctrine. Could you ask one of these Mormon friends you claim to have whether or not their church teaches the "splinter in your neighbor's eye" concept?

Right back at ya, baby. Substitute liberal for Mormon and see how you stack up.

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

Thanks to the NEW BS Racist GOP, they have no real grocery stores. And all processed food is crap.

 

[LaDexter]

Only in Dupeworld.

LOL!!!!

Sub humans cannot debate issues. They can only parrot, insult, and change the subject to the latest left wing parroting...

 

[francoHFW]

Nah. I can also do that in fluent French and to a lesser extent Spanish. I blame my lack of typing skill and interest. Much info in few words, yes. "a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have."

no info

all you have are the talking points you have been spoon fed

Check the sig any time- more info than you get on the GOP propaganda machine in years...

don't need to you post the same drivel over an over again anyway

like I said you have no thoughts of your own so all you do is parrot

These are FACTS I personally put together for my book, dupe. It's too bad we Libs don't have a propaganda machine to organize our propaganda for us like you dupes have- AND overwhelm the internet with our drivel so dupes believe the crap.

what book?

the one that will never be published because no one wants to read your uninspired talking points listed over and over again?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Hugh+MacCallum?_requestid=844120

 

[jc456]

Really? And what are these ways, and how do they coincide with the IRS regulations limiting such activity if one wishes to retain a tax-exempt status?

I hope you realize that organizations with armies of accountants and lawyers can get away with a lot of things that you and I can't. The organization in question stretches the limits of what they consider the non-profit aspects of their operation. They also have investments that even they can't consider tax exempt so they reluctantly pay taxes on them.

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

or not.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

Idiot. No direct link between 911 and what Bush knew about any possible attack. Could have, should have, might have...........but no concrete plans about 911. There were dozens if not hundreds of theories of terrorists possibly attacking this country, but nobody had a clue that 911 was ever going to happen and nothing could have been done about it anyway.

And yeah, I went to bed because unlike you welfare queens, I have to get up for work in the morning to support your worthless asses.

I'm still retired, hater dupe. The Terror Czar coudn't get in to see Boooosh, who was too busy fighting Gay Marriage and letting poor Terry Schiavo off the plug.

 

[jc456]

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

he doesn't like that the congregation votes the way they do. not the church, he hates all of the american citizens who go to said church. cause they think differently then him.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush left us open to attack

He made no effort to enhance antiterrorist protections despite being repeatedly warned about the threat......he had better things to do

3000 Americans died

Remain ignorant if it makes you feel better. But the CBS report I posted states differently, it's just that it doesn't fit in your "blame Republicans" for everything mantra. Nor does it support your left-wing brainwashing sites that I'm sure you frequent daily.

Want to blame Bush for 911? Fine, now let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the first WTC attacks. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing. Let's see you blame Bill Clinton for all the planning of 911 that went on while he was President.

What's that I hear.... crickets? I thought so.

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

Idiot. No direct link between 911 and what Bush knew about any possible attack. Could have, should have, might have...........but no concrete plans about 911. There were dozens if not hundreds of theories of terrorists possibly attacking this country, but nobody had a clue that 911 was ever going to happen and nothing could have been done about it anyway.

And yeah, I went to bed because unlike you welfare queens, I have to get up for work in the morning to support your worthless asses.

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia
Jump to Bush administration - Clarke and his communications with the Bush ... No longer would Clarke'smemos go to the President; instead they had to ...
‎Background · ‎Government career · ‎9/11 Commission · ‎Post government career
Ex-Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney and ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/.../ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_b...
Jun 2, 2014 - former top counterterrorism official under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush before resigning in 2003 in protest of the Iraq War.
Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Responsibility for 9/11 - The ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/...george-w-bush.../411175/
Oct 19, 2015 - George W. Bush didn't do all he could to prevent the attack—and it's time ... National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke ...
Unheeded Warnings: George W. Bush and 9/11 | The National Interest
nationalinterest.org/feature/unheeded-warnings-george-w-bush-9-11-14122
Oct 17, 2015 - ... experts including Richard Clarke, then still in the White House as an .... However, the administration of George W Bush completely ignored ...
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A ...
https://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260457&tag=ff0d01-20
Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, andGeorge W. Bush, dissects each man's approach to ...
CNN.com - Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html?PHPSESSID...
Mar 23, 2004 - Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke joins ... CNN's Kathleen Koch on how President Bush warns that John Kerry will ...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? You have evidence that the LDS Church donated money to political campaigns, in direct contradiction of the law? Why are you wasting time here, then, instead of taking it straight to the authorities?

