Charlotte Light Rail Murder: Mayor Defends Criminal Instead of Victim

You mean other than the poverty rate being 70% in the 1920s but only being 11.1% today?




Ah, you mean the Matthew who supposedly knew Jesus personally, but cribbed 70% of his Gospel from Mark, who didn't? That Matthew? The guy who made up prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled?

Actually, the reference first appears in the Gospel of Mark, 12:17.

Mark's Gospel was written before Matthew's. ofMatthew's Gospel was an expansion of Mark's specifically targeted towards converting Jews. (As opposed to John's, which was written when Christianity was its own thing, and saw Jews as the enemy.)
Prove it. While you are at it, prove that “Render unto Caeser” means Caeser (the State) is entitled to everything. It’s not.
 
Jesus thought the State’s entitlement was limited.

1757819880451.webp
 
Your retort has nothing to do with the limiting government argument nor am I arguing the absolute absence of government.

Actually, I would love for my tax dollars to pay for loaves and fishes and not skittles, Dr. Peppers, and Red Bulls.

Why are you bothered by it at all?

Yes, frankly, I wish all Americans were healthier (not just those damned poor people) but frankly, it's not really your problem, is it?
 
Why are you bothered by it at all?

Yes, frankly, I wish all Americans were healthier (not just those damned poor people) but frankly, it's not really your problem, is it?
Why? The same reason insurance companies don’t want you using tobacco, drinking alcohol, and any other habits that will contribute to more or likely healthcare costs or death benefits. Similarly, candy, soda and snacks contribute to unhealthy lifestyles which most likely will result in higher healthcare costs to the taxpayer.

Helping poor people get nutrition and healthy is the goal, isn’t it? How does funding candy, soda, snacks and energy drinks NOT detract from that?
 
Why? The same reason insurance companies don’t want you using tobacco, drinking alcohol, and any other habits that will contribute to more or likely healthcare costs or death benefits. Similarly, candy, soda and snacks contribute to unhealthy lifestyles which most likely will result in higher healthcare costs to the taxpayer.

Helping poor people get nutrition and healthy is the goal, isn’t it? How does funding candy, soda, snacks and energy drinks NOT detract from that?

Insurance companies have a vested interest.

Now, I suppose you could regulate SNAP to only be usable on "certain goods", but you don't get who runs SNAP or who it's supposed to benefit.

The Department of Agriculture runs SNAP. DOA wants people to buy foodstuffs, any foodstuffs, because it supports the American farmer. What do you think most of those unhealthy foods are made out of? Corn, primarily, whether it be corn syrup for sugar or corn meal for chips.

Now, here's the reality. EBT is a supplement to their meager budgets. 40% of SNAP families have at least one person who works. (MOst of the rest are disabled or elderly)
 
Back
Top Bottom