Read the fucking articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

No kidding. My beef is with The Mormon Church. I like/love most individual Mormons except for the super-stinky self-righteous ones. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

And yet again, I'm forced to ask why leftists think being obtuse is a brilliant debate ploy, particularly against someone who has no intention of letting you deflect and move the goal posts.

There is no one on this board who is confused about the fact that you have a "beef" - which you apparently mean an unreasoning, fiery hatred - with the Mormon church. However, the topic under discussion here is whether or not the Mormon church donated money to political campaigns, or individual Mormons did so. For someone who claims to "love" individual Mormons, you sure do have a lot of trouble with constantly conflating them with the institution.

Furthermore, you are once again being an incredible hypocrite. I can't begin to imagine a Mormon who is more "super-stinky self-righteous" about his Mormonism than you are about your anti-Mormonism.

I don't know much about Mormon doctrine. Could you ask one of these Mormon friends you claim to have whether or not their church teaches the "splinter in your neighbor's eye" concept?

Right back at ya, baby. Substitute liberal for Mormon and see how you stack up.

First of all, are you admitting that "liberalism" is your religion?

Second of all, there's no equivalency here. I think leftists are stupid and wrong, but at no point do I rant and rave and spew about how awful I think it is that they're granted the same rights as everyone else, even if they insist on exercising them in service of their stupidity. Furthermore, I do not lambaste people for a behavior while manifesting the exact same behavior. I am many things, but a hypocrite isn't one of them. You, however, cannot say the same honestly.

 

[jc456]

Those most cruel to the poor are those who

1. shut off private sector job growth by inflating taxes beyond the scope of our competitors
2. snuffing out private sector jobs with too many laws and regulations that just enrich attorneys
3. steal taxpayer funds hand over fist


The Dems are 3 for 3.

4. allowing illegals to take jobs that could be theirs.

 

[francoHFW]

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Does Franco really think that there are no stores selling produce and fresh meat in cities?

You Fox Rush WHATEVER bots are so gd ignorant...

Search Results
Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone ...
News, Sports, Weather, Entertainment, Local & Lifestyle - AOL...
Apr 4, 2012 - Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? ... which leaves the neighborhood without convenient access to groceries.►
[PDF]The Grocery Gap - The Food Trust
thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/grocerygap.original.pdf
by R Beebe - ‎Related articles
without grocery stores and other fresh food retailers ... where there is little or no access to healthy and ...... grocery leakage in inner-city neighborhoods.135.
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortages have been identified in many American urban neighborhoods, and such gaps in food access have been closely correlated with diet-related diseases such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes. The shortage began when many supermarkets left mixed-income central city ... Studies by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in Boston found that ...
‎Causes · ‎Community issues · ‎Racial issues · ‎Case studies
Where Have All The Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/where-have-all-the-inner-city-grocery-stores-gone-2012-4
Apr 4, 2012 - No light at the end of the aisle. ; ... It's not just a Windy City problem. ... Americans have low access to supermarkets or large grocery stores.
Why are there no grocery stores in poor neighborhoods? - Marginal ...
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/11/why-are-there-n.html
Nov 16, 2007 - Living in an inner city has its downsides, to say the least, but at least you don't have to buy a car. Yet the modern grocery store is designed for ...
Urban areas struggle to find grocers, fresh food - Health - Diet and ...
www.nbcnews.com/id/28300393/ns/.../urban-areas-struggle-get-grocers-fresh-food/
Dec 18, 2008 - Inner city 'food deserts' are instead loaded with fast food and fatty snacks ... In the poorest parts of the city, a grocery store or a sit-down restaurant can ... or three miles and ride it back with tons of stuff on it, oh no," said Lozoya.
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their ...
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice
by A Hilmers - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 86 - ‎Related articles
Fair treatment signifies that “no population, due to policy or economic ... residences to playgrounds,24 and the accessibility of supermarkets and grocery stores,25,26 but fewer ..... Race and food store availability in an inner-city neighbourhood.

 

[francoHFW]

[Qwould take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

Charities spend a large percentage of their efforts fund raising and advertising .....not very efficient
Government has a steady flow of revenue, some of which goes to help We the People

Leaders of private charities get paid more than civil servants

You mean like the Clinton Foundation that spends only about 10% of the money for services? The rest goes ot things like wedding dresses for Chelsea.

Once again you are confused Moon Bat.

You have a choice of how you contribute money to charity. You chose who you want to help and how much you want to give. Filthy ass bloated government welfare program robs a person of their liberty to chose where their money goes and that is despicable. Especially when you know that a large cost of the welfare system is nothing more than a scheme for the Democrats to buy vote from the welfare queens. Disgusting isn't it?

ACTUALLY, 10% is the overhead, 90% is what they spend on good works. You believe a giant pile of Pubcrappe, dupe. The Foundation IS THE CHARITY, rated A+. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are confused Moon Bat

The Foundation IS a charity, brainwashed functional moron.

A very inefficient, wasteful one in the classic liberal government model.[/QUOTE]
BS, superdupe. Rated higher than the Red Cross etc. Your info is TOTAL fake news, stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not a member of the Mormon faith but do frequently attend meetings and classes with them. You state they are wonderful people, which they are and they have strong family units. The leaders in each of their churches are volunteers and are paid nothing. They have full-time day jobs and choose to serve the church. Their youth commit to two years as missionaries in every part of the world subsisting on the generosity of other Mormon's in that area. That begins when they are eighteen. If their assignment is to be in a foreign country, they are taught that language.

How is that a bad thing and what business is it of yours what they do with their money?

For one thing, because those of us outside of the church have to make up the tax money that evaporates thanks to deductions for huge families and the tax exempt contributions to the church. For another, we are treated as second class citizens in our home state because of the crappy influence of the church in political affairs.

Okay, again, we need to address this "tax money evaporates" assertion you keep throwing around. You really need to come to grips with the fact that people's income belongs to THEM, not to the government. To say that "tax money evaporates" when people aren't compelled to give it to the government to spend is to imply that the government has an implicit right to ALL of your money, and what you keep is what they are generously allotting you.

As for "deductions for huge familes", tell me something: do you claim deductions for your offspring, or did you when they were young enough? Why or why not?

Do you claim deductions for charitable contributions you make on your taxes? Or do you feel that that is "evaporating tax money" and burdening other people by doing so?

In regards to your continued hatred of living in a place where you are outnumbered by Mormons, I will say it again: Move. I've been to Utah, and I feel pretty safe in saying that the Mormons are not holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to live there.

There's that black and white, right wing thought that I've been waiting for. I can see the value that the government provides from the tax money that I contribute so that means I give them the implicit right to take ALL of my money. Uh, yeah, right.

As for leaving, I did manage to escape for 5 years. I came back when my parents needed some help and in the meantime, life happened and now I'm stuck for a while. Don't worry though, as soon as it's feasible for me to leave, I'll be gone with bells on.

Excuse me, I'M exhibiting "black and white thought"? Hypocrite much?

Is it just that you really don't see your own egregious behavior while nitpicking others, or you simply don't think yours matters because, after all, YOU are right?

I thought I made it clear the I saw different members of the church in different ways. Did you miss that? Or does everything just get filtered through your black and white lens?

No, you made it clear you THINK you do, and then you also made it clear that you ACTUALLY do the exact opposite.

Hmmm, maybe that's why I said you're a hypocrite.

 

[JoeNormal]

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

he doesn't like that the congregation votes the way they do. not the church, he hates all of the american citizens who go to said church. cause they think differently then him.

There's another active thread on just this very topic. You should check it out.

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

It's not that I dislike people for thinking differently than I do. I frequently disagree with people who I still respect. What I tend to ridicule is when that thinking is based upon willful ignorance.

 

[JoeNormal]

Read the fucking articles. Why do you think I posted them.

I did read them. The question is, did you?

Apparently, I'm just not dumbing this down enough for you. I apologize for assuming a higher level of intelligence and perception for you than you actually have. Let me dumb it down and spell it out:

There's a difference between "The Mormon Church" and "individual Mormons". Learn it.

No kidding. My beef is with The Mormon Church. I like/love most individual Mormons except for the super-stinky self-righteous ones. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough.

And yet again, I'm forced to ask why leftists think being obtuse is a brilliant debate ploy, particularly against someone who has no intention of letting you deflect and move the goal posts.

There is no one on this board who is confused about the fact that you have a "beef" - which you apparently mean an unreasoning, fiery hatred - with the Mormon church. However, the topic under discussion here is whether or not the Mormon church donated money to political campaigns, or individual Mormons did so. For someone who claims to "love" individual Mormons, you sure do have a lot of trouble with constantly conflating them with the institution.

Furthermore, you are once again being an incredible hypocrite. I can't begin to imagine a Mormon who is more "super-stinky self-righteous" about his Mormonism than you are about your anti-Mormonism.

I don't know much about Mormon doctrine. Could you ask one of these Mormon friends you claim to have whether or not their church teaches the "splinter in your neighbor's eye" concept?

Right back at ya, baby. Substitute liberal for Mormon and see how you stack up.

First of all, are you admitting that "liberalism" is your religion?

Second of all, there's no equivalency here. I think leftists are stupid and wrong, but at no point do I rant and rave and spew about how awful I think it is that they're granted the same rights as everyone else, even if they insist on exercising them in service of their stupidity. Furthermore, I do not lambaste people for a behavior while manifesting the exact same behavior. I am many things, but a hypocrite isn't one of them. You, however, cannot say the same honestly.

First of all, I don't have a religion.

Second, I don't think I'd have to look very far into your previous posts to prove you wrong but since you wouldn't see it anyway, why bother.

 

[jc456]

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.

"Shenanigans"? What "shenanigans" have I "made clear" that churches are pulling?

Churches themselves are prohibited by law from "exerting political influence", lest they lose their status as non-profit institutions. The difference you seem to have trouble wrapping your brain around is that their INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have a Constitutionally-protected right to influence politics however they like, for whatever motivations they like, the same as you do.

he doesn't like that the congregation votes the way they do. not the church, he hates all of the american citizens who go to said church. cause they think differently then him.

There's another active thread on just this very topic. You should check it out.

Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

It's not that I dislike people for thinking differently than I do. I frequently disagree with people who I still respect. What I tend to ridicule is when that thinking is based upon willful ignorance.

like the russians hacked the election. That one is the top cherry on the cherry pickers list. And I believe it's yours.

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Does Franco really think that there are no stores selling produce and fresh meat in cities?

yes he actually believes that there are no supermarkets in any city in the USA

Black areas, stupid. Same reason they have to borrow cars from dealers to get there, hater dupes.
Search Results
Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone ...
News, Sports, Weather, Entertainment, Local & Lifestyle - AOL...
Apr 4, 2012 - Food Deserts: Where Have All the Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? ... which leaves the neighborhood without convenient access to groceries.►
[PDF]The Grocery Gap - The Food Trust
thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/grocerygap.original.pdf
by R Beebe - ‎Related articles
without grocery stores and other fresh food retailers ... where there is little or no access to healthy and ...... grocery leakage in inner-city neighborhoods.135.
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortage - Wikipedia
Supermarket shortages have been identified in many American urban neighborhoods, and such gaps in food access have been closely correlated with diet-related diseases such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes. The shortage began when many supermarkets left mixed-income central city ... Studies by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in Boston found that ...
‎Causes · ‎Community issues · ‎Racial issues · ‎Case studies
Where Have All The Inner-City Grocery Stores Gone? - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/where-have-all-the-inner-city-grocery-stores-gone-2012-4
Apr 4, 2012 - No light at the end of the aisle. ; ... It's not just a Windy City problem. ... Americans have low access to supermarkets or large grocery stores.
Why are there no grocery stores in poor neighborhoods? - Marginal ...
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/11/why-are-there-n.html
Nov 16, 2007 - Living in an inner city has its downsides, to say the least, but at least you don't have to buy a car. Yet the modern grocery store is designed for ...
Urban areas struggle to find grocers, fresh food - Health - Diet and ...
www.nbcnews.com/id/28300393/ns/.../urban-areas-struggle-get-grocers-fresh-food/
Dec 18, 2008 - Inner city 'food deserts' are instead loaded with fast food and fatty snacks ... In the poorest parts of the city, a grocery store or a sit-down restaurant can ... or three miles and ride it back with tons of stuff on it, oh no," said Lozoya.
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their ...
Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice
by A Hilmers - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 86 - ‎Related articles
Fair treatment signifies that “no population, due to policy or economic ... residences to playgrounds,24 and the accessibility of supermarkets and grocery stores,25,26 but fewer ..... Race and food store availability in an inner-city neighbourhood.